The UFO Hearings Omnibus: Looking Back Before 2025 (Pt.2)

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 teenaccounts. 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. Hi everyone. Welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and this is part two of the Omnibus Show. Looking back at the hearings since 2022, we're going to kick this one off with Jeremy Corbell discussing the hearing we had just had where he sat front row behind David Grush himself. We hear the fallout and then we move on to the review and breakdown of 2024's hearings. Again, just a reminder, I've got multiple interviews and shows coming up previewing and breaking down the hearing. So please send me any and all questions, thoughts, and opinions over in the coming week via email or use the contact form on the website. Of course, those are all included in the description. Anyways, folks, over to the Omnibus. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy. I am joined on today's show by a returning guest, journalist, researcher, filmmaker, director, co-host of the hugely successful Weaponized Podcast with George Knapp and regular front row attendee of subcommittees on UFOs, Jeremy Corbell. Jeremy, welcome back. Thanks, man. So good to talk with you, Andy. It's so good to talk with somebody who has an opinion and is informed to a high degree in what's going on. Now, your last comment was hilarious. Yes, I know. I don't read social media a lot. It's so just bizarre to me. They do call me the haunt. I get that, you know, but let's demystify that. Why was I sitting there? Why am I always there behind people? Blah, blah, blah. You know, let's really get to ground zero on the UFO topic together today as best we can as people that have never met in person. You know, let's do that on everything. Yeah, no pressure on me, but yeah, we'll get there. So let's start there. So Jeremy, I've got down and peeked behind the actor's curtain. I write basic notes and I've got a line I'm quite proud of here. And it's, without sounding like I'm singing a Barenaked Lady song, it's been one week, but what a week. Do you want to take it from there? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're saying it's been one week since the historic UFO hearings. Is that what you're saying? Man, I am living in the twilight zone. Like just to be absolutely blunt with you, that took an effort beyond human. Like it was like to have that hearing happen, to have it happen concisely with everything that we were up against. It is no secret I helped organize it. It's not some fucking puppeteering Svengali kind of thing. Man, I was just trying to get people to be heard. And I was trying to get people to be heard that have something to say. So two out of those three witnesses are really close friends of mine. I'm really close friends now because we've been through everything together with Commander David Fravor. Really close friends now with David Grush. And they are straight freaking shooters. I'm pretty close with Ryan Graves. And, you know, we talk and that kind of thing. And I am 100% behind what Ryan is doing. But to get those three heroes, those three gentlemen up there, because they're not all whistleblowers. Like that's another thing we should kind of clarify. There was one whistleblower. You had two Top Gun pilots. You know, obviously, Commander Fravor is a senior pilot. He was head of the Black Aces. So commander, you know. But each of those gentlemen up there, whistleblower or not, because the other two aren't, pilots aren't, they did the greatest service for this topic that I can imagine, which is that they under oath, which was a fight. They all wanted to be under oath. I fought, I fought to make sure they were under oath. So did other people, made sure. But to get them up there for the first time in history, where you don't have suits, whose job it is to obfuscate, be uninformed before they go in, to refuse UFO briefings before they testify in front of Congress, like to finally have people with firsthand direct, either eyewitness or I've engaged UFO like Commander Fravor, to someone like David Grush, who has the firsthand experience of finding misappropriation of funds related to UAP reverse engineering and exploitation programs. Oh, he's a firsthand witness for that 100%. And let's dive deeper into that. But here's the deal. To have them under oath, standing there in front of the world in an incredible committee that was bipartisan, you got AOC. And I don't know if people know about American politics. I'm really ignorant. I'm not stupid. I'm ignorant to it. I just don't know all the information. But I could see to have AOC on one side and the UFO truth warrior, Tim Burchett on the other side. And I don't know their politics, but I saw that. And I was like, damn, dude, something big just happened. So I have not had a chance to reflect on what has happened until literally right now. Like this is the first time I'm actually trying to absorb it. It was historic, Andy. It was historic for the world. It was historic for UAP transparency. It was the first of its kind. And it's not going to be the last. There are things in motion right now that are so mind-boggling, and they're going to happen. I've made a promise to myself and some listeners I'm going to try and stop using the phrase, you know, forgetting their politics, because that's something I've said quite a lot. And like yourself, I mean, I'm not based in the US, but I'm ignorant or none the wiser to certain people's politics. And I don't particularly care about their politics either. I'm not a political person. And I just think it's great that people should be able to have differences of opinion on all kinds of matters, and they shouldn't stop talking because of it. And you see people falling out who are friends over these types of things. You've got to disagree because it's the only way people will learn and learn from each other and learn different things, different cultures, different ways of thinking, and then come to either a new way of thinking or working out the best way of thinking. And I think seeing these kind of bipartisan issues coming together, bipartisan folks like this is a huge win for the UFO topic, isn't it? And I think it's been a win for the UFO topic overall this last week. The headlines around the world were grabbed, which was fantastic, at least for a time. I thought there was maybe 48 to 72 hours where it seemed to explode. There was the Thursday, the Friday, the Saturday, I think in the UK, it certainly tailed off. And the United States appeared to have been a bit more positive. I was looking on social media to see, has that stayed through this week's news cycle? Obviously, the Trump stuff blew up because of course it does. That's what happens. Something else comes along. But I wonder, from your vantage point and sitting there front row and seeing this unfold, are you already thinking, how does this momentum stay? How do we keep this going? Man, no. I am so far ahead of that. Like, so I try to, so just, I apologize to your audience. I am tired, man. I have been running so hard and I don't read the news because the second I do that, I start reflecting and other than getting emotional because I'm so excited, I feel like I'm wasting time from what needs to be done. So people will send me screen grabs of like, or links, like you should look at this. You should, you know, see what's going on. And then I'll maybe comment, but I have not opened the news. Like I have screens in my hand, phones, I just don't want to. Like, I don't know if it's waxing or waning. And also, I don't think it should be in the news constantly, constantly, constantly. I think there are other huge issues that we are facing on planet earth that are very terrestrial. Obviously, this is a paradigm shifting, just consensus reality shifting thing. You know, the UFO thing. If it is what it appears to be, or even if it's not, and we should talk about that, the difference, the conspiracy of if this is not right. But it's something that is so, I learned a new word, ontological, ontologically shocking, right? It's such a change to the paradigm of the ecosystem and the fabric of reality that we live in, that I think it should be slow. There should be waves for people to catch up with what's going on. Like if people caught up all at once, right now, it would be too shocking to really understand the basics of life. I mean, that's really where we're at. So one case here, one case there, this person says that, none of that fucking matters. None of it. It's either true or it's not true. The question is, what's true? And that is where we need to get to ground zero and we need to get to consensus reality of what we think is true. And then these varied opinions are so important. That's why I don't, I don't even block people anymore, even if they're vile and hatred and, you know, they want to see me imprisoned, you know, for reporting the news, which I've seen your people will send me those a lot. Like, dude, I don't even give a fuck. Like the honey badger. If you've ever seen that video, it's hilarious. Have you ever seen that video? The honey badger. The honey badger don't give a fuck. You never seen that video? Nah. Oh my Lord. It's one of the funniest comic movies. Make it up. Look that up. It's, I'll send you a link. It's one of the funniest videos ever. I don't give a fuck. Like where I'm at is I'm operating based on a place of, um, action and information. And I am trying to get closer to that truth. Everybody would love to see, I'm sure I'm told, you know, see me fuck up on one thing to try to discredit other things. And, and here's the deal, man. People say, are you living rent free in your head or that's some saying, right? Like, yeah. Yeah. I own the parent corporation that owns the corporation that runs your management company. That's owned by the person that owns the house that I am literally living in, in your head, because here's the deal, man. I don't give one thought, not one thought to just even the, the negative opinion of what's going on. I know what's going on, which is that we're getting closer to the truth. I don't know what that truth is, but isn't that the most important thing is to come to a collective understanding, separating fact from fantasy. So, so that's, um, that's the, that's the mission, man. Now, again, I'm super tired, Andy, but I'm 100% with you. So this is the first time I'm able to unpack this, reflect and talk about specifics. So let's do it. Yeah. Well, let's talk about specifics then. So, uh, David Grush came out as the rock star of these hearings. And that was the general consensus from, to talk down about David Fravor or Ryan Graves. Yeah, they're amazing. These have been well told as well. They've been on huge platforms. Ryan, of course, has his own merged podcast, which is fantastic as well. Um, David Grush, however, you talk about everyone catching up to this at the same time would be too much of a shock for the general populace. And I feel even those of us with an interest in the UFO topic, all of a sudden found herself backing a different horse very quickly and almost in the case in the space of two hours and 20 minutes. It's because David Grush said the things that really caught the imagination and attention of the world's media. Um, first off, sitting so close to the action, you were there, you were, you were right behind him. Your forearm is now famous because it was in shot the whole time. Um, it was, it was just in shot the whole time I was watching it. It was, I was very aware. Yeah. Um, that one. Yeah, that was it. This one? Yeah, yeah. That'll be the one. You, you were kind of there behind David Grush. And as he was talking, what was that like? Because you could not only see David, but you got a peek behind the curtain where his lawyer, Chuck McCullough, was also sitting very close to him, wasn't he as well? And you could hear bits of the conversation or some of the direction that was going on at the time as well. Oh yeah. But that wasn't by accident. So let's demystify that. Why was the bearded guy with four names behind these guys? Okay. Because not only did I nominate them, I educated people on why I thought that they should be the ones that people are heard from. Now it's, it's a nomination. I don't control that. Right. But like Ryan Graves, people need to hear what Ryan Graves has to say. Commander David Fravor, people need to hear what he has to say because he engaged a UFO. We're going to say chased for now, but there's more to it. So he engaged one. And that's a complicated series of thoughts and words that we can get to to understand that. And then David Grush, look, one day people will understand. But, you know, he came to, to George Knapp and, and to me, and I happened to be rolling at that time because he was really worried about his, his self, his physical body. He's worried about himself. Why Chuck is sitting behind David Grush is because that's what we were told was going to happen. Isn't it natural when somebody is, has an active complaint and is represented by a lawyer that that lawyer would be there. So Chuck would say things like, careful, no, careful. Because David Grush just, you know, he's ready to tell the world what it is that he knows, what it is that he thinks, what it is that he saw, and what it is that he did. And he is ready to tell people both hostile and non-hostile, or, you know, I don't know what you call it, but like witnesses that want to talk directly from these reverse engineering UFO programs, exploitation for derivative technology, legacy UFO programs, and so much more. So when we're sitting there, I'll just give it, I'll just give it, I'll just give it a straight, right? Which is that George and I was supposed to testify verbally right there under oath. And we started realizing that there was pushback about this whole thing happening. Notice how David Grush did not get a skiff and it was not because of his clearances. You know, he has clearances, every clearance that you could possibly have, that he could possibly have, he still has and maintains. People need to understand, when you leave government, if you don't maintain that clearance, then your pay grade goes way down. Like, what is this guy going to do? Just the side hustle of real estate, what is he going to do, right? So he has those clearances. So the idea he didn't get a skiff, which is ridiculous to me. But it's absolutely ridiculous. And we're finding out who the specific person was that stopped that because we got questions for him. That's what George and I are doing because George and I have been in skiffs. Like straight up to, to, it's so funny, man. We journalists know more and are more informed than a lot of Senate and Congress and people in position who should know. So, you know, for our country, for the good of our country, but also for the good of the topic, if we can provide the basics, not about sources, but the basics and it's factual and we can prove it. Yeah, yeah. We're going to do that. So the fact that they, and who are they? We can talk about that. But the fact that there was such a struggle to just have your lawyer behind you, I was not fucking having that. That's for sure. So when you see Chuck McCullough there and you see him behind David Grush, it's because he represents him legally. And it's because he, Compass Rose did not drop, did not drop David Grush. In fact, and I think that's public through the BBC thing. And if not, you should probably cut this out until they announce it. But I think it's announced. Chuck McCullough is his lawyer, dude. He stuck with him and there's probably a really good reason why, because Chuck McCullough, for people that don't know, is the intelligence community inspector general former, which means this is a guy who's the cops against the intelligence community. Or not against, but for, we'll say for the intelligence community. This dude, Chuck McCullough, should have been sitting right behind him so his client could hear him. And that was an issue? No, dude, wasn't having it. And why you got George Knapp scrunched, do you see him all scrunched up there? Yeah. It's because we had to move people to your visual left to make sure that the lawyer that needs to protect David Grush from saying something that would then compromise the active investigation, by the way, into him. But also, the active investigation he started, the one with his ICIG whistleblower complaint under the presidential PPD-19 Act, or whatever the hell it is. So, man, I am so, like, I was so furious that that was like a thing we had to fight for. And why you see nobody next to me, besides there were reserved seats for witnesses, is probably because people should be and are quite afraid that I might bite their head off, which is true at that point. I mean, come on, man. You know, we're sitting in a room where people need to do what they need to do, and they're risking their personal safety for it. Straight up, one guy in there was risking his personal well-being for it. And so, yeah, you got to have the fucking lawyer behind you. So that's, anyway, I'm sorry, I get fired up, but that's why we were there. So, luckily, I don't know if people know this yet, but George and I did submit congressional testimony that was put onto congressional record. Did you know that? Tim Bershett, at the start of the hearing, that was on video, he mentions, I've got statements from Jeremy Corbell, George Knapp. These are going into record, and yes, that's what I was going to come to. Those statements haven't been widely reported on. Do you want to talk about those now, then? Sure, we can talk about those. I think that they're additive to what you guys saw. I think the important thing was that David Grush, Commander Fravor, and Lieutenant Graves were sitting there and were telling the world publicly what they knew. That's the important part. I almost slipped and said Underwood because, you know, he was somebody, you know, we were thinking about in that, you know, Commander Chad Underwood was the man that actually filmed the Tic Tac UFO. But, you know, he's kind of told you what you needed to hear about that. He's provided the world an explanation of the leaked footage. So that's why I kind of was slipping there because there was a lot of people. I'll tell you this before I tell you about our statements. I had, with George, two people that have direct firsthand knowledge of the legacy UFO programs who are high up in government from or worked with agencies that didn't testify. But they were on like a yes trajectory and that got sabotaged. It got sabotaged in a way that I hope one day the world can hear. So before I talk about what George and I submitted, let's talk about what we didn't submit. George Knapp had, I'll just say, 140 page plus document that he wanted to make public. And protect me if I don't protect myself because my brain is scrambled. Man, I'm just like tired. But George said that. It is true. We were in a room. We tried to submit it. He tried to submit it because he obtained it. You know, multiple sources, that kind of thing. And it details a lot of stuff scientifically about the Tic Tac UFO that we thought the world should know. And we thought it was safe to do so. Everything was good. And George really quickly got the message that if that was done, that sources would be burned. Pensions would be pulled. That, you know, if we can't find out who, George, do protect your sources, then we're going to go after everybody. Now, that was the most shocking, first most shocking moment that I had is watching George Knapp protect his sources in real time because we wanted to give an unclassified, he wanted to give an unclassified document on public record. So I just want people to know what was not submitted. And George Knapp is the only person that can tell you the rest of that story. He's the only person. So you should get him to do that for you. If you can ask George to check his email inbox, he's got about three from me from the last week. So I'll get back to you after we finish recording on this, Jeremy. George Knapp is the hardest person for most people to contact. And it's not because he's cagey, although he can be cagey. It's because the amount of stuff that comes at us, we have to prioritize. Right now, what's important right now? What's the strongest punch that we can throw to get closer to the truth right now? So don't take personal offense, man. And it's not an excuse that someone's busy. Oh, I never did. Because it's just our emails and unfortunately now my new secret number, the phone is like a Vegas slot machine at midnight. There's just no way. There's no way. I have not opened emails since before the hearing. So I can understand George now. But yeah, yeah. Anyway. And Jeremy, you're a busy guy. And it's only taken me a further nine months since I last asked you to come back on. So it's been really quick. A really quick process. I'm so sorry, brother. I'm grateful for you. And yeah, it's hard to find time because we all need time for our puppies who are sitting by me and our wives and our families. And, you know, the things that are truly important. So it's hard to find that time now to get to your point because I'll go on strange tangents because I'm so tired. What did we submit? One thing before that, because you mentioned, and this is relevant to what you said about people who, two witnesses potentially coming on. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when I spoke to Tim Bershett two weeks ago now, you were very kind to come on the end of that one with us at the time. Yeah, that must, that'll seem like a lifetime ago now, I'm sure. Tim Bershett mentioned trying to get someone from NASA on board to speak at the hearing. Is that something that you'll have been aware of given your involvement? And again, is that something that fell by the wayside and just never got over the line? So I am puzzled by a few things that happened. Let's just say a few, right? I am puzzled by it. And, you know, I'm thinking maybe I'll just post about it and like talk a little bit about NASA. I understand it. We're all on the same team. I don't want to, you'll notice, besides my little memo to Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick the other day on social, like I don't talk shit about people. I just, I don't have the time. It's a waste of my time. If people can't figure it out, who the bad actors are, if people can't figure it out, who's got an agenda that's not about truth, you know, I'm just asking questions. If people can't figure that out, that's not my problem. But when you talk about NASA and you're asking a specific question, do I know what went down? Yeah, to a high degree, for sure. I was, you know, very involved with the organization of attempting to get people heard. I want to give you some off the cuff comments about that. Okay. So it's just off the cuff. It is puzzling to me that NASA, with an extraordinary durational amount of high fidelity, I'll say data, because it's not just visual, but it is visual. And some of it is classified and some of it is unclassified from my understanding. But let's just say high quality, high fidelity data, NASA, that they have this big thing where they say, we're going to get into this. And they have all these scientists who are on that board. And you know what I'm talking about, that public event? Yeah. And it was like, oh my gosh, people are so mean to us. We just, we're doing this and we're getting hate comments. And I'm like, yo, NASA, welcome to the world of weaponized, extraordinary beliefs. Like, yeah, man, we do need to de-stigmatize it. So if you watched that presentation by NASA, which was probably months ago now, you're like, yeah, like, welcome. The water is not warm. Like the stigma is real and you are now experiencing that. And we're not going to listen to your complaints. You have not been doing your job. You have been asleep at the wheel. And I am not talking about the people that were on that panel who are probably some of them righteous people who want to look at the UAP or UFO phenomenon. We need them. We need them. But just this idea that they were pushing transparency so much and they were pushing de-stigmatization, if you listened, so much, but that their rejection of being part of this hearing, ooh, it might be about UFOs. Ooh, that might look bad for us scientists. You're doing it to your fucking self. What are you doing? So whoever says that, you know, they didn't participate because of X, Y, or Z. No, they're wrong. That was pure stigma. But also tell you something else. That NASA panel does not have access to anything classified. So what are they doing? Looking at TikTok videos? Now, they have high-fidelity, high-quality data and information. But if you keep that classified or if you repurpose satellites from NASA to look at the UFO phenomenon with specific algorithms that will help clarify so you don't have to look through everything, even if you use that on the historical stuff NASA has, oh, my gosh, you got everything right there. So this idea that NASA didn't participate, I'm glad. They're not ready. They're like karate kid at the beginning. Like, wax on, wax off, go clean some cars. You better get yourself ready if you want to participate on something like that opportunity that was just created. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah, I had a Dr. Nadia Drake on who's part of that panel and her father's Francis Drake equation fame. Dude, he taught it where I taught jiu-jitsu and went to college, UC Santa Cruz. Professor Drake, man, he was there. That's so cool. So, and do you know what? She was lovely. And it was quite divisive, an episode, because I think many folks have misunderstood what that NASA panel was originally set out to do. And it's probably going to underwhelm for a lot of folks that they've expected it to be about, let's go find the UAP videos. And it never was. It was all about how could we study if there's something there to study. And there's folks expecting this report to come out and say, here's the videos. And like you say, they never had access to it anyway. I got the feeling from Nadia, she didn't really have an interest in UFO, UAP anyway around that. And it was very much about the scientific study. And I feel there's a huge disconnect from what Bill Nelson's interest is in the subject. And it comes across as very, I'm all about UAP. He's been in briefings. We know that from his previous role. He knows a lot more shit than those scientists do. But hold on, let me pause you. That doesn't seem to filter, though. Let me pause you. I want you to finish, but we need the scientists. We need to encourage them to look at this. Now, a lot of them, because of the stigma, even though they're saying we shouldn't have stigma or trying to reduce it, they'll be like, oh, it's not really about UAP. It's about flight safety of pilots and that kind of thing. Bull fucking shit. It's about UAP. Now, the question is, are you woman enough? Are you man enough to jump in there and put your egotistical, hubristic concepts that are dinosauric, are you ready to put those aside? Because the evidence will teach you otherwise. And are you willing to stop being a careerist? And are you willing to look at the data that is provided to you? And are you willing to fight for the data that already exists from multiple platforms and sensor systems that, by the way, you own and operate off of our taxpayer dollars? Are you willing to do what's right? That is what those scientists at NASA should be asking themselves. Without even saying the word UFO, without even saying extraterrestrial or, God forbid, the word alien or even non-human intelligence, put all that aside. Are you willing to be a scientist, Mr. or Mrs. Scientist? That's the question. I feel, though, it's a bit like if I give 20 fishermen a huge pond to fish in and I remove all the fish and then tell them what's the best way to fish this pond, never mind what's going to be in it. They're going to come back a little bit. Well, I can give you some rough ideas, but yeah, forget the fish. They'll be there eventually. But that's what it seems it was a little bit like. And actually, some of those fishermen aren't particularly interested in fish either. So that's the way it kind of came across. Are all, are all, you're Scottish? Yeah. Are all Scots, is that how you say all Scots? Yeah, yeah. Are all Scots as good at like parables and metaphors and allegories as you? No, just me. Yeah. Dude, I used to think like, it's so funny, man. My buddy's Greek and this dude is a mystic. His name is Asimachus Pagidas and he's like really my, one of my best, best friends. And he and my, my buddy Mikey side and Mikey I've known since I was three. And he used to tease me about the UFO thing. Cause he's in Harvard educated, read the classics kind of guy, you know? No, but he's just taking the piss out of me. He's super funny. But these guys are so extraordinary. I used to think like Greek, all Greeks must be like my friend. Like all of them must be like my friend, like some mystic guy, right? Turns out, no, he's just a weirdo. So maybe you're just a weirdo, you know? 100%. Yeah. I'll take that. I'll take that label. Listen, we're being too nice to each other. Let's get back to the meat and potatoes of this. Cause you're probably saying shut up you guys and get on with it. There's a lot to talk about. And you mentioned. I'll answer directly. What do you want? We're going right back to your statements because we sidetracked from it. So what is the importance of you and George Knapp submitting statements? What was the crux of what those statements said and why are they there? Sure. So what I tried to do was I tried to provide an estimate of the situation from the best of my knowledge where I'm standing right now, what I think to be true, what I know is true and what we should be aiming for and a warning if you read the last of it. So what I tried to do was encapsulate what the public is, is wondering, thinking, and knowing, and try to put that in a form that anybody can read throughout history and say in 2023, without getting into any specific cases, I would like to just say, this is where a lot of us are at. That's what I did. George Knapp, he broke it down. He got as specific as was proper in a congressional submission that is going on to congressional record. And he talked about ASAP. He talked about the term ATIP. He talked about his relationship with Harry Reid, if I recall all this, right? He really tried to throw down, and very specifically, he tried to say, this ain't new. I broke the story a long time ago. There was another government with classified documents that I smuggled out of Russia that basically said, UFOs are real. We've been studying. And by the way, we know you're studying. We know how many satellites you got in America back in, this is like the 90s, I believe. What was it? 90s. We know what you've been doing. We know about Roswell. We know about all of this. And so he brought those classified documents back to the United States during Glasnost and perestroika when the country was falling, as we know it, and there was a sense of openness and optimism. So he put all that in his congressional statement to kind of highlight and pinpoint, this is not new. We are not the only government that's been doing this generationally. This is important. And there you go. So yeah, look, man, there were five witnesses there. And, and, and George and I were two of them and we did our best to present that in a historic form where people could absorb it, take it, run with it, report on it, dig into it. That's what we did. And I'm, I'm real honored that we were in the position to be able to even sit there. I can't believe people let me into rooms a lot of the time. You know, I'm like the inspector Crusoe of UFOs, man. I don't really know what I'm doing, but I'm doing my best and that's the best I can do. So that was a cool thing. That's what we dropped. Those were the statements. I think a lot of folks just assume, Jeremy, you turn up and just managed to get their front row. But I think the, the, what you gave us earlier, that context behind it makes a lot of sense and also the placement of Chuck and how difficult that was for, for him to, I'm saying Chuck, I don't know the guy, Mr. McCullough, he worked hard enough to deserve that respect. You mentioned something I was going to ask later, but you've kind of brought it up. So let's just jump all over. For foreign governments and particularly adversarial governments as they are at the moment, do you know at all, are they being asked in press settings about any of what's going on right now in the U.S.? We see on, on the news bikes that I see on social media, the White House and they have their press call and the guys will put their hand up and see what's happening. Tim Brashett's been all over the news. Anna Polina Luna has been all over the news. All kinds of politicians have, it's big news in the United States. It was for a few weeks and it still is now. Is there no, China famously very secretive, Russia has a lot on its plate currently, but are they not asking, you know, the guys in the U.S. are talking about UFOs right now. What do we know about these? Or is that just not on the radar as far as you're aware? Yeah, I need as a journalist to walk a really fine line right here, but here's the deal. They're hyper aware. And as you, okay, you know that, that I have spoken with people in Canadian government because I could directly report they are highly aware of the Five Eyes Alliance and the Five Eyes Foreign Materials Program. And that, I didn't pull that out of thin air, right? So I can attest to you that I've spoken with people in positions to make a difference in Canada. What the farthest I can go right now is saying within the allied nations that, oh yeah, like they're aware, like there are policymakers who call me and want to know. Is this thing something we should model or follow after? I mean, just, it's just an opinion from a bearded guy with four names, right? This is just an opinion, but I'm, I'm happy to give other government, uh, individuals who have position to influence the level of transparency regarding the UAP UFO presence on planet earth. That is ubiquitous around the globe, durationally, generationally, which has an uptick, which has an increased frequency, not just because our sensor systems are better, but because there actually is, I am happy to provide an informed opinion on how they can replicate what we're doing here in the U.S. But you have to understand the country you're sitting in right now, UK, there is a much bigger stigma socially. And you know that, but people, I think in our country, in the U.S., that they need to know that. So there are some things which are share with five eyes. There's some things that are no share, you know, with anybody. So other countries are looking with bated breath. They are watching this to see one, are we going to get caught with our pants down? We don't want to lose trust from our citizens. And you saw that in that actual letter from Larry McGuire, MP in Canada, just read it. He's saying we should get ahead of this because we don't want to lose trust with our people, with our countrymen, right? Yeah. A lot of nations are feeling that way because they realize that shit is coming out. So that's one thing. And then the other thing is people don't want to be excluded and they don't like being lied to. And there's been a lot of that. So we got to get to a ground zero on are UFOs real? Are we doing reverse engineering on them? Has that been occurring for a long time? Has that been hidden from public and other government institutions? And if so, has it been illegal? And if that's true, what would change? My dad used to say something. He used to say, don't be surprised when people act in character. And that works for governments too. So if there's something that's been done illegally before, do you think that's going to stop now? The censorship, the pressure, you know what everybody wants? Everybody wants to, for Dave Grush to be slaughtered. These, these people involved want Dave Grush slaughtered because if he's slaughtered, then all the people, the legions of people lined up to tell you what's up, they'll take that message and they'll run, they'll run away. So everybody's watching right now. How is David Grush as an American patriot who is a whistleblower? How is he being treated? What's going to happen to him? And he knows that he knows he's on the line, but he is a symbol. What we did was a symbol. It was permission. It gave permission to people holding one of the biggest secrets of human existence, gave permission if David Grush is handled with respect and honor and they look into what he said and try to verify or try to disprove what he said. And from a hundred different directions, I think people maybe don't understand. I listen to a lot of radio and just the tone of a newsreader and the way one single question is asked, just the inflection they put on the final word can really make or break how a story is perceived by the listener. And I think especially in an audio format, and that's why I'm such a big podcast fan. It's a much more powerful medium, I think, still than TV. David Grush was on BBC Four World News last night, along with Chuck McCullough, although you may not know that given how short the piece was. It was about four minutes long. The newsreader, I felt, came across a little bit derisory, a lot of hesitancy, lack of knowledge, lack of context. I imagine the questions were given to them by a producer who's gone and researched it very quickly. Why do you think, and how do we get to the point, before we get back to hearings and stuff, that David Grush, given his impeccable credentials, which he has, starts to be taken seriously by that sort of mainstream media? I mean, Jeremy, I've never been to Canada, but I've seen enough and know it that exists because enough people have told me and I've seen enough about it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So what is the specific question? Because I have a hundred things running through my mind to tell you. Like an organization like the BBC gets to speak to David Grush and his lawyer. They spend four minutes asking him not very much, and it still comes across rather mockingly and derisory. And I think a million people hearing that, I think, turn that off and say, well, nothing to this and move on. How does that change? Yeah, that's a shame. But so let's talk about that on a few levels. First of all, David Grush is not running around trying to make a living off the UFO thing, like quite the opposite. Like he's trying to be strategic in, here's what I know, how do we get that forward within government in the appropriate ways, but also to the American people. That's what a whistleblower is, right? So probably in, I'm going to say probably, but like I talk to them all the time, like obviously they think BBC is like a big deal. Well, sure. That's great. That's great. But if they don't know, like you're saying, and that's unfortunate, I haven't heard it, haven't been able to hear that, but don't blame the BBC. Don't, you know, don't blame the producer. Don't blame the anchor or whatever you call it on radio. Like everybody is catching up. It's like that movie, don't look up. And all of a sudden people can see it now, right? The object in the sky, if you know that movie. So we have to be kind of very patient if we've been into this and, you know, been on the news and in the news and making the news and trying to decipher it. We have to be really patient with people because everybody is, most people are doing the best they can do. That is so unfortunate to hear that the BBC didn't have good questions because you give me 30 seconds to ask Dave Grush questions publicly, like me and George Knapp. Oh, you're going to learn more in that 30 seconds than you have since you've heard his name. Because I know what I can ask, what he can answer. And, you know, George and I have vetted him before anybody. You know, we know for a fact that he is who he says he is, that he did what he said he did, that he saw and heard and has direct, certain types of direct firsthand knowledge that he did. So I don't know, to answer that question, just be patient with everybody. Everybody's catching up. These producers have the hardest job on planet earth. I know because they call and text all the time, man, they're trying to throw stuff together in real time and there's stuff breaking all the time. So I hope that answers your question. Just have patience with everybody and every opinion, unless they start lying to you, unless they publicly try to harass people for a false agenda. And unless they are pushing something they know is incorrect, just to get attention. Those people I have no, no time for done because this is too important to fuck around. I think I've been pleasant and nice for long enough on this interview, Jeremy, and I said to you, I do my very best to be positive. This is a huge win for the UFO topic, the UFO community, for folks like George Knapp who have gone back 30, 40 years on this topic. Ross Coulter, Bryce Abel, Jeremy Corbell, and all the others who have done a lot of work. I've got a concern coming out of the hearing and you can address this for me. I'm a David Grush and I sit there and I tell people live on TV that I have given the names and locations of basically where the spacecraft are, the crashed craft and materials, the biologics to the IG and they can go and find this stuff. Now I've given names and locations at that point, do those locations not have the time to then move that material? Surely by the time anyone gets there, it's gone. And I would imagine the power that these folks have, they would find out that they're being come after well before David Grush even makes that statement live on TV. Is that fair? I'm going to ask you a question. Who has David Grush, if he knows this information, who has he told it to? So I would imagine he's told it to the inspector general when he made his complaint and he's had that filing. I don't know, has he mentioned it in any sort of committee before he spoke to Congress or has he kept that completely to himself? And this is really the first time anyone's hearing it outside the IG. Let's clarify. Let's clarify. So David Grush can tell anybody that information if they have the proper clearance and they have the ability to hear him. So did you notice when he said in Congress a bunch, he's like, yeah, if you have the proper authorities and whatever, I'll immediately give you all that information. So I really want to be careful here. So your audience understands David Grush has done everything by the book. He has never disclosed information that was classified or even sensitive coming close to that, to any journalist or to anybody. He shouldn't. That's what I respect about him. So with that information that you now have, that he has done things by the book, the question is who can he tell? And he was extremely clear with who can he tell, which is anybody that will listen, that has clearance and that has authority to be able to hear it legally. So with that said, I cannot report to you who David Grush has told, but what I can tell you is that the people in the right setting in with the right clearance, who he has told found it credible. They found it urgent and in fact have verified through their own investigation, because it's an open investigation, that what he said is correct. Now, your point is more about like, okay, so the public's going to know, the companies are going to know. If the companies know, we'll call them companies. It could be agencies. It could be contractors. Could they just move it? Yeah, of course. So you have to be strategic, right? And some things are hard to move. I'm not going any further on that, but I'm just saying some things are hard to move. So with that said, the cat is out of the bag and we are trying to get to a point where there's actionable intelligence and where that action gets taken by the authority that should take that action and not by authority that shouldn't, right? So to your point, to be very, very, very clear, and by the way, man, I am, whatever you want to talk about, let's clarify for everybody, okay? So when it comes to can they move it, fuck yeah, they can move some stuff. Of course, they have directly threatened people. That's what you heard him testify to. Believe it or not, it's true. So yeah, that can happen, but there are measures in place to try to make this so that if something's moved, there's record of it, if something's changed, there's notification of that, you know, there are people looking and watching with a microscope and how you know that, let me just give you something concrete and solid. How you know that, that amendment that was put forward, are you aware of the recent amendment that was put forward? And the legislation? Yeah, you're aware of that. Okay, cool. So your audience that's not, does that look like an uninformed piece of legislation? No. Right. So beyond a shadow of a doubt, people have been proven to that what is being sought actually exists. So then you do legislation to do it right. Read between the fucking lines, man. You know, not you, not you. I'm sorry. No, no, no. Not you, buddy. For your audience. I'm going to cut that out and make it look like you said that to me. No, I won't. My concern, to pinpoint in on it, Jeremy, and this might get a little bit conspiratorial, but I mean, this is what we're talking about, is imagine in a setting three weeks ago, David Grush speaks to three individuals in a room who have the right clearance to hear what he has to say. And he says to them, you know, we'll call them Jeremy, George and Dave. And he says, okay, here's the names and locations of what I know and where it is. And my concern is those are the right people. David Grush has done this by the book. He's an incredibly intelligent guy. He knows exactly what he's doing three steps ahead by the looks of it. I think, though, that given how deep this goes and this cover-up goes, that one of those individuals potentially goes, that's really interesting. You know, thank you, Mr. Grush. We'll take that on board and we're going to action this. Steps outside and makes a phone call to their friend at Agency A or Lockheed B, whatever you want to call it, and says, just so you know, we have this gentleman's just informed us. They're looking to come to you. You've got a few days to maybe get some stuff moved. And what you're saying is that could happen. Stuff could be moved, but not everything can be moved. Right. We'll leave it there on everything can be moved thing. But yeah, so check it out, man. Fact, I am told when people go into sensitive meetings, I am told what happens in those meetings. I'm just a journalist. So it is fact that that occurs when you have a private meeting, that it is not private. So we're talking about a higher level of that. And you might want to look at something I posted recently on Twitter where I was kind of pissed. I never talked shit about people openly to try to shame them in some way, unless there's a reason. And you see, I said something about Dr. Kirkpatrick. And the reason I said that is because I have direct knowledge. And I mean, I don't think that's a hidden. I have direct knowledge and people come to me about certain things. And oh, yeah, man. If you look at his emotional letter that he wrote kind of against the hearings and against people coming forward to testify, like Commander David Fravor, right? First of all, he didn't even know the difference between a whistleblower and a Top Gun pilot. And that letter was illegal on many levels. And let me tell you why. I won't get into legal stuff. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know enough now. But you – so premise for your audience. Okay. You've got a government organization that you're supposed to trust and I'm supposed to like send people to? Like that's what they're telling people to do is like send them through that channel. And they're supposed to protect whistleblowers. And you've got Rubio on TV who's a badass, by the way, right? And he's like, I am concerned because people are concerned for their personal safety. Did you hear that? How he said we're taking this seriously because people are concerned. They are concerned about their personal safety. So he's like doing it right. Rubio, man, doing it right. Keep going, buddy. Don't stop. Okay. But check it out. You've got somebody who's running this program that's supposed to be absorbing testimony from witnesses. And he goes up there and speaks with his mouth in his nice little suit. And he's saying shit that I know is smack in the face to what he's directly been testified to and I would dare to say proven to about certain things. And then he writes this statement that's like derogatory and uninformed about the people that came forward in a professional setting. And he's supposed to be absorbing those testimonies. Oh, first of all, that's illegal under the, I think it's called the Thatch Act or Hatch Act, whatever it is. And then more than that, morally, your moral basic compass. How can you have somebody being derogatory towards people that are saying with impeccable careers that say, this is what I've done for my country for decades. And this is what I'm telling you. Why would you write a letter like that? And you're saying, oh, I'm not talking for my organization. I'm talking for myself. Oh, come on. You can't sit there as a government employee and say that your personal opinion is separate and put that out publicly. I'm sorry, dude. I am pissed. I'm not letting that go. It's bullshit. And people should investigate that from a legal standpoint and take action on that. Because that is a bad actor. That is bad. If you watch any of my weaponized episodes, I'm always the one being like to George. I'm like, oh, it's cool. Don't worry about it. It's cool. You know, we're going to get there. Let's have trust. Let's have, oh, no, I'm past that, buddy. You're on my radar. Straight up on my radar. And I got a big ass mouth. So there you go. You got a little bit of it. But there's other people that are going to handle that. There's other people that are going to look at the illegalities of saying things out of school and doing things out of school. That letter to me read like a letter from someone who knows he's on the way out. And it's the death throes of someone in a role that they know is they're biding their time. Either they want to go and it's a let go of me letter or they're just kind of kicking the furniture over on the way out. But good. Get out of there. Because we have people that actually are patriots and people that actually serve the country and people that actually know that the American public not only has a right to know, but has a need to know. So, yeah, whatever, man. I'm sorry. You know, cut that out if you want. But it makes me pissed. I never cut anything out that I'm not asked to. Man, it makes me pissed. It makes me pissed because people have put their lives on the line to say what they believe is true. Now, if you don't believe them, that's fine. Let's do the investigation. You know, it's like people calling for me to be, you know, locked up or something for being a journalist. Well, clearly, you don't know what journalism is. And clearly, you don't understand shield law. And clearly, you don't understand that George and I get everything how we get it from multiple, multiple, multiple, multiple, multiple sources. And we vet it. And we do our damned best. And we fight for people. So, look, man, I'm just saying everybody's going to target the bullshit. And if you listen to the bullshit, then you're going to be lost. There's a much bigger thing happening. So, I embrace that. Let's go. Let's go into court. Let's talk about it. Ask me a question you don't want me to answer. So, anyway, man, when it comes to people like David Grush and the other gentlemen standing, of course, sitting there. But David Grush, like, you know, he's putting his ass on the line. I want you all to know that. And he's doing it for you, not for himself. I'm going to ask you one of those questions you don't want to answer. Because you've mentioned something twice before. And I think this is what you're getting at when you say you can't see it anymore. Ross Coulter, not too long ago, mentioned being aware of a UFO that was found outside of the United States. And it was so big, they had to build around it. And I don't know if that's what you were alluding to when you mentioned previously. But things that are so big, they can't be moved. And it would be remiss of me to ask, what are your thoughts on that? And do you know much more about it? Sure. I know a lot about that story. You know, of course, I think that's out of school, though. You know, that's something that I've never, you know, kind of had an indication that that's something, you know, for the good of the American public. If it's true, there's probably classifications around it. So I wouldn't talk about that publicly. I think that's talking out of school. Now, is it true? I have no idea, buddy. Like, I just straight up, I have no idea. You know, for that to be true, I'd have to go physically there. That's kind of the type of reporting I like to do, is, you know, knock on the door. And, you know, so I don't know. I don't want to contribute to, one, mystifying something that doesn't need to be mystified and sensationalized. And, two, I don't want to report on something that has not been directly been like, this is not in confidence. You know, so, like, sure, I know all about that. But, like, the question is, is that what's important right now? What's important right now? What's important is what we can go physically touch and prove and knock on those doors and kick in those doors. So I'm not trying to evade you. I'm just like, I ain't talking about that. Something I think you will talk about, because you've touched on it a few times, is those witnesses who may come forward in future. And I think this will be the kind of thing you're probably working on already, given it sounds like what you are trying to do as part of this hearing alone as well. So, and I want to know, and I'm coming at this as a, it's very much speculation, and that's how I think we can talk around this anyway. If I'm someone who worked