Congressional UFO UAP Hearing 2024 Review and Highlights

Show Transcript

Today we're doing a more deep dive analysis on the UAP hearing that took place November thirteenth in Washington, D.C. But you're not going to believe this as this show is live moments and I'm saying five minutes or less. Arrow just dropped their annual report on UAP. So you know what tomorrow's show is going to be about, about the report. (00:39) And I had almost no time to read these eighteen pages. But just to give you a brief overview from what I captured is that they still have the category of things that they can't explain, which is not a shocker. However, in the category of other, they identified a jelly ship shaped craft with flashing lights. (01:03) Why is that significant? Well... Just last week, two weeks ago, I had MUFON investigator Bob Spearing on the show, and it was all about jellyfish-shaped craft. And to see it in this report, that really jumped out at me. We will be covering this tomorrow, so make sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell so you do not miss it. (01:27) But today is about the UFO hearing. So let's go and get started with that. But I mean, right now my mind is a little all over the place just because that happened very quickly. Starting off with the interview that Tim Burchette gave to News Nation right after the hearing. And I'm going to be paraphrasing what he said because it's going to be very important. (01:54) Since he was one of the congressmen present at the hearing, he did ask questions. He has been one really pushing for these hearings. He's been definitely on the front lines. And so what he mentions to News Nation might be shocking for some, but I think... A little eye-opening for others. So he expressed, like many of us, strong dissatisfaction with the UFO hearing, describing them as miserable and even bogus. (02:23) And he criticized the process, noting that officials repeatedly avoided answering questions and displaying dismissive attitudes. attitudes, particularly when shown specific videos. And now Burchette has also been, as we all know, a leading voice for UFO transparency, suggesting that these hearings were merely, listen to this, rehashing old information without providing meaningful new insights. (02:50) But then it gets a little bit more interesting. And this part you want to hear. Because in the last week or two, I've been posing the question, will Donald Trump be the UFO disclosure president? And it seems like I am not the only person asking this question. When it was brought up by... by the reporter right here, and her name escapes me, I apologize. (03:16) She said, well, with the new Trump administration, what's going to happen? And he expressed a significant confidence in Trump's potential to approach the UFO disclosure. And based on his conversations with Trump and his team, Bruchette believes Trump is committed to transparency on this issue, stating, quote, you tell Trump he doesn't have access to something, you better just get out of the way because he's going to get it no matter what. (03:48) And a lot of other representatives in the government are seeing this positive light as well when it comes to UFOD. Daniel Sheehan has also mentioned this in an interview that he gave with MUFON just yesterday, right after the hearing as well, that Trump has stated that as soon as he's in office, he will release more UFO information to the public as he knows how entrusted the public is on this. (04:15) But this is something that we're really seeing more consistently as the days progress. And I'm going to assume all the way until Trump's inauguration in January. Mace also gave an interview to News Nation, and she mentioned that this hearing is just the tip of the iceberg. It's the second one on this topic where they are bringing in UFO investigators. (04:39) But they may be classified as whistleblowers, but not entirely. Talking about these things, being open and saying everything under oath. That is one of the most significant things about this hearing is that practically everything they say and do will be used against them. for the most part, and it has already when it comes to the internet. (05:01) But they are really attempting here to just get this more in the mainstream, and it's very important. From what I've been searching online, trying to get other people's perspective, other media outlets, You can't really find that many articles that were summarizing the hearing, talking about the hearing. (05:21) Yes, it was streamed across media platforms, especially News Nation. Thank you to them and a few others. But for the most part, there haven't been any follow-ups. And that's where it's been a little disappointing. So that is where you and I fill in the gaps to give people bite-sized information to make it as easy to access as possible and as easy to understand as possible. (05:46) It was a two, two and a half hour hearing. I get not everyone has the time to watch it. That's why you come over here and I'll be giving you that analysis, at least other things that I caught. So now that we kind of gave the preface with Tim Burchette and what he said to News Nation, we're going to go into order from here of what was said, who asked what and how these panelists answered these questions. (06:12) Before we move forward, I want to say thank you to everyone catching this live. Hi, how are you? Hit that like button right down below, if and only if you are enjoying the show. Marty says News Nation has been the leader on this topic. They definitely have. They've really been outshining other media. other media platforms on this topic. (06:33) And I think that's why they have such a big audience is because so many of us want to know these answers. We want it to be addressed seriously. And News Nation is really coming through on that. So I appreciate it, like many of you as well. So here we have them all swearing under oath. And I do have the timestamps for the hearing yesterday that really kind of gets you who asked what, when the oath was, pre-commentary, post-commentary. (07:03) I'll place that link in the description box below for you if you would like to watch that hearing. But I can't stress enough, I want to make it as easy as possible for you. Also, there will be an article written on the hearing as well. So Mace, Nancy Mace was the chairman. She was at the last hearing. Here's an image of her. (07:21) And she killed it. She killed it both days. Last year in July of twenty twenty three. And then yesterday, November thirteenth of twenty twenty four. She asked fireball questions. She was on top of it. She wanted to know the answers and she wasn't messing around. As soon as she started asking her questions, she says, just