WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - U.S. Senate UFO Hearing - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Episode Date: April 25, 2023

A U.S. Senate Subcommittee chaired by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand heard testimony this week from AARO's Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick. Gillibrand and two fellow senators asked intelligent questions in the public session, but didn't get many answers from the AARO chief. Dr. Kirkpatrick said he's seen no credible evidence of any ET tech flying in our skies. He then unveiled video of an unknown object recorded by a DOD sensor platform in the Middle East, an object eerily reminiscent of the Mosul Orb - a genuine UAP captured on video over Iraq in 2016 (first unveiled by WEAPONIZED earlier this year). Jeremy and George discuss what was learned from the Senate hearing, what the future may hold for Sean Kirkpatrick, and why future congressional hearings might hold more promise. GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail] For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media. Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at https://WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs to help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work.

Now, Hank has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365Copilot.com slash work. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job posts the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored

job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. Secrets, cover-ups, and strange phenomena. UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself. All these mysteries, all this time. Are we ever going to get to the bottom of these? My name is George Knapp. I dig into news stories that others can't or won't.

I'm Jeremy Corbell, and for some reason people tell me things they probably shouldn't. And this is weaponized. This is weaponized. And this week we're going to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly. I don't know, Jeremy, did you notice there was a little UFO hearing in Washington this week? I did notice there was a UFO hearing in Washington this week. You watched it? I did. I did. I woke up, you 7.30, waited 40 minutes, and then they played it. It was great.

And your impressions to start with? You know, I had the immediate kind of split impression. When I heard Dr. Kirkpatrick talking, because I know a lot of what's going on behind the scene, as do you, I was totally divided. On one half, I thought, this is great. This is progress. This is the way UFO should be studied scientifically, through systems amylus. This is the way it should be studied. But on the other hand, I felt like so much was being excluded that I know that he has been

informed about. So I was a mix of emotions. You know, it's UFO world. So, of course, there are strong opinions all the way around. You have the nihilists and skeptics who say, this means nothing. Nothing will come of it. It's a waste of time. And then you have the hardcore UFO believers who think, okay, this is the start of disclosure.

Something big is coming. He's going to spill some beans. And, of course, it's always somewhere in between, right? Yeah. It's never what either side really thinks it's going to be when there's an extreme viewpoint. But as long as we're moving in the right direction, and that's what I'm trying to figure out if we are, then I think it's good, you know? Well, I have to totally agree.

I mean, the fact that the U.S. Senate subcommittee, has a hearing that deals with UAP issues is a step forward. I mean, Senator Gillibrand is, she's a warrior. You know, it used to be Marco Rubio and Senator Warner who were really carrying the ball in this. She's picked up the ball and is running with it, and this was her subcommittee. She made some astonishing statements in that opening remarks, right?

That's right. So they weren't there. So, you know, a lot of people were saying it was low, attended, and that kind of thing. It wasn't the kind of hearing that we saw last time. This was a check-in. How are you doing? Do you have enough money?

Do you have enough authority? So this was a totally different thing. But to see Senator Gillibrand there doing it, man, I was super impressed with her. She did the opening remarks. Three things she said really stuck with me. So the first thing she said is, we have been informed that there are advanced craft of unknown origin.

And she didn't say the words flying with impunity in our restricted airspace, but they are. It was really cool to hear her say, we know this now. We know this to be true. This is why we formed and funded Arrow. She also said, we don't know who are operating these vehicles. We don't know who made them. And we don't know their capabilities.

And that is really interesting because it leads you towards intent. We also don't know intent. So she threw all of those down and kind of set the stage for the idea of why Arrow is there. why they funded it, why they're championing it. And as you said, she was there, and she really threw down. So she's the pit bull for the UFO community. I appreciate it. We should hear some of what she said.

I think we should play that clip and give people a sense of, if they didn't see the hearing, they hear what she said. How she set the tone. A witness, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, for testifying here and in today's earlier closed session, Congress established this office in law to get to the bottom of the very serious problem of unidentified anomalous phenomenon or UAP.