on a legacy UFO program, and what we're talking about is crash retrievals, I have worked on bits of or an intact craft. What can I come forward in that sort of setting that we've just seen and realistically see? Yeah, so you, if you, so if I understand your question, if there are fucking legions of people that have direct firsthand knowledge, that have kind of felt out what's going on, they've realized that there is a major criminal element to this. And let's just pretend that they very thoughtfully, very thoughtfully spoke because maybe they're in active agencies, organizations, contractors, that their clearances, their livelihood, all of this is important to them because they're human beings. And they very thoughtfully, and they very thoughtfully, and collectively and non-collectively spoke with people, then I would advise them directly to hold a beat, to wait a second, to figure out who you can trust. And then say what you can say to those where you are being a patriotic American, if you're in America, and if you're outside, then to your country and inform people that would have actionable ability on what you're saying to protect you. That's what I would do if, if that was me. Now, with that said, I wouldn't go to a politician. I would not trust Arrow, straight up. Sorry to report that. I would be careful which journalist you decide to speak with to protect you. I would choose the ones that consistently have not broken the stories that they've had before other people. And also, I would choose the journalists that haven't told your friends' stories yet, if you know about that. That's what I would do. Or I'd find somebody completely separate who would have the power to put it all out all at once real quick. You know, I would also say maybe, very simply, you know, somebody like, actually, I can't say that because I don't know. I don't really know if I can trust that person. So I would just be really careful who you trust if it's actual information. And I would do it in the most gentle way possible, but be aggressive in getting in contact with those people now. Because the world is changing. There's things that are going to happen where people are going to be heard. And it's way better if you protect yourself before. If it was me or my brother or my family, I would say, yeah, protect yourself, but get ahead of it. Are we past the point now of, for a long time, it seems like myself and others in the UFO community have waited for a new video, the extended version of the gimbal video, more tic-tac videos to come out. Are we past that being something we should be waiting on? And is this the new road to go down? No. I think that there are great high-fidelity videos that do not compromise national security with what's in the background of those videos. Of craft of unknown origin, unknown to the United States government, unknown to China, unknown to Russia, unknown to any technologically advanced nation that I am aware of. That definitively prove and show that this phenomenon can be seen and recorded. I, in fact, know with 100% unambiguous certainty that those videos do exist. And I know that journalists can be sent anything as long as it's not clearly marked that they shouldn't. And I know that there's numerous individuals that are trying to get more out, but trying to make sure they can keep getting them out and that they don't compromise or hurt. But most importantly, like, let's say we're in America, national security in America. Now, with that said, let me bring you down a notch from what your mind is doing right now. Which is that no one video, even if it's filmed by our military, and even if it does show one of these crafts that can do things that we don't quite yet understand from the laws of physics as we understand them, which need to be redefined. No one piece of footage or video, even if it was other sensor reconnaissance platforms above 80,000 feet in space satellite systems that would be classified, even if you have that, which people have said they've seen. I know Christopher Mellon said that he has seen satellite, you know, visuals. Yep. Okay. And I know other people, I think Ratcliffe said something about, you know, that we pick these up on satellites, which is a very loose term. No one piece of footage, Andy, like if I've seen one piece of footage and I'm like, oh, that's it. That's it. That's the one, you know, throw that out. Doesn't matter. Let's go. This is bigger than anything. It doesn't work like that. It's the preposterous preponderance of evidence and information and sensors and data and collaboration and corroboration that is the weight, that is the power of trying to understand what we think the UAP presence represents to humanity on planet Earth. What we think it represents. Back to that UFO podcast. My name is Andy and looking at the hearings from the last week, I've got Dan joining me for a bit of a random ranty chaotic one. I think Dan, we're going to go through the hearings first and we'll do it in reverse order. Okay. Because the newest one was fresh and I've literally just watched it this morning. Dan, I think you watched it last night. It took me all of 30 minutes to watch the full thing as it did everyone else. So on the 19th of November, Dan, we've had a hearing this time in the Senate with one witness, Dr. John T. Kuzlowski, who is the director of Arrow, taking over for Sean Kirkpatrick. Arrow is the Pentagon DOD's UFO office for anyone newer to the subject wondering what Arrow is. And this is the guy who is running it for them. Basically, Dan, it started in 2022. It's not had the best reputation, has it? It's had a couple of reports come out. It has not been well received. It's not really done much or accomplished much. And I would say either for or against the UFO topic, whatever it's trying to do as of yet. Is that fair enough? Yeah, it's been fairly neutral, hasn't it? It's kind of come in. It's been a bumpy road. Dr. Kirkpatrick, the previous director, hasn't really won anyone over. And its remit has been to investigate UFOs, or UAPs, as they call them now, as well as look at the historical reports and all of these reports coming in from whistleblowers and witnesses. And they've been, I would say, not so successful on that front in breeding a trusting ground. So this hearing had a lot riding on it. I feel like they wanted to convince the public that they turned over a new leaf, they could be trusted now, and that whistleblowers should speak to them. So I've seen really mixed reactions. I've not been online too much since last night or yesterday at all, right? But did it come across a little bit, like you've said, almost preachy that it wasn't there to debunk or prove anything again? But it was like a, give us a chance, spoiler alert, Dan, but the message for me was, witnesses, please come forward and speak to us, even if you've spoken to us before. We are not the guys who were here last time. And that's, I know we're going to get into detail, but that was the big takeaway for me. Like, please speak to us again. Yeah, kind of gave off a rebranding vibe, right? Yeah. Whether it's going to be Coke Zero or New Coke, how when they changed the recipe and it was the same thing and everyone hated it and so on and so forth. Or Crystal Pepsi, because that was more transparent. Crystal Pepsi. Yeah. Nice. I like it. I like it. Yeah. Definitely, there was an era of trying to convince people they were being a bit more transparent about things now. And there were some statements in this that we'll get into that were interesting to compare to a media roundtable that Dr. Kozlowski did when the Arab report was released a few days back, where reporters actually followed up on the questions or statements about the anomalous stuff. So we'll compare and contrast as we go. So Kozlowski has a background in optics research, crypto mathematics, physics, engineering and whatnot. So, again, as you would expect in that sort of position in any government, pretty lofty in terms of his academic background qualifications. The guy knows what he's talking about. It's a hard one to put anyone in, I think, in terms of do they know what they're talking about in terms of UFOs? Because who could you say literally does? You'd just be guessing when you're surmising that this would be the right person or that would be the right person because largely this is an unknown. Yeah, exactly. How do you talk about something that we don't know what it is? Who's the most qualified to study something that we don't know what it is? If you're looking for a good striker, then you've got qualities that you look for in a good striker, right, versus a defensive football player. But when it comes to this stuff, we don't know what we're dealing with. So who is the best to deal with it? So he seems very qualified, but it could end up that someone who's really good at growing with crayons is the best to identify UAP or something. We just don't know. Would you have anyone else in there? Is there someone, though, you would think just from the exposure to the subject that you know of, you would think actually this might be a good person? Or is it a case of you're better going with an unknown quantity? I like that they've gone with an unknown quantity because it means that their involvement with the UFO stuff previously is limited. And as we all know, it's a really muddy water, right? So I like that there's someone neutral there. I like that it's someone data driven. I just think that before, because Dr. Kirkpatrick was similar, right? He had great qualifications, very data driven. But there was an arrogance and condescension about the way he approached it. Whereas you look at some investigators in history that turned around. Dr. Hynek of Project Blue Book was famously skittish on the UFO stuff, but eventually came around to believing, oh, there's actually something crazy here. You want someone that at the very least is open to the possibility of anomalous things being around. As for who I picked to go in there, I honestly wouldn't want to choose because I've been in the UFO subject for God knows how long, almost 40 years now. So, yeah, I wouldn't want to choose. You know, I want someone neutral, someone that hadn't touched this before to give a good objective overview of everything. Yeah, I think I definitely did. And I don't know if you you probably went along the same lines at the time when Sean Kirkpatrick came in. We both said, you know, it's good again that someone's neutral, new to the subject. But I suppose you're just hoping they're not coming in with a remit already given to them from behind the scenes. Yeah. You don't want someone sitting directly over the right shoulder, Dan, the whole time watching them doing what they're doing, do you? Right. How did you feel about that, by the way? So for anyone that hasn't watched, Andy's referencing that Susan Goff, the Pentagon spokesperson, was sat in frame just to the right of Dr. Koslowski. Susan Goff was accused in the other hearings of being someone with a, you know, psychological warfare background. And she was just there giving side eye the whole time. Certain moments, it almost felt like John was looking over his shoulder a little bit nervous, just wary that he was being watched, you know, didn't do any favors. I got big Ghostbusters 2 vibes. You know, you've got Vigo, the Carpathian, and the big painting, for those who may not remember, who just stares at you and you think it's Sigourney Weaver, famously says, it's like he's following me around the room. I felt whenever I was watching it, I was watching Koslowski and the camera, you know, was on him. She would, like you see, she was always in frame. So that must be deliberate by her design or someone else's. And I just felt whenever I looked away from him, she was looking at me and judging me. Yeah, she looked into the camera a few times, I swear. And it was really unnerving. And she didn't move her head to look at John either. She just moved her eyes. So it just felt really kind of uncanny valley. And at certain points in this, I almost wanted, you know, either Gillibrand or Ernst to just say, like, what are you doing here? Like, why are you here? Go sit in the Rose Gallery. Just move. Like, we're talking to John. Go away. Yeah. And listen, I actually tried with George Knapp to mention, and I think I've probably said the same before to you, Dan, that I don't know how much with the Susan Goff stuff is a bit of conspiracy or easy pickings to be like, well, that's her job and she's there. So she's one of the bad guys and this kind of stuff doesn't help with people like me trying to think reasonably and logically and going, wait a minute, are we getting a bit too conspiratorial with this? Because there she was again. Yeah, right, man. Yeah, absolutely. Almost just hovering in the background like a spook. It's just really imposing. And I think it's fair for people to be asking, is she kind of a puppet master here? Like, what's going on? Like, I understand that she controls messaging for the Pentagon, the DOD, and Arrow, but at the same time, I don't know why she was there. I just don't. Bad enough if she was there in general or gets the rumour mill going. But like you say, to be in frame the entire time was just weird. So you mentioned, Dan, it was chaired by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who many folks will know from the UAP topic. It's been a bit of a roller coaster for her publicly, I think, if you're involved. And I bet she's got very little idea at all as to how she's thought about in the UFO community. And everyone has this opinion of her. And it's kind of been really positive, then really negative, and then a bit indifferent, and then mixed. And the other senator was Joni Ernst, who was beside her. It was a pretty quiet affair, wasn't it? The room was pretty empty. Most of the chairs were empty. I think I noticed Nick Gold at the back of the room. Yeah, Nick Gold was there. I messaged him. I was like, I see you. You're on TV. And he said, I can't message you back. Susan Goff's giving me into trouble. Yeah, right. But yeah, so if anyone else is there, well done for getting in. But it looked like a pretty quiet affair. So in this hearing, Kirsten Gillibrand wanted to probe why UAP, and I'm paraphrasing loads here, folks. I'm taking notes on my phone, why UAP are infiltrating bases such as Langley and other sensitive airspace. That seemed to be her big thing here. She talks about GoFast and other cases having been resolved, and we're going to talk about those as Kozlowski talks about them. She hopes individuals come forward with Arrow under new leadership. So yeah, like you said, Dan, you're spot on when you said about rebranding. This hearing, again, I'm jumping to the end here, didn't move things forward. It didn't move things back for me either. It's just kind of treading water. However, Arrow's still in a poor place, as it has been, but they're basically saying, come on, you can trust us this time. Yeah, that's what I got from Gillibrand's opening statement. And then Ernst basically came in and said, you know, we have to ask if these technologies are foreign adversarial technology, i.e. China or Russia, or I liked her phrasing of unknown scientific phenomena that will challenge our current understanding. And I thought that was pretty fair from her. She used a very, very short amount of time really well. So what's your thoughts on that kind of phrasing? Yeah, I mean, I love the phrasing. I love that they lent into the anomalous stuff here a bit more. Gillibrand, I was disappointed in for a real specific reason. She started off talking about, she mentioned GoFast, TicTac, Gimbal. She said there was public interest about those cases and that she wanted to hear more about them. We didn't hear more about TicTac and Gimbal during the hearing. And there was just no follow-up, no follow-up, excuse me. And it just led me to kind of felt, it felt like a sleepy affair. You know, if that was because it was just quieter in the room than the other hearing that we'll talk about or what. But it was almost like Susan Goff had slipped her some sleeping tablets in the closed session before. And I think a lot of the criticism of this, particularly hearing, can be kind of pinned on the fact that usually they do open hearings and then they'll go into a closed-door meeting about stuff. Here, it was the other way around. They had that closed-door meeting and then this was kind of just a public showing. It felt like pre-arranged talking points, like people just kind of getting through things that they'd agreed to talk about. There were some positives. We had the line trotted out, again, no evidence of extraterrestrial life there. So, again, very specific statement. We're not talking about non-human intelligence there. We're talking about extraterrestrials. John did say, yes. He said verifiable evidence. Verifiable, yes. And this is where I was going to go with it. It's kind of thread in the needle, right? What is verifiable evidence of ET? Do they need to see an alien holding a clock in today's newspaper whilst going back to their planet and being tracked? Can we even track them in that way? So, I would have liked to see some follow-up on stuff like that where when he said verifiable, they said, well, what do you mean? What would verifiable look like to you? How are you doing this? Can I ask you on that then? Do you think, in the closed-door session, where they can maybe speak a bit more openly but also speculate without fear of the public hearing or ridicule, that perhaps in that setting, a Kozlowski would say to Gillibrand and Ernst, we've got reason to believe that a small percentage of these cases are potentially non-human? And by that, I mean alien, extraterrestrial, or something that we don't understand. Do you think that's likely to happen there so it's easier to then trot out into the public setting and say, right now we're just going to go with no verifiable evidence of ET? Yeah, it's a language game, right? People will watch or hear that statement and the skeptics will run with, there are no ET, you're all a bunch of idiots. And the believers will run with, ah, he threaded the needle and he's not talking about non-human intelligence. In a way, I feel that's almost more dangerous than just kind of doing the speculation in public. We want to hear the senators following up with these questions and to hear that little bit of speculation there. And then it's the media's job to kind of talk about that in a sensible way. To not say, if he says we have reason to believe, like you said, then that's not confirmation. It's not denial. It kind of leaves us in the same place. But there's none of this just stupid wangly language around it that people just sit there second-guessing and going, ah, they're not trustworthy. Yeah. Did you feel the senators, only two of them speaking, were far less aggressive with their questioning or following up than the Congress folk were? And I wonder, again, is that down to, like you say, though, quite rightly, that they've had the closed session first. So what I would imagine would be the good stuff. And I don't mean they're talking about where these things come from, et cetera. So just there's probably a little bit more openness in there. And then this is a session they kind of have to have, whereas Congress are having that big open session, trying to get something to piece together for a skiff, potentially. We'll get to all that and not getting anywhere. So like you say, that maybe speaks to the fact that you say, Dan, it was more laid back a little bit by the numbers, almost skipping over. Like they've had like an hour long session to do, we can do this in half an hour, let's just hit the key points. Yeah, it definitely feels like it was 4.30 p.m. their time. So it definitely had an era of, oh, come on, I've got to pick up the kids from school. And they just kind of got through the answers and you made a joke about it only being half hour. When it finished, I literally wrote in my notes, like, is that it? That's just all we got. Okay, sure. No worries then. I think I saw you comment on the Discord or on Twitter. I'm sure I'd seen you'd made some kind of what, is that it? See, on Kozlovsky's statement you mentioned as well, Dan, he said by his nature, he's kind of drawn to tough scientific problems. I like that. I'm probably going to be more positive with this than some people think, but only because I don't think there was a whole lot to it. I'm just trying to be, okay, let's look at the good points. Like you, I'm very much on the, if it's a rebranding, you have to give it some semblance of a chance because they're only asking really for one thing from this. So, yeah, like we said, it doesn't need to be a UFO guy, just someone who's open to whatever this might be. I don't feel Kirkpatrick was ever open to that ET hypothesis. At least feel, and again, when I saw the negative comments and then watched the hearing, Ernst and Gillibrand and Kozlovsky at least seem open to, we don't know what some of this stuff is. And it could be something like Ernst said about that kind of scientific phenomena we don't understand. Yeah, absolutely. Do you mind if I read, it's kind of a lengthy little bit, but it was from the media roundtable after the Arrow report was released a few days back. And the journalist just kept following up when Kozlovsky was talking about the anomalous stuff. And I felt it was richer than what was kind of said in the hearing, but these are direct quotes from him. He said, it's definitely not all just drones and UAS. So we have several particularly interesting cases we're working with within the office, working with our partners to downgrade several of those cases so we can talk about them publicly. But there are interesting cases that I, with my physics and engineering background and time in the IC, the intelligence community, I do not understand. And I don't know anybody else that understands them either. So of these cases I'm thinking of, there's a variety of them. The cases at the top of my head are spread out over the last year and a half. I'm sure there's some other anomalous ones a little further back too. Please hold the line, it's all tight to connect you. There is some video footage for a few of the cases, not all of the cases. So it's not just eyewitnesses. But in each of the cases I'm particularly interested in, there were multiple eyewitnesses. And there's additional data to go with them. It remains to be seen whether or not that additional data is going to be sufficient for us to either resolve the case, understand whether it's a UAV bird or balloon, or say something substantive about the nature of unknown phenomena. The cases I'm thinking of, there was no commonality across the different cases. There were different morphologies. So orbs, cylinders, triangles. In one of the cases, it's been happening over an extended period of time. And it is possible that there's multiple things happening. There could be some UAV activity in the environment that's getting confused or conflated with UAP activity. So we're trying to tease that out right now. We're going to be hosting a declassification workshop so we can make sure we're implementing the best practices from across the DOD and the IC. All of that takes more time than I think the public would like for its take, but we're working on it. We recognize that the types of cases that I was just talking about are, from my perspective, true anomalies. And we're going to need significant scientific rigor to address those. And yes, the US government has a lot of nice scientists, a little bias there, but we're going to need the help of academia and the public to address some of these. So we need to build that more transparent partnership. I thought that was a wonderful statement. And it would have been, if that had been read during the hearing, especially that bit with me and my engineering background and IC experience, I cannot explain these and I don't know anyone who can. He just seems much more open there talking about the anomalous cases and willing to share them with the public to engage the public on this anomalous stuff. Because after all, there's the all domain anomaly resolution office. That's what their job is. They're meant to be looking at the anomalous stuff. So I was really heartened by that statement. And as much as I was down on the hearing last night, that statement is almost a 180 degree turn from where Kirkpatrick was when he was in charge of Arrow. So I don't know. I'm a little bullish on it. Was disappointed in the hearing, not because of Koslowski, but mostly because a lot of what I just read out wasn't really present there. But he did speak about three anomalous cases, right? Just before you get to those. Sure. The hearing lacked much content, and I think that's probably why some people might be frustrated. Some people just might not like in general what was said, which is fair. But I just felt it was very empty. He did say within the hearing, to your statement you've read there, Arrow does not believe every object is a bird or balloon and is making attempts to resolve cases. And I was like, yeah, again, fair comment. Like they're saying the opposite of the old debunker one that we're not saying everything is a bird or a balloon. There is some really interesting stuff. Just before he got to the cases, he mentioned the trend charts, Dan. And I thought it was interesting. He mentioned they've got data, and he showed some slides from 96 to 2024. And he says that sensor placement has caused a bias in reporting, which they're hoping to resolve by 2025, maybe next June. He said most reporting happens between 15,000 and 25,000 feet, as that's where most of these sensors are, whether that's an aircraft in the air or some kind of balloon they have or spy system they've got up and running, whatever it might be, unmanned aerial vehicle. They will have unmanned drones that are sensor systems in the sky. And he says that's where most of these things are. So straight away, there's a bias that a lot of the data they are getting is from a very specific region. So if you want to look at ARO, potentially looking at USOs under the water, then they're not getting much data from that because it's not being reported. They've not got the sensor system access. What they do have access to is a very specific range. Again, you can go above that and look at things in low Earth orbit or atmosphere or in space. They're not getting the access to this stuff that they need, or they just don't have the sensor data required. So I thought that was, again, a fair thing and something for people to be mindful of that. Yeah. That is a bit of transparency from his point of view, I feel. I'll always put the asterisks unless he is lying. But, you know, I'm taking his word and face value there. And I saw, I'm just going to throw in there, I saw a few people saying, well, he didn't take an oath, he could have lied. You don't have to take an oath in Congress. Like, it's the same whether you lie in front of Congress or not. So the oath is really performative. Mike Gold, in the other hearing, did the Vulcan salute during his oath, which I'm sure some people would be like, yeah, it