UFO HEARING 2024 - House UAP UFO Exposing the Truth and Analysis

Show Transcript

today's going to be very exciting as we're going to be watching the second third ufo hearing we got one last year in july of twenty twenty three where we got to see david grush uh ryan graves and david fravor this time it seems like it's following the same music but with different people This time we are getting a former NASA employee, Michael Gold. (00:42) We're getting Lou Elizondo from AATIP, a Rear Admiral Tim Galladet, and journalist Michael Schellenberger, who released The Immaculate Constellation. This is going to be very exciting. I kind of want to say the word unique here on what they're going to be talking about, what questions are going to be asked as well, and the stance that they're going to take. (01:04) We were very lucky to receive their testimonies before they were going to read them out to Congress. Thank you to the Black Vault. And they had to be submitted at least twenty four hours beforehand to Congress in order for them to be disseminated to everyone there. Now, what's unique about this is that for everyone except Schellenberger, their testimonies were anywhere from nine to eleven pages long. (01:33) And then Mr. Journalist was like, I want to make it two hundred and nineteen pages looking at every single UFO sighting that's in public domain. I'm going to cite it. And now I know. and I'm saying this from Schellenberger's standpoint, that it's all going to be within the record of Congress. (01:52) This is a really smart move on his behalf, and I'd really like to see how these people are going to Overall handle the situation. I don't think a lot of the questions are going to be incredibly easy. We saw that in the last hearing. And I'm excited that Chairman Nancy Mace is going to be the one leading the operation. (02:15) She did a really great job in the last hearing asking very tough, pointed questions. And then we're going to be seeing a lot of familiar faces, hopefully, if I didn't bail out last minute. But these people include Annapelina Luna, Tim Burchette, Jared Maskovich, Andy Ogles as well. And there's a few others. (02:36) Robert Garcia. All these people were at the last hearing, and I want to say all of them asked very good and important questions. I'd like for them to rise yet again, because this conversation is very important that we're having right here, right now. And for it to take place today, I'm looking forward to it. (02:59) Originally, the hearing was meant to be in September, October, according to Ana Paulina Luna when she was asked by Ask a Poll. But that got pushed on over to today, November thirteenth. And in some ways, I'm kind of happy about it. But at the time when it didn't hit the deadlines of September, October, I'm like, come on, guys, what is going on? And then it clicked the elections. (03:26) If that hearing was going to take place in September, October, it was going to be outshined by the elections. But now that that is all over and done with, I think there's going to be a more level of seriousness and interest on this hearing more so than doing it beforehand. But what do you think about that? Are you disappointed that didn't happen sooner in the fall? Or are you kind of seeing what I'm seeing here of like, oh, okay, that kind of makes sense. (03:58) Thank you, Rose. Says, I choose to be here today on Christina's channel. Thank you so much. What's going to be great about this one is that once the hearing is over, I will be providing an analysis of what I gather from this hearing. And there will also be a timeline index as well of all the people talking and and an overall grasp of the questions that were asked, like what I did in the last hearing as well. (04:25) So keep an eye out for that. And then tomorrow I will be doing a more detailed analysis after watching the hearing a few times over, doing a bit more research, and then we can go from there. So it's going to be almost a two-part show, hearing with a short analysis, and then tomorrow a more full-blown analysis. (04:44) Today... Jimmy Church is in Peru, so he will not be joining me like he did last year. So instead, it's just going to be you and me. And I'm pretty excited to hear what you're going to have to say about this. And you'll definitely keep an eye out for my eyebrows because they speak volumes. I don't know, but they're just so expressive. (05:04) So when I hear something... My mouth might not move, but my eyebrows will be all over the place. So keep an eye out for that. And make sure that you're staying hydrated, having some food, having some drink. I'm guessing it's going to be, what, an hour, two, two hours long. That's my guess. Like last year, again, I'm literally just taking the backbone understanding of this hearing from last year. (05:31) It could be completely different than I could ever expect. know how this is going to pan out, but it keeps us on our toes. Does it not? So, and we're doing this together. So I don't feel like I'm going in the dark alone here. We're all doing it together and it makes it that much more fun. Chris says, yes, my eyebrows has a mind of their own. (05:58) I think that they should. I think eyebrows are very expressive. And if your eyebrows can move in all fun kinds of ways, they should be expressive, right? They should have their own language. And I'm so glad to see so many people in the chat, so many familiar names and some brand new names. I want to say hello and welcome to everyone watching this live and those catching this show, this channel for the very first time. (06:27) It's great to see you here. And I'm so glad that you're spending this time with me to talk about this hearing and what's Something to mention here for those that haven't watched my previous shows that talk about the people that are going to be at the hearing, the background, the information that's been provided a few days prior, is that the title for this hearing is Exposing the Truth. (06:51) That is such, and I'm going to say it, it's such a click-baity title. I don't really know how they're going to move forward with that in the sense of what does it mean to them and then what are going to be the following steps on how to... keep exposing the truth per se. It's going to be interesting. (07:13) So here we're watching the feed, and it says the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and it will start soon. Last year, they didn't start on time. So I don't have high expectations that they will start on time this time around. But hey, I could be wrong. And you know what? I don't mind being proven wrong. (07:35) Brian says, time to make some coffee. It's always coffee time. Every single time. P says, the chat is going to be wild. You guys are going to catch some things that I miss and vice versa. I'll be taking notes. Will you be taking notes is the question here. But if you don't, it's okay. That's my job. (07:54) And I'll be doing that for you. So there ain't no sweat there. But it's going to be very cool. Okay, we still have the stream going. Let me just take that down for a second. All right, looks good. Okay. Now we all wait in anticipation to see what's gonna happen here. There it is. Nice. Now we just wait. (08:24) Brian says, coffee, twenty four, seven. The question is milk and sugar or just black for me. Black coffee tastes like dirt. But that's that's just me. I got to have milk and sugar in mind and preferably a lot of it where it's like almost diabetic. So good. Popcorn is ready, says Soul Sparkle. Has to. (08:47) It's like a it's like a full blown drama over here. Got to have popcorn. Okay, Eric says, I don't drink coffee, more of a homemade apple cider or hot chocolate. Delicious. I love hot chocolate. Do you put cinnamon in it? It's always a good little touch to add from time to time. I'm loving that people are mentioning what they are eating and drinking. (09:15) So exciting. Just before coming on, I had some arepas with cheese and egg. Okay. Ten out of ten. So good. That was breakfast. And then a cup of coffee to accompany it. So it should be starting in the next six minutes or so. And to my understanding, Nancy Mace will be one of the first people speaking at this hearing as she will be the chairwoman for this, which really means she's the one looking over this entire hearing, coordinating it, organizing it, and all of that fun stuff. (10:07) She's really been... promoting it on her Twitter, now known as The X, doing a great job there. And I cannot emphasize enough that last year she did such a great job asking fantastic questions that I have high expectations here that she has done even more research than last year asking bigger and better questions. (10:30) What was interesting is that a lot of the representatives last year asked overall brilliant questions. They were familiar with the topic more so than I expected, and I'm not sure if it was because they had a genuine interest in it and they formulated their own questions or if they had assistance from their team to ask questions. (10:51) I'm not sure, but... from last year and the information that we have so far for this year's hearing, my expectations are higher than I anticipated them to be genuinely, honestly, but I still have no idea where this is going to go, what's going to happen. And if they're going to address the title that they named this hearing being exposing the truth, I just, I can't get over that. (11:23) What does that mean to them? And what steps are they going to take in order to continue to expose the truth? How is it going to benefit humanity? How is it going to benefit UFO transparency? Something that is worth mentioning, and I think is very important as well, is that when we're looking at Timber Shat and Apollina Luna together, Gates, Maskovich, and so on, these people that are part of this UFO caucus, they have stated consistently that, and I'm actually going to be paraphrasing slash quoting Tim Burchette here, (11:57) of it's not about the little green men. It's about the funding. Where is the funding for these UFO offices going, the UFO research? That's what they really want to know. And in a sense, that is a level of UFO transparency of when and how and where we know where the money is going. It's public knowledge that the Pentagon hasn't passed an audit in years. (12:25) In years. So... These government officials, these congressmen are saying, we ought to at least know where the funding is, a lot of funding for this UFO research, the equipment, the manpower, the data collections, all these different things. And so when we're looking at this hearing, we have to have that mentality in mind. (12:52) And maybe the people speaking will throw some curveballs at us, like what Dave Grush did about non-human biologics, reverse engineering programs. That wasn't really a part of the, quote, protocol or the path that was supposed to be taken at the hearing last year, but it did. So I'd like to see how they're going to one-up this one. (13:19) Stephen, thank you so much for the nineteen ninety nine. It says phenomenal show. Killer content. Thank you. And Tom Snyder, thank you so much for being a YouTube member, along with Richard as well. Thank you. And Brian, thank you so much for the five dollars super chat as well. I appreciate all of you and everyone catching this live as well. (13:38) You guys are awesome. You guys are super cool. We are just two minutes before the hearing starts. hopefully, but I don't know if they'll be starting on time. So while we wait a little bit longer, I'd like to hear what your expectations are. Do you have any? What are you hoping will be asked? What do you think will be completely avoided? Let me know in the chat and we will read them out loud. (14:12) Oh, Charles says Mysterga's kidnapping by aliens? That's interesting. And if you are excited for the hearing, hit that like button right down below. And for this show, share it on social media. It's important that every single person watches this hearing. Compared to last year, not as many eyes were at this hearing because there was the Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, nonsense. (14:42) And there were millions of views on that. People were so wrapped up in their drama of divorce, messy divorce. And the hearing was kind of pushed aside. This time around, there is nothing happening in the vicinity of this hearing. No elections, no messy court hearings. It's just the UFO hearing. And so there is no excuse for to not watch it either now or a little bit later today, after work, after putting the kids to bed. (15:17) We have to watch it. That's how important it is. So hit that like button right down below and share it on social media as well. Jessica says consciousness will be avoided. Oh, maybe we might be surprised. Let's see. Dana says, I'm underwhelmed but curious enough to not take the chance of missing something. (15:43) I like that mentality. It's a good one. I will give you guys some more time to let me know what you think will be spoken about and what you think will be avoided. because I would like to know. And there is a poll up on YouTube right now. It has six hundred and eighteen votes. And the question is, what are your expectations for the UFO hearing right now? Eight percent say epic blockbuster win win. (16:23) Fifteen percent say eye opening and controversial. Fifty two percent. The winning option so far is moving the needle forward a bit, just a bit. And then twenty six percent coming in second says a nothing burger. Who who knows? Right now, we're all in the dark here. None of us know what's going to happen. (16:47) But it seems like overall, half of the votes are optimistic. And then coming in second are saying nothing to see here. And yet I'm not going to afford to miss it. And I can dig that mentality. It's worth staying. It's worth sticking around. And if you do not have the time to watch the entire hearing, I cannot emphasize enough, tomorrow I will be doing a full-blown analysis. (17:13) And you know, for all of my diehards, I do write articles for all of the shows that take place right here in all of my research. So if you're like, I don't want to watch, You can just find all of my articles on Medium at Christina G. That link is in the description box below. I like to keep you up to date as much as I can and give you that information as easily as possible. (17:37) Because if I think it's important, I think other people will have that same mentality as well. Lasso says, I didn't finish reading the Testaments yet. They are worth reading. They're very, very interesting. But if you didn't catch it, don't worry. Yesterday for yesterday's show, I covered it in the second half. (17:57) And it's going to be shorter than you reading all of them, especially when we're looking at a little under three hundred pages. So you can find them there. But the biggest takeaways and actually, I'm really glad that you brought this up. So here are the biggest takeaways for Michael Gold, who is former NASA, said, let NASA take care of the. (18:20) UFO research. Let them do it. They are so smart. They're doing so great. They should be the ones in control. And I said, no. Why? Because when we got their UFO media briefing where Bill Nelson said, we're transparent and you can be at your boots. They were not transparent by any means. So they proved themselves to the world that they're not ready to provide UFO information to the masses. (18:49) So then you had Luella Zondo that states, there needs to be a central government here where everyone can report their UFO sightings to one office. Because right now, all these different agencies and offices are collecting their own UFO data. We know this because when Sean Kirkpatrick was giving his talk to Kirsten Gillibrand during the Arrow funding hearing, not too long ago, At this point, it's a blur. (19:22) But during the Arrow funding hearing that took place within the last twelve to twenty four months, it was stated that Arrow's having some difficulty getting information from all of these different agencies. So if we're able to have just one office, just one agency or one pool where all this data can go in, That's what matters. (19:47) And so that's what Luella Zonda was pushing in his testimony. Then you have Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who will be, to my understanding, talking about USOs, which are UFOs underwater. And his research as a notionographer and the things that he has seen and encountered both with his own eyes and through data collection as well. (20:10) And him and Lua Elizondo hold a very similar stance on what they want to see and how the government will proceed to collect UFO data. And of course, to make that information public if it doesn't infringe on national security issues. And then lastly, with journalist Michael Schellenberger, his stance was, let me write two hundred and nineteen pages of all the UFO sightings that are in the public domain so that it can be in the congressional record. (20:40) Props to you. OK, you're awesome. And then also writing about how important this topic is and then a little bit on the immaculate constellation. So I would like to see how he's going to address that, because right now we still don't have the name of the whistleblower that reached out to Michael Schellenberger. (21:00) So in this case, people would clarify it as hearsay. It's there's nothing. However, the media and Congress are seeing this very differently because if the Immaculate Constellation report that he gave wasn't important, he wouldn't have been invited to speak in front of Congress. So that means that these congressmen know that there's something to it. (21:25) There's a level of credibility there. Enough, at least enough, for them to invite journalist Michael Schellenberger to speak in front of Congress under oath as well. That's going to be very interesting. Android, thank you so much for the five dollar super chat. It says there is one thing happening today. (21:44) The presidents are meeting at the White House now. Unfortunately, the news will likely be covering that drama today. No. Why is there always something happening during these hearings? That is so disappointing. I'm upset, but thank you for keeping me in the loop on that because I would have missed that one. Now we know. (22:06) Now we know that millions of eyeballs might not be watching this right here, right now, but maybe later today, maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow. We've got to be optimistic here. Drinking some coffee right now with too much milk and sugar, but that is the only way I like it. Let's see. Let's see. So, of course, they're not on time. (22:33) Here's a screen. They're not on time. They're six minutes, seven minutes late. Shocking, not shocking. So while we still have this time together, thank you for being here and watching this hearing with us because we're doing this online. One-on-one, it feels like. Hit that like button. Share this stream with others online. (22:53) This is so important. And while we are waiting, I would love to hear your thoughts, your expectations on this hearing that will take place momentarily. Now, when exactly? Hopefully in the next sixty to ninety seconds. But my hopes are not high for that one. Let's see. Yeah. Rodrigo says, typical. I know. They're just not very punctual. (23:23) But it's hard to get a lot of people in one building to sit down, have their paperwork ready, running around like headless chickens, getting their coffee ready. People are unpredictable. They are. So I can get that it's a bit hard to get them all inside. Ooh, Mysterious Mystery says, what if they roll out some alien bodies? The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order. (23:57) Good morning and welcome everyone. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement right now. good morning and welcome to today's historic hearing which I'm co-chairing with mr growthman whose subcommittee held an important hearing on this topic last year I want to thank my colleagues on the oversight committee including mr birchett mr burleson ms luna mr moskowitz mr garcia for their relentless drive to get answers on uaps They've been steadfast in (24:34) demanding transparency on the sightings reported by military pilots and armed forces. Their commitment to digging for the truth is exactly what this country needs to cut through the secrecy surrounding this issue. And many high-ranking individuals in the military and intelligence communities believe UAPs demand greater attention, and thus the purpose for this hearing today. (24:58) former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said on Bill Maher's program that, quote, there are phenomena that have been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by the science available to us. Army Colonel Carl Nell, a member of the federal government UAP task force, said at a conference this past May that non-human intelligence exists, non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity. (25:25) This interaction is not new and it's been ongoing and there are unelected people in the government that are aware of that. But UAPs remain a controversial topic. I'm not going to name names, but there are certain individuals who didn't want this hearing to happen because they feared what might be disclosed. (25:44) But we stood firm. No amount of outside pressure would ever keep me from pursuing a subject to ground, come hell or high water. On that score, I want to thank our witnesses for being here. We have before us a panel of individuals accomplished in the military, in civilian government, in science, and in journalism. (26:04) Some of the testimony you will hear them deliver today does not reflect well on influential individuals and agencies within the US federal government and perhaps some of our contractors. It's never easy to present such information publicly. So I appreciate our witnesses voluntarily agreeing to being here today. (26:24) This hearing is intended to help Congress and the American people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our government has engaged in with respect to UAPs and what knowledge it has yielded. This includes, of course, any knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of non-human origin. If government-funded research on UAPs has not yielded any useful knowledge, we also need to know those facts. (26:51) Taxpayers deserve to know how much has been invested, how much has been spent. They shouldn't be kept in the dark to spare the Pentagon a little bit of embarrassment. The reality is, despite their enormous taxpayer funded budgets, the transparency of the Defense Department and the intelligence community have long been abysmal. (27:15) The Pentagon has failed six consecutive audits. In fact, it's never actually passed one. Adding to this is a runaway over classification of documents and materials, a reluctance to declassify materials when appropriate, and at times an outright refusal to share critical information with Congress. In short, it's not a track record that instills trust. (27:41) So Congress has tried in recent years to lift the veil and find out if information about UAPs is being withheld, not only from the American public, but also from their elected representatives in Congress. Part of the transparency effort was legislation created in the Pentagon, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office or AERO, but the new office is struggling to get its footing. (28:05) A recent statute orally required report from Arrow intended to illuminate the government's historic assessment of UAPs was heavily criticized by those seeking UAP transparency. The report has stoked suspicions Arrow is unable or perhaps unwilling to bring forward the truth about the government's activities concerning UAPs. (28:28) I'm disturbed that Arrow itself lacks transparency. Even its budget is kept from the public. So if there is no there there, then why are we spending money on it and by how much? Why the secrecy if it's really no big deal and there's nothing there? Why hide it from the American people? Because I'm not a mathematician, but I can tell you that doesn't add up. (28:54) I expect some of our witnesses to share their views on that arrow report. We will also hear from the witnesses today allegations of UAP related misinformation and disinformation by government officials of which they are personally aware and directly experience. And we will hear testimony today concerning recent revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program whose existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from Congress. (29:21) But before we get to the witnesses, we're going to have a few more opening statements from our colleagues. And one thing I wanted to add at the end of my closing statement is there is a document that will be entered into the congressional record today. Mr. Tim Burchett from Tennessee has this document and we just distribute it to every member up here on the dais of this document. (29:42) But this is going to be the original document from the Pentagon about Immaculate Constellation that Michael Shellenberger delivered to Congress today. So thank you, Mr. Schellenberger, for this information. We are all reading it in real time now, and Mr. Burchett will enter it into the record. But twelve pages about this unacknowledged special access program that your government says does not exist. (30:12) So with that, I would acknowledge my colleagues, Mr. Garcia. I wanna say, first of all, to Mr. Connolly, who cannot be here today, the ranking member on my subcommittee on cybersecurity. I wanna say that I was greatly saddened to hear about the recent news of Mr. Connolly's cancer diagnosis. And I wanna convey to him and to all of our colleagues, we wish our very best to you and a full and speedy recovery. (30:36) And with that, I would acknowledge Mr. Garcia for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Chairman both for their continued support. and really treating this discussion and these hearings in a way that's bipartisan. I think one thing that's very important for all of us that are interested in the conversation around UAPs is that this is an area that both Republicans and Democrats, where we may disagree in a lot of other spaces, this is an area where bipartisanship is really important. (31:07) And in fact, I would add it's critical that we all continue to work together in a way that moves forward with the truth, and important disclosure. So we're here to have a bipartisan and serious conversation, I believe, about our national security. We should always ground these conversations in facts, evidence, and the data in front of us. (31:26) I want to note that we have our witnesses here. I want to thank you all for being here and note that also we, amongst you, have folks that have also served us in our military. And I know that for many of you, this has been a difficult process, but I'm very grateful to have you with us today and thank you for joining us. (31:42) I also want to note that today's hearing builds on a quite I think also historic public hearing that we had many months ago that Mr. Groffman and others helped lead in this very same hearing room where I believe we began a really important public conversation about UAPs and so I want to thank him for that and I especially want to thank Chairwoman Mays for her continued advocacy on this topic. (32:06) I also want to start with some facts. We know that there are objects or phenomena observed in our airspace, as your witnesses will testify, and also possibly in our oceans. In many cases, we don't know what they are, and this is, of course, why we're discussing UAPs. Now, the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AERO, has reported hundreds of UAPs that remain, quote, uncharacterized and unattributed. (32:28) and which, quote, appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis. This is our own aero office. Now, we shouldn't prejudge what they might be. I'm certainly not going to. We need evidence. But we are detecting things, and we know that we don't understand them, and this is worth investigating. (32:47) Now, the American people have legitimate questions, and I believe it's critical that Congress should help address them. This is about the truth and science and facts." Now, transparency and faith in our institutions is vital in a good democracy. Now, I'm proud to say this hearing will build on that important bipartisan work, and I want to thank everyone for being involved, including members of our committee. (33:09) Now, in our last hearing in July, we heard testimony that a significant number of pilots of major airlines have witnessed UAPs as well, but have no real confidential way of reporting them to the government. We heard that commercial pilots who encounter UAPs may be hesitant to speak openly due to stigma or fear of retaliation. (33:25) We also know that Aero has reported that, and I want to quote, that most reports still reflect a bias towards restricted military airspace, a result of reporting from military personnel and sensors present in such areas. And so the lack of ability for civilian pilots raises real safety concerns and limits our ability to understand UAPs. (33:45) This is a particular piece of this conversation that I am very interested in. Now, our last hearing inspired us to introduce the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, joined by Chairman Groffman, Chairwoman Mace, and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors. I see some of our leaders from Safe Airspace for Americans Act here, and that would create a a safe reporting for UAP process, which we want to continue to do. (34:08) Now, members of both parties and senior officials in multiple administrations have now taken an interest in this issue. Mainstream media, in many cases, are beginning to take more of an interest in this issue. And we should all be proud to carry that work and build confidence for the American people. I believe we can always be more transparent. (34:25) To me, this hearing and others are simply about the truth and getting to the facts of what these UAPs actually are. It's very important that we show that Democrats and Republicans in Congress can work together to cut through misinformation and look for a serious and thoughtful way to have the discussion in public. (34:43) Many of us have also called for additional public hearings to discuss UAPs. This should be a topic that continues on throughout the Congress so that we can gather more information, data, and work with the relevant agencies to gather more information. Finally, I just want to add that those that are here on this dais, many of us have participated also in classified briefings as well, and where we have also gained a lot of important, I think, and interesting information, at least I personally And so with that information, (35:12) we want to continue today's hearing, and I thank all of our witnesses for being here. And with that, I'd like to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, and I'd now like to recognize Mr. Grothman for a five-minute introduction. Thank you. Good morning. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here one more time. (35:28) This is a topic I've been interested in since eighth grade. I'd like to thank Ms. Mace for working with me on this topic and for making this a joint subcommittee hearing. Last year, the Subcommittee on National Security of the Board of Foreign Affairs held an historic hearing to understand the potential national security risk of unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs. (35:50) We heard from former Navy Commander David Fravor, who shared firsthand experience with the UAP engaged while on duty in the Pacific. We learned from David Gresh, a former member of the intelligence community who revealed the supposed existence of secret government programs hidden from congressional oversight. Additionally, former military pilot Ryan Graves informed us of the limited ways in which the military and commercial pilots can report UAP sightings. (36:17) Since that last hearings, I've led several briefings with government agencies to deepen my understanding with these issues. First, the Department of Defense Inspector General's Office informed us that the Department of Defense does not have a streamlined process for service members to report UAP activity. (36:34) Since then, the Joint Chiefs have implemented standards for UAP reporting across the services. The Intelligence Community Inspector General informed us that whistleblowers often fear retaliation for reporting mismanagement of highly sensitive government projects or information. Finally, AARO has expressed to the committee that like any other federal government agency, it's faced challenges in its establishment, specifically in hiring staff to manage UAP historical records and coordinating with other federal agencies. (37:06) While these agencies have been helpful to us in understanding the challenges that come from collecting UAP data, none of them have been able to substantiate the claims made at this hearing last year by David Grush. despite our committee members endlessly questioning these agencies inside and outside of a SCIF. I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide evidence and content that is worthwhile to our pursuits of eliminating government waste and increasing transparency. (37:34) To help alleviate some of the roadblocks, I'm supportive of measures that were included in last year's National Defense Authorization Act to increase transparency and improve record-keeping measures when it comes to UAPs. But I believe there's still more work to go, I co-lead the safe airspace for Americans act with Ryan member Garcia, which required, which requires the federal aviation administration to develop procedures, to collect UAP data from civilian aviators. (38:02) I look forward to looking members of working with members of Congress to see that this legislation and other UAP legislation, uh, crosses the finish line. I'm deeply alarmed. by the reporting of the massive drone swarm that flew over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia last December. Langley is the home of the first fighter wing, which maintains half of the F-二s in the U.S. (38:28) Air Force inventory. Reports of this incident indicate these drones were roughly twenty feet long, flying more than a hundred miles an hour at an altitude of over three thousand feet. Yet the origin of these drones and their operators remains a mystery. This incident and other sightings near sensitive military installations highlights the complexity of the UAP challenge facing our intelligence, defense, and homeland security committees. (38:56) Whether these phenomena are the result of foreign adversaries developing advanced technologies or something else entirely, we must take them seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and assess their implications on national defense. The repeated UAP sightings around sensitive military sites underscores the need for innovative defensive strategies beyond traditional measures. (39:19) They also highlight the urgent need for updated policies to address emerging threats as well as more effective interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing. However, none of this is going to be possible without transparency. For far too long, critical information about UAPs has been either classified or ignored, leaving the American public and key congressmen without clarity needed to make informed decisions. (39:48) Declassifying reports and fostering a more open dialogue about UAPs will not only increase the public trust, but also encourage collaboration between government, the scientific community, and our allies. Quite frankly, there's been things that have been kept secret that is I think, old enough that there is no reason it shouldn't be released, regardless of any so-called private information. (40:18) A transparent approach will allow us to share insights, identify patterns, and develop new strategic defenses. As we continue to investigate these phenomena, we must do so with a mindset of protecting our country, advancing scientific discovery, and upholding the trust of the American people, who right now I don't think have trust And it's just obvious. (40:39) I don't have trust. We cannot shy away from the unknown, especially when the stakes are so high. I look forward to discussing these matters with the witnesses today. I'm hopeful we can learn from the testimony and come out of this hearing. with actionable ideas to advance UAP transparency. Actually, the idea is just to say, in my mind, go back fifteen years and everything has to be released. (41:02) I'm hopeful that we can learn from their testimony and come out of this hearing without a yield back. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Moskowitz for a five-minute introduction. uh thank you uh chairwoman good morning everyone uh I first want to thank the chairs and ranking members for holding the hearing today on this topic uh and again having a second hearing I want to thank the witnesses uh for coming forward today to share your expertise on uaps and the need to build trust through transparency but but first (41:32) I want to mention you might be wondering why chairman comer has allowed me to be a ranking member today but It's really only because our dear friend Jerry Connolly is not here. As Chairwoman Mace mentioned, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and all of us on this committee know Jerry, and he's a fighter, and we're praying for him and hoping for his speedy recovery. (41:56) So today's hearing marks this committee's second meeting dedicated to UAP transparency. I was pleased, as I know all of us are, on the bipartisanship that existed in last year's hearing, and even though we can't talk about what happens in the classified settings, the bipartisanship that has existed in those settings with the questions members have asked. (42:20) Last year's hearing was a great example of open dialogue about UAPs, and we must remain committed to sharing information with the American people. And I think you see that commitment based on the people here and the commitment across the political spectrum. I personally have worked with multiple members of this committee, but I want to particularly thank Congressman Burchette, Mace, Luna, and Garcia for working on bipartisan pieces of legislation. (42:48) In recent years, Congress has taken numerous bipartisan steps towards greater transparency. In the NDAA, we created the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to investigate unidentified flying objects. along with ODNI, release an unclassified report on UAP sightings. Of the three hundred and sixty six sightings included in the report, one hundred seventy one remain uncharacterized, with some of these appearing to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities. (43:21) That's a nice way of saying we don't want to tell you what they are. In March, Arrow revealed a report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with UAPs, which covered investigatory efforts going back from nineteen forty five to the present day. Earlier this year, I joined Congressman Burchette to introduce the UAP Transparency Act, which would require the declassification of all documents related to UAPs with many other members of this committee. (43:45) In fiscal year twenty twenty four, the NDA required the National Archives and Records Administration to establish the Unidentified Anonymous Phenomena Records Collection. This collection will include digital copies of all unidentified UAP records that can be publicly disclosed. This commitment in transparency is vitally important and unnecessary over-classification has led to a void of information, which has allowed theories over the decades to foster. (44:14) When the American people and members of Congress ask, are reports of UAPs credible, we're met with stonewalling. We're met with responses of, I can't tell you. And in fact, we're met with people not wanting us to have hearings. We're met with people not wanting us to ask you questions. In fact, many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions on certain topics. (44:41) In a time of heightened distrust of our government institutions, I believe more transparency is not only needed, but is possible. And obviously we can respect national security limits, but we also have to provide our constituents with the information and oversight that they have tasked us for. As part of this, government agencies must maintain open lines of communication with members of Congress. (45:08) And there are regular questions that Americans have. What are UAPs? Are they real? Are they ours? How has this technology been developed? How do they get funded? Right? And now we've seen, this has gone from a long time ago where you could discredit people because it's some guy living in a Winnebago. You're able to see people now, these are pilots, these are military, these are folks with serious backgrounds. (45:36) This has changed the face of this because now we have video. people have questions. We know there are advanced technology programs. Almost fifteen years ago, one of those came out of Area Fifty-One to go after Osama bin Laden. And the only reason we know about that is because one of those helicopters was downed. (45:58) Americans have questions about whistleblowers who have come forward to talk about retribution. And so, I want to thank everyone for being involved today on trying to get more transparency. This has been bipartisan, bicameral. And as we get into a new administration, the president-elect has talked about opportunities to declassify information on UAPs, and I hope he lives up to that promise. (46:29) And with that, I yield back. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz. And I would now, committee staff asked me to go ahead and I will do it, to enter into the congressional record, this twelve-page document that Michael Schellenberger brought today that describes the Immaculate Constellation government program. So we will do that now. (46:47) Every member up here has a copy of it. The first section talks about the unacknowledged special access program called Immaculate Constellation. and the second section about uh usg imagery intelligence and uh representative luna just told me if I say immaculate constellation I'll be on some list uh maybe a fisa warrant so uh come at me bro I guess but uh Without objection, entered in the record. (47:14) All right, so next we will introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. Thank you so much for being here. Our first witness is retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who retired from the U.S. Navy and is now the Chief Executive Officer at Ocean STL Consulting. Our second witness is Mr. Lou Elizondo, a former Department of Defense official and author of a recent bestseller book about UAPs. (47:39) Our third witness is Mr. Michael Schellenberger, founder of the newsletter Public and author of a recent journalistic piece about special access programs, including one widely identified as Immaculate Constellation. I swear the staff wants me on a list. Okay. And our last witness today is Mr. Michael Gold, a former NASA official who was also a member of the NASA UAP independent study team. (48:01) welcome everyone we are pleased to have you today pursuant to committee rule nine g the witnesses will please stand and raise your right hands this is where it gets real do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. (48:25) We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. You guys may be seated. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button in front of you so the microphone is turned on so that everyone in the room, members included, can hear you. (48:46) When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes has expired, and we would ask that you please wrap it up. So I will first recognize Rear Admiral Gallaudet to please begin your opening remarks. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, ranking members Connolly and Garcia, and members of the committee. (49:10) Thank you for this opportunity to testify today regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, or UAP. Confirmation that UAPs are real came to me in January of twenty fifteen when I was serving as the commander of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command. At the time, my personnel were participating in a pre-deployment naval exercise off the U.S. (49:29) East Coast. It included the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, and this exercise was overseen by the United States Fleet Forces Command, led by a four-star admiral, who at the time was also my superior officer. During this exercise, I received an email, a Navy secure network, from the operations officer of U.S. (49:48) Fleet Forces Command. The email was addressed to all the subordinate commanders, and the subject line read in all capital letters, URGENT SAFETY OF FLIGHT ISSUE. The text of the email was brief but alarming, with words to the effect, if any of you know what these are, tell me ASAP. We are having multiple near midair collisions, and if we do not resolve this soon, we are going to have to shut down the exercise. (50:11) Attached to the email is what is now known as the Go Fast video, captured on the forward-looking infrared sensor of one of the Navy F-A-Teen aircraft participating in the exercise. The now declassified video showed an unidentified object exhibiting flight and structural characteristics unlike anything in our arsenal. (50:31) The implication of the email was clear, the author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of classified technology demonstrations that could explain these objects. Because the DoD policy is to rigorously de-conflict such demonstrations with live exercises, I was confident this was not the case. The very next day that email disappeared from my account and those of the other recipients without explanation. (50:57) Moreover, the commander of fleet forces command and the operations officer never discussed the subject. Even during weekly meeting specifically designed to address issues affecting exercises like the one in which the theater Roosevelt strike group was participating. This lack of follow up was very concerning to me as the navy's chief neurologist at the time. (51:18) I was responsible for reducing safety of flight risks. Yet it appeared to me that no one at the flag officer level was addressing the safety risk posed by UAPs. Instead, pilots were left to mitigate these threats on their own without guidance or support. I concluded that the UAP information must have been classified within a special access program managed by an intelligence agency. (51:40) That is a compartment of program that even senior officials, including myself, were not read into. Last year's UAP hearing before this oversight committee confirmed that UAP related information is being withheld from senior officials and members of Congress. And just this week, I learned from former DOD official, Chris Mellon, that satellite imagery of UAP from a few years ago still has not been shared with Congress. (52:03) Equally concerning, last year's UAP hearing also revealed that elements of the government are engaged in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. Having never signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding UAPs and now as a private citizen, I've become an advocate for greater UAP transparency from the government. (52:24) The continued overclassification surrounding UAPs has not only hindered our ability to effectively address these phenomena, but has also eroded trust in our institutions. While I applaud previous bipartisan legislation passed by Congress concerning UAPs, a more comprehensive approach is needed to address the broader implication of UAP on public safety and national security as well as the socioeconomic opportunities that open UAP research could unlock. (52:50) Therefore, I recommend Congress take the following action, which I believe will receive bipartisan support. First, establish robust oversight of the executive branch's management of UAP information by directing key officials, beginning with the director of the DOD's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, to provide comprehensive briefings on what the government knows about UAP and does not know. (53:11) Two, enact the provisions of the UAP Disclosure Act that establish a UAP Records Review Board to ensure independent oversight, transparency, and accountability in the government's handling of UAP information. And three, strengthen the UAP Disclosure Act and future reauthorizations with provisions that mandate a whole of government approach to addressing UAP. (53:32) In closing, I will share my personal reasons for speaking out on this topic. First, as a former science agency leader, having led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I've always sought the truth in human knowledge and thought. Now that we know UAP are interacting with humanity and these include unidentified submerged objects in the ocean, we should not turn a blind eye, but instead boldly face this new reality and learn from it. (53:55) Additionally, at a time when leaders and government leave much to be desired, I feel obligated to show moral leadership on this issue of UAP disclosure by validating the credibility of the courageous men and women who come out as witnesses and whistleblowers to expose the truth. My speaking out has encouraged others to do the same, and it's my hope over time that a number of your constituents will want to know the truth about UAP, and this number will increase to such an extent that the congressional action I've just (54:26) recommended will become inevitable. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Elizondo for his opening statement. Greetings, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, ranking members Connolly and Garcia, and members of the committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before you on the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomenon, formerly known as UFOs. (54:47) On behalf of our brave men and women in uniform and across the intelligence community, as well as my fellow Americans who have awaited this day, thank you for your leadership on this important matter. Let me be clear, UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. (55:08) Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries. I believe we are in the midst of a multi-decade secretive arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and hidden from our elected representatives and oversight bodies. For many years, I was entrusted with protecting some of our nation's most sensitive programs. (55:29) In my last position, I managed a special access program on behalf of the White House and the National Security Council. As such, I appreciate the need to protect certain sensitive intelligence and military information. I consider my oath to protect secrets as sacred, and I will always put the safety of the American people first. (55:48) With that said, I also understand the consequences of excessive secrecy and stovepiping. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the aftermath of nine eleven, which many of us remember all too well. I believe that America's greatness depends on three elements. A, a watchful Congress, B, a responsive executive branch, and C, an informed public. (56:11) Over the last decade and a half, I learned that certain UAP programs were and are operating without any of these elements. Although much of my government work on the UAP subject still remains classified, excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the cosmos. (56:32) A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation that I've personally been victim to, along with many of my former colleagues. This includes unwarranted criminal investigations, harassment, and efforts to destroy one's credibility. (56:49) Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the Pentagon's very own Public Affairs Office openly employs a professional psychological operations officer as the singular point of contact for any UAP-related inquiries from citizens and the media. This is unacceptable. Many of my former colleagues and I have provided classified testimony to both the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community Inspector General. (57:14) Many of us have subsequently been targeted by this cabal with threats to our careers, our security clearances, and even our lives. This is not hyperbole, but a genuine fact, and this is wrong. To fix these problems, I propose three principal actions. First, Congress and the President should create a single point of contact responsible for a whole-of-government approach to the UAP issue. (57:37) Currently, the White House, CIA, NASA, the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and others play a role, but no one seems to be in charge, leading to unchecked power and corruption. Second, we need a national UAP strategy that will promote transparency and help restore the American public's trust at a time when the public's trust is at an all time low. (57:56) This strategy should include a whole of government approach, including the academic and scientific communities, the private sector and our international partners and allies. Third, Congress should create a protected environment so whistleblowers desperate to do the right thing can come forward without fear. As it currently stands, these whistleblowers suffer because of stigma, a code of silence, and concerns about retaliation. (58:18) These whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward in ways that protect them against any forms of retaliation. Policies and procedures should ensure that protection. And for those who refuse to cooperate, it is up to the members of this committee and other lawmakers to wield their subpoena power against hostile witnesses and prevents additional government funding to those UAP efforts that remain hidden from congressional oversight. (58:41) In closing, we as Americans have never been afraid of a challenge. In fact, we thrive on them, whether it's eradicating polio or going to the moon. We don't run from a challenge. We take it head on. To the incoming administration and Congress, I say to you, we need immediate public transparency. And this hearing is an important step on that journey. (59:00) If we approach the UAP topic in the same way as we as Americans have met other challenges, we can restore our faith in our government institutions. Together, we can usher in a new era of accountable government and scientific discovery. I believe that we as Americans can handle the truth. And I also believe the world deserves the truth. (59:21) Thank you. Esteemed members of Congress, for your time today, it is profoundly appreciated by many. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Ogles of Tennessee and Boebert of Colorado to be waived onto the subcommittee for today's joint subcommittee hearing for the purpose of asking questions without objection so ordered. (59:39) I would now like to recognize Mr. Schellenberger for his introductory remarks. Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Garcia, members of the subcommittees, thank you for inviting my testimony. One of Congress's most important responsibilities is oversight of the executive branch in general and the military and intelligence community in particular. (59:59) Unfortunately, there is a growing body of evidence that the US government is not being transparent about what it knows about unidentified anomalous phenomena and that elements within the military and the IC are in violation of their constitutional duty to notify Congress of their operations. President-elect Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama have both said that the government has information about UAPs that it has not released. (1:00:28) There are other explanations for UAPs that they represent a new form of life or non-human life. Current dominant alternative theories, including those put forward by Arrow, are that UAPs are some kind of natural phenomena we don't yet understand, like ball lightning or plasma. They could also be part of some new U.S. (1:00:45) or foreign government weapons program, such as drones, aircraft, balloons, CGI, hoaxes, or birds. Whatever UAPs are, Congress must be informed, as must the people of the United States, we have a right to know what UAPs are no matter what they are. However, we now have existing and former US government officials who have told Congress that Arrow and the Pentagon have broken the law by not revealing a significant body of information about UAPs, including military intelligence databases that have evidence of their existence as physical craft. (1:01:20) One of those individuals is a current or former US government official acting as a UAP whistleblower. This person has written a report This is the report that says the executive branch has been managing UAP, NHI issues without congressional knowledge, oversight or authorization for some time, quite possibly decades. (1:01:38) Furthermore, these individuals have revealed the name of an active and highly secretive DOD unacknowledged special access program or USAP. The source of that document told me that the USAP is a strategic intelligence program that is part of the US military family of longstanding, highly sensitive programs dealing with various aspects of the UAP problem. (1:02:00) The new UAP whistleblower claims that the US military and IC database includes videos and images taken using infrared, forward-looking infrared, full-motion video, and still photography. The report that was just shared with Congress says Immaculate Constellation serves as a central or parent USAP that consolidates observations of UAPs by both tasked and untasked collection platforms. (1:02:23) Immaculate Constellation includes high quality imagery intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence of UAPs, the whistleblower's report adds. The sources of this intelligence are a blend of directed and incidental collection capacities, capabilities, position in low Earth orbit, the upper atmosphere, as well as military and civilian aviation altitudes and marine time environments. (1:02:42) The report to Congress details in detail various UAPs including spheres, orbs, discs, saucers, ovals, triangles, boomerang, arrowhead, and irregular organic. The report describes various incidents found in the human intelligence databases. One involved orbs surrounding and forcing an F-二 out of its patrol area. (1:03:01) In another incident, the crew of a Navy aircraft carrier watched a small orange-red sphere rapidly descend from a high altitude of one hundred to two hundred yards directly above the flight deck of the CVN or aircraft carrier. And since my reporting on this immaculate constellation last month, another source came forward who told me that they saw a roughly thirteen minute long, high definition, full color video of a white orb UAP coming out of the ocean approximately twenty miles off the coast of Kuwait. (1:03:26) It was filmed from a helicopter. Then halfway through the video, the person said the orb is joined by another orb that briefly comes into the frame from the left before rapidly moving again out of the frame. The person discovered the video on SIPR, the secure internet protocol router network, which the DoD uses to transmit classified information. (1:03:46) A leading up researcher who utilizes the freedom of information act to find out what the government knows john greenwald told me last year that the US Government had been increasingly denying his respect his request for up information he has been doing for your request for years and has an archive of three million pages. (1:04:02) The government has for decades denied any interest in UFOs, he told me, but the documents that he has assembled show that behind the scenes, it was a completely different story. Contrary to the hopes of many advocates of transparency, the government has been restricting more information since the leak of three UAP videos in twenty seventeen. (1:04:20) The DOD organization Arrow has been labeling many documents with a B-seven exemption, which Greenwald says does not make any sense. They're stating that anything Arrow does is involved in law enforcement investigation, which allows Arrow to not release it. Greenwald says the DOD has denied the existence of a UAP and ATIP related records on multiple occasions only to acknowledge them after an appeal was filed. (1:04:41) He added that the naval air systems command in March, state they found no additional UAP videos. It seems strange that they had three and only those three, but other quests had been filed by the black vault that's John Greenwald's group to seek out more places UAPs might be hiding. Then in September, the Navy admitted that the UAP-related videos and photographs existed, but denied the request in full for their release, saying that the requested videos contain sensitive information that are classified and exempt from disclosure. (1:05:10) The DoD will deny things on a Monday and then admit to it on a Friday, said Greenwald. He said the government can and does release videos that protect secret methods of capturing it they fall back on a sensitive platform excuse a lot, he said. However, the on screen information can be blurred and scrub the metadata can be removed I'll show you this example here, this is a presentation from the ATP task force. (1:05:34) This is completely absurd. It's nuts, this level of censorship, of redaction on a document. It shows the redaction of how many reports they've collected, for how many years. Two of the three potential explanations are blacked out. The Pentagon, the intelligence community is treating us like children. It's time for us to know the truth about this. (1:05:56) I think that we can handle it. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would now like to recognize Mr. Gold for five minutes. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Groffman, Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, Representative Moskowitz, and distinguished members of both subcommittees. I'm grateful to all of you, as well as your intrepid staff, for the opportunity to testify and would like to begin by discussing courage. (1:06:20) Courage is what it takes to tackle this topic, and courage in the face of adversity is what I see in front of me, beside me, and behind me. For my introduction, I am currently the Chief Growth Officer at Redwire Space and have had several leadership positions at NASA. That being said, I want to be clear that I am speaking exclusively on my own behalf and not for Redwire, NASA, or any other organization. (1:06:42) However, I am here today to speak out for science. Science requires data, which should be collected without bias or prejudice. Yet, whenever the topic of UAP arises, those who wish to explore the phenomena are often confronted with resistance and ridicule. For example, members of the NASA UAP independent study team, particularly those in academia, were mocked and even threatened for simply having the temerity to engage in the study of UAP. (1:07:13) Our best tool for unlocking the mystery of UAP is science, but we cannot conduct a proper inquiry if the stigma is so overwhelming that just daring to be part of a NASA research team elicits such a vitriolic response. Therefore, one of the most important actions that can be taken relative to exposing the truth of UAP is to combat the stigma. (1:07:37) And this is where I believe that NASA can be eminently helpful. The NASA brand is synonymous with hope, optimism, and credibility. If you were to take a walk down the National Mall, you would immediately see the NASA logo on T-shirts, hats, and bumper stickers. Few federal agencies enjoy this kind of popularity. (1:07:54) I've never seen anyone wearing an Office of Personal Management T-shirt, which is why NASA could play such an influential role. Specifically, NASA could, with relatively little cost and effort, host symposia on UAP, or even just participate in existing panels examining the topic. NASA personnel stepping forward and participating in such discussions would make a powerful statement to the scientific community that UAP should be taken seriously and researched accordingly. (1:08:26) In regard to research, NASA has vast archives, much of which may contain important UAP data. Again, for relatively little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI or ML algorithm that could search the agency's archives for anomalous phenomena. I suspect that such an effort would not only result in information that will help us to understand UAP, but could result in data that will assist in other areas of scientific inquiry, such as anomalous weather or meteorite activity. (1:08:53) Beyond its existing archives, NASA could act as a clearinghouse for civilian and commercial UAP data. During my work on the UAP independent study team, it quickly became evident that there is no clear or well-publicized process for civilian pilots to report UAP sightings. The stigma associated with UAP hampers the number of pilots that would report such phenomena, but even for those who overcome the stigma, I believe the current FAA guidance is largely unknown and poorly understood. (1:09:22) In order to effectively collect UAP data, the independent study team recommended the use of NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, or ASRS. This system, which is administered by NASA and funded by the FAA, provides a confidential means for the reporting of safety violations in a voluntary and non-punitive manner over forty seven years the asrs has collected nearly two million reports asrs is the perfect tool to collect uap data which could then be collated by nasa and shared with the public at large leveraging asrs could (1:09:55) create a treasure trove of uap data potentially hundreds of thousands of reports supporting this hearing's goal of exposing the truth And I'm grateful to our two co-chairs and other members who have already incorporated this idea into proposed legislation. At this hearing, and as others have demonstrated, the UAP issue is justifiably dominated by national security and defense. (1:10:17) However, I would urge the subcommittees to keep in mind the numerous ways that NASA and the FAA, as well as commercial activities in the air, in space, and in the water, can generate a massive amount of invaluable data on anomalous phenomena. I cannot help but be excited by the potential for such an endeavor since scientific discovery is driven by anomalies. (1:10:39) It's the existence and study of anomalies that led to the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and nearly all of humanity's scientific breakthroughs. This is why the study of UAPs should be embraced since whatever is occurring, the chance to garner new knowledge should never be ignored. We must be thorough in collecting information, fearless in making conclusions, and open to following the data no matter how mundane or extraordinary the results may be. (1:11:08) I began this testimony by praising the Joint Subcommittee members for their courage, and I will end by echoing that sentiment. As the saying goes, the truth is out there. We just need to be bold enough and brave enough to face it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I will now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. (1:11:28) I have a lot of questions and I have a lot of witnesses. So I would just ask if it's yes or no to please just tell me yes or no. If it requires more than that, be very succinct because I would like to go down the line and ask as many questions as possible. So for the Admiral this morning first, former DoD official Chris Mellon reached out to you about satellite imagery from two thousand seventeen that depicts a UAP. (1:11:50) What were the dates in two thousand seventeen when this occurred? I can't share with you the details, ma'am, but I can do it in a closed setting. And I can also tell you the agency that wrote a report on it. OK, so who has the imagery? I can tell you that in the closed setting. Can you describe what was depicted in the satellite imagery? Just a description. (1:12:08) It was a UAP, ma'am. That's it. No other description. The the the the term that the analysts use, they call it the button. It was a it was a disk shaped object. Okay, where was it? I can't tell you that, ma'am. Okay. All right. Okay, Mr. Elizondo, you state in your testimony that, quote, advanced technologies not by our government or any other government are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe, end quote. (1:12:38) If these technologies are not made by any government, who's making them? Private companies or are you implying they are crafted by a non-human intelligence? Well, ma'am, that's precisely why we're here. The problem is that, temporally speaking, over decades, not just the last ten years, before, t (1:12:56) o put this in perspective... Are these private companies you're implying, or is this non-human intelligence? It may be both. Okay. When it comes to Blue Force technologies, I would not be able to discuss... Okay. Are you read into secret UAP crash retrieval programs? We would have to have a conversation in a closed session, ma'am. I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals. (1:13:17) I submitted for my book through the DOPSRA process, which took a year for it to be reviewed. And what is in the book is what I was told I'm allowed to talk about. Has the government conducted secret UAP crash retrieval programs, yes or no? Yes. Okay. Were they designed to identify and reverse engineer alien craft, yes or no? Yes. (1:13:34) Does the U.S. government have any reverse – okay, we already answered that question about retrieval programs. Do any U.S. contractors have the same? I would prefer to address it in a closed session, ma'am. Okay. In your book, you mentioned government employees who've been injured by UAPs placed on leave and receiving government compensation for their injuries. (1:13:53) Is that correct? That is correct. How can the government deny we have recovered craft if they're paying people because they've been injured by recovered craft? Ma'am, that's a great question. That's why I think we're here again, because I've seen the documentation by the U.S. government for several of these individuals who have sustained injuries as a result of a UAP incident. (1:14:13) It's a crazy idea, right? The hypocrisy and the logic. Okay, Mr. Schellenberger, I'm going to say it again to be very clear. Immaculate Constellation. What's its mission and how are they funded? Its mission is to, as I stated, its mission is to, it's an unacknowledged special access program. Its mission is to document UAPs. (1:14:39) Okay. And do you, for your story and your report, do you have more than one credible source? I do. Sourcing. Okay. And then why do you believe your sources to be credible? How do you judge the veracity of the documentation you've been provided about this program? I checked the sources and they are who they say they are. (1:14:55) They are current or former government officials. I should also, I wanted to also add that I did not specify that they were defense department employees. I didn't specify the agency nor the gender. Would they have included non-government employees, people that aren't employed by the government? I'm comfortable saying that these are government or previously government employees. (1:15:18) Any of them currently employed by a private contractor or private contractors? I'd rather not say. Okay. What's the key takeaway? Just a few seconds about the Immaculate Constellation document you provided us today. I think that what the American people need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence community are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other information, still photos, video photos, other sensor information, and they have for a very long time. (1:15:44) And it's not those fuzzy photos and videos that we've been given. There's very clear High res? High resolution. How many, how many visuals, graphics, videos, photos? I mean, I've been told hundreds, you know, maybe thousands. I mean, I also wanted to say, because there was some, there was some conversation around, concern around the revealing of these materials online. (1:16:06) revealing the source collections, but some of these are shot from helicopters using normal videos of oceans. I just think that's absurd that somehow you're going to be revealing some secret U.S. technology by revealing that you've photographed orbs off the coast of Kuwait. Okay, I think you have eight seconds. (1:16:23) Mr. Gold, did NASA, did the NASA independent study team get briefed on what you call OSAP? Very quickly. I flagged the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Estimation Program to our chair and our DFO. We did not get briefed, but I believe it is definitely worth looking into. That was probably the largest UAP review effort ever, and I think produced a lot of interesting data, including revealing Nimitz. (1:16:45) I don't know if my fellow witness, Lou, might want to, he did Yeoman's work on it, might want to comment. Okay. All right. I'm going to turn to Mr. Moskowitz, who will be recognized for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So, Mr. Gold, you gave a whole diatribe for a couple of minutes about UAPs, science, data collection, stigma. (1:17:08) A lot of nonbelievers in all of this would just ask a very simple question. Why? Why is it so hard? Why are people, anytime they ask, why are they always thwarted? Why are they always judged? Why is they always have misinformation spread? Why is there always retribution? Why is it always met with an ear? What's the why? If it doesn't exist, why is it such a problem? I think if you go through the history of science, Representative, It is always difficult for breakthroughs and new information, regardless of whether it's (1:17:43) UAP or any other kind of discovery. And in science, we're supposed to be open. But when you break with the orthodoxy of what's believed, whether it's Galileo saying that the earth doesn't rotate or the earth rotates around the sun or the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, It's always challenging for new beliefs and more extraordinary those discoveries than the more extraordinary those new beliefs It's very difficult. (1:18:07) So I think this is natural There's natural conservatism that when it comes to science, but this issue in particular has been very difficult where again Even to attempt to study it becomes problematic. But every hearing like this every news report, every video, documentaries. I was privileged to be part of something Dan Fair is putting together. (1:18:30) I think many of us have interviewed for it, documentary over thirty different government officials. Every brick in the wall will help get us closer to getting to the truth. I appreciate that. Mr. Elizondo, did I have that correct? Sure. I'm a recovering lawyer, so I'm going to put my hat on for a second. (1:18:48) 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. 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. (1:19:05) 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. Correct. 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. (1:19:27) 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. 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. (1:19:43) 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. Army, and after a very short stint in military intelligence, I became a counterintelligence special agent as a civilian. (1:20:06) Later on, I became a special agent in charge, running investigations in counterterrorism and counterespionage, primarily with some experience in counterinsurgency and counternarcotics. And then in the two thousand nine time frame, I came back to the pentagon after a tour with the director of national intelligence um I quickly became part of a program that was originally called osap that evolved into the program now called atip which is where those videos that we now see we're at the go fast the gimbal the fleer um that was part of (1:20:37) our effort sir right so you don't you're not some conspiracy theorist you actually have a legitimate background Well, sir, I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist. I'm fact based, just a fact. 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. (1:20:52) How long is the document? It's about a page front and back. So basically, you have some things they call try graphs, which I cannot, again, talk. How long were you given to sign the document? As long as I needed, sir. And what if you didn't sign it? well though I suspect there would be repercussions I wouldn't have access to certain information were you allowed to conduct ask a lawyer or weren't allowed to talk weren't allowed to ask for a lawyer to review the document it wasn't an option but they may (1:21:18) probably wouldn't have allowed me to because the document itself is pretty explicit about you have to be put him in an interest let me try to thread the needle here um There are certain documents that we have in the US government that allow people to have access to certain programs, whether it's a special, and I'm gonna be very generic here, whether it's a special access program or a controlled access program, SAP, CAP, whatnot. (1:21:39) How many people have to sign that document? It depends how many people are gonna get access to the information, sir. 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. (1:21:58) But can you tell us more about that incident? You've written a lot about that. I wrote a lot about incidents like it, Congressman, but that specific incident involved the USS Omaha, the tour combat ship of the US Navy operating off Southern California. I don't remember the exact date. It was within the last decade. (1:22:18) And what the watchstanders on the bridge observed was a UAP, again, something that was aloft but had no observable exhaust or control surfaces. So it was something that couldn't be explained, and then they saw it enter the water from the atmosphere and going through the air-sea interface, and so thus exhibiting transmedium travel. (1:22:40) Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Grothman for five minutes of questioning. Yeah, we'll start with Mr. Gallaudet. During a previous UAP hearing, Navy Commander David Fravor discussed the TikTok object engaged In two thousand and four, you're familiar with the incident, the TikTok incident. (1:22:59) Yes, sir. That's almost twenty years ago, right? Yes, sir. It's been said there are more videos, documents and reports related to this incident. Do you believe the information regarding the TikTok incident should be available to all members of Congress? And in your expertise, what reason would the Department of Defense possibly have for not releasing information that's over twenty years old? Thank you, Congressman. (1:23:24) I don't think there's any good reason to withhold information and important data, especially of national security concern from Congress. What would they say? I will speculate, sir, that they don't want to share that kind of information because it reveals weaknesses in our ability to monitor and protect our airspace. (1:23:42) Okay. In your written testimony, you claim last year's UAP hearing before this Oversight Committee confirmed that UAP-related information is, well, it's not being withheld, but the elements of the government are engaging in a disinformation campaign to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP whistleblowers. (1:24:05) Could you elaborate on that statement a little? Yes, sir. Earlier this year, I met with the DOD's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, and what I thought would be a ninety-minute meeting just to meet with leadership turned out to be an hours-long influence operation on me where I was They attempted to convince me of the validity of the very flawed and error error ridden historical records report, in addition, they. (1:24:33) They tried to have me question very valid up reports, like the tic tac incident and even even coming to. Stating possibly that. that the Tic Tac was American technology. And then of course, if you ask David Fravor, Alex Dietrich, the two witnesses, they were convinced it was otherwise. And then, and they also cast discredit on various UAP whistleblowers and witnesses to question their validity and credibility as witnesses. (1:25:05) Okay. We'll go to Mr. Elizondo. Hope I got that right or not. You're familiar with the recent drone incursion over Langley Air Force Base. Yes, sir. The owners of these drones remain unclear. The U.S. military has not been able to give us in Congress an answer. Given your experience with the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, how frequently are UAP sightings over military installations? And secondly, I suppose hypothetically, you could have incursions over just, say, regular airports. (1:25:38) Is it obvious these incursions are more likely over military facilities than just a random airport out there. Yes, sir. There's definitely enough data to suggest that there is certainly some sort of a relationship between sensitive us military installations. Also some of our nuclear equities and also some more department of energy sites. (1:26:00) There is a long historical record that some of your colleagues may have documentation that demonstrates this. This is not a new trend. This has been going on for decades. And that information has been obfuscated unfortunately, from from folks like you in this committee. And I think that's problematic because ultimately, at the end of the day, we have a significant situation here. (1:26:25) We have something that can enter into U.S. airspace completely with no attribution. And