Aliens? Yes! But Maybe No
Welcome to Aliens? Yes! But Maybe No. Join us, Travis and Josh, as we dive headfirst into the strange, the unexplained, and the “probably not true, but what if?” of the universe. From the basics like the Roswell Incident (you know, the one that started it all) to wild fringe theories like the hollow moon (because, sure, why not?), we’re here to ask the big questions, share a few laughs, and figure out what we actually believe.
We’re not experts—we’re just two curious guys who want to know more about UFOs, UAPs, and alien lore. So whether you’re a hardcore believer, a total skeptic, or just here for the conspiracy popcorn, we’ve got something for everyone.
Aliens? Yes! But Maybe No
2025 Congressional UAP Hearing
BONUS EPISODE!!
The congressional hearing on "Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection" delivered stunning testimony from military witnesses who risked everything to speak truth about unexplained encounters that defy conventional explanation.
Five witnesses took the stand: Air Force veterans Jeffrey Nucatelli and Dylan Borland, Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Alexander Wiggins, renowned UAP journalist George Knapp, and Joe Spielberger from the Project on Government Oversight. Their collective testimony painted a troubling picture not only of extraordinary encounters but of systematic suppression targeting those who dare report them.
The most jaw-dropping moment came with the release of previously classified footage showing a Hellfire missile—America's premier weapon—bouncing harmlessly off an unidentified aerial object off Yemen's coast in 2022. When asked if anything in the U.S. arsenal could withstand such an impact, the witnesses unanimously confirmed nothing could. The security implications sent shockwaves through the committee members, with Representative Moskowitz acknowledging, "I don't know what's true, but I know when we're being lied to."
A stark contrast emerged between military branches' handling of UAP reports. While Chief Wiggins described receiving full Navy support for his 2023 sighting of a "self-luminous, tic-tac shaped object" emerging from the ocean, Air Force veterans detailed career-destroying retaliation. Borland remains unemployed years after reporting his encounter, stripped of security clearances and professional opportunities. Nucatelli described multiple witnesses at Vandenberg Air Force Base being "threatened and intimidated" after reporting massive craft performing impossible maneuvers over sensitive missile defense installations.
George Knapp's testimony added crucial historical perspective, revealing how he smuggled classified KGB documents from Russia showing similar UAP programs operated by Soviet intelligence. His journalistic approach emphasized that transparency isn't about confirming extraterrestrial origins but acknowledging that something truly extraordinary is occurring in our skies—something beyond current human technological capabilities.
Have you noticed how mainstream coverage of these hearings tends to disappear within days? Subscribe to stay informed about developments that challenge our understanding of reality and raise profound questions about technological capabilities far beyond what's publicly acknowledged. The truth is emerging—be part of the conversation.
aliens yes but maybe no. Well, well, welcome back to our show. Aliens, yes, but maybe, but Maybe no, with Josh and Travis. I'm Travis, I'm Josh, and this is an otherworldly podcast, as ambiguous as our title. Very good, did I get it? Yeah, did I get it right. Yeah, oh, my God, all right, I was worried that the internet was going to get in the way, but it didn't. Nope, josh, why are you worried about the internet getting in the way? Don't we meet in person?
Speaker 1:well, we used to oh my gosh, it's a sad day.
Speaker 3:It was a sad day, but now I get to see your face through ones and zeros and zeros and ones. Yep, yeah, travis and I are doing it remote this time I moved yeah, travis moved I moved, and I moved that we still get to do this podcast you are moved, that you still get to. I moved and I moved sad we still get to do this podcast. You are moved that you still get to. I moved and I moved Sad face emoji. Can I do that reaction? I don't see. I don't see one available.
Speaker 1:They don't allow sadness.
Speaker 3:on podcasting no it's already full of sad people. If you're recording a podcast, you're trying to sell something.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, and we are actually doing a special episode.
Speaker 3:This isn't going to be one of our normal drops. We are and guess what? It's going to be released the same day as another episode. So how much do we love you guys that you get a double record, a twofer pretty exciting. The answer is a lot. We love you guys a lot. We do too much, actually.