doesn't count then, does it? And I said the same thing. I was like, you can be so precious and protective about your own country, and this goes for anyone, no matter where you live. But swearing on a Bible, doing an oath, promising you won't lie, under perjury or whatever, I'm sorry, given what's being discussed, and the secretive nature of it, and all this compartmentalization, the rumors that people have died for the UAP subject or UFO topic, you know, have been unalived, as the kids call it, online. Someone going under oath doesn't really make a difference to me, because I don't think they're being any more or less honest just because they're quote-unquote under oath. So yeah, like you say, it doesn't make a difference to me. Yeah. About fun camera is extremely off-putting and ominous. I think that's a good summary. It was about that point. I didn't notice her at first, and then as it went on, I was like, yeah, she was really off-putting. So should we talk about the cases that were shared? There were six that were shared. There were three resolve cases and three anomalous cases. The resolve cases is the well-known Aguadilla, Puerto Rico case, where John said that they're fairly sure that what they're actually seeing is a mix of kind of parallax, making something close to the camera look like it's going faster than it is. And that when it splits in the water and disappears, that actually the object is matching the temperature of the water behind it. Then we have GoFast, which they go with the parallax thing. They say that there's a paper on their website and people can check their math, which I like that comment because all of their work should be transparent. People should be able to, just like it's fundamental science that you do peer review, people should be able to check your work in, agree with you, disagree with you. So I would like to see more of that from them, especially with this Aguadilla one as well, because I know there'll be a lot of objections about that one out there, especially with the idea that it matches the temperature of the water behind it when that didn't happen until that particular moment, even though the object's been over water for, I don't know, like 10, 20 seconds in the video by that point. Am I wrong, though? Did he not say that they don't think the object was ever over the water and always remained over the airport? Was that not his comment, though, within the video? So the appearance of the object being over the water is wrong? That's what I took from something he said. Yeah, sure. And yeah, either way, he's saying that it matches the background temperature, basically, of the water, and that's why it appears to disappear. And there were multiple objects, and we've just seen, because of our vantage point, one up until that point, and there could be a few balloons strung together and stuff like that. I think that one will be the hardest for people to swallow. Like I said, the GoFast one, cool, put up a peer review on the website, let people have at it. The academia stuff, working with academia to solve these things, I liked. And then there was a video that we haven't seen before from Mount Etna, where a UAP appears to go through the plume of the volcano, which, again, is said to be a parallax issue and also the temperature issue, that actually this UAP wasn't near the volcano at all. And it just appeared to pass through the plume of the volcano. You know, I haven't seen that video before, so it was nice to see something new, whether it was resolved or not. I was like, fair, there's a little transparency there, and it's all relative to what Dr. Kirkpatrick gave us. So how do you feel about them saying these videos are close to being resolved, slashed, we think they are resolved, as opposed to actually having resolved them? In science, you don't deal with absolutes, you deal with percentages. So there's a system called a sigma system, and you'll get like four sigma, five sigma, and so on and so forth. And they're all levels of certainty. Once you reach about six, they're pretty damn certain that that's what they're dealing with. But they'll never say, we absolutely know that this is happening, because there's always the chance that they could be wrong. So they always leave the wiggle room. Someone I spoke to last week was even saying in their institution where they work at, I'm fairly sure they said it was CERN, like whenever they read a paper, they have these sessions where they just call poking hole sessions, where everyone will get together in a room, and they'll just poke holes in the paper. And that's part and parcel of what that process is. No one gets offended. You mean they don't literally sit with a paper? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, just literally poking holes. So it's part and parcel of this to do that. So, yeah, I'm just hoping for more transparency on that front from Arrow, because certainly Dr. Kirkpatrick never showed his workings. And we also don't know who the people are analyzing this stuff. With peer-reviewed papers, it's a no-no to be, you can publish them anonymously, but it's a no-no, because then who do you email to disagree with, right? And have the debate and say, oh, you could do this, and give them new ideas to shore up their work. So, yeah, we need to know who is behind these review panels that Arrow is using. I was disappointed that they weren't more transparent about that during these hearings. Sidebar, Dan. Okay, so, Aguadea, fair enough. I think some of those videos that came out, was that one of the DHS ones, Department of Homeland Security videos? It was, I can't remember, it was, I mean, it was ages ago that this one came out. We did have a DHS drop not too long ago. Yeah. So, whatever it was, it's similar to, like, the Bruja, like, the Witch Ones and stuff like that, okay, and the Rubber Duck videos, I think, in terms of they came out in that sense, right? These names are hilarious. Anyone listening who hasn't seen the Rubber Duck video, it's like, what? Okay, so, they could be various different things. I am all for them putting this stuff out and there being genuine scientific reasons as to why people who know far more than I do, and you're better with this stuff than me, I'll always give you that credit. But still, I mean, not an authority on anything, right? But then you've got other folks who can go and look at the math and should be able to go, yeah, based on what they've put out here in these numbers, it's pretty likely it's nothing spectacular. And it's just a video that has had stories attached to it that has ingrown arms and legs. You know, GoFast, we've always looked at it as, oh, look, that's one of the tic-tac objects that's been caught. The video itself is from 2016, January 2016. And that, for me, they're saying the object is actually at 13,000 feet above the water and not above the surface of the water, which is what the video makes it look like. Again, this video, there's rumors that it makes a right-angled turn. I think Ryan Graves has commented on this already on various news outlets as well. So it seems there are people coming out and saying from that one that the idea that it's something more prosaic, higher up, they don't agree with. Again, you're then battling, well, we need all the data versus the testimony and the stories. So there might be a bit of an issue with that one. Could that one, though, potentially be damaging to folks who have always pinned disclosure or progress on GoFast, Gimbal, tic-tac? Because you put those three together and all of a sudden, if one of them drops off as being, you know, debunked, which for me, I think for you, Dan, you'd be like, yeah, fair enough. That's fine. But I think for a lot of folks, they may then package the three together and go, well, if that one was bullshit, then the other two could be or might be as well. Yeah, I think that's fair. We've said often that the progress in 2017 that we've kind of seen snowball and become the key rings that we've had this week and last year all come from those three videos and the reports that happened. So if you could rug pull those three videos, then a lot of the public interest would go away. And it's a shame because there's so much more here. GoFast is a wonderful little microcosm of it because Ryan Graves rightly pointed out in his comments about this that all of the analysis of GoFast focus on the object being the solution being parallax and that it's not actually going that fast. Ryan Graves correctly points out, well, you're only combating the name of the video there. You're just proving that it's not going fast. We still don't know what that object is. We didn't know what it was when we were out there. It wasn't the only object. There were a whole series of events that went on around that time, including Gimbal, which wasn't mentioned, even though Gillibrand said she wanted it mentioned and didn't follow up. So it kind of, there's a possibility in me, always got to hold those things in this community of, yeah, okay, sure, that one object might not be very interesting. But what about these wider series of events for which we've been told that there's radar video of these things? Ryan has produced mock-ups of what that looked like, of the Gimbal being followed by multiple objects that were in an arrow formation and that Gimbal was darting around and made sudden movements and things like that. I want to see them dive into these things wholesale instead of just combating a name of the video that the pilots didn't even give it. You know, we all associate the audio with that video of the pilots going, woohoo, look at that thing go. Oh my God, did you just get a target lock? And it's been correctly pointed out many times that there's no proof that that audio is from that event. Might be, can't say. But when the DoD confirmed that the video was a UAP and released it, there was no audio with it. So focusing on the object's speed is kind of a misdirect to me. So like, yeah, great, cool. It's not going that fast. What is it? You know? Yeah. Yeah. No, that's fair. I just wonder if there was going to be an easy win for debunkers or let's just go full conspiracy here. If Susan Goff really wanted to damage the UFO, UAP community and a lot of folks who are newer to the subject. And like you quite rightly say, those three videos have made the biggest impact on a lot of folks to get involved. And that's what a lot of the news channels play over and over again whenever now they talk about UFOs in the US. If you could discredit all three in a short period of time, then that would go a hell of a way to putting that genie back in the bottle, whether people like it or not. I agree with you. It really would. And because the ambiguity is kind of the God in the gaps is where people live. Right. And if you can close those gaps, then a lot of the interest goes away, even though there's all this other stuff going on. So, yeah, before we get to the three cases, just I've got some chronological notes. Gillibrand says that individuals have been reluctant to engage with others have come forward and said they've spoken to Arrow and Arrow said they haven't spoken to them. It's been a bit of a mess. Kuzlowski says they have reached out to folks who, again, have already spoken to Arrow and they want them to come back and talk if they didn't feel they were listened to or they didn't feel comfortable the first time round. Or if they just didn't want to speak to Arrow at all, again, they've kind of put the, they've opened the door and said, please come in and speak to us. Which is kind of throwing Kirkpatrick under the bus, right? In his approach. Yeah, 100%. It might not be, but I would agree with you that that's the way it looks to me as well. I just think it's going to, people aren't going to be happy either way because I see loads of folks saying, okay, Arrow's done, it's bullshit, it's gone. We were both there at that point, I think, as well, where there was no coming back for it. But I think the reputation has never been lower, like we've said, but are you in a place, Dan, where you think under Kuzlowski and Gillibrand even? I don't think she came across desperate, but I think she seemed to be appealing to people to really give this a chance. And let's be fair, and Dan, please tell me if I'm wrong, a lot of what Arrow could do and folks like Gillibrand, and this is going to include the other hearing as well that we've not even got to yet, the best work it can do and the most progress we can get, the public won't see or hear. Yeah, I would agree with that. It's all going to be behind closed doors, and this is something that I wanted to talk about on this show anyway, because when we look at people like Lou, Schellenberger, Tim, Gallaudet, and Graves, and Fravor, and all these other people that are kind of coming forward. Michael, now, I could spend ages just reading off the names. They're not asking for full open kimono disclosure. They're not asking for the U.S. government to tell us every single thing that they know. They're asking for specific things to let us know that we are not alone so that we can start doing as a public what we will do with that. We don't need to know that the U.S. has maybe got certain sensors that can detect these things and so on and so forth. There's going to be stuff that they want to keep back for national security reasons. So we're kind of in this weird arm wrestle, right, where we're supporting senators who want a little bit of disclosure, but expecting full disclosure at the same time. And there's a clash and a tension there, I think. And this is why people are clamoring for whistleblowers, because whistleblowers will naturally kind of tell us more than the establishment wants us to know. So we've got to be mindful of that. What my disclosure is isn't what Kozlowski's disclosure is. And there was a great moment during this hearing where Lou Elizondo is quoted as saying UAPs are real in the other hearing. And Kozlowski says, yeah, they are. And then he kind of goes more into, well, there are anomalous things in the sky that we don't know and we've got to study them and so on and so forth. But just those two statements, Lou and Kozlowski agree and UAP are real, turn the clock back 20 years and imagine a whistleblower and the U.S. government saying, yeah, UFOs are real. It's shattering. That's disclosure to many people. But it doesn't mean that we're necessarily going to get everything aside from that. Gillibrand and the Gang of Eight and all the other senators are going to know more than us about this stuff and be privy to more because they have classification levels that we as members of the public do not have. There was a little telling thing here as well, which Gillibrand said that since the 40s to now, there have been so many unresolved cases over 75 years and the U.S. government have been very interested in taking it seriously, which is amazing to hear her say. When you go back through history and you look at the U.S. government's attitude towards people reporting UAPs, it has not been to take it seriously. It has been to downplay, to stigmatize, to tell them they're crazy, to tell them they're hallucinating, to go, oh, you drink too much. There's famous post-cognac hallucinations. It has not been as forthcoming. That was a phrase I think it was Bryce Stable used it. I was going to say, I loved it. That's really telling, isn't it? It's to someone's stat. Post-cognac hallucinations. Post-cognac. I think people will largely hate that statement. I don't think it's entirely unfair. I just don't think she worded it particularly well because you've got someone there sitting representing almost the highest level of U.S. government saying, the government has loved this subject for decades. Look how much work we've done. And it's like, yeah, but the pharmaceutical companies have loved drugs for decades. Look at all the good they've done. Yeah, but also look at the other side of that as well. Like you said, she mentions 40s right through Dan to now, mentioning that the March report didn't downplay the subject that Aril put out. And it's just highlighting how much work is being done. And the part I thought was relevant was fair. She said the report was put together by a group who had no access to firsthand reporting or information. Which, again, was fair. Transitional time, that's been a problem with Aril from the beginning. It's always seemed to be transitional or something else happening or something interrupting. Aril needs transparency. Well, it needs that. It needs consistency at least so you can apportion, blame, or praise either way on the right people doing the right work. Because right now, from Aril's point of view, Aril is John Kozlowski. Yes. Aril's not just John Kozlowski though. However, that's the face of it. So I thought she was right in some ways, but I think largely that statement won't hit home. Because it sounds like someone representing the government saying, come on, look how much good work we've done and you're not being fair on us. And you're spot on, Dan, when you say that, yeah, let's talk about all the shit you've done the other way that hasn't been particularly good or fair in that sense. Yeah, it kind of felt like whitewashing. And I think you'll spot on there about the report as well, that it was a bunch of people without really many resources kind of doing things. And we kind of have an equivalent on the other side of the fence as well, where Schellenberger, in the other hearing, was part of his open testimony, opening statement, sorry, submitted a document. There was about 200 pages long, that was essentially a member of the public's version of that historical report. And it is not perfect either. There are people mentioned in there, like David Adair, who is, he's the affable Forrest Gump of the UFO community, where he's just been anywhere and everywhere and involved in every case and so on and so forth, because he's just a doting, lovely old man. And people don't like to kind of step to him when he's saying these things, because he's seen as harmless. And there are a lot of other things in there that which are questionable. But also, there's some really good stuff in there. So I think those two reports almost need to have a baby. But where do you even start with stuff like that? Because we don't have the info. We've just got what's on the internet, right? And I don't think I need to tell anyone or convince anyone that the internet's full of shit. Yeah. Do you know what it's a bit like, Dan? And I'm going to come up with this right off the top of my head. So imagine I tasked you with going around all the major fast food chains, and they need to come up with, like, the ultimate burger, right? And people are going to hate my pronunciation of burger, they don't know, but that's the way I say it. And you need to go to KFC, McDonald's, Subway, I'll throw in some US ones, like Wendy's, Hungry Jack's in the US. Chick-Chack, In-N-Out. So all these different places, right? And they've all got their own secret recipes. And you need to try and pull them all together to get all the best ingredients they've got each and make the ultimate burger. How easy do you think you're going to find it? Yeah, exactly. Not at all, right? That's what a lot of these common men and women, yep. And senators, even at those high levels, I feel are trying to do with the UFO subject, but they're having to go to all these little fast food chains slash governmental compartments and get all their best secrets and bring them all together for this, like, puzzle we always talk about and go, right, here are loads of different pieces, here's what we can do. And they're not getting that at all. What they're getting largely is someone saying, here's a Happy Meal, crack on, enjoy your day. And that's not what they want. They want the secrets off, don't they? Yeah. So I get why it's frustrating as well from their point of view. You were going to bring on, up, Dan, the three cases then, which Kozlowski talks about? Oh, yeah, that's right. Just before I do that, I just wanted to, one of the quotes that stood out to me that was just before that, Kozlowski said, we don't have domain awareness, we don't have domain superiority. If there are any conspiracy theories about this whole UFO thing that think it's for something, one of the major benefits of looking for UFOs and plugging holes in the defensive gap is that the U.S. gets better air superiority out of this, so domain superiority. So they look for more, they'll see more. This is what happened with the Chinese spy balloon and all of those other incursions. They bothered to look. They switched the filters off instead of just looking for what they expected to find. So, yeah, the three cases that John spoke about. One was law enforcement, a member of law enforcement, observed a large orange orb, went to investigate as he pulled up to the area. He saw a black object about the size of a Prius. It turned kind of a 45-degree angle and shot up vertically. It was silent. It emitted a bright red and blue light, which illuminated his car as bright as if it was fireworks. That one, he kind of said that they might have a resolution on it. We're curious to what that might be because that sounds nuts, right? Me too, yeah. I thought that one was a little bit odd because, like you say, he gives us a really interesting anecdote and then says, but it may be on its way to being resolved. And I was like, unless he comes out and says, it's aliens, that was the resolution. Yeah, the resolution is truly anomalous. Fair enough. Then the other one was that there was a U.S. facility. Two cars were leaving it about 9 a.m. They saw a large, I wasn't sure if he said silk or slick, but it was a metallic cylinder that was stationary in the sky. There was a bright white, they might be describing like the... It's like the softest sounding UFO I've ever heard of. Oh, it was silk. Oh, nice. Like, velour. Yeah, there was a bright white light behind the object and then they both disappeared. Fairly anomalous. We hear about these cigars and cylinders and stuff in U.S. at World all the time. So nice, good. Tic-tacs, yeah. I like that he's being open about that one. Then there was another one. The last one he mentioned was that there were aircraft that were flying parallel to each other, kind of taking imagery of one of the aircraft and a small looking object flew between the planes. He also said that this one was close to being resolved and that the object actually might have been further away than not between them. But again, I want to see the work in. Let everyone see your work in. If you have confidence in your resolution, show everyone the work in and let's get to the science. Right. How did you feel about this then, Dan? Because what I've got here, put it this way, I'll read my exact note for this, right? For everything you have just said, here's my note. Talks about three cases. First is an orb case, may have been resolved. Just some interesting anecdotes. Felt pointless. Don't know what it was. If this was an attempt to try and sound like they weren't being dismissive, I don't know. Because for me, he's given us three cases, all anecdotal, which is great depending on the setting. But like you say, you've got the Senate talking to the head of arrow here. So I feel if John Kozlowski is coming on to that UFO podcast or whoever's podcast, Joe Rogan's podcast and sharing anecdotes, fine. When you're sitting in front of the Senate and you're sharing some stories, far less impactful. But when you're sharing three stories of which two of them you claim, by the way, they were probably something prosaic or explainable. So straight away for me, you're sharing one story that's an anecdote. Yeah, sure. I don't know how I felt about that. Again, does that go down to what you said before, Dan? Which I never clicked until you said it. It felt a bit rushed. It felt a bit pushed, forced. That let's hoi it in if it was trying to be, you know, if it's going back to that statement that he made previously about, you know, not every UAP is a bird or a drone. It could be something really interesting. Great. I felt that landed a bit flat just for me. Yeah, I totally agree. It was, I found that I enjoyed it relative to what Kirkpatrick did. And not because it was some big bar jumped where I was like, oh, yeah, great. They're definitely talking about anomalous stuff. This is where it would have been great to see cases with video evidence that were anomalous. He did go on to say that he wants to be able to declassify the anomalous stuff so he can share it. Which was good. Thumbs up. Which was good. Yep. Thumbs up there. But clearly hadn't been done for the hearings. It's the anomaly resolution office. Let's get some anomalies. You know, like, show us the anomalies. Show us your methods and workings. And, you know, this was the meat that I wanted from this hearing that just wasn't there. It felt like fluff and back patting for a job kind of half done. Jerry Maguire, show me the money, but show me the anomalies. I like that. You're shouting down the phone with Kirsten Gillibrand on the other one. Coming soon. Yeah, coming soon. I'm with you on that one. I think Senator Ernst at this point had asked, has Arrow involved academia or outside organizations? And it's work in research, alluding to are they using universities, professors, and their capabilities, their research facilities to look into this, which is a great point. Kozlowski says it lacks partnerships with universities, largely down to that need to declassify, Dan, which you have said. And when they can't hand data to professors, that's an issue. Yeah. Again, leading to that point where you see they're trying to get more stuff declassified to give them it. But that's a great point. In the community, we know Gary Nolan as a very well-respected, Nobel-nominated immunologist working on the UFO topic. There are thousands of Gary Nolans out there. But the issue is there are so many of them that must be being approached and they're asking for data and it's like, we can't give you 99% of what you need or what you want. That must be such either a disheartening thing or it's just a waste of their time because they're like, well, I'm not going to get involved. And I'm as busy as I am. I'm a professor at whatever university. And you're also asking me to do this. Then, no, I can't do office spots. I thought that was interesting. And again, for me, it reeks that to that whole thing of this hearing will only prove useful if there's an impact from it down the line. And I feel we're not going to get that until into 2025 if we get a follow-up next year as to how we got more academic support. Has that declassification workshop stuff kicked off that there has been more declassifications? That should then hopefully come to the public as well. Do you have more universities getting involved? Have we had more follow-up on the report? Have we seen more video evidence? Have we had the debunks firmly affirmed that this is what it was and why? People being able to access that data online, Dan, you talk about to look at the working. All of that, for me, would then look back on this to say, okay, something came of that. An arrow