In late 2017, media reports surfaced about activities set in motion by the late long-serving majority leader Senator Harry Reid more than a decade ago. We learned that there was strong evidence of advanced technology reflected in the features and performance characteristics of many objects observed by our highly trained service members operating top-of-the-line military equipment. We learned that for the past eight years, military pilots frequently encountered unknown objects in controlled airspace off both the east and west coasts across the continental United States in test and training areas and ranges. We don't know where they are they come from,

who made them, or how they operate. But because of the UFO stigma, the response has been irresponsibly anemic and slow. UAP are frequently observed flying in extremely high or very low speeds and come in various sizes and shapes. During the recent shootdowns over North America, DOD disclosed that filters on radar systems were adjusted to allow for detection and tracking of diverse sets of objects for the first time. While opening the aperture, can overload the real-time analytic process. We cannot keep turning a blind eye to surveillance data that is critical to detecting and tracking UAP. A couple of thoughts in this. One is she has obviously been briefed in ways that have not been made public. You know, we're going to get into

what she learned in this hearing, but she's had some briefings. We know people have talked to her. She believes that this is real and it's legit. Second thought I have is, you know, this is politically risky. There's no way that you know how this is going to play out. But she's going full bore on this regardless. We know what happened to Hillary Clinton. I mean, it was part of her campaign to be president as she wanted to push for UFO transparency. She didn't win. So, you know, whether or not this is a good political move, I don't think Senator Gillibrand is putting that into the evaluation of whether she should go forward or not. But it's also, it's safer now, right? Right? Because you're, you know, President Clinton, everything they were trying to do with this UFO topic is kind of crack open the books.

Right now they're saying, we have a safety of flight issue, right? We have an issue where there are near misses. We have an issue where pilots are seeing these perform in ways that are unique and we need this studied. So it's less polarized in a way. It's transformed to UAP. It's the idea that we need to have 360 degree air dominance. at all, airspace and sea dominance. That's the goal, right?

So in a political sense, it's kind of interesting the way it's transformed where it is just simply a safety of flight issue and finding out if adversarial nations have this technology. I was thrilled to see Nevada Senator Jackie Rosen jump into the mix. I did not expect it. You know, of course, Nevada senators historically

have had an interest in this topic. Senator Harry Reid is one of them. Before him, Senator Howard Cannon. It was a big proponent of Nellus Error. Air Force Base. He was a supporter of Area 51. He was deeply interested in this topic, something we'll discuss at some point. But Senator Rosen was a surprise to me. Of course, the primary witness was Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick of Arrow. But Senator Rosen asked a pretty good question or two. I want to give her a shout out and use that clip if we can.

I want to talk about the impact of UAPs on aviation safety. One of my first concerns is really about the safety of Nevada's military aviator. So we have airmen station at Nellis Airways. Air Force Base, Naval aviators flying at Naval Air Station, Fallon, and service members from across the world training at the Nevada Test and Training Range. I know you know all this. And unfortunately, the existence of advanced UAPs in the U.S. airspace and over U.S. military installations, not a new phenomenon. The Navy's officially acknowledged that between 2004 and 2021, 11 near misses occurred involving

UAPs that required pilot action and follow-up reports. So there's been a lot of things that have, you know, kind of gone out since Dr. Kirkpatrick has kind of testified in front of people. You know, he did say a bunch of really interesting stuff. The one that kind of looms is he says, we have no evidence that this is extraterrestrial or from off-world vehicles. I mean, he really chose his words to try to really put everybody down, you know, kind of at ease, saying, we have no evidence this is extraterrestrial.

I've heard a lot of people say, that's it, case closed, the UFO discussion is over. Right. That's ridiculous. So there's a couple things I take from that. One is, well, do you have evidence that it's not? And so what is, you know, that's kind of the thing a lot of people have been saying is, to say something is unresolved and to keep the doors open to studying what it is. It was interesting he chose those words.

What do you make of that when he says we have no evidence that it's extraterrestrial? I was surprised that he went as far as he did because we happened to know some of what he has been told behind closed doors. He acknowledges there have been 24 different witnesses, whistleblowers, that's the, I'm using air quotes on that, whistleblowers who've come forward and have met with him and his office and have given testimony. We'll get into the specifics of what some of those people have told him. But I was surprised that he considers none of that to be evidence. Either A, he doesn't consider their testimony to be evidence, B, he doesn't consider it to be credible testimony, or C, his office has not evaluated it yet.

I mean, are you in the same spot? Well, I don't think that he has the right authorities yet to properly investigate what has been shared with him. And as you've mentioned, so we are in contact with numerous individuals that have provided testimony to error. And I wonder if they have been told, if Arrow, Dr. Kirkpatrick has been told there are legacy UFO programs to study hardware. If this is true, and he's been told where he could find some of this hardware,

what the classified program names have been, if that has been corroborated and verified by other, you know, air quotes, whistleblowers, other people that have talked about it, if that's true, maybe he doesn't have the authority yet to completely knock on those doors and find out, is it true what these people are telling him? You and I both know he has heard what I would consider extremely not only compelling, but testimony that can be tracked down and verified specific program names for legacy UFO programs and holding facilities for that hardware. If that is true, which I am damn confident it is, how did that not play in to what we're

hearing at the hearing? Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th.