Speaker 1:Whoa, I didn't say that we love you guys a lot. We do Too much actually, whoa.
Speaker 3:I didn't say that I love you guys. Just the right amount.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so today we're recording this because we just had another congressional hearing. Yeah, and that's important, the usual oversight committee. Yep. The topic of the congressional hearing was titled Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection Yep. So that was on September 9th, mm-hmm, and I loved it.
Speaker 3:I liked it too. I think there was a lot of information. So let's talk about who we saw here really quick. The witnesses right, yeah, so I'm just going to run through and then then, josh, you can give me a little bit of background information on them. But we had jeffrey nusatelli, chief alexandro wiggins, george knapp, the boss, dylan borland, joe spielberger. So, really quick, when it said chief wiggins, I couldn't stop laughing because of simpsons exactly Simpsons, but it's Chief Wiggum. Oh yeah, it just was like such an easy, it's close enough.
Speaker 3:It was yeah, it was just like such an easy connection to make, and so every time I saw it I was just like I'm an idiot. So just surprising nobody.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and he is a US Navy senior chief petty officer, his Navy senior chief petty officer. His opening statement is about a specific unexplained event he witnessed and the need for military leadership to address these encounters. Officially Right, that was his opening statement. He was nervous too, I could tell.
Speaker 3:Another guy that I thought was pretty nervous. Actually I thought they all were, but I think I mean being put in a congressional hearing to testify over something like whistleblowing is going to make anybody nervous. But then you put George Knapp, who's been doing this for a very long time, and then you have Jeremy Wright there sitting in his perfect posture, his hands folded, never moving. My daughter watched part of it with me and she's like who is that guy? And I was like he's like this documentarian. He's been at every one of these hearings and he sits in the exact same place and the exact same posture and he's like he looks like an alien.
Speaker 1:So those are the guys? Yep, those are the guys. So I'll kind of go through each one and kind of what their opening statement was Yep, so Jeffrey Nucatelli he was the US Air Force veteran. His opening statement focused on the psychological impact of seeing a UAP and how the stigma prevented him from speaking out for years.
Speaker 5: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 over-classification.
Speaker 5: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. 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.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and so these guys were all. They all had firsthand experience, right.
Speaker 1:Not all of them. I don't think Joe Spielberger did or George Knapp.
Speaker 3:Joe Spielberger was the one that was on the far right who didn't really have a whole lot to say. Nobody really asked him a lot of questions. I felt like George Knapp and Borland kind of dominated this hearing.
Speaker 1:And.
Speaker 3:I felt like Borland was also very nervous this hearing and I feel like Borland was also very nervous. He came off as somebody who had like a lot of real nervous energy but wanted to get his side out.
Speaker 1:Yes, and Borland was the one that his career was ruined, right.
Speaker 3:That's what he said. He said that he'd served up until 2013. Yeah, in the US Air Force, yep, and he was on a. I believe he was on a ship, but he had applied for promotions, and this was after he had talked to his senior officers about this experience that he had and was denied any sort of promotion until he left the military in 2013.
Speaker 1:And he still can't get a job. Did he say he was still unemployed? Yeah, he said he was on unemployment for the next three weeks, until it was done.
Speaker 3:So he's been unemployed since 2013?
Speaker 1:From my understanding, he can't find any work in the field that he's qualified for.
Speaker 3:I do remember him leaning on that unemployment thing really hard and I was like same buddy, I totally understand. But I found he was like a good entrance point for people watching this. He had like a real approachable, even though nervous, personality.
Speaker 1:And a little bitter which I mean he should be because he reported what he saw and experienced to the right people and they treated him really bad and basically just canceled him from anything that has to do with military or government.
Speaker 3:And it sounds like everybody was trying to cancel Kirkpatrick. He was the former head of Arrow.
Speaker 1:Yes, she even said that she would love to subpoena him.
Speaker 3:Yeah, Right from the jump she said that he's a documented liar, but she came out guns blazing against this one former head. It was wild.
