Original subtitles

Welcome everyone. Without objection, the

chair may declare a recess at any time.

Additionally, without any objection, the

following members are waved onto the

task force for the purpose of

questioning witnesses at today's

hearing. Representative Biggs of

Arizona, Representative Beg of Alaska,

Representative Ogles of Tennessee,

Representative Titus of Nevada, and

Representative Mosquitz of Florida.

There are no objections. I recognize

myself for the purpose of making an

opening statement.

Good morning and welcome to the hearing

regarding UAP disclosures. For too long,

the issue of unidentified anomalous

phenomena, commonly known as UAPs, has

been shrouded in secrecy, stigma, and in

some case outright dismissal. Today, I

want to state clearly that this is not

science fiction or creating speculation.

This is about national security,

government accountability, and the

American people's right to the truth. I

have spoken now to a number of

whistleblowers from the military to

include the infamous Eglund Air Force

Base incident that occurred when myself

and former representative Matt Gates as

well as Representative Burchett followed

up on a lead from multiple active duty

Air Force pilot whistleblowers that

alleged that the United States Air Force

was covering up UAP activity at Eglund

Air Force Base. We have heard from a

number of whistleblowers, specifically

military pilots, that the reason for not

coming forward publicly is out of fear

that speaking out would cost them their

flight status and potentially their

careers. This is unacceptable. We cannot

protect our airspaces if our best

trained observers are silenced. We

cannot advance science if we refuse to

ask questions. And we cannot maintain

trust in government if we keep the

American people in the dark. Now,

Congress has tried to fix this problem.

Congress tried to create formal channels

through the All Domain Anomaly

Resolution Office, also known as Arrow,

and the Intelligence Community Inspector

General for service members and

officials to make disclosures.

But the reality, the reports come in are

often to brush aside, slowwalked, or met

with skepticism rather than serious

investigation.

Recently, the former AROW director known

as Shan Kilpatrick attacked our

witnesses and members on this committee.

It should be noted that he's a

documented liar and brings into question

what his purpose at Arrow really was if

it was not to follow up on

investigations and disclose his findings

to members of Congress. A former deputy

assistant secretary of defense for

intelligence Chris Melon described a

report published by Arrow that found no

evidence that any USG investigation

academic sponsored research or official

review panel has confirmed any sighting

of UAP represented extraterrestrial

technology

as the most errorridden and unsact

unsatisfactory government report I can

recall reading during after decades of

government service. Mel Melon further

noted that this was a first error report

submitted to Congress without the

director of national intelligence's

signoff and seemingly excluded input

from any scholars or experts who have

studied or written exclusively about

this topic extensively about this topic

as would normally be in any other case

in this field.

Melon determined that this report failed

to fulfill the congressional mandate

under which it was required, omitted

entire agencies with known

investigations or activities related to

UAPs, and omitted any discussion of

efforts to hide classified or

unclassified information about UAP. Such

efforts were under are unressed by the

report despite the existence of agency

records and investigations concurring

with them, including those at US Customs

and Border Pro uh border protection.

If we set up offices and oversight

bodies only to let them become

graveyards for testimony or worse yet,

ruses for pretending to investigate when

in actuality there was no follow-up,

then we are not doing our jobs. In

recent months, Congress has also been

presented with evidence that points to

technologies that to our knowledge are

beyond our current capabilities.

It is our duty as elected

representatives to follow the facts

wherever they lead and to ensure that

those facts are not buried under

classification stamps or bureaucratic

excuses. Let me be clear. Whether UAPs

represent adversarial technology,

natural phenomena, or something beyond

current human understanding, Congress

has a responsibility to investigate. If

these objects are foreign in origin,

then they pose a direct threat to our

national security. And if they represent

something unknown, they demand rigorous

scientific inquiry, not ridicule, not

secrecy, and not silence. The stakes are

very high. Adversar nations are not

waiting for us to catch up. They are

studying these phenomena as well

aggressively

as um as multiple nations have also

announced their own parliamentary

investigations into this very topic. If

we are to continue to hide information

from ourselves, we risk strategic

surprise. If we continue to ignore

pilots and service members as well as

countless government whistleblowers, we

risk losing their trust. And if we

continue to shield the truth from the

public, we risk eroding the very

foundation of democratic accountability.

This is why this hearing matters. This

is not about fueling speculation. This

is about demanding the basic

transparency from the Department of

Defense and the intelligence community

and other military contractors. It is

about asking the questions every

American has the right to ask. What do

we know? What don't we know? And why in

a free society are we being told so

little?

A major barrier to this committee's

inquiry into UAPs has been the lack of

cooperation and transparency from the

Department of Defense and the

intelligence community. In preparation

for previous UAP hearings, the committee

committee repeatedly asked the

Department of Defense to allow members

to view videos and files related to UAP

incidences. Unfortunately, the

Department of Defense notified the

committee staff that due to the

department's special access program

rules, only members of the House Armed

Service Committee as well as the Defense

Subcommittee on House Appropriations,

also known as HACD, were allowed to be

read in onto such programs. For a

non-committee member to be allowed to

view these documents and videos,

individual members must be approved by

the chairman and ranking member of both

HAK and HACD. Independent SAP oversight

has presented a consistent problem for

Congress as well as program budgets are

classified. Additionally, oversight

reporting to Congress is classified and

only provided to the authorizing and

appropriations committees of

jurisdiction.

The American people are not fragile.

They do not to be need to be shielded

like children from reality. What they

cannot tolerate and what they will not

forgive is a government that withholds

the truth and punishes those who dare to

speak up. I want to close with this.

Future generations will look back at

this moment and ask what we did when

presented with the unknown. Did we look

away embarrassed or afraid or did we

pursue the truth in courage with

courage? I intend to be on the side of

truth, transparency, and accountability

and I hope my colleagues on this task

force will be able to do the same. To

quote a few elected officials, Senator

Schumer has stated, "Multiple credible

sources alleged a constitutional crisis

over UFOs. Senator Rounds has stated

that these are brilliant individuals and

they are not making this stuff up." And

our current Secretary of State, Marco

Rubio, has stated very high clearances

and high positions within our government

in regards to these uh whistleblowers.

Senator McConnell also described these

whistleblowers as sane incredible. And

the witnesses today are not alone. In

fact, they're far from it. In fact, 34

senior military government and

intelligent officials have broken their

silence. This includes Senator uh

Senator or now Secretary of State Marco

Rubio, Senator Round, Senator

Gillibrand, General Jim Clapper, the

former director of the government

government's UAP task force, the former

head of aviation security for the White

House National Security Council, the

former Secretary of Defense, and many

more. Again to uh to quote Senator Rub

um Secretary of State Rubio in an

upcoming documentary known as the age of

disclosure, even presidents have been

operating on a need to- know basis that

begins to spin out of control. And to

quote Senator Gillibrand, who also went

public in this documentary, it's not

acceptable to have secret parts of this

government that no one ever sees. It's

time for the fundamental truths of UAP

to be revealed to our nation's leaders

and the public. It's time for the US

government to exercise transparency. And

with that, I yield to ranking member

Crockett for the opening statement.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. At a

time of increasing distrust in

government, it is important for Congress

to take action to restore the

government's credibility. Bringing

transparency to an issue of great public

interest is a step toward doing just

that. So, I thank Chairwoman Luna for

calling this bipartisan hearing to

discuss unidentified anomalous phenomena

or UAP, which is today's term for what

was commonly known as UFOs, unidentified

flying objects. And while some people

think of flying saucers when they hear

these terms, it is vital that we focus

on the real world impact of UAPs on

critical infrastructure, civilian

safety, and national security. There is

good reason to believe that most UAPs

have origins far closer to home.

Currently, NASA has not found any

evidence that any UAPs have an

extraterrestrial

origin. Our adversaries are working to

develop new capabilities to gain

military advantages and those efforts

are likely explanation for the m the

mysteries that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the federal government has

a responsibility to the American people

to investigate and provide transparent

disclosures about every incident. The

federal government is equally obligated

to protect those who report what they've

seen, especially to commanding officers

and supervisors, and Congress should do

everything in its power to protect

whistleblowers and conduct oversight of

agencies that are failing to provide

that protection. Democracy depends on

transparency and transparency often

relies on the courage of individuals

willing to risk their careers,

reputations, and in some cases their

personal safety to tell the truth. So, I

look forward to hearing from the

witnesses today. We should welcome their

accounts and acknowledge the bravery

they have shown to come before us. We

must ensure that all whistleblowers feel

that they can come to Congress to tell

their stories without fear of

retaliation or professional

consequences. We need transparency not

just to make better policy, but also to

ensure that information flows between

all those who need it. There are too

many tragic examples in our history

where information lapses and a lack of

cross agency coordination led to

disaster. Just this year, failure to

communicate between FAA and the

Department of Defense led to tragedy

over the PTOAC. The Biden Harris

administration sought to eliminate some

of these lapses when it established the

all domain anomaly resolution office at

the Department of Defense. Arrow can

convene sources from all branches of

military, the FAA, and NASA to combine

forces to create a comprehensive picture

of what is happening in our skies. Some

UAP reports have perfectly normal

explanations, satellites, consumer

drones, weather balloons, even pranks.

But we need to track down each and every

single UAP. The United States has

millions of eyes in the sky, both

electronic and human. But only the

combination of civilian, commercial, and

military sources, can begin to create a

complete picture. So we need to ensure

that people can come forward and report

what they have seen to the relevant

authorities, and they have to have the

right to do so without fear of

retaliation. This country has a history

of dedicated public servants standing up

for what is right, even in the face of

potential consequences. From the

Pentagon papers to Watergate to torture

programs, whistleblowers have not only

informed the public, but also empowered

Congress to fulfill its constitutional

duty of oversight. Past Congresses have

written laws to grant legal protection

for whistleblowers, and it is up to us

to work responsibly with all sources to

hold the executive branch accountable.

We are here today to listen to the

stories of those who have witnessed

events of interest to the American

people and to support the policies that

cultivate an environment that welcomes

and protects whistleblowers. I hope this

hearing will be an example of the

respect and protection whistleblowers

deserve and the importance of conducting

oversight of the federal government. I

yield back.

I am pleased to welcome the panel of

witnesses for today's hearing. I'd first

like to welcome Mr. Jeffrey Nucatelli.

He's a United States Air Force veteran

and a career federal employee with more

than 20 years of experience in national

security, law enforcement, and public

administration. Next we have Mr. Alex um

Alexand Alex Alexander Wiggins. Mr.

Wiggins is currently serving as a senior

chief operations specialist in the

United States Navy. Mr. Wiggins is

testifying in his personal capacity

today and not on behalf of the United

States Navy. Next, I would like to

recognize a gentleoman from Nevada,

Representative Titus.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman,

ranking members for allowing me to sit

with you on this panel today. Uh, I'm

honored to be able to introduce a

witness here who is from my district,

George Knap, who has been the definitive

uh, expert and reporter on this topic

that you're exploring today, UAPs or

UFOs. Uh, George is a longtime friend.

I'll say that upfront, but a very

respected journalist and a recognized

expert in this field uh, nationally and

internationally. Just a little something

about George. He came to Las Vegas in

1979 and joined KLS television station

as a general assignment reporter in

1981.

Since 1995, he's been the chief

investigative reporter for that channel.

He also hosts a national radio show you

can listen to on Coast to Coast AM,

which covers many of the paranormal

topics that y'all are discussing. Over

the years, George has been, as I said,

recognized for his work. He's been

honored with the Peabody Award, the

Dupant Award, the Edward Muro Award, and

27 different regional Emmys for his

investigative reporting. Indeed, he has

told Nevada's story with uh clarity,

with objectivity, and with integrity.

So, I know that his testimony today is

going to be of great interest and value

to this committee. So, thank you very

much.

Next, we have Mr. Dylan Borland. Mr.

Borland is United States Air Force

veteran and has a long career in federal

service. And finally, I'd like to

introduce Mr. Joe Spielberger, a senior

policy counsel at the Project of

Government Oversight.

Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the

witnesses will please stand and raise

their right hand.

Do you solemnly swear and or affirm that

the testimony that you're about to give

is a truth, the whole truth, and the

nothing but the truth? So, help you God.

Let the record show that the witnesses

answered in affirmative. Thank you. You

may take your seat.

We appreciate you being here today and I

look forward to hearing your testimony.

Let me remind the witnesses that we have

read your o uh written statements and it

will appear in full in the hearing

record. Please limit your oral

statements to five minutes, but I

understand you have a lot to get

through. So, if it goes a little over,

don't worry about it. As a reminder,

please press the button on the

microphone in front of you so that it is

on and the members can hear you. When

you begin to speak, the light in front

of you will turn green. After four

minutes, the light will turn yellow. And

when the red light comes on, your five

minutes have expired and we will ask you

to please wrap it up. I now recognize

Mr. uh Mr. Nusatelli for his opening

statement.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking

Member Crockett, and members of the task

force for giving us the opportunity to

testify today. My name is Jeffrey

Nusatelli. I'm a former military police

officer with 16 years of active duty

service in the US Air Force. I'm here

today because the American people have

both the right and the responsibility to

know the truth about unidentified aerial

phenomenon.

That truth remains hidden, classified

and silenced by fear, retaliation,

stigma, and confusion. Today, we are

here to help break that silence.

Between 2003 and 2005, five UAP

incidents occurred at Vandenberg Air

Force Base, home to the National Missile

Defense Project, a top national security

priority. At the time, we were

conducting launches deemed by the

National Reconnaissance Office as the

most important in 25 years. These were

historic launches.

These facilities were vital and they

were repeatedly w visited by UAP.

Each incident was witnessed by multiple

personnel, documented, investigated, and

reported up the chain of command. We

sent information up, but we got no

guidance down on how to handle these

events.

I personally witnessed one of these

events and investigated others as they

occurred. Six other service members have

provided me with the information that I

will share with you today.

The incursions began on October 14th,

2003 when Boeing contractors reported a

massive glowing red square silently

hovering over two missile defense sites.

After several minutes, it drifted

further east onto the base and vanished

over the hills. This event, now known as

the Vandenberg Red Square, was

referenced by Representative Luna at the

first hearing on this topic. Official

Air Force records of this event are in

possession by Arrow and the FBI.

Later that night, while I was on duty,

security guards at a critical launch

site reported a bright, fastm moving

object over the ocean. I responded to

the incident. Chaos ensued over the

radio as the object approached rapidly.

I heard my friend screaming, "It's

coming right at us. It's coming right

for us. And now it's right here.

Moments later, I heard them say that it

had shot off and was gone. When I

arrived on scene, I talked to five

shaken witnesses who described a massive

triangular craft larger than a football

field that hovered silently for about 45

seconds over their entry control point

before shooting away at impossible

speed.