how long has this been going on? Sir, decades. And there's information that will hopefully be entered into. Can you think of any possible reason why they can't release any information they have on something, say, fifteen or twenty years old? Sir, if I could echo my colleague here, Admiral Gallaudet, I think one of the big issues that we have in the intelligence community and Department of Defense is we don't want to broadcast any (1:26:48) potential vulnerabilities or weaknesses in our national defense systems or on intelligence collection platforms. Therefore, when you have a conversation where you address a problem for which there is no solution, it makes that a very uncomfortable conversation to have. Okay, we'll switch to Mr. Schellenberger. (1:27:05) The primary reason you're here today is because you published an article on the newest publication that you own called Public, right? Alleging that a new unnamed government whistleblower has come forward asserting that a highly classified program exists dedicated to recovery and reverse engineering of UAP technologies. (1:27:25) Can you give us what specific evidence you have or that your source provided you to substantiate the claims about the existence of the Immaculate Constellation Program? Well, you have the report in front of you now, so you can see it for yourself. Um, but, um, I, what I, I checked the report and I did not find it based on existing cases. (1:27:48) It was new cases for me. I couldn't at least I hadn't found. Anybody so that solved that answered for me that it was not obviously circular reporting, which is one of the big concerns in the space. I also had the name of the program confirmed by more than one additional source. Um. So, yeah, and then I, of course, I checked to make sure that the source was who they claim to be. (1:28:09) Okay. I should also say that when I said before it was this database, it is much broader program that also includes human intelligence. And then, as you mentioned, the retrieval and any knowledge of what country these things originated in. No, no, I have no idea. Okay. Okay. I will now recognize Mr. Burchett for five minutes of questions. (1:28:31) Thank you, Chair and Lady. I request your name and consent to enter into the record documents provided to us regarding legacy UAP programs and psychological operations. Lou Elizondo. So ordered. I also want to thank my buddy Jeremy Corbell for writing these documents and access to some whistleblowers. Mr. (1:28:51) Elizondo, what is your last position with the federal government? Sir, I was the director of national program special management staff managing a White House special access program on behalf of the National Security Council. How would you characterize UAPs? An enigma, sir, and a frustration. We're talking about technologies that can outperform anything we have in our inventory. (1:29:16) And if this was an adversarial technology, this would be an intelligence failure eclipsing that of nine eleven by an order of magnitude. Are there classified Department of Defense materials related UAPs that you believe could be safely disclosed to the public without compromising national security. Yes, sir, I do. (1:29:35) I would never, ever try to endorse providing some sort of information that could compromise what we call a blue force technology or capability. But I do believe there's a lot of information regarding this topic. And I've been very vocal about it that should be shared not only with the public, but most importantly, with members of Congress. (1:29:50) Are you familiar with my friend David Grush? Absolutely, sir. I had the privilege, privilege and honor of working with him myself several years ago at US Space Force. Last year, as you know, he testified that the U.S. has run a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. Would you agree with that? Yes, sir. (1:30:09) Are there UAP programs operating without proper congressional oversight? One hundred percent. What are they? Unfortunately, sir, I would have to have that conversation in a closed session. I know you said that a lot of people are frustrated with those kind of answers. We're asking those kind of questions. So you all know what the heck we're up against. (1:30:28) Um, you also mentioned in your opening statement that the Pentagon's public affairs office employs the psychological operations officers, the singular point of conduct for UAP related inquiries. Why the heck would they do that? So that's a great question. I would ask the Pentagon. There's a long history here of this, that individual providing misleading and false information to the public. (1:30:47) through various news outlets and media outlets in order to discredit this topic. I've personally been victim to it. We have the document documentation to substantiate where this information has been absolutely inaccurate that has been provided time and time again. And it turns out that that individual is also working with former leadership of arrow at the time as well. (1:31:06) And we punish them by giving them multi million dollars more than they asked for every year. Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your opening statement on An email you received from the operations officer of the Fleet Forces Command regarding unknown objects almost colliding with U.S. military planes. Did anyone respond with knowledge of what the objects were? I received no response, sir. (1:31:28) Did the exercise get canceled? The exercise did not get canceled. Why do you think the commander of Fleet Forces Operations Officer never discussed the incident again? Sir, I'm speculating because I didn't have an exchange with him, but I believed it to be part of a special access program, the information and the video, which we have known now it was, and he realized he couldn't share that openly with the recipients of the email, and therefore the email was pulled from everybody's account. (1:31:54) Again, tell us what happened to the email from the commander of Fleet Forces. The day after I received it and all the other recipients received it, which were all the subordinate commanders of U.S. Fleet Forces, so one- and two-star admirals, including strike group commanders, the email was wiped or deleted from our accounts, and then no one talked about it. (1:32:13) All right. Have you specifically had any experience with submersible objects? So I'm not, no personal experience, but I've had witnesses on submarines come to me and say they've seen on sonar data. Correct. How would you characterize those and how do they move? The one instance that was revealed to me was in the eighties on a nuclear powered submarine, a ballistic missile submarine that The object exhibited the characteristics of a Russian torpedo in terms of its speed of movement and closing rate with a submarine. (1:32:52) And then it slowed and then followed the submarine slowly in its wake for a period of minutes and then rapidly exited the scene. And nothing that we know of in technology-wise could replicate that. And the speed of these objects was faster than anything that we have or anybody else has that would be manned. Is that correct? It was on the order of a torpedo. (1:33:15) Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But as it exited. I don't exactly know how fast a torpedo is, but I expect it does better than my old outboard Scott Atwater. So I'll take that as a yes. Okay. Have you experienced any experience with the all-domain anomaly resolution office, Arrow? Yes, Congressman. As I mentioned previously, I have met with them. (1:33:38) Okay. You heard Mr. Alexander describe psychological operations for those people contacting the Department of Defense about UAPs. You mentioned a similar influence operation by Arrow. Why are federal agencies invested in running information operations about UAPs if they do not exist? Yes, sir. But I'll make a statement on Arrow's behalf. (1:34:01) They have new leadership. The office has reached out to me to meet again, and I take that as a good faith effort, and we'll see where that goes. Thank you, Chair lady ever run over. Thank you, Mr Tennessee. I would now like to recognize Mr Higgins. You're the king of Tennessee. Mr Higgins, you're recognized for five minutes of questions. (1:34:21) Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr Elizondo, Mr Schellenberger notes in his in the report that that we've been given for this hearing. I believe Mr Schellenberger. Let me shift you with the author of this this report. I'm sorry, I'm not the author. Mr. Schellenberger, were you the author of this report? No, I was not. (1:34:45) Do you know the author? I do. You do. And how would you estimate that madam or gentleman, the author? The person is a current or former U.S. government employee. And it stays here that this is the public version of the author's report. Yes. So where might one find the non-public version of the author's report? I don't know the answer to that. (1:35:11) Would that be with the Department of Defense? I don't know. But you do know the author? I do. You know what the author's sources were? The author's sources are described in the report, these databases, the Immaculate Consolation. But you expressed some confidence in the sources. I would. Earlier in testimony. (1:35:36) I do. You express confidence. So do you know those sources? I do. Are they within the Department of Defense? I can't say. You can't say or you won't say? I won't say. Okay, why not? Because I protect my sources and I think the reason... But you're not naming them. It's a big department. Many of us on my side of the aisle would say it's far too big. (1:35:56) So you're talking about the Department of Defense sources from within the Department of Defense? I'm not willing to reduce the potential universe of where my sources might be. Okay, moving on. In this report, Mr. Elizondo, for reference, several types of allegedly alien craft or possibly alien craft or unknown aerial phenomena, what we used to call UFOs, are described. (1:36:27) Spheres and orbs. disc and saucers, oval or tic-tac, triangular shape, boomerang and arrowhead, and irregular or organic. Mr. Elizondo, does that summarize to you the types of craft that we're discussing today? So that is a general morphology, historically speaking, of many UAPs. So those descriptions, a very different craft, is it your assessment that they would come with of different origins? It's possible, but it also could be a matter of utility. (1:37:06) And let me just say for the record, I never read the report or the article that Mr. Schellenberger put out. That's a good point. We're just referencing it for descriptive purposes for the American people. Mr. Schellenberger, in this report, it's striking to me that regarding the descriptions of of experiences with these various craft. (1:37:34) Several of them include biological effects and several do not. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about? Yes. Okay, so spheres and orbs, triangular craft, and irregular or organic craft include some descriptions of biological effects, including feelings of unease, electronic device malfunctions, long-term psychological effects such as anxiety or insomnia have been noted, feeling of being watched, a shared awareness with the triangle craft, and under the irregular and organic craft, biological effects include (1:38:24) physical sensations of warmth or cold and unexplained smells, and psychological distress. So these are very specific descriptions of the reactions of human beings, which allegedly have been noted from a study here, a report. All of those experiences would have been described by the sources that the author used? I'm not sure I understand. (1:38:55) This is a very broad description. Robert Underwood Jr. : Of of biological effects and it's it's striking to me that they are present with relation to some types of crap but absent in others, this would require a great deal of research and study, can you explain that. My understanding is that the database is very large. (1:39:19) It includes both the images, the videos, the still images, as well as the human intelligence, the reports, the raw data from individuals having these experiences. So in answer to your question, yeah, I mean, I think we're looking at a very large amount of data collected over many decades. And that data is held by the Department of Defense? Well, I will say that after I published, I was told that this program, that the USAP was actually managed by the Department of Defense, but held at the White House. (1:39:50) Roger that. But that's a single source, and I don't have multiple sources to verify that. Thank you, sir. I did my best to trick an answer out of you, but I was partially successful. Madam Chair, are you? Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Frost for five minutes of questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to serving on this committee, the Oversight Committee, I also serve on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, where we often discuss how essential data and evidence are used in science and used at departments such as NASA. (1:40:23) During a hearing, NASA Administrator Nelson affirmed the importance of NASA in helping us to understand UAP. Mr. Gold, if the government doesn't have the data it needs on UAP because, say, someone who saw something is concerned about stigma, public backlash, 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. (1:40:51) 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. (1:41:12) 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. (1:41:30) that because we've got more cameras, more monitoring of national security, we don't know how extensive UAP activity may be over civilian areas. And this is to the second part of your question where we're not collecting the data. We're not collecting sufficient data from pilots. We're not collecting sufficient data from civilian and commercial activities. (1:41:48) And this is, again, where ASRS, I think, could substantially change that, get the data out there, and allow us to do good science. Thank you. I mean, on the data... You know, I'm a really big proponent of transparency. But obviously, there's always a little bit of balance that we have to have in government on transparency as well. (1:42:07) 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 scientific conclusions about UAP. (1:42:30) Can you just talk really quickly about that balance of security and transparency? So I can say, having served at NASA, it is the most transparent organization I've ever been in. When we would have conversations of executive leadership, things would leak out almost instantly. So I can assure you, intentionally or not, NASA's very transparent. (1:42:49) 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 not looking at it, then we can't bring NASA into the game and get to that good science that you need. (1:43:13) You know, it was about a year ago I was touring a facility with a pretty senior government official. We went by a certain hangar and they said, yeah, that's, you know, a company leases that out. We don't really know what's going on in there. We have no way of knowing what's going on in there. And there was a few of those, in fact, while we were driving around this facility. (1:43:37) To what extent do you think that some of the UAP out there comes from off the books or unauthorized experimental aircraft? I mean, I think probably the vast majority of UAP are drones, experimental aircraft, weather conditions, which is, again, why I say if we review the data, I think we're going to discover a lot about things we weren't even thinking about. (1:43:56) But there is a percentage that isn't. and looking into those anomalies is how discoveries will be made and relative to science congressman if I can say when nasa studies black holes when nasa studies galaxies we have instruments that are tailored to do so with uap we're using cockpit gun cameras or cell phones we could never do good science with that and let me tell you the nasa budget is under pressure we need to make sure that the artemis program is funded fully we need to beat china to the moon and maintain our (1:44:29) presence in low earth orbit so nasa would need more money to do this but I think tailored instruments that would look at uap in the same way that we have tailored instruments, to look at astronomical data is important to gathering valuable and uniform information. If we were studying black holes by using fighter cockpit cameras, we probably wouldn't know that much about black holes. (1:44:49) A hundred percent. Well, I think it's important that federal leaders take the necessary steps to ensure that UAP does not pose threats to the American public as well, and that we have the necessary budgets to collect this data so we can actually see what's going on. And I'm fully supportive of funding the Artemis mission. (1:45:06) I think it's very important. Also, a personal note, the pilot is a frat brother of mine. He is a member of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity Incorporated, and so I would love to see my fraternity. make it to the moon. Redwire is building the cameras for Artemis, so we will take some pictures of your frat brother and get them. (1:45:25) There we go. Thank you so much. I yield back. Thank you. I will now recognize Ms. Luna for five minutes of questioning. Mr. Elizondo, to your knowledge, can you name the country and around time frame that the first back-engineered UAP program started? Ma'am, unfortunately, I would not be able to have that conversation in public. (1:45:44) Can anyone on the panel name that? None of you? This next question is for Mr. Gallaudet. To your knowledge, have any USOs ever outpaced our submarines? Yes, ma'am. At what magnitude? I don't have the exact speed, but again, a witness came to me, a credible former submarine officer who observed it on sonar data. (1:46:12) And this was in the eighties in the North Atlantic during a storm and it outpaced his submarine by orders of magnitude. Are you aware of any hotspots that currently exist off our shores in North America? Not with sufficiently credible data, ma'am. Okay. We've heard reports of there potentially being hotspots, maybe entry and exit points. (1:46:37) Have you heard of any of that? I have not, ma'am, but my colleague here, Mr. Elizondo, does discuss some USO activity that he's observed in certain DoD databases. Mr. Elizondo, in regards to these aircraft being piloted by whatever they might be, non-human biologics, would you agree that it's likely that they are being piloted by some mind-body connection? Ma'am, I think it is safe to presume here that they are being intelligently controlled because some cases seem to anticipate our maneuvers, and in other cases, (1:47:15) they seem to anticipate And I came across an email where the word stocked was used in a very secure email between Navy officers discussing their ships being pursued by UAP. In our previous panel, we had Grush, and he had testified to say that some of these were interdimensional beings. Can you speak on that at all? Ma'am I'm not qualified, certainly as a scientist or otherwise to speculate points of origin. (1:47:45) I looked at everything from a scientific perspective, so if you look at it, for example, instantaneous acceleration, which was one of the observables of the program that I belong to a tip. The human body can withstand about nine G forces for a short period of time before you suffer negative biological consequences blackouts and ultimately readouts and even death. (1:48:02) comparison, our best technology, the F-sixteen, which is one of his older platform, but one of our most highly maneuverable aircraft, manned aircraft made by General Dynamics can perform about seventeen or eighteen G forces before you start having structural failure, meaning that the airframe begins to disintegrate where you're flying. (1:48:19) The vehicles we're we're talking about are performing. In excess of one thousand, two thousand, three thousand G's. So are you, I guess, would it be safe to infer that they're living craft? Um, you know, I'm not prepared at this point to state for the record, um, is something alive or not, because even that definition is, or there was a time in science. (1:48:43) We, we thought that, um, life required oxygen and we now know that's not true. There are anaerobic bacteria that's thriving in oxygen, uh, environments that lack oxygen. Um, and also same with photosynthesis. When I was in college, it was told every, everything is