give me a yes or no answer. (07:43) I'm not here for the fluff. I'm not here for the BS. Just give me the goods. And then she said, come at me, bro. And I'm ready for it to have that on a t-shirt because I thought that was so awesome. I will also be sharing a few clips as well of some of the things that I found the most intense during this hearing. (08:04) And Mace will bring up a little bit later as she started with questions and then she ended with questions as well. So that is very interesting. But one thing that she stated that I think is very important, and I was so glad to hear it to be on congressional record, is that If the government stance is, oh, there's nothing to see here. (08:25) There's no UFOs. Everything can be explained. Why has it been funded since the late nineteen forties into the nineteen fifties? And we've had all of these offices, all of these projects, but we have no idea how much money all of these offices and projects got. And if we already received that answer with, let's say, Project Grudge, Sign or Blue Book, And it was, oh, nothing to see here. (08:53) Why are we still funding these offices if obviously we already know the answer, right? That's what she was really getting at. I very much appreciate it. While Elizondo was shaking his head, he was like, yes, I am with you on that. And a few other panelists and everyone in the audience, they were like, yes, yes, Miss Mace, get at it. (09:17) Moving on, this is actually very important. And that was the Langley Air Force Base incident that took place in December of twenty twenty three. That was reported by The Wall Street Journal not too long ago. This was mentioned twice during this hearing, which shows how significant it is. It was mentioned by Rothman, but she was the second one to speak after Chairman Chairwoman Mace. (09:42) and then by Timmons near the end. So again, it's on public record now. Before, it's just an article with some nice sources, but now it is in the congressional records. And for those that aren't familiar with that incident, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Langley Air Force Base in Virginia said, They had these drone incursions, drones, I'm putting that in air quotes, for about seventeen days. (10:10) And why I'm putting drones in air quotes is because these objects in the sky were outmaneuvering F- twenty two fighter jets. Training was canceled in the area and the F- twenty two fighter jets were relocated. If they were actually drones, that wouldn't have happened. They could have shot them down. Right. (10:30) Well, Actually, it's kind of tricky with drones flying over military airspace. If they're not classified as a threat, they can't be shot down. It's actually terrible, the protocol for that. But regardless, this happened for seventeen days. One of the generals there that witnessed this stated that it looked like moving constellations. (10:52) And this this incursion was under wraps until The Wall Street Journal made it public. which is unfortunate in some ways, but I'm also very grateful in others that it was addressed by these congressmen, that they actually cared about this article. And it was mentioned twice and now is on the congressional record as well. (11:13) That's something that definitely caught my attention. Did it catch yours when you heard it? My ears puked up so quickly. I was like, oh my gosh, Grothman, while you sound like you don't want to be there, You did a great job with mentioning that. I want to say a big thank you there. Cecil says extremely, extremely populated there as well. (11:35) Good to know. That means a lot of eyeballs hopefully saw this take place for the seventeen days that it happened. Right. I would hope so. P-Dub says, Langley drone sounded quite large and fast. Very interesting. Especially when you're able to outmaneuver F-二 fighter jets. It's going to pique people's interest and curiosity. (12:07) Then we have Jared Maskowicz. And I feel like I pronounce his name different every single time. Forgive me, but I'm going to call him Maskovich for now. And he was like, let me put on my lawyer hat here, Lou Elizondo. And you know what? I'm actually going to play the clip for this one because what I'm going to say, it just can't do it justice. (12:30) So I'm going to share my screen here. Just give me a moment. Hold on. See, with StreamYard, I can play videos, but it has no audio. So now I got to upload it to YouTube as a private video, blah, blah, blah. So much fun stuff, right? Actually, no, it's not fun at all. Just give me a second. I even had it ready. (13:05) Oh, well. Okay. Cause it's like, I don't want to. Okay. Well, while I do that, let me give you a preface on what Jared had stated. One of the biggest things is like, let me put on my lawyer hat here. I'm, I'm a recovering lawyer, as he says. And he goes on to mention that talk about fight club. Um, cause there's no fight club, right? And this, this reference, I think hit home for a lot of people, uh, especially for Luella Zondo in particular, since he was the one that had the question addressed (13:44) to him and I have it ready now. So I'm going to have Jared, Jared, tell us, there it is. Here we go. Oh, wait. I want to put my hat on for a second. You said you signed a document. Love that. Who gave that to you? The U.S. government, sir. Okay. You have a copy of it? It is stored in a skiff right now. I do not have possession of it. (14:15) 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 craft retrieval. Well, you know, you can't talk about Fight Club if there's no Fight Club. (14:31) Correct. Okay, I'm just making an observation. 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 X, Y, Z, but you cannot discuss the topic. (14:54) Give me the atmosphere of signing this document. You're in a room by yourself? I'm in a skiff with a security officer, sir. Just one-on-one? Anybody else? There may have been an assistant as well. It was in a skiff within a Department of Defense facility. Give me your background real quick. My background is I went to school to study microbiology and immunology, entered into the U.S. (15:15) Army, and after a very short stint in military intelligence, I became a counterintelligence special agent as a civilian. Later on, I became a special agent in charge, running investigations in counterterrorism and counterespionage, primarily with some experience in counterinsurgency and counter narcotics. And then in the two thousand nine time frame, 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 OSAP that evolved (15:45) into the program now called ATIP, which is where those videos that we now see, the GoFast, the Gimbal, the FLIR, that was part of our effort, sir. Right. So you're not some... Conspiracy theorist. You