About a week later, another patrol

reported a light over the ocean behaving

erratically. Believing it might be an

unannounced aircraft, they declared an

emergency and an armed response force

responded. Before the forces could

arrive, the object descended and either

landed or hovered on our flight line and

then took off again at impossible speed.

The witnesses to this event were

threatened and intimidated afterward.

They were told to keep quiet and think

about what they were reporting.

After that, things did get quiet until

about 2005 when another patrol reported

a massive triangular craft larger than a

C130 silently floating over the

installation. He watched it for a few

minutes. It traveled west and

disappeared into the night. And then I

had my own encounter again in 2005. I

was off duty sitting in my backyard with

two other police officers when we

noticed what first appeared to be a

satellite in orbit, but it wasn't acting

like a satellite. The light was strange.

It was pulsing and then it started to

maneuver. It dropped in elevation. At

times it would vanish from view and

reappear in a different location in the

sky. And eventually it reappeared 200

feet over my house. It was a 30foot

diameter sphere of light. My friends and

I watched it for a moment and then it

gently accelerated and traveled up and

disappeared into the stars.

These events profoundly changed my life

and the lives of my friends. We stand at

a pivotal moment in history. The

question is no longer whether these

events are real, but whether we have the

courage to face them. True leadership

requires vision, a willingness to

confront the unknown with transparency

and resolve. So I ask the Congress to

help we the people enact this vision.

There are three goals. Fund independent

research and treat UAP study with the

same seriousness as we would any other

scientific field. Two, end secrecy and

overclassification.

Transparency is the foundation of truth.

Without it, witnesses like us are

dismissed.

Three, protect the witnesses. Many stay

silent out of fear for their careers,

reputations, and the safety of their

families. Protect them, and you will

embolden others to join this cause.

These phenomenon challenge our deepest

assumptions about reality,

consciousness, and our place in the

universe. Exploring them can unlock

transformative breakthroughs in

technology, biology, and human

understanding. Let this be the moment

when America chooses courage over fear,

transparency over secrecy, and progress

over stagnation. Let's show the world

that our nation leads not only through

strength but through fearless pursuit of

the truth. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nusatelli.

He's not on here. I now recognize Chief

Wiggins for his opening statement.

Please press your button. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking

Member Crockett, and members of the task

force, and the committee. Thank you for

the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Alexandro Wiggins. I'm an

active duty US Navy operation

specialist, senior chief petty officer.

father of three and dedicated American

testifying today in my personal

capacity.

The views I share are my own and I do

not represent the official positions of

the Department of the Navy or any

subordinate organization.

On the evening of February 15, 2023, at

approximately 1915 PST in the Whiskey

291

warning area off the coast of Southern

California,

I was serving on board USS Jackson.

During that period, I moved between the

Interior Communication Center, ICC1,

and the Bridgewing, correlating the

sensor picture with visual observations.

part of my routine responsibilities for

surface and air pitcher management.

What I observed and what our crew

recorded was not consistent with

conventional aircraft or drones as they

appear on our system.

A self-luminous tic-tac-shaped object

emerged from the ocean before linking up

with three other sim similar objects.

The four then disappeared simultaneously

with a high synchronized near

instantaneous acceleration.

I observed no sonic boom and no

conventional propulsion signatures,

no exhaust plume, no control surface

articulation on the Sapphire image

system. Shortly after the synchronized

departure, radar tracks dropped.

These observations were multi-ensor and

recorded inside of ICC1

with time location overlay

visible in our source frames that have

been made public by journalists.

From my experience operating in this

region over many years

and consistent with our public

characterized encounters, unidentified

objects reoccur in United States

operation areas off Southern California.

That fact alone does not tell us what

they are, but it does argue the

systematic

stigma-free reporting and for the

preservation of sensor data so analysts

can evaluate safe and intelligence

implications with rigor.

I want to underscore three points for

the task force and the committee.

Aviation and maritime safety. When crews

and watchstanders observe objects that

maneuver or accelerate in ways that does

not match known profiles and do not and

do so near our ships and aircraft, that

is first and foremost a safety issue.

Standardized checklist and training

should ensure we capture the best

possible sensor data in real time,

including IR settings, slant range

estimates, and bearing and range

altitude snapshots and immediate change

of chain of custody for any recordings.

Reporting without stigma, protection

without retribution.

Sailors need to know that reporting UAP

encounters will not harm their careers.

Congress can help by reinforcing witness

protection and by directing the relevant

office to maintain confidential

destigmatized channels for service

members who step forward with data.

Declassification and transparency where

possible. The task force

declassification mission is directly

relevant here.

where operational security permits

releasing metadata preserved sensor

excerpts or at least technical summaries

would improve public trust and

accelerate outside

scientific scrutiny. That includes when

feasible the time geo reference IR

frames and radar parameters needed for

independent analysis. To be clear, I am

not here to make claims beyond my lane.

I am here to provide a firsthand account

of what I saw,

what our systems recorded,

and why I why it matters for safety, for

intelligence, and public confidence.

My request to you is practical. Help us

capture, protect, fairly evaluate the

evidence, and provide a safe pathway for

those in uniform to report it. In

closing, I want to thank the committee

and the task force for holding this

hearing and for the pla and for placing

this discussion in a forum where

evidence can be examined carefully and

openly. I appreciate your attention and

stand ready to answer your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

[Applause]

I now recognize Mr. Knap for his opening

statement.

Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, uh,

Ranking Member, Miss Crockett, and, uh,

members of the task force. And Dina

Titus, I just knew we were going to get

you involved in this topic at one point.

Great to see you here. I'm George Nap,

chief investigative reporter at Kas TV

in Las Vegas. I began my pursuit of this

weird mystery way back in 1987. And for

38 years, I've always approached this as

a news story. It's not a matter of faith

or belief. To me, it's a story, and it's

an important one. I'm proud to be here

alongside these witnesses today. Men who

have seen strange things and step

forward to tell the world about it. Uh

whistleblowers and witnesses who step up

are routinely insulted, belittled or

worse. They risk their reputations,

their careers, their clearances, their

livelihoods, and sometimes uh much more

than that, even their freedom. Uh, I

know that one of the goals of the task

force here is to figure out ways to

protect whistleblowers and witnesses.

And it's a tall order because so many of

the things that happen to witnesses like

these are extralegal. Uh, they're

carried out by persons unknown, as Mr.

Dave Grush sitting up at the top of the

room knows all too well, including

events in recent days to that have

happened to him. I want to share a

couple of things that I've I've learned

along the way on this long journey. And

I submitted most of that in written form

because I estimate that my statement

here today would take about four and a

half hours. So I'm going to try to jump

over and and touch on the more important

salient points. I submitted the detailed

written statement uh for the record and

we'll go into a lot of that here. But

you know the public has been told over

and over since the late 40s there's

nothing to worry about here. Uh the

these mysterious craft seen by millions

of people in the skies, in the oceans,

over the land uh are not real. They're

not a threat. The witnesses are wrong.

They're crackpots. Don't believe it.

That changed for me. What got me hooked

is the paper trail. Documents that were

squeezed out of the US government after

the FOYA Freedom of Information Act

became the law of the land. And those

documents paint a much different picture

than what the public, the press, and

Congress have been told over many years.

Uh the documents from military and

intelligence personnel behind closed

doors admit that quote, "These things

are real. They're not fictitious. They

can fly in formation. They're evasive

and they outperform any aircraft known

to exist, including ours." The public,

of course, as I said, has been told

something much different. You know, back

in 1989, I reported about a guy named

Bob Lazar, who claimed that he worked at

a facility dubbed S4 out in the Nevada

desert, very near to Area 51. He said he

was part of a reverse engineering

program. He said there are alien craft

that will be taken apart to figure out

how they operated out there. And that's

was a pretty tall order. I had clearly

taken a dive into the deep end of the

pool there. But in the years since then,

I've interviewed dozens of other people

and I've detailed what their testimony

has been in the written statement. They

include Senator Harry Reid, Senator

Howard Cannon, also of Nevada, a guy

named Al O'Donnell, who was the first

general manager of EGNG in Nevada, which

managed the Nevada test site, which blew

up hundreds of nuclear weapons. Uh

there's a guy named Dr. James Latsky who

was a career scientist with the Defense

Intelligence Agency who was the guy who

initiated a program called OAP, Advanced

Aerospace Weapons Systems Application

Program, which is, as far as we know,

the largest acknowledged UFO program

ever funded by the US government, which

put together an amazing pile of

information that members of this

committee and the world, most of which

have never seen. the DIA still hasn't

released 95% of what was uh prepared by

that program at a cost of millions and

millions of dollars. The one name I do

want to bring up in this section session

though is Robert Bigalow. So looking

into the idea of crash retrievals and

reverse engineering while OAP that

program was active the DIA's contractor

Robert Bigalow of Las Vegas made a bold

attempt to acquire physical proof of UFO

crashes. It's been widely reported and

suspected that Loheed Martin is one of

the contractors, the defense contractors

that has held this stuff, stored it away

in secrecy, and tried to figure out how

it works.

I have confirmed on the record that

Robert Bigalow and a trusted colleague

from OAP met with and negotiated with

senior executives at Lheed Martin and

hammered out a deal wherein Bigalow's

company Bass would receive a quantity of

unusual material that had been stashed

away and protected at a facility in

California. That material was not made

here.

I want to move on now to the Russia

files because that was going to be sort

of the central uh impetus of what I was

going to talk to you about today. Back

in the early 90s, I got into Russia, met

with a number of their defense

officials, Ministry of Defense and

others who confirmed for me that Russia

had been doing the same thing that the

United States had been doing, that is

secretly studying UFOs while publicly

saying something completely different.

The documents and interviews that I

obtained and have now shared with this

task force uh show that the USSR

launched what is almost certainly the

largest UFO UAP investigation in the

world. Uh the first phase of that was a

order was sent out to the entire USSR

military empire that every unit uh you

see anything strange in the sky, a

craft, an orb, something unusual, you

had to gather all the evidence, collect

testimony from the witnesses, look for

physical evidence, and all of that

information went into one program at the

Ministry of Defense. Thousands and

thousands of these reports came in. uh a

lot of them were first routed to the KGB

but then back to another program that

came after this collection effort called

thread 3 and thread 3 was an analysis

program. We provided to the committee

the documents of what they were trying

to do and essentially they were trying

to build their own UFOs. They were using

the information from their observations

and studies to try to figure out that

technology. The guy who was in charge of

that program, Colonel Boros Sakalav,

told me that their goal was to basically

develop technology that would be

superior to anything we had based on

what they learned from UFOs.

Mr. Knap, um, just, uh, in the name of

time, uh, to my understanding, did you

have any you wanted to submit for

Congress to see in this committee?

I have submitted those documents.

There's

Would you like to play any videos?

Do you have a video that you would like

to play?

I don't think it's for me to play.

No, that was That was for Alexander.

Yeah, Alexander's video.

Okay.

You can play it. He can narrate it.

Okay. We can um in in the name of

showing that video to everyone on task

force, we'd like to play that video at

this time.

Sure.

surprise

here.

You call it the VVSS team

like 22,000.

That took off earlier.

If we can get rid of the audio real

quick.

Um, Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Knap, we'll get

back to what that video was in a moment,

but we just want to make sure that it

was entered into the record as well as

all the documents. Those will be able to

be publicly found for everyone in the

country to view. Um, if we could, Mr.

Napp, we'll continue on the line of

questioning, but I'm going to move on to

Mr. Borland's opening statements.

Good morning, members of the task force

and the committee. I would like to

express my gratitude for being invited

to testify to the current task force

created under the people's chamber in

the American public. As an American

citizen, veteran, and intelligence

community pref professional, it is an

honor and a privilege to serve under

oath before you on behalf of our

country. I speak for myself and no

former agency or company I have been

previously affiliated with. My name is

Dylan Borland, a former 1N1 geospatial

intelligence specialist for the United

States Air Force in an active duty

enlisted capacity from 2010 to 2013.

I've also been employed with BAE Systems

and Intrepid Solutions as a senior

analyst expert in analyzing video,

radar, and advanced electroloptical

imagery for official identification of

aerial order of battle as well as naval

and ground order of battle. I'm a

federal whistleblower, having testified

to both the ICIG and Arrow with direct

firsthand knowledge of and experience

with craft and technologies that are not

ours and are reportedly operating

without congressional oversight.

Because of my direct knowledge of the

reality of certain legacy UAP programs,

my professional career was deliberately

obstructed and I have endured endured

sustained reprisals from government

agencies for over a decade. From 2011 to

2013, I was stationed at Langley Air

Force Base, Virginia, conducting 24-hour

operations via manned and unmanned

aerial vehicles for special operations

forces in the global war on terror.

During the summer of 2012, my team was

on standby for weather, and I returned

to my barracks on base. And at

approximately 0130, I saw an

approximately 100 ft equilateral

triangle take off from near the NASA

hanger on the base.

The craft interfered with my telephone,

did not have any sound, and the material

it was made of appeared fluid or

dynamic.

I was under this triangular craft for a

few minutes, and then it rapidly

ascended to commercial jet level in

seconds, displaying zero kinetic

disturbance, sound, or wind

displacement.

Some years after that experience, I was

further exposed to classified

information from the UAP legacy crash

retrieval program through a sensitive

position I held within a special access

program. During this time, intelligence

officers approached me in fear for their

own careers, citing mis misconduct

within these programs and similar

retaliation that I was already enduring

at this time.

These issues include medical malpractice

committed by Veterans Affairs staff,

denial of work I performed while

enlisted in the United States Air Force,

forging manipulated employment

documents, workplace harassment,

including colleagues being directed to

not speak with me, manipulation of my

security clearance by certain agencies,

blocking, delaying, and ultimately

removing my ability to be employed

within the IC.

The retaliation I face and the

retaliation against individuals I know

who worked in these programs is what

convinced me in March 2023 to become a

whistleblower. I came forward out of

concern for people's lives and to ensure

I did everything I could to let our

elected representatives know the truth

about what is really happening in the

executive branch.

At the end of March 2023, I agreed to

meet with Arrow following the suggestion

of other federal officials believing it

was what our nation required of me. I

had reservations with Arrow due to

assessments they were reporting publicly

at the time as a misrepresentation of

the truth. Because of these concerns, I

did not share sources and methods

information in order to protect current

informal federal personal personnel who

had firsthand exposure to technologies

of unknown origin. I did not want anyone

to face further retaliation beyond what

they had already endured. And

unfortunately, a staff member

ended up uh getting in some trouble

because of that.