Speaker 1:Well, he's the one where George Knapp kind of talked about it, where he, in his position in Arrow, he opened it up for whistleblowers to come and be safe and talk about it, and then he said it kind of turned into a disinformation campaign, witch hunt, and it made it so the whistleblowers would not come forward because they were just. Anytime someone brought up their experience they would be instantly like, oh, that's not true. We actually got the footage and what you saw it was not real, Right. And George Knapp's like there was no footage, Like the footage was taken away. They don't have the footage. So the guy sounds like a complete ass.
Speaker 3:Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so we talked about Jeffrey Nucatelli, dylan Borland. He kind of talked about his retaliation that he faced when coming forward and he's advocating for stronger legal protection for the whistleblowers.
Speaker 7: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.
Speaker 7:I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, a note that demands truth and transparency for our democratic republic to function. Each day, these truths remain hidden from our citizens' humanity dressed 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 regress to the Stone Age with this technology. My career has been to deliver critical information to decision makers. Your role, as elected by your representatives, is to act on it. The time to act is now.
Speaker 1:And that was a big theme in this whole hearing, mm-hmm. Then Alexander Wiggins I was saying he was the US Navy senior chief petty officer and it sounds like he had a pretty easy going. So he experienced something unexplained and he was wanting the need for military leadership to address these encounters officially.
Speaker 6:How were you treated? I've had no pushback at all. I haven't had anyone reach out to me or try to dissuade me in either direction, militarily speaking. So I was treated fair and I appreciate the Navy itself with assisting me, with coming here, to being able to testify.
Speaker 1:Him being in the Navy versus Dylan Borland being in the Air Force. There's a huge difference. It seems like the Air Force was like, no, absolutely don't talk about this. The Navy was just like, yeah, no, you need to talk about this. He had no resistance and he actually had a little bit of help. It seemed like yeah. So Air Force bad, navy good.
Speaker 3:I wouldn't make a sweeping comment like that, because it all depends on who's in charge.
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 3:And the sort of culture they're trying to create, and that changes over time. As people move on and out of military branches and with like accessibility of information, I think people are being a lot more aware of what they're doing and saying, because it's a lot easier now for people to have that comeuppance right. Like, yeah, you can't hide things like you once could, even back in 2013. Like, things are coming to light and then there's just so much information out there, so you have to be very careful about what you do and say.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and George Knapp and I think one of the representatives mentioned as well that the people that are coming in and out of the government, these people that started all this campaign with aliens and the government and everything, they're all gone. So these are new people coming in and most of the time newer people aren't going to come forward and whistle blow especially if they're brand new, you know they have their whole career ahead of them. There's no original people, so it's a legacy program, basically.
Speaker 3:What do you mean?
Speaker 1:Legacy, where they're continuing the legacy of another generation, and George Knapp was saying that it's so embedded. He was very apparent like this is great that we're doing all this, but I don't think it's going to help.
Speaker 3:That was the thing. So when Rep Erlison, who came off as like a little bit of a kook, tried to paint this picture that the government was actually hiding this and that is George Knapp kept correcting him, saying no, he didn't say the military, but he was saying it's, it is not the government. Like we're here in this hearing, we've been trying to get this brought to light, just like you guys have been for the last 50 to 75 years, like we've been trying. There are people, though, that are involved in keeping this quiet, but it's not like the people that we're seeing before you here. Yeah, and then Burleson was like I think it was either George Knapp or maybe Borland was talking about the technology, and like we haven't discovered the origin of this technology. And then, yeah, we won't be able to until we go to their planets. And I was like, oh my God, yeah, I mean, let's say it is extraterrestrial, which nobody really said there. It could be extraterrestrial. It's mostly unknown.
Speaker 1:It was interesting because was it Borland who was talking about that?
Speaker 3:I'm going to just defer to Borland because he took up a bunch of time. They had to pick out the witnesses they wanted to hear from because Borland just kept talking. He had a lot that he wanted to get off his chest. I think you were saying a little bit of an ax to grind and was just wanting to air his grievances. I feel like because of that, we didn't get to hear from Spielberg or a whole lot, or.
Speaker 1:Nisoteli. Well, he was saying how Arrow or the scientists, for them to say that this is truly extraterrestrial or alien tech, they have to go to the planet, get the tech from them and bring it back to have an absolute.