Tickets on sale now at Yamavah Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Must be 21 to enter. You said this place was steps from the water, We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough.

Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises.

It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. I'll tell you what, why don't we hear from him? Okay. A basic statement that he made, some of the claims that he made in this testimony for those who didn't get up early in the morning and listen to the whole thing, and then we'll come back and talk about it. ... distinguished members of the subcommittee. It's a privilege to be here today to testify on the defense's efforts to address

unidentified anomalous phenomena. I want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous. The majority of unidentified objects reported to arrow demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena, or other readily explainable sources. While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases. Without sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific standards we see. for resolution, and I will not close a case that I cannot defend the conclusions of. It is fact that UAP often, but not always, resolve into readily explainable sources.

Arrow is approaching these cases with the highest level of objectivity and analytic rigor. This includes physically testing and employing, modeling, and simulation to validate our analyses and underlying theories, then peer-reviewing those results within the U.S. government, industry partners and appropriately cleared academic institutions before reaching any conclusions. I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, Arrow has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event, sufficient scientific data were ever attained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working

with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform U.S. government's leadership of its findings. For those few cases that have leaked to the public previously and subsequently commented on by the U.S. government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views to submit your research to credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. Arrow is working very hard to do the same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media. I have set up two teams. I think of this as a red team, blue team, or a competitive analysis. I have an intelligence community team made up of intelligence analysts, and I have an S&T team made up of scientists and engineers

and the people that actually build a lot of these sensors or physicists, because if you're a physicist, you can do anything, right? But they're not associated with the Intel community. They're not Intel officers. They look at this through the lens of the sensor. of what the data says. We give that package to both teams. The intelligence community is going to look at it

through the lens of the intelligence record and what they assess, and their Intel tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations on how they do that. Scientific community, technical community is going to look at it through the lens of what is the data telling me, what is the sensor doing,

what would I expect a sensor response to be, and back that out. Those two groups can, give us their answers. We then adjudicate. If they agree, then I am more likely to close that case if they agree on what it is. If they disagree, we will have an adjudication. We'll bring them together, we'll take a look at the differences, we'll adjudicate why do you say one thing and you say another. We will then come to a case recommendation. That'll get written up by my team. That then goes to

to a senior technical advisory group, which is outside of all of those people, made up of senior technical folks and intel analysts and operators from retired out of the community. And they essentially peer review what that case recommendation is. So out of everything that he said,

there is a lot that was very, I guess, kind of good. I really liked what he was saying, which is that the way he approaches scientifically the evidence, it's a hard job. It's boring. So a lot of military people call me during, you know, this hearing,

screaming in the phone, and then a couple people I talk to after. And they're like, look, this is the way that UFO should be investigated. Government is slow, and it's a slow, meticulous, kind of boring process. So Dr. Kirkpatrick talked about having

a scientific board that he would go, to and they would assess cases independently. And then he talked about having an intelligence board that would go in and use the I see communities information and assess independently this information. And then he'd bring them together. And if they agreed on what they're seeing in these videos or whatever kind of evidence he's getting, and if they don't, if they don't, then they would adjudicate it.

They would study it. They would get on the same level, try to understand what's going on, and then move those up to another group of advisors. It's a good scientific process. Look, he's a scientist. He's a physicist, right? From what I know. So if that's the case, he's creating a good system for identifying and looking at UFO footage and videos. I think that's good. I think that's very positive. I agree. It makes it sound like it is a meticulous, organized process that they're being careful. If he'd come out and said something

outrageous, yes, ET is here. We need to head for the bunkers. It would be way over the top. But of course, he was much more reserved and careful about their language that he used. And it sounds like it as a process that is underway. The question is from the general public is, how long is this going to take? Because, you know, UFO people are very impatient. They want the answers now. The fact that he didn't come out and have an alien next to him testifying, it makes it to them seem like it's outrageous.

I mean, the first alien that comes out is going to go on the Joe Rogan podcast. I'm sorry. It's just like the biggest podcast ever. He's already invited an alien onto the show. So I think like I don't know what people's expectations were. I think it was good on one level and a lot of people felt the same way. And people, you know, military individuals said this is the way that we get there. But there were other people that didn't.

