UFO whistleblowers testify on Pentagon transparency, accountability

Transcript

for 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 PTOIC.

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 council 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 the truth, the whole truth, and the nothing but the truth? So help you, God.

Let the record show that the witnesses answered an 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 30-foot 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 Alexandra 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 15th, 2023 at approximately 19:15 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 bridge wing, 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 stigmafree 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 pl 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 Knap, chief investigative reporter at KLS 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 extra legal. 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 in 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 that 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 EG&G 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 retrievalss 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 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 Boro Sakalav told me that their goal was to basically develop techn technology that would be superior to anything we had based on what they learned from UFOs. >> Mr. Nap, 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. >> 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. Knapp, 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.

Knapp, we'll continue on the line of questioning, but I'm going to move on to Mr. Borland's opening state length. >> 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 electrooptical 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, forge and 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 and formal 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 in 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 are 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 aggress 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. 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 se 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 dissent 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? Oh, what? Oh, Representative Bigs from Arizona. I already 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 feet in the air. I thought it was a weather balloon. I've seen tests from there before.

Uh week 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's 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 two 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 Kirk Patrick. 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 AROM 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 and 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. M 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 as 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.

Did 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 possibility. 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. 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 come 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 was 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 a 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, four 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 >> We know they did that to Mr. crush. >> 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 be other things. >> It would pending I'm even legally allowed to speak on and 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 dabbard um and work with her for that because I can't give you the answer on what is the requirement >> this is what the US government does right they compartmentalize the information 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 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 and 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 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. So years after uh people start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example, they come up with the story. Oh yeah, that that was uh 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 in 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 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. 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 kind of 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've 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 into 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 >> I did something kind of dumb. I I met with these officials who you know during that time period Glasnos, Peristroka, 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 goolog 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 be intro introduced all these people wrote back and said there was a huge eruption that there was uh the the real right uh uh far uh autocratic forces that wanted a return of the USSR had really go after these guys. They described them as traitors. Nikolai Capranov, the physicist friend of mine, said, "Look, if this had happened five 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 of 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 an 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 4hour 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 Sakalav 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 baloney 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 Loheed would be one. There's a list I can give you, Congressman. Um, some of the big ones, the the usual suspects. >> Okay.

Thank you. Yield back, chair lady. Sorry for going over. >> It's all good. >> It's all George Knap's fault.

>> I I now rec 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 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 sue into the location.

And that's what you see in the video itself is is when the uh watch stander is slewing 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 but 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 have 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 30year pension give but get rid of their kids' healthcare, 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 Galardet, Lou Alzando, and Mr.

Gold, and 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 jump 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 geriness 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 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. 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 in 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 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 >> Soies 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 to skip 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 Dna, 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 recog 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 Zelda, 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. Spielberger, 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 wa 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 revealed 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 misinformation campaign had 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. Spielberg, 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 not 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. Nusatelli, 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-ahad and that gave me the relief that I would not have any level of reprisal or anything happen 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 Gush, 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 OSAP program. Sorry for the acronyms.

>> Can you name names real quick? Sorry. >> Uh of at BAS or >> who did you give them to directly? I gave them to Robert Bigalow and to Jim Lassky 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? So 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 sailors 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? >> 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 wi, 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 and 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 do that bill go to actually getting the answers that we need? >> Uh, pretty far. I I I think that you're 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 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 serving in uniform. You have a clearance.

Your story, uh, you know, I think many of us are kind of 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 >> 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. Natelli, 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 act they make accidents, mistakes like this? like, well, 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 like5 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.

>> So 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? 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 in 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, responsible use of taxpayer funds, and Congress's constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch.

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 VA's milder 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 of 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 disable 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 Salace 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. Mr. 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. The records are unclassified.

So, >> okay. Okay. Provide them to >> 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 offices were responsible and whether they provided any written justification? >> I can do that in a skip, sir. 100%. Um because of being a part of a multi- agency special access program, I cannot give those publicly. So, I had encouraged us, Madam Chair, to have that skiff that skiff meeting if we can. And then, uh, Mr.

Borland, again for you, 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 methods, 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 five 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 and 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. >> Glen Gaffffne, 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 uh it 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. 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 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. Nat. 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're 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, Berles, 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. >> Burchetta 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 three 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 movements 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 did 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, >> 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 it by yourself >> for me? Yes, sir. Mr. Inesatelli, you saw this by yourself? >> No, there were multiple witnesses in every case at 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 an 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 an 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 utilized 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. >> 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 uh 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 1915 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.