Speaker 7: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.
Speaker 1:So you're saying they won't let anything out because or they won't come forward unless they confirm that it, unless they go to the planet and confirm where its origin is.
Speaker 7: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 psyop, 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. Love it.
Speaker 1:So when they say it's not alien tech, it's because they can't prove and that is the definition of proving it to them. So they're not lying when they say they don't have it, but they do have it and you can conclude that it is alien tech because it is not ours and we don't have anything like it.
Speaker 3:I think part of George's testimony was pretty remarkable, where I think it was in that Russian document that he had snuck here. He talked about them witnessing these UAPs, these phenomena, and trying to suss out the technology just by the video. So they were like what is it called Like reverse engineer, these things?
Speaker 1:Like visually, because they don't have it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, without either. Like, how do we make something move side to side, like this, up and down, like this?
Speaker 1:Yeah, going back to witnesses in the opening statements. George Knapp, he's a UAP journalist, he's the boss man. He's been doing this 40 years. His opening statement highlighted the years of government secrecy and the importance of free press in holding institutions accountable for UAP transparency.
Speaker 2:The DIA's contractor, robert Bigelow of Las Vegas, made a bold attempt to acquire physical proof of UFO crashes. It's been widely reported and suspected that Lockheed 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 Bigelow and a trusted colleague from OSAP met with and negotiated with senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal wherein Bigelow'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.
Speaker 1:It was really interesting how he spoke a lot of the times when he talks about these private contractors like Lockheed Martin, where he's just like they're not doing anything wrong. They're doing what they're told to do by the government. Yeah, and they're doing it really well.
Speaker 3:We can't blame them for that. And then, because he's a journalist, he gave a couple names of people that had given him these documents, but then also said Lockheed, martin, lockheed. And then he's like you know who the other ones are? They're big players in this field, yeah, but I always forget that George Knapp comes at this from a journalistic point of view and so he's just interrogating the way a journalist would, trying to find answers. And that's what I love about George Knapp it's just like a curiosity.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he is, and he has nothing. He can't get in trouble, you know, like some of these guys that are actively serving. Oh, he could.
Speaker 3:I mean, I mean he could but he's not killed all the time journalism could be a very dangerous business.
Speaker 1:He's not gonna get canceled like he has nothing to lose I don't think.
Speaker 3:I don't think that's true at all. He could still lose all of the stuff he could. He lose everything but not stuff.
Speaker 1:He could lose everything, but not as easy as some of these guys saying the wrong thing. You know anything that Knapp is going to say he doesn't have to have a skiff.
Speaker 3:I don't think so. I think that's what gives him power. I think that's what makes his testimony so powerful. Is that because he has so much to lose? I think all these people that is what this whole hearing was about was whistleblowing and how it needs to be protected, and there's a reason. George Knapp is there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, George Knapp was probably my favorite out of all this. If you were going to make a highlight reel, every time he spoke would be in that highlight reel. He was just such a good. I mean, he's a professional speaker.
Speaker 3:Except in that one video we saw where he was recording from a pool.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, on the Bob Lazar movie.
Speaker 3:They did invoke Bob Lazar in this hearing, which was great.
Speaker 1:Yep George Knapp dead.
Speaker 3:I agree with your take on George Knapp. I find him to be very articulate and, again, he's such a big figure in this world that I forget that he comes at it from a journalism standpoint. Yeah, it's not experience that? Brought him here comes at it from a journalism standpoint. Yeah, it's not experience that brought him here, it's just like a curiosity.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he's wonderful. I hope he lives 40 more years.
Speaker 3:If he wants, sure, I think it's great. But I mean, there are people that are willing to pick up the mantle. I know he works pretty closely with Jeremy.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Who just is always, like always, there, man, like, if nothing else, he knows where to be and how to sit.
Speaker 1:But Jeremy is a little more aggressive. George Knapp is very gentle and calm.