kicked on. If in a year's time, and this might sound like I'm going to repeat myself when we talk about the next hearing, that nothing's come of it. Then that's a bit of a damp squib and it's just resetting every single year to the same point. Yeah, I would agree with that. There was a little bit here about public submissions because they spoke about sensor bias, right? And they're deploying their Gremlin system, which is in areas where UAP is sited, and they can kind of find what a normal baseline is for activity, and then they can compare it better to the anomalous stuff. But he went into saying the system they have for submissions, they're going to open to the public next year. That's really great. That's a good forward step. They're going to need more than like five to ten people working in an arrow once the public starts submitting things. I was also a bit perturbed by the fact that they said we've been looking on cell phone apps and stuff in ways that people can submit these things. But we've decided that it's safer and cheaper for people to download a PDF and email it with imagery and video, which is it safer to do that? I'm not sure it is. And how many people are going to be inclined to download a PDF, fill it out with printing as an intermediary step there maybe, and then submit it? That's friction there. You want to make it as easy as possible. You want something that looks like the Enigma app. I know there are problems around their privacy and government kind of ties there, but the government are clearly not using this app because they've decided that PDFs are better. So that was a little weird. Good that they're opening it to the public. Bad that there's such a process full of friction that will probably make people go to the website and just sack it off, even reporting it. I kind of gave you my closing statement just before, Dan, so I don't have a whole lot left to say on this particular hearing if you want to wrap up on it. The only thing I would add is that this morning, Senator Gillibrand announced that she was giving the... Ascapol. Bringing out from Ascapol, props to Matt Maslow. Just open that up. Senator Gillibrand brought out a bill that gives the Pentagon authority to shoot down UAPs and drones on US soil. She says, an object that doesn't do anything, it's not showing hostile intent, but it's a huge national security breach. And so we want to update the law to say that this is a huge national security breach and we may take them down on that basis alone. This is really talking about the Langley kind of incidents that have been going on where there have been quadcopters and things like that sighted over Langley for hours, just flying over sensitive facilities that they want to take out. What worries me in this is that she's saying, shoot at any potential anomalous stuff that kind of comes along. Like, don't shoot alien crap. Like, imagine a local comes down and he wants to make peace with us and he's there kind of like, I bring peace and love. And then we're just firing missiles at him. Like, it's not a good first step. So, again, Dan, for me, it was the lesser of the two hearings. When I spoke to Tim Burchett, he quite honestly said, after the first hearing we're about to talk about, that people like himself don't have the power or influence to really get the information they need. George Knapp and others have said the same. Brian Bender, when I spoke to him, that interview is not out yet, but will be next week. He said the same thing, that it really has to be Senate level and above to really have the big guns, pardon the pun, to pull progress into this topic from a political point of view. And it seems like it's still relatively lighthearted what's happening here in terms of them kind of kicking down the doors. For me, Dan, next year we get a follow up in 12 months time and it's Gillibrad, Ernst and whoever else sitting there. And it's Kozlowski and we're in the same place again. Then I think you can kind of close the door on Arrow completely. I think you probably have to say 12 months to see what he does in this office. But again, in 12 months time, if he's gone, we've got someone else in and we're having the same conversation and it's Arrow and it's another director and they're still looking to declassify, then I think you have to look elsewhere. Not that I'm expecting anything to come from there anyway, but I know some folks maybe still are holding on to maybe Arrow can do something. If my energy bar for Arrow and optimism was like 100 to 0, I think it was already down at like 10 or 5 anyway. It's probably hovering still about 5. I don't think it's moved up at all. The bar's almost empty. Rating this hearing, what, you'd like two UFOs out of 10 for this one? Yeah, probably. I was going to try and say no three, but yeah, probably two. I think so. Low energy. I was disappointed that there weren't more people engaged, especially after the one we're about to talk about. And yeah, I just, I want to see more. I want to see action. I want to see change. 12 months before I just start railing against them. They will know I hit them with a low number of Twitter followers. Dan, for some folks, this will be the end of part one slash our toilet break. I feel that we're going to go long, given that it's been an hour. If you've listened this far, if you're on the paid feed, you'll hear the full thing all the way through. Speak to you soon. Dan, I will see you in just a moment. See you in a moment. Hi, folks. Some of you may be joining us for part two. Some of you may be carrying on from the first part because you're on the paid platforms. Dan is still with me. We are looking at the other hearing now, Dan, in the second part. And I've got some listener questions to finish off with. We are going to go through the hearing that was from November 13th, 2024. 11.30 a.m. Eastern time. This was held by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, co-chaired by Representative Nancy Mace and Representative Glenn Grossman. We're going backwards on this one. And, Dan, you've just made the point. I'll let you do it because you made it. We were just chatting before we hit unpause there. And we were talking about the fact that with the previous hearing with Arrow, I'd watched it live and got annoyed about it. Then in hindsight, it's a bit more neutral. Andy didn't watch it live. It's very neutral after watching it this morning. Whereas with this one that we're about to discuss, I didn't watch it live and feel that the people who did watch it live got really annoyed. They were really invested in it. Whereas it was about a week before I could sit down and watch it. And I was a bit more kind of positive on it. I was just saying that my lesson is don't watch these things live. And you made a really good football analogy. Just making the point that when you watch a game in real time and it's your team and you're invested, that you can be more negative and worried that 1-0 the other team were going to score and it wasn't good enough, even when you win. Yet, if you watch it back the following day, actually that 1-0 that ended up 2-0, you bossed it. Your defence was never under pressure and everything else. But I would say, Dan, on this occasion, some of the defendants or witnesses were under a bit of pressure at times and maybe didn't necessarily perform as well as they could have, which we'll see. Dan, a couple of live notes though. When I started watching it on YouTube, there were over 30,000 people when Nancy Mace started talking. So I think that's really good numbers going back to the hearing last year. Or even the one before that with Moultrie and Bray. There was like 5,000 or something. I might be misremembering, but I'm sure there was like a tenth of what there was this time. And the one last night, I was watching the ABC News feed. For everyone that says Maintree Media doesn't cover this, they did. It was live streamed on ABC, on YouTube at least. And the maximum I saw during that was about 10,000 people. So very different night and day hearings here, especially with the attendants in the room as well. This one was overflowing with people and senators and interests. Whereas the other one just had like two people and a few people scattered about on chairs and stuff like that. A few folks had messaged me to say as well that apparently on Twitter or X, the feed had over 300,000 people watching it on there at the time. So this was kind of well watched, which may be a good thing, may be a bad thing. Do you know what? Actually, no, it's a good thing. Ultimately, regardless of the kind of small imprint of the day, what may or may not have came of it. Again, Dan, I've got kind of chronological notes. I'm just going to use the same ones I had last time from the actual hearing. Representative Nancy Mace kicked off the hearing, co-chaired with Mr. Grothman. We won't go through every single little word and phrase because it's been over a week now and it's been covered. Can we just, do you mind if I read Nancy Mace's opening statement? Because I felt in hindsight that that was important comparing, you know, did this hearing fulfill what it was set out to do? Nancy Mace's opening statement was, This hearing is intended to help Congress and the American people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our government has engaged in with respect to UAPs and what knowledge it has yielded. That includes, of course, any knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of non-human origin. If government funded research on UAPs has not yielded any useful knowledge, we need to know that too. Taxpayers deserve to know how much has been invested. They shouldn't be kept in the dark to spare Pentagon embarrassment. We will also hear from the witnesses today allegations of UAP-related misinformation and disinformation by government officials of which they are personally aware and directly experienced. And we will hear testimony today concerning recent revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program whose existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from Congress. So that's kind of the brief for what we're about to talk about. So in thinking of whether it's successful or not, this is what we're comparing against. Early on, Nancy Mace was probably the star of the hearing, Dan. This was my reaction at the time. I don't think that's changed since, even though we'll get to a couple of things. She was really good. Like you mentioned, talked about HR McMaster, kind of finger on the pulse opening statement, wasn't it? It was pretty good. Some of the comments she was making, buzzwords were in there, extraterrestrial, hearing that early on. And I felt Nancy Mace, Anna Paulina Luna, I like the guy Frost, is it Maxwell Frost? Max Frost, he was decent. There were some folks who had done their homework, who were well prepared, who seemed to be interested and really want some answers here to questions. I think a lot of the community, we'll call it, would have asked. And I think there were some congressmen and women who came in very underprepared or disinterested in the subject. So it was a pretty mixed bag in that respect. Or swing in with wild conspiracy theories in one case. Yeah. She slated, I don't know if you mentioned this, Dan, in the opening statement or not, being it a week ago, it might not have been opening statement. She slated Arrow and disturbed that it's lack of transparency with even a lack of knowing what its budget is. She made a good point there. And I think it's fair to say she's talking about Arrow as an entity that has been under Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick. I think he's very much in the infancy of his time taking it over. Yeah, and I think that speaks to something, for me at least, I almost want these same people to be grilling Arrow, just so we have some kind of continuation. So when Nancy Mace there is saying, like, we don't even know your budget, what's your budget? I want her to be able to ask John Koslowski about that, versus just, it almost felt like the two hearings were completely separated and not informed by each other. And it would be great if they could be informed by each other. But is this not a microcosm of the whole UFO topic politically, though, Dan? Pretty much. Is that not a problem? Everything's so compartmentalised. No doubt Congress are sitting. I'm just presuming they're going, Senate don't know what they're talking about. The Senate will be going, Congress don't know what they're talking about. All these different departments are being asked stuff from Congress, stuff from the Senate, stuff from military organisations, Air Force, Navy coming out and asking them questions, asking for information. And it's just easy to swat all this stuff away, because there's just so much constantly. I mean, this is what unions are for, right, with jobs, is instead of having, like, 500 people go into the bus with all these different concerns and not consistent messaging, you talk to one representative that deals with the bus, and the messaging is concise and agreed upon. Something like that needs to happen here, I think. So realistically then, Dan, can you get progress on the UFO topic politically? Because I know you're saying something like that needs to happen. Something like that won't happen, though. It might not. The only reason I say might is only because the, you know, however you feel about the election, Trump is going to be the next US president, and the Republicans have won the House and the Senate. So here we have a possibility that maybe all of these disparate pieces can now work together and push in the same direction. Remains to be seen, though. We're not going to tell you what to think about your president incoming or not, or who you don't particularly care for any of their politics, regardless. We've got enough problems here in the UK, Dan. 12-page report entered into Congress about Immaculate Constellation. Couldn't talk about this at the time, but it was entered into the record by Mace. 12-page report. She thanked Schellenberger for bringing it along, who was one of the witnesses, Dan. We found out pretty quickly afterwards that only 11 of the pages had been submitted, and that it wasn't Schellenberger that brought that document along. It was actually Jeremy Corbell. Now, regardless what people want to say about, I saw some comments online about Jeremy Corbell just wanting credit. He should have had the credit. Schellenberger and Mace should have mentioned it was Corbell that brought it along. Schellenberger should have corrected her to say, I am not giving you that document. It wasn't. It was someone else. And all 12 of the pages also should have been submitted, not 11. I don't care if one of them was a blank page with an asterisk at the bottom to say, please submit this 12th page. If you're talking about transparency in this subject, you're only going to fuel more conspiracy by doing things like that, by not giving the right credit to the right people, by not correcting things, and by not giving us the full document. I don't think it's, again, given what we're talking about, Dan, if you're having something submitted to public record, they shouldn't be holding back anything at all which is being submitted, because that flies in the face of the point of this, doesn't it? Yeah, I completely agree. There is a point in the hearing where Tim Burchard gives Corbell credit, but it's such a small line. And the concern is, you know, when you read the document, it says this is a Pentagon document, and this is a public version. And, you know, there are a few things in there that have people questioning whether this document has been misrepresented. Before you even get to reading the text of it, it's already been misrepresented by saying that it was given by Schellenberger or that it was provided by Congress. Exactly like you said, if we're going to be transparent, we have to be transparent. I don't know why they would have removed that front page and not giving Jeremy, you know, the nod for submitting that. It was certainly, for me, the kind of surprise of the hearing. I didn't expect to have that document available to read after this hearing. I thought they were just going to talk about it. It was really great that we do get to read it. And, you know, for everything that people say about Jeremy, he's the one that provided transparency there. He's the one that got it out to us. So, you know, thank you. Now we're informed more about it. It also does lean, for me, I lean towards that being deliberate, that he wasn't credited with bringing that along. And it raises questions, right? Yeah. And that then starts to, as much as I'm saying Mace was the kind of start of the day, you look and go, why did Mace and Schellenberger not correct that to say the document was brought in? And she could have done it afterwards online. That, for me, just raises questions. And it does, and it's something we're going to come to, you know, one person makes one mistake. It does, whether you like it or not, bring into question other aspects of what they've said. So within the contents of that hearing, you do have to then look at it with a slightly different veil. I'm not sure. That can be fair or unfair, but it does slightly taint it. This is the problem we have. You get the gist of it. Yeah. But that is a good example of what has happened with Arrow, right? They came out. We gave them benefit of the doubt. They did a bad job. They've been pushing kind of stigma out there and growing the stigma in the way they've conducted themselves. And now we're being asked to give them a second chance. We're going, well, for the past year, like a lot of the people that go under Kirkpatrick are still there. So should we expect a change here? And I think it's fair. Dan, can I give you a really up-to-date and relevant story, which is exactly the same thing. My wife was telling me today in the car. One of our friends on Facebook had posted about this doggy day place locally to us, and it's been shut down because someone sent their dog in for doggy daycare to be looked after while they were working. The dogs ended up being attacked and losing its eye because the people who own the doggy daycare just employed some random staff, not qualified to look after dogs. They scatter fed the dogs. So what they done was all the dogs in the same room on the floor, they threw all the food on the floor from which loads of these bigger dogs then went for the smaller dog who was just nibbling away. So they've been shut down, but they're now trying to open up under a different guise with different staff. So they're always going to be tainted. So yeah, that's... Arrow is like a shitty doggy daycare, right? Yes, absolutely. Like a really shit doggy daycare. Not saying they've attacked any animals at all. That's not something I'm throwing at them. May have tried to disgrace some former officials, but hey-ho, who knows? Allegedly. Representative Robert Garcia, Dan, gets passed to, and he has a chat. He mentions a previous hearing getting the ball rolling to this time. Mentions UAP and airspace and oceans. I like to hear that. This is about truth and science and facts. And I like that. Great point. We don't need to run to exotic claims just yet. It's trying to remain balanced on kind of both sides really helps. What's additional public hearings, a topic that needs to carry on through this Congress? So like we said, folks, you've got another four-year term starting here with new individuals. I won't pretend to know them all through different important positions. The UFO topic is there. Off the top of my head, I know no one's confirmed yet, but so John Radcliffe, who is former DNI, he's been very favorable to the UFO issue going on mainstream news and saying there are things that they don't understand them and that it seems to be more anomalous than the U.S. would like to admit. He's going to be heading up the CIA, if I'm not incorrect, and also Marco Rubio, who's been a big proponent of the UAP issue initially publicly, but now we hear that behind closed doors, he's someone that pushes it. He's going to be in a very important cabinet position, I think, Secretary of State. Again, whether all these people get confirmed in these roles is ahead of us, but we're going to have some really interesting people supporting, who support UAP transparency in really big positions in the cabinet administration. So now's the time, you know, if they wanted to get this out. Well, they've just confirmed the transport head, Dan, it's Bob Lazar. So that's, that's, that is not true. Every sport model for you. Can you imagine? That'd be like, that would be it. So, yeah, I thought that was really interesting. Nice to hear. Has to run through. Then Glenn Grothman speaks. He's wary of the drone swarms flying over Langley Air Force Base. He's discusses whether these phenomena are the result of foreign adversaries or something else. We need to take them seriously. And I don't mind any of the politicians involved in this coming out with that line of questioning. I'm happy, Dan, if newsreaders and journalists and public figures would take that line with it. Look, we're not saying it's alien. I don't particularly care. I don't even believe it's alien, but we don't know what this is. And if it is foreign adversaries, we need to deal with it. If it's something else, we need to deal with it. And that's, you can take it from there because the conversation still ends up in the same place anyway. That's really been the whole position of what we call UFO Twitter. And since 2017, since that kind of got rolling, is like, look, there's something there. You need to deal with it. Whether or not, it doesn't matter what you think it is. You need to deal with it. Yeah, it's great to see senators getting to that point. Grothman also said something that I know has been picked apart. He said, no agencies have been able to verify Grush's claims since the last hearing. That phrase, the phrasing around there is interesting. I've seen debunkers kind of run with it as well. Then Grush is all BS. I've seen people who were fully in on what everything that Grush brought to the table use it in other ways. But I think we can all agree that when someone's saying that no agencies that have been tasked to look have found anything, these agencies are the same agencies that no one has trusted in the first place. That Kirkpatrick went to and said, hey, have you got any of that UFO secret stuff? And they just went, no. And he went, okay, cool, and left them alone. So I don't think that's damning in the way that it's being presented as. But it also isn't great in terms of, we were talking earlier about, you want to see action from these hearings over the next year or so. And in terms of Congress, oh, sorry, in terms of the House and pushing for more information, it's clear that they just haven't been able to get anywhere with Grush's claims. Grush hasn't been in a skiff with them, despite testifying for, what, like 11 hours to the various subcommittees. That the people in the House don't seem to have the muscle to push for these answers. Sorry to folks on YouTube, I'm just adjusting the hot water bottle behind my back. Yeah, it does look like you have a wedgie. On that, Dan, I spoke to Tim Burchett the day after the hearing, and I asked about one of my big disappointments, and I think we talked about this in the preview, would be that I would like to hear in this hearing, there was progress made from the previous hearing, going back almost 18 months from what David Grush and Graves and Fravor said, particularly Grush. And there has been zero progress made that we know of now publicly. They can't get Grush into a skiff. Speaking to various individuals and officials and journalists, a lot of that apparently is down to the level of congressmen and women asking for those. And that will be knocked back because of their level of power and influence, potentially. You would need senators to do that. So, not to say he hasn't been in skiffs with some folks, but he hasn't been with the folks who want him in skiffs, or the ones that are talking publicly anyway. And maybe that's the issue, that Luna, Burchett, Burleson, Garcia, these folks who want that, maybe aren't getting, or have the pull, it sounds like, to get these skiffs to happen. I don't know. That's a big disappointment for me. That, and we talked about this at the time when Grush had that hearing, Dan, that the impact from that would be important. So, was it worth Grush even saying what he said? Of course it was relevant. But, I mean, in the grander scheme of things, it either becomes another Bob Lazar-esque story, or it becomes something that bears fruit. And right now, it's still an anecdote and a story that will go down in UFO lore, because they've been blocked at every turn, trying to see progress from it. And Grush, as I asked George Knapp about, has been laying low. So, we're kind of where we are at the minute with that. What's your thoughts? Yeah, it's frustrating. I'd like to see more action on it, too. And we did talk about it. We want to see these things have an effect on each other. It's great having all these hearings, but they have to snowball. Otherwise, you've just got separate, tiny snowballs. You want it to grow to something bigger. Grush has been, we've been waiting, what, a year now since we were told there would be an op-ed. Then everything with The Intercept happened, where Grush was attacked for his PTSD, which was shameful and a really good example of the kind of muckery that goes on with the U.S. government, given that the journalist was tipped off by an intelligence community contact to find that information. There is a lawsuit ongoing for that, where David Grush is suing the Sheriff's Department. Not sure where that'll go, but there's an argument to be made that the Sheriff's Department were just doing what they told and they're employees of the federal government and so on and so forth. So, we'll see where that goes. It's an interesting one, but it's a very public, a public retaliations example of what happens when these whistleblowers come forward. Whether you believe Grush or not, this happened. There's a lawsuit over it. So, we'll have to see where it goes. But yeah, I was disappointed that it wasn't kind of followed up with here. And it's frustrating that these people don't have the access that they need. But I also do wonder, does it matter in the sense that earlier or on part one, in talking about the other hearings, we were talking about the Gang of Eight and the access that they have and that we're never really going to hear what they have seen. And no, they're only going to give us these little bits. It's not full open disclosure. It's like semi-disclosure, technically. What is our need to know for Grush being confirmed, or Grush's claims being confirmed, when the whole point of these things is that Congress is angry that they aren't able to exercise their constitutional right to know everything that's going on. Maybe they have been privy to this stuff. Maybe they have found more, but they're just not telling us about it because we don't have a need to know. A little hat tip to need to know with Roche