The UFO Hearings Omnibus: Looking Back Before 2025 (Pt.1)

Instagram Teen Accounts come with automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more about Teen Accounts at Instagram.com slash Teen Accounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Udo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Udo for free at O-D-O-O dot com. That's Udo dot com. This is a message from sponsor Intuit TurboTax. You've sent so many emails to your tax pro and nothing. It feels like you're chasing updates. But now your taxes are done for you by a TurboTax expert, so you actually know what's happening. You can match with an expert and just hand off all your tax stuff to them right in the app. So instead of guessing, you can feel confident you're TurboTax experts on it. Now this is taxes. Intuit TurboTax. Visit TurboTax dot com to learn more. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. Taxes was feeling so stuck. Sitting in traffic, squeezing into a parking spot. All to squeeze in getting tax help during your lunch break. Now Taxes is a TurboTax expert who does your taxes for you. While you go about your day getting real-time notifications about their progress. And the most money back guaranteed. Now this is taxes. Intuit TurboTax. See guarantee details at TurboTax dot com slash guarantees. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and we are on the verge of more UAP UFO hearings due on the 9th of September 2025. Where we are promised first-hand military whistleblowers. What we get, well that remains to be seen. But to build up to that, let's look back with this omnibus as you'll hear me joined by multiple guests. Including Dan, Graham Rendell, Klaus, Jeremy Corbell, Tim McMillan and Alex Dietrich. Going back from 2022 through to 2024, we talked about the reactions after each hearing. What we were expecting going forward. And given the length of this show, even being edited down is almost 8 hours. I'm going to upload it into two parts. But please enjoy looking back and listening to those initial reactions, the views, the questions that came up hours after those hearings finished. Which really are still historic. And in some ways, we are still reeling from some of the claims that came from those. Particularly for me, the 2023 hearings with David Grush. And perhaps we can learn something ahead of 2025s. I've got multiple interviews and shows coming up previewing and breaking down the hearing. So please leave me any and all questions, thoughts and opinions over via email or use the contact form on the website. All of those are available in the description below. Anyway folks, over to the omnibus. Enjoy. And as things continue to come out from the congressional hearings today, then we can share some more rounded thoughts. But these are very much our instant reactions, Dan. Fair to say? Yeah, absolutely. It's fresh. Things are still falling into place. There are articles being published by journalists as we speak. This is kind of setting the world on fire a little bit. It's very cool. It's fresh and steamy. Like a hot pile of organic matter that's fallen from a craft that we don't know what it is. You have to work that into a Manscaped ad at some point. I will put it into a Manscaped ad, yeah. Oh God. But yeah, I mean, do you know what? It was almost a quote we got from one of the congressmen actually during the hearings. And I put up a quick poll yesterday asking people did they think we would hear like the word extraterrestrial, you know, ET, that kind of stuff. And most folk were like, no, and I didn't expect to either, but we got wreckage, we got, you know, ET, we got life potentially traveling here from other places. I was blown away by the language, the terminology, the body language. The officials are pretty informed, right? Like not necessarily those testifying, but certainly those asking the questions. I was impressed. I feel like they'd either, you know, had the ear of someone who could guide them, you know, maybe some of their constituents or, you know, they'd just done their research. I was impressed. It's no secret that Lou Elizondo was in Washington a few days ago. His picture was put online by loads of people on Twitter and stuff. And you would imagine other people like that would have hopefully helped shape and mold the questions that were going to be asked. Even like the Republicans and Democrats who have an interest in this on the pilots that were there, just been able to throw in that, you know, we really should ask about this. And I was amazed at what came up. Yeah, absolutely. You know, we know that briefings have been ongoing for a while now, even behind closed doors in 2019. You know, there's been a lot of briefings going on. So I think the circle of people who kind of know or are getting to know the history of this subject is steadily growing. The two gentlemen in question being questioned, grilled, cross-examined, whatever it was today, were Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Oh, wait, sorry. No, that's the other court case. Yeah, that was Ronald Miltree, the Right Honourable, and Mr. Scott Bray. The Ronald Miltree is the Undersecretary of Defense. Is that the exact same title that Chris Mellon held, but back in the day? I think it is. That's a very good question. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is, unless there is a little bit more to the end of it, like for Counting Intelligence or something. But it may or may not be his, you know, predecessor, predecessor, predecessor as such. Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. So different title. It was close. Okay, it's a little bit David Brent, isn't it? Assistant manager? Assistant to the manager. Okay. I'm sure it's still a very well-paid and lovely pension position to be in. There's a lot of responsibility. Yeah, Scott Bray is the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, which again, is a pretty lofty role to be in. I thought of the two, over the course, Scott Bray was particularly anxious and jittery at times. Yes, he made me think that naval intelligence is a misnomer, that those two words don't go together, you know? Yeah. And listen, I get it was partly a job well done to those who are questioning because the directness of the questions and the follow-ups were pretty ferocious at times. And those political throwaway lines that were sometimes regurgitated or generic vague answers were met with another question back, or sometimes quite derogatory statements as well, that, you know, quite damning of the answer that had come back at them, which is fair play. They got accused of hitting a bunch of low-hanging fruit or not giving very strong statements. You know, these weren't officials that were just listening to Mark Zuckerberg say a bunch of techie words they didn't understand. And these guys really went for it. They were well meta-versed in what they were talking about. I'm going to stop with the puns. So, yeah, we had, among others, Andre Carson, Adam Schiff, Mike Gallagher, Dr. Brad Wenstrup, Jim Hines, and a few more. I've not had a chance to even get everyone down yet. I've got a full list. Have you got the list? Elise Stefanik, Chris Stewart, Brad Wenstrup, Rick Crawford, Val Demings, Sean Patrick Maloney, Peter Welch, Wacken Castro, Mike Quigley, and Andre Carson. And we also have Adam Schmidt as well. Don't forget Adam. Come on. So, Dan, first thing I want to ask, the A-O-I-M-S-G, the A-I-M-S-O-G, the S-O-G-A-M-I, what's going on with the name? We were discussing this beforehand, weren't we, as to what actually happened. It was really funny, actually, when Carson first said it as he was opening. He called it AIMSOG, which, you know, if you pretend that the acronym is a word and you say it real fast, you can kind of get to AIMSOG. With the Sega theme tune in your head. AIMSOG. Yeah, exactly. You got it. But I literally had a note here that as soon as he said it, I put a little note saying, based on that, a new name is probably coming. And then later on in the hearing, it was said that there is a new name coming for it. Whether it will be Astro, as we loved when Kristen Gillibrand was doing her thing, or whether it will just be UAP Task Force. I don't know. But yeah, it's pretty cool that it'll get a new name because that is a mouthful. You mentioned Kristen Gillibrand. Why wasn't she involved in this? We're on, basically, this is a different committee. And it speaks to the breadth and the amount of officials that are taking this seriously. You know, this is one committee out of a whole bunch of committees. This is just a House hearing. Congress is made up of the House and the Senate. So we could still have Senate hearings as well with this stuff. We're, you know, we're very much at the beginning of this process. And in those other spaces are all of these other officials that will hold these people to account in different ways. So it's good to have all of these statements on record. Because what will probably end up happening now is that, you know, in a year we could have another hearing and they say that they haven't followed it with the mouth from case or something. They can now go, but you said you were going to. Yeah. We have it on video, you know. And then, yeah, if the work is being done, they can follow up with legislation to make them do the work. I think straight off the bat, they had clearly been watching that UFO podcast on YouTube because they mentioned Jeremy Corbell straight away, which I didn't catch. Full disclosure, full transparency, folks, which isn't something you necessarily got in these hearings. Like I say, I missed that first portion of the hearings. But what I did manage to check on Twitter while I was working at the time was that Jeremy Corbell was mentioned straight away, Dan. Is that is that right? Yeah, that's right. With allusions to kind of data that kind of seeped out of the cracks of the office and how to secure that data. They actually brought in Corbell's, you know, that triangle, green triangle like video and and seemingly gave a solution for it. It was one of two videos shown. The other video we'll talk about in a bit. But Robert, sorry, I need to Scott Bray, all these names. Scott Bray showed the video that Corbell showed us. And then he said we couldn't explain this one. But actually, there was another event on the opposite coast not long after. And we know that that was a drone. And look how it looks in this video. And it looks exactly the same. Pretty much. It's a triangle. And the explanation was that the night vision goggles with an SLR held to it just meant that it was making this shape when it hit the sensor and it was recorded that way. So I think that's a reasonable explanation. I don't think it's a bad thing that these cases are sometimes solved. I don't know. I prefer a solved case instead of a pile of unknowns, you know. And like you say, something important to point out there for anyone who's disappointed that someone like Mick West was correct. Mick West said the triangular object was a distant plane. And that wasn't correct either. No, it was not. Or they believe it to be a drone. Yes, exactly. So you can't. Yeah. Neither was right. The truth, as always, was somewhere in between. It's still technically an unidentified flying object. Am I right, Dan? Yeah. I think they would use the term UAS for unidentified aerial system in that case because, you know, it's not anomalous. They know it's a genuine human-made system. So were they kind of getting, again, I missed this point, were they kind of getting at the fact this was more than likely adversarial technology that was spying on them? Yes, exactly. Or they kind of, I don't think they said that exactly, but they certainly said it was a commercially available drone. Okay, that's fair. So, yeah. And then it moved on, Dan. What else did I miss in that kind of first section that was worth calling out? Yeah, sure. So they firstly framed the whole hearing as a national security issue, which I think is fair to say. Yeah, yeah. That's kind of been a long-running theme now. And they want their sky secured and, you know, the people safe. And then, yeah, I think that's fair. There were a whole bunch of conversations that were basically the UAP report being read out loud with a few assurances. So I won't go over that stuff. You know, they defined that UAP just means an airborne object that when encounters can't be immediately identified. They did say they were committed to determining the origins of the UAP, which is exciting. That's a really good thing. They also said that they want to provide real-time support for everybody. So if they got a report of someone that saw UAP maybe two minutes ago, they'd be able to, you know, activate and go look at the satellite data and so on and so forth. Whether the office is prepared to do that or even has it in its remit is another conversation entirely. I would find that difficult still, though, because at one point, we'll jump about a little bit with this. I think we kind of have to, just with the nature of it. They mention about this, are we not chasing our own tails? They call it blue on blue or U.S. technology. Friendly fire. Yeah. No doubt at times that can happen, regardless of, you know, the conversations we have had with people who are like, no, the U.S. would not have its own technology amongst its own. Well, I think there are examples of that kind of stuff potentially happening in the past, but when it comes to that U.S. on U.S. technology, if there was something that even a private industry or trying to work this carefully, someone like Lockheed Martin, you know, was testing something. If there was an instant response, is that enough time for someone testing something to get out to someone else that don't do anything because this is ours, but you're not meant to know this or not meant to see it or not meant to engage us? Am I making my point that badly, but yeah, no, I get what you mean. You would expect there was a question asked at some point in the hearing whether we'd fired upon a UAP. You would expect them to defend themselves against a UAP, and if that was secret tech, they would have shot it down, right? Instead, they haven't. They've sat and they've watched and they've absorbed as much data as they can. We can't see that data, but we know it's there, and then, you know, from the Nimitu went missing. But yeah, if that was secret tech, they would, I mean, they said during this that they can't talk about it really in the open hearings, but they said we've made the connections with the relevant places to do that. And still, these things are unexplained. Yeah, and to be specific, 18 cases basically show anomalous flight characteristics, no apparent means of propulsion, and signature management. And those 18 cases is something that never came up too often in the second half. Tell us a little bit more about those 18 cases then as to why those came up. What were the 18 cases? And I don't even know if this did come up. I'm sort of asking this as an interested viewer. Were those 18 cases part of the 143 that were unsolved? Yes, basically. It was Schiff getting at, in the 2021 report, that there were a bunch of cases that were labeled as potentially advanced tech. There was 18 of them, and he was basically asking if there was crossover between those cases and the cases that they said showed a radio frequency signature. So they basically said, yes, there are some crossovers there, and it kind of moved on from there, really. They can't say much about it because they're kind of, you know, those 18 cases, they said we're most interested in those because they represent either some exotic leap by an adversary or something else. So we've got to figure these out. But as the hearing went on, they spoke about some of these unknown or unsolved cases in a way that suggested that literally it's just unsolved, but it will be. However, when they were talking about these 18, they really kind of, the questions highlighted that these 18 are true anomalies, and they've really tried, and they've thrown everything they can at these. I'm guessing that's the ones. It's not just been a picture or one data point or a sighting. It's been multiple data points, probably multiple cameras, sensors underwater. They specify three, three, at least when they say multi-sensor, they specified that they mean three sensor systems, including, you know, the set of human eyes that are there. Yeah, so that's pretty interesting stuff, and that's the stuff that we really, really want to see, but don't get to see, unfortunately. They did say that they never attempted communication as well, which I thought was interesting, considering they said that they detected RF for us, a radio frequency boost, would suggest that we were trying to communicate. Again, it's really strange that they didn't try and either read it or talk back. Yeah, and I was making this point to you, wasn't I beforehand? When I heard that, I thought that was really strange, because if you were encountering something that was potentially a manned craft or was piloted or unmanned, but you could communicate with, why wouldn't you put out a basic? And someone from the military might be able to tell me why, you know, hi, US Navy on training here, or I'm a pilot doing X, Y, and Z. Can you identify yourself? You would think in the basics they would at least try, but like they said, they were very much like, nope, nothing. They just didn't say anything. And it's weird, especially considering that they literally, in this portion, talking about these 18, they literally say, we are not aware of any adversary that can move an object without a discernible means of propulsion. I mean, it's a woody statement, but it means, no, it's not China or Russia. That's the simple translation of that. Absolutely. Scott Bray was asked about civilian reporting, which was nice to hear that it moved away slightly from the military aspect of it. And he gave a nice fluffy answer about, we've got a great relationship with the FAA, and he tried to go off on a little bit of a tangent. And he was then asked very directly again, I'm asking you, do we have, you know, civilian reports on these things as well? And I felt this was one of the times I noticed him starting to really struggle and trip up. And he was like, yes, we do get reports. And I think the response back, if you could remind me who it was from, Dan, if you've got a note of that. It's quite a sharp response back, which is very much a, well, wouldn't it make sense to have a standardized report then that we can all basically get the information we need from to move forward? Let me find it in my notes. That was, I think, Carson, possibly. Either way, it was said back, but it was quite damning, quite direct, which I liked. And it was kind of makes you sit up and take notice. I didn't sit up, I was doing the dishes at the time. Oh, Wendtrop. Wendtrop, cool. Yeah. We were all, they were also talking about, you know, sharing data with allies and how much data you should share because of the quality of the data. And saying that they have to be cautious when trusting data that's brought in from outside. But I think in an age where the planet's bathed in, you know, all sorts of frequencies, detecting whether it's taking a heat image of the ground or looking at neutrinos or whatever. There are a lot of sensors around us that, you know, if Andy saw, if you saw a UFO, there would probably be enough sensors around in the sky at any given time to actually get some corroborative readings. Absolutely. I'm glad you said corroborative and not me. Jim Hines asked Scott Bray to clarify a little bit on when he talks about UAP just being something unidentified in the sky. He or having something truly anomalous or unidentified. He says that ranges, doesn't it, from seeing something through a foggy, murky night, and I'm paraphrasing, to the extreme of organic materials that we don't know where they're from, which I thought was quite a contrast and juxtaposition. And I was like, wow, that's interesting because he is kind of getting at potential metamaterials. Yeah, absolutely. That's quite a leap. And possibly a biological component as well, whether that's how it affects us or the occupants of the craft, maybe. But again, just that language being present in this hearing made me excited because they're asking the questions that we want them to ask, you know? Yeah, it kept going. And do you know what? Ronald Miltree made a fair point where he said the issues they face, I think he interjected at one point to kind of help Scott Bray out a little bit, the way it kind of came across to me, that this is largely an issue of insufficient data for many of these unresolved cases. And I think he mentions at that point, or at least one point, that because of the funding they have, they get the results they have because of a lack of funding and resources, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe asking for extra money, which no doubt they would want and probably will get. But I think it is a fair point that maybe we do have to look at they're not completely lying about everything and hiding everything. But a lot of these things maybe are still unidentified because of a lack of data. We almost need like, you know, they had the other pile. We almost need to separate that pile again into this is the stuff that we just don't have enough data to solve. And this is the stuff that we know is just weird, you know? And I think that's the stuff that we'll get to at the Chris Mellon and Tim Burchett and others were frustrated about afterwards that these guys will have heard about and seen that stuff. That we can only speculate about. So they are looking going, no, no, no, not that video, not that one. Don't ask that question. You know what you should be asking. You know what we've got. But the gentleman in question being questioned also know what they can avoid. Yes. Because it's not going to be brought up. And we do have to caveat, we never mentioned before, the session lasted about 90 minutes, about an hour and a half. There was then a recess till 12 p.m. Eastern. And then there was going to be the classified portion, which the public obviously don't get to see in here, which no doubt there would have been some follow ups because there were a few questions asked that are prefaced or given a bit of context that you might not be able to answer. And I understand because there is a classified section coming up, however, and they try and talk around that. So the underwater stuff was part of that system of microphones is so secretive. And I'm talking to someone this week that actually will be able to speak to how sound kind of moves differently through different layers of the ocean. So it'll be interesting to learn about that. Just on that briefly, Dad, not to go away too much, but just remind people you're recording tomorrow night as we discuss this. Yeah, I guess so. Or maybe maybe the day after. But yeah, I'll be conducting my first interview for my own little show called Colouring Outside the Line. So keep an eye out for that soon. It'll be through this channel so you don't have to go anywhere to hear it. I hope you don't mind us doing something a little different that is is still relevant to the subject. I suggest you don't listen. No, it'll be good. I'm looking forward to hearing that myself as well, folks. But yeah, just just to get that in there, I think it's worth mentioning. But you're right. It's a nice little segue into that as well when you talk about those underwater sensors and microphones. And like when I asked Lou a couple of weeks ago on our interview, Lou Elizondo, folks, apologies, Lou, about why these UAP seem to travel slower underwater. And he actually suggested that's more than likely due to the abilities of the equipment we have can only track a certain speed. And they probably go far, far, far faster as has been picked up as well. So we have a similar issue with them coming from 78,000 feet, right? That's just the height of the radar. It doesn't mean they're coming from 78,000 feet. They're coming from outside of that. Who knows? They might just know that that's our range and know that they can pop in anywhere they want outside of that. And we will infer that they came from space. You get an image of their head on your head, don't you? With the tic-tacs just sitting at 80,000 feet and then going zoop. As opposed to they could have come from way, way, way out in space and just went zoop and just kept going and then stopped. Which should be even more impressive. Yeah, it would be. Very change of the sea. Could have came from the moon and done that. They could have came from the other side of the planet and done that. They could have been in the water and one side of Catalina had gone up and then came back down. Yeah, absolutely. Who knows? I'm just covering all the bases there, folks. Not giving anything away. But yeah, so it was really interesting that was mentioned. Where else? What have we got? We found out that they do not know about the ICBM events like Malmstrom, which befuddled a lot of people because there is official documentation on