After David Grush testified under oath

in the summer of 2023 and provided

historic disclosure, I was then asked to

go to the ICIG and did so in August

2023. It was very clear early on during

my intake interview, which was video

recorded under oath, that the objective

was to solely assess how much I know and

not move forward with an investigation

with new information I provided them.

The aftermath of that IG complaint still

troubles me to this day. Since my ICIG

complaint, I've been prevented from

resuming prior employment and can

confirm I'm still blacklisted from

certain agencies within the intelligence

community. In addition, multiple

agencies attempted fishing attacks to

assess what I had divulged to the

inspector general, including being asked

to disclose details of my ICIG complaint

during a CI polygraph or a position

unrelated to UFO UAP matters as recently

as November 2024.

As I sit before you today, I and many

other whistleblowers have no job

prospects, no foreseeable professional

future, and a nation every single one of

us came forward to defend.

Numerous individuals have come forward

in various ways to reveal the truth of

the UAP reality as patriots and

defenders of our nation. Yet, many feel

discarded, isolated, hopeless, separated

from the country they serve. Efforts to

rectify this situation for all

whistleblowers have been difficult and

troubling. And to my fellow

whistleblowers and officials who know

this information,

I offer you my apology. Something that I

have never gotten and I'm giving it to

you.

I swore an oath to the Constitution of

the United States. An oath that demands

truth and transparency for our

democratic republic to function. Each

day, these truths remain hidden from our

citizens. Humanity drifts further from

the principles our nation was founded to

uphold.

Each day, victims of crimes committed by

agencies and companies maintaining this

secrecy or denied justice is another day

our constitution is shredded.

In 2023, Patriots provided this

committee and the executive branch with

undeniable proof of the UAP reality, and

I commend your continued commitment. The

future of humanity is one which we

either travel to the stars or regress to

the stone age with this technology.

My career has been to deliver critical

information to decision makers. Your

role as elected by your representatives

is to act on it. The time to act is now.

Thank you.

[Applause]

Mr. Borland, thank you for your service

to our country and we appreciate you and

we're we are sorry about how you've been

treated and we will make sure that we

try to rectify that situation.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh Mr. Spielberger, please your opening

remarks.

Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member

Crockett, and task force members. Thank

you for the opportunity to testify here

today about the importance of

strengthening whistleblower protections,

especially in the context of national

security. I am a senior policy counsel

at the Project on Government Oversight,

a nonpartisan independent watchdog

organization that investigates and

exposes waste, corruption, abuse of

power, and when the government fails to

serve the public or silences those who

report wrongdoing.

Whistleblowers are the first line of

defense to root out waste, fraud, abuse

of power, and corruption in our

government. Congress relies on

whistleblowers so that it can fully

exercise its oversight and legislative

authorities.

It's understandable that former

presidents of both parties have often

taken a hostile approach toward

whistleblowers. Their disclosures can

embarrass the president and their

political party or even lead to a

national scandal. But whistleblowers

continue to play a vital role during

both Democratic and Republican

administrations.

They help Congress and the public

identify and understand what government

corruption looks like. Their disclosures

fuel investigations and allow us to

address wrongdoing and hold those

responsible to account. That's why

historically there's been a strong

bipartisan consensus in Congress to

support and protect whistleblowers.

Doing so protects the country and

ensures our government is more

responsive and accountable to the

people.

National security whistleblowing in

particular is a tradition going back to

the founding of our country. And over

time, national security whistleblowers

and their disclosures have impacted some

of the most fundamental issues and

questions about how we wish to be

governed and how our government can

better serve its people. From the role

the US plays around the world to holding

powerful actors accountable, government

ethics and transparency, human rights

and civil liberties, executive branch

authority, first amendment freedoms of

speech and disscent, freedom of the

press, and the public's interest and

right to know.

Despite this invaluable public service,

blowing the whistle comes at great

personal risk. Whistleblowers risk

losing their jobs, careers, livelihoods,

and reputations. They can face

retaliatory investigations, lawsuits,

and even ser serious criminal charges.

And they can endure deep mental,

emotional, and psychological harm. All

of that risk to speak the truth, to

ensure that agencies fulfill their core

missions and that they serve the best

interests of the people. Those who

retaliate against whistleblowers don't

just violate their legal rights, they

inflict real harm on our government and

betray the public's trust. Targeting

whistleblowers instead of the corruption

they expose wastess agency resources and

further allows that corruption to

continue unadressed.

It can instill a chilling effect across

an agency, fostering a climate of fear

and distrust, quieting disscent and free

speech and deterring potential

whistleblowers from coming forward in

the future.

Whistleblowers are often some of the

most dedicated and principled public

servants we have because of their

willingness to put themselves on the

line to do what's right. And Congress

has historically supported them again on

a bipartisan basis. But unfortunately,

whistleblowing has increasingly become

more politicized with support for

whistleblowers often hinging on which

party is in power and which party is

politically inconvenienced by the

misconduct being exposed. But to be

clear, targeting whistleblowers

individually risks undermining

whistleblowing. Period. Pogo advises

members of Congress on both sides of the

aisle to focus on the evidence, not the

individual.

We will always need whistleblowers to

achieve the government that best serves

its people. Because when people of

conscience, integrity, and good

character refuse to speak up out of

fear, complacency, or self-preservation,

and leave corruption to fester behind

closed doors, that is probably the most

dangerous risk of all. If we are serious

about increasing government transparency

and restoring the public's trust, we

need public servants committed to the

truth. Whistleblowers need safe and

effective channels to make lawful

disclosures. They need stronger

protections against retaliation. And

when they do face retaliation, they need

a fair shot to be made whole. Congress

has made strides to pass whistleblower

legislation, and these laws need to be

updated and expanded so that

whistleblowers truly receive the

protections they need, retaliators are

held accountable, and we can achieve the

type of government the people deserve.

We strongly urge Congress to continue

its historic tradition of championing

the rights and protections of all

whistleblowers. Thank you again for the

opportunity to testify here this

morning. Pogo is committed to working

with you and the oversight committee to

address these critical issues. I look

forward to any questions.

Thank you, sir, very much. Additionally,

without objection, the

Additionally, without objection, the

following members are waved onto the

task force for the purpose of

questioning witnesses at today's

hearing. Representative Perry of

Pennsylvania and Representative Gothman

of Wisconsin.

Sorry, what is it? Oh, what? Oh,

Representative Biggs from Arizona. I

already got you, but yeah, we're good.

Without objection. So, ordered, I now

recognize myself for five minutes of

questioning. Um, also, um, as my friend

Mr. Mosquitz might have to go, would you

like to go now? Okay. All right. Uh, Mr.

Borland, in your testimony, you describe

witnessing large triangular craft while

stationed at Langley Air Force Base in

2012. Can you explain what you observed

in terms of size behavior and why you're

confident it was not conventional

technology?

Great question, ma'am. Um, so on

barracks, on the base, I lived in the

barracks. There was a little smoke pit

outside. I was there uh on the telephone

and looking across to the flight line

and I see a white light pop up and stop

about 100 ft in the air. I thought it

was a weather balloon. I've seen tests

from there before. Uh weak night, you

know, normal thing, not surprising. I uh

actually finished my cigarette and I

began walking up towards the flight

line. There is a track and because I was

on three months of night work, I began I

would walk the track at night when we

were weathered down. And as I begin

walking towards the light, towards the

flight line in the track, the light then

flies across the base, across the flight

line. And as it flies to me, a triangle

manifests around the light. I can't tell

you if it was active camouflage. I can't

tell you if it appeared around the

light, but I can tell you that it was a

white light and then it was a triangle.

It stopped about 100 feet in front of me

and approximately 100 feet above me. My

te telephone got extremely hot,

completely froze, dead. Um, I remember

how thick it was. It was between one to

two stories thick, equilateral triangle.

I could never see the top of it. And the

edges were 90° 90°.

There were four lights in total, uh, one

light on each corner and a larger light

in the center, two to three times the

size of the corner lights. But what was

really odd was the outside. The best way

to describe it is like looking at a

James Webb telescope picture where you

have the colors and then the black

background. So the craft itself was this

black metallic flake paint, but on top

of the craft was this gold lava, plasma,

some type of fluid going over and around

the craft. I'm under this for about 2 to

three minutes. Um, and then the center

light flashes two to three times, no

sound, immediately shoots up to

commercial jet level minimum in my

opinion. Um, and I immediately feel

static electricity all over my body. And

then I smell the smell of after a

thunderstorm or lightning storm. That

that really strong summer thunderstorm

smell gets up to flight level. Um, I'm

trying to get my phone reset and I can

only see the center light at this point.

If I didn't actually see it take off, I

would have thought it was a star. Um,

and then it hovers up there and it

begins to slowly move due east out over

the Atlantic Ocean. I finally got my

phone reset. The entire thing was about

from the time I saw the light pop up

near the hanger until it took off out

over the ocean was about 15 minutes.

Um, and following up to that question,

after you disclose this information to

the intelligence community, Inspector

General, you're subject to fishing

attempts and job blacklisting. How

widespread do you think this is across

the intelligence community for those who

raise concerns regarding UAP programs?

Uh, it's a difficult question to answer.

I think prior to David Grush and people

beginning this process of bringing

people into awareness of the reality of

these programs and certain things people

have witnessed uh probably extremely

widespread. I think today there's still

an issue, but because people are able to

come before you and people are speaking

out, I think it has been

somewhat less. I would hope though that

people would because if this goes back

into closed doors, this is going to get

really ugly.

What type of behavior have you witnessed

from former AROW director Sean

Kilpatrick as well as his staff in

relate to this information you provided

to them? Um, did they ever try to

classify this information as non-human

technology?

Uh, good question. The problem with this

is is that I know what I experienced

firsthand and I know other things. Um, I

think the staff at Arrow that I met with

in March of 2023. I think they were good

people doing the job they were told to

do.

I did not meet with Kirkpatrick. Um, he

was either not present or did not want

to meet me that day. Um, however, they

did classify information about the

reality of this subject. Um, and

it was very concerning because in my

AROW MFR, they had actually referenced a

former staff member uh that was the one

who told me to go there and they uh

probably shouldn't have done that. And

um real quick before my time is up and

we might go to second round of

questioning just so you're all aware. Um

how important given everything that

you've seen and experienced is the UAP

Disclosure Act of 2025 in restoring both

public accountability and trust.

I think very important. Um I would hope

though that the 7-year window could be

shrunk my opinion, but very important.

The the truth needs to be known.

Thank you very much. I now recognize

Jared Moscowitz of Florida.

Uh thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank

you for allowing me uh to to wave on to

uh the committee. I I remember, you

know, the last committee when we had a

bunch of former military personnel folks

that either served on bases, were

pilots, or were in different programs

experiencing knowledge. It made me

recognize that the narrative has

changed, right? It it it's politically

convenient for the government if you all

weren't military folks in suits. It

would be much better if you pulled up in

Winnebago and were wearing hats.

And so the picture of this because

that's important for the American people

on how you tell a story, what the

message looks like and who the messenger

is. So this is now the the second or

third committee where we have former

military folks with impeccable records

with information and knowledge and it's

definitely clear on a bipartisan basis

that we have to protect our

whistleblowers. There's no doubt and and

in a day in which it's really hard to

tell what's true or not from a political

standpoint. Um and so I don't really

know what is true. I don't know on this

subject, but I do know when we're being

lied to, and we are definitely being

lied to. There's just no doubt about

that. Mr. Wiggins, I I want to talk to

you. I find uh your background and

testimony compelling. When you first saw

what you were looking at, what you were

looking at, I What were your first

thoughts?

My first thoughts were um I think

everything that I was told and taught as

a kid and that growing growing adult no

longer uh you know was applicable. If

I'm able to see something that I thought

defies gravity in such a way then what

else could be possible? That that was my

first thought. So, did you did you think

what you were looking at was a weapons

program that you were unaware of, or did

you think what you were looking at was

obviously some extraterrestrial

piece of technology?

I I didn't I neither one of those

crossed my mind. It was just

How about How about now? What do you

think it is now?

I'm I'm not the expert. Uh I I think it

uh I want to be as skeptical as everyone

else and just hope to know the

information. Anyone in the US government

tell you what you were looking at to try

to dissuade you from what you thought it

was?

No.

So, no one was like, "Oh, you know,

there was some anomaly with the

technology." No. No one from the

government did that?

No one.

How do you think you were treated when

you reported this information or have

talked about, you know, the the Tic Tac

video is is well out there. It's well

reported. How were you treated?

I've I've had no push back at all. Uh I

have haven't had anyone reach out to me

or or try to, you know, dissuade me in

either direction uh militarily speaking.

So, I I was treated fair and I

appreciate the Navy itself with uh

assisting me with coming here to being

able to testify.

That's good. So, what what do you think

the American people should take away

from watching your video, right? Because

when we watch it, obviously, right,

we've never seen anything like that. It

defies what we know to be

technologically possible. What are we

supposed to think? Someone's lying about

something. Someone's hiding something,

right? That's not normal what you looked

at.

I think what the American people should

think when seeing that video uh along

with others before me is that uh there

is something out there and we should

know as the people what it is, right?

And so let's eliminate possibilities. So

they didn't come to you and say there

was a technological error with what you

were looking at. So we that we put that

aside, right? They didn't say it was

broken. So, we look at that and we see

something. So, it's either a weapons

program being reverse engineered by our

governments or other governments or it's

nobody's government and it's not from

here. Those those are it. You agree with

that assessment?

I agree. One or the other.

Mr. Borland, when when you first

experienced what you were looking at um

and you what did you do next? like what

was your next step after it had passed

and you were done?

Uh I actually kind of laughed to myself

and said, "Okay, so this exists as

well." Um worked in enough programs,

been exposed to enough that I was like,

"Okay, so this is a real thing." Um I

went back, walked the track, talked with

a couple of my friends about it. Um I

did talk with some of my co-workers. one

in particular which I thought was a joke

and it definitely wasn't was like you

probably should never say this to

anybody. Uh and then what happened to me

happened. So

uh what about you Mr. uh how do you

pronounce your last name?

Natelli.

Natelli. Uh and and sorry I know I'm

running out of time. Madam Chairman, uh,

Chairwoman, so obviously your incident

happened well before we could record

things on cell phones and things of that

nature, right?

How do you what did you do when you

first experienced because what you saw,

right, you saw it happen like right out

of your base,

correct?