actually have a legitimate background. Well, sir, I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. I'm fact-based, just say fact. (16:04) So when you're in this room, I want to paint the picture of everybody. You're in this room, you're by yourself, you're in a skiff, you're handed a document. How long is the document? It's about a page front and back. So basically you have some things they call trigraphs, which I cannot, again, talk to. (16:16) 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 ask a lawyer or 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 was pretty explicit about you have to be – let me try to thread the needle here – There are certain documents that we have in the U.S. (16:46) 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. (17:01) Okay. Last question. Doctor, real quick, can you tell us about the Omaha incident in greater detail? I've read your background, right? Some people would label you as a member of the deep state, since you worked in government for a long period of time. But can you tell us more about that incident? You've written a lot about that. (17:19) I wrote a lot about incidents like it, Congressman, but that specific incident involved the USS Omaha, the tour combat ship of the U.S. Navy operating off Southern California. I don't remember the exact date. It was within the last decade. And what the watchstanders on the bridge observed was a UAP, again, something that was aloft but had no observable exhaust or control surfaces. (17:45) 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 thus exhibiting transmedium travel. Thank you. So that was only a few minutes long, but we were able to see Jared Maskovich ask some pretty tough questions. (18:07) Now, one part that I think might have rubbed people the wrong way is you're not a conspiracy theorist, right? It's a little list there. And while some might consider, oh, that was so rude of him, not necessarily. If anything, it was giving Lou the benefit of the doubt to say, you're not crazy. You know these things. (18:28) You've worked for the government. You've done research on these things. You're not a tinfoil hat kind of guy. And when we're dealing with politicians and the government, it's word salad with them. And you have to really, really read in between the lines to get an understanding of what they're really getting at. (18:48) It's all about riddles with them. And on the surface, you're like, bro, how could you say something so rude? Not entirely true. But also, what he had stated, and it really caught me by surprise, to be honest with you, is to Tim Galladet, asking him, well, telling, people would label you as part of the deep state. (19:13) I nearly lost it. I said, are we even allowed to say that? Is that even okay? And Galladet... I can just imagine his face being completely red. But he immediately corrected Mr. Maskovich and said, well, some of these cases I know of in detail immediately. Because if I was sitting in his place, in Gallaudet's place, I would feel a little attacked as well. (19:44) Now, is that true? Is that not? Anyone can make up their own mind. I'm not going to tell you one way or the other. But for Jared to open up with that, Jared Maskovich, I was like, dang. Dang, making them sweaty for sure. Drink all that water, guys, because you're going to be under some heat for sure. Then it goes and it allows, after those two questions were asked by Mace and Maskovich, then the panelists are giving their written testimonies. (20:16) They had already given Congress letters. I would honestly say like thirty hours or more prior to the hearing. And we've covered it here in detail over the last several days, really about the things that they covered. And of course, during the hearing, they only had five minutes, so they had to really summarize what they wanted to say. (20:39) They couldn't read all nine pages because that we would be sitting here for probably the entire day. Something that I did notice is that aside from Lue Elizondo, who is very used to being under heat, being asked questions on news, on podcasts, and things like this, he's good at keeping control of his breath, of his tone of voice, and just the overall environment. (21:08) As for Gallaudet, Gold and Schellenberger, they're still a little bit new because public speaking is a whole different beast. It is not easy by any means. And you could tell Gallaudet and Gold specifically that. They were really speeding through their five-minute speech. I am aware that they had to fit in so much information in a short period of time because five minutes doesn't usually seem like enough time to get your point across. (21:40) But I was like, man, I know stress gets to us. We get nervous sometimes. But I wish them and some of the congressmen as well would have slowed down on their questions and on their statements so that we could really get a grasp on what they were saying. Luckily for you and I, we already read their testimonies beforehand. (22:03) We already knew what they were going to say, so we weren't in the dark. But for all of those that weren't prepared, I could see the little frustration of just like, whoa, hold on. What do you mean by A, B, and C? Then, oh, Paul, I agree with you. And I said this yesterday. Mr. Gold should narrate kids' books because he read to us like a child when he was giving his speech and almost all of his answers. (22:32) But I'm going to give this person the benefit of the doubt because public speaking is hard. I remember when I first started podcasting, I was like, I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what my style is. I don't know what's going on. I'm terrified. Now, I figured it out years later, but as for Gold, I'm going to take a guess here that he doesn't talk like what he talks about every single day in front of the camera, in front of people getting questioned or even prosecuted. (23:03) It's a learning curve, and I can get that. So there, in that case, I'm going to give Michael Gold the benefit of the doubt for that one. Yesterday, I was a little bit antsy. when I gave my shorter analysis and I'm like, oh, really worked up. But then after sitting and mellowing out and going to sleep and waking back up, I'm like, OK, Michael, we can get on good terms. (23:28) And you had some decent answers, but you were really pushing how transparent NASA is, and I'll share that clip with you a little bit later. along with that NASA should be the co or the real agency, the core agency to research UFOs. When we received that NASA briefing in September of twenty twenty three areas from that alone, from that media briefing alone. (24:02) OK, I'm looking at anything else NASA has done. They were not transparent with the funding. They