Yeah, that's the big question is we have been in contact with a lot of folks you would call whistleblowers who have gone above and beyond, who put their careers and reputations on the line to come forward with some outrageous testimony that happens to be true. And they've talked to Kirkpatrick. The fact that he says there's no credible evidence, you know, it is kind of a slap in the face to some of them, don't you think? They certainly felt like it was. But the thing is, is evidence of what we don't. So the whole thing with the UFO issue is that we haven't, if we have determined, we have determined, that this is extraterrestrial.

That hasn't been conveyed to the American public yet. So all these people giving testimony of what they've experienced, I'd assume he needs to run that down, validate that information. You don't know when people tell you stuff, if it's real or not. But I think the quality of information that we know he's been given about legacy UFO programs, hardware exploitation programs, is so good that it's something that he could validate. Well, let's get into that.

How specific has the information been that's been conveyed to him from people that we know? I'd like to give our audience a little bit of an indication of where it's gone. Yeah, to the location of storage. The place, the building. Program names, UFO exploitation program names, like the actual names in classified settings have been given. They've been corroborated. And then they've been given locations where some of this hardware is. So it's been very specific.

If I'm a whistleblower and I'm sitting at home, I worked on one of these legacy programs. I work for one of the big aerospace contractors. I've seen the metamaterials. Maybe I've seen the craft. I've been told to shut up. And I'm thinking about coming forward and saying something to Kirkpatrick or somebody else or to Congress. And I see that testimony that says, you know, I know there have been whistleblowers, but there's been nothing credible, no evidence that I've seen. Do I want to come forward?

Do I want to put my neck in the guillotine and risk my career, my life, the lives of my family to come forward with this information? Or do I stay home? Give him time. I mean, I honestly, I hate myself, but I'm defending him. Give him time because I think that he does not yet have the authority to fully authenticate the information. claims right now that he has heard. And I know that to be true that he doesn't have the authority yet, but they're seeking it. So I would say just give it a beat. So if we were to say that's part of the bad, we saw the good, we've seen the bad now, is that that came out. I mean, loud and clear,

he does not have Title 10 and Title 50 authority to go ahead and pierce the veil of secrecy with these special access programs, places that we know hold the goodies, hold the secrets. Straight up. Yeah. So that's, that's Isn't that the roadblock that everybody's kind of when it comes to UFOs? If this is real, if this is the secret that we're holding technologies that are far, we're not just seeing them in the skies. That is known Senator Gillibrand talked about that. We now know that there are machines of unknown origin that perform in ways that we can't duplicate, we can't replicate, and there's no advanced nation that we know of that is manufacturing these craft.

So we get to the point where we're like, well, who's are they? And if anything we've learned with the UFO subject, it's that if this is true, and we've been trying to get derivative technologies from these, I don't know, UFOs, that shit is locked up. It's just not something that these private industry stakeholders are going to just open up to the public about it. So he might have the same problems as everybody before him trying to get him. It's annoying as fuck. Well, we did get a chance to see one of the pieces of evidence that has come into Arrow. in recent times, and I don't know about you, but when I saw this orb floating over the Middle East,

it kind of rang a bell with me. It seems familiar, doesn't it? How so, George? I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know. Episode one of Weaponized comes to mind. Oh, was it episode one? Okay, so, right.

So what you're talking about is that... Kayak gets my flight, hotel, and rental car right, so I can tune out travel advice that's just plain wrong. Bro, Skycoin, way better than points. Never fly. during a Scorpio full moon. Just tell the manager you'll sue. Instant room upgrade.

Stop taking bad travel advice. Start comparing hundreds of sites with kayak and get your trip right. Kayak, got that right. This episode is brought to you by Subaru. Go further in a long-range Subaru hybrid, with up to 581 miles per tank in the Forrester Hybrid. Longer range, better fuel efficiency,

and legendary symmetrical all-wheel drive standard. The Subaru Forrester Hybrid. Visit Subaru.com slash hybrid to learn more. Maximum range based on EPA estimated combined fuel economy and a full tank of fuel. Actual mileage and range may vary. Dr. Kirkpatrick, he demonstrated two cases within Arrow that they said one is unresolved and one is resolved. I found his choices super interesting.

So the first choice he chose was an orb. So it was a metallic sphere. This is the most common UFO site. is a metallic sphere anywhere between one meter to three meters that just moves under intelligent control without heat plumes or exhaust, right? It's not aerodynamic. So they did show one of those. They did show it was not the Mosul Orb.