Coulthard. Yes. The Gang of Eight stuff. Would you, what you're getting at there then is that they can make that burger we talked about in part one, right? Because they can go around KFC, McDonald's, Burger King, Subway, Hungry Jack's, all that and get all the best bits. But we're not going to see that. What we might get though, say if we do get that burger, you're happy at that point, but you're never going to find out the recipe. They're going to have to keep that to themselves. But what if we get something like that burger? I think most people are happy. Yeah, it depends. It all comes down to that conversation we always have of what disclosure means to different people. It's not like, yeah. And it's subjective, right? Just like that burger. Some people are going to say, yeah, that tastes exactly like the one that you were meant to give us. And other people are going to go, oh, that's horrible. Unless we have the recipe and I can make it all myself with pure ingredients and so on and so forth. And it doesn't count for anything. It's subjective. And that's what's so difficult about this. It's not a defined term. As I said, Lou Elizondo in this hearing says UAPs are real. John Kozlowski in his press roundtable, the government representative said UAPs are real. For some people, that meets the bar and they'll take that yes for an answer. For other people, it's not good enough. Still sidebarring before we move on. How do you feel? And I've asked you this before, but I suppose now we know that one, Grush hasn't been in a skiff as far as we know. And two, George Knapp said that Grush's op-ed was written a long time ago and is just sitting. With that in mind, if the next thing we hear from David Grush is that he has a book deal and he's writing a book, how does that make you feel about the David Grush story? No different, I suppose. Like I get that some people will go, oh, he's just taking the money and so on and so forth. And yeah, that's fine. But at the same time, I would prefer a more in-depth thing that a book would represent versus they're never going to publish a book length thing as an op-ed. They're just two completely different mediums. And the book will be more accessible to more people and won't just be for the UFO community. So I think there are pros and cons to each. Personally, I'd love to read Dave's book and learn more about it. But it's very obvious that Luna doesn't want to read any books at all. Yeah, we'll get to that. And folks, I'm not suggesting or hinting that I know David Grush has written a book. I've just, Dan, as you'll know, thought for a while that maybe it's going to go that way if Lou Elizondo's books come out and Jay Stratton has a book deal. There's clearly a market there for it. And if you were people in these arenas, I'm sure if you are Dan Farah and the company arranging all that stuff, you would be saying to Elizondo and Stratton, can you get me Grush? I want to speak to Grush because that's a movie, that's a TV series, that's a book. And that's a name that is far better known to the public than Lou Elizondo or Jay Stratton. Yeah, absolutely. I just want to touch on the names of the Gang of Eight. I know I've done it before, but some people might not have heard this. But there are some interesting names here. So we have Mike Turner, Jim Himes, Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, and Mitch McConnell. Several of those names have been very big on the UAP issue, with Chuck Schumer even pressing Senate doing a full kind of speech on the benefit of the UAP disclosure. Seeing the Gang of Eight push in this way for things like review panels and transparency and talk about things like biologics and recovered craft, it certainly suggests to me that maybe they do know more than what we think they do. Maybe they have spoken to Grush in a skiff, as we've kind of been told that he spoke to the committees and things like that. So yeah, watch all of these people's actions, because as we always say, actions speak louder than words. So these are the people to watch. Representative Jared Moskowitz comes up next. He said there's been a void of information over the decades that has allowed theories to grow and fester. Not an unfair comment like that. That is just true. Many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions on certain topics, and that was him addressing the witnesses. Who, by the way, folks, chronologically, if you haven't seen the hearings, you haven't even seen the witnesses at this point yet, still. They're in the room. Everyone can see them. But yeah, they've just not been addressed yet. At that point, Nancy Mace enters the 12-page Immaculate Consolation document into Congress. Let me correct that, Dan, the 11-page document. I did like, at the time particularly, that she mentioned the whole, you know, and this is what we talked about, Dan, with the Senate maybe not using open language or the language we would like in the newest hearing. She basically comes out and says, very community style, you know, I've heard that if you mention Immaculate Consolation, you end up on a list. Well, I don't mind being put on a list by any agency, so come at me, bro. Yeah, we are. And interestingly, on the other side of that coin, so Lou Elizondo did a Q&A on his YouTube after this hearing. He refused to say the words Immaculate Constolation. He said a two-letter word beginning with I, which is interesting, right, given that Lou says during this hearing that he was made to sign a document where he wouldn't talk about things like crash retrievals and things like that. So either Lou is very skittish on the document and is just playing safe and just doesn't want anything to kind of muddy the water there for him or come back on him, or maybe he's a person that had a hand in kind of making Immaculate Constolation. It is said to be made after 2017. 2017, and who better than the guy who ran the ATIP effort? Or three, he's playing up to it. One of the three, yeah. Like I said earlier, it's this... That does cover the bases. You've got to kind of hold these possibilities. And people will hear those, and they will instantly go to one of the three. Don't. Hold all three as possibles in your mind. Don't pour all your eggs in one basket. Just hold all three as possibles. And yeah, just as we go forward, just examine them on an ongoing basis. Another quick sidebar, Dan. I do think we're at a point, I can't speak for anyone except myself, right? Where the topic and politically this kind of setting with these players, these names, these organizations, the groups we know of, OSAP, ATIP, Immaculate Constellation. If you're looking at Corbel, Knapp, Burchett, Luna, Elizondo, Mel and Nolan. That cast of characters from the last seven years, it's, for me, the most confusing time of where everyone sits in these hierarchies and who's helping, who's not helping, who's embellished, who hasn't embellished, who is trying to make a name for themselves, who's really doing hard work. And there's so much up in the air. And then, again, with the rumors of what's going to come down the line from other people, other books, Grush being a bit of a non-playable character at the moment, he's kind of an unlockable character, but we don't know how to unlock him. There's a lot just kind of up in the air with the whole scene that very quickly could fall into place, or very quickly could fall to shit. And that's just where I'm at, personally, when I see all this stuff now. So, it's like, I've got the Charlie Day from All the Sunny, where he's got all the shit on the wall. With all the, like, lines between them. Yeah, I feel I now have so many lines, yep, going across so many pictures. I get when people are like, fucking hell, there's so much going on. And if you do take a break from this for a few weeks, you do come back and go, what have I missed? Jesus. Because that much is happening. It's really interesting. It took me... But it's heavy. So, the hearings happened, and my fiancé was visiting, you know, we had a wonderful time, but I just kind of tapped out at things, you know, I didn't even watch the hearings live. It took me three days, three full days of watching YouTube videos, looking at news articles, watching that hearing, just to catch up. And it just kind of speaks to it. I didn't know Lou had done a Q&A till you just said. There you go. See, it's hard to keep up with everything, add a little line to your wall. Yeah, I try and retweet loads of stuff so people can go, and it's not an endorsement normally, but I will retweet stuff so people can go and look at it themselves, or opinion, or articles, or that kind of stuff. I generally hadn't seen it, didn't even know it was there. It can be a lot, folks, but hopefully this kind of stuff helps you. At this point, Dan, Nancy Mace introduces the witnesses. So, we have Reid Admiral Tim Galladet, who is there for the USO stuff, as we thought. But Luis Elizondo, counterintelligence official, who we know from OSAP ATIP time. He'll be the best known of the witnesses to anybody there. Michael Schellenberger, journalist, who was a bit of a latecomer to the game, but managed to get in there. And Mike Gold, who is a former NASA administrative assistant, he seemed, I think we talked in the preview, Dan, for me, he was like the wild card that we could really get something from a Mike Gold. At this point, let me just throw it to you, Dan, because you have not shared your thoughts on the podcast. Everyone's kind of heard mine and the other ones. Tim Galladet didn't really say much of anything, and it boiled down to he heard a story from something that happened in 1980, and he repeated the thing about his email being deleted. Lou Elizondo. I would say Galladet also kind of pushed on Arrow a little bit about their attempts at changing his mind, which he sees as an influence operation being run on him, and wonders how many other people Arrow are running this on. That's something specifically I would have liked to see Arrow asked about, in terms of how they phrase the questions, how they talk to witnesses, things like that, Tim was real concerned about it. But yeah, I was afraid that this would be all he would bring. He had a lot of, I can't speak to that, and I don't knows, and when he was asked about USOs, he brought some case up from the 1980s that someone had told him about. Like, great, cool, talking about it, but it doesn't really move the needle. It was like putting a four-team panel for a pub quiz together, Dan, and you've brought along a mate who is very good with 1970s rock, glam rock, and that's a very small part of the quiz. And the rest of the quiz, he kind of sits there, unable to give any answers, and the rest of us are like, you? And he's like, no, not my thing. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think that's fair. Yeah, then we had Elizondo, who I thought his opening statement was really effective. It was concise. He just spoke about the fact we're not alone in the cosmos. He said, the US government are in possession of UAP tech, UAP are real, we need to take a safety-first approach to this, stop the excessive secrecy. Spoke about Susan Goff kind of being a psychological officer who was a singular point of contact on the issue of UAP for the DoD, which is true. And I think Goff did herself no favors being sat behind John Kozlowski in the Arrow hearing. It just feels a bit more like she's trying to influence things there, which just raises questions. Yeah, Lou speaks to needing whistleblower protection, which, just to give him credit, Tim Berchett introduced some legislation just before this hearing happened that was designed to protect UAP whistleblowers, which is great. Good effort from him there. Lou also recommended that these committees wield subpoena power to get the right people in front of them. And I absolutely agree there. I thought it was a good opening statement. Nothing huge like Grush, but I think for a member of the public who hasn't followed this along, doesn't really know what Alessandro, maybe he's read the book, or doesn't even know that he released a book, in fact, I think they'd be big words. But again, we need to see that follow-up from Congress here. See this subpoena? Two seconds, because we'll take turns. Subpoena power thing. Someone commented online, and I can't remember who it was. It was somebody relatively informed, but they had made the point, and I don't know if that's true or not, that these committees can't have subpoena power. Some of them don't. Some do. It depends the power vested in them. So the Gang of Eight and some of the Armed Services Committee. So I mean, like the higher-up ones, yeah, but a group of congressmen or a UAP caucus can't go requesting subpoena power. Exactly. They can kindly ask someone to come along. If they refuse, that's that. Yeah, so mileage may vary. I'd love to see subpoenas happening, but also if they subpoena someone, we've already heard from the Katsuki and Colm Callagher, that if they came in, they're not privy to divulge details, and people are allowed to lie under oath about classified programs anyway. So what use would it be? Not to say that they shouldn't, you need to get that stuff on record, but it's not going to be the be-all and end-all of that. Then we have Schellenberger, who talks about, yeah, elements of the IC and DOD being in violation of a law by not informing Congress, which is exactly true. It's Congress's constitutional right to be informed about these things, different levels for different people, obviously, depending on their position. Said that the executive branch has been handling it without informing Congress, which is interesting, because that, the executive branch is the president, and we all know how timid they've been to approach this issue. Biden got tangled up in cables when he was asked about it and yelled, ask Obama and ran off. Trump has just said that he's not necessarily a believer, which you would think that would kind of go the other way if he's been given full access. So yeah, that's- Not a believer, but I find that interesting. Yeah. That's always- Bit of a contradiction, right? Yeah. Yeah. And then you've got to think about, well, okay, if this is real and Elon Musk is now getting involved in government, what use is SpaceX if they have anti-gravity stuff? All that stuff kind of goes away then. But yeah, he spoke about Immaculate Constellation, that was the thing he brought, and he quoted John Greenwald, where John said that the DOD denies things on a Monday and then admits to them on a Friday, which is a really nice quote from there. See, just on that, you mentioned Elon Musk stuff, and if the US government's got anti-grav, do you not think it would be realistically the case is that, say they brought Musk in and went, we're going to show you some of the tech we've got, right? And they show him the craft from Roswell. Look, we've got Independence Day style, right? They take him down to the bunker, where they have a couple of craft, and Musk is like, holy shit, this is like, wow, I need to get my hands on this. And they're like, bring your scientists in, we can't figure it out. We don't have any more of them. There is literally these couple and some broken ones. So there is no mass production of them. There is no mass marketing. We can't do this. And we have had the best minds for decades on it. Not that more people and more resources wouldn't help, but there's a good chance that that may be the case, that the US government does indeed have a couple of them. Or even, let's go with Lazar's nine. Nine, yeah. In various states of working and condition, but it might be that we literally have this one that we can even do anything with. And that's it. I think that's a quite likely scenario, as opposed to the US government having a fleet of tic-tacs. Yeah, and we hear this term, especially in the Immaculate Constellation documents being thrown around of ARVs or alien reproduction vehicles, where the craft isn't kind of a one-for-one copy. It's more of kind of a humanized version, but with certain things derived from it. So I'm just going to, because in the Immaculate Constellation document, they talk about arrowheads, which is what they call in secret machines as well in those books. So I'm just going to kind of use that as a touchstone. In secret machines, you have these triangles that they're built for human occupation. They have different modes, depending on whether they're in different modes of propulsion, depending on whether or not they're in atmosphere or vacuum or under the ocean. There's a different approach that we need to take to this kind of technology to make it suitable for us, because we are not the same species that made them. So there's an aspect of these crafts that are kind of supposedly telepathically or cognitively controlled via a neural interface. That kind of stuff is way, way advanced from where we are. Siri won't even get what I say to her correct. So, oh yeah, Siri's just activated there. Nice. But yeah, how the hell are we even going to start with a cognitive interface like that when we're only just kind of starting to scratch the surface of that kind of stuff? So when we're not going to be looking at something that's a one-one copy, maybe there are one or two people that can fly the original craft under the right conditions or something like that. But when it comes to the stuff that we're making that's derived from it, we probably understand 1% of it. And there might be something that's there. Maybe Elon Musk saw, I don't know, the UFO that won't power off be caught by a tower instead of using manual and he was like, oh, I'll have my rocket caught by a tower then. It's going to be more stuff like that, more inspiration as opposed to, yeah, let's just copy it one for one because we just wouldn't have the manufacturing techniques available to us and maybe not even the elements. SpaceX tower burger coming soon. I was going to ask you what you thought about each witness, but we'll keep that till the end. I think that probably makes more sense, doesn't it? Yeah, sure. And you mentioned Mike Gold as well. Mike Gold, he didn't really go into, you know, we expected him to talk about the Bigelow stuff and the materials being handed over from Lockheed and being blocked by the CIA. He didn't. He was there to kind of talk about how courage is needed to tackle this topic and that he was there to speak for science and reminded everyone that any scientists that wanted to engage in this were mocked and they were threatened and the UAP NASA study team experienced that. He bigged up NASA's kind of role and what they could bring to the table in terms of UAP study with vast archives of data, holding massive symposiums where they could just lift the stigma away from studying it, which I thought were very fair points. Spoke to how UAP derived science could inform other sciences too, which I guess is what we just touched on with that kind of scenario with Musk and things like that. And just kind of said, what was the system? The ASRS is a system that NASA uses for pilots to kind of report things that that's already in place and that they could use that system for people to report UAP sightings, the public to report UAP sightings because it's trusted and it's well-funded and it's there anyway, and they just need to tweak it a tiny bit. So he wasn't as big as, you know, some people thought he was just there asking for money for NASA. He wasn't really, he was there to basically preach what science could bring to the table if it was engaged properly and fully on this issue. And I thought he did a good job. His last line from his statement was, the truth is out there. We need to be bold enough and brave enough, which can't fault that, right? No, not at all. Coming soon on one of Dan's t-shirts or Dan's Macy's, who knows? So Mace, Nancy Mace starts asking questions. So she's got her five minutes and how it works, folks, I remind her, is they each get five minutes to go around and ask a series of questions. And once your time's up, your time's up. That whole five minutes, though, if someone's got a really good question, it is like a game show where it's like, oh, I've run out of time. Yeah, right. You can ask a really good question and it's like, I kind of... The crafter housed in, oh, I'm sorry, I've run out of time. Yeah, I'm really sorry. We're out of time. Yeah, that's it. Really quickly, because I don't want to go over every question again. I'll ask Dan some highlights, because I've gone through all mine before. I thought Mace's questions were really good. She gets Galadette to talk about shapes of UAP, being a button or saucer. She asks Lou Elizondo, who's making UAP, and she really pushes back on his answers. Lou did try to talk around some of the questions at times, but certain of the folks there. And this isn't a dig at Lou. The other ones couldn't really answer any questions in an informative or reasonable way. So it seemed like any decent question had to be directed at Lou. And I feel if there were four other witnesses of a similar stature, it would have been a fairer spread. And it just seemed to be that anything you're going to get here of any real relevance or use, or maybe just the way that it was asked. I feel some of the witnesses were either wasted by Congress, or they were just the wrong witnesses to have there in the first place. So that's my point on the pushback for Lou's answers. I think we can bring that around to, we express concern as to why Schellenberger was there, right? You know, great that he has these documents. This is what he's bringing to the table. He didn't even submit the documents. He essentially was there to say, I got told X, Y, Z. Yeah. Cobell submitted the documents. Once again, thank you to Cobell for doing that. Um, so whenever anything was asked to Schellenberger, Schellenberger just kept referring to this document. So I didn't really understand why he was there. When you look at someone like Cobell, whatever you think of what Cobell's released, it's clear that there are people out there that give him stuff, that send him videos, that send him reports, both him and Nap. And they pass those on to us or they investigate them themselves. I think someone like Cobell would have been a much richer witness to have there who could have spoken about so many different cases and so much activity, so much kind of government blocking and things like that on the issue, as opposed to someone that just said, read the document. That he didn't even give her. Yeah, I don't think that's unfair at all. And listen, I'll be really fair. I like Jeremy. I would think, I would hope Jeremy would also be the type to say there are far better witnesses to be there than me. But I can sit there and be better than what you had. I think, honestly, there at least was going to be Lou Elizondo plus two, if not three, other witnesses than those three that ended up with him. Maybe Gallaudet was going to be there and would have been disappointing anyway. But I think Schellenberger was probably a witness who was down the list and they've had to go for. Maybe Gallaudet was the same at this point. They asked, I know Vinny Adams of Disclosure Team did an interview with Avi Loeb and Avi Loeb said that he was asked a few months back if he'd be willing to come testify. They didn't ask him to go, but I imagine it would have been quite similar to what Mike Gallaud is kind of presented with a very science first foot there. So I understand that space, that's actionable, that's stuff you can actually do after this hearing. But yeah, Schellenberger, just referring to the document every time Lou expanded on things that were in his book. Like we, right about the time that we're talking, Lou says that the DOD gave Lou a document saying he can't talk about trash retrievals. And he had to sign that in a skiff and the documents in a skiff and he can show them it. And then I can't remember who said it, but they kind of laughed and said, well, you can't talk about Fight Club if there's no Fight Club. Moskowitz. Yeah, Moskowitz, that was it. And everyone kind of laughed and I think it was fair. Done through humour, but it was fair. Like, why are they telling you you can't talk about crash retrievals if there are no crash retrievals? Other than that comment with Moskowitz, Dan, the only real interesting thing that came out of his questions for me were Mike Gold saying he's in the Dan Farah documentary. Oh, yeah. Which is interesting. We've heard often about this, that there are going to be some new faces and big hitters in that documentary. I'm always wary of hype, big hype, big letdown. That's always how it goes. But I'm curious about it and I look forward to watching it when it's released. But, yeah, I won't give it much time in my head before I get to actually see the thing. I'll just repeat my thing that no true disclosure is going to come from any documentary, folks. And I'm really looking forward to the James Fox documentary of the programme. We'll remind you of that at the end again, folks. But no documentary, no huge piece of revelatory information. It's going to sit in a can for six to nine months while it's edited. It's not going to wait on a TV show. It's not going to be published in a book. It will be 60 minutes, mainstream news, within 24 to 48 hours of it being presented to said media organisation. If someone came across a piece of information that was that explosive, they would be on live news talking about it. And I'm not saying there won't be really good stuff in documentaries. There won't be big puzzle pieces, but you're not going to get smoke and gun stuff in any documentary. I don't care who's in it. It just doesn't make any sense. I agree. I totally agree. It's going to be more like how Roswell happened. The story that went around the world first was the saucer was recovered and it was just out there. Just get it out there. It wasn't, oh, let's hold on to this. And, well, we're in a documentary or a book or whatever. 100%. Grothman, I made one note. He asked Gallaudet why Congress can't have the Tic Tac info. Tim Gallaudet said there's no good reason not to show it regarding the data. That was it from Grothman. I didn't really get a lot from him. That was better. He'd said earlier as well that he doesn't understand why anything holding them 15 months was still seen as sensitive. 15 years. 