weren't transparent about the latest chief for NASA's UFO office. They weren't talking to people like they were intelligent, but if anything, like they were kindergartners, which was really disappointing and condescending. (24:24) From that briefing alone, I didn't see any transparency from that team. Michael Gold was part of that team, but not a part of that panel. And so he might have more information that he wasn't able to share during the hearing yesterday. But when Mace asked Michael Gold, was NASA or is NASA familiar with any of the special access programs, the SAPs, when they were doing research on UFOs under the NASA UFO office? And Gold said, not to my knowledge, no. (25:00) with NASA being NASA, funded by the government, a part of the government, wanting to be as transparent as possible and knowing where to look, they should, it would be nice for them to have access to special access program information. But according to Gold alone, They didn't. But the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. (25:25) It's on a need-to-know basis. Only a few people need to know about the real research on UFOs and aliens and things like this. But the rest of the NASA corporation, operation, agency, they don't need to know. They need to focus on creating better telescopes than Webb. better technology, dealing with AI, and not a focus on extraterrestrials and UFOs. (25:52) I get that. I get that. It took me a few hours to really kind of let that simmer inside of my brain. But today, I get it. And maybe, just maybe, Michael wasn't in the need to know. And that's why he gave the answers that he did. And that would be the best person to provide to Congress is someone that doesn't have the information so that he doesn't have to lie under oath. (26:20) There are consequences if you get caught lying under oath. So maybe in this case for Michael, he genuinely didn't know. At least that's what I want to think. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to be optimistic. I gave him a hard time yesterday. Today, I want to be a bit nicer. So after these panelists were giving their testimonies, I will give you a brief overview on what they said in case you didn't catch it or read their testimonies or watch any of the shows that I've done in the last week on this. (26:59) That's okay. I got you. Because when we're looking at retired Rear Admiral Gallaudet, he talks about how his emails were wiped when speaking about a UFO sighting in twenty fifteen. Now, he he was the man to talk about USOs, unidentified submerged objects, which are UFOs underwater. But we hardly got any information on USOs, minus the one sighting that was reported in the and date unknown, shape unknown, that a USO was following a nuclear submarine, and it actually surpassed the speed of that submarine. (27:41) That's all the information that we got. I was a bit sad. No one really pressed on other USO information, aside from Ana Paulina Luna. who said, are there any hot spots in and around our oceans that you're familiar with? Also, Bo Burt asked a very similar question as well. And I really had, you know what, I had high hopes. (28:08) It's so sad to say, but I had high hopes thinking, okay, maybe we'll talk a little bit more about USOs. It was a little bit of a focus in the last hearing. We got some good information in the last hearing, but this one was a lot of, I can't answer that in the public setting. I can tell you that behind closed doors, which it's not surprising, but a bit disappointing. (28:32) But as May said in her News Nation interview right after the hearing is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. More hearings will bring more information and this will lay a foundation for other whistleblowers to come forward and feel comfortable. confident and comfortable to come forward to share their information, both publicly and privately as well. (28:55) But the way that Grush was treated right after the hearing, I can understand why other whistleblowers didn't come forward. And then here we are a year later, a little under a year later, or over a year, and these guys are being under significant heat as well, all of them. Gallaudet for being called part of the deep state. (29:17) Well, Elizondo, since the beginning, since he came out to talk to people about what he knows and what he can talk about, he's been under heat since the beginning. Then you have Michael Schellenberger, a journalist who brought the information to the world about the immaculate constellation. And then Mace was able to release a lot of those pages about the immaculate constellation to the public. (29:41) which we'll talk about a little bit later and then you have gold where and I've been reading the comments guys okay because I I want to stay up to date and I want to see if you caught anything that I missed but he's being thrown into the wildfire of this guy is a disinfo agent he's just a little mole for nasa And so I can just imagine the very nasty emails and phone calls that he's getting right now. (30:06) And maybe, again, just maybe, he really doesn't know the information. But he just didn't carry himself, I think, well enough for the public to like him from the first impression. Which is, I feel a little bad for him, actually. Then with Elizondo, he says that UAP are real and they're advanced technology that isn't human. (30:34) Then you have Schellenberger talk about the Immaculate Constellation and that the public has the need to know about what is going on about this subject. And he goes on a little bit later when questioned by Mace and by Higgins stating, well, have you vetted your sources? How do you know these sources that told you about this USAP? unacknowledged special access program, how do you know they're telling you the truth? And Michael states that, you know, I vetted my sources, I looked into them, they did say who they said (31:08) they were to me, and I will go to prison in order to protect the witnesses that have spoken to me. That is... It is for a journalist to to say something like that, for sure, because he's putting his credibility on the line and he's protecting those that have come to him out of confidence to share what they know, but to still be protected as well. (31:37) So I see the positives. Then as for Michael Gold, he just said NASA should be the one in control of UFO reporting, UFO data. They have great technology, great AI, great ML, which is machine learning. And it would be less funding for NASA to do the analysis on UFOs, give NASA the goods. That's what he said. (32:01) Wow. Within the fifty minute mark, that's when we started getting the questions. So the the questions from Mace and Jared specifically that I talked about a little bit earlier than I shared