So So tell me what you did after you saw

that. What was like your next move and I

want to hear how what your experience

was. My next move, I I went into my

house after it left. Uh I made sure no

one had been abducted and I uh picked up

the landline. I called the security

forces command center. I reported it. I

requested that they give me a call back

and make notifications up the chain of

command. I got a call back in about 15

minutes. Uh they reported that uh the

weather station reported no balloons or

aircraft. uh nothing on radar, no

aircraft inbound or outbound. So I got

that notification and then um within the

following day or two uh me and the other

witnesses wrote statements, we prepared

a report and then uh we filed all that

information.

Madam Chairman, thank you for your

indulgence uh in my questioning and

thank you for continuing to lead on on

this subject. What do you and your

friends think about it today? You you

you all have talked about it. Yeah.

I mean, so what do you think about your

experience as a collective group?

That'll be my last question, Madam

Chair.

I mean, we we we've been talking about

this for 20 years. Uh we don't know what

we saw. Uh what we saw changed our lives

and the way we think about everything.

Uh it was incredibly profound.

Um the object I saw, I don't even know

if it was an object. It was a It was a

light. It was an orb. It didn't look

like a craft, but it did look solid. And

that's what we talk about. Um, we

noticed the object and this was a

pattern across all the encounters.

Someone would see a light. They would

pay attention to the light that and then

the object responds. It performs for you

and then it c they come down and they

investigate you. So, it's almost like

they're curious. So, that's the thing we

primarily talk about. Um, you know, why

did it come after we noticed it? Maybe

it noticed us after we noticed it.

You're welcome.

I now recognize Representative Mace for

five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to

thank all of our witnesses for being

here today. Uh, Mr. Borland, I'd like to

start with you and ask a few questions.

Um, were there any other witnesses when

you saw the equilateral triangle? Were

there other witnesses that saw the same

thing?

Not to my knowledge, ma'am. Um, at that

point the only people that would be

awake is us, those of us that were doing

operations for the GWAT and then

security forces. So, not to my

knowledge.

Um, and do you think that in your

opinion that the equilateral triangle

was the US government's technology?

I did once upon a time, but knowing what

I know now, um, I'll have to answer that

question in a skiff probably.

I was Well, my next question is you you

teased us. So, knowing what you know now

means what?

I know enough to know that if you want

an answer to that question, go to Arrow.

They have they have the answer.

Do you think it was a foreign

government?

I do not. No.

And Arrow is supposed to be disclosing.

The last time I was in a skiff with

Arrow, they said they were going to be

doing disclosures.

Uh had they been doing much of that?

I don't have an answer to you for you.

Um I'm I don't know. I know what Arrow

reports publicly and I know what I've

been through.

Yeah. Um, and some of this stuff can be,

I think, uh, debunked, right? There are

sometimes there are weather balloons

that look kind of little funky or drones

or whatever, depending on the angle,

direction, speed, etc. Um, are you

scared for your safety?

Um,

that's a complicated question. Uh, so

being here today, um, if I say the wrong

word, technically I can be charged with

espionage. Espionage is a death penalty.

Whistleblowers have faced it. John

Keryaku, for example.

I am not scared for my physical safety

in the sense of a agency or company

coming to kill me. But uh I have no job.

My career is has been tarnished. You

know I'm unemployed living off of

unemployment for the next 3 4 weeks

until that's gone. So it's a complicated

question.

Have there been stories leaked about

your life to try to discredit you and

the public? I

I as of now I don't know. I up

you know they did that to Mr. Gush,

I am aware. Yes, ma'am.

They leaked his medical private medical

information. Horrific things.

It It is.

Um Okay. You said in your testimony

earlier with the chairwoman, you know,

other things. Um I guess it has to be

mentioned in a skiff.

It would

other things.

It would pending I'm even legally

allowed to speak on the people in the

room are even legally allowed to hear

it. Um

and and is that would we need to know

like the the compartmentalized word like

what the code word is or the name of the

program the special access program in

order to even hear it you have to know

the word right

I I would suggest

the name of it right

I would suggest that to be asked to uh

DNI gabard um and work with her for that

because I can't give you the answer on

what is a requirement

this is what the US government does

right they compartmentalize the

information only certain people know the

the name of the program and if you don't

know it you can't get the information if

you don't have the name you I don't know

what to ask for. Even when we're

reviewing the budget, we go into a

skiff, we look at DoD budget and the the

budget of like blackbox programs and we

don't know what we're looking at because

we don't know what these programs are.

Is it a way for the government to hide

from Congress what's really going on,

where the money is going?

In my opinion, absolutely. Yes.

Um, you mentioned too in your testimony

earlier that uh quote, you went to speak

with the government and they said they

said somebody's name, a colleague's

name, and you said they shouldn't have

mentioned that staff person's name.

What? What? What does that mean?

Uh, a Senate staffer who is the one who

helped me get to Arrow uh recommended me

I go there gave me the email and the

phone number because I could not find

that information at all at the time. Um,

in fact, I believe you guys have talked

about how Arrow didn't even have a

website for quite a period of time.

We were told they were going to do

disclosures both what they've debunked

because some of it can be debunked and

then what they haven't been able to

debunk. And to my knowledge, you know,

it hasn't been a thing. I I only have

one minute left. So, Mr. nap. We were

definitely going to You watched every

documentary. You You guys have done a

You and Jeremy have done a terrific job.

It's I usually have more questions than

I have answers. I think we all do and

you guys are doing a terrific job to

bring information to the public. Do you

think that any of this is a scop by the

US government?

Entirely possible. I mean, they've uh

our government and other governments

have admitted that they've tried to use

UFOs to cover secret projects, but I

think they also do some reverse

engineering of those claims. know years

after uh people start seeing UFOs over

Area 51, for example, they come up with

the story, oh yeah, that that was we we

planted that story. So I read in a major

newspaper just a couple of weeks ago,

they planted this story. An Air Force

colonel went out into the desert, went

to a bar at Rachel and gave them some

fake UFO photos. And that's how the

whole story about Area 51 started, which

is preposterous.

Yeah. And I didn't even get to the crash

retrieval program stuff yet, Miss

Chairwoman.

There's just so much. Um, okay. Thank

you so much for your time today. I wish

we had more time. Thank you, Madam

Chair.

[Applause]

I now re uh recognize Miss Crockett for

five minutes.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and

thank you so much to each of the

witnesses that have come before us

today. The federal government has had a

longstanding

overclassification

issue in general. We all know that from

the assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X

to the coin cell pro and torture

programs to now UAPs. The federal

government has kept the American public

in the dark about issues of immense

public interest. The federal government

has routinely made excuses for failing

to provide transparency to the public.

The most common of which is national

security concerns. Mr. Spielberger, can

you provide an example of when national

security was inappropriately used as a

pretext for classification?

Congresswoman, probably one of the most

infamous examples of that is the 911

commission that found that

overclassification was a key factor in

the failure to adequately prevent uh the

attacks of that day.

In addition to that, what lessons from

these oversight failures should guide

Congress in approaching UAP oversight?

Generally speaking, uh we would advise

uh this Congress to ensure that agencies

adopt uh general policy in favor of

disclosure instead of a knee-jerk uh

needing to overclassify information and

documents. Um, we should ensure that uh

when information is classified or deemed

sensitive, it's only for legitimate

national security and privacy concerns.

And we would recommend adding additional

factors to the um considerations of

cost, value, and certainly um to the

extent that it's uh critical for the

public interest and the public's right

to know, especially when we are talking

about these very serious uh national

security concerns and implications.

Can you speak to how whistleblowers have

historically helped Congress uncover the

truth in other areas and how that might

apply here?

Absolutely. So again, Congress has

always relied on whistleblowers uh

coming forward and making disclosures in

a number of different issues uh across

different agencies um anything from

national security to um airline um

safety, railway safety, uh environmental

concerns, workplace health and safety.

Um a lot of issues coming out of the

COVID pandemic for example. Um,

whistleblowers have come forward with

important disclosures on just about any

critical issue affecting our government

and affecting the American people, all

of which uh have grave implications for

uh the rights and protections uh that we

have and how we live our lives in

communities across the country. How

important is it for whistleblowers to

have strong protections when it comes to

UAP related disclosures or disclosures

of other topics of excessive government

secrecy?

It's absolutely vital. This has been one

of the disappointing failures um of

doing this work um of advocating for

stronger whistleblower protections. We

recognize uh the uh invaluable public

service that brave whistleblowers play

in coming forward. Again, taking all of

these risks that we've heard about um

just to speak the truth, to get

important information out in in the

public uh consciousness, but they can

only do so when we have safe and secure

channels for reporting. Um when when

there is trust in the independence of

agency watchd dogss like Inspectors

General, like the Office of Special

Counsel, like the Merit Systems

Protection Board that play critical

roles in investigating whistleblower

disclosures and enforcing the

protections of whistleblowers,

all of that is essential to allow

whistleblowers to keep coming forward

and playing these incredibly important

public roles.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Let me

just say this. Um, people look at

Congress, especially now, and they see a

lack of unity. They don't see the

ability for us to come together really

on much of anything. I will say that I

do applaud the chairwoman um and the

work of this committee because for once,

I feel like we are focusing on

governing, which should be about

transparency. The reality is that we

cause more harm than good when we allow

a lack of transparency to fester. It

allows for all types of conspiracy

theories instead of us actually making

the investments that we need to make to

get the information and actually provide

it to the American people. The reason

that I wanted to focus on making sure

that we answer some questions

specifically around the protections of

those that are willing to come forward

is because the only way that we can make

this government actually work for all of

us is if no matter where you are in this

federal government, you feel as if you

are safe when you come forward with

information of any issue. And so I do

want to thank you for all of your

stories. The reality is that we only get

five minutes and the vast majority of

everything that you have to say um

cannot be contextualized within five

minutes. But I know that my colleagues

are going to get to kind of pulling some

more of that out. But again, I really

just want to thank you for your courage

in this moment and thank you for your

service to our country.

[Music]

I now recognize Mr. Burchett from

Tennessee for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairlady, and thank you, um,

Ranking Member Crockett. Um, I see a lot

of friends out there, and I see a couple

enemies, so I'll

remember that. Um, but it's a pleasure

being here. I want to remind people,

too, this thing is an ongoing deal.

We're not going to get this overnight.

We've been fighting this battle, some of

y'all, for 30 years and maybe longer. I

I hope we um just keep focused on on

what we're trying to get to is total

disclosure. We get a little wrapped up

in a lot of things, but the government

has something and and they need to turn

it over to us. We pay their dudgum

salary, you pay our salary, and you

ought to get more out of us than you do.

And that's what disgusts me about this

whole thing. I think they're just trying

to run the clock out on us really. They

they'll they'll poke us a little and

they'll make jokes to us and try to pull

us off the off the target, but I think

we know where we're at and that's why

they're firing at us because we are over

the target.

My first question is, Mr. NAP. Um, I

recently introduced the UAP

whistleblower protection act to help

provide whistleblower protection to

federal personnel for disclosing the use

of federal taxpayer funds to investigate

UFOs. I still don't want to say UAPs.

Um, how can Congress further increase

whistleblower protections?

I think you got to unleash the dogs and

go track down the money and where it

goes because a lot of this stuff has

been moved out of government. As you

know, Rep. Burchett, uh it's been given

to private contractors who stashed it

away. They've had it for so long that

there's nobody left inside government or

very few who know where it is.

And they do that to keep us from foyer.

Correct.

Yeah. It's to keep it from foyer. And uh

and I think that the contractors who've

had this stuff for very long very long

time set their own standards about who

is allowed to know what. And uh it's a

very small group that ever cracks that.

I think uh Representative Luna has been

looking at uh the use of classifications

to to hide things. Uh I'm not sure that

even this committee getting uh security

clearances that should allow you to see

this stuff would allow you to follow

where it really goes. I I worry about

the people that are looking at it don't

even know what they're looking at. I

mean, it's gone through so many I mean,

since since Roswell, for instance. I

mean, you think there's nobody even

alive that was around any of that stuff.

I don't think they've made much progress

from the people that I've talked to. I

don't think they made much progress in

learning that technology. Might have

made some, but you wonder, you know, the

implication is tic tac. Oh yeah, that's

ours. What uh what flew over Washington

DC in 52? Is that ours too? When are you

going to break that out? You guys

authorized tens of billions, hundreds of

billions of dollars on weapon systems

that can't do half of what we've seen UF

UFOs do. So when do when do they break

this out if it's if it's really a a

classified project could change the

world? I don't think they've made much

progress and I think they've been lying

to us and to you and the rest of the

world and they're still doing it.

Yes, sir. I agree with you. Um, how did

you manage to obtain the classified

Russian UAP documents and how did you

get them back in the United States? Uh,

well, I I met this Russian physicist who

was in the United States. Uh,

and I want to clarify that I can't even

take a um a thing of honey home on my

airplane when I fly back to Tennessee.

So,

I did something pretty dumb

and I'm bitter about it, but go ahead.

I did something kind of dumb. I I met

with these officials who you know during

that time period Glasnos, Paristroka,

the Russians were trying to open up to

the world and I saw it as a window of

opportunity and it was and we were able

to talk these folks into providing us

information um that otherwise we would

never have seen. Some of that was

classified.

I found out that there they only stamped

the top pages of these documents that

were classified. So I just removed them.

I removed those pages and I I carried

them out and if they'd caught me, I'd be

in a gool log still. Yeah, we'd be

saying, "What happened to George Knap?"

Oh, yeah.

What happened to the Russians that came

forward to you in 1993? And were there

any repercussions for them?

Well, there were. The first thing that

happened when I talked about this after

getting back and and going through the

files and things and sifting through it.

Um the Russian uh physicist who had

helped us uh be intro introduced all

these people wrote back and said there

was a huge eruption that there was uh

the the real right uh far uh

autocratic uh forces that wanted a

return of the USSR had really go after

these guys. They described them as

traitors. Nikolai Pranov the physicist

friend of mine said look if this had

happened 5 years earlier we would be in

prison. If it had happened 10 years

earlier, we would have been shot.

Luckily, at that point, Putin was not in

power, but none of those people that we

talked to on that trip in 1993 would

ever talk to me again. I went back in

1996 and it was like I had the plague. I

spoke to different people, but they were

scared. And eventually that the story

was spun where the Ministry of Defense

officials who gave us this information

uh were described as eupfologists who

said there was nothing really

significant to these files. They didn't

really find anything uh a big deal. And

I can tell you, you'll see those files

that I shared with you. They did find

stuff. There was an incident in October

of 1982 over at ICBM base where UFOs

popped up was observed over this base

where the missiles are pointed at us,

United States. These UFOs perform

incredible maneuvers. They split apart.