derived from photosynthesis, uh, as a form of energy. (1:49:01) Um, in reality, that's not true. There are things that live off of chemosynthesis. So we're constantly having to reevaluate our understanding of what the definition of life is. Do any of you ever come across reports from people that claim to have firsthand experiences with these entities, whatever they might be, or these aircraft, and then as a result, whether or not they're religious, find that these things automatically disappear? Anyone? This is open to any of you on the panel. (1:49:29) So just real quick, because I'm running out of time. Lou? uh ma'am um I've always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy when I was at a-tip um I was focusing more on the performance characteristics and not less on the the potential occupants okay um the reason I ask is because it seems like just based on our conversations that we've had people that say that there are good and bad of whatever these things are And so my concern from a national security perspective is, is a that true? B are you guys hearing reports of that? (1:49:56) And C I think moving forward in regards to technology, Mr. Gold, if you can answer this real quickly, some of these aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that we don't currently have. Uh, but just yes, no, in your opinion, if we were able to obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or negative? would certainly save us some money on funding on Artemis. (1:50:14) And this is a national security issue that there is such technology out there. We're not the only country that might have access to it. We don't want to be on the wrong end of technological surprise. Okay, thank you guys for your time. All right, thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Garcia for five minutes. (1:50:32) Thank you, and I apologize for stepping out. My governor is here upstairs, so I'm trying to get in between meetings, so I apologize for that. I want to just start by just asking everyone on the panel or witnesses, and I had a chance to read all the testimony before, but just to set the agenda, if we can go down real briefly, do you believe, just for the record, that the federal government, any part of the federal government, is knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs from the public? Yes, sir. (1:51:00) One hundred percent, yes. Yes, thank you. I also want to just go down the line. I know many of you have already said this, but just for the record again, just briefly, what do you believe UAPs could be or are? Strong evidence that they are non-human higher intelligence. I echo my colleague's comment, sir. (1:51:26) Genuinely do not know. Don't know, but we must find out. Okay, thank you. I appreciate those answers, gentlemen. I think this is obviously another remarkable hearing with this really important information, so I thank all of you for answering the questions. Admiral, I just want to go back to one thing. Now, last year, our subcommittee heard from two retired Navy pilots, Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Commander David Fravor. (1:51:52) Regarding UAPs, actually, I think Ryan is here in the audience. and been a great person to get to know and to have conversations with. He, of course, has been involved in the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Chairman Graves, with Chairwoman Mace for UAP reporting by civilian aviation personnel. Can you discuss briefly why it's important for civilian pilots to be able to report UAPs and why these legal protections are critical for national security? yes congressman thank you and I did invite ryan gray as my guest as I'm on his (1:52:25) advisory board for the americans for safe aerospace and legislation that you supported and introduced I fully support as well and I think it's important that more civilian pilots commercial pilots report so we can better understand and learn and do research on uap as well as remove the stigma, so more citizens report on what they observe. (1:52:46) And also, it will only contribute to aviation safety when we have a better understanding of where these UAP are, how they operate, and at what frequency and what capability level. So it's important for aviation safety, and it'll be important for moving science and research forward. Thank you, sir. And I just want to just reiterate to my colleagues, I mean, this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, and we just got to continue to get this through the Congress. (1:53:09) And it's incredibly important that civilian pilots have the opportunity to safely report the UAPs that they are seeing or encountering in the air. And I can't express how critical this piece of what I believe is a larger collection of evidence and facts actually happened. We've been approached by pilots. (1:53:28) I've talked to folks that have been engaged with our office and others, and there is still enormous stigma. And essentially we don't have a system where folks are feeling free to be able to report what they're seeing. And so I just wanna reiterate that. Mr. Gold, in your testimony, you discuss NASA's aviation safety reporting system, a confidential non-punitive reporting mechanism. (1:53:51) In the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, we explicitly allow for civilian reporting, of course, of UAPs. Can you explain why the NASA task force recommended the use of the aviation safety reporting system? The aviation safety reporting system is an existing system that is trusted, that has taken hundreds of thousands, now millions of cases. (1:54:13) And again, recognizing budgetary constraints, this seemed like the perfect way to be able to gain more data. And when it comes to the stigma, sir, it's something that pilots are used to reporting on, that crew is used to reporting on. So it's a great way to get data to overcome the stigma without spending really that much more additional money since the system exists. (1:54:33) Thank you so much for your support of that. Thank you for what Ryan Graves does. This is a common sense means to expose the truth of UAP for the purpose of this hearing. Thank you. And I just want to also add now, earlier this year, as part of the House Defense Authorization Bill, the NDAA, I filed an amendment to include the UAP Disclosure Act, which would create a UAP Records Review Board with exercise of eminent domain over UAP-related material modeled actually on the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which is widely known. (1:55:02) Now, the amendment was blocked, but thankfully the Senate included the amendment by Senator Rounds and Schumer for the UAP Disclosure Act. So I just again want to say that we should be pushing and ensuring the UAP Disclosure Act, which is bipartisan in its support, should move forward. And if I can just briefly also, particularly Adam Roll, can you just briefly, as I close my time, explain why the UAP Disclosure Act would be critical, for us and our national security. (1:55:30) Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I believe the UAP Disclosure Act is important for national security, as well as advancing potential socioeconomic benefits resulting from UAP research, as well as public safety, as we referred to previously regarding aviation. And this act will allow for greater transparency and open research. (1:55:49) And that's why I'm also a member of the UAP Disclosure Fund as an advisor, as in the Seoul Foundation, as an advisor, senior strategic advisor, which is advocating for the same. Thank you very much. I yield back. All right. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Mr. Biggs for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. (1:56:03) Thank you for holding this committee. Thank you to the witnesses. Admiral, the video... That is called the go fast video the email that you've talked about being deleted. I just want to briefly cover this You said that the email The author was asking whether any of the recipients were aware of the classified technology demonstrations that it could explain the objects that were observed and then you said the email disappears then you guys have a series of meetings and commander of fleet forces and his operations officer (1:56:40) never discussed the incident again is that right is that accurate that's accurate sir and uh even during weekly meetings it was never discussed again my question for you is um you were in those meetings did you personally hear that nothing was going on about that yes sir I was in those meetings and uh did you make inquiries about that no I did not because sir because uh i I inferred, since I had been read into other special access programs, that this UAP video was part of one that I was not read into, or any of the recipients, (1:57:13) or the author of the email, and that an intelligence agency basically pulled it back and instructed the author of the email, hey, you just conducted what they call spillage into a lower classification level. And when that's done, the procedures are basically to remove any of the communication. You're going to silo it. (1:57:34) So, Mr. Elizondo, you said in your report and your testimony today, a government work on the UAP subject still remains classified. Excessive secrecies led to grave misdeeds against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone the cosmos fair yes sir all right and and all of you and and mr schellenberger by the way I've read several of your books mr schellenberger excellent stuff uh what I would say too is um you were asked about the veracity of the author of this report (1:58:11) you're comfortable with veracity yes okay and then uh and I'll get to you in a second mr gold we'll talk about kunyan and lakatosian uh scientific uh advancement and We're obviating that through these processes. But we'll get to that in a sec. Because what I want to really get to is the ultimate question really becomes this. (1:58:34) For what purpose is the federal government overclassifying, because that's what they're doing, they're overclassifying, and forbidding the public for getting access to this? And if you know, if you have an explanation, I'm curious, because... I know what I've been told. I just want to know from your perspective, why do they over classify? Mr. (1:58:58) Elizondo, you look like your finger on the button ready to go. Yes, sir. Forgive me. I think there's several reasons. I think at the time when this first this reality became evident to the US government, we were in the middle of a Cold War with then Soviet Union, and we did not want to tip our hands to what our knowledge base was on this topic. (1:59:17) We did not want to broadcast that. to uh with cold wars cold wars long over it is sir it is sir um there's also then the philosophical argument that um the department of defense and the intelligence community is solution oriented and when you don't have answers it's it's a really tough spot to be in it's easier to be quiet and suppressed than if you don't have it indeed sir in fact there's a there's a very real example uh when we built the u-two spy plane and flew it over then um russia and we're taking (1:59:45) reconnaissance and when we first started flying the aircraft it flew so high and so fast we thought they weren't tracking us in reality they were tracking every flight it wasn't until the russians russians could develop the sa-II surface-to-air missile and successfully I would suggest to you also along with Lakatos and and Kuhn you also have a problem with Kenneth Arrow's path dependence or increasing returns. (2:00:07) That's one reason why they won't disclose it. It's too painful to admit. But I just want to read a couple of things from Mr. Schellenberger's what he gave to us today, because I think this is this is interesting stuff. And and and I just want to convey this to you on USG networks. There exists infrared footage of and and imagery of a grouping of vessels engaged in significant and massive collection at night in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean. (2:00:32) This footage which was in close proximity to the vessels, a large equilateral triangle UAP suddenly appears directly over the ships. These three bright points are seen at each bottom corner of the UAP, which is observed to slowly rotate on its horizontal axis. And he goes on to describe that. And I just want to read one more. (2:00:53) And I'm doing this because... I think it's interesting. This stuff is interesting as anything. So let's get this one here, right here. While performing a routine airspace surveillance and control mission in the Eastern Air Defense Sector, an F-XXII fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission altitude. (2:01:14) Moving to intercept, the F-XXII pilot noted multiple metallic orbs slightly smaller than a sedan hovering in place. Upon vectoring towards the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic orbs accelerated at rapid speed towards the F-XXII which was unable to establish radar locks on the presumed hostile UAPs. The F-XXII broke trajectory and attempted to evade, but was intercepted and boxed in by approximately three to six UAPs. (2:01:38) And then I'll leave that there, because I just have no more time left. Well, she's not looking. So let's just get into part of this. I thought I would be saved by the bell. No, no. Let's talk about Kunyan, Lakotushan type of uh scientific development and the problem that we have here is you have institutional blockage of what would be normal development of scientific ideas and uh if you want to expand that mr over time to be very fast please um I'll just say I'm a recovering attorney so please take it (2:02:14) easy on the science but uh all breakthroughs have been heretical at first and that's the challenge that we face particularly with something as extraordinary as this which is why gathering the data is so important and I'll just end by saying by the way the over classification of material is in no way limited to uap that is occurring throughout the government as well as the inability to get people classifications in a timely and efficient manner and then to have those classifications be broad enough to be useful so this (2:02:40) is a larger issue that I hope the congress will thank you thank you mr biggs I've been generous All right, Mr. Burleson, I'll recognize you for five minutes of questions, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elizondo, does any branch of the United States government or defense contractors possess technology? So there's documentation that I believe was submitted for the record that was really as proof released by the US Pentagon, by the Department of Defense Office of pre publication security review. (2:03:16) And it is it states one of the reasons why my predecessor program all SAP was trying to collect material of unknown origin. Was it successfully collected? It was not. What happened is that there was an aerospace contract company that requested to divest itself of the material that was collected in the nineteen fifties. (2:03:39) Unfortunately, that that didn't actually occur. So let's dive into that. That's the Bigelow Airspace, correct? So there was a journalist, Christopher Sharp, who who said that there was a transfer between Lockheed Martin, Bigelow Airspace and the CIA allegedly blocked this. Can you describe that? What I can say is that it was blocked. (2:04:01) Why it was blocked, I can only surmise. I was part of some conversations later on with some of those contract personnel where they had told all of us that is accurate. What we required was a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force in order to make that complete, and that never occurred. And so when Secretary Mattis became Secretary of Defense, I decided it would be appropriate for me to try to receive a memo from him as SecDef, as Secretary of Defense, if we could not get a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer that material. (2:04:34) So if that material exists today, who's in possession? Sir, I wouldn't be able to have that conversation an open hearing we'd probably have to have that okay my my question to you then is if we were in a secure setting if we were in a skiff would you be able to provide or get access to something whether it's a visuals or material that we could put our hands on or biologics that would convince me that would show me um that we have non-human origins? Sir, that decision would not be mine. (2:05:10) That would be to the gatekeepers still in the U.S. government. And who would we, so if you were in our shoes, where would you go from here? How would you get that information? How would, where, you know, a lot of times we just don't know who to ask because we don't know where to go next. So if you were in our shoes, where would you go? Well, I prefer to answer that question in a closed session. (2:05:29) However, we established Arrow for that very purpose. And unfortunately, under its previous leadership it failed so one would hope that they would have the authorities necessary to do that let's hope that this new iteration of leadership will be successful um in in the discussions it's it's simply about material or is there discussion about by a lot it was previously testified there's biologics that were collected are you aware of any of that I am, sir, aware of the reporting that biologics have been recovered. (2:06:02) Again, my focus was more nuts and bolts, looking at the physical aspects of these phenomenon, how they interacted around military equities and nuclear equities. So, I'm certainly not a medical expert. Um, I would not be able to probably provide you a whole lot of value in that simply because I don't have the expertise. (2:06:20) Was anything described as that? We have possession of bodies. Yes. Yes. Is it multiple types of creatures or sorry? I couldn't answer that. Um, I can tell you anecdotally that it was, it was, um. discussed quite a bit when I was at the Pentagon. The problem is the collect supposed collection of these biological samples occurred before my time. (2:06:39) In fact, before I was even born. And was this part of the Lockheed Martin discussion or was this complete? The biologist is a completely separate, um, separate yet related. Okay. Um, has, has anyone made contact? So I'm sorry, could you specify, has there been any, to your knowledge, any communication with a non-human life form? So the term communication is a bit of a trick word because there's verbal communication like we're having now. (2:07:07) The problem is you also have nonverbal communication. And so I would say definitively, yes. But from a nonverbal meaning, when a Russian reconnaissance aircraft comes into U.S. airspace, we scramble to have twenty twos and we are certainly communicating intent and capability. I think the same goes with this. We have these things that are being observed over controlled U.S. (2:07:26) airspace, and they're not really doing a good job hiding themselves. They're making it pretty obvious they have the ability to even interfere with our nuclear equities and our nuclear readiness. Is the United States government and our contractors, are they pulling technology from this? Are they reverse engineering this? Mayor Mrakas, Sir, as I previously stated, please forgive me, I am not authorized to discuss specifics about crash retrievals I again I signed documentation with the US Government, what I can say was after a (2:08:00) very thorough review process by the Pentagon what I wrote about, and that was my limit, unfortunately, that it was given. Mayor Mrakas, Thank you, yes, Sir, thank you, I would like to recognize Mr timmons for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Elizondo, you just said something interesting. (2:08:15) You said they don't seem to be hiding. They don't seem to be hiding. The UAP sightings are becoming increasingly brash, if you will. And we've been hearing about these for years, but they've generally been isolated and not as consistent and over critical military installations. Would you say that's fair? Is this becoming increasingly often? Is it happening more and more? Great question, sir. (2:08:42) Let me see if I can answer this for you. Certainly there seems to be some indication that they're being provocative, meaning that they're, in some cases, literally splitting aircraft formations right down the middle. So that's an air safety issue. The question is, is it the frequency increasing? And really the response is, it depends. (2:09:01) Yes, it's possible that there is an increase