15 years. Sorry, 15 months. That would be quite a short time. 15 years, which is a good point. We can show videos of Russian jets incurring into U.S. airspace with stupidly high detail within an hour of them happening. Is that what he said about Roswell? He basically goes, well, everyone's dead anyway. Something like that. It's brutal, but also true. These folks have all passed away. And you're now onto the great grandkids of these folks who are like fourth-hand witnesses because they heard a story from a story from a story. So, yeah, and any folks in charge of those programs that would have the information weren't handed that information from the last guy that ran it. It's from the one before that, before that, before that, that have passed on to seven different superiors down the line. Tim Burchett, I felt he was a bit frustrated with the line of questioning. He asked Lou about what David Grush had said. And Lou Elizondo kind of backs up what David Grush's comments were. I got, he was one of the politicians I felt were frustrated, probably could see the way things were going, the way things were being knocked back. I got a sense of frustration from Tim Burchett and a few others. Yeah, say what you want about Burchett. He clearly is furiously invested in knowing more and letting the public know more about this stuff. He's one of the first people to call out just the fuckery that goes on in D.C. and amongst politicians. No matter which country we're in, it just always seems to be the case. They're out for themselves. So, yeah, and this is where Tim thanked Corbell for submitting the documents. He didn't say the Immaculate Constellation documents. He just said the documents. So, I get why some people would have missed it. But, yeah, it was a really kind of flyby comment. There was a portion of Lou Elizondo's Q&A on YouTube where he spoke about, someone asked about the work he did with Dave Grush and he went into a little bit saying that he worked with Dave Grush at Space Force and they worked together in a SCIF on UAP-related issues. He didn't give a time frame, so it didn't necessarily sound like it was all 2012. It could have been sooner. And Lou has spoken about working, doing stuff for Space Force in the last few years, too. So, yeah, very, very likely there that, or possible, I should say, possible, not very likely, that Lou and Dave have worked together really recently on these UAP issues. Clay Higgins was up next. He's the representative for Louisiana. He asked questions around the report. I got the feeling he was a bit lost, a bit confused on what he was actually asking. Came across quite awkward. This was the first one I felt. You have not really done your homework on this. And if I'm wrong, that he's trying his best, great. But this felt like he handed someone the book on the UFO topic, said, read this and give me the notes. They passed him the notes and he came in and read them on the day. That's the way Clay Higgins was presented to me. And from some of the emails I got from listeners, that doesn't sound too far from what probably happened. Yeah, for sure. There is a very apparent issue where people aren't being prepared enough to ask the really deep, cutting questions on this issue. And I think that was my issue with Gillibrand. It just felt very skimmed over. And Ernst, too. You know, it's just like, I don't, I feel like you've kind of walked into the room after reading an AI summary of a book and you're trying to get through a book report whilst not looking like a bullshitter. So, yeah, when that finished and they were all like smiles and patting themselves on the back, it was like, no, you did not trick us. We all saw through that, you know. Yeah, then it was Max Frosted. It seems really young as well. He asks Mike Gold about Bill Nelson and NASA's part in the conversation. Gold said he believes NASA's got a trove of data that can inform the conversation, but NASA needs encouraged. I've seen a lot of folks, Dan, online saying that Gold came across as a NASA apologist. I can see why some people are saying that. I didn't pick that up myself. I felt he was maybe there trying to get folks he knows to get involved. And this is his way of trying to do it. He came across as a lovely chap. He'd be a good laugh at a Star Trek convention, I'm sure. But he said NASA is intentionally or unintentionally transparent as leaks happen anyway. I think he was kind of making the point that they're a little bit incompetent in some ways, that if you think they're keeping this mega top secret, it would be a struggle for NASA to do that. So, again, I understand where he's coming from. Yeah, he said engineers and scientists love to talk. So, yeah, it seems to be apparent if they've got stuff to talk about, they will. And not everyone they talk to is going to be under oaths or NDAs and things like that. And really, NASA, the UAP panel that they did, was looking at how NASA would research UAP. It wasn't actually researching UAP. So, we've been waiting for that next step to come, for them to actually say, hey, we're actually going to do a study of UAP. But so far, all they've been doing is they've been kind of liaising with Arrow. And that's about it, because I guess they don't want to duplicate efforts and things like that. Personally, I want to see NASA do an independent study away from everything else. So, Mike Gold's presence here, him kind of simping for NASA and saying, essentially making the case. Yeah, let us do it. Let us study UAP. Come on. I agree with. Let them do it. Let's see what comes up. There's funding and people and money, which he did allude to the fact that that is a struggle. Yes. To get that. Which is not as easy. It's going to a school where teachers are massively under pressure, I think, in any school, and giving them an additional project to do on top of their normal school working day. But saying they have to do it within the confides of the time they've got in school and during their normal day job as well. So, I do get it still requires funding, money, budget. And it goes to a kind of point that was mentioned, Dan, about Frost mentions visiting facilities and hearing that private contractors rent hangars and the government don't know what's happening in these hangars. And then Gold makes a point about needing the right instruments for NASA to study the UAP topic. And he says, if we were studying black holes using pilots' cockpit cameras, we wouldn't know much about black holes. And that's a pretty fair point to make. Yeah, exactly. And on that front, it's encouraging to see Arrow with their Gremlin system, that they're deploying that in more places over the next year and going forward. Project Galileo is another one that are getting these sensor systems out that are specifically kind of tailored to look for UAP, amongst other things as well. And all that data will be great and they can give that off to people at the studying meteors and things like that. But yeah, we need sensors built specifically for this effort. And unfortunately, that does take money. And we're not saying they don't probably have some of these already, folks. We're well aware of that. But it's how easy the access is to these and even the existence of these sensors are known and all that kind of stuff. So yeah, totally got a base on the dark side of the moon, don't they, Dan? Yeah. Don't even get me started. Why? Why? Are we getting into the moon stuff now? The moon is weird. You've got like 60 seconds. Tell me about the moon. 60 seconds. So NASA crashed something into the moon and it rang like a bell, which was unexpected. And that maybe it's hollow. And a lot of virus kind of went with the whole, the structures inside the moon. The moon also, the fact that it faces us the same way all the time is really strange. We've not really found another planet that has a moon like that. When people say the dark side of the moon, they mean the part facing away from us. It's not always dark. So I might like to say when it's around a certain side of our planet, we have mapped it. You can look at that map on Google Earth and stuff like that. Yes, they could have removed stuff from it. But at the same time, nothing would be on the surface, right? It would be silly to put stuff on the surface, just like we're talking about on this planet. If there's something else here, it's hiding in lava tubes or it's in the oceans. It's not in such an obvious place. Was that in the 60 seconds? Yeah, I'll give you that. The representative, Anna Polina Luna, who's been a big UAP UFO conversationalist over the last year or two, she came across really frustrated at what she was hearing from everyone. And I reckon it got to her and she was quite pissed off just the way she came across. She asked if any USOs have outpaced US submarines. Gallaudet said yes by some way. I think he says by magnitudes. She pushes Gallaudet about hot spots where UAP enter and exit the water. And he pushed that towards Lou Elizondo. She asked Lou about craft being piloted by non-human biologics. He agrees they are likely intelligently controlled as observed by their actions. Which is an interesting response, right? Yeah. Because it's not saying there's a pilot in there. It's just saying it's intelligently controlled. And Mike Gold, even in another part of the hearing, talks about non-biological life. Not to say that he knows something, but he's clearly open to there being non-biological life that isn't just AI in the way that we're making it. So the fact that Lou kind of kept that broad and just said intelligently controlled, there's a lot of possibilities in there that don't include a little grey man sat in a control stick, controlling it with his mind. Yeah. She asked him to speak about these being interdimensional. He pushes back on that and says he tries to look at things scientifically. He mentioned the speeds of these craft are way beyond what we have or can do. She asks if they're alive. He says he can't see. She asked the panel if anyone has come across first-hand experience of these beings. The panel stayed quiet. Lou says he was more nuts and bolts performance than that side of things, which was an interesting answer because I don't always think that's the impression he's given on interviews. Yeah, I would agree with that. Or in other settings. But she came across the best prepared for this. She is clearly... I wouldn't be shocked if she had spoken to Lou Elizondo and or others in preparing those questions because she used her five minutes well. And I would have had multiple of those other congressmen and women have given their time over to her to ask more questions because she was good to her. Yeah, I agree with that. Luna came in prepared and ready to just throw those questions out as well. But do you get the feeling she knows what she's talking about as well? She's not just asking a question. It's like she's got a reason for asking it. Yes, completely. It's almost like someone has brought something to her and then she's asking about a specific thing for a very specific reason. And it's not just fishing like later on. I mean, maybe we'll skip over it, but boy, but which she just brought up all this crap about hybrids and stuff. And it just felt like, oh, you're asking that because you saw it on YouTube or something. Like there was a drive there that wasn't there with anyone else. So yeah, props to Luna on that front. Yeah, Garcia had his five minutes. He asks what he thinks they are. Gallaudet and Lew say non-human higher intelligence. Schellenberger doesn't know. Gold says he doesn't know, but wants to find out. Probably says a lot about the witnesses in that little summary. Yeah, right. And he gets the witnesses, Gallaudet, to stress the importance of the UAP Disclosure Act passing. A little bit of a non-event, five minutes. Andy Biggs asks some questions I've got here that he asks why things are overclassified. Lew says that when this was first a reality to the US government, it was Cold War. The US government didn't want to show its hand as to what they knew, which is very fair. That just makes sense. And I think that's the kind of answer that goes down well in these hearings from a public point of view, because that makes sense for a public going, well, why are they keeping it secret? Well, there's an answer. That's a good answer. Well put. And you've got to be mindful of this. I've said it before, the national security angle. They're not going to want everything out. There's a game being played with information that's being released between countries in terms of trying to misdirect. But I do have to mention there that that moment just took my mind flying back to the intro to Tom DeLonge's Secret Machines, where he says that the general that he spoke to started a story with, it was the Cold War and we found a body. A life on time frame is the same. Reasoning is the same here. Just one example of holding these possibilities in your mind and going, it doesn't necessarily confirm it, but it certainly poked my ears up. Yeah, it gave me the point. And I think I asked Nap about this, Dan. And if anyone sat in these hearings and gave a location and said, I think the big famous one from the last couple of years is Ross Coulthart saying he knows where a craft is that's so large they had to build over it. Yes. And if one of these locations was given out, what would stop, for example, China invading? Like, see, if it's technology that's that secret, or if you were China and the US confirmed, okay, at Area 51, let's just go with the classic, at Area 51 in a hangar, we do have a UFO. We do have an alien spacecraft. We believe it to be alien. And we're trying to look at the technology. Every single resource from a spying point of view or intelligence point of view of China, Russia, and other countries and private contractors around the globe would descend on those places. And people inside would informants, all that kind of stuff. And bribery would go through the roof. It happened with the Manhattan Project. There were scientists working on the Manhattan Project who were double agents. And this is all what led into the Cold War of keeping your secrets tight, because you never know who's coming to get them. What's interesting is that the US kicked out a bunch of people that they thought were spies and then brought in actual goddamn Nazis to do this stuff. Not necessarily a solution, right? But yeah, it happens. It happens all the time. And it wouldn't necessarily be an invasion. But if Ross put that location out there. So in fact, let's even talk about what it actually is. Ross has said that he knows this. So there's going to be a letter or a conversation, maybe a text message, maybe an email. Everyone who's interested in this technology and thinks that it can do good for their country would be trying to hack his email. They'd be trying to look at his letters. They'd be looking at his phone. They'd be, you know, all these things. And they wouldn't necessarily lead to, you know, SEAL Team 6 kind of going in there or the equivalents. But it sure as hell would lead to some people applying for jobs and trying to use cover to kind of get in there to get what they can find. I can't remember when it was, but there was one person who, it's going to really bug me that I can't remember their name. But they literally stole like a whole safe of documents related to the Manhattan Project, took pictures of them, and sent them off to Russia. And it's this kind of thing that's going to be happening. It's espionage. You know, it's not all sexy, like Mission Impossible. Some of it's just boring taking pictures of documents, but it happens. It's real. So they have to be careful with this. 100%. So he asked, does any aspect of the US government have technology? Lew brings up ATAP trying to get material. Burleson asks about material being blocked from coming into Lew's possession. Lew can't say where it would be in open discussion. He says in a skiff, he still could make the decision to convince Burleson by telling him who, where, or what. Lew says his focus was nuts and bolts, not biologics. Burleson does ask, has there been communication with non-human life forms? Lew says about craft, communicating non-verbally and the way they act. I felt his answer was a bit of a fob-off, and I wasn't impressed with that answer. He's spoken about this before, and I'm going to mention the whale thing again. I interviewed Michelle Faunet, who looks at whale song. And when I did that, I fired a text off to Lew, just saying, hey, is there anything you'd want to ask this expert on marine biologics acoustics? And the question he asked was about how you would communicate non-verbally with a species who didn't have sound in a sound language, and language in the same way we have it. And the answer was really interesting, but I've always thought that it was a really interesting question from Lew, just in the sense that it kind of tips to, how do you communicate with something where you don't share a commonality to the point where, even if you were to hold up a spoon, there are so many assumptions that go into why you call it a spoon, what you use it for, that it's not a weapon, and so on and so forth, that without that kind of shared knowledge base and shared ancestry, you can't even communicate what a damn spoon is. And it made me think of his analogy about the gorilla in the zoo, and it's kind of playing with the lock, and then it gets out, and the zookeeper has a choice to make in that moment of whether to put the gorilla down, to tranquilize it, to just welcome it with open arms, and so on and so forth. Um, and I've always wondered, you know, how would you, as the gorilla, communicate, don't shoot me, when you don't have that language, and I don't know, like, making a monocle and top hat and pouring it on would probably, you know, be a safe bet for them to go, huh, this gorilla's not going to rip a bunch of children apart, versus angrily smashing the bars and throwing rocks and stuff like that. Um, makes me think of the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where they communicate with sound, light, and frequency, hat tip to Russ and Bryce again. Um, but yeah, here, I would have liked to have seen that mentioned a bit more, because while it's nonverbal communication, if a plane flies too close to your plane, and it's pushy, or, you know, you're walking down the street, and someone, like, bumps you in the shoulder, seemingly purposely, that's nonverbal communication. But I don't really feel like that's what the question was getting at, right? Exactly. It wasn't what was being asked. And Lou could have qualified that by saying, can you either, what are you asking exactly, for Burleson to say, have we spoken to, have we ever captured these things? Because basically, Burleson's getting that Skinny Bob type video. How have we sat down and spoken to, or have we received communications? You know, let's go three body problem style, wow signal, that's what was being asked here. That, Lou's answer went down a bit of a fluffy route. And it's also, I think his final one does the same. Um, so for me, either qualify it, maybe Burleson should ask a better question, but that for me was a bit of a deflection, and I think a bit of an ugh answer. Um, but again, I feel Lou will get the shit on this from me, because he was the only one that could really give any kind of decent answer at all anyway. So, yeah, that's true. And that is my point, everything had to be directed to him. Same way, if right now, my football team Rangers have a player who is utter shit, right? He's a striker, but he's the only striker we have got fit. He's not particularly great, but he has good games and bad games, but because he plays so often, he's always getting judged on good, bad and different. Sure. So you don't have any other options. And this was what it was like, I think, at this point for me with this panel, Gallaudet wasn't bringing anything to it. Schellenberger couldn't. Gold, God bless him, was just lovely sitting there in the corner. Lou was the only one that they could ask. And I feel the questions were so varied that you would as well just having Lou Elizondo sitting there. I literally, I have a note here saying, for me, Lou is the standout here. And I almost wish that he was on his own in this hearing, just to field all of the questions. I think it would have been more productive. I think questions like this nonverbal one, they could have gone into with a lot more depth and the Senate could have followed up and said, that's not what I meant. This is what I'm getting at. And then maybe Lou could have said, well, you know, we've got to look at these nonverbal cues as communication because we don't have a shared language base. But yeah, it was at this point for me as well, where I was like, I'm kind of annoyed by these other people being here now. I think they're taking valuable time away from what we're actually here to talk about, according to Mace's briefing at the opening statement. So on that, Dan, next up, Representative William Timmons. I've literally got, he asks Lou about the frequency of events. Lou says there's better equipment now to track. Thought if we had had this hearing, because at this point I could see online loads of people slating this hearing, people generally weren't happy. If we had had this hearing first last year, if it had been these four witnesses, I think people generally, or I would have at least, went, that was pretty good. Lou came across well, and the other witnesses played a part. We didn't have that, though. We had Grush last year. And Grush was Infinity War to this being Black Adam. Oh, I thought you were going to go with Thor 2. Black Adam's so much worse. Yeah, I think so. I would agree with that. But it also kind of felt like, yeah, you kind of want these two tracks to come together, right? You know, Grush and Elizondo, you know, they work together. We know that now from that Q&A. So we've got these two puzzle pieces. And for me, I wasn't as down on this, but I did expect more from it. But I really want to see what the next one looks like, because we can't have this again. It can't just be soft like this again. Like, by now we have enough that actual witnesses should be coming forward. And I made a little list at the end of this saying, okay, based on everything that's been said. I don't mind you going to that now. But let me ask you, though. So then, what we don't need are names that we know enough from. And to be fair, Lou has put everything he can in a book, to which, you know, we didn't even mention Luna slapped that down when Lou mentioned his book. Yeah, she does not want to read a book. I think she felt it was a bit of a cheap plug for his book. And she was asking a question she wanted an answer to. I don't think Lou was being flicked. Lou did address that in his Q&A. He said that he wasn't trying to plug his book. It was more that he was kind of saying, this is the line that I've been told I can go to. And I can't go any further. And you're asking me to go further, which I thought was a fair answer. But in the actual interaction in the hearing, it did feel a little like that. I forget. Did Lou have his book on the table? No. No, he doesn't have his book next to him? I don't think so. I would say I'm 95% sure he didn't. Okay. Just that paper name badges. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And those tiny bottles of water. Because Lou's a big guy, so tiny bottles of water. So, in terms of that, she wanted answers to the questions. And it wasn't the time and place to mention that. Albeit, like you say, we brought it up in the spirit of it. But we don't need someone who has spilled everything he can. Very much appreciative of that already. So, in the same breath, I am now in a place where I don't want to see Chris Mellon speak at one of these. Because I don't know what Chris Mellon would do that he could say publicly other than I can say in a skiff. Or he's already said on numerous interviews. And again, this isn't a dig at Mellon or Elizondo. These people have given up so much of their time on TV, news broadcasts, articles, podcasts, blogs, whatever it might be. They've said what they can say. We need people who have said a lot less, like Anel, who I imagine is on your list. Like Eric Davis, who is someone that you would think is pretty high up in this. I'd have Hal Puthoff in one of these things, potentially. I know he's done some interviews, but he's a lot more reserved in what he said. I imagine he knows a lot more. I'd have Jay Stratton in these kind of things. Lekatsky in these sorts of things. People who have said a lot less or been a lot less public and haven't been doing all kinds of journalistic endeavours so far. Because I think that would speak to what you said of, we can't do this again. Yeah. Yeah. Funny that your list, actually, not a million miles away. Go on. So I would have Mellon there, but only so Mellon could introduce first-hand witnesses. Because I feel like he has the qualifications and the experience to make it feel as big as it should. Stratton, I'd also have there. Both were mentioned multiple times during this hearing. I'd be surprised if either of them, shocked, quite frankly, if either of them weren't called to testify next time. But then I'd also have, and I don't know who, these people would be nameless, but Lockheed, CIA, and this kind of materials issue. Someone there needs to be subpoenaed to talk about this. And I'd want to hear from someone at Lockheed. Someone from the inside there saying, yes, I can confirm this. Do you think we've heard enough? Yeah. And again, I don't mean disparagingly with these people. I mean, but they've probably said as much as they can publicly. Yeah, they have. And the thing, like, I don't want the CIA there, to be honest. Because I just, they're involved in that Lockheed CIA kind of big transfer. But someone from the Lockheed side of it, from the private industry side of it, that's willing to come forward and talk about that. I think that would have much more impact because it confirms a piece of the puzzle. We just, we haven't heard anything from anyone inside Lockheed about this. And see on all of this, I think I'm trying to say this, that people don't think, oh, Andy's bashing on Elizondo and Mel and all that. Absolutely not. Me and you are big fans of Tom DeLonge. I don't want to see Tom DeLonge at this point. Nope. Testifying in front of Congress. Tom said plenty. Yep. And I mean, let's be honest. Tom had three hours of conversation with Joe Rogan and it went badly. He wouldn't do much better in front of Congress. And I've got to think that he'd be the kind of person that would go, me? No, no. You want these people here. Talk to the general. Talk to Tom DeLonge. Talk to Neil McCaslin. These people that informed these people that are bringing it to us as the public face of it. And yeah, then lastly, Schellenberger's Witness. There's a lot in that document that's a big accusation. And it's real entertaining. There are some red flags throughout it. The UEP acronym changes almost on every page. It goes from aerial to anomalous in various different points of it. To the point where I was like, is two people right in this? It also ends with that whole be not afraid thing, which I just kind of rolled my eyes at. Because it doesn't feel like the same language as an official report we'd have or something like that. So lots of flags there. Lots to dig into. Green and red flags. It's time for that witness to step up. Tim Birchett is putting up that UAP Whistleblower Protections Act. Let's get that through. Let's get that witness in front of Congress talking and talking to the public. Because enough with the dog and pony show. That goes for Arrow. That goes for this side of it as well. So I've seen a few people ask, and people have emailed me asking, either they think it's Grush or Elizondo that wrote the document. What would you say to those two names? So I've seen other names passed around. People from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and things like that. There wasn't language in there. You