Speaker 3:Kind of like a therapist, like if you've been in therapy, where therapists will ask you a question and then they'll just sit there quietly and let you do all the talking. I feel like George Knapp comes from that school of journalism. Instead of like, the newer form of journalism is like rapid fire questions and that is a form of gaslighting because you can't answer all these questions. And then you're like left in the lurch, like nobody's really interested in getting an answer. They're interested in just looking like they have all the answers.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and not only is he like that, but he's also a badass, because he went to Russia and multiple representatives were blown away that he was able to smuggle out top secret KGB documents from Russia and not have his life ruined.
Speaker 2:I did something kind of dumb. I met with these officials who you know, during that time period Glasnost, perestroika 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 that otherwise we would never have seen. Some of that was classified. I found out that they only stamped the top pages of these documents that were classified, so I just removed them. I removed those pages and I carried them out, and if they'd caught me I'd be in a gulag still.
Speaker 1:And they asked him multiple times and he's so nonchalant. He's like yep, just saw the right time and went there and put it in my bag and left. They're just like how, how did you do this?
Speaker 3:The right people in the right time. He said that if this was five years before he would have been put in jail and if it was 10 years before he would have been shot.
Speaker 1:Yep. He went over there, met with people in the government, got the documents. The Soviet Union was crumbling, or it was crumbled and Putin wasn't in power yet, so there was just this weird transition. And he noticed that transition and he went and got the documents. And the documents are about the programs that the KGB used, very similar to ours for the UAP programs.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well said.
Speaker 1:Thank you.
Speaker 3:So, listener, dear dear listener, we are one day away from this hearing, so we are still processing some of our thoughts and trying to figure out exactly what this means, just for us. Yeah, you can say that, yeah, there's a lot, and we're not going to touch on everything, because we're we are still processing some of our thoughts and trying to figure out exactly what this means, just for us.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you can say that, yeah, there's a lot and we're not going to touch on everything because we're still going to process it.
Speaker 3:There was a lot, but my biggest takeaway was like protecting whistleblowers, which I think is crucial. And then, if you kind of separate a lot of the political grandstanding that happened, where they were like invoking Obama's name and Trump's name and all these other presidents and saying like well, who was in charge during this time and why did?
Speaker 3:they fuck up and who's in charge during this time and why are they fucking up currently? You know, and that's great, and this is a political hearing with political representatives, and so there is going to be some grandstanding and people trying to make a name for themselves, and that's fine, yeah, that's politics, right, yeah. But when you watch these kind of things, you have to set that stuff aside. And if you read some of the comments, the comments were getting very heated depending on when you watched it.
Speaker 1:I turned the comments off.
Speaker 3:If you watched it live, there was some stuff about anal drones and like wild stuff. I only caught the tail end of the live hearing and then watched a recording and I think it was through like Talk of the Nation or something like that. They were different comments and some of them were very racist and I didn't, so I stopped looking through the comments.
Speaker 1:When I saw it live, right away, there was one that said can we block this person? It's obviously a government bot. And I'm just like, oh my gosh, close comments. Yeah, it's obviously a government bot. And I'm just like oh my gosh.
Speaker 3:close comments. Yeah, it is fun to go in the comments for a little bit until it gets unhinged, which it always does.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so last person for opening statements and kind of what they are was Joe Spielberger. He's the project on government oversight, or POGO. His opening statement provided an institutional perspective, arguing for increased oversight of UAP-related spending and programs to ensure accountability.
Speaker 8: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 toblowers. Doing so protects the country and ensures our government is more responsive and accountable to the people.
Speaker 1:And he didn't speak that much.
Speaker 3:No, he was called on a couple of times, answered a couple of questions and that was that. Was it Pretty quiet?
Speaker 1:Yeah, he seemed kind of like a HR person or like a union rep.
Speaker 3:Sure yeah.
Speaker 1:Because they would ask him questions about, like how are we handling this as a government, and he would just have the answers for that that's good.
Speaker 3:It's always good to have one of those guys there oh, absolutely.
Speaker 1:There are a few things that happened in the testimonies. All the testimonies were great. The questionings were a lot better, I think from the representatives. This time, for a majority of them, it looks like they did a little bit more homework.
Speaker 3:I think some, I think some questions were great, I think some were just frustrating.