in frequency, but it's also possible that there's heightened awareness now, and there's also more pervasiveness of technology out there that's collecting this information that I can record this information. So we're not quite sure yet if it's actually an increase in numbers of these events, or is it that we have better equipment now that to record these things and we have a better ability, if you will, to analyze these things. (2:09:27) And that's my next question. It seems that a lot of these sightings occur near military installations. Do you think that these UAPs are intentionally targeting military installations, or do you think that we have increased abilities to monitor surrounding military installations? Sir, maybe both. Part of my concern is we have something in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community called IPB, initial preparations of the battle space. (2:09:55) And we use equities like ISR, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other type of equities and technologies. to prep the battle space. And certainly, you know, if I was wearing my national security hat, even if there was a two percent chance that there was some sort of hostile intent here, that's two percent higher than we really can accept. (2:10:14) And so we must figure out there's a calculus capabilities versus intent in order to identify if something is a national security threat. We've seen some of the capabilities, yet we have no idea the intent. And so this is why this discussion is somewhat, I think, problematic from a governmental perspective, because we have no idea. (2:10:31) Sure. Thank you. Mr. Schellenberger, you're particularly familiar with the Langley Air Force Base incident a year ago. Are you familiar? Just from what I've read. Just from what you've read? Yeah. I would imagine a large percentage of the American population became aware of that with the Wall Street Journal article. (2:10:47) Would you agree with that? Yes. And were you aware of that incident prior to the Wall Street Journal article? No. To the rest of the panel, was the Wall Street Journal article the first time that y'all were made aware of what was essentially an over two week UAP frenzy over Langley Air Force Base? Were y'all aware of this prior to the Wall Street Journal article? Anybody? Show of hands. (2:11:14) Yes, sir. Could you give me your how did you become aware of it? Well, a colleague of mine who I referenced previously, Chris Mellon, he wrote an extensive article about this, that there were other incursions of drones over Langley before this, as well as many, many military installations over the last five decades. (2:11:34) And it's my understanding there's been an ever increasing in number and trying to think how to say this because I wear two different hats, I'm still in the Air Force. So, I mean, it seems that they're becoming increasingly brash. And the question that we really have to figure out is, is it China or is it non-human? And I think that's the biggest question the American people want to know. (2:11:57) If it's China, it's scary because they have a lot of technology that we cannot explain. And if it's non-human, that's scary because we don't know the intent. Would you say that's fair? Yes, Congressman. In fact, I really believe that we should use this hearing as a catalyst to improve and bolster our air defense capabilities and our maritime domain awareness capabilities, because obviously there are holes in it, whether it be UAP of non-HI direction or NHI direction or, as you say, sir, China or any other adversary. (2:12:29) Are you all aware of any task force at the Pentagon or in the National Security Apparatus that's trying to assess the answer to that question? Mayor Mrakas, At at the current moment, Sir, no, but this is a great point from. Mayor Mrakas, There was a uap task force in the do D and succeeding where Mr Elizondo worked, led by Jay stratton who had the first comprehensive whole government approach to uap which involved pathways to declassification and to increase transparency. (2:12:58) as well as assessing the national security risks of UAP. This was a really well-established approach, and we have all advocated that something like it return. I'm running out of time. The last thing is that we need authorities. The law enforcement, military do not have authorities to actually engage, and Congress needs to act to give those authorities to local law enforcement and the military so they have clear guidelines on how to assess these issues going forward. (2:13:25) I yield back. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Ms. Boebert for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now that we have all been cautioned in this committee hearing that the mention of Pentagon's Immaculate Constellation Program could put us on a list, well, I already find myself on many lists, I'm sure. (2:13:45) So I speak my mind often, so why not just keep going with it? May as well just go all out and say it. The earth is flat. Birds are government drones. And we've never set foot on the moon. And Joe Biden received eighty one million votes in the twenty twenty election. So let's just see how many how many lists we could get on here today. (2:14:06) But Mr. Schellenberger, I wanted to ask you. I think I understand from this hearing that you would agree that classifying information like this is not in the best interest of the people. Is that correct? I mean, with the caveat that, of course, I would support classification necessary to protect secrets essential to national security, but I think it's pretty obvious that there's over-classification. (2:14:30) Over-classification, yes. And so in most instances, if they can't tell us what, do you think at some point they'll at least tell us why? you know president-elect trump has repeatedly committed to greater transparency both on the uap issue on jfk files on covet origins and many other things so I think that we need to make sure that the next administration is held accountable for that. (2:14:54) Agreed. And this is for all four of you. Yes or no, please. I have many questions I want to get to. Are there any known instances of recovered materials or technologies that are not of human origin and may be connected to any advanced bioscience defense programs within the USG? I don't know. I wouldn't be able to answer that, ma'am. (2:15:16) I don't know. I don't know. Okay, so there are rumors that have come up to the hill of a secretive project within the Department of Defense involving the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as non human genetic material, potentially for the enhancement of human capabilities hybrids. Are any of you familiar with that? Yes or no? No, ma'am. (2:15:45) I am not ma'am. I'm not. No, ma'am. Okay, I would like to know, with immaculate constellation, how does this relate to UAP activities, Mr. Schellenberg, in oceanic environments? Are there any instances where the Navy or other marine time forces have encountered UAPs that could not be explained by known technology or natural phenomena? Yeah, the megalithic constellation covers both terrestrial and oceanic, and there's actually a number of cases described in the report that occur in the ocean. (2:16:24) do you believe that there is a concerted effort by the pentagon uh to keep congress out of the loop regarding these uap activities specifically in our waters yes I think it's about five percent of our ocean that's actually been studied in detail um by man uh and we've we've studied more of space than we had of our own oceans and so are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or submerging into our water, which could indicate a base or presence beneath the ocean's surface? I don't know about a base, (2:16:57) but as I mentioned, I had a different source entirely describe this pretty extraordinary footage that exists of an orb coming out of the ocean and being met by another orb. Some would say that there's multiple hotspots where we see frequent activity. So in your investigations, have you come across any data or visual evidence like sonar readings or underwater footage of these UAPs? I have not beyond what's in the report. (2:17:24) You've written about UAPs not only in the air but in underwater. Are there any specifics on what you've learned about the UAP activity in our oceans? Particularly, have you spoken with sources who have provided any evidence or eyewitness accounts of these UAPs interacting with our naval forces or being detected by our underwater surveillance systems? Nothing beyond what's in the report and in the specific case that I mentioned with the orb. (2:17:54) And so this report says it all. There's no other information that we are aware of regarding the activity within our waters. I have other sources that have told me that have shared a significant amount of information, but they're not comfortable with me sharing it at this point. Okay, are there any technological capabilities observed in these oceanic UAPs that seem to defy our current understanding of physics or our engineering capabilities? It seems like they all do. (2:18:28) Yes, I would agree with that. And my time is up, but I do appreciate your bravery, your courage for coming here and speaking today. And it seems like there's still some questions that we need answers to, and we will not relent until we get those to the American people. Thank you all. Thank you. I move to allow myself and the ranking member five additional minutes for questions without objection so ordered. (2:18:50) Mr. Elizondo, were you read into the Immaculate Constellation? I would not be authorized to confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing or past program, especially as it relates to a special access program, either by name or trigraph. Okay. And then does the U.S. government or private contractors, do they work with other foreign countries, China, for example, to exchange data, quote, from a source, that intelligence data about UAPs? Let me see if I can answer that a little bit more generally, ma'am, if I may. (2:19:22) We do have foreign materiel exploitation programs. That is something that is widely known, and that term itself is unclassified. How exactly that works becomes a bit sensitive, a discussion we could certainly have in a closed session if you like. We do work with international partners and allies quite often, not just in military exercises and workups, but in other intelligence efforts as well. (2:19:48) In terms of material that's given to private contractors, is certain material given to certain contractors because of their experience? So for example, if it's related to submerged and undersea propulsion, would it go to a general contractor like General Dynamics? yes ma'am absolutely correct um different contractors have different levels of expertise what's lockheed's expertise aerospace ma'am in in the uap space that's all that uh they would do submerged I know I didn't say that ma'am okay (2:20:17) lockheed martin and others do quite a bit of work both um In our atmosphere, in space, and even underwater, there are certain efforts to – it's a tough question you're asking. You're putting me on the spot here. I'm looking for the answer. Yes, ma'am. No, they are involved in a lot. I would rather let Lockheed Martin explain the different domains that they are involved with. (2:20:41) I'm not authorized to discuss that, but they are involved in a lot of different areas and domains. Admiral, flight safety risks for our pilots based on what you've experienced and seen in your career. Thank you. They're extensive and the one exercise I referred to where I received the email that was then deleted was that the pilots and this is worth bringing out. (2:21:00) There are debunkers out there who have said the go fast video was just a balloon. That was only one video that was released. There were dozens of these encounters that pilots at friends of Ryan Graves, who's in this room right here, witnessed and caused significant safety concerns and to almost call out and exercise it and shut it down. (2:21:22) which is very compressed, and the carrier is getting ready for deployment, and the pilots have to get certified to land on the carrier. It's extreme, to say the least. All right. I have two last questions. Real quickly, Mr. Schellenberger, how do we get more whistleblowers to come forward? Well, this hearing is very important, and obviously I can't encourage whistleblowers to obtain information, but I can guarantee that I will protect them and go to prison to protect their identities if they come to me. (2:21:52) Yes, sir. Okay, my last question. The first hearing we had on this, I never briefed on UAPs or what they were, biologics, non-human, etc., How would you define, each of you, my last question, how would you define non-human biologics, non-human intelligence? What are we actually talking about? Admiral, and we'll go down the line. (2:22:12) I don't think it's a stretch when you look at the diversity of life on this planet and the size of this universe to think that there would be more diverse, higher order, non-human intelligences throughout the universe. And that's probably what's visiting us. I would take the scientific approach the the definition would be the ability to react to a stimulus. (2:22:32) In a manner that requires an intellectual thought process. I just don't know. I think we must be modest in our assumptions that we're looking for intelligence that could be biological it might not. non-biological but what non-biological intelligence what does that mean though artificial intelligence ml machines we assume that all intelligence would be like us and every time we look out in the universe we are humbled relative to what we don't know in terms of the forms of intelligence and what it may take I can (2:23:05) assure you I probably can't ask you your question but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all and then mr garcia did a few closing remarks I know we're about to get votes here, so I'll be brief. I want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Chairwoman Mace especially for holding this important bipartisan hearing. (2:23:21) And I want to thank all the committee members that are interested in this topic. I think our commitment to all of you and all the folks that have contacted us and certainly to of the advocates and the pilots is that we need to continue investigating UAPs. I think the country owes, the country is owed explanations and ensure that the safety of national security is always protected. (2:23:42) This is a conversation and questioning that must continue. So I'm very grateful to all of you. And I also just want to just add, just personally, I think it's really important for me, two things guide my questioning and my observations on UAPs is one is should always be guided by facts, science, and data, and stay serious on those issues. (2:24:05) And the second thing is I think that we should not limit our imagination and our thoughts and our curiosity on what UAPs could actually be. And I think those two things for me are really important, and I'm grateful for all of you to be here. So with that, I yield back. Okay, and we have Mr. Ogles, who is on the way. (2:24:21) He's going to be here any second. Is that correct? I want to check, and he'll be the last member with questions that we have today, and then we have votes. So we want to thank you all for being here. I want to thank Mr. Garcia and folks on both sides of the aisle for being here today and being patient. We have a lot more questions, and I hope that this will open the door to more hearings in the future. (2:24:43) I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are spending on this. You have the right to know. But also, if we're spending money on something that doesn't exist, why are we spending the money? And if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public? And, of course, our national security is a huge issue because if there's technology that could harm us or allies that are in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to stay ahead of that to the best of our ability to ensure that that technology is not (2:25:13) in the hands of someone who could use it against us or allies anywhere in the world. So, Mr. Ogles, you're just in time, babe. I will recognize you for five minutes of questioning before we head on out today. Well, thank you all for being here, and Madam Chairwoman, I'm out of breath because I sprinted to get here, but this is an important hearing. (2:25:49) I think we all know that there's something going on. Mr. Elizondo, based on your knowledge of UAP sightings, do you believe it's fair to say that they are especially common near nuclear sites? Yes, sir. Mr. Congressman, I absolutely am convinced of that, as are my colleagues inside the government. And the reason why I pose that question, and this has been one of my talking points from the beginning, is Oak Ridge is in Tennessee. (2:26:16) The so-called weather balloon that drifted, that we now know was controlled, it passed near Oak Ridge. It obviously is a sensitive site, both of interest to our adversaries and to whatever else this is. Because we know that at military installations, at sensitive locations, such as nuclear facilities, that we're seeing this take place. (2:26:39) So the question is, what is it? Do you believe they've caused an irregular activity and why might they be interested in those sites? Sir, in some cases, actually regular activity. You'd be surprised there's actually documentation right now that's been submitted. It's not just Oak Ridge. It's Savannah River site, SRS. (2:27:01) It's also Los Alamos. A lot of our sensitive R&D locations appear to be under some sort of surveillance and monitoring. Why? Well, because a lot of innovation comes out of those areas, a lot of new technologies, a lot of, if you will, disruptive technologies that we use for our national defense originates out of those locations and advanced concepts in physics as well. (2:27:26) So if I was doing any type of reconnaissance, even on a foreign adversary, that's a great target to start with. Sure, and again, this has been one of my talking points. I do have questions. What role might the Department of Energy or its subsidiaries or affiliates have in this type of technology or possessing this type of technology, whether it's ours or others? Mr. (2:27:51) Guyudet, I think your testimony has been pretty clear, but would you please reiterate that do you believe UAPs pose a threat to pilots? excuse me yes sir I I absolutely they were threatening navy pilots during the exercise that I was my people were involved with in twenty fifteen and it's my understanding they're they're risking uh pilot safety commercial and military today well considering and I understand that there's a need uh in some cases to keep certain technologies secret but you believe that it is posing a threat to (2:28:26) our personnel correct yes sir So I think it's reasonable to conclude that if there is a threat to our personnel who are serving our country faithfully, that there be oversight. One hundred percent, Congressman. And in fact, that's the one thing that we've not talked about enough during this hearing is the fact that the government executive branch. (2:28:51) not sharing with Congress what it knows about UAP infringes on your legislative and oversight responsibilities to such an extent that's very concerning. I mean, what else are we, if you look at national security or intelligence or foreign affairs or appropriations, you all have oversight and legislative responsibility regarding those. (2:29:09) This UAP issue may be the greatest issue of our time, and it's being hit from you. Well, I mean, and to your point, I think we've seen over the decades that we have certain adversaries like China, like Russia, that uh technologically speaking are not as advanced as us that they lack some of the lethality that we have and that we've seen that they've gone after our technologies and in some cases succeeded in particular with missile technology and so again my concern whether this technology emanates from us (2:29:43) or otherworldly that we know that we possess it And where's the accountability? Where are the stopgaps? What are the guarantees that if this were to fall in enemy hands that it isn't immediately weaponized against us? And I'll say this. It is clear from my experience and what I've seen that there is something out there. (2:30:05) The question is, is it ours? Is it someone