The Mosul Orb is the image of the video that we released. There is a video. It's been used to brief the armed services. It's been used to brief, you know, defense contract. It's been used to brief politicians. It's been used to brief... I mean, really, the whole armed services, if you have SIPPERNet or any of these classified server access,

you can go see it yourself. Jay Stratt did a 23-minute video about UFOs, how to identify them and what's up. Why did he show from the Middle East one of these orbs and they're not releasing the Mosul orb video? Your guess is as good as mine. Well, I mean, he also said, this is all the information we have.

The video is all we have. What platform was that used to record that image? A Reaper drone. A reaper drone. A sensor system, a flying spy apparatus, right? So if they know the point in time and space where that footage was taken, which of course they do, because it's in all of the data and the metadata of that image, they can find out how fast it was going, they can find out the exact size.

and there are other sensor systems that can then corroborate what that one Reaper drone picked up that shouldn't be a problem. So I'm surprised when he said that's all the information we have. Maybe it is right now. All you have to do is dig in a little bit and you'll have more information. Yeah, ask for it. You know, I've already seen people on UFO social media trying to explain, eh, it's probably just a balloon and it looks like it's moving kind of fast because the Reaper is moving kind of fast.

What do you say to that? Yeah, I mean, there is validity to the idea that it's hard to determine the speed of something without knowing all the variables. Like, that's totally fair. The thing is, is that it's unresolved, it's unknown, it is indicative of over 50% of the UFO sightings. It is something that we made the public aware of from a 2016 video, the Mosul orb, first time the world had ever seen, you know, military film footage from a conflict zone. So now you've got another, and it's the same.

So the question is, does Dr. Capatrick-Naro not have the proper resources, not have the right amount of time, not the right amount of funding? All of this is what they were addressing in that hearing was trying to empower his office to get more information. Look, UFOs and what pilots are seeing and what we've experienced for a long time, we are all searching for the same thing. We are all searching for understanding, no matter where they are from. It's clear at this point we have ruled out U.S. technology. That is 100% clear. Seems to be that that object that was released in that video clip looks a heck of a lot like the Mosul orb. Do you think they're the same thing?

I would have no way of knowing. It's not the same. It's not the same video. Oh, yeah, totally. It's not the same video. But the Mosul orb is if you ever get to see the video, if the American public ever gets to see the video, it is totally identical to what you've seen. I mean, it's not the same video. Mosul Orbis in 2016.

The one he showed is 2022. And it's a spherical, metallic object, which is not just like a, it's not just a balloon or something. They rule those out immediately. Those never make it into the archive. That was a point. This is unknown.

It's a genuine unknown. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not behaving like a balloon or it wouldn't be in that archive. You'll recall when we had the Mosulorp and released it. The reaction was, oh, that's a drop of water on the camera. It's a pothole.

Clearly, this thing is not a pothole flying through the sky. Well, if people could see the Mosa or video, if our Department of Defense decided to release it, then it would just be like this video. They'd realize that it's not all these ridiculous things that they said. I understand going for the lowest hanging fruit and trying to make everything explainable so your worldview doesn't collapse.

I get that. We're all trying to survive on a daily basis. But reality is that the UAP or UFO presence is real and we now are openly talking about it now. We have a government agency that is openly studying it. That's the thing about Arrow that's different than when we've had secret programs. Never acknowledged.

Arrow's acknowledged. I love that. Here's the other point that I think needs to be made. Okay, so Dr. Kirkpatrick shows this in a hearing before the U.S. Senate, a Senate subcommittee. He shows that video. The heavens did not open. World War III did not erupt.

Our national security was not compromised. the Russians didn't invade Santa Monica, the Chinese didn't attack us in Alaska or wherever. I mean, you can release this information and it does not compromise U.S. national security. Why not release the video of the Mosul Orp? Why not release the video of the Baghdad Phantom, which we have made public?

Well, let's talk about the Baghdad Phantom in a second, but I, again, am saying, hey, everybody, you've seen an image. We put out an image. it was contained within a classified briefing, but is inherently unclassified. Why not allow the public to engage this? I do think like social media and crowdsourcing is a good idea. Dr. Kirkpatrick kind of was saying, this issue is not going to be resolved on social

media or blogs. I get his point. Like it's not like a perfect system, but crowdsourcing is important. I think letting the public see what's going on, the world's not going to collapse. But the Mosul Orb and the video that he released, are so freaking common. This is an occurrence that happens all the time with the UFOs is this type of machine.