that clip with you. But it was a bit upsetting again that we didn't get a lot of information on USOs. I felt that was somewhat of a highlight to have Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet to be there and speak. (32:32) He didn't give a lot of information, but did you catch something starting off with Gallaudet that made you scrunch your eyebrows or made you want to go online and do further research? Let me know in the live chat. Let me know in the comments as well. I'd really like to hear that from you because always it's great to have so many eyes look at this because you catch things that I miss. (32:59) It's very important to me and to everyone else. Yes, Chrissy, I'm glad that you're bringing this up. And we're going to talk about this a little bit later, but I'll address it now, is that Gold said NASA already had the data. It just needed to be mined, right? So Gold had stated that they have whole archives on the data. (33:19) They just need to look for it. And I felt like that's a catch-twenty-two. Because if you have the data, why hasn't the UFO office looked into it? It's probably my biggest pet peeve here. And there must be more information to this as to why they haven't looked for that information from their own databases. (33:39) There has to be a reason. But I felt like Gold was digging a hole for himself when he said, oh, we have all this data. But we haven't looked at the data, but let NASA be in control of the UFO data and we'll give you that information because we're transparent and you can bet your boots. I had a lot of mixed feelings. (34:04) It seemed very contradictory. And overall, I was left confused. Okay, like which one is it? What's going on? Are we going to get this information? I stated yesterday, right after the hearing, I gave a short analysis. And I said, I can understand why Michael Gold was at the hearing. And that's because last year, a lot of people were asking about NASA. (34:30) What is NASA doing? How is NASA approaching this? They are all about space and technology. They should be the ones looking at UFOs. And I can get that mentality from a political stance, from a congressional stance. I'm like, OK, yeah, sure. It makes sense for that. Now, if you've been researching this topic for however long, it's a little bit more complicated than that. (34:55) But with all of the questions about NASA, I can see why he was invited to be there to address those questions, which I will show you a clip in just a little bit on that. Kellen says, NASA has a history of losing data. That's terrible. But it seems like actually a lot of these offices and agencies have that tendency as well. (35:20) They just lose boxes. They lose entire rooms of information. Files. Gone. Bye-bye. Terrible stuff, really. Yeah. All Light in the Sky says, what happened to NASA's UAP task force? I have no idea. And that's such a great question. It really is because that media briefing took place in September of twenty twenty three. (35:47) And it was a really big deal, at least to me. when it took place, and then it just fell off the face of the earth. We've never heard anything since. They got so much ridicule from that hearing, especially when they ended it with open questions for journalists and news outlets to ask their questions to the panel. (36:11) They were so heavily scrutinized. We haven't heard from them since. And then, Michael Gold comes along. He brings up the independent UFO research group funded by NASA. And that is the only time we've heard about it in the last year. Are we going to get more information? Are we going to receive more reports like the air report that we just received today, like, twenty, thirty minutes ago? I'd like to. (36:42) I mean, any information is good information, right? I'll take anything. Because it just shows that there is something to this topic. And the more eyes on it, the better. And this is the only way that we can push this topic forward. Is by being knowledgeable in the UFO phenomenon. That's what it's about. (37:02) That's what it's for. Then, getting on over. Bringing in Higgins here. Actually, no. Let me go back. Just for a second. Okay. About USOs. One more time. So... Hotspots were brought up by Anna Paulina Luna and by Boebert as well. And the questions were pointed to Tim Galladet. And Galladet says, I don't know where these UFO hotspots in the oceans are. (37:33) Man, I was upset. Am I surprised by his answer? No. But I was upset because off the coast of California, near Catalina Island, San Diego, that area, that whole coast of California has had its fair share of UFO sightings. And we can even think about the Nimitz encounter that according to Fravor, their encounter took place off the coast of San Diego. (38:03) And that's just one of so many sightings. And then you have the Coronado UFO incident. It's actually an alien abduction that took place during a UFO conference. What are the odds? Back in March of nineteen ninety four. And these are some of the more well-known cases. But there are so many things. sightings that have taken place off the coast of California that many people have classified it as a hotspot for these USOs. (38:32) And so for it not to be addressed by any means, I was a little bit depleted. I was a little sad there. Then we got to bring up Higgins. I'm not mentioning every single representative, but only the questions that I thought were the most important or that need to be addressed because of either the questions that were asked or the answers that were given. (39:07) So looking at Higgins, he comes in and he asks Michael Schellenberger if he will give his sources, if Schellenberger will give the sources on who gave him the information about the Immaculate Constellation. Schellenberger says, no, I can't do that. And Higgins says, you can't or you won't. And Schellenberger says, I won't. (39:34) Mic drop right there. Control. And this is when Schellenberger states, I will go to prison in order to protect those that have come to me in confidence to share this information. That's where that little tidbit comes in. Now we've got to bring in Frost. And I didn't know this, but he's one of the youngest politicians, which is super cool. (39:59) I think he was sworn in when he was twenty five years old. New information for me and maybe for you as well. Frost, in the last hearing in July of twenty twenty three and in this hearing, November thirteenth, twenty twenty four, he brings up NASA and he asks the question to NASA specifically of of how can they address this? How can they be transparent? What are they going to do in order to make this topic as coherent and as transparent as possible and I'm going to share that clip here with you because I think I (40:40) think he