Somewhere in the Skies - The Congressional UFO Hearing (Full Hearing and Discussion)

Episode Date: November 13, 2024

The U.S. House of Representatives convened for another historic UFO Hearing on Wednesday, November 13th. Held by the House Oversight Committee, the hearing was titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” Testifying were Luis Elizondo (Former Department of Defense official), Tim Gallaudet (Retired rear admiral, U.S. Navy; CEO of Ocean STL Consulting, LLC), Michael Gold (Former NASA associate administrator of space policy and partnerships; member of NASA UAP Independent Study Team), and Michael Shellenberger (Best-Selling author and Founder of Public). This is the FULL congressional hearing, including a pre-show and post-show discussion with former attorney, Suzanne Landers. WATCH full UFO Hearing here: https://www.youtube.com/live/jB9Re4j4guA Patreon: www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Website: www.somewhereintheskies.com Store: http://tee.pub/lic/ULZAy7IY12U YouTube Channel: CLICK HERE Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/somewhereskies/videos Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Twitter: @SomewhereSkies Read Ryan’s Articles by CLICKING HERE Opening Theme Song, "Ephemeral Reign" by Per Kiilstofte Produced by LIONSGATE Copyright © 2024. 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

Hey everyone, Ryan Sprague here, host of Somewhere in the Skies. If you've ever thought about supporting us, we have great two easy options for you right now. If you listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, you can click the subscribe button at the top of your Apple feed. Or you can join our Patreon at patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Both of these options give you the same benefits. Early access to the main show. Bonus episodes and content and priority to ask our guests, your listener questions. So to help support Somewhere in the Skies, click that subscribe button on Apple or visit patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Thank you so much for your support. And keep looking up. For if we consider the astroscientists agree on one point that the possibility of life elsewhere is not only quite probable. Some field is there without a doubt.

Let us suppose then that these objects are real space vehicles, extraterrestrial origin, and not an illusion of the mind. There's nothing to hide at all. Welcome, everyone, to the Somewhere in the Sky's live coverage of the Congressional UFO hearing. I am your host, Ryan Sprague, and I host the Somewhere in the Sky's podcast, which is a weekly podcast that airs every Monday where we talk everything UFOs, whether it's interviews or we do case histories, we do witness accounts or you call in and tell your UFO stories, you name it, we do it at the Summer on the Sky's podcast.

We also do a live stream every Sunday evening at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard, where we cover all the latest UFO news and headlines. But today, today we have a very special occasion, the reason you're all here. we will be broadcasting the entire congressional UFO hearing set to take place at 1130 a.m. Eastern Standard time. So you don't have to go anywhere else. You could stay right here. We will be broadcasting that for you. We'll be doing a little pre-discussion about the hearing as well, talking about the witnesses that will be testifying, who is involved with all of this. And maybe some predictions. That'd be fun. what groundbreaking information will we learn or will we learn anything?

I did put a fun poll over on Twitter, so I will go back to that many times throughout the broadcast today to get your thoughts on if you think we will learn anything groundbreaking at this UFO hearing. But say what you will about this event, past events. It's historic. There's no denying that. It is historic that we are having congressional UFO hearings about UAP, UFOs, whatever you want to call them.

Now, the real questions start. Will any of the information be made public? Is the information we're being told or that Congress is being told accurate? True. Is it real even? I want to know your thoughts. Let me know in the chat and in the comments below. We will have Suzanne our incredible, incredible.

credible admin joining us, our moderator in just a little while. We're going to chat all about the four witnesses that you will be hearing about and from at the Congressional UFO hearing. We'll do, like I said, some predictions, but I do want to know what you guys think as well. So I'll be bringing her in in just a little bit. But before we do that, I do want to let you guys know that the super chat and super stickers will be open for all of this pre-show, all of the. congressional UFO hearing and for our post discussion as well.

These are wonderful ways that you can immediately help out everything we do here at somewhere in the skies and at somewhere in the live stream. We have many options for you, whether it's PayPal. We have a QR code right on the screen right now for you. You can just scan that and donate that way. We have a buy me a coffee option as well. And you can also join our Patreon campaign where you get bonus episodes of the podcast. You get early access to the podcast.

You get priority to ask our guests, listener questions when we do do interviews, and all of that. You can learn more about that in the show notes here or at patreon.com slash somewhere skies. But the quickest, easiest, most efficient way is right here on YouTube if you're watching this. Just hit that super sticker or super chat. We will be sure to highlight your comments, your questions, and everything in between. and all of these ways to help the show goes right back into the show and making it bigger and better for everyone. So thank you.

Thank you to all of you who continue to support us here at somewhere in the skies and beyond. It is truly appreciated. I want to say hello to some of the people in the chat. We've got a bunch of regulars here, some new people as well. Lelejiko is joining us from Tokyo. Wow, that's amazing. That is so cool.

Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Philip Mantle is here. Who else? Lisa, hello, hello to Lisa. We have P.B. We have Parker is here. Kimberly is here. Donnie Falls. Shell Bell. Karen is here. Polly Rotterman is here. Tad Rhodes is here.

Let me see. Who am I forgetting? Metal Hendrix is in the house. Hello. Let's go. they say let's go indeed hello to neal uh who else is here i'm just scrolling zootics over on twitch is here welcome welcome welcome hello to joyful stones does the incoming administration have any i i miss that uh have any interest at all in UFOs or in full disclosure good question joyful um apparently trump is interested in getting information out to the public. Other than that, I do know he just named a new head of the CIA. I don't remember the gentleman's name, but he has been on the record in the past talking about UFO disclosure and

transparency. So that's quite interesting. I know someone knows the name. Throw it in the chat there if you can. Hello to Hides in Longgrass. Just popping in to say hi, we'll most likely be listening. Hides and Longgrass, thank you for bringing that up. We will have this entire. broadcast pre-discussion, the entire congressional hearing and post-discussion. This will all be available in audio format on the podcast as well. Pretty much directly after this. I will get to work on that immediately when everything is said and done today. And I'll have that out on the podcast main feed for you guys later tonight as well.

Hello to Strange Stories with the Seeker and the Skeptic. That's quite a name. I love it. Hello to Jason. Welcome for the first time. Sam, hi, Ryan. I've been listening for a few years now. Thank you for everything you've done for the topic and the community. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. I truly appreciate your support throughout the years. And look, man, I'm nothing without you guys. And I'm just one person trying to somewhat understand what UFOs are or aren't. I don't honestly believe anyone knows the truth about UFOs. what they are or aren't fully. But I just like to give my thoughts and opinions. And I'm extremely grateful that anyone is willing to listen to what I have to say. So thank you.

Thank you truly for being here. Hello to Mind Fork as well. Carr W37 is here. It's better than no hearing at all. That is very true. Hello to AG. Hello to Super Cream the Netherlands. Wow. This is awesome.

Guys are joining me from all over. Hello to Jim Atomic Teapot, the Game Cat. That's an awesome name. Love what you do, Ryan. Greetings from Melbourne, Australia. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you so much.

Hello to Jason number 42. I think I got everyone. If I forgot your name, I do apologize. Guys, we'll get to more of that later on. But what I want to do right now for you is I kind of put together a collection of news clips that have come out about the hearing that we're going to be watching today with you guys live. Some of these come from local stations, a few from News Nation, and I'm sure you'll recognize a couple faces in here. So I'm going to go ahead and play those clips for you.

Again, the hearing is set to start at around 1130 a.m. Eastern Standard. So we'll just be kind of chatting and playing news clips and stuff like that for you guys before that. So thanks for being here for our little pregame, as it were. If you got your drinks, I know it's early for many of you. I got some tea, picking some Earl Grey over here in Scotland. Yeah, that's good. But yeah, let's go ahead and watch some of these news clips to kind of tell us a little more about what to expect today. And then, yeah, after that, we'll go right into talking with our incredible moderator, Suzanne.

and we will get her thoughts and opinions on what is to come today. And also we will talk about the four witnesses that we're going to hear from. Get a little background on these gentlemen and what they might tell us. So stick around, watch this collection of news clips, and we will see you on the other side. From Wisconsin will be front and center tomorrow when the households are hearing on unidentified flying objects. Today, up front co-host, Jaron, Jordan.

sat down with Representative Glenn Grokman to discuss his outlook for tomorrow's hearing on Capitol Hill. Wisconsin Republican Congressman Glenn Grohman joins me now. Congressman, thanks so much for being here and congrats on your reelection. Thank you and enjoy being on your show. And so you are back to work in these final five weeks of this session, already getting back to work by co-chairing a hearing tomorrow on unidentified anomalous phenomena. It's also technically termed UAPs, more commonly known, As UFOs, what are you hoping to learn in this hearing tomorrow? Well, we still have not gotten any solid information as to what we know about these aircraft. It's very frustrating that NASA, the Department of Defense, have been very close-mouthed on these.

We're bringing in four new people tomorrow, and hopefully those folks will give us a little more information. I am afraid as a fallback position, we may have to introduce legislation saying that this stuff maybe if it's at least 10 years old, will have to be all released to the public. But I think we're going to gather some more information tomorrow about some drones. We're flying over military bases and see exactly what we can be told.

So I think that people may hear this, that there are legislators holding a hearing on UFOs and might think, why are they doing this? Is your office actually getting reports of UAPs or these UFOs in Wisconsin? We've heard of a few people who say they've seen stuff in the past, which isn't unusual. And actually it generates a tremendous amount of interest from the public.

You know, when I was first asked to take up this issue by the then speaker, I kind of had the same reaction you did. But to my surprise, I probably get more comments on my UAP hearings than I do on other things that are more traditionally associated with being a congressman. You mentioned the reports that your office has gotten. What are the reports detailing that people are seeing or saying that they're seeing? Well, they see, playing to it sometime rather than life, saw something that would be like a saucer-shaped object or something like that in there. It was well-known in Waukeshaw County, and I think this is maybe 30 years ago now.

There was something reported in the newspapers at that time in which many people saw something that was. kind of unusual. And of course, we had before our committee, naval pilots testifying that they saw unusual things, both over the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans. You introduced legislation in January that would allow people to report UAPs without the fear of repercussion. Was that something, why was that something that you felt that you needed to propose? And why is there a fear, do you think, of repercussions when reporting these? Well, I think there's still a lot of people out there would say, oh, wow, he saw a flying saucer, you know, he must be crazy or something like that. And we just want to assure that if you report something, be it a commercial pilot, military pilot,

whatever, you cannot get in trouble for that. You would not use your license because somebody's going to say, oh, you know, John Smith saw such and such a airplane or such and such a saucer. And I think by doing that, not just the pilots themselves, but other members on the craft, we're going to get some more information. And we don't want to, under any circumstances, have people say that, oh, I was afraid to report. Finally, while I have you, what do you make of some of the hires that we're learning about this second Trump administration, Christy Knoem for Homeland Security, Marco Rubio, for Secretary of State, among some of the hires that we've learned from the Trump administration this week? Well, obviously, I worked with some of them myself in the past. And I like all these people, these Defonic United Nations.

I spent a great deal of time working with her. So I think it's a very exciting time for her. Marco Rubio, I've worked together on. And it's kind of hard to believe that he's going to be the Secretary of State. But these are going to be leading the country in the next four years. And I think he's doing a very good job of picking out very responsible experience people. I want to now bring in Chrissy Newton, writer and podcaster for the debrief. Good morning to you, Chrissy. Your podcast is called Rebelliously Curious with Chrissy Newton.

It's space, science, UFO theme. So I got to ask you, are you geeking out about today's hearing, first and foremost? 100%. Thank you for having me, too. It's, yeah, I'm geeking out. I think a lot of people are. If you love UFOs, this is game day. It's game day, for sure. It's your Super Bowl. What do you think we'll really get from it? I mean, anything that blows the lid off this story? Well, it's hard to say if it's going to blow the lid off the story. I hope it does. You know, he's someone who loves this topic, but I'm not sure if it's going to really blow open, right? This is just kind of slow movements towards, hopefully, is what like people like to call the word disclosure if you like it or not. But what I think is really going to be interesting is that we have Michael Gold who formerly worked for NASA.

NASA has been very, very quiet about the topic for the past year since their independent research report. And it's interesting to know that Mike Gold actually worked on that report as well. So I'm really curious myself what he's going to say because we have not heard from him. We've heard from everybody else. We've heard from every single other person that's testifying. We've heard from them from a media capacity, but we've never really heard much from Mike Gold. Yeah. And speaking of, I want to play some sound because as Joe was just laying out, three of the four witnesses today,

testifying before Congress, they've shared their accounts here on News Nation confirming their claims that UAPs exist. Let's take a quick listen to them. You must appreciate. People watching this hearing you talking about aliens, recovered craft, recovered bodies, it sounds crazy. Well, as I've said before, I'm not saying it doesn't sound crazy. What I'm saying is it's real. The American public has a right to know the new nature of reality we know and that the Defense Department and the intelligence community has realized and has evidence of. That's not fair to American public. It's up to, you know, journalists like you and me and these brave whistleblowers to in the public to demand that Congress act and do its job.

Yeah, so, Chrissy, just listening to all these people who have come forward, there's a common denominator here, and that's that the American public deserves answers. What's it going to take for that to happen. Need people, more people to come forward. We need to have less overclassification. That's a big thing. But we also have to be really mindful about national security. You know, it's a very big deal. John, former national, sorry, former DNI, John Bracliff is going to actually be working within the Trump administration. And he has been championing the topic when he formerly was in his position. So I'm curious to see what's going to happen when he comes on the scene and what he's going to say,

You know, hopefully some over-classification does die down a little bit, and we start getting to the point and start unraveling this slowly because we have to be mindful that these could be foreign adversaries, and we do need to protect national security. That is probably the most important outside of finding out really what is going on. Yeah, I know Congressman Tim Burchett called today in all these hearings kind of peeling back the layers of an onion slowly but surely. We're eager to see and excited to see what is shared today. Chrissy Newton, thank you for your time this morning. I know you'll be watching too. You're looking live at Capitol Hill where a highly anticipated congressional hearing is set for today on a topic that's moved from the fringes to the mainstream. Unidentified aerial phenomena or UAPs, better known to most of us as UFOs.

You've got government officials, military experts, and even some whistleblowers who are expected to testify, including three who first broke their stories exclusively to us here at News Nation over the course of the last year. News Nation's Joe Khalil is in Washington with the latest ahead. of today. Joe, good morning to you. What are you expecting from this hearing and what kind of testimony are we about to get? 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. What we're expecting, Markey is sort of building on the hearing that happened last year, focused on this very topic, on this UAP issue. And you're seeing more and more members of Congress consider this a serious issue that's a national security topic. Last year, we heard for the first time people who were under oath,

former military officials saying that they feel the government is aware of technology that is not of human origin that really shook a lot of people. If you haven't heard that claim before, that is an absolutely bombshell claim to make under oath in front of Congress. And we're going to hear similar things later on today. The Pentagon still maintains they are not aware of this, that they say they have not experienced any technology they consider to be non-human, but today we've obtained parts of the opening statement for Lou Elizondo, one of the key witnesses today. He at one time was the director of the Pentagon's program called Advanced Aerospace Threat ID Program, or ATIP. It was the Pentagon's research arm that focused on UAPs or UFOs. This is what

Elizondo is going to say later this morning here, quote, let me be clear, UAP are real, advanced technologies not made by our government or any other government, are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries. Another witness today, Tim Gallaudet, who at one time, he's a former rear admiral in the Navy, at one time was acting director of NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, he's going to say in part, we know from last year's hearing and recent statements publications by credible whistleblowers that UAP non-human intelligence represent a new realization that we're not the only advanced intelligence in

the universe. Again, Marnie, these statements certainly are going to shake people, but that is what we will hear today. And again, we mentioned Congress taking this issue seriously as something that national defense fence needs to really be accountable for. Yeah, we're eager to see what is shared today. Joe Khalil, thank you so much. All right, guys.

Well, there's a little preview of what to expect in the UFO hearing today. Set to start at 1130 Eastern Standard Time this morning if you're in the United States or North America. It's going on what? 4 o'clock here in the UK. So it's almost time for dinner. that never like it never gets old to me the time difference in fact i was joking with suzanne earlier i messed everything up and i was ready to go live like an hour before two hours before this was set to start i was like ready to push the red button and everything and i was like where are you

susan where are you blah blah blah blah but um i was an hour too early so uh man i'm still getting over jet lag from like a week and a half ago uh for those of you who don't know um i spend half the year traveling to Nova Scotia and hunting ghosts. That's literally my day job now. So that's fun. It's 8 a.m. says Metal Hendrix where he is. So I'm guessing you're 8.9. You're on the West Coast.

Nice, Metal Hendrix. Always love seeing you here, buddy. Dream Witness under oath, Tad says Rick Doty. Really, man. Really? Tell me why. I'd love to know why. I'm going to go to some of our start stuff here, guys, and then we're going to bring in Suzanne to chat a little about our quote-unquote witnesses today.

I know there's some argument over are these actual witnesses? Like many of these people haven't actually witnessed UFOs or UAP, but under the terms of congressional hearings and those who testify, they are called witnesses. But yeah, I've always struggled with that too. But whoa, we'll go with it. We'll go with it. Hello, Anthony Biggs. Hi from Nottingham, UK. I have a good feeling about today. Good. I'm glad you do, Anthony. We shall see. Thank you, Ryan. This is your friend, Stephanie. We met in Missouri a few years ago. Hello, Stephanie. So good to see you. Thank you for being here. Diopressor. Deopresso Lieber. Hello, everyone, including Suzanne and Ryan and the rest of the people. I apologize. Don't know your names. My question is the hearing. Is it going to be televised live or no video or audio or reporters allowed?

It will be broadcast right here. You don't have to go anywhere. We're going to be live streaming the entire event. If you do want to watch it on actual television, I believe C-SPAN will be broadcasting the entire event today. Several other news media outlets will be picking up on it throughout the day as well. But you look no further than right here. You can watch it right here.

And we will be doing a post discussion after to talk about what was gleaned from all of this. If there was any groundbreaking information and where do we go from here? So apparently we're getting another hearing like within the next few weeks within the Senate as well. So man, what a time. What a time to be alive. What a time to be a UFO nut, right? Jimmy Aussie here, 245 a.m. Wow.

Jimmy, kudos to you and Grant LaVoc for staying up. I know Grant will be live broadcasting the event as well for you guys over there in Australia. So no hearts broken if you head on over to Grant's for a little bit and watch his broadcast as well. I support everything Grant does. He's an incredible, incredible researcher. He is literally the Black Vault of Australia getting some of the most incredible documents from the Australian government about UFOs and UAP. So I know we're in good hands when Grant is involved. He was on the show not too long ago.

So you can check that out in the archives as well. But hello, Jimmy. Thank you so much for being here. Hope you got your, what do they call them in Australia? The drink, not a cappuccino. A flat white? Thank you, Jane. Say hello to Jane, everyone.

Jane, do you want to say hi to everyone? Okay, she says no. But she does know what a flat white is. So I do appreciate that. We just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. Amazing. Amazing. Well, I'm going to say hi to you.

Hi, Jay. Oh, Grant is here. Hi, Grant. Welcome, buddy. 4 p.m. in Ireland. Yeah. Man, it's like the Olympics in here. I love it.

We're the United Nations. Love it. Bill H. has an interesting question. Schellenberger apparently knows the hands on witnesses who want to come forward. maybe he can lay out exactly what protection they need. Presidential blanket immunity. That's not really, I like that, actually. Like a lot of people are like, why is this journalist testifying?

But I mean, look at some of the most famous congressional hearings of all time, whether it's like JFK, assassination, Iran, Contra, like, you name it. Whenever there's been historical UFO congressional hearings on something, journalists are involved. They have to be in many respects. So it doesn't surprise me that maybe these aren't these quote-unquote whistleblowers

who have worked on these whatever UFO crash retrieval projects or know where the dead alien bodies are or anything like that. But these are the journalists who are being told things from hopefully reputable and credible sources.