I have heard Dr. Kirkpatrick and others in the US government and the Pentagon talking about transparency. Oh gosh, we really need transparency. That is a goal of ours. We want to be transparent. I don't see a lot of transparency. For example, he gave us very little information

to go along with that orb video. We have no other data. I don't believe that to be the case. That cannot possibly be true. We know for sure they have other information about the Mosul orb that we released. We know for sure they have other data about the Baghdad Phantom that they have not released. And we know that when we've presented videos and other images that we have obtained to the Pentagon, they shut us down, right? So maybe he doesn't have more information at this time. But the thing is, if I can go get more information on the Baghdad Phantom and I can get more information on the Mosa orb, why can't his office?

So that does bother me. Maybe he should have said at this time. The thing is, look, I'm just imagining we're all in this together. We're just trying to figure out what's up with UFOs, right? He should have, at his resource, the ability to investigate any of these at higher quality than the public. I do agree that we should get more transparency. If they're saying transparency, then let's get more transparency.

Get this information out there. The Baghdad Phantom, let's talk about that. The second example that Dr. Capatrick showed in this hearing, it was already a resolved issue. So he's showing thermal imagery. I don't know if it's white hot or black hot. It's hard to really analyze it without all the information. And I'm not a systems analyst, but he was showing something that was already resolved.

So, hey, look, sometimes we get footage that looks really cool or really strange, and then we figure out it's a plane. Yeah, we know that. We deal with that every day. That's what people deal with. The thing is, is that it was so weird he chose that one because remember how you and I, when we first put out the Baghdad Phantom to the public? We're like, we don't know what this trail is in the back, but we think it's like a camera artifact, you know, coming from the camera. Well, he confirmed that the one that he showed, he made a big point of showing that it also had a camera. I didn't know why he was showing that way.

It was kind of weird. The Baghdad Phantom filmed in White Hot has no exhaust plumes of heat coming out of it. It is not an airplane and it is not a missile. And so it was kind of weird. Like if we have better examples of UAP that we somehow get leaked from Air Force or whatever we get from, there was a weird one to show. Why didn't he show something better? Yeah, well, you know, it makes we wonder if somebody at Congress, some Senate staffer, is watching weaponized because it seems coincidental that that first hearing, that House hearing, they essentially tried to debunk the pyramid videos, the bouquet over the warships on the USS on the West Coast, the Navy warships.

And then in this one, they got an orb and something similar to the Baghdad fandom. Yeah. Coincidence, right? Yeah, coincidences. I mean, look, obviously they're responding to public demand and public opinion. Obviously, if anybody obtains footage of designated UAP from the military and releases them to the public, that's going to be a topic of conversation, you know, within the intelligence communities. Of course it is. That is a leak. That is information leak. And I'm not saying it's a good thing, but at this point, you know, there's frustration. There's frustration because everybody knows that there's good evidence being hidden. No evidence of extraterrestrials.

What would that kind of evidence look like? I mean, obviously, that's a headline that a lot of people exploited. There's no evidence of aliens or ETs or something like that, which is probably true. But what would evidence that confirms its E.T. even be? Unobtainium, some element that doesn't exist here. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. People's standards for what, you know, look, I don't know what the full picture is of UFOs. It appears to me by the way that people are interacted with and the design of the craft that these are from an advanced civilization not, they could easily travel to other star systems.

That's what the design of the craft seem to be able to, if you believe that stuff. I mean, and I do. It seems like, you know, the design is able to travel amongst the stars. But I still don't know. It could be so much weirder than that. So we're talking about good, bad, ugly. Here's what I would consider to be ugly. We touched on this for a moment.

The fact that he does not have the legal authority to force his way into special access programs where we believe the goodies are stored and hidden. That's a problem. The second problem is budget. Now, we didn't get a lot of conversation about that. I suspect there were more discussions behind closed doors in the closed session.

But, you know, we've seen public statements from senators in the last couple of weeks that says, hey, we authorized a pretty good budget to get this program underway, and the Pentagon has not allocated that money. The Secretary of Defense says he'll get to the bottom of it and figure it out, but the fact that they did not give the money that Congress wanted to fund for this, that they still don't have the authority and personnel that Congress intended for it, is troubling to me. It seems like we've seen evidence that the Department of Defense is dragging its feet, that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming

into supporting this investigation and getting to the bottom of it. And I am not encouraged by it, and I suspect Dr. Kirkpatrick has realized there are forces within the Pentagon within our government that don't want this to happen. Yeah, I don't know, man. I mean, again, I'm of two minds about it. I mean, from the one side,

I'm like, I'm so glad that there's an open, government program to study UFOs that we all knew about from the beginning, that is telling us how they're handling it. On the other side, we know that there is so much that is not being told yet, and it's just, it's frustrating. I don't know. If I were a whistleblower with classified information about these super secret programs and it's explosive, I would have second thoughts about coming forward right now based on what

he said. Maybe he's putting out the bat signal to them on some other wavelength that tells them to come in and share information, but I'd be really concerned about it. The second thing is, you and I know that the Air Force has been dragging its feet. We know that there is a logjam, that some of the images that we have seen go to a certain spot and they don't go any further, that they have not gone to Arrow, they have not been kicked upstairs, that people like Susan Goh or Goff can't comment on them because she hasn't seen them.

