Everyone, I'm at and welcome to the Good Trouble Show. Today is going
to be well, hopefully a special day. We'll see. We have UFO
hearings happening in the Senate, so it is the Senate a Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats and Capabilities that will be chaired by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. But first let's
get all of the promo stuff out of the way. Please give us a
subscribe. If you're on YouTube, hit that smash that like button, hit
the subscribe button. If you're on Twitter, you can find us at Good
Trouble Show doing all these things that helps these sort of algorithm gods promote our
content, which of course helps get the message out on this topic and other
things we like to talk about. And then also if we you know,
we have to pay the bills like everyone else. And if you would like
to be a supporter of us for the cost of a Starbucks coffee, you
can find us on Patreon www dot Patreon dot com. Forward slash the Good
Trouble Show. And speaking of which, I want to give a shout out
to our five Patreon subscribers that we have so far, So diego DZ.
Thanks for your contribution, Siwan p Jordan Flowers, Walker and determining. I
can't say this deterministic experiences. Also, our super chats are open. It's
a great way to show your financial support by giving us a little uh tip
there. Anyway, this is going to be a lot of fun. So
oh. Also manning our chat room is Uplifting Tweets. I know a lot
of you folks know him from Twitter, so he's going to be moderating the
chat room. And because we want to be paying attention to what's being said
in the hearing, I'm not going to really be watching the chat so so
we're like to have Uplifting doing that for us. So thank you Uplifting for
doing that. Okay, So with that being said, let's welcome our guests.
So on the middle screen there you have attorney joining us as Attorney Shan
Munger Sean is an attorney practicing law in Massachusetts and a Suffolk University Law School
graduate. Sean has also served as an intelligence analyst with the United States Marine
Corps and served with its war Fighting Laboratory and the twenty sixth Marine Expeditionary Unit.
He can be reached at Sean at the debrief dot org, and all
the way to the right, we have Daniel Miller. Daniel is an actor
based out here in Los Angeles, a lover of all things space and science,
which I would say that's pretty much everyone here watching today, and he
is also up loves UAP topic and whereas a political junkie, he focuses on
the movement and efforts within the US government and scientific community. Guys, thanks
for joining us today. This is uh, this is I think it's going
to be interesting one way or the other. I don't think there's going to
be any really big I don't think ET is going to come walking out and
the hearing or anything like that. But I think it's going to be very
educational. And yeah, I think it's going to be great. So just
to give some folks, because a lot of our viewers are not not out
of the UFO crowd or track this topic. So just giving you a little
bit of background of what we're going to see today. So Senator Jillibrandon and
uh, quite a few other senators passed legislation that mandated that the Pentagon finally,
you know, come clean and start doing the work of investigating this this
phenomenon I'm kind of compressing this a bit. Uh. And as part of
what what what came out in in the twenty twenty two National Defense of Thorization
Act was the establishment of this office in the Pentagon. Now in twenty in
the twenty twenty three NDAA it was renamed or might have been before, the
ARROW Office or All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. And this office is essentially supposed
to be the nexus for all of these different parts of government reporting their UAP
experiences. And so this hearing that is going to be chaired by Senator Kirsten
Kirsten Jillibrand, who has championed this subject. She will be interviewing doctor Sean
Kirkpatrick. He will be the witness. He is the director of ARROW.
But I kind of gave it a sort of top line explanation here. So
this hearing, it starts starts at ten thirty, so here in about ten
minutes. So Sean, maybe just give us a bit of background on what
we can expect on this, uh, this hearing. What you think,
what the procedures will be? Just kind of in a nutshell, what what
should what are we thinks? Coming up? Sorry? Started? Sorry,
I thank you for having me on and in a good morning. So the
Senate committees basically have the ability to hold hearings, and there are four types
of hearings that they could have. There's legislative hearings will basically review and collect
informations that they could draft legislation. And there's also oversight hearings, and from
those they'll review, monitor, and basically help implement the public policy of which
the legislation that they drafted before. There's also investigative hearings, and that's where
the type of testimony you'll see will be much more adversarial or potentially adversarial.