So it will be interesting to see in here what Schellenberger has to say. And if he will elaborate on Immaculate Constellation, which I'm sure we'll talk about with Suzanne in just a few moments here. So I'm just going to scroll down here one more time. Hello to Robert Zimmer. Welcome. Michael Huntington. The Senate hearing may be closed. He says, oh, that's a bummer.

Boo. The last one wasn't, though, Michael. The one with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. and Sean Kirkpatrick. So I do wonder, maybe it will be public since it's basically going to be the same thing. It's like an introduction to the new director of Arrow, kind of what they've been looking at, what needs to happen moving forward with Arrow. So I have hope.

I have hope that it will be broadcast and made public. Maybe some of it will be classified. But I don't know. But I'm holding out hope. But welcome. Good to see you. Hello to Brian. Ather Bunny is here.

I wish journalists would, as the most important question of all, how are the craft powered? I'm going to go with, they're powered by love. That was really stupid. I remember renting alien interview on VHS about 10 times, still can't get enough about this topic, Jason says. I know, man. Welcome.

Welcome to my life. I just bought on eBay. I sent it to my family's home in New York because I didn't want to ship it to Scotland. But I bought an old VHS of Alien Autopsy. You guys remember from Fox? Yeah. I was feeling nostalgic. And that VHS, I wore that thing out.

In fact, I brought the VHS into my, I think it was first grade class when the thing first aired. and I played it for everyone. And I do remember specifically this girl named Liz in my class, she got so traumatized and, like, scared and grossed out by the alien autopsy that she, like, ran out of the room crying. And she said, the teacher, aliens are real, aliens are real. It was, I feel, I feel really bad now that I did that. So if you're watching, Liz, I'm sorry.

But here we are, Congressional UFO hearings. So aliens are real, or are they? Good morning to Mike Rubino. Hello to Kim. Hello to Doug Sprague joining us. Welcome, welcome, Dad. I hope you'll be able to watch some of the hearing today with us. It's going to be interesting.

Set to start at 1130. EST, that's in about 25 minutes. Ooh, amazing. So let's waste no more time. Hello, Helbert Holler. Welcome, welcome. Good to have you guys here. Hell Bent Howler. Be sure guys to check out our amazing Anomicon presentation by Hell Bent Holler.

You can find it in the archives on the Anomicon playlist right here on YouTube. Incredible stuff. Hello to Kurt. Gann Dolf is here. Gandolph, I get it. Love it. Fulton is here. Hello, hello, hello. All right. Suzanne, are you ready? Let's see. She's giving me the head knot. I promised her I wouldn't bring her in. without her knowledge. So here we go. Make sure. There she is. Hello. There we go. Good. There you go. You're so good with that. You're so polite with the mute button and everything. How are you? I'm really good, although totally completely nerding out today. Ryan, guys, is like if she sends me one more spreadsheet of data on the subject, I'm going to block her. No, never. You guys, I can't.

tell you how much like off-air work that Suzanne does for us here. I want to take this moment to just commend you and thank you for all of the tireless work you put into this. Guys, she is like, we broke. I'm just going to say, we broke the story of the Grush lawsuit, basically. Not that there was a lawsuit, but when it was going to be held. I mean, I had mainstream journalists DMing me and being like, how did you find this? Like, Where did you get the, can we, like, quote you on this and everything? And I was like, you can thank my moderator because she's the one who was able to get that. So, yes, Suzanne, you were the first to find out when the David Grush lawsuit is.

So before we do anything, David Grush, the man of the hour at the last UFO hearing. Yeah. Where are we with all of that? Well, really interesting, because yesterday I realized there was a new order. The judge actually ruled on something. Now, it turned out not to be a big thing, more of a process. thing, they halted what lawyers called discovery, which is how lawyers learn, what the other side is holding, but it's a formal process. And every once in a while, you have to pause that until

certain motions get heard. And our normal viewers will remember that the county, the Virginia county that has been sued, and an unnamed Jane Doe, who works for the sheriff's department there in the county, moved. to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Mr. Grush. And so that has not been granted or heard by the court, but what the court did do was say, everybody have a seat until we have a hearing on these dismissal motions, and you don't have to exchange except a very limited amount of information back and forth.

And that just came in this morning. So what I think this might mean, though, June 5 or so, June 5, June 6. I think it's June 5. And I'm planning on being there if they'll let me in the courtroom. We'll see. But I'm not sure, this is a first setting and trial lawyers across the planet know that cases so rarely go on their first setting. And now with a pause and discovery here in November for a June trial date, which in lawyer world is not very much time, I suspect we're going to see that trial date bump. But we'll see. We'll take it as well. I keep watching. I keep digging.

So let's refresh people maybe a little on what the actual lawsuit is. Do you recall like what he's like is this for like damages or like illegal release of stuff? Like what is he actually suing them for? So he's suing them because years ago he had what I suspect is people. after some military work. And he was really struggling with mental health issues. I suspect drugs and alcohol, but I do not know that. But how this teed up was a call from his wife to the sheriff's department asking for help

that he was, I think, probably suicidal and threatening harm. So what happens when someone has a mental health crisis or a drug and alcohol issue, special rules apply. those are no longer medical situations. They are mental health of drug and alcohol situations. When they become the latter instead of the former, then very special protective rules apply both federally and in every state. And so what is what Virginia's law says about that when the journalist requested a copy of the records of that incident several years later, they gave them to him. what Virginia law says is these are mental health, protected mental health records,

and they are specifically exempt from four-year request. But the county turned them over anyway. Now, you all may have watched John Greenwald and I going back and forth on the legal end of this one night on Twitter, because he and I see things slightly differently, not tremendously. but I think his opinion is that it's not going to go anywhere. And he could be right. Good lawsuits get lost for reasons that are not substantive. But I think at a minimum, you may have heard lawyers talk about the spirit of a law

because there is a little conflict between these laws. It hasn't been tested there, which could mean it has a long legal life. We'll see. But, you know, to me, they violated the spirit of law at a minimum. And I think the letter of the law. But we'll see how that comes out. And that's what all the fuss is about right now. Okay.

Interesting. It's so funny, like how all of this seems to be happening around the same time. Like, we had, again, another very contentious election in the U.S., followed immediately by a congressional UFO hearing. So, like, I'm seeing people online being like, I just don't care about this hearing. There's much more important things going on, which I, agree with. I totally agree with that. Like, there are things that need to be dealt with in the United States on many different levels, existentially, politically, academically. But like, like it or not, we're having a UFO hearing today. Right. And it's not a NetSung game, right? Not Net,

doesn't that be one or the other? It is all. Yes. It is all. Yep. Many things happen in the world every single day. And today just so happens to be a UFO hearing. Well, yes. And speaking of that, let's talk a little about now on this past Sunday's live stream, which you joined me for as well, we were going through each of the individuals that will be testifying today, what U.S. Congress calls witnesses. We have Michael Schellenberger. We have Mike Post. We have Luis Elizondo and we have Tim Gallaudet, I believe is how you pronounce. his name, all of which are very different people who have very different things to say at this hearing. Now, I know a lot of people may have been let down that we're not getting, you know, the people who worked on these crash retrieval programs or these 40 whistleblowers that Crush talked about. But we are getting some interesting people with interesting backgrounds today.

And look, I mean, it is what it is. And we will hope for the best today. So I'd love, if you wouldn't mind. We talked a little off air before we got on here about each of these individuals. So maybe if you're willing, I know you have kind of your notes there with you. I'll be pulling some I'm compulsive or anything. Not at all. I didn't have a chance to spreadsheet it yet. So that's coming for you. There's time. Thank you. I look forward to that in my email. Let's go with, who should we go with first. Let's go with Luis Elizondo, the one everyone pretty much knows, but you want to give us kind of your perception of Elizondo and what we might get today. And I know people run hot and cold with him. And I think that is probably the case with anybody who achieves any level of celebrity.

Then their motives become questioned and how they say a thing becomes questioned. Also, he had a slight little stump misstep last week, I believe, when he released a photo that he probably shouldn't have released that he didn't too much. And, you know, I hate that. But that stuff's going to happen. You don't know till you know, not that Twitter shows a lot of grace on that. But it does happen to everybody. It's happened to both of us, you know. Oh, yeah. But I thought it'd be a great idea to put Lou quickly in perspective on what his life history has been very briefly and I'm sure anybody who's watching this all the time already knows this, so I'll be brief. But Lou immigrated, Lou's family immigrated from Castro's regime.

And I think that whole thing in his father's experience, they are really affected how he perceived what his goals in life were. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 95. He was immediately assigned to military intelligence. So we're talking a long, long history of insider information. In 98, he was recruited as what's called a civilian intelligence officer in sensitive U.S. intelligence programs, including from the Department of Defense. So what you're going to see is he just goes deeper and deeper and deeper into territory that the average human cannot have.

He rose to senior intelligence officer and special agent in charge of that program. And then following the 9-11 attacks, he was an intelligence officer supporting special operations with General James Mattis. And then he continued climbing in 2008. He was hand-selected to return to the Pentagon, to establish a law enforcement and intelligence information sharing office, which he did. And then he was assigned the position of director of the national program of special management staff. Of course, this is in the DOD under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. Huge access when he was managing the special access program on behalf of the White House and the National Security Council. And then we can end with what everybody knows in 2012.

He was the senior ranking official for ATIP. So he is certainly qualified intellectually. to know what we're talking about here, has to experience lots of things. And he consistently says, I can't talk about everything, a problem we need to fix. Right. So that's Mr. Elizondo. Yes, probably the most visible of all of these men in terms of what has been brought forward. Let's move, I guess, to the second most visible, I would say, right now. And that's Tim Galadette. Oh, I'm so excited for him. Oh, man. What was he a rear admiral? Yes, he's a Navy Rear Admiral.

And he is going to be at the Soul Foundation presentation in San Francisco later this month that I'm going to be there. And my entire goal is to get to meet and talk with him. So I'll report back on that. Can't wait. Plus, I really respect him. He has a career oceanographer and technology consultant. I think that gives him something Lou Elizondo doesn't have. Now we're underwater.

instead of in space and intelligence. He was the acting and deputy administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And then he was named Oceanographer of the Navy. He is affiliated with the Galileo Project through Harvard. He is part of the UAP Disclosure Fund. You're going to see lots of these guys have banded together with Chris Mellon on that UAP Disclosure Fund. He has all kinds of accolades and credits behind his name, distinguished graduate of a University of California at San Diego,

which anybody who's following this knows there's a lot going on on this topic out in San Diego. Oh, yeah. So he was also part of the Coast Guard for a while. Anyway, he has a tremendous life experience in work. So it'll be interesting to watch him and hear what questions. I ask of him, I suspect he knows a tremendous amount. Yeah, I know. And like you said, like, it's rare that we get any information on U.S.Os.

So I'm really looking forward to that, especially, you know, we covered a pretty audacious, if not bold story this past live stream about Daniel Sheehan saying that he knows where two secret UFO bases are, one of which is off of Guadalupe Bay Island over near Catalina Island off the coast of California where the famous TikTok event took place. So I do wonder, maybe Tim will have some information on that or, I don't know. It'll be interesting for sure. I'm looking forward to hearing from him. I wish I could figure out a path to get it really open for full discussion.

There's been a lot of chitter chatter about presidential immunity being granted to anyone willing to talk about this. I don't know that that's particularly realistic. because a blanket like that might create national security issues. I don't know. But there's got to be a solution. That's a very good point. And I know, well, that actually moves us to our next individual who a lot of people are hoping will be sort of promoting whistleblower protections because he came out with a story recently about a secret Pentagon UFO program, not a tip, not anything we'd ever heard of.

And this was something called, or at least codenamed, immaculate constellation. I almost said it. I know. That we all joke about either immaculate conception or constipation. But we're not going there, guys. We'll keep it simple today. So tell us a little about Michael Schellenberger. I sure will.

He is a climate scientist, a climate journalist. Sorry about that. I haven't had yet enough coffee. I'm working on. No problem. He has done lots of writing around that, trying to keep it from alarmism, but focus, which is the same, which I appreciate it, because the same tack needs to be taken with UAP and U.S.O, that sort of thing. It's like, let's don't panic, let's think, and let's work towards solutions. And when you look at his bio, that's where he is.

Now, what I think is interesting about him is he has a tremendous history. of congressional testimony, which I didn't know about until I started reading. Oh, interesting. So he has testified maybe 15 times total. I'm ballparking it here with the vast majority being from 2020 until 2024. He testifies about things like the House Selects Subcommittee on weaponization of the federal government. Also, things like under the weather, diagnosing health.

cost and climate change. So you see him through these things touching almost a holistic approach to the things going wrong and how they might be interconnected. He's testified on the weaponization of the federal government twice, which I find interesting. I could not find those broadcast, though. I guess they may not have been broadcast, but I would love to find them. He has a master's of art in cultural anthropology, which I find fascinating. And he has a – so that's his master's. His bachelor is in peace and global studies from Erlund College in Indiana. He speaks three languages, English, Spanish, and Portuguese.

So a bright, bright, bright guy. Moi bien. Mois being. I took six years of Spanish, and that's all I remember. The end. So in, right. And then like we had mentioned, he's sort of going to be talking primarily about maybe this program that maybe Grush had told him about originally. Like this sounds exactly like the type of program Grush was talking about. No oversight. Using taxpayer dollars for things we don't know about. Exactly.

Hiding it in public, or excuse me, private aerospace companies. I mean, look at, we were. talking off air about this incredible article that Christopher Sharp recently published, where if any of it is true, and I do say if, what's that? Is that the spreadsheet? Of course it is. Oh, God, I love you. I'm sharing my nerddom. If you guys have not, go over to the Liberation Times and read this article where Christopher Sharp was able to uncover this long web of like, the different government agencies involved with like these secret retrieval programs and how they keep moving them into different sectors and different aerospace companies. And again, this was all

the stuff Grush was talking about. Exactly right. And what I found really interesting and the reason that my brain needs to spreadsheet this thing is to take that article and break it down into substantive bites in a spreadsheet. Then you can really see where the man manipulation has come. And as we were talking about privately, Ryan, once I spreadsheet it, it's sort of knocked the wind out of me. Because if he is correct, and I suspect that he is, because of how far out on the limb he went, the government, the American government used 17 legitimate agencies and at least two defense contractors to hide materials from the 40s forward. So his opinion is that we have some involvement in the magenta crash in Italy in the 40s,

and then we pick up at Roswell. So he's doing what I think is a really good thing to be done by some. While we chase substance, he's chasing dollars, I think. He's following that money trail. Follow that money. All that follow the money. So fascinating, fascinating. The allegations he made were that the CIA retrieval missions for UFO materials and their related legacy programs started during World War II, around World War II, and that how it works is basically the Navy or one of these subdivisions goes and gets these things that have fallen into the sea or whatever,

and then hands them out to defense contractors based on what expertise is needed. So they are, they folded it inside legitimate programs where no eyes are focused. Yeah. It just kind of falls in there and can't be pulled back out. But they're on to it. So we'll see. We'll see.

Again, we might learn more about this even today. I see that we're getting close to the hearing. They, they are live. There's nothing on their screen yet. We will jump over to that. in due time. But let's go ahead and run through Michael. This is the one everyone's very excited about myself included. So I guess briefly, Suzanne, as brief as we can be, this guy's got heck of a resume. I don't know how we're going to be brief. But let's go through who he is and why he might

be testifying at this. Such an interesting guy. The big broad picture on him is that for years, he worked at Bigelow. And very confidential work at Bigelow. And of course, that, I think, is a wealth of knowledge if anybody can ever ever break that wall down. What's going on back there? He's also affiliated with SpaceX. He moved from Bigelow to a thing called SSL, which is space systems, laurel, or laurel. I don't know how to pronounce that.

L-O-R-A-L-L-L-R-A-L. Okay. Anyway. And that program, what I could find on that, is that there's a lot of work. around asteroid redirection. So, you know, we know this one asteroid, it could be posing a problem in about, I think it's 20 years or something. So he's been working on that.

But the affiliation was SpaceX, Bigelow, NASA, all of that, who's a NASA, sort of an analyst, I guess you'd call him, make him such an interesting witness. I will tell you, once I read the statement that he released, that I guess he's going to read to Congress today, I was disappointed. It was pretty limited. So I had ratcheted down my expectation for him.

But again, I'm sure it's a clearance question. So I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I just think we may not hear today the stuff that he would love to tell. The days of getting drunk with Bigglo. Yeah. That's what I would. is open for. Who knows?

You want to hear that right there. What happened? Can you imagine, Suzanne? I know it's only 1130 EST over there in Washington, right? They're on EST, right? Could you imagine if they liquor these four deeds up before they got on? Maybe some of them do. I'm not judging.

Like, heck, I would need a couple shots before going before Congress. I'm sure this is daunting. I'm glad it's not me in one of those seats. Right. Be behind the scenes. Oh, that's amazing. Well, I mean, again, I know, like, people in the chat, a lot, people are rightfully very suspicious of these people, maybe a little let down by who they are and that we're not going to learn of anything. But look, the only way to know is to watch this and see. And no matter what, like, these four people are putting reputations on the line, whatever reputations they have left according to.

Some. Yeah, and their lives. And their lives. If you believe some of, some of what's going on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I saw that Alizondo's statement, I'm sure you did last week, that he was armed and ready to defend and that stuff had been happening. That's crazy. Yeah, it's crazy.

So this is no walk in the park. No walk in the park. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be interesting. Let's go over and check. Looks like there are nothing yet, but we will keep you guys posted immediately when they start over there. And we will go live. What I think I'm going to do now, Suzanne, is we're just going to play a little warm-up video to get people all excited and ready.

If for some reason they're running late, I might come back and we'll just talk to the chat for a little bit. How's that sound? Absolutely. All right. All right. All right. Hang on. Hang on.

What does he say in Dressick Park? Hold on to your butts. Samuel L. Jackson's famous line. But cool. So we'll go get our UFO party on. we'll see where we're at and we might be back with you guys to chat a little bit more before this thing gets going. I'm sure they'll be fashionably late. But Suzanne, thank you.

Thank you for those insights. And we'll see you in a little bit, all right? Great. See you soon. Thank you. All right, guys. Well, there you have it. Thank you to Suzanne for all of that.

And, man, man, the chat is going nuts. You guys are passionate, which is what this is all about. stick with us. We're going to be watching this together. But I will go to the chat up in here for a little bit to see what you guys are saying. Oh, look, squirrel is here. I wonder if Musk and Trump will comment. They should be asked for their opinions.

We'll see. We'll see. They got a lot going on right now. I don't know if you guys saw, but Trump just selected Mr. Musk as like his chief of something. I don't know. Chief of I won't even go there

Moving on Buckle up Michael Huntington says Indeed my friend Indeed Chief Oh Suzanne I almost read it out loud

I'm not going to read that out loud We will keep this family friendly Let's go Sam says Ah Let's see I'm refreshing the official page here guys Nothing yet

Nothing yet I have a feeling they're going to be a little bit late. So I'm going to go ahead and play a little warm up. Let's listen to some music with your morning coffees over there. If you guys are over in the U.S. or the west coast of the U.S. And grab a beer, guys, if you're in the UK and beyond. And we will be back to talk more or hear more about the congressional UFO hearing. Stay tuned.

Hey, guys, nothing yet. I'm still keeping track of when it's officially going to start to stick with us. I did want to go over to our Twitter poll with you guys. I put a poll up over on the Summer on the Sky's podcast Twitter, and I asked, I asked, will we learn anything groundbreaking at the UFO hearing today? Then I posted a link to this very video you're watching. So 22.5% of you said, yes, we will learn something groundbreaking and new.