these things. This is being called out on light already. They do not have that. You know, I think everyone was shocked when they said that. But at least it's been brought to their attention. And Gallagher literally said, well, I'm asking you guys to look at it now. So will you? And they said yes. So hopefully in the next hearing or in the future, we learn a little bit more about Malmstrom. Though probably not likely considering that there's a nuclear relation there. Yeah, I felt Mike Gallagher made himself a bit of an instant star and hero here to many. Oh, he's great. Yeah, he asked about the strategic nuclear sites, like you say. Anyway, Scott Bray said that the data is not within the holdings of the UAP task force. And again, I thought he struggled to answer here. He says that informal stories have been heard. He says he's not seen official data. He's asked about Malmstrom. I thought the terminology used was important. Gallagher got a bit fiery. He was just like, he did like, come on, it's pretty high profile. It's out there in the air. If you're not looking at it, you're the guys that are meant to look at it. Who is, you know? Was it not also Gallagher that made the comment when he was asking, I've not been asked. And he said, well, I'm asking you. Yes, exactly. I like that one where it's like, oh, yes, I'm asking you to go do it. Remember who boss is. 100%. He had also just before that asked about, had there been any projects before or between Project Blue Book and ATIP. And Moultrie comes in and says he's not aware of anything official. And this was just one of those. I thought the language is very careful. Yes. And I think at that point, the interviewer in me was going, yeah, ask him about unofficial. However, they can't talk about that in a declassified public setting. I would hope that is something that is followed up within the classified section where they go. So we previously asked you this and you said you had nothing official off unofficial off the books. What have you heard about and what's being dealt? And I think that would be really, really interesting to hear. Absolutely. And speaking about like unofficial and off the books, we even had the Wilson documents brought up. That that was for me, the delightful surprise of the hearings because they've been controversial. The famous Eric Wilson. Famous Eric Wilson. Yeah. Yeah. The Wilson documents, if people don't know, they're just a series of notes on a meeting that supposedly took place between one Eric Davis and someone else. They're out there to read. Admiral Wilson. You know. Yeah. Admiral Wilson. Yeah. They're out there to read if you want to in terms of the veracity of them. There's a lot of debate around them. So I really don't know. But it's interesting that they came up. I have to point people to Joe Muggia. I interviewed Joe Muggia and we talked about these as well. But if you check out Joe Muggia's blog, his tweets, he talks about the Wilson docs every other day. It's very much worth jumping on there to look at his extensive kind of research into those as well. Joe Muggia is very one sided on those that they 100% happened exactly as is written. There's no disinfor anything along with it. And I'm not saying I disagree with that, but Joe will present one side of it. But it's very well researched, though, and it's a very good take on those documents if you want to find out about them. Just to give the other side of it as well. The other theory that goes around about it is a somewhat absurd claim that it could be a movie script written by someone. Now, I think John Greenwald, when he says that, is just saying it as an example to kind of go, look, we don't have proof either way. So my theory is just as valid as yours, which is fine. But it's a weird way to make that point, you know, and Admiral Wilson's always denied it happened, hasn't he? Yes. But you would because of the claims within those documents talking about crash retrieval programs. And this is something that that infamous second New York Times article was always fated or claimed to have potentially within it. And it didn't happen. It probably would have largely been down to the Wilson Davis memos and what may or may not have been within those. So, however, that has now been submitted for public record within the within the halls of Congress, which is which is crazy, because I think it's one of those things. If someone said, if I tweeted last night, Dan, and said to the public, I am the public as well, but to the people who are tweeting, you know, do you think we will hear about the Wilson Davis memo? I think it would have been a resounding no, like not a chance. No way they're going to talk about that. Definitely would have voted no on a poll on that. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I wouldn't have even thought of putting that in there. Never for a, I thought Roswell would have been more likely than the Wilson Davis memo to be brought up. Yeah. So, I mean, it was mentioned. Roswell got a mention. Yeah. I think it was Maltry, wasn't it? He said, yeah, people, you know, talk about Roswell and stuff. So, yeah, not not completely in a ways. If you came up with a drinking game for this, you would have been absolutely smashed by the halfway point. But, yeah, I thought that was fascinating. And I think there's definitely more to come from that. That's an informed, an informed thing to bring up. That's not a off the cuff for nuclear site incident. You know, that's that's pretty out there. That's a curveball to throw in for any conversational point, even if it was to be shot down straight away. So I'd be really interested to see where Mike Gallagher keeps going with us, because it's a big thing to bring up. He seems to know the answers that he wants, right? Yeah. And he doesn't seem to be letting up. He seemed to get visibly annoyed that they weren't saying these things. So whether he knows and he knows they're being dishonest or whether he's just fed up at the runaround, I don't know. But, yeah, he did a great job. There was a weird bit with it was Mr. LaHood where they were talking about the consequences of putting out fake UAP reports. And he got a little strange, like talking about misinformation, like how liable for putting out. So it made me think like, what, if if I'm near a nuclear site and I see a drone or I see a UAP over it and I report it, I'm going to get arrested. Like what? That doesn't make sense in reducing the stigma and stuff like that. That's not the way I read it. Oh, go on. How did you read it? So I've got down and I've only heard it once. And again, this might be totally wrong. I mean, same. Yeah. Moultrie was asked about what's being done to hold people accountable in terms of misinformation being put out. And I wonder, does this include people like Susan Go and the email stuff? Oh, interesting. People are lying about people's roles within ATIP or OSAP or does it go as far as, not to name names, what people are saying online about other individuals that they could be held accountable if they're deliberately lying? Does it go as far as that? So I didn't really take away the reporting side of it. I kind of almost a slander or, you know, libel law in the UK. That's what I was thinking. And I was like, is this what they're kind of getting at where if you're obfuscating the truth by deleting people's emails and lying about their role and all that kind of stuff, stop. Yeah. That's what I was kind of thinking. No, I mean, that would be great. And I hope that I misheard. And that's exactly what it was because we need that. And it would be great to have that law in place because maybe Susan Goff would, you know, just think twice before sending that email. Yeah. Big statement. One of the big statements for me. And it was a bit of a throwaway, folks. And I'm paraphrasing again was Mr. Welsh is mentioning about, you know, different potentials of what some of these things may or may not be. And he gives a throwaway line of, you know, it's not entirely impossible that some extraterrestrial life is visiting us from somewhere else. And I thought that was an incredible statement to make. And let's preface for before anyone gets upset. We are not seeing he was 100% saying we have extraterrestrial life visiting us. But even just an off-the-cuff comment in that setting to say, you know, it's not entirely impossible that we have some form of alien life visiting us. And that's what some of these are. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Oh, I was going to say that. Here is an official who's actually open-minded. And, you know, I don't know if he's been following the James Webb telescope and he knows that those images are coming and that, you know, our capabilities are about to get a massive bump up in terms of detecting life and different things or signatures of life, I should say. But it just goes to show that, you know, it was Carl Sagan way back when that probably would have said something like that. Whereas now the science communicators are really closed-minded. Yet the official there is he kind of portrays the general feeling in the public that it's inevitable we're going to find life elsewhere now. You know, the exoplanets have gone from zero to 5,000. And, you know, many years ago, I say many, probably like 10 years ago, we probably would have thought there was zero when people were laughed at for saying that there would be exoplanets. So, here we are. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the creator of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, I believe, still. And I can just imagine. Yeah. I hope so. I imagine young children looking through telescopes in there and looking out at the wonders of the universe and seeing the rings of Saturn. And deGrasse Tyson just walks by and goes, it gets a bit boring after a while, you know. Yeah, he called the lunar tops recently. I think that was last night or the night before. Yeah, he called that boring. It's just like, who hurt you, man? Like, I love going out and watching that. And I had to get up at three o'clock to do it in the morning. And it was just, it was wonderful. I don't know what the problem is. It's like he was in love with a planet and another planet's taking it away from him. And he just, he's just really, really bitter about it now. But, yeah, it's a disappointing take. But we've got Brian Cox doing the same here in the UK. So, by name, by nature, as they say. And just kind of wrapping up, Carson asks of some of these UAP, maybe secret U.S. programs. That was something we touched on earlier, the U.S. on U.S. or blue on blue. Can they be sure the U.S. isn't chasing its own tail? I would imagine that will be something discussed further within the classified section. And anything else, Dan, before I ask you about your big takeaways? There was some conversation around the kind of two competing reasons for being in terms of the AIMSG and what the mission is. And that was basically that they said, on one hand, you've got this research that may represent something incredible. And you'd want to communicate that in the right ways and get the right experts to look at that and so on and so forth. But then on the other side, your actual duty in the DoD is to look after national security and to look after our censors and not really talk about these things openly. And it was when they kind of spoke about that that I thought, you know what? I think they're very publicly saying that they either need a separate office to start talking about the anomalous things or they're basically saying that whatever office we have to look at this cannot be housed inside the DoD because the mission is just against what the other outcome could be, you know? Just before I ask you if you have a big takeaway, Dan, I've got something I want to discuss. And it's something I was tweeting someone about, one of the listeners. And do you feel the fact that the Air Force and others were not there or involved, not that they had to be at this point, serve as somewhat of a warning to them? And it's a chance that they need to be more forthcoming in the background or next time they could be the folks in those hot seats having to either lie in front of Congress or be far more open than they want to be in a very public setting. Yeah, absolutely. There was some talk about kind of access to classified data and SAP programs. And it made me wonder if, you know, there were maybe other programs that do have that designation that can look at that data. But yeah, the Air Force has been absent from this conversation. We've seen some names kind of pep it in here and there on signing, you know, memorandums and things like that. But by and large, there are some deafening silences from certain organizations that, according to places like Politico, they, you know, they may be kind of internally squabbling over what they should release. And it's real interesting because this is clearly a bipartisan issue. Today, we had like six people from each party in America grilling these two guys who, I mean, to me, it looked like they were peeing into the wind. You know, like a lot of people are disappointed by this, but they looked panicked. And like they, even though that they were briefed by the UAPTF, they weren't prepared for all of the questions that they were asked. And there's a lot of data that they're not being given. So this hearing stands very much as a kind of example that they can't really do what Congress has asked them to do. So we need some movement in legislation or some movement in people or something to actually start getting to the bottom of this issue and getting access to the data that's historical through places like the Air Force. This may change, but as it stands a few hours after the hearings are finished, what's your big takeaway from what we've got today? I mean, personally, I'm loving how many people are joining this conversation now. You know, I'm not entirely convinced that you and I will witness who's inside these craft or necessarily, you know, if they're not from here, see their home world or something like that. But this for me is the start of a snowball that is just going to get bigger and bigger. We've already seen some of the politicians very annoyed and very angry by what they experienced today. And it's just going to lead to them asking more questions. The public are going to be intrigued and they're going to be asking more questions of their officials. We have another election coming up. This is starting to become a big issue. So I think that these hearings are just one of the first of many. And if people are frustrated or they have questions that didn't get answered, that they really want answered, you know, hold on to your butts because we're going to get more opportunities and different officials asking different things. This is a sea change. For me, what I mentioned earlier about the language and terminology that was used straight away in this, it sounded more like questions that we would write down and ask Congress rather than what Congressmen and women would be asking on a panel on, you know, live on a live broadcast and in official settings. I thought that was really interesting and very promising for going forward. Interesting you mentioned, obviously, it's the first step. And I think for a lot of us, it was tempering expectations. I put out a quick poll a couple of hours ago. Are you satisfied with the first congressional UAP hearing? And 21% said yes, 53% have said no, and almost 25% are still undecided. So there's a mix, I think, of unsatisfied in terms of they weren't happy with what was asked, which I think is, come on, reflect on that. I'm never going to tell people like we always say, make up your own mind and your own opinion. But that was good, people, for what you could have expected. If someone, go back to yesterday and list all the things we've talked about. If someone had said you would get that, you would have said no way. So perspective, I think you've got to be at least somewhat satisfied on reflection. But people are allowed their own thoughts and opinion. I've seen some people saying that Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo have failed, as if time has stopped and they can't do anything more and people can't ask more questions. I think that's a really weird and strange take. No one's failed. No one's right. No one's wrong right now. You know, this is the start of a process and it's awesome there is beginning. But to be fair, it's got to get to a point where it doesn't rely on Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo, because if they stop tomorrow, then you can't keep going, oh yeah, but Lou will do something or Chris will do something. There's got to be other people. And I think that's what they are trying to do with people like Mike Gallagher and Andre Carson and all these folks being involved. You know, they've taken the bathroom and they're running it now. Yeah. They're running it for themselves. I think people need to realize that, you know, Lou and Mellon might be around to answer questions, but these people are fully autonomous people. They're doing it on their own. Yeah. Especially with where Lou Elizondo and Chris Mellon are now, in terms of political power and political sway, they don't really have that because they're not in those roles anymore. So the people who can actually, short of Lou telling us what he knows, or Chris Mellon telling us what he knows, which isn't going to happen, this is the best chance for progress and long-term progress on the subject. And that's what they have done is to move that ball further down the court. I think so. Or further down the field, I suppose. Chris Mellon posted a comment to Twitter that I think summed it up pretty nicely. He said that was a frustrating hearing, as well as a reminder of both how far we've come and how far we still have to go. And I think that's pretty spot on, to be honest. I've got a few tweets from a few people here I'm going to read out in just a second. I just want to, again, like Chris Mellon has said there, I watched the last half of the hearings on YouTube and I walked into the sitting room and my wife, who knows what I do, she knows about the podcast, obviously. Say hello to Susan, folks. Hey, Susan. I left the room watching that. And I walked into the sitting room where she had court TV on, watching the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case. Now, we were quite excited about 20,000 or 30,000 people watching the congressional hearing live on YouTube. There will be millions around the world watching Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. That's where this conversation's still at, folks. So we have got excited about today. This was never going to be about the even, not the world, but the U.S. public waking up to everyone being involved in that. I would still bet every single penny I have and ever make that today there is still far more interest in a general public sense of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's court trial than there is on UAP hearings going on in Congress. I sadly agree with you there. Yeah, it's true. But it's changing. And, you know, Johnny Depp, I think, and Amber Heard, they're kind of escapism. I think, in a way, a lot of people see this UAP stuff and they switch off because they just don't have time to kind of get the nuances and really spend time drilling down. You know, people want to know more. There's an investment you have to go back and research and go, right, wait a minute. And it's the conversations we've all had, isn't it, of, oh, but what about Roswell? Forget Roswell, forget all that stuff. What about now? Here's what's happening. And it's a lot to give to people to take on board. And the people getting in touch with us, Dan, and saying that they listened to the podcast a while ago or they heard theories of everything or they heard Fravor on Rogan, all that kind of stuff, have spent time getting back into the subject, listening to podcasts, reading blogs, getting involved on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, all that kind of stuff. It's not just a, oh, the UAP congressional hearings are on. I'm going to sit and watch that. I don't think that's the interest that's going to be there quite yet. So I thought it was uninteresting and down-to-earth juxtaposition. Again, I'm using that word to go from the room I was in to next door and my wife's watching Johnny Depp and Amber Heard on Court TV. It is, however, if you look at the live stream on the Intelligence Select, too many words, that place. If you go on YouTube and you find the live stream of it, you can see that it's already the most popular video on that channel. And that channel has been going for many, many a year. So just to gauge the public interest there, people are interested. We just need to enable the right people to keep pushing this lever. And I think we have that. Yeah, you mentioned, just to finish up, folks, on those tweets, Chris Mellon, like Dan said, that was a frustrating hearing as well as a reminder both of how far we've come and how far we still have to go. Sean Cahill followed it up with, this is a pragmatic takeaway. We have never been here before. Expectations must be managed while realistic data-driven programs and leadership have time to catch up. We have leaders fighting for truth and in the open asking the right questions. Jeremy Corbell, dear UFO Twitter, hellfire missiles have been deployed upon the UFO topic, sent to ignite and weaponize your curiosity regarding this ever-expanding universe of UFO understanding and confirmation. Buckle up, strap in, get ready for some atomic information. Kinetic action. Never wanted to mix his words today. Go on, do something crazy. George Knapp said that was a lot to unpack from the UFO hearing. This congressman, and he means Mike Gallagher, has done his homework asking about the maelstrom incursion involving disabled nukes. In brackets, DOD seemed strangely clueless about it. And Republican Tim Burchett on Twitter said the UFO hearing this morning was a total joke. We should have heard from people who could talk about things they'd personally seen, but instead the witnesses were government officials with limited knowledge who couldn't give real answers to serious questions. And then afterwards, in a video that... That's a good point. Imagine Fravor was in that hearing, you know? Imagine we saw those gimbal videos and had Ryan Graves talking about it and explaining the flight path and what happened with the actual radar data. Different conversation then. Gabby Schwartz, if you follow Gabby, NBC, he shared a video of Tim Burchett after that's doing the rounds online. And Tim Burchett says himself, there are better videos taken from pilots' wing cameras that they should be showing. So I imagine Tim Burchett has seen. Hi, everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy, and this is a look at the UFO hearings that just happened today in the United States. Joining me... I didn't know they were taking place today. Well, that's Dan joining me from the UK. He's back temporarily. Well, yes, they were today. Depending on when you listen to this, then they might be tomorrow. They might have been a few days ago. They might have been weeks ago. Could have been years ago, if you're listening to this in the future. And our alien overlords have landed and taken over, and these were totally a waste of time. But yeah, we're going to give some very, what, unfleshed out thoughts, instant reaction. Our opinion may change in a few days, so don't get angry. Don't send us a lot of hate. But yeah, the Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Dan, rolls off the tongue, had its UFO hearings essentially today for the layman. No one get angry. Oh, it was UAP. Well, UFO hearings. SEP. Yeah, SEP, and we'll get to why it's SEP. But I like that, actually. That we'll get to why I like that. We were met on the buildup with a lovely screen for about half an hour saying, Hearing on the mission, activities, oversight, and budget of the all-domain anomaly resolution office. Coverage begins momentarily. That was the first lie, because it took about 45 minutes to an hour before it started. It did, yeah. I was on a bus from London to Wales, and the whole time I was like, okay, I can watch this on the bus and make my notes. And actually, the hearing started as I got off the bus. Brilliant. Yeah, I did say that to you, didn't I? I was like, I'll probably start late by the time it kicks off, because as some folks may or may not know, there were the two hearings today. The first one that happened before this was the closed section, so classified security clearances required. And as we normally say, and it is pure speculation, but probably some of the good stuff was talked about, that even if it's to do with foreign adversarial tech or the truly unknown stuff, interesting systems and sensor arrays they have, we don't get to hear about that. And that was discussed in the earlier portion. That then potentially overran when that finished, they took a break, came back in, and then had the open section. What's really good about that part taking place first is it means that a bunch of the questions that we heard, probably at Gillibrand, kind of trying to clue the public into a little bit more than we would have known had they been the other way around, you know? Well, chairing it, if that's the right phrase, was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that many folks will know as a sort of advocate for the UAP subject within the political walls of the United States governmental system, and also Senator Joni Ernst. And if I'm right, Kirsten Gillibrand's a Democrat, Joni Ernst is a Republican, so sitting side by side, you had the kind of bipartisan representation of the UFO subject right there and there, which was great. They both had kind of opening gambits, opening statements. Kirsten Gillibrand's was very much as we sort of expected. She has a strong, keen interest in this topic, in this arena. She's been a big advocate for it. And Joni Ernst, I got the feeling, not knowing Senator Ernst, lent towards it being foreign adversarial technology conversation that she was looking at very much China-Russia. You know, what do China and Russia have? What are China and Russia doing? And that's how her questions were presented as it went on. Early on, Dan, don't know if it struck you, but I expected a bigger setting, a bigger room, more people, and I think others did online as well. Yeah, last time we were actually, you know, in one of the main chambers, whereas this one just kind of seemed like a room off to the side, which is fine. Where they keep you before you go to the main chamber. Yeah, exactly. The kind of place that I would expect the closed portion of the hearings to take place, I guess. So that was interesting to see, but it wasn't as, you know, at least the table wasn't as long as Putin's table, you know, in those pictures, that could have been a bit extreme. But yeah, you had everyone kind of down one end and around the side and then Sean Kirkpatrick just kind of right down the other end of the tables kind of where everyone could see him. Yeah, and in that smaller setting, we didn't have too many players as you mentioned. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, who is the director of Arrow, essentially the main guy in the UFO office right now for the United States, he largely made up who we heard from in this kind of hour and 10 minute session. It was very much, and I think some of the confusion online with people discussing and debating expectations and what was going to happen was around the setting and who was going to be there and what was going to be discussed. This was largely Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick sitting there giving a presentation on, like it said in that early screen, the mission, activities, oversight and budget of Arrow. And then there was room for some follow-up which we'll get to from Senator Gillibrand, Senator Ernst and the other senator that was asking questions. I missed her name. Jackie Rosen, senator for Nevada. She was talking about the safety of airmen in Nevada and things like that. Yeah, again, similar to Joni Ernst very much aimed at the terrestrial, prosaic, military point of view. So again, we are watching this like any of you listening to this will unlikely just be military enthusiasts and, you know, public servants. You've got an interest in the UFO topic so that's why we have an interest in watching this. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick came in with opening comments. He mentions it's been nine months since Arrow started and I don't know if you know this, Dan, you probably do, but it's not necessarily very, very common knowledge I don't think, but Sean Kirkpatrick's team has only recently been fully assembled as well. He hasn't had that team in place for nine months. Yeah, that's right. In fact, I think the number thrown around was like maybe three people for the majority of it, whereas today we heard that he has three dozen experts that are kind of part of Arrow, which is, you know, that's a lot more than we thought. That's encouraging. And it's the early days, it's baby steps and I put out online that folks should remember and again, this isn't me giving a cross opinion, which I always like to warn when I'm doing. Back during the early days before the task force report was coming out and we were getting all that build up and we had Lou Elizondo on TV, Chris Merlin on TV, Sean Cahill on TV and a whole host of other talking heads talking about what could and couldn't come from the task force report. The main message that kept coming out was they had not had enough time to compel the report. They were being hamstrung. They were doing it with one hand tied behind their back and one hand over one eye and the pen was running out of ink. That was largely what was being said and I think Chris Merlin kept saying it was three to four years would have been a more realistic timeline to actually get together not even perfect but a good amount of data, a lot of knowledge, a lot of compartmentalization to be brought together, different people to work together, different parts of the government. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, no matter what you think of him before or after this, has been in charge of Arrow for nine months and his team has only recently assembled. That's not a lot of time. That's less than a quarter of the time, far less than a quarter of the time that Chris Merlin and others said would be required for this sort of thing to really work properly and I think that's fair to say that much for the get-go, Dan, yeah? Yeah, I would agree. It's still shocking to me that data should have been handed over from UAPTF to AIMSOG to Arrow, all these incarnations of this office over the past few years but in fact, it doesn't seem like they had much of a database previously and that during these hearings, Sean was saying that they're kind of normalizing the reporting and the databases that they have and this is great but it kind of made me feel like we've maybe wasted two years you know, kind of with more speculative approaches and things like that so I was encouraged by Sean's kind of scientific rigorous approach that he was kind of walking us through today. How did you find it? Yeah, him in general, I didn't mind how his character came across. That's just opinion. I know he divided some folks said it was typically boring to have people lose interest in the topic. I thought he spoke all right. There were glimpses of actually a personality coming across as well. Did they want like flashing lights or something? I don't know. Yeah, they'd only be asking why they have rights. Yeah, he was better than Bray and Moultrie by far and I think how he came across to me, not to jump too far ahead but he was reasonable and I understand and I shared a few texts with people afterwards just saying, do you know what? I get a lot of his position. I get how he came across. I don't agree with all of it and actually there's someone who isn't Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick I'm a small bit disappointed in and we'll come to that in a minute in terms of how things came across. Interesting. But yeah, he mentioned implementing frameworks for better scientific analysis. It very much sounded like you know, it's a start but we need more money, more people, more time, you know, more backing and more help in a lot of different ways and I don't think that's unfair given where they're at. You know, it's, the begging bowl was out a little bit in one hand and I don't think that necessarily was wrong because Senator Gillibrand seemed to be quite open to supporting and, you know, do you need this? Yep, then we can write a letter to your superiors or authorities to help you get that and I wonder does that come from the classified briefing happening first that she's heard enough that and maybe I am looking at this glass half full she's heard enough in those early conversations that we don't hear to go enough's being done that I can be comfortable not hauling this guy over hot coals here and offering the backing and support required. Yeah, I think that's totally fair to say. You know, we heard her at several points say, you know, do you need more access? Do you need us to chase up like the, for example, the secure system where people can send Arrow information on legacy programs and things like that. She asked him when that was going to be established and he said, you know, we submitted our plan before Christmas and we haven't heard anything. So then she responded with, okay, fine, we're going to help you chase that up then. So it seems like at the very least they all view each other as on the same side instead of adversarial. It wasn't like Moultrie and Bray last time, like you said, where it felt like a kind of dog and pony show that that wasn't the case at all here. It felt more collaborative, you know? Yeah. And he, I've, I've made a note to say, I think some of the issue is that there are some folks and it's not, it's not unfair, okay, but they want a Richard Dolan or Linda Moulton how type personality or character and the position of Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick. you're not going to get that in the highest levels of government, even the most staunch of UFO or UAP advocates, maybe like a Gillibrand or a Burchett would, I don't think would go that far and that can frustrate a lot of people. I think what you've got is someone who looks like they want to do, like he said, implement better frameworks for scientific analysis and this is where something I think has been maybe misconstrued and this is something that might change in the coming days as I read other people's analysis and allow my opinion to be fluid, like I've said, but he said and this was kind of a bit of a human touch, that Arrow's mission is to turn UAP into SAP, that's someone else's problem or somebody else's problem. That's funny, I like that, you know, a bit of humour. What that means for me is that all they would be doing in Arrow is identifying what an object is, what one of those cases is and then they don't have the authority to act on that. There's no then military wing of Arrow, unless I'm mistaken, that then goes out and finds whatever it is or, you know, tries to shoot it down or they don't then order the Navy to send out, you know, jets from a fleet. That's not what happens, they're just there to data gather and hand it off to someone else and that's what he means by that, isn't it? Because it then needs to go to the Air Force, the Navy, the CIA, the FBI, whoever it might be and they then deal with that from there. Yeah, that's absolutely right. The bit I liked is where he said, you know, if we were ever to find something that was provably extraterrestrial, then they would engage with NASA and NASA has a remit to be public facing and to talk to the public. So I like that Sean is using those tools in a specific way. You know, he's building the database out and as we know, 99% of things that people see in the sky that they think are strange probably aren't but it's that 1% that we're kind of interested in and it's nice that Sean kind of almost has a workflow for any possibility even though he hasn't come across it, he still knows what he would do if he came across it which tells me that he's a little more open-minded than, you know, Bray and Moultrie like we were the last time and, you know, hats off to Sean as well. There were no technical mishaps, no mecking about with three-second videos trying to kind of pause it in the middle. You know, he was really well-prepared and it came across as a well-prepared presentation. We'll get to the videos and listen, if anyone's listening to this first 12 minutes and going, oh, here they go being overly praiseworthy of Sean Kirkpatrick, we'll get to the issues and there are plenty of them but I thought when he said only a small portion of objects that they have looked at truly give off anomalous readings, most are prosaic, clutter balloons, that's fair and expected because that is still true. You know, when they say half the cases and we said this at the time in Julian Barnes' article dropped way back when talking about the number of cases that were going to come out in that report and they said half of them were prosaic but that doesn't mean the other half are all extraterrestrial, that means the rest haven't been, you know, identified and we said or I think a lot of people said to be fair a lot of those will still be prosaic as in Chinese, Russian, US technology, balloons, hobby balloons, all that kind of good stuff but there's still then the small percentage of those that are the ET stuff, the non-human stuff, the interdimensional stuff, whatever you want to call it, that's what we are really interested and excited about. That's not going to get mentioned in a hearing like this for me and he was as dismissive to the ET hypothesis as I expected and to quote what he actually said, only a small percentage of UAP reports have signatures that are anomalous, most demonstrate mundane characteristics and Arrow has quote unquote no credible evidence of extraterrestrial origins of objects. let me annoy some folks just now Dan. So he could have and should have said if he meant what he said no evidence of extraterrestrial origin of objects. He said no credible evidence of extraterrestrial origin of objects. Now what he views as credible and what you and I or listeners or anyone else views as credible are going to differ wildly. So that's not to say there may be some evidence, might be might be weak evidence, might be evidence that right now they don't even know can they class it as evidence because they don't know what it is. But he said no credible evidence and these are people that are usually pretty careful with their wording and are generally reading things off about a paper for the most part as well. So I I am choosing to go with when he says no credible evidence that doesn't mean no evidence. I think you're exactly right on that. You know, they said that they've had about 12 people passed on to them to kind of testify and in another part Sean alluded to the fact that single source kind of data so like eyewitness accounts on their own don't really make up for evidence. It's interesting but they can't really do much with that. He wants the hard data and the multiple data points and things like that. So yeah, I think that's what he's getting at. You know, so for example Robert Salas we know that he testified to Arrow. Do they have access to what Robert Salas kind of experienced to the data from that event? Probably not. It was a while ago, right? So he would probably put that in the it's hard to kind of hold this up as a credible case. Not to say that, you know, I'm not saying at all that it didn't happen. I'm just trying to think from Sean's point of view in terms of, you know, the amount of data points that they have and the amount of sensors and things like that. Single source stories were put into room 101 when we did that by Sean Cahill and we're kind of just seeing that, you know, on a government level to kind of say, yeah, you know, these are interesting. They might help inform the trends and patterns when we're kind of applying language learning models to these things which is just chat GPT basically. But ultimately we can't prove anything with that one bit of testimony. Okay, let me get frustrated now and for those who think I've been too kind on Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick and also the disappointing Senator Gillibrand, let me tell you why and I'll share some of those other issues as well. That's fair, 100%. I imagine maybe they've had some folks come forward and go, yeah, so who are you? Yeah, I am pilot, I am wingman, I am this, I am that and I saw this object at this place at this time. Brilliant, amazing testimony but there's no data, we didn't really pick anything up, we didn't collect anything. Okay, that's great, thanks. And he looks at that and goes, this is the stuff that he mentions later to Senator Gillibrand have not been sent the best stuff as he kind of put it, okay, I'll paraphrase. However, let's look at David Fravor, Alex Dietrich and those events. So, where's the data from those? Where's the video of the tic-tac? Because if what they are saying is correct, why hasn't he seen that? And I'm assuming he has because surely for the love of God, those were some of the first bits of evidence he looked at. What about the 23-minute video of pure sci-fi you know we hear about? What about the videos and the evidence that senators like Burchett, Warner, Rubio, Gallagher, Gillibrand and co are seeing in different, you know, briefings? Is he saying he's not seen that or is he saying he's seen that and none of that is at all interesting? Remind me, who was it that said about the 23-minute video? I think that exact quote is from, is it Bob Maguire? Yeah. But yeah, right, okay, I get that. Social media, right? Yes, yes, yes, yes. However, but even if you remove that, there's still tons of stuff. So, yeah, so scratch that, remove that, the 23-minute video, not to say it doesn't exist because that was something that's been plucked out and injected into something that may or may not be correct. However, we're still hearing that senators and congressmen and women are seeing evidence that is blowing them away. so where is, where is that amongst this conversation? You know, what is a Tim Burchett getting so upset about that he has seen and heard that isn't being said here? And for me, and again, this might change, it's instant reaction and I'm a nobody, I don't know, right? So Senator Gillibrand, if she ever heard this, would be like, what a dick and she'd be right. But I expected more from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on this. I don't think the pushback was anywhere near what I expected. I don't think the follow-ups were anywhere near as powerful as they could have been. And the only thing I'm holding on to, and I hope this is the case, is that she heard enough in that closed briefing and closed session that satisfied what she wants to get out of all of this in terms of a long game that she needs to support Sean Kirkpatrick and his team going forward and to maybe push anything like that in this setting wasn't the time and place and that it's one of those that let's lose the war but we'll lose the battle but win the war. So today we take one on the chin and we have to move it down the line because ultimately, I'll be honest, I was a little bit disappointed with that. Sean Kirkpatrick performed and said what I pretty much thought he would. Yeah, same. You know, it was very similar to that transport kind of meeting slide thing that he did not too long ago. I think it was just a few days before the report. You know, very analytical, very data-driven kind of presented what he was given. But yeah, I would say the same as you. You know, some of the pushback, I literally have a note here where I've just written drill down on anomalies and stop sucking up to Sean. It almost felt like they were patting him on the back for some things that hadn't been done yet. And I just wanted them, you know, every time it handed to a new person, they were like, oh, thank you for your work, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I was just like that easily, you know, almost 15 minutes was just them praising each other. A little bit like at the Oscars or the MTV Music Awards when artists stand on stage and it's like Beyonce giving Rihanna and what a award and they just gush over each other. Yeah. It's not really the place for it. Like, I know they're being professional and I know that, you know, there's an order to these things. But the second that he said anomalies, I wanted Gillibrand to just hook onto that and just be like, okay, cool, let's talk about these anomalies. You know, we'll give as much space to this as we're going to give to the Chinese balloons, for example. So something that I kept seeing notable voices in people and it's not wrong go on about for a long time now on Twitter was that they're going to bring up crash retrieval programs and that's going to blow everything wide open. Why didn't they? Yeah. It's a good question. You know, the closest we got to it was talking about that, you know, secure submission system that the people would be able to use and they said, you know, we've had 12 people testify and stuff. We didn't really hear anything about them. We didn't hear any details. You know, the most detail we got were from the two presentations on those two videos that Sean showed and beyond that, yeah, nothing was really pushed. It was a very comfortable chatting space, you know? Yeah. I kind of, as much as I love Sean's approach in terms of, you know, where you have to come up with new science sometimes to kind of explain things, I really wanted them to drill down on those anomalies. The second that he said somebody else's problem, they should have said, okay, everything that's SEP, we're not talking about here because it's not relevant to this discussion. Your remit is for the more anomalous stuff. It's in your name, you know? All domain anomaly. Let's touch on those slides, okay? Because I think half of Twitter were snipping tooling them as they popped up on screen. We saw shapes. Yeah, we did. So the first one, though, was UAP reporting trends 96 to 2023. Interesting data, any reason, for the 27-year time frame? Do you know? Like, I've just noticed that. No, I don't think so. I haven't, you know, nothing been told. I guess maybe there's like a sensor that came in or multiple sensors. Yeah, that's when they get the best data from, you know. Yeah, so fair enough. Could be, we'll find out more, I'm sure. I gave you some information on UAP altitudes and it was pretty dismissive from the offset here because it says most of them are seen at this height because this is where commercial airlines are. That's pretty much it. Fair enough. Yeah, I mean, that's speaking of the bias, right? You can only detect things where you've got sensors to detect things. Also facts, isn't it, as well, that, yeah, people are going to see things at a certain height which me looking up in the sky and going, oh, there's a satellite. I don't know it's a satellite. It could actually be a really high altitude jet. I'm just saying because I'm not a trained observer and I'm guesstimating it. It also had on the same page typically reported UAP characteristics. It wasn't a whole lot instantly interesting on that, to be honest. Color, white, silver, translucent. I believe he also said metallic when he was reading that bit, but that's not on the slide. He did, yeah. But again, maybe looking into it too much, but he did see it. It's not on the slide. Hey-ho. Reported UAP morphology. Interesting there. And it talks about basically the shapes of UAP. 50% orb round sphere, as you would expect. That is going to account as well and no doubt for stars, satellites, Starlink satellites, you know, all that kind of stuff. People see jets, planes at night and also real orbs for those out there who are orb fans. So this stuff would be the stuff from the report that was like redacted, right? So all of these shapes they'd spoken about before, but they avoided it. Polygon is an interesting... Polygon 5? Five-sided? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. We'll go with that. Someone's been marcas for that, but yeah. Yeah, yeah. Oh, no, it's like 7.4. Yeah. But it's got sphere, rectangle, triangle, cylinder, tic-tacs on there as well, which is, you know, a nice use of language. But yeah, that was pretty much the first one and reported UAP hotspots that aren't surprising. It's the places that normally come up because it's the kind of Western places with or... That UAP hotspot, I can't remember who it was, but a general said a few days back that it's a worldwide issue and everyone hooked onto it. That map says that it's a worldwide issue because the US have bases and they have sensors and they're detecting them all over the world. Doesn't mean that there are aliens covering the planet. Not saying that they're not, I'm just being careful to interpret what Sean's kind of saying there, you know? Are they though, Dan? Are they covering the planet? They're everywhere. Yeah. So the next two slides, it wasn't a big presentation. The next two slides contained videos and here's where some folks, again, no doubt will read into this how they want to, which is totally fair and it's been left open to interpretation. Very quickly, there were two videos played. The first one was of an orb flying over the Middle East straight away. I think a lot of us thought and if you're watching on YouTube, you've just got an orb flying across Dan's screen. You've, God, that's off-putting. Even though I knew you were going to do it. The Middle Eastern orb looked at a glance like it was the Jeremy Corbell, George Knapp, Mosul orb, but the video of it. Now, I asked Jeremy Corbell and he said, no, it's not. And in the video, it's not the same landscape either. I just wondered, was it a different bit of the video maybe that still had came from that Jeremy had got? But he says it's not. So, that's fair. For all we know, that video could be designed to kind of say, you know what, some of the videos are anomalous but it doesn't really mean anything. that was it, isn't it? Because it says on it, unresolved, inactive archive. So, he gave this, Dr. Sean Cutpatrick gave this as an example of here is an orb, metallic looking, flying across. We don't know what it is and we're still looking into it. That's it. We don't have enough data to really, find out what it is right now. Exactly. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. What they're saying is we've got a video, can't identify it. So, we need more. Need more sensors, need more data. For all we know, in a few years time, they could kind of go, okay, one of the trends is that there are definitely metallic orbs flying around and then this active archive orb becomes something that, you know, maybe fits that trend and they kind of go, cool, that's that then. Yeah. The second one was an example of here's something that's been identified. Looks sort of cigar-y shaped. However, you can kind of see the trail coming off it and I think whenever these things are posted online, people tend to straight away say signs of propulsion, it's the blood in the video and they basically identify and show you quite quickly how it's the camera software artifacts being created and it's a Southeast Asian passenger jet. That's it. And that's fair. And again, for me, this reminds me and people know I'm a fan of Jeremy Corbell, not that he gets everything right, but the video they put out a few weeks ago on weaponized definitely looked like a missile to me and until they can provide other data for that, I would go with it's a missile. Same way this shows you it's a plane. However, it gives you the example of there are some stuff identified and some stuff that isn't identified. They don't have enough data to fully say what everything is. That was it. That was the summation of the slides, Dan, yeah? Yeah, exactly. That second one as well, it's pen and peer review. So it's not like Sean's just saying this in a vacuum. He's putting it to peer review in a paper. So again, just like people refuted Avi's work, you know, when they were looking at the conventional physics of things and they submitted peer review papers. People can do this with this one as well if they feel that they're wrong, you know, that this is the process. Sean Kirkpatrick mentions that the quarterly report is due very soon and that the annual report schedule was due around June, July and he says it'll be around that time and that will encompass several reports as well. So we don't have too long to wait before we've got the quarterly report and then we'll get that bigger report around June and July. We won't see the quarterly report. That's not a public facing one, but what we get will kind of be a summation of all those quarterly reports over the year. It's going to be really interesting seeing it because the last report that Sean produced was from the remit given to AIMSOG as opposed to, you know, the legislation that's most current. So there should be a bit of difference in there and a bit more detail and if those slides are anything to go by, you know, a few more graphics and things like that. He seems intent on communicating this stuff properly and effectively. Gillibrand asked about the website portal being available for folks to report and that was essentially what you mentioned before about whistleblowers are able to come forward without fear of reprisal or, you know, condemnation from the roles that are in now. Did you notice he said that a lot of the unclassified things, so, you know, a non-anomalous case that they've solved, they're going to start posting those to a web portal where we can see the workings and stuff like that, which I think is great. It's, you know, it's transparency where we've wanted it, you know? Yeah. After that, Dan, it seemed to me like he was largely wrapping up and, yeah, I kind of, I was disappointed in the follow-up questions and when something was asked, I was waiting for Senator Gillibrand to hit him with something that was going to make him either have to say I can't talk about that or give us something to say we can't answer that, you know, fully or it just didn't come. So, yeah, that's the disappointing part for me massively. At one point, someone said, you know, I have a million questions and then actually they maybe had like two. So, you know, I agree with you. The follow-ups could have been better and this is a long game. We've spoken about this before. This is going until 2026, 2027. So, this for me going into it, I expected them to use this to kind of go, okay, this is going to inform legislation this year now, the defense bill. We're going to put more stuff in to help Arrow to kind of get this further down the field and that seems to be what happened, you know, as we were watching it. She kept referencing, okay, we'll put this in the bill, we'll put that in the bill just to kind of help out. So, yeah, like the work is ahead of us but it's clear that he's trying to set up a very data-driven system. But like you say, ignoring that pile of anomalous stuff is a little disheartening. Yeah. From there, it finishes up. It seems like they had the time of about an hour to run to and I think that's why it kind of ended there, didn't it? There wasn't a whole lot much more followed up on and I think at this point, if you're asking me right after the event, maybe I'll change my mind in a few days, treading water a little bit. I don't think we've gone back but I don't think we've gone forward. My name is Andy and this is a breaking news reaction to the UFO hearings that as I record this happened only an hour or less than two hours ago. Joining me for this one, I have author and known hater of UFOs and Aliens, Graham Rendell. Graham, welcome. Hello, Andy. Thanks for that. And very much looking forward to this guest coming back on. You'll know him as Tiny Klaus on Twitter, friend of Tom DeLonge, I think to many of us. But yeah, Klaus, welcome back. Thanks, man. Good to be here. And I want to start this off by saying, you know when you go to a comedy club and you have a great night, you laugh, you laugh the whole time and then the next day someone says, oh, what was the best joke? And you can't really remember what was said but you just know it was good. I get that kind of feeling with us that already Dan was texting me because he hadn't long, you know, got around to seeing things and he hadn't checked it and he was like, oh, what was the good stuff? And I was like, I can't really remember. But it was really good. So yeah, initial reaction from both of you. Graham, let's start with you. What did you think? I think you summed it pretty well there. It was one of those, it was a huge spectacle. There was always the kind of possibility that it was going to go pear-shaped. You might get somebody who would just stood out and want to make a name for themselves and turn it on his head but that didn't happen. Everybody was quite respectful. They were really respectful to the witnesses. They gave them space to talk, didn't cut them off or anything like that. I just felt that it was, yeah, it was a real plus. I came away from it thinking, do you know what? That's much better than I thought it was going to be. And Klaus? Yeah, I agree. I was really blown away by David Grush. His testimony, just the way he presented himself, I feel like it, really gave him a lot of credibility. He seemed at home in front of, you know, that congressional committee and just really, he seemed like comfortable in what he was saying and just his own ability to, you know, communicate what he did in the government and what he, his confidence really said a lot. Yeah, he came across like the rock star here. I put a poll one hour ago on Twitter that's got over 2,000 votes already. So thanks for everyone voting along. Just asking where people pleased with the hearing and I think it's fair to say 83.2% yes, 6% no and 10% unsure. that's a hell of a swing and that's, I think, pretty surprising given people are really happy on social media to lean towards the negative and I mentioned before the hearing, you know, everyone's got an opinion and that's fine but that's, that's a pretty good indication I think of where things sit especially as, as we are now. So I think overall we can look at this as a big success. I was worried and I don't know about you both and for anyone who hadn't seen any of the social media stuff, there were people streaming or filming from the queues beforehand and I worried it was going to get a little bit Hollywood premiere and it would become more of a spectacle than something that was a serious, you know, hearing as it was and right, even at the start when they thanked the witnesses for coming in, I think it was Tim Burchette may have been the one and there was a big round of applause from the crowd. I started panicking a bit where they go near like hooter and holler and we were going to get a bit of that kind of Hollywoodization of this and I thought that isn't a good look but again, like I think you've both said that the crowd was really respectful as well and the applause was in the right place at the right time so yeah, overall, I was really pleasantly surprised. I'll reiterate, I don't think, again, this was for the UFO connoisseur. I don't think this is for us to look at and go, oh my God, there were so many new revelations. I think there were a couple of things came out that we maybe didn't know before or we hadn't heard potentially but this has gotten eyes and the attention of the UFO, of the mainstream who maybe before weren't touching the UFO subject. BBC had it on their breaking news with over a million views on their site after an hour or two already and I'm getting tweets and WhatsApp messages from folks sending me all sorts of links from all over so that's a big plus. Klaus, we'll come to you then. So kicking off, we had Chairman, it was Mr. Growthman who was taking over and we had a Mr, what was the dude's name who took over from Burchette? God, I've got Mr. Garcia, Robert Garcia. Yeah, there was a little bit beforehand with the hearings that people thought this was the same Robert Garcia who had links to Lockheed Martin and was funded by them and all that kind of stuff and it turns out very quickly it wasn't but I think that would have put the conspiracy machine into overdrive wouldn't it? Oh yeah, I mean it was funny that he came out and said it the way he did I think but yeah, I mean that whole kind of thing beforehand with them pulling Burchette or I guess it was official I mean he kind of led the thing in general I mean he seemed like a leader you know I don't know if it was some sort of a semantic that they had to play or whatever but it seemed like it seemed like it went exactly how you know Burchette kind of wanted it to he's the one who asked like the hard questions he yeah he got some answers out of them that I don't think anyone else would have would have been able to and he did take the lead in Luna as well and it seemed like yeah the chairman kind of gave them gave them the reins basically and I don't know I think if I was Burchette I'd be happy you know with what I got to ask and stuff like that yeah I think that last minute change worried a lot of people and I'll come to you in a second Graham but I think Klaus you're right that it seemed to largely be led by Burchette anyway like putting Ringo front and center stage of the Beatles everyone's still watching you know John and Paul over there singing and that's the way it came across like you say introduced Garcia was fantastic he led it well but if anyone had the most time talking it was Burchette and like you say I think very much semantics Graham is that how it came across to you yeah I mean at one point Garcia actually recognised Burchette's leadership on the issue or on the build up to it so I think yeah there was a recognition there that yes okay he might have been the official lead but the de facto lead was definitely Tim Burchette and he certainly had most of the airtime he even had the laughs as well he had a bit where he wished his wife a happy anniversary and all this kind of stuff so yeah he had the lion share of the speaking time but I think they were all very good with one exception Mrs Fox with the two X's she was the only kind of downbeat note in the whole proceedings but I think beyond that yeah I think she was I think there was that one bit where you thought okay well that's yeah you were just waiting for somebody to kind of you know say something like oh we're not sure how real these are are these just earthbound things that we're misidentifying that kind of thing and I think she was the only kind of downbeat note in the whole proceedings I think everybody else were genuinely kind of just completely mystified about what was going on and wanted genuinely to get to the bottom of it so I don't know about you but I try and keep it you know I try and keep this a family friendly show but I'll just say Mr Burleson gave off big dickhead energy for me I thought Ms Fox I actually have and do you know what I've got my notes here for the breakdown when I'm going to do that but Graham I've got Ms Fox hell of a question around crash material and off-world tech and basically says a statement from Dr Kirkpatrick from Arrow about no evidence of off-world tech is inaccurate well she got that response from Grush I didn't get that from her but I thought Burleson came across as the guy who's like who more or less said I don't believe in all this you know I don't necessarily have a lot of time for it and he asked some pretty dumb questions one of them about the size of the galaxy in the universe and it was like I noticed again nitpicking but he got it completely wrong the way he worded it and I just felt like he was trying to come across like I don't believe in this yeah I've got my notes mixed up I'm sorry Andy yeah he I'll just stop and you can just like carry on without me now yeah my notes are hello you'll see my writing it's pretty appalling for the YouTube viewers listen my notes are horrendous for this as well it happened very quickly and it was pretty pretty bang bang bang but yeah what about yourself Klaus I mean the Burleson one for me he came across as the biggest I'll use Dick Ked in this because I I put that in the discord chat apologies to Mr Burleson and his family but you know well my my notes are just my Twitter feed so yeah I think he came off as you know he said right up front I think if I remember correctly he was like I'm a skeptic on all this stuff so I mean you know that was kind of a given I as it started I was kind of worried honestly with the chairman I forget his name already the guy Grothman yeah he said yeah he was like like for like 30 seconds or something in the beginning there and I was like he did not want to be there it was very clear well you had minimal involvement yeah yeah yeah yeah I mean it just seemed like he was there for just I don't know formality or something but he said he had that interest as a kid didn't he it was like you know that was all he really said at the start was you know at a red books library on flying saucers lack of transparency was a distrust on officials on the topic and then handed over to to Bursette who submits some statements from Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp who whatever you think of Jeremy Corbell he managed to get himself front and centre and people don't like Jeremy Corbell some folks don't much as I don't like Graham shuffling that paper in front of his microphone over and over again but that's just to let Graham know that that's really loud so before everyone starts tweeting me when we release this but yeah he got statements entered into public record from Corbell and Knapp that'll upset some others will like that mentioned that the intel community had blocked reports from airline pilots coming straight to congress and hopefully and I think this is probably going to be my summary at the end as well it's the beginning of many more hearings to come is that what you guys think definitely they can only build on that that is literally the start of it they alluded several times to the fact that they needed more of these kind of things so yeah definitely there ended up around 100,000 people watching about 20 minutes in I've got down 15 minutes it was 90,000 20 minutes in there was 100,000 110,000 so then we get introduced to the three witnesses who we know are Ryan Graves David Fravor and David Grush for me David Grush came out this as the rock star I think as sensational as his claims were on the News Nation piece where he said a lot of this with Ross Coulter and Bryce Zabel in there as well doing some of that work through Need to Know I think Grush came across incredibly well here I think it was mentioned previously when folks talked about how he spoke he's got an autism that potentially affects how he speaks or gives an affliction as to how he speaks he's so confident and so eloquent and like you say Klaus he's so assured of how he speaks and has knowledge off the top of his head and Graham I praise you for stuff like this when it comes to historical UFO sightings and rhyming off numbers names and dates Grush his knowledge of what he could and couldn't say and the context as to why he was unwavering and you could see why a guy like that had the position he did briefing presidents on the things he did he wasn't giving an inch was he where he didn't have to or didn't want to but he took things right to the line I felt and again it's that age old he gave a lot of I can't answer that but the fact there were other questions he very quickly said no to you can totally read behind the lines of the I can't answer it Klaus I'll come to you first highlights from any of the witnesses yeah that line of questioning with Rep Moskowitz about the IRAD that was I couldn't really believe what I was hearing and that was IRAD what is it called independent research and development I'm not I'm not yeah I'm a total layman and the way that sounded to me was that the wording was something along the lines of companies private contractors will overcharge the government for deliberately for equipment and use the overcharge money to put away yeah to fund IRAD programs which are apparently just within the I don't know the specifics I know there's a guy on Twitter Condor man who really goes into that kind of stuff it's very within the company like they basically give them money to develop something and there's I guess there's minimal oversight because they're just you know developing within the company and then every once in a while they come back and they're like hey this is what we came up with I guess with that money or that program with our own money I think that's how it works but yeah I'm not an expert in that whatsoever but I'm I think we're about to have several hundred experts of it online because as soon as that got mentioned people were like I rad and I was like I have no idea what that is one of those buzzwords yeah it's about to hit the headlines what about yourself Graham what was jumping out just to go back to what you've just you and Klaus have been discussing there I mean remember the line from Independence Day about you know you want to believe we spend 10 million dollars on a hammer you know that's the kind of thing they do they bury these things away the whole thing about some of the black projects like the fabled Aurora spy plane it was all to do with money being thrown at projects but then not accounted for properly or things being kind of diverted money that was spent on something then being diverted to something else so yeah it's quite feasible that they squirreled money away because they've said it was to be spent on something else or they've deliberately overinflated the amounts that they said they were having to spend on certain projects so yeah this is how they do it and of course Grush said that he had specifics on how they do that kind of thing where he used trade craft on how they do it but he could only talk about it in a skiff and of course that was the essential narrative that ran through the whole proceedings was that he had a lot more information that he could share but it was only to be behind closed doors and then the other side of the coin was that the people doing the questioning the congressmen and women they didn't have the necessary credentials to be in that skiff because that was a whole thing that Bouchette and I think Luna said as well is that right Klaus that Luna said that they tried to get into a skiff and they couldn't they weren't allowed to I think Bouchette said something about having to jump through multiple hoops to get into it into one as well and it was just beyond them so you know they're clearly lacking in the kind of political clout that they need in order to do the job properly and I think that's maybe the only downside to this at the moment now whether that gets remedied afterwards I don't know but you know that to me that was the major thing that Grish had a lot more information that he has took up in that brain of his it's just that we can't get at it yeah and Mr Garcia who was repping or chairing the event he mentioned interestingly and again he said this at the start and he said this at the end that we should never rule anything out when we're looking at this hearing he mentioned Arrow and NASA both having found no evidence of extraterrestrial life and then repeats that we should come into this hearing with an open mind and he really seemed to be hinting at you know even though we're hearing this let's not keep anything off the table and he finished his summary at the start with a hearing was a new chapter and start for the UAP topic and building on the past work done which I thought was a nice touch the three witnesses came in and they shared their stories as to who they were their backgrounds Ryan Graves we know was famously seeing the objects on radar he talked about the Cuban side of a sphere on unidentified as well David Fravor famous for the tic-tac story and seeing the tic-tac up close as close as anyone got to it obviously on Joe Rogan and stuff at the time and then David Grish who is the newer speaker in the room only coming to prominence the last few months with Ross Coulthard and his News Nation piece but like I said several times already and I really think David Grish is going to be a key figure going forward he speaks incredibly well and he mentions how him and his wife both suffered pushback for coming forward on this and it's not been potentially easy I don't think that's a surprise is it but still it's not surprising to you at all it's not a surprise these kind of things happen which is one of the reasons that we're having these hearings to get this more and more out in the open so yeah some of the things that came out early on we heard the tic-tac story being gone back over like I say at this point folks this is reaction so my notes are kind of all over the place here David Grish admitted that he had been put in fear of his life for coming forward with this that representative Luna was very quick to say can we just make sure that that's people realising the public that he's come forward and felt his life was threatened because of what he knows and what he's saying so people really should respect this Ryan Graves talked about the same objects have been detected worldwide wherever Navy operations are conducted again not a surprise and also I think one of the big eyebrow raisers was the 2003 Vandenberg Air Force Base incident where Boeing contractors saw a large red square leave the ocean hover over the facility for about 45 seconds and then left multiple witnesses a large number of witnesses it then happened again within 24 hours and the object was described as being about the size of a football field pretty incredible sounding one were you expecting close or come at your first were you expecting that to come up no I wasn't and it was cool to hear Ryan Graves talk about that because he's you know usually like the flight safety guy and not like the you know the stories kind of like that but he really got into it and that story is crazy just imagining how that would happen yeah I don't know that's crazy even even just the idea of the fact that you've got that size of a craft this wasn't just someone seeing seeing a UFO this was a pretty massive incident wasn't it yeah I was and Graham what about yourself you obviously like to keep this on the on the straight and narrow and when you hear someone talking about football size field UFO appearing over multiple witnesses what were your thoughts yeah it wasn't something I had the huge amount of detail about it beforehand and it was also the bit he mentioned afterwards he said not only had it made an appearance a second time but it also made aggressive manoeuvres towards the security staff at Vandenberg I believe in California isn't it it was just up the coast from Los Angeles so that was some kind of intention it had some interaction with the seeing an object in the sky