asks it very and the answer is also relevant so give me yet another moment there is and we're going to share our screen so I can play that for you If it feels like there it is. OK, here we go back. Thank you. During a hearing, NASA Administrator Nelson affirmed the importance of NASA in helping us to understand UAP. (41:15) 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, etc., 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. (41:35) 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. (41:56) 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 Grofman's comment about UAP focusing on national security sites, I believe there's something, Sarah, that you may have heard of called sensor bias. (42:14) 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 the second part of your question where we're not collecting the data specifically 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 um (42:42) 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 in 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 (43:10) 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. (43:29) So I can assure you, intentionally or not, NASA's very transparent organization. I don't know if many of you have worked with engineers or scientists. They love to talk. So I believe that NASA is a paradigm of transparency. But we must have the ability and the data to be able to be transparent with. And if we're not gathering that, if we're not looking at it, then we can't bring NASA into the game and get to that good science that you need. (44:00) How many times did Michael Gold say transparent? I'm guessing between four and five. And in that like one minute segment that he had, he said transparent four or five times. I want someone to go back and count how many times he said it. But the first time he said it, he got a little goose. His voice cracked a little bit and his face was turning purple. (44:22) Was it because he was just stressed for the entire hearing? Or is it because Eddie knows something that we don't? And he also stated that... Scientists and engineers love to talk. If they love to talk, then they wouldn't be given information about UFOs. You've got to be in the need to know. You've got to be selected to know this information and to be trusted to have that information without sharing it with others, unfortunately. (44:51) That's just how it is. So in this case, when Michael Gold had stated... That we're super transparent and that we all love talking about these things. That's probably because they're not in the need to know. That's my guess, at least. But what do you think about that? And I want to see how many times transparent was said. (45:15) Yeah, we're seeing a lot of funny stuff. Double speak, says Hillbilly Herb. Yes, a little bit of that. Lasso, that's funny. disingenuous. I know, Marty. It says, gold's Gold sounds very disingenuous. Yes, a little bit. And again, me, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and say maybe he's just not used to talking in public spaces, especially under oath, where everything can and will be used against you. (45:47) It can really get to you. I get that. I get that entirely. But yes, his tone of voice and his speech... It didn't really lean people to like him, which is sad because that just shows how important communication is and that we're not really taught how to properly communicate for the most part. It's something that you have to learn and that you have to practice. (46:18) When I first started, actually, I grew up with a speech impediment and a stutter. It was awful. I was so embarrassed. I would never want to share my stories and opinions. But after practicing, knowing my flaws, doing podcasts almost on the daily, that's what really helped me move forward. But You don't come out of the womb and say, man, I am the best communicator ever. (46:44) That's not how it works, unfortunately. Android, thank you so much for the fortnight nine super chat. It says gold is the chief growth officer for a space company. He wants to grow his NASA contracts and grow his pockets. Gold has a heavy conflict of interest. Greed, man. The last name like gold. How can you not? Got to put gold in those pockets. (47:12) It's unfortunate. Then we're really doing an analysis here, really covering the hearing. What happened? What questions were asked? What answers were given for those that don't want to watch the entire hearing? Now we're getting into Burleson. He really shined last year. where he had just been elected into Congress, and he says, I don't believe anything in this town. (47:35) And I can just imagine little pew-pew like that right after, like we're in the Wild West or something. But he was really asking about alien bodies. Do we have them? Do we know where they are? Have we retrieved them? A year later, he's asking the exact same questions, but to different people. And Lou Elizondo says, yes, yes, we've collected them. (47:59) But before I was born, how old is Lou Elizondo? Someone tell me. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. But we can do a little bit of math here to figure it out. There were some hints that maybe he was referring to Roswell. Or is that too much of a stretch? That's up for you to decide there. (48:22) But Elizondo said, under oath... Yes, we have retrieved bodies. The United States has retrieved bodies before the time he was born. This is really significant. And when I say significant, I'm looking at Lou Elizondo in particular because he's done thousands, and I'm not even exaggerating, thousands of interviews. (48:48) And people... have been attacking him since the beginning of like he's a disinfo agent don't believe him don't say this blah blah blah whatever right And people have always said, have him speak under oath. Have this man speak under oath because everything can and will be used against him. And if he lies, he will go to prison. (49:08) He spoke under oath yesterday. And he stuck to a lot of the same information that he has been sharing in all of those interviews all these years prior. He's sticking to his answers. I haven't seen any inconsistencies. And he said it all under oath. I just wanted to state that. I just wanted to put that out there. (49:30) for people because I I understand the controversial nature that he holds that he possesses but people have been one pleading pleading since before twenty seventeen oh give us a deep throat character that used to work the government to come forward and talk about ufos bam alessandro came all right have alessandro talk under oath otherwise won't believe anything that he says spoke under oath What's next on that checklist? Maybe he'll fulfill that as well. (50:06) Moving on over to Bobert, I had mixed feelings about