Usually the witnesses will be under oath. And then there's also confirmation hearings,
and a confirmation hearing is when the Senate would basically confirm an executive member that
was appointed or judicial member like the Supreme Court. Now what we're hearing we're
going to be seeing today is an oversight sight hearing, which will probably lend
to the fact that there's been a lot of discussions that I've seen that you
know about doctor Kirkpatrick not being under oath. Now that would you likely see
that more in a investigative type of hearing versus oversight, and even in the
there's the announcement for this hearing today, they had talked about that they're going
to talk about Arrow's mission, the activities that I was conducting conduct oversight,
as well as speak about the budget that the committee today will be holding.
And and the budget I think was a Senator Jill Brand and fourteen other actually
backing up a Senator Gillibrand in a hearing I don't remember exactly what it was.
I think it was about two weeks ago. She asked the Secretary of
Defense, Lloyd Austin about why ARROW was not properly funded. So that's something
that will we will get into today. I would expect, Yeah, I
would expect that there be some discussions about the budget, especially it's expressly written
in the in the announcement and it is in hearings previously. UM, So
it would be a potential, you know, focus of if if there are
items that we're listed out as deliverables in the National Defense Authorization Act of twenty
twenty three that doctor Kirkpatrick is not starting to deliver on UM, if he
doesn't have, if he hasn't requested a budget to implement those, then we're
trying to fall on who who is responsible for maybe these uh requested deliverables not
being um presented. Right. So, so Daniel, what are your expectations
of the hearing today? Do you think it will be underwhelming or over over
overwhelming? Well, it probably depends on what your expectations are, you know.
I think if if you're a UFO fan who is expecting disclosure today,
I think you will be sorely disappointed. This hearing is, you know,
a step, hopefully in the right direction. I think this hearing, my
personal theory is that it is motivated a lot by the budget because, as
you mentioned hereson, Jillibrand was I think in two separate hearings, but one
with wood Austin and then one where I know Multrie was president from correctly and
not Multuo was president. He the person they were talking to referred to Multrie.
I think she wants to get to the bottom of why ARROW is not
getting the funding that it seemingly requested. She mentioned that they requested it,
and so I think getting that testimony both in the classified setting in publicly will
help probably make her case as well as maybe, as Sean mentioned, why
certain things that are in that NBAA maybe have not been addressed yet. So
I think for those that are, you know, really into the inside baseball,
those who are following closely, I think there will be lots of maybe
little detail else that hopefully add some clarity. I'm really hoping to get some
clarity. My biggest hope is that we maybe get a little more clarity on
the the data that ARROW was working with, you know, and and whether
they're going to focus on the incidents that maybe are easily identifiable, right or
the ones that they are able to identify, versus the ones that maybe aren't
as easily identified, you know, the other half of those cases. I
know Representative Carson has mentioned that he is concerned that ARROW and those within the
d OD are focusing more on the former than the latter. And both are
important, but I think, you know, you don't want to ignore the
unknowns just to look good for your bosses for the knowns. So I just
hope we get a little more clarity. Who knows, But I mean there's
not much clarity we had now, so it wouldn't take too much to maybe
get a little more details. The bar is very low. Yeah, yeah,
it's uh well, I mean I think I think that that the hearing
in the house was a bit of a shit show. Ronald Moultrie and I
forgot than a bray bray bray. Yeah that was They're like, oh,
we don't know anything, but I'm like, yeah, right, you know
a lot. And that's something that Kirkpatrick can't do right because he is the
head of the office, the inter agency office that's dedicated to this topic.
So I think it's not going to look as good if if he says,
oh, I don't know that, let me look into that, because that
shows maybe a level of incompetence that you know, the public is seeing this
person who's getting paid our tax dollars to work on this issue. So a
lot of his answers are I don't know. For that's good that then he
should then work on figuring it out. But also, you know, if
you say I don't know enough, and it's like okay, well why are
you doing this, then yeah we should have somebody else, Yeah, why
why are you in? I would hope that if, as doctor Sean Kirkpatrick
is the only named witness, I would assume or hope that his deputy director,
who was also supposed to be an appointed individual would be at least close
by or next to him in order if he doesn't have the answer off the
top of his head, in order to you know, put the piece of
paper in front of him or you know, hey, you know, remind
him of the of the correct answer. So if he doesn't have the answer,
somebody who's hopefully near or close to him can feed him the answer so
that he could be responsive to the senator's request for information. Yeah. So,
so one thing that many people may not be aware of. So most
most Senate and House hearings, Uh, you'll you'll have the public part,
you know, where they talk about the things that are not secret. And
if the if the senator congressman is asking a question that they cannot answer because
it's deals with classification or state secret, they'll always say, oh, we'll
discuss that in the closed session. And so after the the open hearing is
done, they'll all scurry off to whatever skiff they're going to and then that's
when they'll ask those questions. This hearing is completely different, which it's apparently
not out of the question, but it is very rare. So Senator Jill
brand requested not requested, decided to have the closed hearing first, which should
be going on now, unless they forgot to deliver coffee and donuts or something
like that. So Sean, what do you what do you think about that?