there was a bit more of a dimension to that particular case so I'm sure there'll be much more discussion of that in the days and months to come because that's not something that really has hit UFO Twitter or beyond that I'm aware of that particular case in 2003 you're going back 20 years that's not that long ago that's some decent tech there'll be talking about having seen satellite imagery that shows things that he cannot prosaically explain he was pressed on this and he said he couldn't discuss whether it applied to crash sites or not but he had passed on locations and information to the inspector general so that was pretty and again this is I think where Grush as the hearing went on was saying more and more and you started hearing I could see that behind closed doors in a skiff I think got the idea that I'm going to ask this question but I think the answer is going to be we have to have it behind closed doors and I hope to God that skiff happens sooner than later because a hell of a lot of interesting questions were getting asked there close yeah yeah man that Vandenberg I'd never heard that before so is that I kind of thought it was it might have been well known and I had just missed the boat on it but yeah that was wild to hear about the only thing for me around it familiar was the football field size object where I know that's been mooted a few times before so whether that's just something that's came out as part of that I don't know but yeah I wasn't aware of that case either yeah the red square like what what is that you know I've never heard and I'm not someone who digs into individual cases I'm more of a general researching different aspects of it but I'd never heard of that before so I didn't know if that had been something I just missed but that sounds like a wild case I got the feeling at this point Timbershit had come back in a few times the way this worked for anyone who hadn't seen the hearings was the people asking the questions were given 10 minutes and for example if representative Luna used 7 minutes she could yield 3 minutes back to someone else and they all started giving Timbershit their available time their additional time so I think like you said at the start it really became he had the reins on this he was leading it and he got the most speaking time and again just to slide in folks I know a lot of folks don't like his politics but this wasn't what this was about so you know this was about UFOs and you've got to let that happen within that which is totally fair Burchette asked a whole load of questions at one point that I felt some of the stuff was taken from social media I know they mentioned they were going to do that and I think Luna done the same where there were some questions especially one around if either of you can jog my memory I never made a note of it around non-human intelligences were they working in conjunction with foreign adversaries in a technology exchange program and that was a point I went hmm I don't think as much as that's a wow what a great question this wasn't the setting to ask that was it it wasn't and it definitely wasn't a question I think they would have come up with on their own and that again that was one that jarred with me as well in terms of yeah that's probably come from social media but to be fair it's something that they would like to ask it because it might be the only chance they might get you have to consider it from that angle that you have got in the back of your mind that yes we want other hearings but who is to say this might not be the last one so better ask it now than later on when we don't have a chance or to these three gentlemen who might be in the position to answer that so therefore they took their chance so I can see why they went for it you right there were some of the questions I can almost see the person who asked that question in the first place and it doesn't come and it's not you it's somebody else on Twitter so yeah yeah Klaus yeah that was a weird one I mean because those kind of questions I feel like are assuming a lot you're kind of assuming that they have human like intentions working with government officials on something and I think Grush was very adamant to stay away from that he you know the they asked him why he liked to use the phrase non-human intelligence and he said he'd like to keep an open mind about what this might be as opposed to extraterrestrial or alien or anything like that and I think that's a really smart way to go about it because I think there's a lot to this that yeah I think it's good to not generalize and kind of like sci-fi tropes and you know at this point at least I don't know yeah there's a line isn't there and I'm glad to be stayed away from abductions and things like that and again that's not to say there's not a time and place for that conversation down the line but it isn't yet in what is the it was something to do with dimensional travel or whatever it was and the way he described it was that he had read a paper that you know a 3D object like yourself imagine your shadow being projected onto a 2D image and that another species or whatever being able to travel between the 3D object to the 2D shadow and I think it was when Burleson was talking and he was like so you've seen that and he said no it was a hypothetical paper but these are the kind of things that are being discussed and I just thought that's Graham where I was thinking Grish has got a lot of things in his head that he's not said yet and I would love to hear him talk longer but I get the issue that that's going to be behind closed doors and not to the public yeah we're not going to ever likely in my lifetime ever get to hear that kind of information I think we're very surprised if that ever comes out that or anything else that he says has to be behind closed doors in terms of a discussion if any of that comes out in the next few years and the people who then hear it are bound by the same kind of restrictions so yeah it's really we're picking over the scraps the details that you mentioned before there's little bits that quite frankly we'll fight over the general public they need the bigger picture but I'm afraid we're reduced to picking out the nuances out of two and a half hours of testimony and questioning but the really good stuff is going to be kept well behind closed doors let me ask you because one of the listeners had messaged me quite quickly after the hearing saying that for all it was great the worry was just that a lot of the good stuff let's say or the information is going to be kept private I think though that there has to be an understanding and I might totally get this wrong so both of you can correct me or come in here with your opinion or the facts whatever they may be that the idea is that we have this hearing there's going to be classified private conversations happen off the back of them where names locations etc can be discussed the idea is congress are going to get to materials sites contractors and they've got that six month amnesty period where they want people to hand in material or bodies organic matter they may have at that point though once congress get a hold of it they keep talking about transparency you would imagine at that point they would be able to come out and say we have now retrieved a craft that we believe to be of non-human origin they wouldn't have to go in and say where they got it from but I imagine given the reason for doing this and how they're all talking about transparency that would still be the plan wouldn't it it would be they is which is one of the words used massively throughout the new legislation am I close I'll come to you first am I wrong on that or where do you sit yeah I think it's I think it was kind of weird how I guess they were asking about the biological recoveries of biological evidence from these crash sites and Grush said he would have to talk to them in a skiff about that I thought that was weird because I feel like there has to be a way to separate the non-human intelligence presence aspect of this with the technology the technology seems to be the national security issue so I've always been kind of confused about why they can't split that up in some sort of way where they can be more transparent about there's a presence here okay let's figure out what that is without the biological part of this which you know Grush has said that there is evidence of pilots that have been recovered from these crash sites you know from a biological point of view though is there not the potential that those themselves are still classed as technology because if say for example they've got greys from a recovered crash in Roswell and they open them up and they decide this isn't just a living entity this manufactured in which case they can classify it as biological technology and that keeps it away if they can't do it then why not and that is a very good question Graham I think also the fact that it might not just be the technology in terms of biological as they call them in the hearings but the fact that if they can communicate with say for arguments that they're beings of some description and if they could communicate with them then what secrets could they get glean from these beings and therefore it becomes a national security issue because that knowledge and the knowledge is power so therefore that would be wrapped up in the same restrictions as technology is nuts and bolts stuff being able to learn about things how you do stuff how you circumvent the laws of physics or whatever you want to find out so I think the whole thing could still be wrapped up in terms of being able to disclose things because they've had access to certain technology or footage or what have you I just think it's a case of yes okay you're on the outside until you're on the inside and then once you're on the inside that's it you're still on the inside you can't then divulge the information I think it becomes that kind of situation where once you've been told you then fall under the same restrictions as the people who are telling you and you can't divulge it so I guess you might end up with the situation where they find out but then their answers are the same as Grush's I'm sorry but I can't tell you I would only be able to tell you under a skiff so it's almost like a little virus really you don't have it until you contract it and once you contract it you're different from other people until they get it themselves and we would all have to basically go through skiffs maybe in order to access the information until such time as it's declassified which could be never sounds like herpes but yeah I know what you mean but yeah listen even thinking and this is pure speculation but that just gets me thinking when you talk about biological and then maybe it's biological technology could these things even be almost like in some way shape or form like some kind of key that you need the organic matter or the body to get the craft working potentially maybe the US have bodies maybe Russia and China don't but they've got craft and you know it's that whole idea of we don't want to even let them know that we've got these and I suppose that would be a reasonable national security not that it would be fair or right but a reasonable national security thing I don't know that's just a kind of interesting way to look at it Phoenix Lights is brought up by Mr Biggs who not Mr Big but Mr Biggs who was telling us he lived in the area and he has a personal interest as he lives there and he literally asked those few questions didn't he about where could I go and get information on that case of which David Grush said I've never personally came across any information as pertains that case specifically but he then followed up and it really seemed like a one-to-one chat didn't it of well where could I go do you know where I could go to get that information and David Grush basically said yeah I could point you in the right vector I think is what he said so he said we would chat again behind the scenes but that was interesting to hear the Phoenix Light case being brought up because I think that's one that even though it happened in 97 there surely would have been good satellite data all kinds of data and sensor data available for any object that size entering and leaving the atmosphere or whatever it may have went to Phoenix Light has been brought up close yeah it's it's it's interesting I've again I have a hard time with individual cases just personally I just because it's I don't know it I don't know like the radar data I don't know how to interpret it I don't yeah and you know accounts are are great but you know I wasn't there but I think it's I think it's definitely important we need more information on it you know I that's basically where I'm at with with those kind of historical cases is you know every everything's been put out there that that can be put out there and you know and like with with Bob Lazar to like every it it's hard to go back and revisit that stuff for me personally but I think it's definitely important and I think for for this it it's definitely a mass sighting would definitely move the needle so I think if something like that were to happen again it would be a huge deal be massive and Graham Phoenix Lights you're the history buff 97 is almost modern day compared to what you write about it might as well be I was wondering whether somebody else was going to bring up Roswell or something like that you know or even Malmstrom just the thing that was discussed in the in the previous hearings yeah it just seemed it wasn't a doubt it wasn't a downbeat note but it just seemed to like derail things a bit because it was as Klaus says it was a specific case and I don't think it kind of made the you know the discussion go forward any and of course out of the three people Grush was the only one that was likely to know anything about it beyond what's in the public domain and even he then couldn't say he then said I believe that he didn't know anything beyond what he'd seen publicly so there was nothing really that could add to it you know Fravor wasn't there so he doesn't know anything he wasn't he wasn't even Air Force he was US Navy and the same with Graves as well so they didn't have any real input into that you know particular line of questioning I can understand from the gentleman's concern about his desire to try and find out what was going on because that was in his area but really it sort of derailed the process just for a few minutes I felt any more big call-outs we're going to wrap up soon because like I say we're literally just reacting to this as it's happened and we've had no time to process it but either of you any big call-outs we've not touched on yet yeah the part where he asked Grush if anyone had been murdered that was pretty intense yeah I think the quote from Grush's answer was I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities so that's I think something to keep an eye on yeah that's that's huge yeah that that is one thing that if there comes a point of and I think this was touched on in the legislation wasn't it that people will get a pass if they have harbored technology harbored organic material you know under special access programs in the name of whatever but if people have committed criminal acts and I think it's very much aimed at that murder and Scottish accent murder okay murder or murder any of those for pick your pick your poison then yeah that's that's pretty inadmissible isn't it and that's not something they're going to say yeah you've gave us the bodies so we'll let you off with it you know the people you threw off of balconies who accidentally shot themselves in the back of the head five times I think is what mr Burchette likes to say isn't it Russian window disease or something yeah yeah as he says yeah and Graham what about you anything we've missed I mean obviously the the Vandenberg thing was big because it was something that we really hadn't heard of before but I think it was just little things like you know the mention there was a multi-decade effort to just UAP to UFO witnesses and the issue itself there was also a line about the F-35 the new lightning to how it wasn't built as a what they call an ISR platformer you know to gather information getting information from its radar systems etc etc was well they quoted as a pain in the butt so it wasn't like a case of you know there's a we've got all these intelligent platforms out there you know on aircraft and stuff and it's easy just to get the information of it so we can see what's going on apparently there was a mission there that it wasn't actually that easy in real life to be able to download this information to get it off the various platforms and to put it together in a format that we can actually look at so I think that was interesting and then of course Gates when he was talking about Eglin which you obviously haven't covered that he sees this UAP photograph that he hadn't recognized what the object was and he'd been on various committees where they've dealt with intelligence and military and defense matters it was those was it the four lights that were in a diamond that he mentioned yeah yeah there was a radar image that Gates had seen as well and the fact that the radar system had basically almost fried itself and there was a the flare had malfunctioned as well and the pilot I think had to take a manual image of the objects himself otherwise they wouldn't have got the photograph so I thought that was that was quite interesting as well there was a nice little kind of series of questions regarding that Fravor sort of came into his own at the end when they basically asked him you know if your aircraft was armed would you have been able to shoot the tic-tac down and he went no it was just a flat no and then they also said well you know if it was the tables were turned and it was aggressive you know would it be able to kind of shoot you down and he went yeah and there was this kind of it wasn't a kind of like intake of breath behind but it was almost a case of you know oh we've got a problem here and you can see the congressman saying yeah yeah this is an issue we need to take seriously because this is obviously a big defense matter and you know if you've got a fairly sort of like you know intelligent decorated and respected US Navy commander here saying that we can't defend ourselves against these things potentially then you know we need to sit up and take notice so yeah that was that was a big thing but also the flavor was pestered to actually come forward six times by a friend I thought that was quite good as well so yeah there was there was lots of things if you dig deep enough you will find other nuggets I guess but yeah there was there was there was lots of good stuff in there a lot more than I thought there would be yeah I think fravor said it he was like it would have left if it yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah it's just like okay we have a problem here yeah so so overall I think we're all saying this was a this was a real success and a real win I'm just checking the poll and it's slightly increased to 83.1% yes that's two and a half thousand votes now 6% no 10% unsure so yeah I think it's fair to say the overwhelming opinion is this is this has been good and I hope over the next 24 to 48 hours and beyond that it keeps in the media cycle there's positive reporting on it I think the BBC albeit has picked up the story their analysis is pretty poor I think already looking at it without going into great detail as I've not had the chance to yet reaction pod folks as that they are looking at a lot of questions being ducked and it's like well that's there's a lot of things that can't be said because of the information but that's a lack of knowledge on the journalist part hi everyone and welcome back to that UFO podcast my name is Andy and I am joined for a reaction podcast and I'm going to do several of these over the next couple of days with individuals who have been involved in many different ways in the UFO topic over the last couple of years who better to start off with and the co-founder of the debrief I believe one of the premier organizations for reporting on many topics but particularly UFOs over the last few years joining me again is Tim McMillan welcome back Tim hey Andy it's good to be here man good to see you good to have you on as I was going to say look hell of a few days for everyone involved in the UFO topic how's it been for you and obviously the other folks over at the debrief oh man yeah it's been a it's been a busy week obviously we kind of knew that going into it you know I jumping right back into the fire because I came back from vacation in London actually Sunday night so you know getting ready for for a busy week and it interestingly we kind of anticipated it obviously there was gonna be a lot of tension for the hearing highly anticipated hearing and then you know we also had kind of a unexpected surprise at the end of the week from Dr. Sean Capretry the director of Aero the Pentagon's UFO study program but we were also kind of planning because we have gotten word that though it didn't come out that the the next Aero UAP report and NASA's UAP study is is on time and so those could have come out we were kind of prepared those could have come out this week too so thinking of let's go back to the beginning then the your thoughts going into the hearings given the build-up obviously representative Tim Burchett's all over the news he is you know burning the candle at both ends he is very much spearheading the efforts what were your thoughts going into the hearings with Tim leading the charge the changes and what were you expecting before they kicked off you know I don't know what I was expecting I would say my expectations were relatively low you know they have been for all of these hearings I didn't expect them to roll out the Roswell bodies but at the same time we knew going into this that we had David Rush was going to be one of the people testifying and you know having covered his story through Ralph and Leslie at the debrief and then have an opportunity to talk to him considerably leading up to this you know he's got some really compelling things to share and so I didn't know how much of that was going to come out in the hearing you know I they tend to be political theater too and we did see a little bit of that yeah but my expectations were relatively low going into it and so it was nice in this particular instance I will admit I was I was surprised when it came down to it what were your thoughts when you heard about well I'm going to say last minute changes everyone was expecting Tim Bershett to be chairing the hearing with representative Anna Paulina Luna and then it seemed to change very last minute but then I've heard rumblings that he was never meant to chair the hearing that was a misunderstanding other folks saying that he was replaced what are your understandings of that situation yeah I was I was really confused when I saw some of the drama coming out that Tim Bershett was saying he wasn't going to chair the hearing because I fell in the camp of people who never expected him to chair the hearing and some of that again maybe maybe it's because I'd been doing a lot of traveling lately I've been on vacation and traveling for work and so I hadn't been as intimately paying attention to every every bit of Tim Bershett's interviews or any of that kind of stuff but just going into it I knew that he was not a chair or vice chair of that particular sub committee or the oversight committee and so you know it's pretty black and white and standard in terms of every subcommittee sets their own rules and you know almost all of them it's that the chair of the committee regardless of the hearing always chairs it is the person who's there and after I saw a little bit of controversy with it I actually pulled up that particular the national security oversight subcommittees rules and I'm like it's black and white so long as the chair that subcommittee and vice chair are present and there is no rule in their written record that allows them to even give that away and so I don't know enough on the build-up to there to know if there was any controversy whether it was something that just was never covered they kind of assumed everybody would know that or perhaps they did indeed want to allow Bershett and Luna to chair it but then at the last minute somebody went oh man hey the rules you know there is no rule that allows us to give it away there was certainly I will say you know watching the hearing there's certainly some you know neither of them were diminished in any capacity in fact both were allowed to read opening statements which you know that's up to the chair but that's not normally you know there's a lot of things that they were allowed to do and in fact Bershett to a large degree acted almost in the capacity of chair Frank 100% yeah so I don't think it I think it was either somebody slipped up and didn't look at the at the brass tax rules until the last minute I think that's probably the most likely explanation there it certainly didn't take away