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 sighting