Do you think that's a good sign, bad sign? Any kind of
thoughts as to why they may have done the closed hearing before the open which
we're waiting on right now. I mean, I guess it depends on what
they're trying to get out of the hearing. So it would allow the opportunity
to ask the question and not waste time of asking a question in the open
session that ends up just eating up some of the time that the center is
allowed. But it would also allow the senator to ask the question in the
classified setting and potentially ask what specifically about this answer is classified and give them
the opportunity to rework the question to try to elicit a response in the open
session. I guess it it would really depend for me. I guess that's
something that I would try to do. If I'm trying to get illicit a
response from my witness, I want to get at least maybe the response that
I that I know is the answer. And then if instead of allow them
to get around it by just saying it's classified. I'll just rework the question
to allow them to have an unclassified answer that at least, you know,
gives an answer that the public is looking for. I think that. I
think that makes sense. Daniel, what do you think is this? Is
this a good sign or a bad sign? Yeah? I think Sean said
it well. I think it definitely is a good way to go in my
opinion, because I mean the last year and you can remember I forgot who
asked the question, but asked about incidents that are undersea and multi res response
was that, well, we'll talk about that in the closed session, and
you know, months later in the first draft of the I think is the
IAA or the NDAA UM, they said, okay, so these aerial and
undersea phenomenon, you know clearly there were. The answer was, yes,
there are incidents undersea, but they couldn't answer that. And I think by
doing the close session first, as Sean said, they can find out what
will and will be said in a public setting and then hopefully be able to
adjust their questions in the public setting and hopefully coming forth where they can get
as much of an answer as possible rather than just let's talk about it later.
Yeah, you knows, go ahead, Sean. I'm sorry. It
would also I guess I'll allow the senator in a response to say that's not
what you told me in the close setting, So it would again at least
get the information out. But you know, yeah, yeah, it's just
well, I guess we'll see how they're going to go with it. But
I could see that being a potential reason for the why why they had the
close session before the open session. You know, another thing that I think
will be interesting as well is when when when they finally cut to the hearing
and right now now it's uh uh put it up. This is uh,
this is all they have up right now? This uh this splash screen,
so uh yeah, coverage begins momentarily. But I think what will be really
interesting is when we do finally see a live picture of the room. Excuse
me, what the body language is like? Like Deshaun Kirkpatrick looked like he's
in a state of shock because he just went through the gauntlet with the senator
Jilla Brand calling him on the carpet. Will the will the senators are?
They are they joking around and you know, slapping each other on the back
or are they like really like solemn or like you know, oh, this
this system serious business, which we all know that it is. That I
think that's going to be really uh, that'll be a bit of a bit
of a tell and excuse me, the program my throat, um, you
know it's it's already seven thirty. Uh and we uh they are not back.