anything I think no no no not at all and like you see I think Tim Bershett outside of the witnesses certainly spoke more than anyone else and everyone else was giving up their time to get a lot of 10 minutes to ask questions don't they and once they were finished they were they were giving that time back to Tim Bershett so so that was that was pretty pretty good that he got the time he was expecting anyway because he did put regardless what you think of Tim Bershett and his politics and all that stuff he did put a lot of work into these going into it so so what was your actual reaction in the hearings go two hours 20 minutes what was immediately kind of jumping out at you oh man a lot of things you know is we were we were watching the the hearing through our debrief kind of workflow private chat and I you know I could describe that my reaction for a large part of it you know the the surprise blinking guy meme that's constantly like what what you know that was a lot of my reaction you just from the onset so I had read David Grush's opening statement the night before because they're required to provide those to the committee and I noticed he had said under oath a couple of times and I'm like well is he just assuming he's gonna be under oath or has he been told he's under oath because that's not typically they don't swear in witnesses especially for this type of committee hearing you know this isn't and so I from the onset I was really surprised that they swore them in under oath and he's in this very atypical not what you see and so if anybody's ever seen any other hearings that you see the secretary of defense or the DNI testifying to Congress they're not sworn in beforehand so this it's totally up to the discretion of the committee chair but the fact they swore them in I was like wow okay so this is gonna put whatever said in this hearing is gonna be legally binding you know this is the same way if you're you're testifying in court their consequences if someone's you know willfully and knowingly lying and so that really surprised me from the onset and then you know obviously the subject matter surprised me and I'm sure you will get into some of that and I'm sure some of the other guests you'll have on and this we'll get into some of that but I'll say some of the other things that maybe you know kind of got looked over that surprised me I was I was really surprised and I would say impressed that you had a number of non-committee members in attendance there I mean there was some you know grumblings about well the whole subcommittee wasn't there very typical you know you only need two committee members to form a quorum and in fact a lot of times that's all you have and we saw that with Dr. Kirkpatrick's hearing about three months ago you know there's only three three congressmen there this one you you had 18 or 19 and a large number of those so they formed the entire subcommittee but a large number of those were non committee members who were allowed to do a 10 so that was really surprising so that was impressive because you saw a number of lawmakers who chose to attend wanted to attend were allowed opportunities to to offer questioning and out of those non-committee so non-subcommittee members who attended you had some really some political firebrands and some very well-known AOC was there yeah Matt Gaetz you know again some of these are very controversial figures but and that's why I call them firebrands but they generate a lot of attention and so the fact that they were in attendance really you know I found surprising and I think the the quality and tone of their their questioning I was very impressed with you know this was not again these these are politicians that are frequently seen on the news frankly stirring up controversies for their different political you know factions and there was none of that in this hearing and that was really impressive and I think you mentioned that just a moment ago when you talk about Tim Bershett and his politics there are some controversial politicians that were in attendance there but there was no controversy in this hearing there was no you know political infighting there was no kind of back and forth trying to get political points for any one side but rather these were for the most part you know everyone was extremely engaged and so that was really I was impressed to see that and I think that that kind of you know mentally noting it it goes through it and and I think that every real significant politician in the U.S. government at this point at the legislative level so outside of the president vice president has really weighed in on this topic and actually weighed in taking a very serious significant tone towards it so I think that's impressive that's interesting and it leads you into this more realm of information that's been provided or that they're privy to that perhaps hasn't come out in the public yet. Was there any worry in your part that it was going to be a bit of a circus? Now just the fact there was this almost Hollywood red carpet hype beforehand people queuing up like it was going to be the Barbie premiere you know where I'm going to get there the night before I'm going to queue people were talking about live streaming the event and selfies inside and it was like is it alien con or is this a congressional hearing and that's the way I was a little bit worried and the only moment I did slightly shudder a little bit was when Tim Bershett had his opening statement and there was a big round of applause and I was like is this going to be like a hooter and hollering session right and it didn't and I'm glad it didn't turn into that but was did you have any of those fears? Sure I mean obviously I think that you know I don't remember all the specifics but there were certainly some some idea this was going to be a surface atmosphere leading up to it you know I was actually waiting to do a live hit for a television show for News Nation who had people out there and were showing the lines so that's when I saw these lines outside the hearing oh my goodness you know that was you know it's unfortunate because I don't think a lot of those people were able to get in you know these things you could see from all of us that watched on TV there's very limited space there and a lot of those chairs are reserved for the media as well or witnesses and their guests so there's really not a lot of spectator room and so I certainly thought you know I anticipated it was good there could have become a surface atmosphere there and obviously you mentioned that even some of the politicians that were there for shit included Matt Gaetz included some of them can you know can certainly turn a congressional meeting into a bit of a circus you know not not not trying to put anybody down but they can kind of give you some good some of those good clips for for the newsreels at the end of it but that didn't happen and I was really impressed by that you know in terms of what the witnesses their demeanor what they had to say I didn't really have any concerns there you know I have spoken considerably to two out of the three witnesses Ryan Graves and David Crush haven't spoken very little to Commander Fravor but I knew these guys and so I knew that they're really polished and they came across that way during the entire hearing and so that was it was good that any I would say any of the circus kind of atmosphere leading up to it certainly didn't appear to have come from the politicians or any of the witnesses involved so it's obviously hit pretty hard around certainly in the UK I'll speak for the UK because I've been fortunate to to do a lot of media since the event and a lot of channels and news organizations even in the background who haven't published pieces yet have spoken to me about potentially doing something or what they want to do and I've tried to give my advice as best I can and the people who they should really speak to you know real serious folks and I wonder much of the conversation from their end has really centered around David Grush and his statements it's almost been a bit like the the anti-third wheel approach where you're on a date with your friend and his girlfriend and you feel kind of left out and it's almost like Commander Fravor and Ryan Graves have been they've done their piece but almost like they weren't required and those big statements from David Grush are what's gotten all the attention but can you understand why sure yeah no absolutely absolutely I mean you know obviously what Grush is claiming you know those are the those are the eye-popping claims and it really kind of leaps past the testimony of Ryan Graves and Commander David Fravor simply because you know they're they give very compelling they're very credible individuals they speak well on it and they're you know I consider them highly credible witnesses to the events that they you know encounter and both in 2004 and 2014 and 15 but there's our encounters with something anomalous that they say is not our technology and exceeds any kind of technology capability that we have on earth not just America anybody where is so there's still this unknown where is David crushes is saying that that you know there is some known to this technology and that there's possession of the materials and these types of things that have been recovered you know that kind of leaked back and so to a large degree I think it's understandable because Commander Fravor and Ryan Graves his testimony still leaves this mystery kind of lingering out there so we've still got to figure out what are these things whereas David rushes is offering kind of this promise that there's a there's a shortcut to figuring it all out because maybe we are half already figured it out and so I certainly can see why his testimony and all of his claims generate the most attention should they you know I don't know you know you know it's many things it's it's difficult they're very compelling the fact that he made a lot of his statements that he had already made to us but did that under oath certainly up the ante that he's already presented a lot of this which is in the this legal arena and this kind of this arena of officialdom that we have not seen before his claims are not unique we've had other people that have made these claims what makes David rushes testimony and what he's saying unique is the fact that he has he is making them through these official channels yeah in in ways that hold consequences legally if he was just lying everybody else they're really you know so that I think uh is why uh you know why David rush is getting so much attention and frankly understandably probably should well in your opinion is he lying no no I mean I this goes back to when we covered um when we covered his story initially uh with Ralph and Leslie you know my my role in all of that was really just fact-finding Ralph and Leslie did all the the work you know they did the yeoman's work uh but before we go to publication mine was the the fact-finding and verification of that check so it involved me uh both verifying the information that that David Rush and some of the other individuals in the article uh had had said but also trying to do that independent of what Ralph and Leslie had done so it forced me into kind of digging in talking to some other people about it specifically and uh you know from that so so again you know even though I we had no doubts that what what David Rush was saying that he believes it to be true uh before we went to publication with it um the fact that he's saying it under oath only further affirms that you know because there's no consequences if he's lying to us he can deceive us and the consequences are on us not him but uh the fact that he's done it under oath there's legal consequences to it and so going back to even the onset I've always said I believe that David Rush is is telling the truth as he sees it now that's a hard I kind of caveat that because um you know it's such an extraordinary claim um to be just accepting that I believe that he what he is sharing what he believes to be truth mean that therefore what he's saying is true and I accept it I'm not there yet only because of what the significance of what we're talking about um but it certainly makes it much much more compelling was it was it too much do you think it was too much looking back now in hindsight what did he share too much is that what yeah I mean really you've we've gone from like baby steps with all of these and like you say we've been so used and I went into this setting the bar low like I'm now at like my expectations of marvel movies low you know if I if I break a smile or crack a smile I'm happy yeah and all of a sudden we went from massive redactions and reports you know tiptoeing around language the odd use of et here and there to yeah we've got the bodies the craft the biologics I can tell you where they are like I mean that went from a to z quickly yes yes no it did and it's uh and it's a hard question to answer did he did he share too too much um is that one time I'll answer do you think that in the coming months and maybe even years that we say we weren't ready or people weren't ready I don't know that's a tough yeah that's one of those ones that you're like in in hindsight you know we'll be we'll perhaps be able to answer I mean it's kind of like answering the entire UAP uh question as a whole yeah or what disclosure is of course we want that we want it now that's until you know what it actually is yeah it may get disclosure like oh my god this is so much worse like that can I tell you that the moment for me that I felt was really jarring okay and it wasn't anything David Grish said it was one of the the questions I can't remember the I think it was one of the the ladies names she asked if it might have been representative Luna actually and it sounded like she grabbed a question off a UFO Twitter or UFO X whatever we're calling it these days thanks Elon for that um and I hated that idea of taking questions from social media and that setting it's not a podcast um and she asked if there was any evidence of foreign adversarial governments having technological technology sharing agreements with non-human intelligences and I was just like no no no no no no don't because that's a channel changer for me for other people who are maybe dipping into this to think is there something worth watching here they're talking about UFOs and aliens and that for me was a jump the shark sure yeah yeah well and I think it maybe would have been more of a jump the shark uh you know depending on what David Grish answered which in that case he said I don't know anything about that I hadn't heard anything I was glad yeah yeah yeah no I agree there there's certainly you know there's certainly aspects of what uh David Grush has said not necessarily that we're at the hearing but but in other interviews um not even what we published that that even uh you know he did a lot of his TV interviews after our print article came out uh and so some of the claims that were made uh in some of the TV interviews I remember kind of been like well that's a little while you know it seemed to be torn from from UFO lore and you are you're like oh man this is uh you know you know the the Mussolini crashed UFO thing and stuff and you're like oh what are we talking about here um and so it's hard to kind of measure that because I'm like you I'm thinking you know it does inject this if you take an objective view of it and go okay how much of this is belief how much of this is opinion how much is this is known fact you know we I do think that that it's important and it seemed during the hearing that that uh David Grush and obviously Fravor and Graves really stuck to what they felt was was fact based on on personal or direct information and in fact I appreciated the fact that on numerous occasions David Grush said yes personally as in personally I have this information personally I have access this personally I know this uh and and stayed away from opinion and belief whereas I think that's uh when we watch TV interviews podcast interviews whatever with a lot of these individuals they begin to delve off into belief and opinion and um that has a has a a way of becoming canon or becoming truth to people like they they they accept that as is truth but they're just a sharing opinion and belief and and certainly I think obviously one of those things that kind of made me go really uh was when you know he mentioned individuals being harmed or you know or threatened or harmed uh to kind of keep the ufo cover up I'm gonna go wow um um and so I kind of I take an objective view to that so that's a really extreme claim I was really stunned I'm thinking especially in that setting because like you say that's been said a million times on podcasts articles movies that is one of the things and the ufo topic that people in the shadows are there to keep this a secret by any means necessary that's not new but under oath in that setting to hear that you know basically people's lives have been threatened or harmed then that's that's huge sure and and I to hear that went wow like uh but the fact that he's saying it under oath I'm going okay you know I take a very objective view to that is that he's submitting this as legal testimony evidence in a legal setting and so therefore you you don't have in my opinion or legally you don't have the ability to go well that just sounds too outlandish to me we're not going to look into that you know you have to if if if you don't then there is no point in swearing anybody under oath there is no there's no significance to that anymore so it has to be treated objectively and looked into and um you know unfortunately even in those hearing settings you saw it like you said every everybody gets five minutes and uh I really only remember one representative using their their time to brand stand which was nice because that happens a lot in politics where they ask a question and then the remaining four and a half minutes they go on to telling their you know this is why we deserve transparency and you're like okay I don't care what you think we can talk you talk about that any other time let's hear what they think um and uh you heard that and I went because I would love to dig deeper and say well what you what are the specifics behind that because that's certainly and so that's where I go how much of this is our uh impression or perception of what's being said in truth and what I mean by that is when I heard him say yes people have been threatened with harm uh you know you immediately go to x files like men in black like you're thinking movies you know the guy people are showing up at your house or is that just a misperception as he uh you know referring to the fact that people have been told that you know under u.s law to protect secrets you know lethal force can be used you know if you were to run into a secure military facility and try to grab the uh cryptographic keys to their information system so the things that decipher the codes if you were to try to grab that you know they could shoot you and kill you and so you know is that what he's talking about because suddenly that seems less sci-fi fiction tv and more like I could see that happening I could see somebody telling you know I could see somebody telling somebody else you know you that attempting to reveal or attempting to access something of high highly classified nature you know you do realize that you know the government's authorized to use force to prevent that from occurring because that is true again great example your point stands that you just like to hear that elaborated on in terms of is this yeah which is a fair call out either way that we're not entirely sure at this moment um one more moment I'd like to speak on myself and get your opinion was we hear about a story from vandenberg air force base 2003 where apparently multiple witnesses see a red square red rectangle red square come out the ocean hover over the base and this was seen by a lot of people and then the same incident happened what 24 hours later where multiple objects were sighted over the base had you heard of that story before and again what was your thoughts here in that I had not heard of it and and I'll just say up front I don't know anything about it and so I this is one of those ones where it's exciting because it's something new uh to look into and um you know obviously the first thing is wow you know because you when you're you're hearing about these multiple different uh technologies uh that you know don't exist in either commercial or even kind of military fashion uh and then you're you're hearing about this kind of large sighting oh man it's one of these ones where I really need to dig into that to learn more about it to be frank but it is interesting and uh uh you know it's also another one of these instances where what's interesting about it is we're just now kind of hearing about it and there may be other it's kind of like with the tic tac it wasn't until it came out in the new york times did we go back and go oh man somebody tried to disclose this you know years earlier on a website uh so there may be more information because it's it's obviously uh you know because there's been grumblings now about a mile wide ufo and this type of stuff and you're thinking guy somebody sees him a mile big in the sky you would think we'd hear about it you know you'd think it would be all over twitter you think it'd be all over uh facebook but uh we haven't had that but at the same time there are times that we just overlook things you know we do dismiss it outright yeah it was again i'm thinking back to what you said before about perception opinion a story is it verifiable and was that the place and i was fascinated to hear that but was it the place to put that in and it then makes me think the folks who would who would cry for and again if people listening to are viewing this or maybe in this camp as well and it's totally fair we should have heard about remote viewing and alien abductions again i'm like that's for that's for way down the line let's keep that stuff out the conversation at the minute and it's got its time in place but not yet sure no no yeah no i agree you know and uh you know obviously every every door that opens opens kind of another hallway of doors because you're right you know if uh you know if the government was come out monday and say okay you know we have analyzed all of the data that we've compiled thus far through arrow and we have determined that there are these isolated sightings that indeed do not comport with human technology and appear to represent something other than that it's like whoa now suddenly the hallway door is flung open and and now what david rush says you know there's a little clearer path to what he's saying uh there's a little clearer path to stuff like abductions all these other things and so i do agree with you it is kind of this this step process and to some degree going back to what you said earlier over is it too much too soon uh i guess that really what what it raises the question is are we trying to access another door in the hall that we haven't even opened up yet for for the majority of people and the answer to that is probably yes because for the majority of people uh you know aren't on board with a either there being anything to the ufo or uap topic or b that they're just all represent misidentifications that type of thing um it's it's a lot of information to process i'll say that i mean after the hearing that was one of the things i said i would say to a certain degree i'm still kind of going through that where i said man yeah i gotta take some time to process everything here i would speak that's why i wanted to speak to some folks like you to get through these and kind of talk it out loud and yeah i think i think right now it was very much on the tipping point of too much and just enough and right now it seems to balance on just enough um it's a very fine line and i think time will tell very quickly if it was just that that too much and i've got a question on that maybe towards the end tim but i want to come back to you mentioned dr sean cutpatrick director of arrow um he has since gone on the defensive i think it's fair to say um a little bit unhappy at the claims made by david grush and it reminded me a little bit of you know when a couple have a breakup and you know someone's trying to stay quiet but then the next day you do that facebook post of look just to clean a few things up um this is what actually happened from my point of view and i felt almost in a way as david grew up as a dr sean cutpatrick angling for his notice andy that was bananas you know it was wild it was extremely wild and and i uh obviously when i covered it in the article we did for the debrief we'd cover everything objectively like i believe news is supposed to so i don't interject my opinion but i did when i posted it on twitter or x now where i was like i i this is nuts i i and i mean it when i say that i legitimately cannot think of another instance where a senior government official civil servant government employee has so