35% of you said no. 35% of you said maybe. and 7.5% of you said a complete waste of time. So I did want to get that in there before we go live to the congressional UFO hearing. That's pretty crazy. No and maybe are literally neck and neck at 35%. So it sounds like you guys are a little pessimistic about today, which I completely understand.

But hey, we'll see. We will see. and we'll be doing it hopefully very shortly. The Red Baron is here. I'm wondering if NAP's Netflix series is going to tie into this hearing. For example, last episode they were trying to find the remaining jellyfish UFO footage. Excuse me, I'm hiccuping left and right. It always happens, guys.

I talk way too much and I forget to breathe. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I've only seen the first 20 minutes of the first episode of the NAP series. From what I saw so far, it's pretty good. I did watch the entire Manhattan Alien Abdub. Oh, that's a long story. Go to our live stream from this past week.

I got my own thoughts on all that for sure. But yeah, a lot of UFO content out there right now. They just have not been able to get to all of it. Let me see. Oh, here we go, guys. And welcome, everyone. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. And I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement right now.

Enjoy. Good morning and welcome today's historic hearing, which I'm co-chairing with Mr. Grothman, whose subcommittee held an important hearing on this topic last year. I want to thank my colleagues on the Oversight Committee, including Mr. Burchett, Mr. Berluson, Ms. Luna, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Garcia, for their relentless drive to get answers on UAPs. They've been steadfast and demanding transparency on the sightings reported by military pilots, and armed forces. Their commitment to digging for the truth is exactly what this country needs to cut through the secrecy surrounding this issue. And many high-ranking individuals in the

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

But there are certain individuals who didn't want this hearing to happen because they feared what might be disclosed. But we stood firm. No amount of outside pressure would ever keep me from pursuing a subject to ground come hell or high water. On that score, I want to thank our witnesses for being here. We have before us a panel of individuals accomplished in the military, in civilian government, in science, and in journalism. Some of the testimony you will hear them deliver today does not reflect well on influential individuals and agencies within the U.S. federal government and perhaps some of our contractors. It's never easy to present such information publicly. So I appreciate our witnesses voluntarily agreeing to being here today. This hearing is attended to help Congress and the American people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our government has engaged in with respect to UAPs.

and what knowledge it has yielded. This includes, of course, any knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of non-human origin. If government-funded research on UAPs has not yielded any useful knowledge, we also need to know those facts. Taxpayers deserve to know how much has it been invested, how much has been spent. They shouldn't be kept in the dark to spare the Pentagon a little bit of embarrassment. The reality is, despite their enormous taxpayer-funded budgets, the transparency of the Defense Department and the intelligence community have long been abysmal. The Pentagon has failed six consecutive audits. In fact, it's never actually passed one. Adding to this is a runaway over-classification of documents and materials, a reluctance to declassified materials when appropriate, and at times an outright.

refusal to share critical information with Congress. In short, it's not a track record that instills trust. So Congress has tried in recent years to lift the veil and find out if information about UAPs is being withheld, not only from the American public, but also from their elected representatives in Congress. Part of the transparency effort was legislation created in the Pentagon, the all-domain anomaly resolution office, or arrow, but the new office is struggling to get its footing. A recent statute orally required report from Arrow intended to illuminate the government's historic assessment of UAPs was heavily criticized by those seeking UAP transparency. The report has stoked suspicions Arrow is unable or perhaps unwilling

to bring forward the truth about the government's activities concerning UAPs. I'm disturbed that Arrow itself lacks transparency. Even its budget is kept from the public. So if there is no there to there, then why are we spending money on it and by how much? Why the secrecy, if it's really no big deal and there's nothing there, why hide it from the American people? Because I'm not a mathematician, but I can tell you that doesn't add up. I expect some of our witnesses to share their views on that Arrow report. We will also hear from the witnesses today allegations of UAP-related misinformation and disinformation by government officials of which they are personally aware and directly experience.

And we will hear testimony today concerning recent revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program whose existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from Congress. But before we get to the witnesses, we're going to have a few more opening statements from our colleagues. And one thing I wanted to add at the end of my closing statement is there is a document that will be entered into the congressional record today. Mr. Tim Burchett from Tennessee has this document, and we just distributed it to every member up here on the dais of this document. But this is going to be the original document from the Pentagon about Immaculate Constellation that Michael Schellenberger delivered to Congress today. So thank you, Mr. Schellenberger, for this information. We are all reading it in real time now, and Mr. Birchette will enter it into the record. But 12 pages about this unacknowledged special access program that your government says does not exist.

So with that, I would acknowledge my colleagues, Mr. Garcia. I want to say, first of all, to Mr. Connolly, who cannot be here today, the ranking member on my subcommittee on cybersecurity. I want to say that I was greatly saddened to hear about the recent news of Mr. Connolly's cancer diagnosis. And I want to convey to him and to all of our colleagues, we wish our very best to you in a full and speedy recovery. And with that, I would acknowledge Mr. Garcia for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.

I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Chairman both for their continued support and really treating this, this discussion and these hearings in a way that's bipartisan. I think one of things that's very important for all of us that are interested in the conversation around UAPs is that this is an area that both Republicans and Democrats, where we may disagree in a lot of other spaces. This is an area where bipartisanship is really important. And in fact, that would add it's critical that we all continue to work together in a way that moves forward with the truth and an important disclosure. So we're here to have a bipartisan and serious conversation, I believe, about our. national security. We should always ground these conversations in facts, evidence, and the data in

front of us. I want to note that we have our witnesses here. I want to thank you all for being here and note that also we, amongst you of folks that have also served us in our military. And I know that for many of you, this has been a difficult process, but I'm very grateful to have you with us today and thank you for joining us. I also want to note that today's hearing builds on of a quite, I think also historic public hearing that we had many months ago that Mr. Goughman and others helped lead in this very same hearing room where I believe we began a really important public conversation about UAPs. And so I want to thank him for that.

And I especially want to thank, again, Chairwoman Mace, for her continued advocacy on this topic. I also want to start to start with some facts. We know that there are objects or phenomena observed in our airspace, as your witnesses will testify, and also possibly in our oceans. In many cases, we don't know what they are, and this is, of course, why we're discussing UAPs. Now, the all-domain anomaly resolution office, ARO has reported hundreds of UAPs that remain, quote, uncharacterized and unattributed, and which, quote, appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis.

This is our own Arrow office. Now, we shouldn't prejudge what they might be. I'm certainly not going to. We need evidence that what we are detecting things and we know that we don't understand them, and this is worth investigating. Now, the American people have legitimate questions, and I believe it's critical that Congress should help address them. This is about the truth and science and facts.

Now, transparency and faith in our institutions is vital in a good democracy. Now, I'm proud to say at this hearing will build on that important bipartisan work, and I want to thank everyone for being involved, including members of our committee. Now, in our last hearing in July, we heard testimony that a significant number of pilots of major airlines have witnessed UAPs, as well, but have no real confidential way of reporting them to the government. We heard that commercial pilots who encounter UAPs may be hesitant to speak openly due to stigma or fear of retaliation.

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

UAP process, which we want to continue to do. Now, members of both parties and senior officials in multiple administrations have now taken an interest in this issue. Mainstream media in many cases are beginning to take more of an interest in this issue, and we should all be proud to carry that work and build confidence for the American people. I believe we can always be more transparent. To me, this hearing and others are simply about the truth and getting to the facts of what these UAPs actually are. It's very important that we show that Democrats and Republicans in Congress can work together to cut through misinformation and look for a serious and thoughtful way to have,

the discussion in public. Many of us have also called for additional public hearing to discuss UAPs. This should be a topic that continues on throughout the Congress so we can gather more information, data, and work with the relevant agencies to gather more information. Finally, I just want to add that those that are here on this dais, many of us have participated also in classified briefings as well, and where we have also gained a lot of important, I think, and interesting information, at least I personally have. And so with that information, we want to continue today's hearing. And I think all of our witnesses for being here. And with

that, I'd like to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I'm now like to recognize Mr. Grossman for a five-minute introduction. Thank you. Good morning. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here one more time. This is a topic I've been interested in since eighth grade. I'd like to thank Ms. Mace for working me on this topic and for making this a joint subcommittee hearing. Last year, the Subcommittee on National Security, the Board of Foreign Affairs held an historic hearing to understand the potential national security risk of unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAPs. We heard from former Navy commander, David Fraver, who shared firsthand experience with the UAP, engaged while on duty in the Pacific.

We learned from David Gresh, a former member of the intelligence community, who revealed the supposed existence of secret government programs hidden from congressional oversight, Additionally, former military pilot Ryan Graves informed us of the limited ways in which the military and commercial pilots can report UAP sightings. Since that last hearings, I've led several briefings with government agencies to deepen my understanding with these issues. First, the Department of Defense Inspector General's office informed us that the Department of Defense does not have a streamlined process for service members to report UAP activity. Since then, the Joint Chiefs have implemented standards for UAP reporting across the services. The Intelligence Community Inspector General informed us that whistleblowers often fear retaliation for reporting mismanagement of highly sensitive government projects or information. Finally, AARO has expressed to the committee that, like any other federal government agency, its face challenges and its establishment,

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

when it comes to UAPs. But I believe there's still more work to go. I co-led the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Rehing Member Garcia, which requires the Federal Aviation Administration to develop procedures to collect UAP data from civilian aviators. I look forward to working with members of Congress to see that this legislation and other UAP legislation crosses the finish line.

I'm deeply alarmed by the reporting of the massive drone swarm that flew over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia last December. Langley is the home of the first fighter wing, which maintains half of the F-22s in the U.S. Air Force inventory, reports of this incident indicate these drones were roughly 20 feet long, flying more than 100 miles an hour in an altitude of over 3,000 feet. Yet the origin of these drones and their operators remains a mystery. This incident and other sightings near sensitive military installations highlights the complexity of the UAP challenge facing our intelligence, defense, and homeland security committees. Whether these phenomena are the result of foreign adversaries developing advanced technologies

or something else entirely, we must take them seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and assess their implications on national defense. The repeated UAP sitings around sensitive military sites underscores the need for innovative defensive strategies beyond traditional measures. They also highlight the urgent need for updated policies to address emerging threats, as well as more effective interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing. However, none of this is going to be possible without transparency. For far too long, critical information about UAPs has been either classified or ignored,

leaving the American public and key congressman without clarity needed to make informed decisions. Declassifying reports and fostering a more open dialogue about UAPs will not only increase, to public trust, but also encourage collaboration between government, the scientific community, and our allies. Quite frankly, there's been things that have been kept secret that is, I think, old enough that there is no reason it shouldn't be released, regardless of any so-called, you know, private information. A transparent approach will allow us to share insights, identify patterns and develop new strategic defenses. As we continue to investigate these phenomena,

we must do so with a mindset of protecting our country, advancing scientific discovery, and upholding the trust of the American people, who right now I don't think have trust, and it's just obvious. I don't have trust. We cannot shy away from the unknown, especially when the stakes are so high.

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

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

to share your expertise on UAPs and the need to build trust through transparency. But first, I want to mention, you might be wondering why Chairman Comer has allowed me to be a ranking member today, but it's really only because our dear friend, Jerry Connolly, is not here. As Chairwoman Mace mentioned,

he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and all of us on this committee know, no Jerry and he's a fighter and we're praying for him and hoping for his speedy recovery. So today's hearing marks this committee's second meeting dedicated to UAP transparency. I was pleased, as I know all of us are, on the bipartisanship that existed in last year's hearing and even though we can't talk about what happens in the classified settings, the bipartisanship that has existed in those settings with the questions, members, have asked. Last year's hearing was a great example of open dialogue about UAPs, and we must remain

committed to share information with the American people, and I think you see that commitment based on the people here and the commitment across the political spectrum. I personally have worked with multiple members of this committee, but I want to particularly thank Congressman Burchett, Mace, Luna, and Garcia for working on bipartisan pieces of legislation. In recent years, Congress, Congress has taken numerous bipartisan steps towards greater transparency. In 2022, in the NDAA, we created the All-DMAOOMAYN anomaly resolution office to investigate unidentified flying objects. Following Arrow, along with OD&I, release an unclassified report on UAP sightings.

Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain uncharacterized, with some of these appearing to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities. That's a nice way of saying, we don't want to tell you what they are. In March, error revealed a report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with UAPs, which covered investigatory efforts going back from 1945 to the present day. Earlier this year, I joined Congressman Burchett to introduce the UAP Transparency Act, which would require the declassification of all documents related to UAPs with many other members of this committee. In fiscal year, 2024, the NDA required the National Archives and Records Administration,

to establish the unidentified anonymous phenomena records collection. This collection will include digital copies of all unidentified UAP records that can be publicly disclosed. This commitment is in transparency, is vitally important, and unnecessary over-classification has led to a void of information, which has allowed theories over the decades to foster. When the American people and members of Congress ask, are reports of UAP's credible.

We're met with Stonewalling. We're met with responses of I Can't Tell You. And in fact, we're met with people not wanting us to have hearings. We're met with people not wanting us to ask you questions. In fact, many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions on certain topics. In a time of heightened distrust of our government institutions, I believe more transatlanticians. transparency is not only needed, but is possible. And obviously we can respect national security limits, but we also have to provide our constituents with the information and oversight that they have tasked us for. It's part of this government agencies must maintain open lines of communication with members of Congress. And there are regular questions that Americans have. What are UAPs? Are they real? Are they ours? How is this technology? been developed. How do they get funded? Right? And now we've seen, this has gone from a long time ago

where you could discredit people because it's some guy living in a Winnebago. You're able to see people now, these are pilots, these are military, these are folks with serious backgrounds. This has changed the face of this because now we have video. People have questions. We know there are advanced technology programs. Almost 15 years ago, one of those came out of Area 51 to go after Osama bin Laden. And the only reason we know about that is because one of those helicopters was downed. Americans have questions about whistleblowers who have come forward to talk about retribution. And so I want to thank everyone for being involved today on trying to get more transparency. This has been bipartisan, bicameral.

And as we get into a new administration, the president-elect has talked about opportunities to declassify information on UAPs, and I hope he lives up to that promise. And with that, I yield back. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz, and I would now, committee staff asked me to go ahead and I will do it to enter into the congressional record, this 12-page document that Michael Schellenberger brought today that describes the Immaculate Concients, Constellation Government Program. So we will do that now. Every member up here has a copy of it.

The first section talks about the unacknowledged special access program called Immaculate Constellation. And the second section about USG imagery, intelligence. And Representative Luna just told me if I say Immaculate Constellation, I'll be on some list. Maybe a FISA warrant. So come at me, bro, I guess. But without objection, entered in the record. All right. So next, we will introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. Thank you so much for being here.

Our first witness is retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who retired from the U.S. Navy and is now the chief executive officer at Ocean STL consulting. Our second witness is Mr. Lou Alizondo, a former Department of Defense official, an author of a recent bestseller book about UAPs. Our third witness is Mr. Michael Schellenberger, founder of the newsletter public, an author of recent journalistic piece about special access programs, including one widely identified as immaculate constellation. I swear the staff wants me on a list. Okay. And our last witness today is Mr. Michael Gold, a former NASA official who was also a member of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team. Welcome, everyone. We are pleased to have you today. Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise your right hands. This is where it gets real. Do you solemnly swear to

affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God. Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. You guys may be seated. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button in front of you so the microphone is turned on so that everyone in the room, members included, can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on,

your five minutes has expired, and we would ask that you please wrap it up. So I will first recognize Rural Admiral Gallaudet to please begin your opening remarks. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, ranking members Connolly and Garcia and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding unidentified. identified anomalous phenomena or UAP. Confirmation that UAPs are real came to me in January of 2015 when I was serving as the commander of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command. At the time, my personnel were participating in a pre-deployment naval exercise up the U.S. East Coast. It included the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, and this exercise was overseen by the United States Fleet Forces Command, led by a four-star Admiral, who at the time was also my superior officer.

During this exercise, I received an email a Navy secure network from the operations officer of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. The email was addressed to all the subordinate commanders and the subject line read in all capital letters, urgent safety of flight issue. The text of the email was brief but alarming, with words to the effect, if any of you know what these are, tell me ASAP. We are having multiple near midair collisions, and if we do not resolve this soon, we are going to have to shut down the exercise. Attached to the email is what is now known as the go-fast video, captured on the forward-looking infrared sensor of one of the Navy FAA 18 aircraft participating in the exercise. The now declassified video showed an unidentified object exhibiting flight and structural characteristics unlike anything in our arsenal. The implication of the email was clear. The author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of classified technology demonstrations that could accept.

explain these objects. Because the DoD policy is to rigorously de-conflict such demonstrations with live exercises, I was confident this was not the case. The very next day, that email disappeared from my account and those of the other recipients without explanation. Moreover, the commander of Fleet Forces Command and the operations officer never discussed the subject. Even during weekly meeting, specifically designed to address issues affecting exercises like the one in which the Theater Roosevelt Strike Group was participating. This lack of follow-up was very concerning to me. As the Navy's chief meteorologist at the time,

I was responsible for reducing safety of flight risks. Yet it appeared to me that no one at the flag officer level was addressing the safety risk posed by UAPs. Instead, pilots were left to mitigate these threats on their own without guidance or support. I concluded that the UAP information must have been classified within a special access program managed by and intelligence agency. That is a compartment of program that even senior officials, including

myself, were not read into. Last year's UAP hearing before this oversight committee confirmed that UAP-related information is being withheld from senior officials and members of Congress. And just this week, I learned from former DOD official Chris Mellon that satellite imagery of UAP from a few years ago still has not been shared with Congress. Equally concerning, last year's UAP hearing also revealed that elements of the government are in engaged in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. Having never signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding UAPs and now as a private citizen,

I've become an advocate for greater UAP transparency from the government. The continued overclassification surrounding UAPs has not only hindered our ability to effectively address these phenomena, but has also eroded trust in our institutions. While I applaud previous bipartisan legislation passed by Congress concerning UAPs, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the broader implication of UAP on public safety and national security, as well as the socioeconomic opportunities that open UAP research could unlock. Therefore, I recommend Congress take the following action, which I believe will receive bipartisan support. First, establish robust oversight of the executive branch's management of UAP information

by directing key officials, beginning with the director of the DOD's All-D Main Anomily Resolution Office to provide comprehensive briefings on what the government, knows about UAP and does not know. Two, enact the provisions of the UAP Disclosure Act that establish a UAP Records Review Board to ensure independent oversight, transparency, and accountability in the government's handling of UAP information. And three, strengthen the UAP Disclosure Act and future reauthorizations with provisions that mandate a whole of government approach to addressing UAP. In closing, I will share my personal reasons for speaking out on this topic. First, as a former science agency leader, having led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

administration, I've always sought the truth in human knowledge and thought. Now that we know UAP are interacting with humanity, and these include unidentified submerged objects in the ocean, we should not turn a blind eye, but instead boldly face this new reality and learn from it. Additionally, at a time when leaders in government leave much to be desired, I feel obligated to show moral leadership on this issue of UAP disclosure by validating the credibility of the courageous men and women who have come out as witnesses and whistleblowers to expose the truth. My speaking out has encouraged others to do the same, and it may, it's my hope over time that

a number of your constituents will want to know the truth and about UAP, and will increase, this number will increase to such an extent that the congressional action I've just recommended will become inevitable. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Elizondo for his opening statement. Greetings, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Rothman, ranking members Connolly and Garcia, and members of the committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before you on the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomenon, formerly known as UFOs.

On behalf of our brave men and women in uniform and across the intelligence community, as well as my fellow Americans who have awaited this day, thank you for your leadership on this important matter. Let me be clear. UAP are real. or government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries. I believe we are in the midst of a multi-decade secretive arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and hidden from our elected representatives and oversight bodies. For many years, I was entrusted with protecting some of our nation's most sensitive programs.