Speaker 1:Like the question I don't remember who it was. He asked George Knapp how much money was being spent on all the black op operations and everything. Basically, if you add it all up and George is like no one knows that.
Speaker 3:Like no one's seen that. I don't know that man.
Speaker 1:I'm not even in the government Like why would I have that info? But with the testimonies there was evidence prevented in the hearing as well.
Speaker 3:How many times did they say skiff, your favorite word.
Speaker 1:Oh man, they said skiff quite a lot.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that was Borland. Borland was like I can't answer that question. I can't answer that question and I don't know that I can even answer that question to you, like I don't think you are authorized to hear what I have to say.
Speaker 1:So he often said that he's like. I can talk about that in a skiff if you have the clearance.
Speaker 3:Exactly, that was like basically what he said. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so the US Navy Chief Petty Officer, alexander Wiggins, his testimony says that he witnessed a self-luminous, tic-tac-shaped object.
Speaker 6:On the evening of February 15th 2023, at approximately 1915 PST, in the Whiskey 291 warning area off the coast of Southern California. I was serving on board USS Jackson. During that period, I moved between the Interior Communications Center, ICC-1, and the bridge wing, correlating the sensor picture with visual observations, part of my routine responsibilities for surface and air picture management. What I observed and what our crew recorded was not consistent with conventional aircraft or drones as they appear on our system.
Speaker 6:A self-luminous, tic-tac-shaped object emerged from the ocean before linking up with three other 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 SAFIRE image system Shortly after the synchronized departure radar tracks dropped. These observations were multi-sensor and recorded inside of ICC-1, 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.
Speaker 1:I mean, he had a first person encounter, yeah, and I think, like I mentioned at the top of this episode, he wasn't criticized, he was kind of guided on what to do and everything led him to coming forward in this congressional hearing and he had the support of the Navy, which is really nice, and that hasn't really happened for most of the people, that's true. I mean, most of the people ended up like crush, which they mentioned, and he was there.
Speaker 3:He was there yeah.
Speaker 1:He got stripped of everything, basically, but he was relieved of his duty from the military and private medical records were released, which is horrible.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it sucks.
Speaker 1:But what I liked about Wiggins' testimony was he was very authentic, very real, and he is in a position of high power in the military and I think there's some credibility that comes along with that, especially with the military doing routine mental checks and psychological checks and physicals Like to be able to move up, you have to be some of the best of the best. Yeah, he's still a young guy and he's mentally sound and he has a high position and he said this is what happened, which is really cool. The next one I really thought was great was Jeffrey Nekotelli's testimony from the Air Force.
Speaker 3:He was the first testimony. He started off the whole shebang.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it was him first and then.
Speaker 3:Oh, so you're ranking your guys.
Speaker 1:Kind of.
Speaker 3:Yeah, mine Knapp, borland, wiggins, nusatelli, spielberger, as far as information goes.
Speaker 1:My top two is George Knapp and then number three is no. As far as information goes, my top two is George Knapp and then number three is no. So George Knapp all the way, I could have listened to him talk the entire time. Yeah, George Knapp, Wiggins, Nucatelli, Borland and then Spielberger. So Jeffrey Nucatelli, his testimony. Nucatelli's testimony was about seeing massive objects pulsing and moving strangely near Vandenberg's Space Force Base.
Speaker 5: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 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 14, 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 Aero and the FBI.
Speaker 5:Later that night, while I was on duty, security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright, fast-moving object over the ocean. I responded to the incident. Chaos ensued over the radio. As the object approached rapidly, I heard my friends 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. 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.
Speaker 5: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.
Speaker 5:After that, things did get quiet until about 2005 when another patrol reported a massive triangular craft, larger than a C-130, 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 typical air force.
Speaker 3:Air Force Okay.
Speaker 1:It's pretty wild, you know, and they were told to hush.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, I can understand why, because this is a guy who was in a position of power and then he sees this thing and they're like, don't say that, it makes you sound insane. Like that, I feel like, is the approach that a lot of these people get, but they really believe it and it hurts their feelings and they're trying to share something that they experience, whether or not it's true or not, but it was an experience they had, and they're getting shut down. So we saw that with Borland, like acting, you know, out of spite maybe, and having hurt feelings that nobody was taking his experience seriously. And it's the same, I think, with this guy, nesateli, taking his experience seriously and it's the same, I think, with this guy, nassit Tully.