her at the very beginning because she opens her five minutes I didn't know who she was I don't follow politics in the sense of like democrats versus republicans I follow politics for ufo information that's the only time I look at it so I didn't know who this woman was she comes up and she says I'm on a bunch of lists the earth is flat birds aren't real blah blah blah and I was confused and I said, is this sarcasm or is this legitimate? Either way, (50:50) it's not appropriate for this hearing because it's about UFOs and UFO transparency and exposing the truth on that topic. It's not about these other things that can have their own space during their own time. And it kind of brought down the conversation just a little bit. And then it also didn't let the audience to continue listening to her because of her first impression to everyone that didn't know who she was prior, like myself. (51:23) And I was like, oh, no, no, don't say this. Not not here. Not now. Sarcastic or not, I can't tell. at all. But pushing that intro aside, she asked some good questions. She did. I cannot deny that. She brought up the hybridization program which we've heard before but this time was under record no one knew the answer to that and I'm like okay okay how could you address it anyway could you imagine yes I know about the hybridization project and you're next oh oh chills down my spine that'd be kind of scary she also (52:09) asked about ufo hot spots as well like anna paulina luna which is another great question I really feel that it is because it's going to be under under congressional record and it's all under oath as well. But of course, they couldn't answer that question, at least in a public setting, maybe behind closed doors, they can point these people in the right direction to look. (52:32) But I think overall, It wasn't a bad hearing. It could have gone a lot worse. Were my expectations met? No. Solely because we knew who was going to speak there. We received their testimonies. The last hearing, I felt like it went pretty well, actually. Like that last hearing definitely exceeded my expectations. (53:00) So I had high hopes for this one. And I shouldn't have. I should not have had any expectations, but I did. And I was like, it's a good start. As May stated, it's only the tip of the iceberg. We got to be optimistic. It's being addressed. People are talking about it. That's what matters more than anything else. (53:27) But did it live up to its title of it being exposing the truth? I'm going to let you decide on that one. Do you feel like it exposed the truth? I think it opened the door, but it didn't leave it wide open for anyone just to walk in. If anything, you just barely put your foot through the door. end it's a start oh yes egyptian princess we can't forget the ending so for that didn't watch it let me give you let me tell you what happened because they're ending they're ending it may says okay (54:08) we're finishing it off robert garcia gives his finishing comments and then ogles he's running he's like oh running to get to his seat to ask his questions. He was running late. And Mace says, come on, babe. Come on. Something along those lines. So Mace started it really funny of, come at me, bro. And she ended it very funny of, come on, babe. (54:32) Hurry up. Ogles did ask some good questions about nuclear facilities and UFOs. And I can only imagine Robert Salas was there. And I can just imagine his face lighting up. He's like, yes, yes. They asked the question. They addressed it with the Malmstrom Air Force Base incident, which was also addressed during the AOI MSG hearing in twenty twenty two, where Gallagher was asking Scott Bray and Ronald Moultrie about the Malmstrom Air Force Base incident. (55:03) And they were like, I don't know what you're talking about. It's like one of the most famous cases and you don't know. disappointing but this time around we got similar answers actually mark thank you so much for the five dollars it says hi christina happy to watch your live stream a lot of news in the world of uap please keep up the excellent reporting thank you so much and for those watching this if you're enjoying the show hit that like button right down below we still have a little bit more to cover (55:37) and I'm seeing a lot of people people uh saying babe Come at me, babe. Oh, that'd be funny. That'd be good. All funny stuff in the comments. Chrissy, you were on the same page. Yes, I thought babe and come at me were hilarious. I agree. It's nice for it to be a little lighthearted, but still under a serious tone. (56:01) And Mace seems to be like the person that can balance both appropriately. She did a really good job. I cannot complain. Now, we've got to talk about the Immaculate Constellation, at least an overview. There it is. This is just a screenshot from the hearing yesterday. While I cover this with you, it's only a few pages long. (56:30) It's, what, eleven pages or so? Mace released it on Twitter. How many? which is great. You can find it there. I also tweeted it as well. And I will place that link in the description box below for you so you can read it on your own time. It is a bit dense, which is great. We want as much information as we can get. (56:54) But let's look at the overview on this because it reveals a pretty fascinating array of UAP shapes and characteristics that have been documented through military intelligence according to the whistleblowers that reached out to Michael Schellenberger specifically. So there are spheres or orbs which were frequently reported, ranging from simple smooth surfaces to complex versions with visible openings and appendages. (57:28) Are we talking about the jelly? I don't know. Suggesting varied purposes or technological origins. This is great. I love this, actually, because Like on planet Earth, we have trains, buses, cars, did I say planes? Helicopters. They all have different functions, all different purposes as well. And from these whistleblowers' own knowledge, the different craft that they're seeing in the sky and in the water, all these different shapes might have different functions and different purposes as well, and even technological origins. (58:10) which is really interesting. Then it says, while disc or saucer-shaped UAPs were the second most common, appearing both and without domes, oval or tic-tac shapes only began appearing in reports after the year two thousand and three. It's the same way how we got our very, very first cars with Ford, right? That barely even had a roof and they were super, unique looking really and then here we are in and our cars look pretty darn different it's the same basic frame but it looks very different from how we started making cars this (58:53) maybe just maybe