In my last position, I managed a special access program on behalf of the White House, and the National Security Council. As such, I appreciate the need to protect certain sensitive intelligence and military information. I consider my oath to protect secrets as sacred, and I will always put the safety of the American people first. With that said, I also understand the consequences of excessive secrecy and stovepiping. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of 9-11, which many of us remember all too well. I believe that America's greatness depends on three elements. A, a watchful Congress, B, a responsive executive branch, and C, an informed public.

Over the last decade and a half, I learned that certain UAP programs were and are operating without any of these elements. Although much of my government work on the UAP subject still remains classified, excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the public, all to hide the fact. that we are not alone in the cosmos. A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation that I've personally been victim to, along with many of my former colleagues.

This includes unwarranted criminal investigations, harassment, and efforts to destroy one's credibility. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the Pentagon's very own public affairs office openly employs a professional psychological operations officer as the singular point of contact for any UAP-related inquiries from citizens and the media. This is unacceptable.

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

Second, we need a national UAP strategy that will promote transparency and help restore the American public's trust at a time when the public's trust is at an all-time low. This strategy should include a whole-of-government approach, including the academic and scientific communities, the private sector, and our international partners and allies. Third, Congress should create a protected environment so whistleblowers, desperate to do the right thing, can come forward without fear. As it currently stands, these whistleblowers suffer because of stigma, a code of silence, and concerns about retaliation. These whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward in ways that protect them against any forms of retaliation. policies and procedures should ensure that protection, and for those who refuse to cooperate, is up to the members of this committee and other lawmakers to wield their subpoena power against hostile witnesses and prevents additional government funding to those UAP efforts

that remain hidden from congressional oversight. In closing, we as Americans have never been afraid of a challenge. In fact, we thrive on them, whether it's eradicating polio or going to the moon. We don't run from a challenge. We take it head on. To the incoming administration and Congress, I say to you, we need immediate public transparency. And this hearing is an important step on that journey. If we approach the UAP topic in the same way as we as Americans have met other challenges,

we can restore our faith in our government institutions. Together, we can usher in a new era of accountable government and scientific discovery. I believe that we as Americans can handle the truth. And I also believe the world deserves the truth. Thank you, esteemed members of Congress for your time today. It is profoundly appreciated by many. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Ogles of Tennessee and Bobert of Colorado to be waived onto the subcommittee for today's joint subcommittee hearing for the purpose of asking questions without objection so ordered.

I would now like to recognize Mr. Schellenberger for his introductory remarks. Chairwoman Mays, Chairman Groffman, Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Garcia, members of the subcommittees. Thank you for inviting my testimony. One of Congress's most important responsibilities is oversight of the executive branch in general and the military and intelligence community in particular. Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the U.S. government is not being transparent about what it knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena, and that elements within the military and the IC are in violation of their constitutional duty to notify Congress of their operations. President-elect Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama have both said that the government, government has information about UAPs that it has not released.

Current, there are other explanations for UAPs than that they represent a new form of life or non-human life. Current dominant alternative theories, including those put forward by ARO, are that UAPs are some kind of natural phenomena we don't yet understand like ball lightning or plasma. They could also be part of some new U.S. or foreign government weapons programs such as drones, aircraft, balloons, CGI, hoaxes, or birds. whatever UAPs are, Congress must be informed, as must the people of the United States, we have a right to know what UAPs are, no matter what they are. However, we now have existing and former U.S. government officials who have told Congress that Arrow and the Pentagon have broken the law by not revealing a significant body of information about UAPs, including military intelligence databases that have evidence of their existence as physical craft.

One of those individuals is a current or former U.S. government official acting as a UAP whistleblower. This person has written a report. This is the report that says the executive branch has been managing UAP, NHAI issues without congressional knowledge, oversight, or authorization for some time, quite possibly decades. Furthermore, these individuals have revealed the name of an active and highly secretive DOD unacknowledged special access program or USAP. The source of that document told public, me, that the UAP. The USAP is a strategic intelligence program that is part of the U.S. military family of longstanding, highly sensitive programs and doing with various aspects of the UAP problem. The new UAP whistleblower claims that the U.S. military and IC database includes videos and images taken using infrared, forward-looking infrared, full-motion video, and still photography.

The report that was just shared with Congress says Immaculate Constellation serves as a central or parent USAP that consolidates observations of UAPs by the both tasked and untasked collection platforms. Immaculate constellation includes high quality imagery intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence of UAPs, the whistleblowers report adds. The sources of this intelligence are a blend of directed and incidental collection capacities, capabilities, position in low Earth orbit,

the upper atmosphere as well as military and civilian aviation altitudes and marine time environments. The report to Congress details in detail various UAPs, including spheres, orbs, disc, saucers, ovals, triangles, boomerang arrowhead, and irregular organic. The report describes various incidents found in the human intelligence databases. One involved orbs surrounding and forcing an F-22 out of its patrol area. In another incident, the crew of a Navy aircraft carrier watched a small orange-red

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

The person discovered the video on SIPPR, the secure internet protocol router network, which the DOD uses to transmit classified information. A leading UAP researcher who utilizes the Freedom of Information Act to find out what the government knows, John Greenwald told me last year that the U.S. government had been increasingly denying his request for UAP information. He has been doing FOIA requests for 27 years and has an archive of 3 million pages. The government has for decades denied any interest in UFOs, he told me, but the documents that he has assembled show that behind the scenes it was a completely different story. Contrary to the hopes of many advocates of transparency, the government has, has been restricting more information since the leak of three UAP videos in 2017.

The DoD organization Arrow has been labeling many documents with a B7 exemption, which Greenwald says does not make any sense. They're stating that anything Arrow does is involved in law enforcement investigation, which allows Arrow to not release it. Greenwell says that the DOD has denied the existence of a UAP and ATIP-R-related records on multiple occasions, only to acknowledge them after an appeal was filed. He added that the Naval Air Systems Command in March 2022 stated, they found no additional UAP videos.

It seems strange that they had three, and only those three, but other requests had been filed by the Black Vault, that's John Greenwald's group, to seek out more places UAPs might be hiding. Then in September 2020, the Navy admitted that the UAP-related videos and photographs existed, but denied the request in full for their release, saying that the requested videos contain sensitive information that are classified and exempt from disclosure. The DoD will deny things on a Monday and then admit to it on a Friday, said Greenwald.

He said the government can and does release videos that protect secret methods of capturing it. They fall back on the sensitive platform excuse a lot. He said, however, the on-screen information can be blurred and scrub. The metadata can be removed. I'll show you this example here. This is a presentation from the UATP task force. This is completely absurd. It's nuts.

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

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

And courage, in the face of adversity, is what I see in front of me, beside me, and behind me. For my introduction, I am currently the chief growth officer at Redwire Space, and have had several leadership positions at NASA. That being said, I want to be clear that I'm speaking exclusively on my own behalf

and not for Redwire, NASA, or any other organization. However, I am here today to speak out for Science. Science requires data which should be collected without bias or prejudice. Yet, whenever the topic of UAP arises, those who wish to explore the phenomena are often confronted with resistance and ridicule. For example, members of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team, particularly those in academia, were mocked and even threatened for simply having the temerity to engage in the study of UAP. Our best tool for unlocking the mystery of UAP is science, but we cannot conduct a proper inquiry if the stigma is so overwhelming

that just daring to be part of a NASA research team elicicicic response. Therefore, one of the most important actions that can be taken relative to exposing the truth of UAP is to combat the stigma, and this is where I believe that NASA can be eminently helpful. The NASA brand is synonymous with hope, optimism, and credibility.

If you were to take a walk down the National Mall, you would immediately see the NASA logo and T-shirts, hats and bumper stickers. Few federal agencies enjoy this kind of popularity. I've never seen anyone wearing an Office of Personal Management T-shirt, which is why NASA could play such an influential role. Specifically, NASA could, with relatively little cost and effort, host symposia on UAP,

or even just participate in existing parents. channels examining the topic. NASA personnel stepping forward and participating in such discussions would make a powerful statement to the scientific community that UAP should be taken seriously and researched accordingly. In regard to research, NASA has vast archives, much of which may contain important UAP data. Again, for relatively little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI or ML algorithm that could search the agency's archives for anomalous phenomena. I suspect that such an effort would not only result in information that will help us to understand UAP, but could result in data that will assist in other areas of scientific inquiry, such as anomalous

weather or meteorite activity. Beyond its existing archives, NASA could act as a clearinghouse for civilian and commercial UAP data. During my work on the UAP independent study team, it quickly became evident that there is no clear or well-publicized process for civilian pilots to report UAP sightings. The stigma associated with UAP hampers the number of pilots that would report such phenomena, but even for those who overcome the stigma, I believe the current FAA guidance is largely unknown and poorly understood. In order to effectively collect UAP data,

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

idea into proposed legislation. At this hearing, and as others have demonstrated, the UAP issue is justifiably dominated by national security and defense. However, I would urge the subcommittees to keep in mind the numerous ways that NASA and the FAA, as well as commercial activities in the air in space and in the water, can generate a massive amount of invaluable data on anomalous phenomena. I cannot help but be excited by the potential for such an endeavor since scientific discovery is driven by anomalies. It's the existence and study of anomalies that led to the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and nearly all of humanity's scientific breakthroughs. This is why the study of UAPs should be embraced since whatever is occurring, the chance to garner new

knowledge should never be ignored. We must be thorough in collecting information, fearless in making conclusions, and open to following the data no matter how mundane or extraordinary the results may be. I began this testimony by praising the Joint Subcommittee members for their courage, and I will end by echoing that sentiment. As the saying goes, the truth is out there. We just need to be bold enough and brave enough to face it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.

I will now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. I have a lot of questions, and I have a lot of witnesses. So I would just ask if it's yes or no to please just tell me yes or no. If it requires more than that, be very sensitive. succinct because I would like to go down the line and ask as many questions as possible. So for the admiral this morning first, former DOD official Chris Mellon reached out to you about satellite imagery from 2017 that depicts a UAP. What were the dates in 2017 when this occurred?

I can't share with you the details, ma'am, but I can do it in the closed setting. And I can also tell you the agency that wrote a report on it. Okay. So who has the imagery? I can tell you that in the closed setting. Can you describe what was depicted in the satellite imagery, just to just a just to tell you? description. It was a UAP, ma'am. That's it. No other description. The term that the analysts used, they call it the button. It was a disk-shaped object. Okay. Where was it? I can't tell you that,

man. Okay. All right. Mr. Alizando, you stated in your testimony that, quote, advanced technologies not by our government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe." If these technologies are not made by any government, who's making them? Private companies, or are you implying they are crafted by a non-human intelligence? Well, ma'am, that's precisely why we're here. The problem is that temporally speaking over decades, not just the last 10 years. To put this in perspective, are these private companies you're implying or is this non-human intelligence? It may be both. When it comes to Blue Force Technologies, I would not be able to discuss Okay. Are you read into secret UAP crash retrieval programs?

We would have to have a conversation in a close session, ma'am. I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals. I submitted for my book through the adopter process, which took a year to be reviewed. And what is in the book is what I was told I'm allowed to talk about. Has the government conducted secret UAP crash retrieval programs? Yes or no? Yes. Okay. Were they designed to identify and reverse engineer alien craft? yes or no? Yes. Does the U.S. government have any reverse, okay, we've already said a question about retrieval programs. Do any U.S. contractors have the same? I would prefer to address on the

closed session, ma'am. Okay. In your book, you mentioned government employees who've been injured by UAPs placed on leave and receiving government compensation for their injuries. Is that correct? That is correct. How can the government deny we have recovered craft if they're paying people because they've been injured by recovered craft? Ma'am, that's a great question. That's why I think we're here again because I've seen the documentation by the U.S. government for several of these individuals who have sustained injuries as a result of a UAP incident. It's a crazy idea, right? The hypocrisy and the logic. Okay, Mr. Schellenberger, I'm going to say it again, to be very clear, Immaculate Constellation. What's its mission and

how are they funded? Its mission is to, as I stated, its mission is to, it's a, it's a, it's a, unacknowledged special access program, its mission is to document UAPs. Okay. And do you, for your story and your report, do you have more than one credible source? I do. Sourcing. Okay. And then why do you believe your sources to be credible?

How do you judge the veracity of the documentation you've been provided about this program? I checked the sources and they are who they say they are. They are current or former government officials. I should also, I wanted to also add that. I did not specify that they were a defense department employees. I didn't specify the agency nor the gender. Would they have included non-government employees, people that aren't employed by the government? These are, I'm comfortable saying that these are government or previously government employees. Any of them currently employed by a private contractor or private contractors? I'd rather not say.

Okay. What's the key takeaway? Just a few seconds about the Immaculate Constellation document you provided us today. I think that what the American people need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence community are seeing on a huge amount of visual and other information, still photos, video photos, other sensor information, and they have for a very long time. And it's not those fuzzy photos and videos that we've been given. There's very clear high resolution. How many, how many visuals, graphics, videos, photos? I mean, I've been told hundreds, you know, maybe thousands. I mean, I also wanted to say, because it's, there was some conversation around concern around the revealing of these materials, revealing the source collections, but some of these are shot from helicopters using normal videos of oceans. I just think that's absurd that somehow you're going to be revealing some secret U.S. technology by revealing that you've photographed orbs off the coast of Kuwait. Okay, thank you have eight seconds.

Mr. Gold, did NASA, the NASA independent study team get briefed on what you call ASAP, very quickly? I flagged the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System application program to our chair and our DFO. We did not get briefed. But I believe it is definitely worth looking into that was probably the largest UAP review effort ever. And I think it used a lot of interest data, including revealing Nimitz. I don't know if my fellow witness, Lou might want to. He did yeoman's work on it. Might want to comment.

Okay. All right. I'm going to turn to Mr. Moskowitz. We would be recognized for five minutes of question. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, so Mr. Gold, you gave a whole diatribe for a couple of minutes about UAPs, science, data collection, stigma. A lot of non-believers in all of this would just ask a very simple question. Why? Why is it so hard? Right. Like, why are people, anytime they ask, why are they always thwarted?

Why are they always judged? Why is they always have misinformation spread? Why is there always retribution? Why is it always met with an ear? What's the why? If it doesn't exist, why is it such a problem? I think if you go through the history of science representative, it is always difficult for breakthroughs and new information, regardless of whether it's UAP or any other kind of discovery. And in science, we're supposed to be open. But when you break with the orthodoxy of what's believed, whether it's Galileo, saying that the earth doesn't rotate or the earth rotates around the sun or the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. it's always challenging for new beliefs and more extraordinary those discoveries than the more extraordinary those new beliefs it's very difficult so i think this is natural there's natural conservatism that when it comes to science but this issue in particular has been very difficult where again even to attempt to study it becomes problematic but every hearing like this every news report every video documentaries is I was privileged to be part of something Dan Farr is putting together. I think many of us have interviewed for it, documentary over 30 different government officials.

Every brick in the wall will help get us closer to getting to the truth. I appreciate that. Mr. Elizondo, did I have that correct? Sir. I'm a recovering lawyer, so I want to put my hat on for a second. You said you signed a document. Love that. Who gave that to you?

The U.S. government, sir. Okay. You have a copy of it? It is stored in the skiff right now. I do not have possession of it. The U.S. government does. What department of the U.S. government gave you this document? I will say the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, I can't say in this forum much more than that. You specifically said the document said you can't talk about crash retrieval. Well, you know, you can't talk about fight club if there's no fight club. Correct. Okay, I'm just making an observation. Yes, sir. So that document that you signed, that you said exists, specifically said you can't talk about crash retrieval.

Correct, sir. It was a limitation on what I, because already I'd been speaking publicly about the topic. And so the document said you can continue saying XYZ, but you cannot discuss the topic. When you, give me, give me the atmosphere of signing this document. You're in a room by yourself? I'm in a skiff with a security officer, sir. Just one-on-one, anybody else? There may have been an assistant as well. It was in a skiff within a Department of Defense facility. Give me your background real quick. My background is, I went to school to study microbiology. immunology entered into the U.S. Army and after a very short stint in military intelligence,

I became a counterintelligence special agent. As a civilian, later on it became a special agent in charge, running investigations and counterterrorism and counter espionage primarily, with some experience in counterinsurgency and counter narcotics. And then in 2009, timeframe, when I came back to the Pentagon after a tour with the Director of National intelligence. I quickly became part of a program that was originally called ASAP that evolved into the program now called ATIP, which is where those videos that we now see, we're at the GoFAST, the gimbal, the FLIR. That was part of our efforts, sir. Right. So you don't, you're not some conspiracy theorist. You actually have a legitimate background. Well, sir, I'm certainly not a conspiracy

theorist. I'm fact-based, just a fact-based. So when you're in this room, I want to paint the picture of everybody, you're in this room, you're by yourself, you're in a skip, you're handed a document. How long is the document? It's about a page front and back. So basically you have some things they call trigraphs, which I cannot, again, talk to. How long were you given to sign the document? As long as I needed, sir. And what if you didn't sign it?

Well, I suspect there would be repercussions. I wouldn't have access to certain information. Were you allowed to conduct, ask a lawyer, or weren't allowed to talk, weren't allowed to ask for a lawyer to review the document? It wasn't an option, but they probably wouldn't have allowed me to because the document itself is pretty explicit. about you have to be like putting me in an interest let me try to thread a needle here um there are certain documents that we have in the u.s government that allow people to have access to certain programs whether it's a special and i'm going to be very generic here whether it's a special access program or controlled access program sap cap whatnot how many people have to sign that document

it depends how many people are going to get access to the information sir okay last question uh doctor real quick can you tell us about the omaha incident in in greater detail i've read your background right? Some people would label you as a member of the deep state, since you worked in government for a long period of time. But can you tell us more about that incident? You've written a lot about that. I wrote a lot about incidents like it, Congressman, but that specific incident was involved with the U.S. is Omaha,

the Tor Combat Ship of the U.S. Navy operating off Southern California. I don't remember the exact date. It was within the last decade. And what the watchstander was on the bridge observed was a U.S. Again, something that was aloft but had no observable exhaust or control surfaces. So it was something that couldn't be explained. And then they saw it enter the water from the atmosphere and going through the air sea interface. And so with us exhibiting transmedium travel.

Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Grothman for five minutes of questioning. Yeah, we'll start with Mr. Ghaladad. During a previous UAP hearing, Navy commander David Fraver, discussed the TikTok object engaged in 2004. You're familiar with the incident, the TikTok incident?

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

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

Okay. In your written testimony, you claimed last year's UAP hearing before this Oversight Committee confirm that UAP related information is, well, it's not being withheld, but the elements of the government are engaging in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. Could you elaborate on that statement a little? Yes, sir.

Earlier this year, I met with the DOD's All-Domain Anominy Resolution Office, and what I thought would be a 90-minute meeting just to meet with leadership, turned out to be an hours-long influence operation on me, where I was, they attempted to convince me of the validity of the very flawed and error-ridden historical records report. In addition, they tried to have me question very valid UAP reports like the TICTAC incident. And even coming to stating possibly that the TICTAC was American technology,

And then, of course, if you asked David Fravor, Alex Dietrich, the two witnesses, they were convinced it was otherwise. And then, and they also cast this credit on various UAP whistleblowers and witnesses to question their validity and credibility as witnesses. Okay. We'll go to Mr. Elizondo. Oh, we got that right or not at least not that. Yes, sir. You're familiar with the recent drone incursion overlying the Air Force base? Yes, sir.