They fuse back together. They'd appear

and disappear. And right at the end of

this 4-hour period, the launch control

codes for the ICBMs lit up. Something

entered the correct codes. The missiles

were fired up and ready to launch and

they could not shut it down. The Russian

officers were panicking. The UFOs go,

they disappeared. The launch control

system goes back to normal. Colonel

Sakalov and his team came in, took the

thing apart, could not figure out what

it was. It wasn't a power surge or EMPs

or some of the bologoney excuses that

our country has given for similar events

involving our nuclear missiles. Um, they

thought it was a message from wherever

the UFOs were from. And that's a

chilling thing. I mean, that was we were

a couple of seconds away from World War

II starting and the UFOs were

responsible for it.

All right, I'm out of time, but real

quick, who are the contractors that have

this material? The corporations.

Well, one of them is Lockheed. And I'll

tell you, I mean, you know, I'm not

saying Lockheed's the bad guys. They're

doing what they were asked to do. They

have lied about this because that's what

they're supposed to do. But Lockheed

would be one. There there's a list I can

give you, Congressman. Um some of the

big ones, the the usual suspects.

Okay. Thank you. Yel back, chair lady.

Sorry for going over.

It's all good.

It's all George Knap's fault.

I I now re uh recognize Miss Boowbert

for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Wiggins,

uh, based on your training and, uh,

operational experience, could the

behavior that you witnessed, um, a a

trans medium object vanishing without a

sound be explained by any known

technology that we possess or other

governments possess?

It cannot. No. And has any government

agency debriefed you or um any of your

shipmates regarding the uh EOIR and uh

radar confirmed UAP encounter um aboard

USS Jackson?

No one has. No, ma'am.

Uh what what was that encounter like

when you brought that up? If if you want

to briefly summarize that when when you

brought that to their attention and then

you were not provided any followup. um

who was told and what how did you feel

when there was no contact back to you

as as far as the actual incident

happening or the reporting level?

Yes, chief.

Uh it was within the event happening. Uh

my duties are to report to the tactical

action officer on watch while we're

standing watch. So uh tactical action

officer was there. Um I made my report.

Um, I've not had any discussion outside

of that day. There's been no

communication to me or requests from me

uh to, you know, with inside of the

military. Um but speaking of that actual

incident itself, um once the report was

made uh to the tactical action officer,

uh that's when I made the decision uh to

ask the uh individual watch stander that

was controlling Sapphire uh to be able

to slew into the location. And that's

what you see in the video itself is is

when the uh

watchstander is soohooing in and kind of

showing us what we're looking at. Uh but

outside of that uh that's as far as the

reporting went that I know of.

Thank you, Chief. Uh just for the sake

of time, Mr. Nusatelli, has Aro uh the

Air Force or the FBI ever followed up

with you personally about the Red Square

event?

I did have followup um by Arrow. uh

nothing with the Air Force. The Aero

office updated me um I think at least

two times. They let me know that they

were unable to locate any records that

the records had been um destroyed by the

Air Force. The Air Force is destroying

all their police records every three

years on a schedule. So

you were informed that this that these

documents were destroyed. Well, I I have

a Freedom of Information Act from the

Air Force that states clearly that they

destroy all police records on a

three-year schedule.

Okay. Um,

so they they were sitting on

documentation, destroyed it, refused uh

to um to question any of the lead

investigators,

anything leading into this

investigation.

Uh

yeah, basically they destroyed all all

the police records. So, you couldn't

even like call the Air Force and ask

them if there was a vehicle accident uh

in that time frame. So, that that's a a

big problem. Uh we're losing data in

real time, so we'll never be able to go

back and track.

I think our federal government has a

history of destroying records. Um thank

you. Thank you very much, Mr. Datelli.

Dr. Borland. Um, as a geospatial uh,

intelligence officer, have you seen

classified data indicating UAPs operate

in restricted US airspace? And has that

information been withheld from Congress?

I have not in US airspace. Um, that is

uh, intelligence oversight. So, I did

not have domestic authorities.

Um, after filing your inspector general

complaint over retaliation inside the

Pentagon's UAP office, did you receive

any kind of protection or just more

retaliation

within the IG or the or Arrow? Ma'am,

uh, either

uh, Arrow, they went after the staff

member um, and classified everything.

Shut that down. The IG to this day, I

don't even know if my complaints active.

I know my attorney that represented me

was very very very concerned and the

best of my understanding I was

determined credible not urgent. And and

do you do you think that that experience

would suggest that the internal UAP

investigations um may may be compromised

possibly. I mean, it's so hard because

this goes back to people doing the job

they're to told to do. And very few

people are going to want to give up

their careers. 20 30 year pension, give

up get rid of their kids' health care,

get rid of their house. It's

it's possible. Yes.

Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Borland.

Um Mr. Spielberger. Um, do national

security whistleblowers currently have

any um external appeals processes uh to

challenge retaliation or are they just

stuck relying on the same agencies that

they're accusing?

Congresswoman, this is one of the

biggest concerns that we at Pogo have um

basically around the independence of

investigations and accountability for

retaliation. Basically, yes, national

security whistleblowers have to rely on

internal administrative processes that

go through agency inspector generals.

Um, there are some uh differentiations,

but the bottom line is that they are uh

forced to rely on protection from the

same agencies and people who they are

alleging retaliated against them.

Yes. Well, I thank you all for your

bravery. We are um out of time here. Uh

thank you so much for coming forward and

we will do everything that we can to

ensure that you are all protected. Thank

you for um trying to bring truth and

transparency to the American people.

Madam Chair, I yield.

I now recognize Mr. Berles for about

five minutes.

Thank you everyone. It takes such great

courage to come forward and we

acknowledge that and I hope that you see

that we are taking that seriously and so

very thankful for what you're doing

today. I'm also very thankful for

previous witnesses that have come

forward. Um, I see Matthew Brown in the

audience. He courageously stepped

forward and was as a as a witness. Um, I

encourage everybody to to look and seek

his his testimony. I want to thank the

people that came in our first hearing,

Ryan Graves, David Grush, David Fraver,

and in our second hearing, um, Admiral

Galidet, Lou Alzando, and Mr. Gold, and

then the many others that have come

forward. we hear you and it's time that

we, you know, enough is enough. It's

time that we take action. Look, I'm not

I'm not jumped to the conclusion that I

believe that there are, you know, aliens

coming from another planet. Um, but I'm

open to that and I think that it's my

our responsibility, especially when

we're seeing that we have a government

that is blocking actively blocking

information from us. Just last night, I

tried to get an amendment onto the

National Defense Authorization Act that

fit in the gerineess of that bill to

have UAP disclosure. And conveniently,

it was named non-gerine, mostly deemed

by staff, not even an elected official.

This is the kind of stuff that we

repeatedly see. Last year, we were

blocked by someone in House

administration from being able to

receive a full briefing from Arrow. So,

non not an elected official, but someone

in staff blocked us. And I've had it.

Enough is enough. Um, I want to ceue up

a video that that I've been given.

And as as before it starts, I'm going to

describe this was taken October 30th of

2024. This video is of an MQ9 drone

tracking an orb or this object off the

coast of Yemen. Um you'll see that

another MQ9

um launched a Hellfire missile that you

cannot see that drone. Um and so u

you'll and I'm not going to explain it

to you. You'll see exactly what it does.

This is when it zoomed out. So you can

still see it traveling.

So

Mr. NAP. Um, do you have any Have you

heard about uh, you know, events like

this occurring and what what what

information might you have?

I have heard about events like this. I

have heard about this event. Jeremy

Corbell and I talked about it on one of

our episodes a while back. We did not

have the video, though. There are uh,

servers where there's a whole bank of

these kind of videos that Congress has

not been allowed to see, that the public

hasn't been allowed to see. Occasionally

some of that stuff gets out in the wild

and it comes our way. Uh, it should be

going to you. Uh, you know, the public

should be seeing this stuff and and why

you're not allowed to, I don't know. But

that's a Hellfire missile smacking into

that UFO and just bounced right off. Um,

and it kept going.

It kept going and it looks like the

debris was taken with it.

Yeah. What What the hell is that? What

What

So flies like that?

Again, I'm not going to speculate what

it is, but the question is what, you

know, why are we being blocked from from

this information? consistently. Um I

want to ask this just a question. How in

the world this is the document I want to

enter this in for the record if it

hasn't already been entered. Madam

Chair, um the the document that you

provided on thread three,

this is a huge file. How in the world

did you smuggle this out of Russia?

Carefully get in your socks.

And I don't I don't think I want to be

really specific about it because I might

have to go back there and get some more

sometime. Although

no, that'd be crazy to do that. Well, I

I again I took the top pages off that

were stamped with a security uh uh

signature and I carried them out uh on

my person, but the rest of them I just

threw in my suitcase and threw some

caviar in there as a distraction as well

and and hoped for the best. Otherwise,

I'd be a citizen of Siberia right now.

and and you had um you reported uh James

Latsky came to you um with government

possession of NHI craft and how they

ultimately gained entry. Can you testify

to the veracity of that claim?

Dr. Latsky is an honorable man who

served most of his career with the DIA,

a very trusted high level rocket

scientist and intelligence analyst who

inspired the OSAP program as I said

earlier. And in uh, you know, in full

disclosure, I've co-written two books

with him. He dropped this on myself and

our other co-author out of the blue and

it took 14 months for us to get Doppser

approval for him to release two

sentences on that. He said, "This craft,

we had uh managed to get inside of it.

It had no wings, no rotor, no tail. It

had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't

know how it flew or how it was operated.

It clearly looked like it was

aerodynamic. But, uh, he would not go

further. He's a by the book guy, and

until he gets clearance to say more

about that, I I don't think we're going

to hear much more. But it's not ours. It

wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We

didn't know who made it and how it was

built and how it operated. We've got at

least one and I don't know. I think

that's enough confirmation that we've we

do have recovered discs and materials.

Lastly, Mr. Borland,

um, in the in the classified realm, have

you been exposed to undeniable

confirmation of NHI technology? And then

my second question is, is base systems

involved in any way with reverse

engineering exploitation of non-human

intelligence craft?

Yeah, we're going to have to we're going

to have to have a conversation this for

that. Whether I'm legally even allowed

to answer that and whether you're even

allowed to hear it, sir.

Okay. Again, you can you can sense our

frustration. And so, I just want to

thank you for coming forward. We will

continue to fight because look, this is

about making sure that this government

belongs to the people and restoring the

republic the way it was intended to be.

Um, Madam Chair, I also have further

witnesses of courageous individuals. It

was given to me by Dr. Steven Greer, um,

including Michael Herrera and his

testimony. Um, we have Rodri Castle and

his testimony, Randy Anderson, his

testimony, Steven Dign, and and others,

three others, all saying similar things

to what the witnesses today have said.

And I would like to enter that into the

record as well.

No objection.

Thank you. I now rec uh recognize

Representative Lee for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I think we

need to make sure that we don't get

distracted by sensational stories uh

only of unidentified anomalous phenomena

uh and lose track of what the core of

this hearing is about. Uh this is all a

perfect example of why whistleblowers

are so important and why it's so

important that we step up and protect

them. With Trump, RFK Jr., EPA

administrator Lee Zeldon, and others

committed to dismantling government and

firing professionals who do dare to

speak out against the threats this

administration's disastrous policies

create. We have to focus on protecting

all whistleblowers, not only the ones

who are reporting on UAP. I'd like to

thank the whistleblowers who have agreed

to come before the committee today uh

and speak their truth. This

administration's claims to care about

waste fraud and abuse and so often uh it

is the whistleblowers who care uh and

who are the tip of the sword fighting

against the real waste fraud and abuse.

One study found that whistleblowers

expose fraud at more than twice the rate

of third-party auditors. So, Mr. Bill

Berger, what are some of the best

examples of whistleblowers exposing

fraud and abuse in the federal

government?

Thank you, Cong Congresswoman. Again,

whistleblowers have played such a vital

role across so many different issues.

One prominent example uh goes back to

the 2014 uh VA weight list scandal. Pogo

actually played a very instrumental role

coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan

veterans of of America. At that time, we

received tips and whistleblower

disclosures from over 800 different in

individuals talking about uh the VA

subjecting uh veterans to um

uh extensive um uh weight times in order

to get the basic uh standard of care

that they deserve. Um it certainly uh

prolonged serious illnesses even

contributing to uh hastened deaths. Um

and and we were able to um help uh shed

more light uh on on uh that issue. um

which I think just emphasizes um the

importance even outside of the national

security context. We are often still

talking about serious issues and even

life and death concerns

and unfortunately whistleblowers can um

whistleblowing can lead to serious

repercussions and retaliation especially

in this vindictive and lawless

administration. Mr. Spielberger in the

past what kinds of retaliation have they

faced and what are we seeing today under

uh the Trump administration?

So, we we've certainly heard about a

number of different examples of

retaliation. One that I'd like to

highlight that Mr. Borland referenced uh

previously is retaliation through uh

abuse of the security clearance process.

Um that can have grave implications not

just for a whistleblower but also their

ability to seek legal counsel and uh

defend themselves against retaliation.

And when we look at the past several

months of this administration,

unfortunately, we've seen a really

systematic approach toward dismantling

the nonpartisan civil service. We've

seen the mass firings. We've seen um

undermining of independent agency watchd

dogs, mass firings of inspectors

general, undermining uh the office of

special counsel, the merit systems

protection board. Again, these entities

that are meant to be independent and

play a critical role in investigating

whistleblower disclosures and uh

ensuring that their rights are are

protected. Um,

thank you. In 1989, Congress passed the

whistleblower protection act and then

broadened it again in 2012 to ensure

that federal workers could feel free to

come forward to their elected officials.

And it's a good thing we did because

whistleblowers have played a more

important role than ever since Trump has

taken office. It was thanks to a

whistleblower that we learned that Doge

allegedly put every single American's

personal security information at risk by

bypassing safeguards and copying all

this data to an unsecure server. I ask

unanimous consent to enter into the

record a New York Times article titled

quote Doge put critical social security

data at risk. Whistleblower says

good to go.

Thanks. We've had whistleblowers at the

National Labor Relations Board reveal

that Doge minions may have shipped case

files outside of the agency, possibly to

help then co-president Elon Musk

continue to exploit his workers. And

last week, whistleblowers at the

National Institute of Health came

forward to say that RFK Junior's vaccine

information misinformation campaign have

pervaded even the highest levels of the

agency. Typically, whistleblowers have

an inspector general they can rely on to

investigate their claims and register

issues with agency leadership. But

President Trump has fired or demoted

over 20 inspectors general. If I may ask

one more question, Mr. Spielberger, can

you explain how eroding the independence

and capabilities of inspectors general

further endanger these whistleblowers?