That is a problem. Yeah. Okay, I'm getting increasingly frustrated as we do this podcast because I realize, no, I just I realize like, fuck, we're reinventing the wheel here. I mean, ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. There's so much going on, you know, behind the scenes when it comes to the UFO thing that it's, it just feels like they're, reinventing the wheel with these studies. There is knowledge of, I mean, look, just look back to your

Russia reports that we just released an episode of. They were aware that we had certain satellite systems dedicated to the study of UFOs. And this was in the 80s. So what, you know, did he not get the memo? Did he not get all this information? So on one level, I'm starting to get really frustrated because it is kind of a reinvention of the wheel. But I think it's a necessary one. I think that, you know, we have to start fresh. We have to look at it fresh. We can go back to the history books on this stuff. But I think it's positive, but it's a little frustrating.

Well, we know that there's a place where a lot of these images have been submitted and they never went any further. Yes. We know what some of those images are. Yes. And they're pretty damn spectacular that Dr. Kirkpatrick and his team should be able to see him. Yeah, look, it would be baffling to me if he did not have access to that information. information. There's, you know, this is this is the whole thing with the UFO topic is we need scientific study. We need it. I want it to be transparent like Arrow hopefully as being a

forward facing UFO program. The last time we had a public UFO program was Project Blue Book. So I just got higher hopes now. Well, there was a non-public UFO program called OSAP that we've talked about before that you and I have reported on before. Let's let's use that as an example. Dr. Kirkpatrick is now, what, nine months in? Yeah. He doesn't have the authority he needs. He doesn't have the budget he needs. He doesn't have the staffing he needs. By nine months in, OSAP already had 50 full-time employees and they were out in the field investigating UFO cases. They created the world's largest UFO database. Dr. Capatrick has not seen that database. He has not seen the reports that were produced by it, more than 100 different

reports. The fact that he has not had access to any of that is troubling to me. Well, maybe he has and he just wants to start anew with his organization. I don't know. You know, maybe he has seen it. Did you see some of the people? Did you recognize anybody who's in the audience? That was a small little hearing room. Dan.

I recognize the guy named Dan. Dan is awesome. It's a good guy. He produces great videos, right? He does. So, yeah, on, I think, like, TikTok and Twitter, Dan does cool updates about UFOs. And, you know, look, I really, that was so cool.

He decided I'm going to get in the audience. I'm going to actually go there. I'm going to see it firsthand. That's really what it takes to report on this stuff, is to really be kind of boots on the ground and see it for yourself. I saw a couple of the photos of some people. I did not recognize them in the audience.

It was a small audience, but at least one of them had brought a little saucer that he had made, a flying saucer, and there's a shot of him showing it to Dr. Kirkpatrick, and there's a look of incredulity on the part of Kirkpatrick, like, why are you showing me this thing you made in your garage? Yeah. Well, look, it comes with a territory.

It does come up. with the territory. Like, we're so, we're also fixated on this, right? Like, not, not, most people are not dealing with, you know, individuals directly involved with these programs. So there's this sense of, like, you see something really powerful. It affects you, man. You get, you know, UFO disease. You want to, like, oh, my gosh, I've got the best evidence ever in my backyard with a camera. And sometimes it's not the best evidence. Or usually it's not the best evidence. But I understand, I understand the enthusiasm for this because it's like everybody's dancing around Is it true or is it not true?

Why did they not call other witnesses? You know, why is Lou Elizondo not appear before one of those committees? We know that Lou and Chris Mellon have met with those committees over the last five or six years, almost six years now, have given them testimony. We know that they brought people like Dave Fraber over to meet with Senate staff and elected members of Congress. Why are those guys not there testifying? Right.

I guess it wasn't that kind of. party, right? I mean, this was just really like a budgetary and authority check-in saying, hey, how are you doing? Do you have all the resources you need for Arrow to study UFOs? But I really think that the next thing that we need in order to really move the needle here is to hear directly from people, for example, like Commander Frazier in an open congressional hearing, how amazing would that be? You mentioned Lou Elizondo. He worked in a UFO program. I can only imagine people like Dr. Colm-Kelleher, Dr. Lackatsky, Jay Stratton, people that actually ran UFO programs for much longer than Arrow has been around. Wouldn't that be valuable open congressional testimony?