The owners of these drones remain unclear. The U.S. military has not been able to give us in Congress and answer, given your experience with Department of Defense and the intelligence community, how frequently are UAP sightings over military installations? And secondly, I suppose hypothetically, you could have incursions over just, say, regular airports. Is it obvious these incursions are more likely over military facilities than just a random airport out of them? there. Yes, sir. There's definitely enough data to suggest that there is certainly some sort of relationship between sensitive U.S. military installations, also some of our nuclear equities,

and also some of our Department of Energy sites. There is a long historical record that some of your colleagues may have documentation that demonstrates this. This is not a new trend. This has been going on for decades, and that information has been obfuscated, unfortunately, from from folks like you in this committee. And I think that's problematic because ultimately at the end of the day, we have a significant situation here. We have something that can enter into US airspace

completely with no attribution. And how long has this been going on? Sir, decades. And there's information that will hopefully be entered into the record. Can you think of any possible reason why they can't release any information they have on something, say, 15 or 20 years old? Sir, if I could echo my colleague here, Admiral Gallaudet,

I think one of the big issues that we have in the Intelligence Community Department of Defense If we don't want to broadcast any potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in our national defense systems or our intelligence collection platforms, therefore when you have a conversation where you address a problem for which there is no solution, it makes that a very uncomfortable conversation to have. Okay, we'll switch to Mr. Schoenberger. The primary reason you're here today is because you published an article on the news publications you own called public, right? alleging the new unnamed government whistleblowers come forward asserting that a highly classified program exists dedicated to recovery and reverse engineering of UAP technologies.

What can you give us what specific evidence you have or that your source provided you to substantiate the claims about the existence of the Immaculate Constellation Program? Well, you have the report in front of you now, so you can see it for yourself. But I checked the report and I did not find it based on existing cases. It was new cases for me. I couldn't, at least I hadn't found anybody. So that answered for me that it was not obviously circular reporting, which is one of the big concerns in the space. I also had the name of the program confirmed by more than one additional source. So, yeah, and then, of course, I checked to make sure that the source was who they claimed to be.

Okay. I should also say that when I said before it was this database, it is a much broader program. That also includes human intelligence and then, as you mentioned, the retrieval and the... Any knowledge of what country these things originated in? No. No, I have no idea. Okay. Okay.

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

an enigma, sir, and a frustration. We're talking about technologies that can outperform anything we have in our inventory. And if this was an adversarial technology, this would be an intelligence failure, eclipsing that of 9-11 by an order of magnitude. Are there classified Department of Defense materials related UAPs that you believe could be safely disclosed to the public without compromising national security? Yes, sir, I do. I would never ever try to endorse providing some sort of information that could compromise what we call it Blue Force technology or capability.

But I do believe there's a lot of information regarding this topic and I've been very vocal about it that should be shared not only with the public, but most importantly, with members of Congress. Are you familiar with my friend David Grush? Absolutely, sir. I had the privilege and honor of working with him myself several years ago at U.S. Space Force. Last year, as you know, he testified that the U.S. has run a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval. and reverse engineering program. Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. Are there UAP programs operating without, without proper congressional oversight? 100%. What are they? Unfortunately, sir, I would have to have that conversation in a close session. I know you said that. A lot of people are frustrated with those kind of answers, but we're asking those kind of questions so you all know what the heck we're up against.

You also mentioned in your opening statement that the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office employs the psychological operations officers the singular point of conduct for uap related inquiries why the heck would they do that so that's a great question i would ask the panagon and there's a long history here of this that individual providing misleading and false information to the public through various news outlets and media outlets in order to discredit this topic i've personally been victim to it we have the document documentation to substantiate where this information has been absolutely inaccurate that has been provided time and time again and it turns out that that individual was also working with former leadership of Arrow at the time as well.

And we punish them by giving them multi-million dollars more than they asked for every year. Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your opening statement on an email you received from the operations officer of the Fleet Forces Command regarding unknown objects, almost colliding with U.S. military planes. Did anyone respond with knowledge of what the objects were? I received no response, sir. Did the operation, did the exercise get canceled? The exercise did not get canceled.

Why do you think the commander of fleet forces operations officer never discussed the incident again? Sir, I'm speculating because I didn't have an exchange with him, but I believed it to be part of a special access program, the information and the video, which we have known now it was. And he realized he couldn't share that openly with the recipients of the email, and therefore the email was pulled from everybody's account. Again, tell us what happened to the email from the commander of fleet forces. The day after I received it and all the other recipients received it, which were all the subordinate commanders of U.S. Fleet Forces, so one and two star admirals, including strike group commanders. The email was wiped or deleted from our accounts, and then no one talked about it. All right. Have you specifically had any experience with submersible objects?

Sir, I've not no personal experience, but I've had witnesses on submarines come to me and say they've seen on. on sonar data. Correct. How would you characterize those and how do they move? The one instance that was revealed to me was in the 80s on a nuclear-powered submarine and ballistic missile submarine that the object exhibited the characteristics of a Russian torpedo in terms of its speed of movement and closing rate with a submarine. And then it slowed and followed the submarine slowly and its weight.

at four period of minutes and then rapidly exited the scene. And nothing that we know of and technology-wise could replicate that. And the speed of these objects was faster than anything that we have or anybody else has that would be man. Is that correct? It was on the order of a torpedo. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But as it exited, I don't exactly know how fast a torpedo is, but I suspect it does better than my old outboard's got at water.

So I'll take that as a yes. Okay. Have you experienced any experience with the All Domain Anomily Resolution Office Arrow? Yes, Congressman, as I mentioned previously, I have met with them. Okay. You heard Mr. Alexander describe psychological operations for those contacting the Department of Defense about UAPs. You mentioned a similar influence operation by Arrow. Why are federal agencies invested in running information operations about UAPs if they do not exist? Yes, sir. But I'll make a statement on Arrow's behalf. They have new leadership. The office has reached out to me to meet again, and I take that as a good faith effort, and we'll see where that goes. Thank you. Chairlady, I have run over. Thank you, Mr. Tennessee. I would now like to recognize Mr. Higgins. You're the king of Tennessee. Mr. Higgins, you recognize for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elizondo, Mr. Schellenberg. notes in his in the report that that we've been given for this hearing I believe Mr. Schellenberger let me shift you with the author of this this report I'm sorry sorry I'm not the author of mr. Schellenberger were you the author of this of this report no name on it no do you know the author I do you do and how would you estimate that that madam or gentleman the all the person is a current or former U.S. government employee. And it stays here that this the public version of the author's report.

Yes. So where might one find the non-public version of the author's report? I don't know the answer to that. Would that be with the Department of Defense? I don't know. But you do know the author. I do. Do you know what the author's sources were?

The author's sources were, are described in the report. these databases, the Immaculate Consolution. But you expressed some confidence in the sources. I would. Earlier in testimony, you expressed confidence. So do you know those sources? I do. Are they within the Department of Defense?

I can't say. You can't say or you won't say? I won't say. Okay, why not? Because I protect my sources and I think the reason. But you're not naming them. It's a big department. Many of us on my side of they are, I would say it's far too big.

So you're talking about the Department of Defense sources from within the Department of Defense? I'm not willing to reduce the potential universe of where my sources might be. Okay, moving on. In this report, Mr. Elizondo, for reference, several types of allegedly alien craft or possibly alien craft or unknown aerial phenomena, what we used to call UFOs. or describe, spears and orbs, disc and saucers, oval or tick-tac, triangular shape, boomerang and arrowhead, and irregular or organic. Mr. Elizondo, does that summarize to you the types of craft that we're discussing today? Sir, that is a general morphology, historically speaking, of many UAP?

So those descriptions, are very different craft. Is it your assessment that they would come of different origins? It's possible, but it also could be a matter of utility. And let me just state for the record. I never read the report that or the article that Mr. Schellenberger put out. That's a good point. We're just referencing it for descriptive purposes for the American people. Mr. Schellenberger, in this report, it's striking to me that,

that regarding the descriptions of experiences with these various craft, several of them include biological effects and several do not. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? Yes. Okay, so spheres and orbs, triangular craft, and irregular or organic craft include some descriptions of biological effects, including feelings of unease, electronic device malfunctions, long-term psychological effects, such as anxiety or insomnia have been noted, feeling of being watched, a shared awareness

with the triangle craft, and under the irregular and organic craft, biological effects include physical sensations of warmth of cold and unexplained smells and psychological distress. So these are very specific descriptions of your reactions of human beings, which allegedly have been noted from a study here, a report. All of those experiences would have been described by the sources that the author used, I'm not sure I understand. This is a very broad description of biological effects. And it's striking to me that they are present with relation to some types of craft,

but absent in others. This would require a great deal of research and study. Can you explain that? My understanding is that the database is very large. It includes both the images, the videos, the still images, as well as the human intelligence, the reports, the raw data from individuals having these experiences. So in answer to the question, yeah, I mean, I think we're looking at a very large amount of data collected over many decades. And that data is held by the Department of Defense?

Well, I will say that after I published, I was told that this program that the USAP was actually managed by the Department of Defense but held at the White House. But that's a single source, and I don't have multiple sources to verify that. Thank you, sir. I did my best to trick and answer out of you. It was partially successful, Madam Chair. I yield. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Frost for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to serving on this committee, the Oversight Committee, I also serve on the Science Space and Technology Committee, where we often discuss how essential data and evidence are used in science, and use that department such as NASA. During a hearing, NASA administrator Nelson affirmed the importance of NASA and helping us to understand UAP. Mr. Gold, if the government doesn't have the data it needs on UAP because, say, someone who saw

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

that because we've got more cameras, more monitoring of national security, we don't know how extensive UAP activity may be over civilian areas. And this is to the second part of your question where we're not collecting the data. We're not collecting sufficient data from pilots. We're not collecting sufficient data from civilian and commercial activities. And this is, again, where ASRS, I think, could substantially change that, get the data out there and allow us to do good science. Thank you. I mean, on the data, you know, I'm a really big proponent of transparency.

But obviously, there's always a little bit of balance that we have to have in government on transparency as well. I mean, last year, NASA appointed a director of UAP research and response to the recommendation by the independent study team. In the final report, there's a quote, despite numerous accounts and visuals, the absence of consistent, detailed, and curated observations means we do not presently have the body of data needed to make definite and scientific conclusions about UAP. Can you just talk really quickly about that balance of security and transparency? So I can say, having served at NASA, it is the most transparent organization I've ever been in when we would have conversations of executive leadership.

Things would leak out almost instantly. So I can assure you, intentionally or not, NASA is very transparent. I don't know if many of you work with engineers or scientists. They love to talk. So I believe that NASA is a paradigm of transparency, but we must have the ability and the data to be able to be transparent with. And if we're not gathering that, if not looking at it, then we can't bring NASA into the game and get to that good science that you need. You know, it was about a year ago I was touring a facility with a pretty senior government official. We went by a certain hangar and they said, yeah, that's, you know, a company leases that out.

We don't really know what's going on in there. We have no way of knowing what's going on in there. And there was a few of those, in fact, while we were driving around this facility. To what extent do you think that some of the UAP out there comes from off the books or unauthorized experience? I mean, I think probably the vast majority of UAP are drones, experimental aircraft, weather conditions, which is again why I say if we review the data, I think we're going to discover a lot about things we weren't even thinking about. But there is a percentage that isn't. And looking into those anomalies is how discoveries will be made. Relative to science, Congressman, if I can say, when NASA studies black holes, when NASA studies galaxies, we have instruments that are tailored to do so. With UAP, we're using cockpit gun cameras or cell phones. We could never do good science with that. And let me tell you, the NASA budget is under pressure.

We need to make sure that the Artemis program is funded fully. We need to beat China to the moon and maintain our presence in low Earth orbit. So NASA would need more money to do this, but I think tailored instruments that would look at UAP. In the same way that we have tailored instruments to look at astronomical data is important to gathering valuable and uniform information. If we were studying black holes by using fighter cockpit cameras, we probably wouldn't know that much about black. 100%. Well, I think it's important that federal leaders take the necessary steps

to ensure that UAP does not pose threats to the American public as well and that we have the necessary budgets to collect this data so we can actually see what's going on. And I'm fully supportive of funding the Artemis mission. I think it's very important. Also, a personal note, the pilot is a frat brother of mine. He is a member of the 5 Beta Sigma Fraternity, and so I would love to see my fraternity make it to the moon.

Redwire is building the cameras for Artemis, so we will take some pictures of your frat brother and get them. There we go. Thank you so much. I yield back. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Luna for five minutes of questioning. Mr. Elizondo, to your knowledge, can you name the country and around time frame that the first back-engineered UAP program started? Ma'am, unfortunately, I would not be able to have that conversation.

in public. Can anyone on the panel name that? None of you? This next question is for Mr. Gallaudet. To your knowledge, have any USOs ever outpaced our submarines? Yes, ma'am. At what magnitude? I don't have the exact speed, but again, a witness came to me, a credible former submarine officer who observed it on sonar data. And this was in the 80s in the north Atlantic during a storm and it outpaced his submarine by orders of magnitude. Are you aware of any hotspots that currently exists off our shores in North America? Not with sufficiently credible data, ma'am. Okay, we've heard reports of there potentially being hotspots, maybe enter and

or entry and exit points. Have you heard of any of that? I have not, ma'am, but my colleague here, Mr. Elizondo, does discuss some U.S.O. activity that he is observed in certain DOD databases. Mr. Elizondo, in regards to these aircraft being piloted by whatever they might be non-human biologics, would you agree that it's likely that they are being piloted by some mind-body connection? Ma'am, I think it is safe to presume here that they are being intelligently controlled because some cases seem to anticipate our maneuvers.

And in other cases, they seem to, and I came across an email where the word stocked was used in a very secure email between Navy officers discussing their ships being pursued by a UAP. In our previous panel, we had Grush, and he had testified to say that some of these were interdimensional beings. Can you speak on that at all? Ma'am, I'm not qualified certainly as a scientist or otherwise to speculate. points of origin. I looked at everything from a scientific perspective. So if you look at, for example, instantaneous acceleration, which was one of the observables of the program that I belong to, ATIP, the human body can withstand about 9G forces for a short period of time before you suffer negative biological consequences, blackouts and ultimately redouts and even death.

Comparison, our best technology, the F-16, which is one of this older platform, but one of our most highly maneuverable aircraft, manned aircraft, made by general dynamics, can perform about 17 or 18 G forces before you start having structural failure, meaning that the airframe begins to disintegrate where you're flying. The vehicles we're talking about are performing in excess of 1,000, 2,000 to 3,000 Gs. So are you, I guess, would it be safe to infer that they're living breath? You know, I'm not prepared at this point to state for the record is something alive or not because even that definition is there was a time in science we thought that life required oxygen and we now know that's not true there are anaerobic bacteria

that thrive in oxygen environments that lack oxygen and also same with photosynthesis when I was in college it was told everything is derived from photosynthesis as a form of energy and reality that's not true there are things that live off of chemosynthesis so we're constantly having to reevaluate our understanding what the definition of life is. Do any of you ever come across reports from people that claim to have firsthand experiences with these entities, whatever they might be, or these aircraft, and then as a result, whether or not they're religious, find that these things will automatically disappear? Anyone, this is open to any of you on the panel.

So just real quick, because I'm running up time. Lou? Thank you. Ma'am, I've always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy when I was at A-TIP. I was focusing more on the performance characteristics and less on the potential occupants. Okay. The reason I ask is because it seems like just based on our conversations that we've had people that say that they are good and bad of whatever these things are. And so my concern from a national security perspective is, is A, that true? B, are you guys hearing reports of that and C? I think moving forward in regards to technology, Mr. Gold, if you can answer this real quickly, some of these aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that we don't currently have.

But just yes, no, in your opinion, if we were able to obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or negative? It'd certainly save us some money on funding on Artemis. Definitely. This is a national security issue, that if there is such technology out there, we're not the only country that might have access to it. We don't want to be on the wrong end of technological surprise. Okay. Thank you guys for your time. All right. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Garcia for five minutes. Thank you. I apologize for stepping out. My governor is here upstairs, so I'm trying to get in between meetings, so apologize for that. I want to just start by just asking everyone on the panel of witnesses, and I had a chance to read all the testimony before. But just to set the agenda, just if we can go down real briefly, do you believe, just for the record that the federal government, any part of the federal government, is knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs from the public?

Yes, sir. 100% yes yes thank you i also want to just go down the line i know you many of you have already said this but i just for the record again just briefly um what do you believe uapes could be or are strong evidence that they are non-human higher intelligence i echo uh my colleague's comment sir genuinely do not know don't know but we must find out Okay, thank you. I appreciate those answers, gentlemen. I think this is obviously another remarkable hearing with this really important information, so I thank all of you for answering the questions. Admiral, I just want to go back to one thing. Now, last year our subcommittee heard from two retired Navy pilots,

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

Yes, Congressman, thank you. And I did invite Ryan Graves, my guest, as I'm on his advisory board for the Americans for Safe Aerospace and legislation that you supported and introduced, I fully support as well. And I think it's important that more civilian pilots, commercial pilots, report, so we can better understand and learn and do research on UAP. as well as remove the stigma. So more citizens report on what they observe. And also, it will only contribute to aviation safety when we have a better understanding of where these UAP are, how they operate, and at what frequency and what capability level.

So it's important for aviation safety, and it'll be important for moving science and research forward. Thank you, sir. And I just want to just reiterate to my colleagues. I mean, this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation. And we just got to continue to get this through the Congress. It's incredibly important that civilian pilots have the opportunity to safely report the UAPs that they are seeing or encountering in the air. And I can't express how critical this piece of what I believe is a larger collection of evidence and facts actually happen. We've been approached by pilots.

I've talked to folks that have been engaged with our office and others, and there is still enormous stigma. And essentially, we don't have a system where folks are feeling free to be able to rebut. report what they're seeing. So I just want to reiterate that advocacy. Mr. Golden, your testimony, you discuss NASA's aviation safety reporting system, a confidential non-punitary reporting mechanism. In the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, we explicitly allow for civilian reporting, of course, of UAPs. Can you explain why the NASA Task Force recommended the use of the aviation safety reporting system? The aviation safety reporting system is an existing system that is trusted, that has taken hundreds of thousands, now millions of cases.

And again, recognizing budgetary constraints, this seem like the perfect way to be able to gain more data. And when it comes to the stigma, sir, it's something that pilots are used to reporting on, that crew is used to reporting on. So it's a great way to get data, to overcome the stigma without spending really that much more additional money since the system exists.

Thank you so much for your support of that. Thank you for it Ryan Graves does. This is a common sense means to expose the truth of UAP for the purpose of this hearing. Thank you. I just want to also add now earlier this year, as part of the House Defense authorization bill, the NDAA, I had filed an amendment to include the UAP Disclosure Act, which would create a UAP record review board and exercise with exercise of eminent domain over a UAP

related material modeled actually on the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which is widely known. Now, the amendment was blocked, but thankfully the Senate included the amendment by Senator rounds and Schumer for the UAP Disclosure Act. So I just again want to say that we should be pushing and ensuring the UAP Disclosure Act, which is bipartisan and its support, should be, should move forward. And if I can just briefly, also particularly, Admiral, can you just briefly, as I close my time, explain why the UAP Disclosure Act would be critical for us and our national security? Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I believe the UAP Disclosure Act is important for national security as well as advancing potential socioeconomic benefits resulting from UAP research,

as well as public safety as we refer to previously regarding aviation. And this act will allow for greater transparency and open research. And that's why I'm also a member of the UAP Disclosure Fund as an advisor, as an sole foundation, as an senior strategic advisor, which is advocating for the same. Thank you very much. I yield back. All right. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Mr. Biggs for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this. Thank you to the witnesses. Admiral, the video that is called the GoFAST video, the email that you've talked about being deleted, I just want to briefly cover this.

You said that the email, the author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of the classified technology demonstrations that could explain the objects that were observed. And then you said the email disappears. then you guys have a series of meetings, the commander of fleet forces and his operations officer never discussed the incident again. Is that accurate? That's accurate, sir.