publicly you know admonished congress congressional witnesses and one of which has an active whistleblower for reprisals i'm like this is nuts uh you know because the the uh you know it's very it's not just policy there's there's federal law there's legislation uh the hatch act where civil servants are you know have to remain apolitical and they're they can't they can't do that they can't interject themselves in the political process and uh certainly can't criticize uh the politicians i'm like this is nuts like i can't believe even it was really shocking a because i i had to i had to re-watch the hearing again because i was like why is he so angry because i that was you know i didn't walk away from that hearing going man hero is garbage you know kirkpatrick's a bum uh and in fact you know i know that he has faced a lot of criticism missed on social media and everything yeah leading up to this but after the hearing i i don't recall seeing that even i don't probably people being like oh kirkpatrick's a bum so i'm like why is he so defensive like why is he so upset uh and you know i was able to pick out a few things through it and but it really uh was stunning because i didn't i didn't feel like the hearing was you know it certainly wasn't lambasting him or arrow and and it was certainly uh certainly a more palatable way where he could have been like look we have not been proven to any of this information but obviously what's being said deserves the scrutiny but he felt uh that they were uh you know disparaging error i didn't take it that way but it was um it was stunning and there was even uh you know to be honest and give my opinion there were even portions of his statement that i felt you you adequately ascribed by this you know bad breakup x that goes on there and and has this emotional venting there was certainly elements of rage posting to the point you know there you know i'm going to assume because the context when it was used that because he he didn't mention david grush by name but he said this individual which would have been grush has not even has refused to to to speak with hero and this was following the comment of threats of reprisals and and everything and i'm going and arrow is not a law enforcement organization like what what grush is alleging is both a a internal issue with with uh retaliation or apprisal that would be an inspector general issue or if there are threats of violence or violence that's a department of justice you know shankar pastor getting arresting anybody he isn't going to go file a court order he's not going to file a criminal complaint on anybody like he's not you wouldn't call arrow if someone broke into your house so i'm like why is it it was a weird because because it uh without naming him it certainly seemed to try to attack david grush's credibility but when you you understand the processes and mechanisms that are in place here you're going that you're being kind of petty here and you're being unreasonable and ridiculous like you're you're again it's it's why you know the fire department getting mad because you called the police when your car got broken into you know it's uh tim i would say to be fair at this point from what i've seen i wouldn't call arrow to report a ufo sighting um given given some of the things i've seen and heard not to be too flippant but um you said on your social media that um the sentiments and dr sean kirkpatrick's letter didn't speak for every member of arrow it was some i'm paraphrasing but i think that's correct is that right yes yeah can you elaborate on that um you know it's kind of self-explanatory you know without getting too much into it yeah i will say that uh there was some surprise by some people uh because a lot a large part of the the context or really the tone in in kirkpatrick's statement was that this was defending the men and women of arrow and felt like they had been bashed um and there were there's people that that didn't feel that way and were were relatively surprised because uh i'm trying to be nice here and i don't know any other way to do it but there there's certainly a sentiment of of there's not a lot of people like dr kirkpatrick let me put it that way who who have worked for him work with him both uh in the past or maybe in the in recently he he evidently i don't know him personally i've spoken only a couple of words to him um but uh you he he he doesn't appear to be very likable and so people kind of you know people that saw it that maybe were internally were going standing up for us or standing up for yourself like you don't give a shit about us you know like you're an asshole to us and so uh that was that was kind of the context of that is that uh you know even going back to people who uh you know when he was the uh director j2 intelligence at space com or when he was at masic people have worked with him are like he just you know tends to be kind of abrasive and so uh that was what there was some sentiment of almost amusement that they felt like he was using them and their hard work to he had to take this this valiant stand when they felt like maybe at certain times their own hard work is not appreciated by him as is he seems the kind of guy that plays his kids at mario kart and never lets them win um but yeah i don't know him personally the no i wouldn't keep you too much longer tim but one thing i want you to clear up with your knowledge of the u.s legal system and political system and something to put into layman's terms for me is a letter to speaker mccarthy has gone round from representatives burchette luna gates and moskovitz asking for a select committee to be set up with subpoena power and i'll stop there because then it gets too technical even for me can you explain in plain english what exactly those four are looking to set up and what it's going to achieve sure so what they're looking to do is set up a select committee so there it would be a uh so you is like we had the subcommittee whose job you saw that was theirs is oversight over uh borders control national security um or you have like the armed services subcommittee they're asking for what is a temporary committee to be established so you you would put a certain number just like you see in any of these other committees so you would have a chair a vice chair and a split number of republicans and democrats that would be placed on the committee and their sole job would be uap and getting to the bottom of the uap uh issue and then the subpoena power uh would allow them to subpoena witnesses so you know they can request people to come testify or they can subpoena them and obviously if you refuse a subpoena uh you could be held accountable for that and so just like you would if you got subpoenaed to court and you refuse to come to court and so that's what they're asking for i think people have uh you know anybody who's followed the u.s politics at all in the last couple years has probably seen this more relative to you had these uh when it was related to the russian election interference that went on uh you know benghazi they did that that was back towards the obama administration um but but that's really you know going into watergate you know you name it any of the the really big political finalities where you you've gotten some resolution uh they they've come out of these where you established a a select committee of politicians and like this is going to be your uh this is what you're going to do you're going to get down to the bottom of it and so be very very interesting to see if it comes through uh you know i'm all for it and and i i think anybody should be just based on what we've heard thus far and i think that's the important thing is that um for me you know it's fine to be skeptical it's fine to be critical to a certain degree and i wouldn't ask anybody to just outright believe what david gresh is saying is true um but because of how he's presented it hey let's let's get to the bottom of it you know let's figure out why and i think that's that's the most resolution i'd like to see from a lot of this and that's an excellent way to do it really that's the mechanism to do it so it's the next kind of logical step if you want to take this seriously and i think it you know i i i can definitely see it happening i can definitely see mccarthy approving it i you know just simply because i think mccarthy may be one of the only influential politicians that i have not specifically heard address uap but when you have people like chuck schumer um really heavy hitters especially the legislation that chuck schumer uh put forth just recently is really robust and so yeah no that but does that kind of sum it up does that give you an idea yeah yeah no that makes sense so i wonder on that then what is next and in my head let me play out we've got the situation that could this all potentially go away which is always you know something big happens things escalate with russia uh russia ukraine maybe goes away in a nice way and everyone forgets about the ufo stuff hunter biden story i'm not totally up to date on something with cocaine in the white house his laptop etc etc right so there's all that going on in the background and i don't pay too much attention to it it doesn't interest me but then on the other side of it i'm looking going is there a real possibility in six months time given aerospace contractors have been told they've got a grace period to hand over anything they might have they won't face criminal prosecution and we could be landed with or the us congress could be landed with bits of craft full intact craft and alien bodies is it going to be something in between or just something else altogether yeah you know i've said this a lot lately which is you know wonders never cease to amaze me because it's hard to predict what you're going to see next i will say in my opinion and what what is normal and both in the political process and the government and just life in general what's the next logical step is the fact that you have uh you individuals like david grush but it's important to stress that he's just the most public face there there are other people and and i know that for a fact there are other individuals who have have likewise expressed affirmative statements to what grush has said in other official settings in other legal settings that type of thing i don't see how you can make that go away without some doing something so i you know i you know the forming a committee a commission to get down to the bottom of it i i don't see how you you i don't see how you can just all of a sudden like oh oh well you know let's go on to something else there's got to be some kind of resolution what that is like like a new project blue book type scenario where they bring that up to modern day i don't think you know i think that's what arrow kind of is and where the claims that are being made by david grush and others um this is a this is a beast of a different animal because where blue book was supposed to get to the bottom of the ufo topic arrow likewise supposed to get to the bottom of the uap topic what's being alleged here is that there is considerably more information including material science and you name it behind it uh and so i think that that's asking for a beast of a different animal that really does it a very you know really scrutinized internal audit of these claims that are being made by david grush and others you know verifying what they're saying and then you know what they do from that point forward but the legislation that's just been recently proposed the one that was uh co-sponsored by marco rubio i believe but put forth by chuck schumer um that incredibly robust and frankly if that passes as is what we've seen that will give a lot of the legal authority to do that because they you know went into uh specifically naming out materials and things that even if it in uh you know legislating that they would exercise eminent domain on it meaning that even if a private contractor let's say they had a crashed ufo and they're like it's ours it's private property it's ours eminent domain means no it isn't you know the government can come in and take it uh for public good and i think that's what's really interesting there it's uh i think somebody said it and i said you know it would be the most american thing ever is that the disclosure of all of this comes out through some type of legal court case because there is all these other legal battles yeah you could see you know you could see lockheed say no we're not going to share that would be amazing uh have these kind of legal battles hey we're in uncharted water i'll say that way because i i have long said i don't know i don't know an easy path for the government any government to come out and go you got us all right we got all these craps and bodies yeah sorry you know we were just kidding for 70 years because as much as people like to say you know they would they would all of a sudden be like ah thank you for coming clean we we forgive you hugs um that's not real life because the vast majority of people even the ones that that are the regular voting public who maybe read the david grush story when it's on the new york times or whatever and then go about their daily life that comes out suddenly they're going holy you know we can't trust our government we can't just the president like it kind of collapses this whole system so i you know i i've always said how do you how do you if all of that is true how do you release it without kind of creating anarchy i think for a lot of people who want to see that information come out the answer is always like it won't we're ready it's cool it's and it's like well it it is a nice sentiment but i'm not sure that's real like not i say all that not saying that i believe it should be hidden it should have been hidden in the first place if it is and so uh but how do you disclose it now without creating anarchy i don't know hi everyone and welcome back to that ufo podcast my name is andy and continuing the series where i talk to prominent individuals from various areas of the ufo field i am delighted to welcome a first time guest to the podcast someone i've wanted to speak to for quite some time retired u.s navy lieutenant commander alex detrick alex welcome to the podcast thanks for having me alex this is about the only time my wife has ever been interested in a guest i've had on because she watched you on uk breakfast tv last year and she was over the moon there was a female voice talking about ufos or uap and she thought you came across incredibly well so this might be one of the first times she listens back to a full show so i'm excited for that so i'll have to watch what i say what's her name our name's susan hi susan yeah uh yeah you definitely need to get more diverse voices yeah and do you know what i was going to ask you that second alex and before you give a brief intro um actually no i'll come to that second i think that'll make more sense now uh before we get to talking about the hearing the reactions to that which have just happened in the last week or so your story has been told a thousand times and i'm sure you get to the point of saturation with it but but for anyone unfamiliar do you mind just sharing a little bit of background on yourself and also touching on that i suppose now infamous experience from 2004 sure so i recently retired from the navy the u.s navy as a strike fighter pilot after a 20 year career my designator was was as a naval aviator and when i was fresh out of flight school in 2004 i reported to my first fleet squadron which was vfa 41 the strike fighter squadron black aces out of lemur california that's where our hangars and our aircraft were stationed but we flew off of an aircraft carrier that was based out of san diego so in the fall of 2004 we were conducting integration exercises and training missions off the coast of san diego getting ready to go deploy uh when we we were vectored off of our training area to go and intercept uh a real world unknown uh something that was operating in our airspace and um that's when we encountered this uap this unknown aerial phenomenon ufo and now of course your part in that story almost ends there for for some time as commander fravor took over he has the now infamous interaction with the tic-tac and here we are now let's jump forward to 2023 um we've now had hearings on ufos uap i'm going to stop saying both so ufos and people like me to say ufos okay because that's that's what we're talking about essentially um july 2023 only in the last few days public hearings have taken place what were your initial thoughts when you heard there was going to be public hearings happening on this topic in the first place so i don't really i don't have thoughts really on it um i'm not as emotional or invested as i think a lot of people are in this topic i was an eyewitness to something strange uh on november 14 2004 with my colleagues and the other radar operators and folks as part of that carrier strike group but it's not something that i think about a lot it's not something that i investigate or spend a lot of time i don't listen to podcasts or read books about ufos lucky yeah but of course you know i've been unwittingly sort of drug into the middle of this and uh i i was aware that there were hearings i think about a week prior i uh kind of put out a flare and said am i going to be called to testify because if so i need to make plans i've got a kid going to camp and a doctor's appointment that i need to reschedule um so you know when i get these requests to do interviews and when i get asked to speak about it uh i try to say yes when i am available when i have some bandwidth because i think it's important to not necessarily highlight what it was that we saw or try to figure out what it was that we saw but to highlight that there was an inadequate process to report and investigate in the moment uh that the fact that there was something that we couldn't identify operating within this military exercise operating so close to san diego a dense population center so soon after 9 11. so you know if anything my hope is that the hearings and the attention uh whether through specific uh sort of niche podcasts like yours or the mainstream media will draw attention to the fact that we need to have resources funding staffing and capabilities in place so that if and when future pilots or future operators uh speak up and say hey there's something weird here we have a way to to zoom in and to investigate to collect that information get good hard data and analyze it in a way that turns it from uf uap or ufo from unidentified into known and whether that's an adversary or whether that's some other explanation really that's the key here is getting to the the root cause of whatever we're seeing that lack of process is something that's been highlighted many times and lack of you know straight reporting procedures laymans like myself who have no idea about the military but i can understand on a base level how difficult it must be just to to get something like that one taken seriously but then reported up a chain of command the fact that if that's the right kind of terminology people like yourself and david fravor have made huge inroads to changing those stigmas and processes and others no doubt whose names aren't even in the public domain yet i remember on the the 60 minute piece alex when when you spoke and i was just re-watching it back before you said and you were very much right to that you know you had to be careful to not sensationalize the incident and you you joked with david fravor you know we're not talking about little green men here in flying saucers but like you've quite rightly said you were talking about a genuine unknown something that you couldn't identify and obviously then was sort of investigated it seems that we're now at a point in 2023 just a few years after your 60 minute piece where more sensational language is becoming the norm you've got david grush david fravor ryan graves all sitting in front of congressmen and women very happy to point out that incidents like these and others are quite likely to have an exotic origin and we're hearing language like extraterrestrial non-human intelligence and such and that's not to say that's what it is or what you saw how do you feel with a maybe limited interest in the ufo topic like you say not letting it dominate your life how do you feel the tone of the conversation seems to be changing from your 60 minutes appearance to now where we're hearing this more kind of incredible language being used so i didn't hear ryan graves or david fravor using that language i heard david grush using the non-human intelligence and exotic materials language uh so you know i think it was interesting that they had all three individuals up there but two of them were talking about uh the aviation uh specifically naval aviation encounters uh that are concerning again you know it could be an issue of national security it could just be an issue of flight safety uh that if we can't uh account for everything that's in our airspace when we're operating uh we need to change our our the way we're doing business i don't know david grush and i don't know what he's talking about um when he makes these claims about having uh retrieved craft or biologics uh i haven't heard those claims and i don't know uh where he heard them uh or how to uh further investigate or corroborate those claims um so it's it's sort of a two-track uh testimony that i heard last week i appreciate that and i think for a lot of people that sort of came across david grush stood out for some people in the right way for some folks in the wrong way i i got a lot of interesting feedback i asked tim mcmillan from the debrief last last week if he felt david grush's testimony in a way was too much and some folks didn't like that question thinking no we should be talking about all the bells and whistles but i thought in a big public setting like this was a step too far to maybe use a lot of that language and that's all just down to personal opinion um using those kind of phrases really made him stand out from the other two witnesses and like you see it was almost like two separate two separate events happening at the same time and maybe two different conversations and i wonder if if someone like yourself if you were asked to speak would you be happy to do that in front of congress oh sure uh and and david fravor and i have spoken together on the hill in a closed session with congressmen senators and do you think personally speaking what do you think let me rephrase that what do you think you could contribute if you were asked to speak do you think again it's that credibility factor that you have this rather incredibly well decorated background that you've had in your career and that you're bringing again those issues would it be flight safety is that what you feel you'd be bringing to the table no i'm so i'm certainly not asking to go no no not at all no if you've called on it you know certainly and and again david fravor and i did uh go back in 2018 um we visited the hill twice um but 2018 is when you know they had the the recorders there writing things down and um you know it's you had the little microphones it felt much more official uh the other one was you know meeting with staffers to talk about the issues um but you know when he and i talk and and the reason we did 60 minutes together in addition to um you know we've gone to the pentagon together we've we've gone to the hill together is that we were in two separate aircraft so he was the lead pilot and i was the the wingman pilot and we each had a weapon systems officer in our back seat but we're able to tell the same event from the different perspectives from the different cockpits um and you know just as any uh important event that you have eyewitnesses you want to have as many angles as possible as many voices uh remembering and and recounting the details that they have and then also to give that different perspective he was the commanding officer of the squadron you know you talk about a chain of command and you talk about reporting it up so that leadership will know he was my leadership he was my skipper he was my boss um and so you know the the aftermath or you know maybe his confidence or his reputation or his experience was was different than mine as a brand new pilot the junior officer in the squadron um as a woman uh you know being able to tell those tell the same story through those different lenses uh i think it's important uh for folks to hear because again i don't know that we'll ever figure out what it was that we saw on november 14 2004 but what we can do is improve the process so that when somebody sees something tomorrow they know who to call they know how to gather the data uh they have a standard template for a debrief where they can put down everything that they remember um you know i get asked all these really great technical questions now you know almost two decades after the fact um and one of my favorite is did you see a shadow i don't know i wasn't looking for a shadow uh but i can guarantee if i see something weird tomorrow