Speaker 1:That's the exciting part about these hearings is, and especially focusing on whistleblowers. This one particularly, that stigma was there and it kind of still is, but it is going away and they're going to be putting in, or they're trying to put in, protection against whistleblowers so that they can come forward without any of this retaliation against whistleblowers so that they can come forward without any of this retaliation.
Speaker 1:These guys are talking about the epitome of what is wrong with the military, why you can't talk about any of this. Yeah, so his was fascinating. He described it very well. And then there's the last highlight. For me is the one that you've probably seen going around If I go on social media or look up this congressional hearing. This is the main highlight was the Hellfire Missile video.
Speaker 3:Happened last year, 2024.
Speaker 1:Yep, which isn't long ago. No, in this video you see, it's a night vision video and it's like a top down.
Speaker 3:This was captured by a drone.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it was a MQ-9 drone. It shot the Hellfire missile and then another drone top down was recording the whole thing. Yep, and this glowing orb off the coast of Yemen. You can hear the operator's voice giving the command to fire. The Hellfire missile streaks towards the orb, but instead of the explosion that you'd expect from our Something named Hellfire. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Which sounds bad.
Speaker 1:Yeah, exactly as Lou Elizondo called it, the premier military tech in a News Nation interview. He's like yeah, there's something that can make our premier weapon not work. That's scary. It bounced off and it looked like maybe there was a little bit of debris that came off, but the debris kind of kept traveling with, but that could have been from the missile. That could have been from the missile. That could have been from the missile doesn't necessarily mean there was from that.
Speaker 3:So I think it's like, okay, we try to pick a fight with this thing.
Speaker 1:It knows it's been in a fight, but like it definitely won yeah, and then the video kind of changes from night vision to it looked like just a regular video and it continued just showing this craft after it stopped wobbling it reacted to being hit it like moved around and then kind of wiggled a bit right and then shot off again.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it only barely slowed it down, like it knew something had happened. This craft, this phenomena, knew something had happened to it.
Speaker 1:It was just like yeah, okay, like a bug hitting a windshield, yeah, like a really big bug it's like if you were running a race and someone came and pushed you pretty hard but you didn't fall over, you kind of stumbled and then you went back up running or just like maybe somebody you're racing against bumped into you and it knocked you a little bit off your trajectory and you're just like, oh, that's annoying, yeah, why would you do that?
Speaker 3:that's a little bit off your trajectory and you're just like, oh, that's annoying, yeah, why would you do that?
Speaker 1:That's a good way to put it yeah. Later in the hearing I think it was Luna she asked does that video scare you? And each person said yeah, except George Knapp.
Speaker 4:Okay, While this is still rolling, Mr Nusatelli, real quick yes or no answers. Are you aware of anything in the government 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.
Speaker 5:Nothing.
Speaker 4:All right, how about you, chief Wiggins?
Speaker 6:Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am.
Speaker 4:Okay, and how about you, mr Borland?
Speaker 7:I prefer to answer that in a skiff.
Speaker 4:Okay. Does this video scare you guys? Yes or no?
Speaker 5:Yes.
Speaker 4:Wiggins.
Speaker 5:Yes.
Speaker 4:Nat.
Speaker 2:I had a different reaction. I was really happy that it got out.
Speaker 4:Thanks for providing that Curiosity calls the cat. All right, mr Moreland. Yes, for OK All right, that is the end of my questioning. Ok, all right, that is the end of my questioning.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean again, he is approaching this from a journalistic standpoint, and this is information.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he wants all info.
Speaker 3:Yeah, love it. Moskowitz came in and said something I thought was eye opening. He said that he doesn't really know what is true. He doesn't know on the subject, but I do know when we're being lied to, and we're definitely being lied to. There's no doubt about that, and I was just like to hear a representative acknowledge that.
Speaker 1:I think I thought was pretty wild. Yeah, I think at the top of the whole congressional thing, George Knapp was asked could this all be psyops? Could this all be fake?