And even during weekly meetings, it was never discussed again. My question for you is you were in those meetings. Did you personally hear that nothing was going on about that? Yes, sir. I was in those meetings. Did you make inquiries about that? No, I did not, sir,

because I inferred since I had been read into other special access programs that this UAP video was part of one that I was not read into or any of the recipients or the author of the email and that an intelligence agency basically pulled it back and instructed the author of the email hey this is you just conducted what they call spillage into a lower classification level and when that's done the procedures are basically to remove any of the communication you're going to silo it so um and you mr elizando you said in your report and and and your your testimony today um a government work on the uap subject still remains classified excessive secrecy's led to grave misdeeds against loyal civil servants military personnel in the public all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the cosmos fair yes sir all right and and all of you and mr schellenberger by the way i've read several of your books Mr. Schellenberg, excellent stuff. What I would say, too, is you were asked about the veracity of the author of this report.

You're comfortable with veracity? Yes. Okay. And then I'll get to you in a second Mr. Gold. We'll talk about Kunian and Lakotian scientific advancement and our obviating that through these processes. But we'll get to that in a sec. because what I want to really get to is the ultimate question really becomes this. For what purpose is the federal government overclassifying,

because that's what they're doing, they're overclassifying, and forbidding the public for getting access to this? And if you know, if you have an explanation, I'm curious because I know what I've been told. I just want to know from your perspective, why do they over classify? Mr. Elizando, you looked like your finger on the button ready to go. Yes, sir. Forgive me. I think there's several reasons.

I think at the time when this reality became evident to the U.S. government, we were in the middle of the Cold War with then Soviet Union, and we did not want to tip our hands to what our knowledge base was on this topic. We did not want to broadcast that to... Cold War is long over. It is, sir. It is, sir. There's also then the philosophical argument that the Department of Defense and the intelligence community is solution oriented.

And when you don't have answers, it's a really tough spot to be in. It's easier to be quiet and suppressed than what you don't have in the end. Indeed, sir. In fact, there's a very real example when we built a U2 spy plane and flew it over then Russia. And we're taking reconnaissance. And when we first started flying the aircraft, it flew so high and so fast we thought they weren't tracking us. in reality they were tracking every flight. It wasn't until the Russians could develop the SA2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot.

I would suggest to you also, along with Lackatos and Kuhn, you also have a problem with Kinothero's path dependence or increasing returns. That's one reason why they won't disclose it. It's too painful to admit. But I just want to read a couple of things from Mr. Schellenberger's what he gave to us today, because I think this is interesting stuff. and I just want to convey this to you. On USG networks, there exist infrared footage of and imagery of a grouping of vessels engaged in significant and mass in collection at night in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean. This footage, which was in close proximity to the vessels, a large equilateral triangle UAP suddenly appears directly over the ships.

These bright three bright points are seen at each bottom corner of the UAP, which is observed to slowly rotate on its horizontal access. And he goes on to describe that. And I just want to read one more, and I'm doing this because I think it's interesting. This stuff is interesting as anything. So let's get this one here, right here. While performing a routine airspace surveillance and control mission in the eastern air defense sector, an F-22 fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission altitude. Moving to intercept the F-22 pilot noted multiple metallic orb slightly smaller than a sedan,

hovering in place. Upon vectoring towards the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic orbs accelerated at rapid speed towards the F-22, which was unable to establish radar locks on the presumed hostile UAPs. The F-22 broke trajectory

and attempted to evade but was intercepted and boxed in by approximately three to six UIPs. And then I'll leave that there, because I just have no more time left. Well, she's not looking. So let's just get into, Let's get into part of this.

I thought I would be saved by the belt. No, no. Let's talk about Kunian, Lakotian, type of scientific development. And the problem that we have here is you have institutional blockage of what would be normal development of scientific ideas. And if you want to expand that, Mr. Gold. We're over time to be very fast, please. I'll just say I'm a recovering attorney, so please take it easy on the science.

But all breakthroughs have been heretical. at first, and that's the challenge that we face, particularly with something as extraordinary as this, which is why gathering the data is so important. And I'll just end by saying, by the way, the overclassification of material is in no way limited to UAP that is occurring throughout the government, as well as the inability to get people classifications in a timely and efficient manner, and then to have those classifications be broad enough to be useful. So this is a larger issue that I hope that Congress will work. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. I've been generous. All right, Mr. Burleson, I'll recognize you for five minutes of questions, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elzondo, I, does any branch of the United States government or defense contractors possess technology? Sir, there's documentation that I believe was submitted for the record

that was approved for release by the U.S. Pentagon by the Department of Defense Office of Pre-publication Security Review, And it states one of the reasons why my predecessor program, OSAP, was trying to collect material of unknown origin. Was it successfully collected? It was not. What happened is that there was an aerospace contract company that requested to divest itself of the material that was collected in 1950s. Unfortunately, that didn't actually occur.

So let's dive into that. That's the Bigelow Airspace, correct? So there was a journalist Christopher Sharp who said that there was a transfer between Lockheed Martin, Bigelow Airspace, and the CIA allegedly blocked this. Can you describe that? What I can say is that it was blocked. Why it was blocked, I can only surmise. I was part of some conversations later on with some of those contract personnel where they had told all of us that is accurate. What we required was a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force in order to make that complete, and that never occurred. And so when Secretary Mattis became Secretary of Defense, I decided it would be appropriate for me to try to receive a memo from him as SACDF, as Secretary of Defense, if we could not get a memo

from the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer that material. So if that material exists today, who's in possession? So I wouldn't be able to have that conversation in an open hearing. We probably have to have that. Okay, my question to you then is if we were in a secure setting, if we were in a SCIF, would you be able to provide or get access to something, whether it's visuals or material that we can put our hands on or biologics that would convince me, that would show me that we have non-human origins. Sir, that decision would not be mine. That would be to the gatekeeper still in the U.S. government.

And who would we, so if you were in our shoes, where would you go from here? How would you get that information? How would, where, you know, a lot of times we just don't know who to ask because we don't know where to go next. So if you were in our shoes, where would you go? Well, I prefer to answer that question in a closed session. However, we established Arrow for that very purpose. And unfortunately, under its previous leadership, it failed. So one would hope that they would have the authority. necessary to do that. Let's hope that this new iteration of leadership will be successful. In the discussions, it's simply about material, or is there a discussion about biologics? It was previously testified that there was biologics that were collected. Are you aware of any of that?

I am, sir, aware of the reporting that biologics have been recovered. Again, my focus was more nuts and bolts, looking at the physical aspects of the phenomenon, how they interacted around military equities and nuclear equities. So I'm certainly not a medical expert. I would not be able to probably provide you a whole lot of value in that simply because I don't have the expertise. Was anything described as that we have possession of bodies? Yes. Yes. Is it multiple types of creatures? Sir, I couldn't answer that. I can tell you anecdotally that it was discussed quite a bit when I was at the Pentagon. The problem is

the supposed collection of these biological samples occurred before my time, in fact, before I was even bored. And was this part of the Lockheed Martin discussion, or was this a completely, the biologics is a completely separate? Separate yet related. Okay. Has anyone made contact? Sir, I'm sorry, could you specify? Has there been any, to your knowledge, any communication with a non-human life form?

So the term communication is a bit of, a trick word because there's verbal communication like we're having now. The problem is you also have nonverbal communication. And so I would say definitively yes, but from a nonverbal meaning, when a Russian reconnaissance aircraft comes into U.S. airspace, we scramble two F-22s, and we are certainly communicating intent and capability. I think the same goes with this. We have these things that are being observed over controlled U.S. airspace, and they're not really doing a good job hiding themselves. They're making it pretty obvious. They have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities and our nuclear readiness.

Is the United States government or in our contractors, are they pulling technology from this? They're reverse engineering this. Sir, as I previously stated, please forgive me. I am not authorized to discuss specifics about crash retrievals. Again, I signed documentation with the U.S. government. what I can say was after a very thorough review process by the Pentagon what I wrote about. And that was my limit, unfortunately, that it was given. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. Timmons for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Alzando, you just said something interesting. You said they don't seem to be hiding. They don't seem to be hiding. The UAP sightings are becoming increasingly brash, if you will.

And, you know, we've been hearing about these for years, but they've generally been isolated and not as consistent and over critical military installations. Would you say that's fair? Is this becoming increasingly often? Is it happening more and more? Great question, sir. Let me see if I can answer this for you. Certainly there seems to be some indication that they're being provocative, meaning that they're in some cases literally splitting aircraft formations right down the middle. So that's an air safety issue. The question is it the frequency increasing? And really the response is it depends.

Yes, it's possible that there is an increase in frequency, but it's also possible that there's heightened awareness now, and there's also more pervasiveness of technology out there that's collecting this information, that I can record this information. So we're not quite sure yet if it's actually an increase in numbers of these events, or is it that we have better equipment now to record these things, and we have a better ability, if you will, to analyze these things.

And that's my next question. It seems that a lot of these sightings occur near military installations. Do you think that these UAPs are intentionally targeting military installations, or do you think that we have increased abilities to monitor surrounding the military installations? Sir, maybe both. Part of my concern is we have something in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community called IPB, initial preparations of the battle space. And we use equities like ISR, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other type of equities and technologies to prep the battle space.

And certainly, you know, if I was wearing my national security hat, even if there was a 2% chance that there was some sort of hostile intent here, that's 2% higher than we really can accept. And so we must figure out there's a calculus, capabilities versus intent in order to identify if something is a national security threat. We've seen some of the capabilities, yet we have no idea the intent. And so this is why this discussion is somewhat, I think, problematic from a governmental perspective, because we have no idea. Sure, thank you. Mr. Schellenberger, you're particularly familiar with the Langley Air Force Base incident a year ago. Are you familiar? Just from what I read in the year. Just from what you've read. Yeah.

I would imagine a large percentage of the American population became aware of that with the the Wall Street Journal article. Would you agree with that? Yes. And were you aware of that incident prior to the Wall Street Journal article? No. To the rest of the panel, was the Wall Street Journal article the first time that y'all were made aware of what was essentially an over two-week UAP frenzy over Langley Air Force Base? Were y'all aware of this prior to the Wall Street Journal article? Anybody? Show my hands. Yes, sir. Dr. Gaiyip, could you give me your, how do you? How do you, How did you become aware of it? Well, a colleague of mine who I referenced previously, Chris Mellon, he wrote an extensive

article about this, that there were other incursions of drones over Langley before this, as well as many, many military installations over the last five decades. And it's my understanding there's been an ever-increasing in number, and I'm trying to think how to say this because I wear two different hats. I'm still in the Air Force. So, I mean, it seems that they're becoming increasingly brash. And the question that we really have to figure out is, is it China or is it non-human? And I think that's the biggest question the American people want to know.

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

or as you say, sir, China or any other adversary. Are you all aware of any task force at the Pentagon or in the national security apparatus that's trying to assess the answer to that question? At the current moment, sir, no, but this is a great point. From 2020 to 2022, there was a UAP task force in the DOD and succeeding where Mr. Elizondo worked,

led by Jay Stratton, who had the first comprehensive whole government approach to UAP, which involved pathways to declassification and to increase transparency, as well as assessing the national security risks of UAP. This was a really well-established approach, and we have all advocated that something like it returned. I'm running out of time. The last thing is that we need authorities. The law enforcement military do not have authorities to actually engage, and we need to, Congress needs to act to give those authorities to local law enforcement in the military, so they have clear guidelines on how to assess these issues going forward. I'll go back. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Ms. Bobert for five minutes of question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now that we have all been cautioned in this committee hearing that the mention of Pentagon's Immaculate Constellation Program could put us on a list, well, I already find myself on many levels.

lists, I'm sure. So I speak my mind often, so why not just keep going with it? May as well just go all out and say it. The earth is flat. Birds are government drones. And we've never set on foot on the moon, and Joe Biden received 81 million votes in the 2020 election. So let's just see how many lists we could get on here today. But Mr. Schellenberger, I wanted to ask you, I think I understand from this hearing that you would agree that classifying information like this is not in the best interest of the people. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean, with the caveat that, of course, I, you know, I would support classification necessary to protect secrets essential of national security, but I think it's pretty obvious that there's over classification. Overclassification,

yes. And so in most instances, if they can't tell us what, do you think at some point they'll at least tell us why? You know, President-elect Trump has repeatedly committed to greater transparency, both on the UAP issue, on JFK files, on COVID origins, and many of the things. So I think that we need to make sure that the next administration is held accountable for that. Agreed. And this is for all four of you. Yes or no, please. I have many questions I want to get to. Are there any known instances of recovered materials or technologies that are not of human origin and maybe connected to any advanced bioscience defense programs within the USG?

I don't know. I wouldn't be able to answer that, ma'am. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so there are rumors that have come up to the hill of a secretive project within the Department of Defense involving the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as non-human genetic material potentially for the enhancement of human capabilities, hybrids. Are any of you familiar with that?

Yes or no? No, ma'am. I am not, ma'am. I'm not. No, ma'am. Okay, I would like to know with Immaculant Constellation, how does this relate to UAP activities, Mr. Schellenberg, in oceanic environments? Are there any instances where the Navy or other marine types?

forces have encountered UAPs that could not be explained by known technology or natural phenomena. Yeah, the amygdic constellation covers both terrestrial and oceanic, and there's actually a number of cases described in the report that occur in the ocean. And do you believe that there is a concerted effort by the Pentagon to keep Congress out of the loop regarding these UAP activities specifically in our waters? Yes. I think it's about 5% of our ocean that's actually. actually been studied in detail by man, and we've studied more of space than we had of our own

oceans. And so are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or submerging into our water, which could indicate a base or presence beneath the ocean's surface? I don't know about a base, but, you know, as I mentioned, I had a different source entirely described this pretty extraordinary footage that exists of an orb coming out of the ocean and being met by another orb. Some would say that there's multiple hot spots where we see frequent activities. So in your investigations, have you come across any data or visual evidence like sonar readings or underwater footage of these UAPs?

I have not beyond what's in the report. You've written about UAPs not only in the air but in underwater. Are there any specifics on what you've learned about the UAP activity in our oceans, particularly? have you spoken with sources who have provided any evidence or eyewitness accounts of these UAPs interacting with our naval forces or being detected by our underwater surveillance systems? Nothing beyond what's in the report and in the specific case that I mentioned with the orb. So this report says it all. There's no other information that we are aware of regarding the activity within our waters. I have other sources that have told me that have shared a significant amount of

information, but they're not comfortable with me sharing at this point. Okay. Are there any technological capabilities observed in these oceanic UAPs that seem to defy our current understanding of physics or our engineering capabilities? It seems like they all do. Yes, I would agree with that. And my time is up, but I do appreciate your bravery, your courage for coming here and speaking today. And it seems like there's still some questions that we need answers to, and we will not relent until we get those to the American people. Thank you all. Thank you. I moved to allow myself in the ranking member five additional minutes for questions without objection so ordered.

Mr. Elizondo, were you right into the Immaculate Constellation program? I would not be authorized to confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing. or passed program, especially as it relates to a special access program, either by name or a trigraph. Okay. And then are there, does the U.S. government or private contractors, do they work with other foreign countries, China, for example, to exchange data, quote from a source, that intelligence data about UAP?

Let me if I can answer that a little bit more generally, ma'am. We do have foreign material exploitation programs. That is something that is widely known. and that term itself is unclassified, how exactly that works becomes a bit sensitive. The discussion we could certainly have in a closed session, if you like. We do work with international partners and allies quite often, not just in military exercises and workups, but in other intelligence efforts as well. In terms of material that's given to private contractors,

a certain material given to certain contractors because of their experience. So, for example, if it's related to submerged and undersea proponents, would it go to a general contractor like general dynamics yes ma'am absolutely correct different contractors have different levels of expertise what's lockheed's expertise airspace ma'am in the uap space that's all that they would do submerged i know i didn't say that ma'am okay lockheed martin and others do quite a bit of work both um in our atmosphere in space and even underwater there are there are certain um efforts to It's a tough question.

You're asking you put me on the spot here. I'm looking for the answer. Yes, ma'am. No, they are involved in a lot. I would rather let Lockheed Martin explain the different domains that they are involved with. I'm not authorized to discuss that, but they are involved in a lot of different areas and domains. Admiral flight safety risks for our pilots based on what you've experienced and seen in your career. They're extensive.

And one exercise I referred to where I received the email that was then deleted was the pilots. and this is worth bringing out. There are debunkers out there who have said the GoFast video was just a balloon. That was only one video that was released. There were dozens of these encounters that pilots, friends of Ryan Graves, who's in this room right here, witnessed

and caused significant safety concerns and to almost call out and exercise it and shut it down, which is very compressed, and the carrier is getting ready for deployment, and the pilots have to get certified, it land on a carrier. it's extreme to say the least. All right.

I have two last questions. Real quickly, Mr. Schellenberger, how do we get more whistleblowers to come forward? Well, this hearing is very important. And obviously, you know, I can't encourage whistleblowers to obtain information, but I can guarantee that I will protect them and go to prison to protect their identities. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay.

My last question, the first hearing we had on this, I never briefed on UAPs or what they were, biologics, non-human, et cetera. How would you define, each of you, my last question, how would you define non-human biologics, non-human intelligence? What are we actually talking about? Admiral, and we'll go down the line. I don't think it's a stretch when you look at the diversity of life on this planet and the size of this universe to think that there would be more diverse, higher order, non-human

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

Non-biological. But what non-biological intelligence, what does that mean, though? Artificial intelligence, ML, machines. we assume that all intelligence would be like us. And every time we look out in the universe, we are humbled relative to what we don't know in terms of the forms of intelligence and what it may take.

I can assure you, I probably can't ask you your question, but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all. And then Mr. Garcia, you had a few closing remarks. And I know we're about to get hit and vote here, so I'll be brief. I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Chairwoman Mace, especially, for holding this important bipartisan hearing.

And I want to thank all the committee members that are interested in this topic. I think our commitment to all of you and all the folks who have contacted us and certainly to the advocates and the pilots is that we need to continue investigating UAPs. I think the country owes the country is owed explanations and ensure that the safety of national security is is always protected. This is a conversation and questioning that must continue, so I'm very grateful to all of you. And I also just want to just add just personally. I think it's really important for me, two things guide. My questioning and my observations on UAPs is one is should always be guided by facts,

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

Is that correct? Check, and he'll be the last member with questions that we have today, and then we're going to, we have votes. So we want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Mr. Garcia and folks on both sides aisle for being here today and being patient. We have a lot more questions, and I hope that this will open the door to more hearings in the future. I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are spending. On this, you have the right to know, but also if we're spending money on something that doesn't exist, why are we spending the money?

And if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public? And, of course, our national security is a huge issue because if there's technology that could harm us or allies that are in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to stay ahead of that to the best of our ability to ensure that that technology is not in the hands of someone who could use it against us or our allies anyway. where in the world. So Mr. Ogles, you're just in time, babe. I will recognize you for five minutes of questioning before we head on out today. Well, thank you all for being here. Madam Chairwoman, I out of breath because I sprinted to get here.

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

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

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

testimony has been pretty clear, but would you please reiterate that do you believe UIPs pose a threat to pilots? Excuse me. Yes, sir. Absolutely, they were threatening Navy pilots during the exercise that my people were involved with in 2015. And so my understanding they're risking pilot safety commercial and military today. Well, considering, and I understand that there's a need in some cases to keep certain technologies secret. But you believe that it is posing a threat to our personnel, correct? Yes, sir.

So I think it's reasonable to conclude that if there is a threat to our personnel who are serving our country faithfully, that there be oversight. 100% Congressman. And in fact, that's the one thing that we've not talked about enough during this hearing is the fact that the government, the executive branch, not sharing with Congress what it knows about UAP, infringes on your legislative and oversight responsibilities to such an extent that's very concerning. I mean, what else are we, if you look at national security or intelligence or foreign affairs or appropriations, you all have oversight and legislative responsibility regarding those. This UAP issue may be the greatest issue of our time and it's being hit from you. Well, I mean, and to your point, I think we've seen over the decades that we have certain adversaries like China, like Russia, that technologically speaking are not as advanced as us. that they lack some of the lethality that we have, and that we've seen that they've gone after our technologies,

and in some cases succeeded, in particular with missile technology. And so, again, my concern, whether this technology emanates from us or otherworldly, that we know that we possess it. And where's the accountability? Where are the stopgaps? What are the guarantees that if this were to fall in enemy hands, that it isn't immediately weaponized against us. And I'll say this, it is clear from my experience

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

because we have U.S. personnel who may very well be in harm's way. We have technology that ultimately may threaten our very existence. With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Ogles. And with that and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials

and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. If there's no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. I'm going to bring Suzanne in in just a second. But wow, over two hours of a congressional UFO hearing. Historic. Again.