Uh so so we're just uh, we're still waiting here, so that
splash screen is still up. Uh. We on these on most of these
hearings, these folks have a YouTube channel that allows us to check the feed
and all of that, check the sound. But these guys, they only
have a website. So we're keeping our fingers crossed that there are no technical
issues as the hearing comes up. But I think I think will be good
anyway. Yeah, So I think that's going to be a really interesting thing,
is to see what the tone is and then also as well the line
of questioning excuse me, which we'll start with Senator Gillibrand. And does she
look happy like you know, she can look happy like, oh I got
the answers I was looking for. Or is she gonna not look too happy
because she wasn't pleased with what she got out of the out of the closed
closed session anyway. UM so, so, Sean, what do you think
if there's any chance we're going to see any new video or photos or anything
that are better than the joke that Moultrie and Bray showed at the Senate oh
sorry, at the House hearing. I guess that would maybe potentially fall under
the activities portion of arrow of what they've discussed. I know that often times,
when you know somebody is bringing you before them, you'd want to flash
something, you know, sexy and cool in front of the people that control
your budget or control your oversight. I don't know how many military bases or
units when somebody's coming in to do an inspection, they start, okay,
everybody turned on the cool gadgets that usually you know, stored or tucked away
somewhere. But this would be the opportunity for doctor Kirkpatrick to at least show
something of you know, a public Hey, we are doing work. You
know, we're not just sitting on our hands. We're doing work. We're
trying to do what we're ordered to do. I'm doing my job. This
would absolutely be an opportunity for them to do that how it falls under,
how it's elicited or or and I guess that could be something that they they
talk about in the close session is just unclassified. Why are we not going
to talk Can we talk about this in the open session? Right? So
that would be something that potentially could be worked out in the closed session.
Daniel, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I agree, I think.
I mean, I'm probably using this analogy because I am an actor, but
this almost to me feels kind of like an audition for the public as well,
you know, because at the end of the day, this is the
topic that is still quite stigmatized, and I could foresee this becoming a well
you're spending our tax dollars on this, right, So this in a way
is an opportunity for not just a committee, but for Kirkpatrick in the office
to say, hey, you know, this is important and there's a reason
we're doing this, and so here are some examples. I think if you
just keep mum and don't share any details, you know, obviously with an
a safe and not a way that they're not obviously going to share classifyed information
or anything that could affect national security. But there's plenty of room to share
something. I think that show this is a real issue, this is what
we're working on, and we're not just wasting your money. This is going
towards real efforts. Whether you actually will share anything, I don't know.
I really hope he does, and that it's not just the a similar example
that maybe Bray had last year. But I think it would be a wasted
opportunity because this is his chance to make the case for this office. Right
and the necess and how necessary is yeah, I completely agree with both both
of you, gentlemen. One thing to keep in mind is I am quite
certain I would be wildly surprised if in the closed session he has not presented
compelling photos or video, which maybe that's why they're running late. Right now,
He's showing them a bunch of stuff. One would hope the question will
be what would be allowed in the open hearing. Obviously a big concern of
these folks is they don't want to reveal source as a method, So there
there are ways to scrub that confidential data, that secret data out of imagery
that obviously we're not going to see anything from space or anything like that.
But let's say like a gun camera footage which which that's easily, easily scrubbable.
So anyone that you know, if they say, oh, we can't
reveal it because it's going to reveal classified data, that's a bunch of bull
uh. We've you know, we saw, for instance, the gun camera
footage of the Reaper drone where that Soviet fighter near Ukraine flew over and blew
h you know, blue fuel on it and then eventually collided with the drone
and that was you know, that was probably four K footage. It was
extremely clear. So that was done with him like a day. Yeah,
yeah, it was like in a day. And I understand as well with
the with the three balloons that were shot down. I'm sorry, the three
objects that were shot down in addition to the Chinese balloon. No one in
Congress on the Senate has seen this footage, which is that's just crazy.
Um. Sorry, I'm going off on a bit of a bit of a
tangent, but but yeah, I do think I'm hopeful that we will see
something. But I will say this, so one friend of mine that works
in the intelligence community, that has seen most of the compelling footage, the
classified stuff, he said to me, he goes, if if they put
that out. It's in many ways it's underwhelming. Anything that you can put
out a someone will always say, oh at CGI or mcquest will say it's
a seagull or whatever. But but I even like if they show some kind
of video or whatever, I'm personally skeptical that it will convince a lot of
minds. I think that there eventually will need to be some kind of show
and tell to convince the public. Hopefully that would come in the way of
revealing what crashed crashed goodies goodies that we have. So I mean, so,
so, Daniel, do you think that there will be any big revelations
or do you think this will be more formal budget that sort of thing.