we can apply that same mentality to these craft that we're seeing in the sky over the years that their technology is evolving very much like how our technology is evolving. Then you have the rare triangular craft. And then the boomerang shaped as well, demonstrating pretty remarkable maneuvers, which we hear consistently for those that witness UFOs in the sky and in the water. (59:24) But perhaps most intriguingly were the irregular or organic shapes, which sometimes exhibit shape-shifting capabilities and including floating brain or... Jellyfish-like appearances. Why are we hearing the term jellyfish so frequently this year? More so than ever. If you watched the interview that I had with Bob Sparing, the... (59:53) move on, Investigator. If you haven't watched it, highly recommend because he looks at jellyfish-shaped crafts since the late-nineties, thirties, and forties up until present day. So they've always been there, but they are... The term, this description is becoming more prevalent this year, twenty twenty four, and it's already coming to a close. (1:00:17) What's going to be the next shape like a little cat? I'd love that cap shaped you. I thought that'd be awesome. But it's interesting to see that it is even in this Immaculate Constellation report as well. Then, this is where it also gets kind of bizarre, there are reproduction vehicles featured prominently in several significant military encounters that have been captured on surveillance footage. (1:00:45) And one notable case involved a large triangular reproduction vehicle that appearing directly above intelligence vessels, displaying three bright points at its corners and a horizontal bar of sweeping lights as it rotated slowly before suddenly disappearing. And the document suggests that these reproduction vehicles represent highly advanced technology, demonstrating capabilities far beyond our current human engineering, including instant acceleration, hypersonic velocities, and transmedium travel, which means traveling in the sky, (1:01:29) the ocean, and space. That's what transmedium is. Then you have intelligence analysis associated with these events have specifically identified certain craft as reproduction vehicles, implying that they may be attempts to replicate or adapt observed UAP technologies. Let me state this, and I was actually a little shocked during the hearing, is so we have known the mere basics of the Immaculate Constellation for some time now. (1:01:59) a month or so maybe a little more a little less I was really shocked to hear that louis lezondo didn't read it like didn't read the article didn't know anything about it I was like whoa That was news to me. I thought that we all read it, right? But no. And again, this is just merely a summary of the several pages of the Immaculate Constellation. (1:02:24) I will place that link down below. It's also on my Twitter as well, which is eyes underscore on the skies. Follow me on Twitter. But it's worth reading. It's really interesting to see all the different shapes that were mentioned. Some of the strange UFO encounters as well. Mace stated in the hearing. (1:02:42) Mace is right here. Where is she? There she is. Mace is right there. She said that there were certain orbs that kind of boxed some of these fighter jets. which must have been really scary for the pilots. And there are a few other encounters as well. So please read that on your own time. But it is pretty remarkable to hear both from me stating it and then to have that report right after the hearing. (1:03:11) I thought it was really cool. But I'm going to end it with this question. Do you think the hearing, at the end of the day, do you think the hearing exposed the truth? Let me know in the live chat. Let me know in the comments. Hit that like button right down below and subscribe as tomorrow we'll be covering the fiscal year twenty twenty four arrow report that was released today practically in secret. (1:03:40) There was no preface that a report was coming out. I have my eyeballs and my ears open and I'm scanning like this and I didn't hear about it. And I'm like, what is going on? So. We'll be covering that tomorrow. Make sure to subscribe. When we're looking at any of these Aero reports, they always kind of sneak up on us. (1:04:05) Either they come later than what they said it was going to be released, or we don't know about it at all. That's just a trend that Aero does. And even the UAPTF, their preliminary report that came out, it was also, it felt like it was in secret as well. So I see the pattern here. But before we end it, I want to hear your thoughts on this. (1:04:32) So Dickie says, nothing revealed in my opinion. Aw, man. Richard says, a little more to think about. Okay, I like the optimism. Sean says, nope. And Tyler says, not really just realized more awareness to the general public, but nothing new. While it wasn't anything new to you and I, it must have been new to a lot of people that aren't familiar with the topic. (1:04:57) While it is gaining more traction, there's still a lot of people that don't really know anything about it or didn't show any interest until the twenty seventeen article about a tip. Right. The Black Money article. And then it's just kind of been building up since. But it can be very difficult to know where to look to get information about UFOs to stay up to date on how the government is is handling the situation, handling this conversation. (1:05:25) And that's why you come here, because I'm able to. help you and myself to get an understanding, to get a grasp of what's going on in present day, keeping you up to date on UFO news, on government transparency, and of course, covering some historical UFO cases as well that have changed the conversation when it comes to the UFO phenomenon as well. (1:05:51) Brian, thank you so much for the five dollars at this video. Look up Tiny Hands ASMR. She looks just like you. Doppelganger? That'd be cool. I'd like to meet my doppelganger. I like that very much. Six E says, I had hope for more. You know what? Me too. I did have some hope for a little bit more, but maybe the next one will surprise us. (1:06:18) And we'll see how this conversation will move forward after this second hearing. It just happened yesterday. So I'd like to see how it's going to benefit this conversation overall. Thank you. Thank you so much. That is it for today. I will see you tomorrow. Be safe. And remember, keep your eyes on the skies. (1:06:59) If you enjoy the strange and the mysterious UFOs, the paranormal and cryptids, this channel is for you. So make sure to subscribe as I do three videos right here every single week and hit that notification bell so you do not miss any of the bonus content I post right here.