else's? Or is it otherworldly? And Madam Chairman, I would posit that as the legislative body, as the regulatory body, we must know. And anyone who prevents us from gaining access to that information, I would consider that criminality. Because we have U.S. personnel who may very well be in harm's way. (2:30:34) We have technology that ultimately may threaten our very existence. With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Ogles. And with that and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. (2:30:52) If there's no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. And that is a wrap with this hearing. There were a lot of things to mention here, and it's going to be kind of difficult actually to go in order just because there was so much going on. But I'm going to start off with this one point, just starting off with one. (2:31:26) Michael Gold, I'm looking at you. If anyone watched the NASA media briefing that took place a while ago, I stated it was like the panelists were talking to the public as if they were children. Very condescending. I think Michael Gold watched that NASA briefing and emulated it because that's exactly how I felt I was being treated by him like a child. (2:31:54) And he's like talking to us with this level of excitement. But to me, it sounded very condescending and constantly stating, oh, give it to NASA. Let's let NASA focus on this. Give it to NASA. NASA. But let me state this. I can guess why he was invited to speak as representing NASA. During the hearing last year, there were a lot of questions pertaining to NASA. (2:32:24) What does NASA think? Will NASA get involved? How's their research with UFOs? NASA, NASA, NASA. And so I get why he was there. He was asked to be there from the only example of last year's hearing. But I don't feel like he brought any valuable information. If anything, I just got consistently irritated with him. (2:32:48) And maybe I'm not the only one. Now, with that being said, let's go in order from the notes that I took at a glance on the things that are worth mentioning. And again, I will be doing a more deep analysis tomorrow after watching it over a few more times and doing more research on the things that they mentioned. (2:33:07) But from the speedy notes that I was able to get... We're going to go over them now. And if I miss anything, let me know in the live chat. Please let me know in the comments as well, because it's amazing to have so many eyeballs look at this. I mean, right now we have one thousand six hundred plus people watching this live. (2:33:26) So if I miss something, I know you caught it. There were a lot of familiar faces in the audience, and I would like to ask you which faces you recognized. There was a guy in full tats sitting next to Jeremy Corbell. I don't know who he is, but he was making signs. He did a little heart and other things like this, and it made me giggle just a little bit. (2:33:47) And there was some other guy that was in a blue suit. I also don't know who he was. He was also making some interesting hand symbols. Are we reading too much into it, or is there something to it? I'll let you decide on that one. First of all, talking about Nancy Mace, she was the chairwoman. She did amazing. (2:34:05) I can't complain. She was a great chairwoman. It was very organized, and she asked very good questions overall. She did great during the last hearing, and she did really well again. One thing that she emphasized, I want to say two or three times at the beginning and near the end, she stated, if there is funding going to UFO research, but UFOs are of no interest to the government, Why are they funding it? And that was an incredible question to have it on record. (2:34:35) These are questions that we've been asking for some time of like, what the heck is the point? Why bother giving all this money to these UFO offices and research programs if there's nothing to see? Mace knows what's up. And then she said, come at me, bro. I wrote that down in my notes because I found that incredibly hilarious. (2:34:56) But that was one of the biggest takeaways from her intro speech that she gave at the very beginning was that. Then she also mentions that it's hard to release information publicly. Our people that are in the backgrounds, such as the panelists, and also contractors as well, what's going on with them? How can we get more information from them? Will any of them ever come forward? Then while Mace is giving her speech, Grothman, the guy that's like with white hair and glasses, And people were mentioning this in the comments. (2:35:31) He looked so uninterested. He looked so bored. He was like touching his face, playing with his hands. And I'm thinking, bro, what are you doing here? Obviously, you don't care. He was the chairman for the last hearing. And even then he sounded uninterested. But this time he sounded extra lackluster. And his questions... (2:35:51) I didn't really get that many of them, except that he had an interest in UFOs since the eighth grade. And Richard, thank you so much for that. And everyone else that gave super chats, you guys are super awesome. But I wasn't going to place them too long on screen while watching the hearing. So he also states, OK, this is interesting. (2:36:10) a lot of the people that were speaking a lot of the congressmen during their opening speeches stated that almost all of them stated that they had private briefings on ufos about ufos but that they couldn't talk about them publicly and I just I wanted to pull my hair out I'm thinking oh my goodness you're having these briefings you're talking about having these briefings but you can't share that information absolute garbage bs now Getting on over to Jared Moskowitz. (2:36:41) Oh, my goodness. Did he drop a few things in his speech alone? So he had stated that he has a background of being a lawyer before before he became a politician. He's gotten classified hearings. And. Him and Tim Burchette had mentioned that we don't want to hear the, I can't tell you responses, or I can tell you in a closed setting. (2:37:08) They really addressed that, and I applaud them for it. But I'm actually going to fast forward just a little bit, still sticking on Jared Maskovich, is that he, and I was shocked, he said that for Tim Gallaudet, the retired Rear Admiral, he's like, some people would say that you're a part of the deep state. (2:37:29) Like, are you even allowed to say that publicly? I can just imagine Tim's face, like, turning pink. Absolutely flushed with color. Because if true, just got called out for it. Now, on the other hand, with... gold michael gold while they're while all the panelists are giving their speeches and michael schallenberger is giving his speech you can see um gold in the background turning purple I read it in the comments and he's like reading his notes as if we're back in grade school and he's next next to be (2:38:07) chosen to read a paragraph in the textbook so you practice it beforehand just to make sure you can pronounce all of the words That's what he was doing. He was not listening to any of the panelists. He's just like reading, getting ready and prepared. And I hated how he read, how he spoke. It was very like, I'm going to read you a child's book. (2:38:31) That's how I felt about it. Did not like it. But that was a little comical. So these testimonies that Gallaudet gave, Elizondo, Schellenberger, and Gold, they were all part of the written testimonies that you and I have already received. And that link will be in the description box below that has been provided by the Black Vault that he received beforehand and that you and I have covered over the last few days. (2:38:57) on what their testimonies talk about. So I'm not gonna address that right here, right now, just because we've done it before. But the biggest takeaways, okay, are that Gallaudet stated that he cares about oversight, UAP records, and then whole government approach. And Lizondo states that UAPs are real, it's advanced tech that isn't ours, and that tax dollars are researching UFOs without our knowledge. (2:39:25) Sheldon Berger talks about how Trump and Obama have had UFO information that has been relayed to them that hasn't been released and has mentioned publicly about the USAP, which is interesting. Then he drops Greenwald's name as well. And then you have Gold talking about how great NASA is and combating the stigma. (2:39:47) So there's that. Okay, then we're getting into Mace's questions. So after everyone's giving their speeches, giving their testimonies, people in the comments were like, oh my God, just get to the good stuff. I hear you. But hearings don't work like that. They have to follow these protocols. (2:40:04) But then getting into the questions, Mace was on the ball. She was spit firing questions. My fingers couldn't even type fast enough to get her questions and to get the answers right. when this was happening live. But the things that I was able to catch was that she asked him about dates on the twenty seventeen UFO sighting sent by Christopher Mellon. (2:40:28) And Tim was like, I can't answer that in a public setting. Lame. Then asked Luella Zondo what he knows about crash retrieval programs, and Lue's like, I can answer that in a closed setting. Then Jared Maskovich does a follow-up and says, well, if you're in Fight Club, you can't talk about Fight Club, really referring to the crash retrieval programs and the NDAs that Luella Zondo signed. (2:40:52) Mascovich really put Elizondo in a corner. I was very impressed with the pointed questions that he asked and trying to get him to answer the question with no way out. That's a lawyer mentality, and I think he did an interesting job on that part. And then what's also mentioned here by Mace is asking information for the Immaculate Constellation, asking Michael Schellenberger, well, give us some key points about the Immaculate Constellation for those that haven't read it. (2:41:28) So Schellenberger states that, The US military, they're sitting on visual information such as photos, videos, data, sensors, and it's not fuzzy and stuff. It's high resolution, maybe in the hundreds or thousands of photos and videos. So then Mace asks Michael Gold about if NASA has been briefed by any special access program, SAPS. (2:41:54) And Gold says, to his knowledge, they have not been briefed, which I would say is disappointing in some ways, because if NASA has a UFO office, which they do. They should be briefed on special access programs, especially since NASA is under the branch, is under the government branch. They're funded by the government. (2:42:15) They are a part of the government. They should have access to or information to special access programs. I'm going to skip over Maskovich because we kind of just covered it on him really cornering Elizondo to get information about crash retrieval programs. And then he called out Tim Galladet as being a part of the deep state. (2:42:37) And my face said it all. I was like, in literal shock of, are you joking with me? That's insane. Then, and I'm really just speeding through these, Tim Burchett asks about if Lou Elizondo knows Grush. Lou says yes. And then he really emphasized here, Burchett says that we are tired of the responses of I can't answer that in an open setting. (2:43:05) I don't want to hear that. You don't want to hear that. And Tim Burchett doesn't want to hear that either. It's incredibly lame. It's a poopsicle right there. Nobody wants that kind of stuff. Then Tim Gallaudet. So, okay, let me back up. Last year. Everyone was getting David Fravor's name wrong. (2:43:24) Fravor, the last name. All of the congressmen were giving Fravor a different last name. This time around, Gallaudet was the one being picked on. There were a handful of times where his name was mispronounced. So I think during every hearing, we're just getting different last names. But Tim Gallaudet had stated that in the eighties, to his knowledge, there was a nuclear submarine, That was being followed by a USO for a few minutes, and the speed was faster than what any technology that anyone in the world has to their knowledge. (2:44:03) So that's interesting. Then you had Mr. Higgs, who asked about the Immaculate Constellation. And what was funny about his five minutes of time was that he really attempted to corner the panelists by saying that he was attempting to get them to answer questions that they didn't want to answer specifically to Schellenberger. (2:44:25) Moving on to Frost, who was there last year and who did ask about NASA. This time he got to ask a former NASA employee about NASA, asking a great question, referring to NASA transparency. What can they do? What is going to be done? And what are going to be the steps forward for NASA's UFO collection? So this was a question directed towards Michael Gold. (2:44:53) And this was interesting. And I think you really need to listen to this because Gold had stated, oh, we have whole archives of information, but also we're not collecting enough data to give you answers on UFOs. It's one or the other, buddy. It's one or the other. And then on top of that, what's the point of NASA having a UFO office if they're not collecting the data that they need to receive the answers? Gold was constantly contradicting himself, and it didn't make sense, and I don't feel like he (2:45:27) had a grasp of the UFO office, the NASA's UFO office, because if he did, he might have had more substantial answers, but he didn't give any valuable information. Did anyone else catch that? Him saying, oh, we have archives, archives of data, but we don't have enough data. Which one is it, okay? That doesn't make any sense to me, but I want to know if that made any sense to you before we move on just a little bit longer. (2:46:04) Chris says government protocol one Oh one. I know it seems like it just don't admit fight club, right? It's unbelievable. And then gold was so proud how transparent NASA is. You see this face? Yeah, okay, if they're so transparent, give us data that you have. Because that UFO media briefing that took place of, we're transparent and you can be at your boots, you gave us no information at all. (2:46:38) That was actually a waste of time to watch. So I'm going to leave that one there, actually. But there is more to it. But I can totally understand Luis Elizondo being careful with his answers, following his security oaths, and totally respect his position. And so I do hope that legislation will be introduced that will allow more stuff to be out in the open, that there wouldn't be so much walking on eggshells with the topic, especially with protecting whistleblowers. (2:47:17) That's going to be very important. But people that have signed NDAs, people that have information on these kinds of things, while you and I really want this information and for them to talk out, they still have to be careful. It's unfortunate, but there are consequences for infringing on NDAs. And Lou Elizondo just has to be careful with his answers. (2:47:40) Of course, I was a little flustered when he wasn't answering the questions, but giving us these loophole answers. I was like, Lou, please, please just answer the question about interdimensionals. But again, I get it. I can understand that we all have to be careful. Bringing on over Ana Paulina Luna, she is talking about by how much these USOs were outmaneuvering submarines. (2:48:09) And then she asked a brilliant question. I mean, she looked so annoyed during this hearing. Her face at it all. She's like, look, guys, I just want the answers. You're going to give me the answers. But I also know how this works. You won't give me the answers. She is just as sharp as Nancy Mace in a good way. (2:48:27) I'm not saying sharp in a negative way, but kind of like, just give us the goods. I'm not here to fluff around. I actually only have five minutes of your time, so make it important. Make it worth my time. And she had spoken about, are there any ocean UFO hotspots, Tim Galladet, someone that's been researching USOs, what can you tell us about this? And Tim, I wanted to cry. (2:48:50) I wanted to cry. He's like, I don't have enough information on that. You can do a basic search on the UFO phenomena when it comes to oceans. There are a handful of hotspots around the world where UFOs and USOs are seen. One of those places is in and around the Catalina Islands off the coast of California. (2:49:11) That's one of the biggest, most known UFO, USO hotspots. And for it to not to be addressed, I wanted to roll my eyes so bad. And I think I did because I was thinking, We know the answers. They just don't want to do it under oath and have it on record. So that was disappointing. Those were some of the biggest takeaways. (2:49:34) Then you had Miss Bobert. And I don't know if she was joking or not, but I was concerned that she says that I'm already on a bunch of lists. Like the earth is flat, birds aren't real, and things like this. And I think my face, like my eyes got really big and I thought... Is she joking or is she serious? I really can't tell. (2:49:59) I don't know this woman enough to understand her mannerisms and her style of speech. But I know it caught a lot of people's attention when she stated that. And maybe someone has a better background on her than I do. Because again, I had not heard of her until the moment she came on screen. but I was a bit shocked. (2:50:22) There were some good questions that she asked, but starting off with the earth is flat and birds aren't real, I think it shut a lot of people off very, very quickly. But maybe someone knows better, knows her better than I do. Cindy says she loves conspiracy theories. Okay. Let's see. Okay. The things that she said, it did discredit some of the things during the hearing. (2:50:56) I kind of have to agree. Now, show that says sarcasm. See, I wanted it to be sarcasm, but I just couldn't tell. And also with sarcasm, it can be hard to decipher from time to time. So there was that. Then Mace talks about Lockheed Martin, specifically to Lou Elizondo. Are they observing things in the sky and in the oceans? And Elizondo was definitely stuck. (2:51:24) He kind of smiled and he's like, I actually don't really know how to answer this. And I found that a little comical of like, dang, he was really put in his spot because he knows the answer. He just can't give that answer. Lastly, Andy Ogles comes in incredibly late. Supposedly, he was sprinting over to the room to get his questions asked. (2:51:46) And Mace says, come on, babes. So that means they have a friendly relationship behind the scenes. And I'm not saying like I'm just saying like friendly as in like friends. But he asked some good questions about UFOs over nuclear facilities, which is always a brilliant question to ask. It was asked last year. (2:52:03) It was last during the first hearing with the AOI MSG as well. So we're seeing this consistency with UFOs and nuclear facilities and the questions being asked. And then also how the government executive branch isn't sharing information with Congress. And this was addressed by Tim Galladet. And he says, man, I really wished this was addressed more during the hearing. (2:52:27) But that's something that we all need to know and need to push forward. to get more information. And so while this wasn't like ground-shaking revelations, the most useful thing that comes from this is spotlighting how important this conversation is and putting it in the public sphere. Now, did it really build up to the title that was given For the UFO hearing, exposing the truth. (2:52:58) Do you think it was exposing the truth? Did it achieve that? Did it not? Let me know in the live chat. Let me know in the comments as well. I'd really like to hear what you have to say about that. And if there's any things that I missed during this conversation. quicker analysis let me know in the comments I would love to read them as I will do a more deep analysis tomorrow for tomorrow's show you don't want to miss it so make sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell as well I want to say thank you to (2:53:29) everyone watching this live all the super chat super stickers youtube members patreon supporters and of course all of my amazing moderators you know I can't do this show without you that is it for today I will see you tomorrow be safe and remember keep Your eyes on the skies. If you enjoy the strange and the mysterious UFOs, the paranormal and cryptids, this channel is for you. (2:54:08) 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.