Right. I think that as this moves forward, hopefully it does, that Congress should consider other models. So Senator Harry Reid, as we know, secured $22 million that funded the OSAP program. it became the biggest UFO study that we know of in the history of the U.S. government. They produced a massive data warehouse of UFO cases, a hundred or so technical reports. None of that information has been made public, but they did it all in a very short period of time. The whole existence of OSAP was 27 months. We have a government model that's nine months in that's produced almost nothing, not much of anything.

So maybe as Congress moves forward, they should consider private organizations that could do some of this work if they had proper clearances. I mean, in defense of error again, okay? So they've nine months. You work for error. I don't work for error. I'm just saying. I feel for the guy, man. I feel for Dr. Sean Patrick.

Because, you know, they were like allocated nine months ago, but how much time is they, have they really had? They don't even have the right authorities yet. I really hope that they'll continue on this road. Proper scientific analysis of the footage. Look, a lot of it's not going to be UFOs. Get rid of the balloons, get rid of the birds, get rid of all that. We are interested in the machines of unknown origin with advanced capabilities that fly with impunity. That's what we're interested in.

That's true. Just give him a chance. Okay, all right. I'll back off. That's fine. I'll just say this. I see Dr. Kirkpatrick sitting there. It does not look like he's having a lot of fun.

You know, I don't know, it probably sounded like a really cool job title. I'm going to be in charge of Arrow. I'm going to investigate UFOs, UIP, I'm going to get to the bottom of this. That's really something cool to put on your resume. But he does not seem to be having fun with the nature of the questions posed by members of Congress. And then there's another hearing coming in June that probably is going to be a little more, a little more, a little nastier. Hold on. You just think we do not know for sure it's coming in June.

Dates are moving targets. I don't know how you know that anyway. Allegedly. Well, I think it's a moving target. I think it's going to be moving past that anyway. So let's hope. Let's hope we have more congressional hearings. Let's hope that we hear directly from a program,

people that worked in the programs, maybe a couple witnesses who saw stuff that are kind of irrefutable, that have good sensor data surrounding like command of favor. Let's hope. But it's a moving target at date. I think we should all fight for more congressional hearings

with direct testimony from people that worked in UFO programs, that would be the gold standard. Absolutely. But we do know that there are people in the house who are flame throwers, who are not patient, who want to get to the bottom of this, and who are prepared to ask many more pointed questions than what we have heard so far. Oh, yeah, like 100% for sure.

There are more pointed questions that could be asked with yes or no. answers, and I think we will be getting that soon. I just don't want to put a date on it, but I know it's happened. Back to Dr. Kirkpatrick. So I feel for him to some extent. I feel that he is trying to do a good job, that he needs more authority, that he needs a solid budget, that he needs the kind of staff that he was promised, and he doesn't have any of those things. So he's plugging away. He's written some papers that are interesting with Dr. Avi Loeb, and is trying to make a dent in this problem, but I suspect this is not as much fun or as rewarding professionally as he anticipated. And I suspect that it also has great pitfalls, great risks for his

professional reputation to suddenly become the UFO guy. What job does he get after this? I have a prediction. I think he's going to leave. I think a year from now, we're recording this in April of 2023, a year from now he will not be in that job. That's the George Knapp UFO crystal ball. Like, whatever happens, I hope that they continue on task, and I hope that as they get more information, that they'll be more transparent with the public, because I think there's a lot lacking there.

But maybe it's just because it all happens so quick, let's see what happens next with Arrow. Yeah, I mean, also, we're available to help them out. We can show them where some of this stuff is stashed. I mean, have they ever seen a jellyfish UFO, for example? George, I don't trust Arrow to do its job. You know what I mean? That's the honest truth.

And if I don't trust them to do their job yet, they got to earn that trust from everybody, me not even included. They got to earn a lot of trust. They'll get reports, I'm sure, but the people that really have worked in these programs, they got to know they're going to be okay. So hopefully Arrow does a good job,

continues and earns trust of people. And I don't know, man. Maybe they will be receiving more footage this year. I wish them luck. We'll help them if we can, but they got a tough road to help. Has so few, had so much to tell, but would say so little. Following this in a weaponized, the presentation of Jeremy Corbelle,

George Knapp, Dark Course Entertainment, and Cadence 13 Studios. Available now for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your shows.