know, having spoken to Lou, as I have, there wasn't language in there that made me feel that that was Lou's language. Grush can't really say either way. I haven't spent a lot of time talking to him. But there's not a lot of crossover between what's in that document and what Grush has said. It's perfectly possible that what Immaculate Constellation is could have been what Grush's op-ed was about, right? But without that being out there, I can't say. I'm doing an Arrow. Like, without the data, I just can't say. Like I say, with Lou, I don't think so. There's that paragraph in there about, you know, essentially Lou was writing a paragraph, which was odd to me and stuck out, you know, like a red flag. Like, I don't get the sense that Lou would be that clumsy if he was to do something like that. Of course, I'm saying that with the chandelier photo and stuff like that out there. So this is just my, you know, two cents. Like, maybe. It'd be very brash to sit next to your own report anonymously in front of Congress and be like, like, I wrote that, but you don't know that. Yeah, and he distanced himself from it and stuff. So, yeah, I just couldn't say. But I hope that it's from someone that we haven't met yet. Yeah. And so are the claims of it being correct, the witnesses that have corroborated, the Schellenberger study spoken to, that they are people we haven't met yet. But those people, if that document is to continue having any weight, those people need to show their faces. And I say that with respect. We need the whistleblower protections. We need to protect people like them. They need to come forward. This is a kind of a group deal, you know, protect them, then get them forward. Really interesting, Dan, up next, someone has managed to basically create human life out of Reddit, the forum, and in the form of Lauren Bober, brought it to life. So, if you're going to sit there and talk about flat Earth, birds being cameras or drones, genetic, human genetic manipulation, etc. I am sure there was a percentage of folks on UFO subreddits and UFOX who would have been loving that. This is why there is a time and place for certain conversations to be had. And I'm not comparing it, but an extreme I would use that the public aren't ready for and why we still don't hear it is the experiencer conversation. So, and I've mentioned that before. I enjoy seeing it the way it's been represented in some documentaries recently because it's very well done. I don't think it's ready given where we're at just now in these political settings because that needs more public on board first to then take it up a notch and really introduce them to that level of the conversation. Lauren Bober was awful here. And this was Reddit and TikTok had a baby, and this is what happened. She was just so on. And if she's your representative folks and you love her, fine, but awful, God awful. Yeah, same. As soon as, I mean, the flat Earth and the bird stuff. Don't sit in front of Congress, your peers and colleagues and military officialdom and say that. Just don't. It's not the time and place for it, and it comes across. That, to me, is, you know, when I see people queuing up to go, and hi to the folks who attended these hearings, who listen. But if you're queuing up and I go, please, God, no one from the public embarrass the topic by doing or saying something ridiculous. You know, like standing up with a sign or something like you see in a Hollywood movie. Yeah. Or shout about Area 51 or something that you go, oh, God, or wearing a tinfoil hat. This is the equivalent of that. Like a big sign saying. Yeah. Another independency reference. For a reason, Dan, I'll tell you later. Mace then finishes her questions. She asks Lou about being read into SAPs, special access programs. He, particularly Immaculate Constellation, he can't admit to being read into those, which isn't a no. That's just a yes, isn't it? Can't confirm or deny, wasn't it? Yes. Otherwise, he would just say no. Yeah. Yeah. And like these things, you know, it could just be that he doesn't want to talk about it on the off chance that it is real. But at the same time, there's so much ammo there now for the community to go, wait, you were read into Immaculate Constellation. So, yeah. We whole. He, we, yeah. It's clear that Lou has, you know, having signed that document with crash retrievals and his work with David Grush dealing with UAP imagery. It's clear that Lou has handled UAP imagery from sensors that are multi-spectral. It's clear that Lou has been involved in crash retrievals, whether that's just looking at documents from crash retrieval or going to a site and retrieving something. Couldn't say. But those two things are clear from these kind of non-answers that are given, I would say. He's asked about if certain material is given to certain contractors because of its source. For example, if something was retrieved underwater, would it go to, say, Boeing or Lockheed because they are experts and that kind of stuff? He says, yes, that just makes sense. Differing contractors with a different expertise and different departments to deal with different things. Lou has asked what Lockheed's expertise is. He says aerospace, which makes sense. It's basically the title of the company. Mace asked Schellenberger how we get more whistleblowers to come forward. He says if they come forward to him, he will protect their identities and these hearings are important. Not a good answer. That's like, you know, how do we get folks to come forward? Oh, they come and tell me. Then that's not what we need. Yeah, that was as bad as Arrow, right? Like it was like a little bit of self-promotion. Like, no, that's not what the question was getting at. She wants to know how they can get them forward. That should have been the place to talk about protections and a proper system for Congress. Have you seen Chetty Chetty Bang Bang, where the child snatcher has the lollipop around the thing? And it's like, come on, kids, ice cream, lollipops, candy floss. And they run in and it all falls off and it's like, ha, I've caught you. I feel that's what Arrow, not I'm seeing Michael Schellenberger's doing that, but that's kind of what Arrow are doing to witnesses back in the day. Because Schellenberger just in a long coat outside Congress and lollipops. Yep, not realizing that it was actually all a plan. So Mace then asks each of them to define non-human biologics and intelligence. Garadette says, it's not a stretch to think in a universe that are higher intelligences and beings and it's something from out there. I've put down Lou's answer as a bit of a nothing answer. He said the ability to react to stimulus. Yeah, not again, what was being asked. Yeah, but on the other side of it, when we're talking about life and how we define life, like Lou touched on a little of that. He was like, well, it's really difficult to define life. And I really don't think enough people realize that we don't have a definition for life. So when we find something, we just don't have a definition for life. So when it comes to us finding something and saying, is that life? We can't say. There's literally nothing. So the best we've got right now is, does it react to us? Does it do something in reaction to a stimulus? Like Lou said, it's a crap answer, but it is the best that science has. And like, I just would have, again, liked a bit more elaboration there about, you know, well, how do we get to a definition of life? Like how can we actually work towards something that's actionable? Two different conversations for me then that one, Congress is asking the wrong questions and two, that the wrong answers are being given. And either the people giving those answers are deliberately giving roundabout answers or not quite reading the room, given they know what the day is. So for me, Schellenberger was like, I don't know, which, fine. It wouldn't matter what Schellenberger said anyway. At this point in the hearing, it's like, I don't even answer. Yeah, I was at that point with it. And Mike Gold probably had the most interesting one about it could be artificial intelligence, could be machines. Bear in mind, Dan, my point here, especially on the Lou stuff, the audience watching this, the public perception, all that stuff. And basically what's being said throughout anyway about intelligent life and UEP are real and all that kind of stuff, there's an opportunity there to really get the attention of some folks. And it's an opportunity missed. And I'm sure Lou does say it's different. So there is an allusion to non-human biologics being alien life and Roswell being alien bodies. That's what's being asked here. Don't miss the boat. That was frustrating for me. Yeah, sure. I totally hear you. And to this question, Mike Gold had the most interesting answer. Intelligence could be biological. It might not. The ultimate answer will surprise us all. That's a hook. Like he, I don't know if he's been media trained, but God damn, like that's intriguing. And that's what I mean. So you're watching that. If you're a member of the public sitting watching this that hasn't read Lou Elizondo's book, he's gave a bit of a nothing answer. If you're listening, you're Schellenberger, you're going fucking waste of time. Gallaudet gives a bit of a, okay, bit of generic, but okay, out there, space aliens, essentially. But Gold gets your attention. If you're a member of the public and this guy's going, look, we don't know, but how interesting could it be? Like you say, and then it could be AI, it could be, and he gives some potential, he gives some food for thought. It's the end, well, it's about, we thought it was the end of the hearing. Leave the public, leave the people wanting more, leave them with a hook, leave them with something to cling on to. I'm sure the four, I would hope, I'll say, the four witnesses were sitting there at that point thinking, I wish they'd asked me this and I wish they'd asked me that. Because I feel Congress as a whole didn't perform particularly well here. I think we've called out the individuals who've done well. I would like to think those witnesses at that point thought, this is my last chance to get a good point in here and really make something tangible and give them something to sink their teeth into. And I felt that was largely missed. Like you say, maybe me watching it along with a load of other people, seeing all their comments, being disappointed and whatnot at the time as well, that may have had an impact on that. Maybe if I'd watched it afterwards on my own, maybe be slightly different. I still feel those answers. I was looking for more. So, hey-ho. But it wasn't the end, was it, Dan? It wasn't, no. We had a 11th hour edition who came in with a bit of swagger and was welcome to, you're just in time, babe, from Nancy Mays. Can I say, Representative Andy Ogles cashed in his Congress in the Bank briefcase for the wrestling fans out there and basically crashed the party. And Dan, I'm glad he did because Ogles was decent for a guy who literally rocked up late. He wasn't there from the beginning, folks. He literally came in like, oh, shit, sorry, I've missed it. And they were like, no, no, it's fine. We'll give you five minutes. Do you want to take this one away, Dan? Yeah, sure. So he came in late and he kind of gave this really, it was almost like they couldn't have planned it better. He did such a good roundup of the whole thing, just real concise. He said, well, it's clear there's something going on. He asked a lot of questions that kind of brought it back to what really they were there to discuss, which is whether Congress had oversight, which it was clear they didn't. He reminded everyone of that fact just as they were closing out. He got Lou to say that lots of sensitive locations seem to be under some sort of monitoring. And if they were going to... Lou's best answer? That's what Lou should have been saying. So this was what I was trying to get at, Dan. That was like someone asked him a good question and he gave a good answer. That's the kind of stuff I was like, he was there for that kind of stuff. He wasn't being asked the right questions for the most part beforehand. And I'm not saying with the one I talked about previously where I was disappointed that he needed to give the answer himself. So, for example, in my day job, if I'm training someone, we'll do mock conversations for selling satellite TV, right? Sure. You can be a customer who's really awkward. And sometimes if a customer's not, you'll have to give someone information they've not really asked you for, but you're trying to help them along. Yes, I know. That's exactly what you're getting at. Because it's like... There's questions we aren't asking the right thing. Yeah. Kind of like how politicians have this knack that when media asks them questions, they'll just talk about something unrelated because that's what they want to talk about. Yeah. That's kind of how this should have gone with, oh, you've spoken to me about communication. Cool. Well, I'm going to talk to you about a purported landing in a mayor base where a deal was made between E.T. And it's not what they've asked about, but this is the interesting stuff. And it's a tricky balance. It really is. But Ogles came in with some really good questions to allow some emphasis on this kind of stuff. He finished up with just the exclamation mark over the fact that the UAP is a threat to personnel, that the lack of transparency on legislative oversight responsibilities of Congress, it's being hid from Congress and there's no accountability to it. The Congress must know. And if anyone stops them from knowing, that's criminality. I thought that was a great note to end on. It was a plan that he came in, but I'm glad that he did. I thought he did a great job. Spot on. See, between what you've said there about the criminality and getting Lou to talk about how the sites are particularly heavy research and development focused, they are the best sites for cutting edge technology and they seem to be under some sort of surveillance. Fantastic. Brilliant. Yeah. Great. So are you seeing we've got foreign adversities, Russia, China, surveilling our best sites? Yep. Potentially. Is it something else? Do we have any evidence of that? You know, what reports will crack on from there? That doesn't happen throughout the time. So yeah, Ogles, well done for coming in late to the party. I would like to think, Dan, although it's been more than five days, this was on the 13th of November, Congress had five days to submit additional questions to the witnesses for answering. Yep. I'll need to chase up as well. I don't know. I've not seen anything online to see if that has been done yet or if indeed anything was asked. But I'd like to think some follow-ups were done. Overall, Dan, hearing-wise, I'll stick with, if this had come first and then we got the Grush hearing, this would have had a far bigger impact. This never touched the sides in the same way that the Grush hearing did, which I think was disappointing. I'm glad it happened. I think it's really important that Lou finally went up in front of Congress and spoke because that was always going to be something held over him as well from people who are naysayers or doubters saying, oh, well, he's never done this. He's finally done it. There you go. Brilliant. Lou Elizondo has done his part. He's helped get those videos out. He's released his book. He said loads of stuff. He's now done it in front of Congress. We need different Lou Elizondos, different Dave Grushes. If there's Bob Lazar's out there who are working in these programs still now, we need to hear from them. Maybe James Fox's documentary can get some anonymous sources, which then come forward in the next ones. I don't know. But we need to move on from this because it sounds like even Grushes hearing, which I think we all loved what came from that, a lot was said. There was very little action off the back of it that we can see, and that frustration spilled over even to this hearing. So I don't know quite where we go from here yet, but yeah, I don't know. Thoughts? Yeah, that's fair. Watching it away from the hype and drive of the community, I came away with the impression that Congress seemed really engaged. They seemed really goddamn annoyed, and it's clear that we're going to get more hearings and work in the future. We'll see some more legislation. We already have Tim Burchett, Gillibrand. These are all good things. Wind the clock back 10 years, and this is a goddamn miracle that we're seeing any of this. And I think it's important to keep that in perspective. In a week, yeah, two UMP hearings in a week. We've got to keep that in perspective. Sure, it wasn't the greatest thing in the world, but it's still great that it happened. And I completely agree that what we need to see now is action on the parts of the Congress people, officials, House representatives. Like I said earlier, Trump has just won the White House, the House, and the Senate. No excuses. You've got the entire government behind you now if you want to go ahead and do this. So let's get it done. Let's see some action. Let's see some steps forward on this. We're seeing, we've seen enough people now to say, I hate the phrase, but there's a there there. Congress are convinced of it too. They want answers. We've got scientists on record in hearings saying, we're happy to study it. Let us study it. So let them study it. Let's get it going. This whole thing reminded me of the thing that Lou said a while back. Disclosure is a marathon, not a sprint. This wasn't a sprint. This wasn't a 10 meter baton pass. It really feels like a marathon. No, it's just like, ah, there's another corner to go around. Ah, there's more road ahead of us. And that that's how I feel right now. We're not done. We can't even see the finish line on this thing, but it's going to carry on because it's going to carry on. There's just more to unveil. So the proof and important is going to be where we go next. So let's see. Next hearing, I want to see everything kind of starting to come together. It would even be wonderful to see John Goslosky next to someone like Lou and have them talk to each other and actually challenge each other when someone says, oh, Arrow stopped me doing this. And John objects to it and then they can object. And, you know, it would be a great conversation that was very revealing for many reasons. So, yeah, action, action, action. Let's get going. If anyone thinks I'm completely down on the whole thing, put it this way. I am glad I can be disappointed at the fact we've had two hearings in a week in the US from the Congress and the Senate all about UFOs. That's a good place to be disappointed with. That's the way I feel. So just to finish off on a couple of questions, Dan, some of them have kind of answered within the body of what we've said, but we'll just we'll just fly over them, folks, because we've been recording nearly three hours and I can't feel my feet at this point, Dan. First question from S. Neihart. Hi, I was not I am not as knowledgeable as you all are, but here are some questions and thoughts for you and Dan. Trust me, you probably are. I like the opening statements. I like to declassify anything older than 15 years or 15 months, if you're Dan. He's very impatient. Although I wish they would have specified Roswell, for heaven's sake, as we pass time. Retribution needs to be dealt with right now, not later. America needs to quit using three-lettered agencies against our good citizens. Gold seemed to be there for another agenda. I wonder who put him there. Taking over for Nell, perhaps. I thought he was talking to grade school kids. What did we think of Big's time? And finally, why did we list like Bobert? She was the only kind of embarrassing one. I thought everyone else was all right to really good. Tippy-top there being Ogles for me. Mace, second place. Big's was solid. Seemed engaged, seemed interested. I can't really ask for more than that from people that are just showing their face in the space for the first time. And he also took the angle of that over-classification stuff. Do you feel that they were a little bit maybe disjointed in their questioning? Did they all meet up beforehand and speak to each other and say, I'm going to ask about this? I'm going to ask about this. Okay, we're going to duplicate. So can you ask about this instead? Rather than maybe it be so disjointed the way it was? They should. I agree. They totally should because it maximizes their time, right? And we've even done it with past interviews where we kind of will look at another episode of someone else's show and kind of go, well, they asked that. Let's not ask that again. You'll pick a question then that actually advances that line of questioning. I mean, if podcasters can do it, so should senators. Ryan says, I agree with a lot of your comments. I also thought Rep Luna was amazing. She appeared to be well prepared, had relevant questions. I noticed the numbers on X were over 300,000, which is amazing. Yeah, it's wild. Do you think there's going to be a skiff off the back of this, Dan? I'm just going to say no if they've struggled so badly for Grush. I mean, there has to be, just in the sense that, you know, there was enough given Lou has his clearance. There's been some questions around Dave Grush getting his clearance back because he doesn't have it for whatever reason. I don't think they have that same problem with Lou. David says, it's been a year and a half since the last one and still Congress hasn't been able to validate Grush's allegations. Seriously, you don't think they have the wherewithal to check that story out? Bullshit. The cigarette smoking man ain't that good. Congress is not serious about this investigation. They're merely pandering to their true believer constituents. Yeah, that's an opinion. So fair enough. And we kind of covered that with a nerd on, didn't we? About Grush's allegations and why Congress may or may not know exactly what was said or why it's not been said. I think that's going to happen with the fullness of time if it does. Yeah, I completely agree. Congress needs to talk to Grush on his own in a skiff. That hasn't happened so far yet. They're just talking to agencies and being like, hey, have you got any of this? And they're just going, no. And then they're going, OK, and then leaving. Not really convincing investigation there. Pat shared a few thoughts, including, I still assert the government will never tell us anything. To do so would be to admit lying or incompetence, neither of which they will do. If you want answers, you're going to have to involve scientific folks. We have had many hearings in the last decades and achieved nothing. People are unaware of that history, maybe. But we are beating a dead horse here. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again, expecting an answer and sanity. All I'll say, Pat, is, and I'm sure Dan will agree, we've not achieved nothing as much as we can be downtrodden about this. There's been no loss here. There's been no regression. There have been small wins. And if anything, it still does get a small amount more of the public's attention on the subject. At the same time, you've got George Knapp's documentaries, the James Fox documentary, the Beyond documentary. Lou's book's only been out a few months. He's doing his tour off the back of that. There is still a lot going on that people are getting involved in as well. So Netflix is probably a good barometer for content that they have had quite a lot of UFO stuff the last few months. Some good, some bad, some indifferent, in my opinion. But that's still an interest, a public interest indicator, isn't it, Dan? So I think these do have their place. And when I spoke to Brian Bender, that interview will be out next week. He does make the point, these kind of hearings maybe don't push things forward, but they do keep the heat on. And that can be important. Yeah, I completely agree with what Brian said there. That's what they're for. And that's why I wanted to read that opening statement from Nancy Mace there. Because I think our desires for those hearings and why those hearings are taking place are often at odds. Everyone wants to see Lou put materials on the desk and show pictures of bodies and stuff like that. That was never, ever on the table. So the expectation is kind of out of whack. There's something to be said for certain people in the community really overhyping these things and saying things about secret witnesses and so on and so forth that just chill a little bit. Because that kind of big hype just leads to a big letdown. Again, I've got to agree with the whole history part of it. I think a lot of that is going to end up being swept under the rug when this new discovery, and I'm doing new in bunny ears if you can't see me, is made. Because of the embarrassment of the decisions of people in the past that might not be kind of looked upon fondly. You've only got to look at how the U.S. government talks about J. Edgar Hoover running the CIA to see that he's not a great hero. He's someone that made some really questionable decisions and just morally kind of bankrupt in some areas. And they're like, yeah, he ran that. And that's about it. No one's giving him props. I think a lot of people in the past that have touched this issue are going to be seen in that way. And yeah, we're kind of almost starting over. But I totally agree with these kind of baby steps forward. It's not for nothing at all. We've made big progress, as I said, from 10 years ago to hearings now. Like, wow, that's crazy. Like, it was only 2017. We were celebrating the front page in the New York Times. And now we've got two hearings in a week. Also, props to Knapp. I just wanted to say props to Knapp for his show. So it was wonderful. Not overly sensational. Very matter of fact. I think Knapp and the production crew did a fantastic job. And I was really intrigued by that video they filmed of the orb going into the water. Arthur says, A hearing was as expected. There weren't any massive revelations. It just moved the general public's view on the topic down the needle a bit, away from decades of stigma. And as government consultants, Lou and Tim will always be bound by NDAs. Mr. Corbell will have egg on his face after the hype, but people should not expect any whistleblare just to show up to tell all and go to jail. Baby steps. Don't look to government to tell all. People will be waiting a very long time. 80 years and counting. That is all for this episode. Thank you very much for tuning in. Don't forget to leave the podcast a review on your chosen platform. Apple and Spotify do make a huge difference to the algorithm. If you're checking the show on YouTube, please don't forget to like and leave a comment on here as well. Any sharing you do is very much appreciated on any social media platform. And finally, you can listen to shows ad-free and sponsor-free in their glorious full versions by subscribing for less than the price of a coffee on Apple, Spotify, just search That UFO Podcast Premium, YouTube, you can sign up and be a member, or you can do that through patreon.com. Thank you very much for listening, folks. It wasn't a tick.