Absolutely. So again, whistleblowers

already face incredibly great challenges

in coming forward under normal

circumstances. And when we erode these

entities that are expected and required

to enforce whistleblower protections, um

fairly investigate their disclosures. It

calls into question the integrity of

their investigations and findings,

whether they'll take whistleblowers

seriously when they come forward, and

whether we can trust that they will use

their authority to enforce the

protections of whistleblowers who do

come forward. Essentially, whether they

will continue in their role as an

independent watchdog or basically become

a lap dog for a current or future

president.

Thank you. and I uh will note I will

take no longer li no more liberties. Uh

I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Crane for

5 minutes.

Thank you uh Mr. Chairwoman for holding

this hearing. Uh thank you to the

witnesses for appearing

in the uh effort of uh transparency

here. I got to admit to the witnesses

that you know growing up I really never

believed in UFOs or any of this stuff. I

always sound thought it was a little

kooky and whatnot. But uh you know after

hearing you know your testimony from

honorable service members, watching

videos like my colleague Mr. Berles just

presented, you know, I got to admit I've

become a believer. Not that I know where

these things come from or you know what

they really are up to, but um I'd like

to start with asking the witnesses. Mr.

Natelli, you were in the Air Force,

right?

Yes. Did you believe in UFOs prior to

your encounter?

Um, I've always been interested.

Okay. Chief Wiggins, you're in the

currently in the Navy. Is that correct?

Correct.

Did you believe in UFOs before your

encounter?

I did. I'm from Las Vegas and I've

watched George Knap my whole life.

Okay. What about you, Mr. Borland?

I have always been open to where facts

go. So,

were you guys scared or hesitant to come

forward and tell your story because of

fear and uh um believing that you might

be reprimanded or ostracized from

society because of your stories?

Mr. Tully.

Yes, absolutely. Uh, I probably would

not have come forward if I didn't have

documentation to prove some of my story

and I also wouldn't have come forward

without the people that paved the way

for us in, you know, the first

congressional hearing.

Chief, what about you?

Once I got the okay from the Navy from

top down, that gave me a level of

relief. Uh prior to that I didn't have

uh any thought uh left or right of that

but uh thank the the Navy to give me the

go-ahhead and that gave me the relief

that I would not have any level of

reprisal or anything happened to me.

Mr. Borland, how about you?

Um absolutely. I mean after I went

through everything, it was pretty clear

that uh I caused a major issue in the

executive branch. So I did what I was

supposed to do. Um and that's why I

haven't spoken public publicly. That's

why I'm happy to be here. This is how I

wanted this to be done in regards to me.

Mr. Borland, why do you think that you

faced reprimand and discipline for your

uh effort to come forward and be

transparent about what you saw?

Um about what I saw is the reason why I

got into what I know and has been

disclosed to Arrow and the IG. And I

think that information well it was it

was labeled an extremely sensitive

national security issue.

Thank you, Mr. Knap. I've watched many

of your uh videos on Joe Rogan and other

places. Um, one of the big questions, I

think, for many of us is why do you

believe that the federal government

refuses to be transparent about this

issue?

I think there's probably multiple

reasons. At the start, when these things

first started invading our skies in

large numbers, we were scared. It was

right after World War II and and we

didn't know what they were and they

didn't want to panic the public. And

that was probably a good call. Over

time, I think they the lying sort of

became institutionalized. You know,

flights over Washington DC in 1952, uh,

they're seen, they're captured on radar,

jets are chased after these objects, and

then we get an explanation it was a

temperature inversion. And those kind of

lies have been told for a long time.

What was told to me by a an investigator

from Congress, a guy named Richard

Damato, who was sent after this story by

Robert Bird and Harry Reid, he came out

to Nevada, tried to get into Area 51,

did get in there, looked around, talked

to people trying to get to the bottom of

it. He believed that this program,

reverse engineering, etc., was inside,

had been moved inside these

corporations. And he said, "When this

comes out, people are going to go to

prison." and he meant people who were

basically misusing legitimate national

security funds, tens of billions of

dollars in order to keep this cover up

going. I also believe there's a

legitimate reason for the cover up in

that it there is undeniable connection

of national security involved in this

technology. If we are racing for it to

master that technology against the

Russians and the Chinese, which is what

I have been told by Senator Reid and

many others, uh then it is a a race

that's critical to our survival. There

could be a form of disclosure. I think

yes, it's real. It's from somewhere else

without revealing all the details that

would allow someone else to have an

advantage in the race for this

technology.

Thank you. Finally, I'd like to enter in

into the testimony

um a letter I sent to the DoD regarding

the case of Major David Charles Grush, a

UAP whistleblower who's been extremely

helpful to this committee.

Unfortunately, due to his participation

in the disclosure of UAP, he suffered

reprisal like the removal of his

clearance, denial of promotion, and loss

of medical retirement. I wrote the DoD

on July 24th, 2025 on behalf of Major

Grush, and I'm still waiting for a

reply. I appreciate any help the

committee can offer to get a response.

Thank you. I yield back.

Without objection, we'll be following up

with the DoD after this hearing. Thank

you, uh, Representative Crane. I'd like

next like to recognize Representative

Gil for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman Numa Luna for

holding this hearing and I'd like to

yield a minute of my time to you.

Uh, perfect. Uh, my first question is to

Mr. Knap. Mr. Knap, how do we know that

the files that you obtained from the uh

former Soviet government are not BS and

just given to you as a disinformation

campaign against US government? Yeah,

it's a good question. And so I shared

some of them with the Senate

Intelligence Committee when I first got

back because that was requested by the

Russians who shared some of that

information with with me. Secondly, I

gave all of that material to the DIA the

through through BASS, the OAP program.

Sorry for the acronyms.

Can you name names real quick? Sorry.

Uh of at Bass or

who did you give them to directly? I

gave them to Robert Bigalow and to Jim

Latsky and they uh they had hired a

whole team to go through them and

re-ransate them and analyze it and they

created a a structure of how the UFO

programs in the USSR in Russia were put

together. They said they were real. The

final the other person who said they

were real is David Grush.

Noted. Thank you. Uh Representative Gil

and thank you. I'd like to yield the

remainder of my time to Eric Berles.

Thank you, Representative Gil. Um, Mr.

Wiggins, Chief Wiggins, in your view,

what mechanisms such as internal

protocols, witness debriefings, or cross

agency documentation should be better

established in order to ensure that such

a credible sighting like the one that

you have given are preserved and made

available to oversight bodies like this.

Thank you, sir.

as a active duty Navy member, uh we our

mission is to carry out the ship's

mission or or the command's mission and

we on a general basis don't have

knowledge of what to do when we see

things like this. We just don't we're

there to do our mission and do what

what's a what's told of us, right? do I

think uh what would be important is uh

giving

active duty members

uh a clear

way of being able to report things like

this to to where it gets to this point

um and ensuring that we have a standard

level of understanding that there

wouldn't be any level of reprisal or

anything happening uh because you know

I've been in the Navy for almost 24

years uh but what about the sailor ers

that have been in for two years that

experienced things like this, they're

not going to have uh the knowledge or

they'll probably be a little bit more

fearful to speak up uh being at that

their career is just starting.

Yeah. I I just I want to commend you.

You're the first witness to come forward

that is currently serving and it's not

and it's recognized and so I thank you

and your testimony is unbelievable. Um

let me ask this question. Are you

familiar with the um witness protection

act that that Representative Burchett

has filed? If

I'm not too familiar, sir.

Anyone on the committee familiar with

it? It's fantastic. It's the language

that we need. We It's language that will

protect Wii, you know, whistleblowers

from uh from any kind of reprisal. Um

and yet it's again and again blocked by

by um you know, this body in some way.

Many of times it's being blocked not by

elected officials, but by staff behind

the scenes. Um the other bill, the UAP

Disclosure Act, which was um filed last

year, Sen. Senator Schumer, who I cannot

believe that there's a topic that he and

I agree on, but he and I agree on this

topic. He has sponsored it in the

Senate. He put it on the National

Defense Authorization Act last year.

Remarkably, I can't get it on the It was

stripped out by the House last year, and

I can't get it onto the bill leaving the

House this year. Um,

Mr. Knap, how far would that would that

doc that bill go to actually getting the

answers that we need?

Uh, pretty far. I I I think that are

still going to have roadblocks. You

know, the the keepers of the secrets,

the private companies that have been

doing this job for intelligence agencies

for a long time are not going to cough

it up. You'd have to force it out of

them. And whether you can get them to

admit that they have it or not, I mean,

they're supposed to lie about it.

They've been lying about it. Um, you

know, I I more power to you. I hope it

works. I hope it passes this time, but

it's a it's a daunting challenge to to

get them to open up after lying about it

for more than 75 years.

Yeah. Um, and then finally, Mr. Borland,

um, when you engaged with Arrow in 2023,

you noted that their public statements

did not match the reality that you and

others had witnessed. In your

assessment, what were the key

limitations of Arrow?

You know, I would put it to you this

way. The statement Arrow has made is

scientific evidence of

extraterrestrials. Scientific evidence

requires a scientific control.

Extraterrestrial is an entity on another

planet. The only way to scientifically

prove extraterrestrial is we have to go

to that planet, acquire technology,

bring it back, and compare it to what we

have here. So you're saying they won't

let anything out because or they won't

they won't come forward unless they

confirm that it it unless they go to the

planet and confirm where its origin is.

That that would be scientific evidence.

Yes. And by that statement, Arrow found

no scientific evidence of

extraterrestrials is basically I don't

want to call it a scop, but a

misrepresentation because we do have

things. But making that statement is not

technically a lie. It's a

misrepresentation of the full truth.

Thank you,

Madam Chair. May I just since we're on

that topic real quick, um h how do we

get to these other planets? How do we

pass the Van Allen radiation belt

safely?

Um good question for you. I I cannot

answer that for you.

Thank you. I would now like to uh

recognize Mr. Perry for five minutes.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Um I think I'll

start with uh maybe Mr. Borland. So, you

have a clearance, right? You're in

uniform. You have a clearance. When did

you leave at service? What year?

I left in uh 2013. February

2013. Who was the president? If you

recall,

2013 would have been President Obama,

sir.

Wasn't President Trump, right?

No, sir.

Okay. So, you have a clearance, right?

You're ser

picturing the scene. You walk out in the

flight line having a smoke. This event

occurs.

Do you have the perception, at least I

do based on your story,

that this involves the US government?

Whatever you saw involves the US

government.

That is 100% my opinion then and now.

And was there an afteraction? Was do you

do a daily debrief of the activities of

the day? Was any of that recorded? Was

there a conversation with the command?

Was there any documentation that you

know of at the time?

Not to my knowledge. I mean, like I

said, I talked about it in uh on the ops

floor and a couple of people had pulled

me aside, some older enlisted and were

like, "You probably want to keep that to

yourself."

So, did you get the Did you get the

impression that they knew what you were

talking about, just didn't want you to

harm your career or seem crazy, or that

they didn't really witness? Did you know

anybody else that witnessed what you

saw?

Again, not that night. Like I said, the

only people that would have been out

there would have been security forces

and then those of us that were doing

offic

security forces in uniform or contract.

Probably both.

Did you talk to them? Did anybody talk

to them in an afteraction?

Not to my knowledge, sir.

Is there any interest in the command to

determine and verify what you saw?

Not to my knowledge, sir.

It's unfortunate. Chief Wiggins,

thank you for your service. Gentlemen,

thank thanks all of you for your courage

to be here. um

your story is a little bit different.

Sounds like it well

for both of you guys and also Mr.

Nusatelli.

If this were sanctioned by the US

government even though you have a

clearance but it's classified above the

clearance level.

Do you see any reason why they would

allow you access, being present, viewing

it,

hearing it, you know, being around it?

Like what is this an accident? Like does

the US government make these kind of a

they make accidents, mistakes like this?

Like oh, we're we're doing this uh we're

doing this test of this new system and

we forgot these guys were standing here.

Does that sound like something that the

US government would do?

Uh, no sir. Uh, some of the launches we

were doing were like five billion dollar

projects that had taken like 10 years to

develop the technology and these objects

were coming right up to the launch pad.

So any kind of mistake I mean we could

it could cause a catastrophe, right? So,

it's very confusing why these objects

would be operating in and around our

bases or during training exercises.

It would lend us would lend you to

believe that the US government had no

had nothing to do with whatever it is

you saw.

Correct.

They wouldn't want it there because it

would potentially interrupt the

proceedings at the time. Was there an

afteraction? Was there a discussion by

your command? Were there was there an

investigation? It's pretty significant

activities that you were involved in.

Was there an investigation that you know

of?

We conducted investigations in real time

and we document all the evidence, but as

far as anything from higher up, I don't

know if there was an investigation done.

No, no information came down on what we

should

Were you ever interviewed at someone

else's request

about that incident?

Yeah, about the incident.

I don't believe so.

Do you think that's you find that odd?

If something happens, you're around

multi-million maybe billion dollar

operations and launches of of uh

national security interest. Very

sensitive. There's an anomaly in the

operation.

The only person uh witnessed it, saw a

UAP at Vandenberg at that time frame

that was interviewed was the one that

witnessed the thing land.

Why wouldn't Well, I don't know why I'm

asking you, but it seems to me that we

would want to interview everybody

associated, even not associated, to find

out if they were associated. Chief

Wiggins, how about you? Did anybody Was

there an investigation? Was there an

afteraction? Was there documentation

on the incident that you were privy to?

No, sir. Not that I know of. And uh in

my previous experience um as an

operation specialist, all operations

that I've been a part of have been

deliberate. So yeah, uh there there

and and deliberate operations after the

operations you conduct an afteraction

review or that's what the army calls it.

I don't know what the I imagine the Navy

has something similar to determine your

weaknesses, your your successes. Do you

do that in regard to this incident?

No sir. The Navy calls it afteraction

reports and uh not to my knowledge. Uh

was there an afteraction report uh of

this incident sir?

It's unfortunate. Thank you chair. I

yield.

I now recognize Mr. Biggs for five

minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the

witnesses for being here today. I'll

tell you that today's testimony should

alarm every American, no matter their

views on UAPs. This isn't simply about

UAPs. It's about government integrity,

the responsible use of taxpayer funds,

and Congress's constitutional duty to

oversee the executive branch. for heard

evidence of critical information hidden

in special access programs off limits to

virtually every elected representative

and certainly to the public. Credible

witnesses report retaliation for

speaking out. These are clear attempts

to silence those who are exposing the

truth. We must protect the

whistleblowers and decades of government

disinformation have eviscerated public

trust. So this isn't a partisan matter.

It's a constitutional matter. And uh

when you talk about the VAS, Mr.