But did we learn anything? That's what we're going to be talking about. So let's bring her in and let's have a discussion with you guys. I want to know what you thought. Put it in the super chat. We'll be sure to feature your questions, your comments as well. Great way to help out the show. And we will just talk through this about everything that just happened.

So without further ado, welcome back. Wow, what just happened? Ooh, that happened. That happened. And I know the chat gets so frustrated with the fact that nobody will just come out and say aliens are among us. But that's just not going to happen that way. It's not a thing. I'm glad that was the last question.

though. I'm glad they kind of got that in there. Like, what are we talking about here? Or at least Nancy Mace's last question. But man, that guy is so lucky he ran in there and got a, he did. He even got it up. He got the last word, didn't he? Get the last word, got an applause. Like, he knew what he was doing. He did. He knew what he was doing. But my big question, as I post in the chat, where was Jaime and his son? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Who knows? Who knows? Who knows? Where do we even begin? Let's start at the beginning. Okay. You know, we had, what was his name? Gratham. Gratham was the co-chair and Nancy Mace, their opening remarks. I will say that starting by saying that they were putting the 12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Report into the,

the record. I was like, all right, this is like, here we go. This is going to be great. And then I'm going to be honest, it kind of just went down from there. But some good things to be gleaned, some good things to be clean. So where do we start? Let's look at the process first with these people. Today's goal was all of Schellenberger's information is now under oath formally admitted into congressional evidence. So step one, right? and then I would pop to the end. I've got a bunch in the middle, probably too much. But when Mr. Ogles mentioned the word criminality.

Yes. I think gauntlet thrown down. I reached out earlier this week to a couple of government lawyers and my local representative here in Memphis trying to get somebody with expertise on the criminality end of this because I would really like for all of us to understand what is at stake if we are able to concretely trace government lack of oversight into these operations. Unfortunately, nobody wants to talk about that, which I find very, very interesting.

I thought, well, heck, you know, I'm a lawyer. I can get in there and dig this answer out. It is so overwhelming. It is so overwhelming. and every agency has its own set of quirks that have to be dealt with. But anyway, I thought the gauntlet was thrown down. I don't know what else is happening or what's coming next. I do think this is a good time to remember that Knapp and Corbell said last week

that they didn't care what the government did today in terms of disclosure, that big stuff was coming out anyway. I guess the TikTok, right, the time was running. The TikTok clock. Yeah, so next moves theirs. I forgot about that. They sort of said, look, if we don't get any concrete evidence of, you know, where are these things being stored, what aerospace companies are in possession of things, that they're going to pull what they call the dead men's trigger, basically.

Like, we have people who have the information. And look, maybe one of those was Chris Sharp. And maybe he got that out prior to this because he kind of, saw the writing on the wall that this was just going to be another obfuscation sort of situation. And not so much on the part of the witnesses themselves, but it's clear that, and even Berchette brought this up, you know, I vehemently disagree with pretty much everything Tim Burchett stands for. However, I do agree with him that the reason you're all telling us right now, like, we can't talk I can't, I could talk about that in a classified setting, blah, blah, blah.

He's like, this is the problem. These men should not be forced to keep saying this. Right. So that was interesting. I kind of, it was a way to justify the frustration. We are all having during this hearing, hearing this time and time again. Like, I can't talk about that. I can't talk about that.

So. And the open classification problem is so tangible, so impactful. So impactful. And one of those things. Until they solve that, we might be spinning in this whirlwind. I don't know. Or somebody's going to risk life and limb and the pursuit of happiness to come out and tell the truth. So we'll see.

I also thought it was interesting. Who was in the congressional hearing in the background in the audience? Who wasn't? I did not see George Knapp. I did see Jeremy Corbell. I did see Danny Sheehan. I did see Ryan Graves. And I did see Leslie Kane.

So interesting. what those guys and gals might be coming out with in the next week. I'll be scanning and watching all their social media to see if we have anything there. But we'll see. I did notice one of our good friends, Lester Nair, who is in charge of the UAP caucus. I believe he's working for the Disclosure Fund now. I think he just announced that. So that was good to see.

that he made it in. Yeah. You know, I did see several podcasters there, which is always great. Like, to get these things on the record. And, um, uh, and Warren wasn't there this time. And I thought he was going, but I did not, you know, but I could only see maybe five rows back. They know.

I know. That's the problem. So maybe he was there and I didn't see him. He very well could have been. Um, I know that, uh, there's a UAP disclosure. Is that the show? There, there was another podcaster there. Oh, my gosh.

I feel so bad that I'm forgetting his name right now. But he has a great podcast. I know he was there. He took a picture with Elizondo prior to it. And then there was one of, oh, Martin Willis, the podcast UFO. He was there as well. He was there.

So that's cool. I'm a little jazz. I saw some guys were lining up like at three in the morning, Eastern time, trying to get a seat. This is one of the only hearings twice now, where like people have waited in line, like their tickets to see you two or something. something and they can't get in. You can't get in. They're out there in the cold and blankets.

I saw people were putting photos up very early this morning. Yeah. I doubt that happens with a lot of these congressional hearings. Well, I did hear Elizondo confirm that the secret UAP crash retrievals are actually real, that, you know, just came out and said it. I kind of danced around that a little bit today. It was black and white. You know, there it was. And that, interesting, he would not talk about the contractors. Or crash retrievals at all. And nobody's asking. So if we have NHI, craft and biologics, as Mr. Grush testified to in the last hearing,

why is nobody asking, are these biologics alive or not? It's such a simple question. You assume not, but we don't know that. Nobody's asking. Exactly. Very good point. I don't get it. I don't get it either.

It's so frustrating. And also, I'm noticing how white I am. I want people to know I'm not sick. It's just really bad lighting in here. Terrible lighting. I look like a... I know. I look like a ghost.

What did you make about Elizondo's recent in DA? That was very weird. that he it wasn't historical it was you know yeah recent i mean he brought up the dopser thing which is completely separate he was saying he was like brought in a room and had to sign uh i've never heard that before that was new um you could tell he was sort of skirting around it i i will say this um all the representatives pretty much all of them republican democrat doesn't matter at this hearing today unlike the first hearing, I think they really held these three witnesses feet to the fire.

Yeah. Like they challenged them. And this is a topic that deserves to be challenged, especially when you're making the bold claims that each of these witnesses came forward with. Right. And that's not that, like, I'm not, that's nothing against them. But, like, if you're going to testify under oath that there are UFO crash retrieval programs involving non-human intelligences and the United States, and the United States government is covering it up, like, that's one thing.

But all right, let's see the proof. Let's see the evidence. Like, if we want to investigate this, then we need names. We need places. We need all of that. So I was happy to see them sort of push back. The one that really stuck out to me was Jared Moskowitz. Now, I had the opportunity to interview Jared actually right after the last.

hearing and he is very passionate about this and like a lot of people whether it's aOC or uh luna uh doesn't matter both sides of the aisle they all agree on one thing that money is being allocated to things that it should not be and that we don't know where it's going and the way to hide that is to give it to private contractors which does not have oversight by the united states congress or government pretty simple yeah yeah it should be He's a better and let entity to do your dirty work. Exactly. Yeah, which again is what Christopher Sharp has pointed out in this article. So I was happy to see Jared really go after that.

And then what was the other thing? Oh, Jared mentioned that he and many of the representatives were pulled aside before this hearing and were told by superiors within the government not to ask certain. questions at this hearing. Exactly. Just like, remember all the chitter-shatter last week, where there were clearly efforts to stop the hearing as a whole. Yeah. Which is what NAP and Corbell were responding to, I think, when they said, it's coming whether you do the right thing or not government. And they met immediately. They don't mean like in the fullness of time, as we've all been hearing, you know, for decades. But very interesting. Yeah. I think you're a big trouble on the

other side of this. I think so too. It's again, like, and I think I mentioned it later in the hearing. Like, I was just as frustrated as everyone else in the chat. Like, things got a little heated. I apologize if I, you know, said anything to those who are being very dismissive of all this. But it's just frustration that like, this is our second UFO hearing and we're no closer to answers on any of this. We haven't heard directly from any of these whistleblowers. And that tells me one thing, that the whistleblower protections are not where they should be. Right. We saw what happened when David Grush came forward and the intercept basically, you know, just ripped this guy apart. Right. And this was kind of, and we were told that the journalist who released that information about

David Grush. The only reason he did that is because he was told by intelligence officials to do it. Really? I have not heard that. I've had wondered about, let me walk that back. Maybe not to do it, but they told him, hey, this, we think you should look into this. This is where we think you should look if you're looking to really take down this quote unquote whistleblower. I don't want to speak out of turn. I don't know if they like, to him and said, yo, write this article, defame this guy, like, discredit him. But when he went looking for information, he was told where to go, where to look for it, and how to do it within the purview of a journalist.

So again, it worked. It did work. It worked. It worked. Came off as a nutcase. Yep, he did. And we'll see where that goes. But I thought it was interesting this morning about maybe it was Elizondo, but it could have

been goal. The recrimination is real. The recrimination is real. And I have said a couple of times on the podcast on the live streams that those witnesses are waiting. Those whistleblowers are waiting and watching. And they're watching the Grush lawsuit and they're watching these hearings trying to figure out how to safely do what they need to do. And I think we've got to respect that. You know, they have wives, they have families. And I think it all turns south when they're then step into this arena and maybe it already has. But until we can get the UAP Disclosure Act substantively in place for these people, we're going to keep having this kind of conversation. I've heard rumblings that there is still some hope for the Disclosure Act, that it hasn't

been completely shot down. I don't know if and when that will happen, if it'll be a year from now, two years from now, but that it's not completely dead. There is still some hope. So, I mean, I mean, there's that. Yep. What else? What else? Let's go to, I guess, kind of the middle you were saying. Anything else really stand out to you after our...

Okay, so we had each witness did their opening statement. And basically it was word for word what they published prior. And we were able to release on our Twitter account. And we should say that a lot of that came forward by D.D. Johnson on Twitter first. So he deserves all the credit for getting all of that. But yeah, it was kind of each of their written statements. We got the Immaculate Constellation in the actual record. But from there, what else really stood out to you, Suzanne? Well, I'll tell you what stood out to me is Mike Gold's statement when it came out, first of all, I felt disappointment because I thought based on his Bigelow and NASA

a background that we might hear more substance from him. But what we did hear in sort of a, I don't know, not a backwards way, but in a subtle way, I guess is the right word, is that the footage is there. NASA has sensors, NASA has video, NASA has whatever NASA has. And the system is already in place in there. Let's use AI and whatever to get in there and try to organize it and understand it. And then let's use NASA as sort of the toll booth for, you know, commercial pilots, non-military pilots, and civilians. Incredible.

The system's already there. It's already there. It's ready. It's up. It's running to observe and analyze. So let's do it. Oh, well, there you go. Jade Starwover.

Yeah, perfect moment by Jade. One of the biggest revelations of this hearing is that there are perhaps thousands of images and videos. on Cyprenet, which, you know, people like Elizondo have been saying for years now. And then you've got like the communications between the Five Eyes Alliance, too. So, I mean, it's there. The, I mean, Schellenberger said the database is massive that his sources have told them about. Right. How none of this stuff leaks is beyond me.

Beyond me. I mean, things like we're not working that problem in a way, if these kinds of of witnesses are taking a congressional oath of honesty and telling us that our commercial and our military pilots are in danger. Why are we not doing this? And then you also heard, you know how much I love to hear it, to think through what's not being said or what is not happening. We also heard the witnesses in their own way say the equivalent of, if there's no there,

release this stuff. Otherwise, don't tell us there's no there. Now, I know some of that, there's a, there's a cross of that that's going to be national security. But that should be a tiny piece, probably. Okay, maybe if it's even half, release the rest if there's no there there. And I think by what's not being said and what's not being done, we can take a note. The lady doth protest too much. You're right, though.

It's like silence is so loud when it comes to this topic. It always has been. I always go back to that kind of mantra of like it's not what the United States government knows about UFOs that they're covering up. The real cover up is what they don't know. That's exactly right. And it's always been that way. Yeah, sorry.

And I've said for years, I think part of the secrecy is the criminality that's on the other end of it in terms of congressional overview that has just been literally dumped in a bucket. But I also think they may not know what to do with it. So how do you tell the public that this is real and that, yes, our pilots from various entities, commercial and military are in danger, but we don't have the ability to protect anybody because we don't have, we can't figure this out right now. So, okay, you're a lot. a lawyer. Like, there's a motive for every crime, right? Right. If there is criminality happening with these programs, special access, unacknowledged special access, whatever, what are the motives,

in your opinion, Suzanne? Why is their criminal? Why are they going to the lengths that they know what they're doing is illegal? That they would do that, that they would risk something like this happening. Two congressional hearings now saying, what you're doing is illegal. We know about it. We know about it. We're going to put those pieces together, aren't we? Yeah. It's going to happen. Here's what I think. I think it's money and I think it's weaponization. I think I also think there's an element of we don't know how to tell the public that we can't defend against this. There's that combination. But if you look at that Christopher Sharp article in detail and analyze it, it is, CIA. It is DOD. It is this committee on weaponization and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and intelligence, military intelligence. So it's clearly motivated, at least partially by need to weaponize

this technology that they have, I suspect. That if we can do that first, and then one of the witnesses, I think it was gold, said something like, we don't want to be on the wrong. end of technology, right? So you're watching these pieces go together around the militarization and the reproduction of what could be weapons. But, you know, I've got to peel the onion a little more, figure out for sure. Peel that cosmic onion. Gold, I will say, yeah, like, I love, he was so passionate. Yeah. Like, that definitely came through. But for me, having been looking forward to his testimony the most. I will say I was the most let down by his. I was, you would have to be an idiot to think like this dude was going to come out there and be like, yo, aliens are real.

NASA knows about it. I'm finally telling the truth. Like that's not a thing. Like that's beyond wishful thinking. However, I thought like maybe he would at least hint at like something, especially like you said with his time spent at Bigelow Air Space and all that. But what really struck me is how much he really was pushing for like Artemis. Like we got to be China to the moon guys. Got to be China to the moon. They're in the race, aren't they? But I also liked what his statement was.

And I think that he is a softer speaker. So he almost sounded at times philosophical about it. And he mentioned Galileo. And you know, when Galileo went to the authorities during. his lifetime and said, oh, gosh, guys, we're not the center of the universe. I don't think. I think, you know, the sun, I think we're revolving around the sun instead of everything revolving. Well, they prosecuted him. Burn him. Yeah, burned it. And that's a wonderful side trip if you can ever visit his grave. But, you know, he, he is, it's no different today. It's no different today.

When you put a challenging concept out there that is either scary or so foreign to a huge, human, they will balk. They balk. They don't want that to be reality and they will work their way backwards to try to avoid that. And I have no doubt some of that's happened. Yeah. I, you know, I don't want to hear it. Gold nailed it when he said, what civilization was ever helped by secrecy? What did you learn? You know, if you keep it quiet, what did you learn? You know, if you keep it quiet, what did you learn? The answer is a goose egg is what you learned. I would love to be a student in his philosophy course. Wouldn't that be great? Yeah, yeah. I can hear it. I can hear it. I want to thank

M. Hardinger here for the $5 super chat. Elizondo stated the biologicals were collected before he was born. Can you all speculate on likely incidents? I mean, I'm going to say obviously Roswell being Number one. Coleris. Coleris. He saw something in those collars, you know, there are like 300 Mufon reports and whatnot. Ryan's so sick of it. I've been torturing him to do an episode on Google.

No, no. But he saw something in those coloris details that it was life changing. The magenta one that was not brought up during the hearing. This was part of the Immaculate Constellation report, I believe. Actually, no, I don't think it was. That was in Chris Sharpe's article. Yeah. Uh-huh.

Right. Yeah. Okay. I will say I'm doing no pun intended, a very deep dive on the Shag Harbor UFO crash right now. And there have been some developments in the past five years or so that I spoke to the primary investigator, Chris Stiles, about, where possible occupants of the craft involved in the Shag Harbor event. that maybe one was recovered or at least interacted with. So maybe that. But other than that, like, it would just be pure speculation on my part.

There's been hundreds and hundreds of UFO crashes, if we are to believe, you know, books written by people like Kevin Randall and stuff like that. So, yeah, I'm sure biologics have been collected throughout these years of all of this. So thank you. Fresh confirmed biologics in the last hearing. Right. We know they're there. Nobody seems to be asking any questions about them in particular.

Yeah. And like the term biologics is so unbelievably vague that it's like where do we even go from there. And he's being vague for a reason. I'm not saying like for bad reasons. But that again, he's really toning, or he's really like, on a razor's edge with what he's allowed to say, what he can say during an active investigation, blah, blah, blah. I don't know. It is so complicated for them.

Yeah. This is pretty cool. Jade says AOC's questioning during the last hearing convinced a lot of my friends there was something to this subject. That's awesome. You know, if you're a supporter of someone like AOC, you know, a lot of people tend to think that all of us in the UFO community are like, conspiracy theorists, like the far right, like there's that whole stereotype about those who are interested in UFOs. But, you know, the fact that she was so pointed at the last hearing and got people who support her interested in the UFO topic, win-win, in my opinion. I agree. And I think

it also speaks to the fact that humans were ready to hear it. You know, I'm sure there's some with their fingers in their ears, but I think we could manage this. We can manage this. There's too much video. There's too much out there already to legitimately stick your head in the sand. Now, that doesn't mean it won't happen for some people. It will. But I do think humans are ready to hear it.

And I think that Jade's comment is a good example of that. Absolutely. Absolutely. Sell Emmanuel says, Gold saying we should check the archives is potent. If the next UAP task force could actually try to correlate UAP studies with satellite data. Now, he brought up a term, I think it was him, of satellite bias or sensor bias. That was interesting.

That wasn't a term I was too familiar with. But what I'm gathering is like certain people have certain access to certain sensor data and others do not. So how can we ever come to a conclusion on what these things are if, you know, we're not able to triangulate the information or the data? Am I reading that wrong? Am I? I don't know. When I Googled it very quickly, basically what I got was that there is a small percentage of sensors, of action in a sensor

that will pick up movement when movement's not there. So what do you call, Ryan, that business? Like when you take a picture and there's an arc of some kind, sounds to me like, yeah, it sounds like that to me relative to a sensor that might be recording in a different video format. But I was really wrong. I've never heard that term. No, I think you're right.

Like, it's a certain sensor can have bias. It can have either a technical thing. A technical issue or, yeah, okay, that makes much more sense. But that was interesting. Jade also says the next hearing should involve the intelligence and armed service committees. Amen. Amen. Amen.

and especially since these. Line them up. And like, these are the subcommittees that are doing the hearings. The armed services, at least within like the Senate and stuff. Or like,

what was the ones today? Cybersecurity and something, I don't, I don't even remember. It's a blur. All right, what else do you have for us? Well,

let's see. I can hear your notes, wrestling. That's amazing. If you could see this table, it's just covered in paper. I've got like half a page. It's not that I wasn't paying attention, but like I was really listening for anything that was new, that anything that was really new. And I was looking for subtext.