Speaker 8:Do you think that any of this is a psyop by the US government?
Speaker 2:Entirely possible. I mean, 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 people start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example they come up with a story oh yeah, that was 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.
Speaker 1:It very well could be, but it just seems as though it is real, with how much is out there, how much we have recorded. You could go into these companies saying that it's their tech. But was it their tech 70 years ago too? That doesn't make sense. If it is their tech, they didn't get it from earth because we didn't have this tech in the 40s.
Speaker 3:We don't have that tech now.
Speaker 1:No, we don't have it now. The best missile in the world doesn't work against this Spooky. Yeah, but those are my three. Did you have any standout?
Speaker 3:My takeaway again I can't say this enough is I am impressed by George Knapp every time.
Speaker 3:I see him speak and I keep forgetting how curious he is and how he's trying to bring stuff to light. I found it very interesting that a lot of reps are in the dark, yeah, and they are just as interested in this topic as we are, you know, and that makes sense. I mean, they're human beings living in this world and there's information that's being withheld. I did like how a lot of the people on that panel were pushing back and saying it's not necessarily the government that's doing this, that's hiding this stuff. The government is obviously interested in releasing this. It's a lot of the military. And then you look at Borland's experience, like not being able to get promoted and Grush being doxed, and that was all done, I'm sure, by military higher ups. Oh yeah, and they're the ones that are documenting and they have this information and they're not releasing it.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And you have to be very specific about what you're asking the military to do. Kind of like Lockheed Martin, they're hiding it or lying to us because they're being told not to release it and Lockheed is like a military contractor.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you can't get that information unless you have the code word or the key phrase and you wouldn't know unless you knew, and you don't know how to ask for the information, because you don't have that Exactly A lot of these Congress people don't even know where to go or what questions to ask to get the right clearance to be able to hear any of this.
Speaker 4:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think this whole thing. I think it was great these guys weren't just out there telling their stories, they were risking it all for the sake of transparency.
Speaker 3:So what were your takeaways?
Speaker 1:Yeah, so my takeaway is that they're there advocating for transparency all of them. Like you said, we see the cost of whistleblowing and what that can do, just through Grush and Borland, george Knapp talking about the push for transparency. That's what all it is, just the conversation opening it up. It's amazing that it is happening. It is happening, but it's not enough. I don't think, overall, there is definitive proof about all of this, because we haven't been to the planet, we haven't gotten the stuff. I don't like it's. It's so silly, but there's some things that you don't need the scientific proof.
Speaker 3:You know, like it's there well, you don't need to go to whatever the planet is to understand why things work the way they do. I thought that was just like a what we have to go to this planet. Well, what planet though it was? It was just a wild jump to make. Like, the way we have to reverse engineer this technology is by actually going to the planet. That's the only way to do it, it's silly. Just to hear somebody talk about that in a congressional hearing was wild.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think the fact that Congress is listening and, like we've mentioned in the past, these are professionals. For better or worse, we've seen the worst side of the professionals not doing a good job, but they also do know how to do their job and they are professionals at loopholes and trying to figure out how to get into stuff and they're working on it and I think we will get there. I don't know when, but they are working on it. I mean, they're mentioning about subpoenas. I don't know when, but they are working on it. I mean they're mentioning about subpoenas this subcommittee since it's not a full committee, they can't actually issue the subpoena themselves, but they were already kind of talking about how to get that done with what they have.
Speaker 1:But it's a huge step forward, specifically for public trust, which is what we're trying to do first and foremost is earn the trust back of the public. Yeah, and then just UAP transparency. I think it was phenomenal. Let us know what you guys think, share your thoughts with us and all the people around you. Annoy the shit out of them. Get this knowledge out there.
Speaker 3:Sure, get it going.
Speaker 1:Thank you for listening. Like we said, this is a special episode.
Speaker 3:To today. Enjoy it yeah.
Speaker 1:Back special episode to today.
Speaker 3:Enjoy it. Yeah, back to back, josh and travis. Yeah, oh boy, all right, well, we will chat at you next episode. Okay, see you on the flippity flop bye.