Spielberg, uh and and all the problems

that they had, the hub of that was

Phoenix uh and they went after the

whistleblowers there and that was under

the Obama administration. So it doesn't

matter which administration, which

party, both parties have got to come

clean, particularly on this. So the

government thinks it can hide the truth

and punish those who speak out. Congress

has to keep pushing until the facts,

whatever they are, wherever they lead,

come to light. I'm going to go to you,

Mr. Mr. Knap. First, you've interviewed

numerous UAP whistleblowers over the

years. Question is, how do you verify

their claims before deciding they're

credible enough to report on?

It's a combination of factors. First,

you check their credentials. Did they

really serve where they said they did,

and did they work where they said they

did? Are there any other witnesses? Is

there visual uh proof, film, footage,

things of that sort? You ask the people

around them that know them, that used to

work with them, uh if they're credible

people. That's one way. You know, I

think about uh Arrow, the organization

that this body uh created to deal with

witnesses and whistleblowers. I hope I'm

not taking too much your time here, but

they invited people to come forward,

service members who knew uh saw things

and had experiences. And I can tell you

that the people that I have talked to

who went through that are deeply

disappointed. There was a guy named Bob

Jacobs who was a lieutenant attached to

Vandenberg in 1964. His unit would would

record missile tests. They recorded all

of them. On one of these particular

tests, a UFO comes out of nowhere, zaps

what looks like a laser beam at what

would have been a nuclear dummy, a

nuclear weapon, and disabled it. And he

is called into the commander's office.

Uh, two guys in suits clip that film

footage out that shows the UFO, and he's

ordered to never talk about it. He comes

forward to Arrow. He heeds the call

thinking he's doing his duty as an

American to tell that story. and they

completely dismissed him. They made up a

story that they had tracked down the

original footage and there was nothing

like that in it. Well, there was no

original footage. It had been taken away

the day the footage was recorded. He's

deeply disappointed. People like Bob

Salis who had worked at a nuclear ICBM

base who saw UFOs flying over the base

and and these missile silos were taken

down. He went to Arrow too and was

completely disregarded. It almost looks

like Arrow operated as a counter

intelligence operation to get people to

come in, tell their stories, and then

discredit all of them. I I I can't

imagine that any whistleblower or

witness will ever go to Arrow again

because of what happened under the first

director who's now long gone, but still

seems to act as the spokesperson for

that organization.

And I would say I would say, Madam

Chair, maybe at some point we need to

really dig deep into Arrow. And I would

encourage us

Oh, I'd be happy to send maybe a

subpoena to Mr. Kilpatrick.

Mr.

Mr. N Mr. Nucatelli

M Mr. Nucatelli, you've testified that

official Air Force records of the Red

Square incident are now held by Arrow

and the FBI. Has Congress or you been

denied access to those records? And uh

and on what grounds would they would we

be denied access, you or us?

No. Uh the records are unclassified. So

okay

provide them

in the 2003 to 2005 incidents you

described were any physical effects

electromag interference radio anomalies

or security system disruptions

documented in base logs or any reports

official reports?

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Wiggins

has the full resolution unedited footage

of your incident been provided to

Congress?

Yes.

Okay.

Were you or your crew ever instructed

formally or informally not to document

or discuss the event? Ever?

No.

Good.

Mr. Borland, um, you've talked about

manipulation of your security clearance

records. Can you identify which agencies

or officers were responsible and whether

they provided any written justification?

I can do that in a skiff, sir, 100%. um

because of being a part of a multi-

agency special access program I cannot

give those publicly.

So I had encourage us madam chair to

have that skiff that skiff meeting if we

can and then uh Mr. Borland again for

you testified that you withheld certain

sources and methods from arrow due to

mistrust. Can you give us some specifics

uh that led you to believe they were

misrepresenting the truth? Well, as I

said already, um what I said about

scientific method, scientific control,

uh extraterrestrials, I mean, I know

what I've seen. I know what I know, and

I know it's true. So, any agency that's

going to go public and try and

manipulate the public perception of this

subject in such a way that is negative

when I know the truth about it is why I

had extreme reservations with it. and

also what I've been through and other

whistleblowers and people in the know

about this subject have been through.

So, Madam Chair, thank you for letting

me wave on. I think the key thing there

you talked about was manipulation of

message, manipulation of narrative. That

is really the problem with this entire

uh uh the system that we've seen since

you've you've started this these

wonderful hearings, Madam Chair, and I

thank you so much.

Thank you, Governor Big I mean uh

Representative Biggs. Um miss uh the

chair would now like to represent or uh

recognize Mr. Begitch for 5 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um first

question, Mr. Borland, uh earlier today

you mentioned uh that under in a skiff

you would be able to uh discuss whether

a member of Congress is actually legally

able to access certain information.

Under what authority would a member of

Congress be restricted from accessing

information on this topic, even within a

skiff? I would suggest uh reaching out

to Director Gabbard and speaking with

her about that. Um I'm hopeful that this

goes back to the executive branch and

who even has authority. Unfortunately, I

can't give you a 100% solid answer

because I don't even have that

knowledge.

Next question uh to George Knapp. What

is the estimated annual budget your view

uh for the for the program for

investigating or reverse engineering UAP

related technology including official

misappropriated or black budget funds?

I wouldn't have a clue. I don't know of

any person that's ever seen it.

Does anyone on this panel wish to

address that question?

Okay, moving on. Um, are any of you

willing to name specific gatekeepers

within the root cell of the UAP SAP

Federation?

You mean specific people in contractors

that have dealt with this secret?

Specific individuals.

Well, one of them was named Dr. James

Ryder at at Lockheed. Um, but you know,

again, to to to emphasize, I I don't

fault these contractors for doing what

they were asked to do by our government.

They're supposed to lie if people ask

about it and uh uh the intelligence

agencies who who gave this stuff to

them, CIA I think primarily told them to

keep it quiet and they and they've done

that and I I suspect that they'd like an

off-ramp um that they'd like some help

with figuring out this technology at

some point.

Is and this is again available to

anyone. Is there a security

classification guide for UAP or NHI?

Uh I was I remember in the 2003 or 2023

hearing uh it was stated that all UAP

related material is classified secret or

above.

I have a name for you.

Go ahead.

Glenn Gaffne, CIA.

Glenn Gaffne, CIA. Uh another question

for you. Uh Mr. Knap, what is in your

view having investigated this issue for

so many years? What is the long game

with respect to disclosure of this

information to the public? Uh because

with the advent of uh essentially a

video camera and and a high megapixel

phone in everybody's pocket, at some

point this information is going to be

impossible to withhold from the public.

What do you think is is the long game

here?

Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many

videos have there been already? you

know, videos that are leaked from within

the military and intelligence agencies

and contractors and sensor platforms.

It's out there, but they have the high

ground. The people that don't want us to

take it seriously dismiss it, discredit

the witnesses, come up with a cover

story. I mean, it's it's been out there

a long time. The public senses that it's

real and the people in authority dismiss

them. It's a it's a game that's been

going on a long time and I don't think

they're ever going to release it. Uh, I

think that there's an attitude among the

people that have been involved in this

for a long time that the public doesn't

deserve to know and that the public

probably can't handle it, but they can.

Final question. Again, this one's open

to anyone who'd like to answer it. Uh,

describe your understanding of the org

chart or lines of control within the

executive branch with respect to these

topics.

And if you'd like to address that in a

skiff, feel free to say so.

That could work as long as I'm legally

allowed to and you are legally allowed

to receive it.

I

think they this these programs are in

the executive branch, National Security

Council and and over on that side. And

that seems to be what um some of our

witnesses have told us over the years.

So you can, you know, Congress can file

all kinds of requests. the foyas can be

filed with the department of defense,

department of war now and uh and they

can honestly say well we don't have it

because they don't have it.

Thank you. Is there anything in my

remaining 30 seconds that uh that you'd

like to share on any of these questions

that uh that I've asked you today

and I I applaud the the committee for

trying to tackle this monster of an

issue. I really appreciate that it's

actually it might be the only bipartisan

issue in Washington where everybody can

agree. We've watched multiple hearings

now. Everyone is asking the same kind of

questions whether right or left and uh

and honestly want the answers and you

know chairman Luna, Chairwoman Luna,

you're I appreciate your dedication to

this. Tim Burchett and the other members

uh for sticking with it because you know

it's come up in Congress before and they

had hearings and then they dropped it

for 50 years. So, it's going to take a

time, a lot of time to get to the bottom

of this and I applaud your uh your

commitment to getting to the truth.

Thank you, Mr. N. Pursuant to committee

rule 9.

Madam Chair,

can I have a par ask a parliamentary

question of you?

Yeah, sure.

Um, does this subcommittee have the

authority to do subpoenas

task force? So, the task force to answer

that question has to do it through full

committee.

Okay.

So, and also in regards to immunity,

which to Mr. Borland's point, we are

going to be as uh doing a motion to ask

for immunity um for you and a few other

people to come into a skiff and tell us

what you know without being subject to

the Espionage Act, etc.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um so, that's just kind of an update,

but as a task force, because we are not

a full subcommittee and there are

certain authorities that haven't been

granted to us, probably because they

don't want us to have it. Um but there

are ways to work around it. So, we're

kind of figuring that out. Um, pursuant

to committee rule 9C, the majority and

minority will have an additional 30

minutes each to ask questions of the

witnesses without objection. So,

ordered. Um, with that being said, if

you guys want to jump in the queue, I

know Representative Crane, Burles, and

likely Burchett have a few more

questions. Um, I'll just start out with

two and then I'll pass the buck to

Berles. Burchett, do you have anything?

Yeah.

Burchet and then Crane. Um, just real

quick, Mr. Knap, um, and short answers

please because of time. How much of

these alleged Russian crash retrieval

documents have already been physically

um out there? So I mean percentage-wise

of the documents that you submitted to

Congress, what was public already and

what was not newly

maybe 1%.

Okay. So the rest of it should be

predominantly new information. Um also

can you just uh elaborate real quick? I

know you had I think mentioned a thread

3 program but also alleged in those

documents. I got through maybe half of

them last night. There's a lot and I

don't speak Russian um contrary to my

what might people might allege. Um, what

does the threat three um, was there any

specific programs that existed within

the Soviet government or groups to

specifically investigate this by name?

Real quick,

it's a number. There's a number in those

documents I gave you. There was a larger

program that actually had three

subprograms that was uh, thread 3 was

the name I got and then the DIA guys who

looked at it figured out there was a

much larger organization. It's

it's listed in those documents.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um, real quick, I'd

like to ask the committee to replay that

video that Berles had played earlier. I

want to ask every witness here,

specifically ones that have um, sensor

training or have been able to recognize

some of this movement real quick. So, if

you guys can please roll that real

quick.

Okay, while this is still rolling, Mr.

um Nusatelli, real quick, yes or no

answers. Are you aware of anything in

the government uh United States

government arsenal that can split a

Hellfire missile like this?

No.

And do whatever blob thing it didn't and

then keep going? Nothing.

Nothing.

All right. How about you, Chief Wigan?

Wiggins.

Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am.

Okay. And how about you, Mr. Borland?

I prefer to answer that in a skiff.

Okay. Um, does this video scare you

guys?

Yes or no?

Yes.

Wiggins?

Yes.

Nat.

Uh,

I had a different reaction. I I I was

really happy that it got out. Thanks for

providing that

curiosity. All right, Mr. Morland.

Yes. For

Okay. All right. Um that that is the end

of my questioning. I'd like to now

recognize Mr. Crane.

Thank you. Um Chief, I was on a ship for

a little bit. I was a gunner's mate on

the USS Gettysburg for a couple years.

Um my question to you is when you uh saw

had your encounter and you saw it on the

screen, you were in the CIC. Is that

correct?

That's correct. on an LCS ship. Uh the

CIC is on the bridge, so it's called

ICC1, but yes, same.

Did Did a bunch of the other folks in

the CIC come and check out what you were

looking at?

Yes, we all did. Uh the tactical action

officer, uh myself, the RCO,

um and two others that was that were on

watch. Uh, we were all in the same

space, so we were all looking at the

Sapphire screen all at the same time.

Because in the other in the other couple

instances with the witnesses, you guys

just saw it by yourself. Is that

correct?

Mr. Borland, you saw by yourself

for me? Yes, sir.

Mr. Nesatelli, you saw this by yourself?

No, there were multiple witnesses in

every case of Vanderber.

Okay. So, Chief, did that spread like

wildfire throughout the ship in the next

day or two? What you guys had seen?

No, sir. It didn't spread throughout the

ship, but it spread throughout ICC1

conversation. As you do your turnover,

we talk about it. Uh, but it didn't go

further than just the watch standards

that stood watch on the bridge. Uh, and

in ICC1, so it did move around there uh

throughout a few days.

I'm kind of surprised. Stuff usually

spreads around the ship pretty fast. Why

do you think the rest of your uh fellow

sailors on the boat didn't hear about

it?

potentially uninterest possibly, you

know, with engineers uh or combat

systems like yourself uh don't make

their way up to the bridge enough to get

with inside of the the circle of talk

about the incident.

Was it hard for you to get permission

from the Navy to bring that video?

I I myself didn't bring the video. I

just saw the video. When I saw the

video, I got in touch uh with uh Admiral

uh Galedet. That's how I wind up knowing

about the video itself when I first uh

talked to the admiral and you can hear

my voice at the back end of the video

and that's I was like, "Hey, that's my

voice and I wanted to talk about it."

How long did that encounter take place,

Chief?

So, the encounter itself from the time I

recognized on my radar to the time after

the video ends uh was probably about 5

to 7 minutes.

What speed was uh the object moving at?

When I first witnessed off the port

bridge wing the object moving out of the

water, what I thought was originally

just a light on the water, something on

the horizon and surfacing and going into

the air. Uh I then knew it was an air

contact. But as an as a air controller

myself, um I started thinking and going

through kind of like my checklist in my

mind. Could it be a hilo? But it's not

blinking lights. So I then realized this

is something I've never seen before. So

the speed itself, just going from the

horizon to about maybe 3 4,000 ft in the

air was very slow uh slowly rising and

then it sped up. I'm I'm not an expert

at, you know, knowing specific speeds uh

of aircraft just by visual eye, but I

would say probably one two mock

instantly into the rest of the

formation. I didn't notice visually with

my own eyes the other three uh objects

until I went back to my radar and also

utilize Sapphire to see that in fact

there were four total. Uh and then again

uh when they all left after a certain

amount of time it was nearly

instantaneous. Uh

so you spotted it visually first chief

and then went back to your radar or did

you guys find it on spot it on radar

first?

Radar first because that was my watch

station was

and then you went out to the port

bridgewing. Is that correct?

Correct. To verify what I saw on my

radar.