You know, that's sort of like that. Yeah. I was listening to as you should. Let's see. I thought it was really interesting for them to roster off the types of craft that are being seen, boomerangs, spheres, orbs, disks, blah, blah, blah, you know, before they even got to the U.S.O stuff. So anyway, I thought that was fascinating. I also thought the discussion around biological effects on humans and a reiteration that our government actually has people on paid disability as a result of their

interaction with UAP was fascinating. Yeah. All kinds of illness, psychological impact, such as anxiety and insomnia, shared aware with the craft. Never heard anybody say that out loud in front of Congress before. Unexplained smells. Interesting. I miss that. Yeah. Unexplained smells and inexplicable senses of warmness and coldness. Okay. Fascinating. But shared awareness, I thought that is so what the typical experience or exchanged. Like the children at the aerial school, nobody's mouths were moving but they knew. They knew the message was anti-nuke, you know, and that we had to do a better job

taking care of our nest here on the planet. Anyway, fascinating to hear it live under oath in front of the American Congress. It was. There was another mention, was it Tim. Tim Golodot said something about an event where a craft was seen and it was button-shaped. And they really had to push him to say that. Because again, I get it. The more specific you get, the more information you might let out about location, what type

of sensor was used. But again, and that's the catch 22, because then Schellenberger brought up, like, look at how much is blacked out. Like, how many reports they took. Like, the shape of the craft. Like, why can't we know some of these things? Was it a jellyfish or not?

It's so frustrating. It is so frustrating. But overall, I think if you pick the details, it actually was a successful hearing. I know we didn't get to hear the big, broad confirmation of they're here. Here's what they look like. Here's what they eat. Here's what they want. We didn't hear that, of course.

But, you know, one more step. Yeah. Exactly. Like disclosure is a messy, messy process. If it's even a thing, many people don't believe disclosure. But look, these people are trying for many different reasons, many different intentions, motives, you name it. Like there's a reason that everyone is doing this from every Congress member present to every witness testifying. Everyone has their own reasons to be involved with this topic to come forward with the knowledge that they might know about it.

And it's interesting. I don't know much about Schellenberger's work, his writing, or anything like that. But I did respect when he said towards the end, like, look, my goal here is for other whistleblowers to feel comfortable coming to me if they don't want to go somewhere else. Like, as a journalist, I will go to jail for me. He's going to protect him. And he did it. That was a very, very bold statement to say. And I would give me.

I read subtext into that, whether it's real or not, who knows. But back to my concern that the problem is the safety of these whistleblowers. And protecting them from the ramifications of Grush and Elizondo and blah, blah. I think he sees that quite clearly. And until that safety measure is in place, we're just going to get more of this. Yeah, absolutely. They're not free to come out. I got a crazy question for you, though.

Oh, ask away. Yeah. If I could give you a magic wand and you could wave that magic wand and relieve the American government from criminality, from civil liability, from blah, blah, blah, whatever it is, for whatever they've done wrong. In exchange for telling the truth and turning it all over, would you give it to them? Ah, man. There has been a lot of chatter. I know mostly on UFO Twitter throughout the, years at this point of like would we exchange forgiveness for transparency and I struggle because I am one of those people who believe that there should be accountability right for these things and that's what people like crush are doing and uh schellenberger and Elizondo to an extent as well

uh you know Elizondo left government because he believed that what they were doing was wrong and a part of me really respects that. But then the other part of me is like, if we are willing to let that carrot dangle for decades upon centuries on this topic, you know,

look at all the UFO researchers who have died not knowing the truth. I believe it was, maybe it was Heenik. I think it was Heenik, or one of the really famous UFO researchers, his last words were even now they won't tell me.

And that broke my freaking heart. Yeah, oh, terrible. I do, I don't know. As an experience or myself, although not directly with a being, of course, but with a craft, I do understand how someone who had an extremely negative experience with a being. with a being might say no, that my government has been in my way of getting clarity and peace on this issue for however many years it's been since they had their experience. So I suspect that crowd would say no.

I oddly would say yes. Would you? I would. I would say the knowledge is more important than the criminal consequences. but, you know, I don't know. That's fair. I completely, I'm going to, what do you guys think? I want to know in the chat.

A few people did give their answers here. Strange stories with Seeker said absolutely not. Yeah. They would not. They weren't people held accountable. Ruth Bradford is here. Couldn't just mean dogs in my, I'm not sure what she's. Oh, the NHI.

NHI. She's back at the NHI. Yes. It could mean all. mean anything. Yeah, it's all lady girl. It's all right. Yeah. No, make them pay, says Jamash.

Yeah. That, oh, man, I love those types of questions. They're hard. It's what my brain tells you two in the morning. Do penguins have knees and what I let the government lose on this? It is a house haunted if there's no one there to talk? Exactly. These are the things I ask. Carrie Photo, thank you so much for the 99 super chat.

Thanks for all you do. Ryan is Suzanne. We truly appreciate that. The sweet chat. They're so nice. Everyone was amazing. Even when things got a little heated tonight, guys, it was the passion that shone through.

And I want to thank everyone, everyone for sticking with us for almost four hours. I know. I mean, this is a walk in the park for us, Suzanne, compared to a nomicon. Right. This is nothing, guys. Jade, oh, this is interesting.

Jade says, the answer to your question is how the U.S. government treated project paperclip scientists following the end of World War II. Very good compare. I wasn't going to go there, but now that Jade brings it up, there is that whole thing of like when you hear about the Holocaust and you're like, you hear about some of these people who are involved saying, I was just doing my job. Right. And like nobody wants to hear that.

And I do struggle. Like I'm not comparing UFO. in truth embargo to the Holocaust. Do not misconstrue what I'm saying here. But I can understand the comparison of like people if let's say like criminality, moving money around, maybe stealing people's taxpayer money for certain things to benefit a certain space company or to further the military industrial complex. That's one thing.

People have come forward and said that people have died, have been murdered because of the UFO cover-up. If that is true, not saying it is, but if it is true, then I do believe those people should be held accountable. Like, you know, you got this whole thing going on right now with what's those two brothers who killed their parents? Oh, yeah, the Menendez brothers. Like, I got obsessed with that case. I watched the Netflix series. I watched the date line up and there's a chance they're going to get out of jail soon. And, you know, a lot of this come forward that their father was extremely abusive and the mother was complacent with this, if not involved.

And this is why they and their lives were being threatened by their own parents and this is why they murdered them. So then you got that whole thing. Like should they be let out of jail? Shouldn't they? I'm really going off the rails here. I think I just brought out the Holocaust. The Mendenez Brothers and the Menendez brothers in the span of two minutes. So let's rein it in.

It's a very hard question to answer, Suzanne. I appreciate you asking it. I don't have an answer for you. Fair enough. I just really have to think about it. Fair enough. What else happened? Oh, Schellenberger shouted out John Greenwald, which was awesome.

Yes. Someone else shouted out Chris Sharp at one point. Chris got a nod. That was cool. Who was calling somebody, Babe? Did you hear all that? What was that? I think it was Mace calling that.

Let's don't call people, babe. She called that Agil guy or whatever, because he was under like ran in right at the end, I think. She's like, all right, you got five minutes, babe, or something like that. Let's don't. Everyone was talking about that in the chat. I'm like, yeah, that's a little weird. Let's keep it professionally. Yeah, and Chris Tynes says Corbell got a nod, too.

on that. Corbell got a nod. I'm sorry, but to the gentleman wearing sweatpants in the front row. What was that? I don't care if it's 2024. I don't care if you're some hip, cool YouTuber. Like, you're in a congressional setting, and we're trying to take this topic seriously. Whoever you are, I'm calling you out right now, like, show some damn respect.

I'm sorry. I don't care if it's, like, the fashion of today. These kids these days. But like, what a joke you were, whoever that was. Please don't do that again. Yeah. At least put a collared shirt on. That's all I ask.

Like sweatpants, come on. Maybe they didn't think they were going to be on camera. Frankly, maybe it was a very long night for them. I don't know. Maybe I'm being way too harsh. I'm surprised there's not somebody stopping them at the door. You know, you go into any courtroom dress like that.

The bailo stops you at the door. You don't go in the courtroom like that. not sure what that was about. I, okay. I understand. I'm going to take back what I said. I'm going to retract it because I'm a hypocrite. I remember working on Broadway and every night I would see 1,500 new people come into a theater.

And I would shame people who wore t-shirts, who wore sweatpants. And the more I thought about it, the more I was like, you know what? Broadway has always been the most elitest, expensive experience in the world where middle class to lower class people could not afford to see theater and that's a problem. So the fact that some of these people might not have a suit, might not have clothes that they can three-piece suit to put on. So I take back what I said. I apologize to that person because I think in a democracy, especially when you are, you know, these congresspeople work for us.

And in return, these witnesses are testifying before Congress. Anyone should be able to go to a congressional UFO hearing. Would I personally wear sweatpants? No. But I do take back shaming that person for you. Well, you would think that if you've made it all the way to D.C. in order to be in a congressional hearing, you might put a little effort out. That's fair.

Just a little. Maybe their luggage got lost. Let's go with that. Let's give them that. Talking to the guy whose suitcase ended up in Germany last time. Right. I left the country. We've all been there.

Oh, man. Ryan, the working class UFO not. I'm just like, I got to point it out when I'm being hypocrites. And the national treasure, by the way. Yeah. Oh, that's beyond flattering. Anyways. Yeah.

What else? You guys, 1,290 of you. Oh, hell yeah. Thank you, guys. Thank you. I know there were many other ways to watch this all today. So we really appreciate you sticking with us, especially with this post discussion.

I think our numbers only went up. They did. When the hearing stopped. Anything else? I think that's pretty much yet. If anybody heard something we hadn't talked about that you thought was big, put it in the chat real quickly for us. Yeah.

I want to see this 13-minute video that Schellenberger brought up. about a UFO in Kuwait. And also, where's the UFO coming out of the water, the triangle? We still need that. No telling what's in those archives. No telling what they have. Yeah. Let's see.

I'm just going up in the chat. Checking, did I miss anything? Carrey photo and, guys, thank you. Thank you so much for the super chat. Oh, this is, here's an interesting one. Ruth said, I was most impressed with Tim. mentioning Arrow's error-ridden report and even the failings of the government leaders and officials. This is interesting. I don't know if you saw this. Stephen Green Street,

thou who shall not be named, I know he has a lot of detractors as well. I've always been very friendly with Stephen. Again, I know he can be a problematic individual. But he did post something today where he got a quote from Sean Kirkpatrick, the former head of Arrow. saying basically that he knew Tim was going to kind of talk bad about Arrow. And he's like, I just want you guys to know that Tim tried to get a job with Arrow. And we didn't think that he was capable of the job. He's just mad. I didn't hire him.

So he's mad that I didn't hire him if he says anything bad about Arrow. But then Tim said at this thing, he said, I just got a call. And they're rethinking things. So maybe they work things out. I don't know. Maybe they did. Stranger things have happened. Yeah, Mr. Kirkpatrick needs to move along.

Yeah, I know. Time to go. Move on. You're out. Be quiet. He clearly didn't want to do this. Moving on. That's a good place to kind of, I guess, start to wrap it up, though, Suzanne.

And again, guys, if you have any further questions or comments about the hearing today, what we learned, what you think we should do moving forward. Go ahead and throw them in the super chat or the chat itself. And we'll try to get it up here. Shelberg are supposed to screenshots of a whistleblower report. We need that. Oh, interesting. The Senate UFO hearing, have you heard about this? No.

So this is supposed to be happening within the next couple weeks, if not by the end of the month. Kirsten Gillibrand will be having a Senate UAP hearing again, and it will be similar to the one that she conducted, gosh, almost two years ago at this point. where we will hear from the new director of Arrow and hopefully get more information about what they've been looking at, some of the cases they've been investigating, and if Arrow is worth continuing. Right. You know, Coach Knapp and his show that got released on Netflix last week, I believe,

you can tell the whole goal of that documentary is to SWAT at Arrow and that silly report. He literally starts out saying, We got this report. It says nothing's going on and that is false. And then he starts in his six episodes. So fascinating. Okay.

I'm going to watch some of it tonight. I've been watching so many things. The Penguin is like the biggest thing I'm watching right now. So I've got to finish that tonight. But I will also watch Nappy Naps thing there. I'm just going through the chat again. Bulley McGuire says Green Street has really bad vibes. Yeah, people are not the biggest fans.

Jay Allen Heineken says they were expecting to be made star cheerleaders for UFOs. And then when that didn't happen, they went full on debunker. Look, it happens. like people get very disenchanted with this topic. I have, I left for two months because I was just sick of it. I've come back, I think a better person, a better researcher. I'm a bit more skeptical of things. But there's a reason I'm still here.

Like there's something going on. There's a core phenomena happening. And I firmly believe that. I've seen it with my own damn eyes. hundreds of thousands of other people have. I still believe in this topic. I still believe there is a reality to what is going on. And that's some of it is not from here.

I don't know what that means beyond that, but it's not from here. Elizondo said it. Gallaudet said it. They all said it. Grush said it. Grush said it. Grush hour, baby.

I want to, yeah. I wish him well with the lawsuit, but I want to hear from him again. I know. And I think that thing has them clamp down right now. I don't think he's right here talking without impacting that. Yep. All right. Well, last question.

Two-pronged last question. What's the biggest thing you learned today, Suzanne, from the hearing? And who do you think came out looking the best in the hearing? I think gold came out looking the best. And I think the biggest thing that I learned, and I don't know that I learned it, but that I sort of just came to the forefront of my mind and I didn't realize it was a tool, was everything that's already in place at NASA. And I think what we were watching today is gold via FBO NASA saying,

use our materials, use what we have. So what is there and who's going to go get it? How do we get that? Okay. Yeah, Mike Gold, I love it. I love it. I thought, yes, I think he was my favorite of the event. You know, Elizondo, it seemed like they really, really wanted to talk to Elizondo a lot more. I mean, his credentials are pretty freaking incredible if you look at him.

So I get that. However, I will say I didn't learn anything really new from Elizondo, No, but that's not even the most important part. Chris Rukowski brought up in the chat earlier on. Like, it's okay that we didn't get a lot of new info, but now all of this is on the record. Right. Which is very important. I know someone like, I believe it was Michael Huntington, disagrees with that.

He doesn't think it's important at all that things are put on the record. I don't know. I don't know how much of a difference or impact it'll make, but it's on the official record now. It's on this. It's everywhere. The dam is broken. There's no putting this back in. This is all out to the public now.

And somebody, somebody new is going to watch this hearing and be like, wait a minute. I need to look into this. Or I have an uncle who works at the Department of Energy. Let me talk to him. Exactly. Or stuff like that.

Like this is the way it happens. And reach out to your representatives and congress and senators and ask them to step up. All they can do is tell you no or nothing. or silence. So let them know it matters to you because it does matter to them what you want, whether they act on it or not. I think Brave New World just made a good point too. When you were asking what we learned, he goes,

Shell and Burger Docs. That's, yeah. Shell and burger docs. We need those two. We need NASA stuff and Shell and Burger stuff. And he said that he gave them all to the Congress members. Yes. So does that mean they're not?

classified? I mean, I don't know how that works. Like, if it's not classified, then why can't the public see? Yeah, he said he never signed an NDAA, so, or maybe Gallaudet said that. I think that was Gallaudet. Okay. But, yeah, if he's got him, you know, he can use them. I posted a link above Brave New World said, okay, we'll have to go back. His docs posted on Twitter.

Okay, I'm going to go check the, they might be, the docs, they might be referring to his statement, his written statement that he put out prior to the hearing. I don't think the actual 12-page report has been made public. I see. I could be completely wrong. Yeah, I don't know. We'll check that link. We'll check it.

All right, Suzanne. Well, I'm going to, let's wrap it up. We've been going for four hours. This has been incredible. I want to thank all of you for sticking with us for this entire day. It was, again, like the fact that we're having a discussion about a congressional UFO hearing just astounds to me. And there's 1,300 of us having this discussion. Exactly.

And many more to come. We will be releasing this as a audio version on the Summer in the Sky's podcast. Probably tonight. I'll try to get it out tonight, if not tomorrow. There was one other thing I wanted to bring up. Oh, I would say we didn't learn a lot of new things. at this hearing. But like we mentioned, Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, we're holding you. We're holding you guys accountable for what you said. You said that if we did not get the information,

we were hoping for, or at least that you two were hoping for out to the public, maybe we did. Maybe they were completely satisfied. I have a sneaking suspicion. They were not. Maybe it was Christopher Sharp stuff. I don't know. It could have been Christopher Sharp stuff, but if it's not, I will expect that catastrophic disclosure on a plate tonight. I would like a little, maybe let's do two fingers of scotch with that as well. And yeah, maybe a nice piece of chocolate cake with that for dessert as well with my catastrophic disclosure. In all seriousness. Like whatever NAP and Corbell do next, I am looking forward to it because if it were me and I

was in their shoes, I would be very not content with what happened today. It's their turn. Yeah. While I'm not like satisfied with the information brought forward, I'm happy this happened. It has to happen.

Me too. I think that's where we'll leave it. Suzanne, if you're willing to share, where can people find you? I know you're pretty active on Twitter and Facebook as well. If you're willing to share. Yeah, I'm on Twitter. Suzanne Westerman-Lander. I'm also on Facebook, which is really where I live in real life, which is Suzanne Landers, I think.

But if you'll see me, if you're following Ryan, you'll see me popping under him. I'm also on Instagram. Same thing. If you see Ryan, I'm either reposting or liking or commenting. He's probably like, can she just shut up a minute? No, you want a little minute. No, it is beyond appreciated. I love working with you.

And your husband is so incredible to helping out sharing things all the time, giving his thoughts and opinions. Yeah, I threaten him with disapproval of his art. He's not nice to me. Just have that. That is fair. That is fair. Awesome, guys.

Well, again, thank you to all of our super chatters tonight. Super stickers. We truly appreciate it. Thank you to our Patreon subscribers, our Apple premium subscribers, for all of your support. Discord. as well. We will have that up and running very soon. I'm so far behind on that. But if Hines and Long Grasses here and the others... Okay. To get that going, I want to thank you guys so much. And we will get that thing going.

I can't wait. I'm super excited for that. What else? What else? Ooh, I have a very interesting episode that I will be releasing this upcoming week on the podcast called Nighting. siege. It's a UFO creature invasion. So mixing the world of cryptids and UFOs together. Excuse me. I'm hiccuping again. I'm so excited. It's going to be awesome. I got some incredible actors out of New York City and I believe Tennessee to voice several of the people in this episode. So I'm super excited for people to hear that. But yeah, guys, check us out on Patreon. subscribe to the podcast. Rate in review, please.

That is the number one thing I can ask of you guys. Rate and review the Summer in the Sky's podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get the show. But those are the two biggest platforms where it makes the biggest difference. And those ratings and reviews mean the world to independent podcasters. So thank you. Thank you in advance for those who have done it and those who will do that. If you're not subscribed to this channel on YouTube,

please hit subscribe, like the video, share it with someone who you think might find a congressional UFO hearing interesting. And yeah, let's get a little closer to that truth. Glad to help Bill says, thank you, Bill. My salute to you, my friend. He's a good story. And yeah, he's amazing. And all of you guys, Jay Allen, I'm seeing Joseph, Kari, Ruth, everybody, everybody who stopped in today. Even Philip Mantle are cramudgeon and Michael Huntington, who Michael's one of my...

Michael is one of my best friends. I know people have beef with him, but he's such a good person deep down. He only plays a UFO curmudgeon on social media. And you know, when you know a lot, you have high expectations of people, and I think both of them have that. Absolutely, absolutely. But yes, guys, thank you. Thank you so much. we're going to close things out here.

Again, join us next week for another live stream. Yeah, I guess we're going to do one Sunday. We'll probably have plenty to talk about. Oh, and Chrissy Newton will be our guest next week on the podcast. So be on the lookout for that as well. And I will leave you guys, as always, with our mantra here. And that is keep your feet on the ground, but never stop searching somewhere in the skies. There's nothing to hide at all.