i'm gonna look for a shadow you know they asked you know did you hear any static on the radio i don't know we were all shouting and yelling at each other uh you know if i see something tomorrow i'm gonna have a moment of silence and see if there's any weird noises crackling or static or ringing in my ears so my point being that uh what we can do is we can prepare we can pre-brief pilots air crew um even um train conductors i rode a train recently from colorado to california and unsolicited i don't think the conductor knew who i was i was sitting there in the observation car and he volunteered he brought up the fact that he had seen a ufo while driving this train you know this strange thing and uh sort of zoomed up next to the train and flew alongside it and then zipped off and um you know i sort of sunk down in my seat put my book over my face and um and i thought well yeah why aren't we talking to train operators why are we talking to long-haul truckers yeah you know because they you know hopefully are sober and have their eyes out on the horizon not buried in their phone or uh in a you know working in a cubicle at a laptop or something so um how do we prepare those folks who might be you know high risk for an encounter to be good eyewitnesses to make the most to optimize that experience and then and then what do they do with it where do they put it once they've collected all the data um how do we ingest it and analyze it and make sense of it and maybe even predict when we might encounter something in the future that's a really good point and i'm sure there are a couple of train drivers out there who have just said yes thank you for acknowledging us and all of this because we talk about the pilots of course and you mentioned long distance truck drivers i've had a few call into listener call-ins or get in touch with me an email to say when they are doing 10 12 14 hour drives out in the middle of kind of deserts and long haul across various different countries around the world they see all kinds of incredible things because like you say there's nowhere to really look except a long big dark road in front of them and the night sky and and they've seen some pretty cool things and again people like yourself have made a big difference to how those processes may be changing do you still have many friends and colleagues within the military who maybe still talk to you about the ufo stuff given you can't help the fact that you were on tv and you've done various interviews you still must have regular contact with folks who want to speak to you about ufos that are maybe still in the navy or other aspects of the military you mean people who have an encounter who want to report it but don't know where to go either they've had an encounter or just they they're there just now and they want to talk to you about you know if i did see something you know and they want your opinion um i mean it doesn't it comes up because you know i say oh i have to go do an interview right okay i know oh i was on um 60 minutes talking about ufos you know isn't that bizarre um but you know i would say that most of the the folks that i hang out with are not ufo enthusiasts or or initiating the conversation because they want to have either the technical or philosophical discussion about it um but i do i do get contacted by a lot of folks just because of having now this um you know sort of public persona in the in the space i get direct messages and people who contact me and say you don't seem crazy i don't think i'm crazy and because of my job or my church or my family dynamics i can't tell my partner or my boss or my colleagues or my you know the other people that i are in my faith community um because of the risk you know i don't want to be ridiculed i don't want to be or worse you know i don't want to have um some sort of retribution so they they will say here's you know here's my story i saw something strange here were the circumstances and um you know almost like i have to give this debrief and then they they go here you go now it's off my shoulders and now it's on yours and i go oh thanks you know what am i supposed to do with this and i've contacted um the the contacts that i have the pentagon and said you know hey what do you want me to do with these um you know i've got a bunch of twitter dms that are piling up with you know some of these might be worth looking into um and they've said you know just hang on to them we're getting our our stuff together here organizing establishing arrow you know getting through the the cases that they have so um i don't know every time elon musk makes a a muscle twitch and i'm like oh we're gonna lose all those twitter's gonna shut down i'm gonna lose all those messages i need to i don't know yeah i'm i'm struggling on a daily best basis to work out am i on x am i on twitter am i xing am i tweeting i don't i don't know i'm just i'm just doing the same thing i was doing last week before it changed its names but that's really interesting that you but at the root of it right is that people are saying some you know we're encouraged to if you see something say something if you see a suspicious package in the subway in new york city right you you say oh let me let me alert someone and they'll get the bomb squad to come and they'll investigate it and check it out could be a kid just left his backpack or it could be an actual you know nefarious package but the point is you know we have a process and we have a qrf or quick response force that can a team of folks that are competent and trusted to go and and take care of it uh when we're talking about an unidentified flying object you know who who do you call do you call 9-1-1 you know the the local sheriff or the police do you call the military how do you get in touch with the military who has the jurisdiction um you know right now it's really not clear and um and you can see that there's this need this void uh to have a clear consistent methodical way uh again to to collect all of that information and to process it and and make sense of it and then make it accessible you know i hear a lot about transparency or disclosure um i don't i don't understand it because in my experience both having served 20 years in the military and having encountered a ufo now almost 20 years ago i never felt like there was an attempt to cover it up i was never asked to be quiet about it it was never a classified uh encounter or incident so you know we were never told don't talk about this you know we um we said well what's there to talk about we don't know we don't know what it was so um i i have never suspected that there is an organized disinformation campaign or uh otherwise some sort of attempt to be opaque about this issue um um so so so the calls for transparency and disclosure um i don't quite understand what i'd like to go into oh no no that might be my naivety because i don't follow the topic um or under you know i don't know the historical but i think i think that's a really good thing about having your voice involved when you can in the ufo topic because 99 of people i speak to or anyone listening to this who they hear have a vested interest in the ufo topic they're they're on all kinds of documentaries news shows news pieces they have a well-known case a well-known story and they become hugely involved in ufos through it whether they mean to or not whereas you've you've quite rightly kind of kept out of it and you know you've had an incident or an experience and that was it and it's not consumed any other part of your life because you have a life to go on and live but that's where you have a very fresh perspective and you can stay very objective when you talk about it as well which can be very refreshing do you feel and i wonder going back to that the aspect that you're one of the few female voices in the topic especially in the last four five six years that's come out and and had a big impact um someone like my wife who has no interest in ufos um other than hearing me talk about it now and again to annoy her was incredibly impressed with you when she saw you speak and she even used that phrase you used oh she she doesn't seem crazy she seems like a she seems like a nice woman you know she's a she's a mother my wife can relate to that you know she's got a day job and she just saw something weird and that was it and she heard you talk and she loved that and i think people like yourself can bring others who don't have a ufo interest maybe into the conversation to look at it a little bit further to see if there's something there worth investigating are there are there more women that you're aware of who potentially could come forward in the future because it certainly seems like it's it's always a very male-dominated arena yeah and again this is this is where i may not be curious about ufos but i'm curious about this culture and i'm curious about curious about uh the dynamics that are happening um with all the podcasts with all the uh tv shows with all the books and um you know just the hearing last week you had ryan david david you know three white guys and then a bunch of white guys behind them uh you know a little diversity up in the representatives but um it is it is a white male-dominated conversation right now and i don't know what it will take to uh broaden that aperture and make it more inclusive um you know i'm really excited about the fact that uh jordan peele did a movie that nope yep did you see that i absolutely that yes okay uh you know because here we have uh a different lens again looking at at the topic and um you know black people see ufos too native americans you know what's what's that history and what is their perspective um so i i don't know if i'm answering your question but i think that we are overdue to invite and amplify those voices because right now i think no offense to you but i think the white men are just sucking the air out of the room well i've got a little girl who again i would look i would like to think that she's going to have role models to look at on the tv whether it's she's watching you know the england and i'm scottish but the england women are in the world cup just now and she says the lioness is playing football and that's something for her to look up to and you know she sees people like yourself talking about ufos and i can be like look here's a lady i was talking to and it's not always there's the guy there's the guy so there's so many other stories out there potentially to tell and like you say regardless of ethnicity gender background whatever it may be if these people can come forward and speak about their experiences then again movies like nope and that kind of that kind of background and context setting can make all the difference as well and that's something you've certainly contributed to massively alex and and i wonder again going forward you've not kept a huge interest in the ufo topic and you seem to be dragged back into it now and again by people like myself looking to speak to you but do you think the next logical step would be more hearings and other folks coming forward and even if it's just for people like yourself to see a further improvement in the process and reporting of these sorts of incidents so i don't i don't know what we would achieve with more hearings i think that there were a lot of points that were made uh again especially by david grush that would you know we have we have some follow-up actions to investigate and um he mentioned providing a list of the witnesses uh both cooperative and hostile that he would provide so that the representatives could talk to the folks who he had talked to right because he acknowledges that he didn't actually see the retrieved craft for the biologics but he had spoken to folks who made these claims yes so we have a lot of um i think there's a lot there that we need to follow up on before jumping into further hearings and to the to the sort of parallel issue that ryan graves and david fravor were bringing up rather than um you know just continuing to talk about the issue i would rather see congress allocate resources via our ndaa and that's the authorization act for national defense that's what funds our military for programs like arrow and subsequent related programs to provide material so that's hardware equipment um anything from you know the cameras and the the night vision goggles and the fleer uh kind of everything you'd want to to spot and capture ufo to satellites and networks and and ways to you know once you've you've given that tip and cue or raise that flag but hey there's something here getting everybody else's sensors into that point in time and space to get as much information as possible um you know being and this is where i think hollywood does us a disservice is that there's an assumption that we already have these highly sophisticated advanced technologies everywhere all at the same time collecting and you know just gobs of information we don't the truth is that we have a finite number of satellites we have a finite number of carriers with a finite number of aircraft on board you know with a limited number of personnel who have to sleep during yeah at some point and you know so so so the actual you know opportunity that we have the actual uh space that we're seeing and observing at any given time is minuscule and so if we are able to to catch a whiff of something and then say hey everybody look over here and then get all those other resources yeah zoomed in um then then then we'll get somewhere but just because we have night vision goggles radar fleer satellites in our general inventory does not mean that they're available for this mission right so being able to resource or fund uh either the existing programs or or establishing new so that they have those resources available they can call on them they can divert them um so that so that we can actually snap a picture a good high resolution picture that's what everybody wants right yeah the bit the higher resolution the better you know we hear they're potentially already a lot of that out there but again until we see that put in front of us and i'm sure someone like yourself would say until i can see that then as just hearsay it's just someone's testimony it's just someone's story and if it's there and again that's the the nature of what we're trying to get to i suppose or from these hearings is if this stuff's there david grush has handed over a lot of treasure maps apparently we just need someone to go and find where this treasure's buried because if he's seeing x marks a spot then it should be there uh but until that comes up that's that remains to be seen and i wonder alex one more thing you spoke to to dan zetterstrom recently who comes on the podcast regularly yes and he caught up with you face to face and also has a newly engaged uh fiance i don't know if you'd seen oh you've got the mug um him and elena just got engaged oh yeah dan's full of merchandise it spills out his pockets um he mentioned that you teach critical thinking and your your kind of daily life and i wonder how does a subject like that apply to ufos when someone like yourself is so interested with critical thinking and you see us having all these wild conversations you know and it swings from extreme to extreme how do you apply critical thinking to that the ufo topic or do you have any advice for anyone yes well i love criticalthinking.org as a resource uh it's a non-profit and they have resources on their website and they also have some books and posters and things everything from uh you know from from little kids to uh graduate students uh everybody can benefit from it uh but every semester when i start a class and i've been doing this for years before 60 minutes or anything became really um you know i'll say really popular here i put up the critical thinking wheel the elements of thought on the chalkboard and i ask the students i give them an option i say we're going to do an activity a critical thinking activity and you can choose the topic uh do you want to talk about um the opioid epidemic uh which is terrible here in the u.s now um do you want to talk about gun control um again uh a serious topic um you know do you want to talk about global warming um or do you want to talk about ufos and 99.9 percent of my students say oh ufos you know i want to talk about ufos because you know they're they're taking all these other serious courses and you know they're all kind of burnt out and so here's an opportunity to kind of talk about something fun but then when we start diving into it and i say okay you know what is the question of issue what are we actually talking about and you know they get distracted and they go down rabbit holes and i said no no like what are we what are we talking about the question is is there something that we can't identify in the sky that people are seeing and then separate question but but also and i would argue maybe even more important is so what why do we care what's the purpose of having a podcast dedicated to ufos what's the purpose of having a congressional hearing on uaps what's the purpose the the question of the issue is you know was there something there on november 14 2004 that we can account for but then the bigger question is so what why do we care and then we get you know all the other elements of thought um and and i love this framework because it provides just that it gives you something to sort of hang all the pieces on um you know what is the evidence that we have what sort of data do we have i think our particular encounter was so um it has become so popular because you have radar because you have multiple eyewitnesses because you have flair because you have um you know all all of this uh sort of compounded data and information but then what are the assumptions what are the assumptions that we're making it's an adversary it's an alien what are some other considerations what else could it be something else yeah i don't know yeah uh you know who are the stakeholders what are the different points of view if certainly i come from an operator's perspective you know i'm thinking about uh aircraft safety you know i don't i don't want to get hit by something that's trundling through my airspace uh and not talking to air traffic control uh i'm also a military pilot so i'm conditioned to think friend or foe is it an adversary spying on us or uh you know is it a blue technology something you know that's that's highly classified that we just haven't been read into um but then what you know who are the what's your perspective why do you care and that's not just a rhetorical i was going to ask is that rhetorical or not no i'm glad you asked i suppose in a way um i'm not religious in any way shape or form but if i had a religion or almost like a church it would be this podcast to i had a sighting when i was in my kind of i was like 10 19 years old ferris wheel type object not up in the sky pretty low down not too far away from us four other witnesses um including my mum who has no interest in the ufo topic and i've never been able to explain that and it would be very hard to misidentify it as something else because of how close it was and where it was so even when all these things out there get debunked or shown to be something else i can always go back to yeah but i remember seeing that and i know what we all saw so i enjoy the idea that what if this is something incredible and we're missing out on it by not talking about it and you know there's all these things that as a species we maybe don't help each other out with and could find all these incredible cures for or work together really quickly and help each other and i look at scientists and you know military officials and all that kind of good stuff and think if they just came together could we maybe find out that there's something else out there something that's not human maybe not alien as we understand it or know it but isn't us um and when i hear people like yourself and david fravor and ryan graves and david grush some of it's very logical like yourself fact fact based you know you saw something david fravor talks about he saw a nuts and bolts object no seams but it was a physical thing was there and he couldn't explain what it was and then you get maybe along the other side of that that line where david grush starts talking about satellite imagery of crashed craft and non-human biologics and you can speculate and let the mind really wander and it encompasses the whole topic which i find i find fascinating um and i get frustrated with the idea that a lot of mainstream scientists are still poo-pooing the whole topic like neil degrasse tyson and brian cox here in the uk when i think your your life is based on science and enjoying you know science is meant to be you know what if and you you prove or disprove a hypothesis and you test it why wouldn't you want to go and look at the greatest discovery of all time being are we alone and finding out no we're not because then that opens up a billion other questions i often get asked you know if if we find out tomorrow if you know president biden wheels out the alien on the white house lawn and says okay here you go and this is what was in the tic-tac and all that kind of stuff would you just stop the podcast then because you've got the answer and i'm like no that's when the fun stuff would kick off and more questions and that that would be when it really kicked off i think but yeah i just find the whole the subject fascinating and that's whether i'm talking to to lou elizondo jeremy corbell someone like yourself you know diana pasilka scholars who are really interested in the topic um and i think it's important to have people like you who one have witnessed something but two you're not screaming from your lungs that ah it was aliens and you know making stuff up about it and going into wild speculation as much as i would love for you to speculate on all kind of stuff that you can say no because i know what i saw that was it i'm not going to i'm not going to expand on it because there's nothing to expand on um and that's i think really important to have in the subject as well i hope i've answered your question yeah for sure um and i appreciate that and i do get asked in so many of these interviews you know what do you think it was i get asked at the hill uh you know the the senators and congressmen saying you know in your opinion what do you think it was and i i cannot even all these years later i cannot make it because i when i when i try to think about it my mind's just blank i because it was so foreign it was so unusual what we saw it doesn't fit any other classification or model that i have in my brain and so i i just can't um it would it would be not only would it be irresponsible but it would be impossible for me to say this is what i think it is because i just i don't have that wiring are you quite happy to never find out if someone could give you an envelope and say alex here you go the answer's inside here but it's your choice whether you open it or not would you open it well of course if somebody handed me the envelope i would open it yeah um but i'm i'm not searching for that envelope actively uh you know i appreciate that there's a whole uh community of folks who who are and you know if if i have made any statements in these these official interviews at the pentagon at the white house or i'm sorry at the on the hill it's been you know the reason that we should invest in this topic is not necessarily to figure out what i saw on november 14 2004 but to make sure that operators who are are airborne today have a process in place that they have the equipment they need that they have the training they need that they have the mechanism in place to come back and and you know put that report into a system and a channel where it goes into a database or an archive um where where something is is substantially um you know it's not just like oh that was weird because that's how it felt with our encounter like oh that was weird you guys okay yeah all right and then it's like kept going on with the training that we were doing and getting ready to deploy um and instead of saying hey time out you saw what let's let's be you know let's see if we can get some more information or let's launch some more aircraft right now and and take the time um so yeah i really it doesn't keep me up at night and i won't on my deathbed regret not knowing if uh if it takes that long um but i hope that we can we can resolve uh current and future ufo unidentified encounters uh for the sake of national security safety and science that is all for part one part two will be out in the next couple of days you can listen to this episode already in full ad free and with no sponsors for less than the price of a coffee if you head on over to patreon or apple you can subscribe to the podcast for less than the price of a coffee or take up the two weeks free trial that are available on those platforms you can head on over to spotify and search that ufo podcast premium and get access to this episode in full no adverts no sponsorships and also with some extra bonus content as well thanks for listening folks