What range was it at chief when you were

able to see it visibly?

I would say

about seven. nautical miles, seven to

eight nautical miles of a light from the

ship.

Wow. Thank you. I yield back.

I now recognize Mr. Burlson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mr. Chief

Wiggins, you said that it's it was it

emerged from the ocean. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

And before it did, it was glowing. It

was a glowing object under the water.

That part I couldn't tell because it was

nighttime at 19:15 approximately and it

was also at a distance. So, it's very

hard to tell the difference between

something on the horizon and something

surfacing from the water. My my personal

thoughts after seeing what I saw is that

it did in fact come from the water, but

I don't have visual evidence showing

exactly, you know, that it did in fact

come from the water. But, uh, I had,

again, I had to go through my process of

of of elimination and try to figure out,

was this a ship on the horizon just

showing its lights at night? But to see

its surface, then it made me question,

okay, where did this come from? If it's

flying and it's not a drone or anything

like that, uh, where was its origin?

Where did it start?

Mr. NAP, in your testimony and in this

document, um, you you detail an event

that happened in Russia where their

nuclear missiles were activated and we

were close to a World War II at that at

that time, which is startling to hear.

It's also good to know that um as we

have investigated the JFK um files as

well that we're learning that um that

there was a document that was sent

between Russia, there was an agreement

between Russia and the United States

that if they were to see some

unidentified objects over sensitive

sites that they would report it to each

other. Are you familiar with that

document?

Uh yes, I'm also uh familiar with the

rhetoric, public rhetoric between

President Reagan and Gorbachoff at the

time too that they traded uh statements

about wouldn't it be something if we

were threatened by something from way

outside how we might uh work together. I

know for sure that they had

conversations about it and I know we did

reach an agreement uh to to try to

lessen the possibility that us detecting

a UFO or group of UFOs would not be

mistaken for a bunch of Russian

missiles. There were exchanges of that

sort that went back and forth.

Yeah. And I can imagine this is to me

the validity of this document is is

underscored by the fact that Russia

would not want this to be known. They

absolutely would not want to know the

public to know or the United States to

know that there was a vulnerability in

their missile systems. Would you agree?

Absolutely. And um you know and and we

had many similar incidents at our

nuclear weapons facilities here that

have all been sort of swept under the

rug. But it's pretty scary when you take

down 10 missile silos uh during tense

times and you don't have a better

explanation for it than it was a a

special test of security mechanisms

mechanisms or using EMPs which is a

preposterous explanation.

Um real quick we're going to cut to Mr.

Ogles. He just got back. So um we're in

a special kind of lightning round. So

five minutes and then we'll go back to

our line of questioning.

Uh thank you Madam Chair. you know, at

this point, I think it's clear from from

the hearing that there's advanced

technologies that are taking place um in

our airspace. You know, the question is,

and I posed it in one of the previous

hearings, is it ours? Is it theirs? Or

is it otherworldly?

Uh there may not be a silver bullet at

the moment, but when you look back

through the hearing and the evidence

that's been presented, if you're going

to point the American people to one

piece of evidence to start their journey

on this topic, what would you suggest,

sir?

One piece of evidence.

Um

I would I would start with this hearing

and in in the first hearing. Um

there is no evidence.

But is there a specific Exactly. But is

there a specific evidence or footage or

document that that you think lends

extreme credibility to what we're talk

discussing today?

I would say this new video we're seeing

today is exceptional evidence that we're

dealing with something

with the kinetic.

Yes.

Mr. Wiggins.

Sir, I'd have to say that uh if just the

average person here in America looked at

absolutely everything that has come

across television, the internet, etc.,

uh you can't tell yourself that 100% of

what's being recorded is fake or false.

You have to at some point understand

that there's something else uh out

there.

Well, I mean, and you bring an

interesting point. you know, in the law

enforcement community, anytime you're

you're conducting an investigation,

you're always looking at the totality of

the circumstances. You're looking at all

the evidence evidence and how they piece

together. And so, that would be my, you

know, advice to the American people that

this is a journey that is just beginning

from a congressional perspective, but

you have decades of data. Some of it not

real, much of it is, but thanks to

Chairwoman Luna, we're now presenting

this to the American people. And I think

this latest video from Mr. Berles is

something that should get every everyone

pause when you think when you see the

three orbs that drop. Was that in a

defensive posture or is that in an

offensive posture? And what capabilities

did those orbs have that we quite

frankly may not have? Mr. Nap,

as I mentioned at the beginning of my

remarks, what hooked me on the story was

the paper trail. Uh these documents that

shouldn't exist. We've been told for

decades over and over there's nothing to

it. It's not a threat. You can go about

your business. And then when FOYA

becomes the law of the land, thousands

of pages to the contrary leak out.

There's a a memo by General Nathan

Twining in 1947 when the country was

being overflown by uh dozens of UFOs,

hundreds of UFOs, in which he said,

"Look, this is not uh visionary or

fictitious. It's real. These things are

craft. They're not ours. They outperform

anything we've got. I mean, if you

follow the paper trail of documents that

they wrote before the military got wise

and and realized that FOYA really exists

and changed their tune and not put

things in writing, it spells it out

pretty clearly. The I'll I'll go refer

back to Russia. One incident I did not

mention, Representative Berles, is there

are Colonel Sakalov in that Ministry of

Defense uh program said there were 40

incidents where Russian warplanes were

sent to intercept UFOs and they were

ordered to fire on them and for the most

part the UFOs would zip away. Three of

the pilots though did fire at these

things. Those three planes stalled out,

crashed. Two of those pilots died and

after that the Russians changed the

standing order. If you see a UFO, leave

them alone. No country in the world

wants to say and admit that these

objects are flying around in our

airspace and there's nothing we can do

about it. I mean, who wants to say that?

The US certainly doesn't. The Russians

didn't either.

And I've got to be almost out of time,

but uh Mr. Berlin, then you, sir, real

quickly.

Yeah, to be honest with you, I think Bob

Lazar, and not for the reasons that most

would talk about, mainly because Bob

Lazar was immediately discredited. They

said he never worked where he worked.

They said he never did what he did. But

yet Bob Lazar showed up with a bunch of

friends in a video camera and was

filming these test flights in the middle

of the desert. So clearly he knew

something.

Madam Chairman, if I'm out of time, I

yield back.

Thank you very much, Representative

Ogles. I'd like to go back now on our

lightning round of questioning to

Representative Burchetta and then

Berles.

Burch always number one.

As well I should be

number one in your heart. number 435 on

the chart. That's me.

Uh Dylan, um knowing you testified to

Arrow, are they obiscating when they

claim to have discovered no evidence of

extraterrestrial beings activity or

technology? And are they lying to the

American public?

As I said before, it's it's a

manipulation of the public perception.

The statement scientific evidence of

extraterrestrials is a true statement.

It is not the truth about what is

happening and what we have.

Any of y'all like to comment on that

further? Mr. Nap, you're getting edgy.

It's splitting hairs. No proof that

they're extraterrestrials. What would

that proof look like? Uh, a piece of

kryptonite. What would it be? I mean, we

could be talking about different forms

of non-human intelligence. Uh I think

the dominant paradigm is that they come

from outer space somewhere else and they

have some way that they can cross those

vast distances that we can't even

imagine doing. But not necessarily

that's not necessarily the answer. So

asking for proof of extraterrestrials

might not be the answer at all. It's

splitting hairs. Uh you know we don't

know where they're from. I don't know

anyone who knows the answer for sure.

They call them aliens just as a

placekeeper kind of a word, but no one

in all these programs who've studied

this stuff for years, people with much

bigger brains than mine, knows the

answer for sure.

I've talked to Navy folks that some of

the deep sea areas, they think there

might be something there that they're

here and I don't know when they got

here. Another point that needs to be

made is every time, you know, we say

we're going to backineer or whatever you

want to call it um these craft. I always

say like it'd be like if you took a I

ride motorcycles, but if you took like

an Indian or a Harley to the people that

came over here on the Mayflower, you

know, they'd see a bright shiny object.

They might polish it, you know. They

might they might get it started. I doubt

they could they couldn't they couldn't

work on it. They couldn't put fuel. They

wouldn't be a have the capability of

putting fuel in it. I just think that

that's, you know, we're just we're

scratching at something that we don't

have any knowledge of. And that's why

it's just taken so dad gdgum long. But

they do know first one that cracks that

code.

It's it's over. I mean it's it's it's

energy. It's power. It's everything. And

I worry too that in the wrong hands that

they do that. um they keep it from the

rest of us because they're so invested

in whatever energy sources we have here

that their billionaire buddies are going

to profit and they can't and they can't

retool because they know once it's out

on the internet it's over and so I think

there's a lot of things going after and

I think that's why the the move to

discredit folks is so rapid too. I think

you know they're just they point to them

and they they put the dogs on them and

it disgusts me. There's a price to be

paid for that, too. The Russians and

Chinese are trying to figure this this

out as well, but they're they don't have

the same kind of stigma. They tell their

best scientists and engineers, get in

there and work on it, and they've been

doing it for a very long time. Might

have a head start on us. Here, we don't

have our best scientists and engineers

working on it because they've been told

it's nonsense. The stigma is very real

for people like that.

I agree. Yield back, chair lady.

Thank you. I'd like to rep uh recognize

Representative Berles.

Mr. Natelli.

Um, when you heard the the testimony of

Mr. Knap talking about um the these

missiles were shut down or turned on in

Russia, um, does that does that remind

you when you hear these stories, it's

got to remind you of the event that

happened on your base?

Absolutely. There are many many um,

accounts of incursions of this type

taking place. I believe in the 60s we

had a similar incursion in New England

and uh the same thing happened. There

were these objects coming over the base

at low altitude 200 feet over the base

security police and they were scrambling

fighters and then the objects would just

fly off and that went on for weeks. So

the historical record is laid out that

there's a pattern that our our

installations are visited by these

craft. you know, they they come in and

do whatever they're doing and then they

leave and we don't know how to respond.

We don't know how to protect the

installation.

So, that's why we're here.

When you first heard and we're having to

report on the these incidents that were

being witnessed by other individuals,

did you did you find did you believe

them? Did you yourself believe it would

be true until you saw it?

Yeah, these are people I've worked with

for years, deployed with um you know, I

was in some of their weddings. These are

people that I I worked with every day of

my life. Uh usually when the events were

occurring, we were all together. You

know, there'd be 40, 60, 100 people on

duty during these encounters.

Really?

Yeah.

All seeing it at the same time.

Yes. These were these encounters were

playing out while we were on duty. Um

and and we were responding and

investigating in real time as they

occurred. And as you said, the

importance of of your operation was

highly important because um they said

it's the most important in 25 years. Um

the the the research that you were

conducting

for that particular launch, we had 500

Air Force police officers guarding the

launch.

500 people. It was that critical.

Wow.

But had this thing showed up, we

wouldn't have been able to do anything

to prevent it showing up. Re

real quickly, can you just redescribe

size and whether or not you heard

anything? It was how bigwise

the two square objects were at least as

large as a football field. Um the second

encounter they think it was much larger

than a football field. We're talking

like build flying buildings. The object

I saw was about 30 feet in diameter.

And to confirm, you were not the only

person that saw this.

Correct.

I think I was also told um that there

was also uh reports of this in a police

blotter in the area. Can you confirm

that? Yes, that's the uh the the

documentation that I maintained

from the original event and uh turned

into Arrow and the FBI.

Okay. Do you have any more Berles?

No. Um Madam Chair, I just want to

reiterate to the American people that um

if you're frustrated, so are we. We're

extremely frustrated. We've been, you

know, the two three years I can only

imagine how frustrated Mr. app is or or

Danny Shehan is and the amount of time

that you guys have poured into this to

try to get answers. I mean, Massan is

back there. He's been pouring to try to

get answers into this. Um, we're I hope

that you all see that we're committed to

this. And, um, we're going to be scrappy

about it. We may not have the direct

authority, but uh, I can assure you,

Representative Luna is about as scrappy

as it gets. I wouldn't want to scrap

with her. But that being said, I think

that if if the American people want to

see answers, we need to action. We've

had the hearings. It's time to take

action. It's time that we pass Tim

Burchett's UA uh whistleblower act. It's

time that we pass the UAP Disclosure

Act. And and um I think that we've had a

lot of talk about this. It's time for

action.

Thank you, Brandon.

I would now like to yield 30 minutes to

Representative Crockett.

I'll reserve. Thank you. Um, in closing,

I want to thank our witnesses once again

for their testimony today. I now yield

to ranking member Crockett for closing

remarks.

I'll pass.

No, I I just want to say thank you so

much to each and every one of you um for

being here today, for staying committed

to this and for your courage. Um I truly

believe that courage is contagious and

right now we need more courage than ever

whether it's UAPs or whether we're

dealing with any other form of

government where people are afraid to

come out and speak their truth. Um, the

American people are relying on amazing

public servants like you to speak up on

their behalf to be the watchdog and to

make sure that we are as safe as

possible. Um, and so, thank you so much

again for conducting a bipartisan

hearing on such an important matter.

Thank you. Um, I now like to recognize

myself for some closing remarks. Uh,

this is obviously something that doesn't

just affect everyone in this room. I can

tell you that specifically for where I

represent in Penllis County, Tampa Bay,

and Florida as a whole, there's many

sightings, uh, many questions, people

reporting this, but I'm not the only

one. I was also told by Representative

Biggs, as well as, um, you know, our

great representative from Alaska that

these are not isolated instances. And

so, it does bring, um, give us reasoning

to provide investigative inquiry into

these topics, but also too, um, I would

also like, Mr. Spielberger, if you could

actually review and see if your

organization would endorse the

whistleblower protection act that

Representative Burchetta has. I can tell

you that I will be signing on to a

letter as well as I'm sure many other

members of this task force and we hope

that the ranking chairwoman or my co my

colleague here, Representative Crockett,

as well as the our Democrats that were

here today consider also signing on to

that as we do feel that it is time to

ensure that our whistleblowers are given

adequate protections and that people

like Mr. Borland are not facing

retribution in the way that they have

been. Um, with that being said, with all

that and without objection, all members

have five legislative days within to

submit materials and additional written

questions for the witnesses and uh,

which will be also forwarded to those

witnesses. If there are no further

business without objection,

I'd like to now recognize Representative

Burchett for closing.

I would just like to thank the raking

member and the chair lady for their

courage. This is a tough issue. We all

catch hell for it. Um, and it's uh, but

it's but it's gratifying that we're here

in a bipartisan nature and the way this

meeting was conducted. And I want to

thank y'all for your courage. Thank

y'all. And

without objection, the task force stands

adjourned.

[Applause]