I think likely know, But if there is going to be one, I
think it would be the acknowledgement of because the thing that everyone is dancing around,
a lot of people inferring and even some members coming out of leaders,
whether it be you know, THEOD officials or members the or the Senate or
House, are kind of referring to these incidents that where things are showing anomalous
flight characteristics that like we can't explain or recreate, right, And so I
think if there's a revelation that's going to come out, it's going to be
talking about those and maybe yes, we have multi sensor data showing this to
be the case. Because I think one of the biggest questions right now is
is this this one sensor showing these incidents and it could be an error or
it's phenomenal what did they call in the little media roundtable, sensor phenomena something
like that, or like phenom phenomenology the word um. So it's that's the
big question, right because if you have multiple sensors showing that, the odds
of all of those simultaneously having the same error as pretty slim. And then
if the answer is then oh well, then someone's figured how to spoof all
those sensors. Will that's another really big problem. So I think if revelation
is going to come, it's gonna be from the concreteness in which our data
shows something that truly is something that is caused for concern, whether it be
an adversary or something else. It's a problem. Yeah, that's any thoughts
on that. Yeah, I want to actually speak to something that you had
said a couple minutes ago, talking about when you know source the methods,
when I was in the Marine Corps. Most of all of our trigger polars,
everybody that we support are don't have security clearances. And everything I worked
in was secret and above or for the most part, unless it was open
source, so we would have to feed them information somehow. So it's doable,
and I guess I hope that maybe somebody's watching this because it's very simple.
There's a definitely easy step that you could do. If you collect something
with the classified you know, asset or system, just go on the open
market and find a redundant, unclassified one that hacks coverage over that same area.
Get that information. So, for instance, if something collects information or
it collects something in the air in a certain geographical area and you know that
that's there, go get commercially imagery. It's available all over the place,
and there might be happen to be a you know something that caught it,
and now you have an unclassified confirmation that you could put on the public and
all you have to say is we collected this unclassified net systems and here here
is this that you could easily do that with commercial imagery, commercial radar UH
whether radar uh NOAH systems. There's all kinds of things that you could go
out and purposely, Uh if you have you know, information that you know
something something happens, but you could go out and get the unclassified version of
that and get it to to the to the public. You can get it
to people that or beat it. The scientists say, hey, we can't
tell you what we know, but we know this is something. So here
you go do what you can with it. Then it's it's it just needs
uh, you know, the effort. They're just going to know how to
do it. So hopefully they start putting somebody that are in these groups,
in this organization that has a background in, you know, doing that kind
of work, because if not many people that that grow up in these organizations,
they're at agencies their whole life. So they're at you know, you
know, the Starbucks barista has a secret clearance and then everything is higher so
they're not used to trying to feed stuff to you know, lower organization or
work with those. So get somebody that at least can think outside the box
of how can I invent this thing? You know, with information that's readily
available, it's just going to take a little bit of purchasing power, which
arrow potentially could have just go out by the commercial imagery going by, or
task task a commercial satellite to take the imagery, or take the radar,
or take whatever's available. Do you know if it's something I'm not really aware.
I know one thing that's been discussed in the past. One of our
satellite systems called Spears. I'm blanking on what the acronym is, but it
basically is a satellite system that can detect several bands of infrared. And what
I've heard from for a very long time is that these systems that can produce
product on the infrared spectrum have seen these vehicles coming in and out of our
atmosphere for a very long time. This particular satellite system is primarily used as
an early warning satellite to detect nuclear launches. Now I know that the commercial
satellite products have increased in resolution and capabilities as you just spoke about. Are
you aware of any commercial platforms that have infrared detection capabilities that might be able
to be tasked to look for these things. I would know the specifics.
I was not an imagery analyst, however, I worked hand in hand with
them during my time. I don't believe that we sought any of that out.
We were just looking basically for imagery on the commercial side. But UM,
I would I would assume that at this point it certainly exists, and
there's other type of systems that are commercial that exists. I believe that,
Again, I could absolutely one hundred percent be wrong. I believe that some
of the uh they're the legislation that that covers them, might keep their resolution
to a certain um like downgraded. They don't want it to get too good.
So, but I mean, the systems are available, I don't.
I don't know, but I just wouldn't be got it. I don't know
enough about about that specific to talk about it. Yeah, I mean,
yeah, obviously I don't as well. But yeah, you you would think
with the prolifer proliferation, I can talk proliferation of commercial satellite products and even
just like commercials space with UM you know, with the the the pocket that
the Amazon rocket, the Jeff Bezos thing that looks like a giant dildo taking
people up into space. You know. So I've often wondered if part of
this seeming acceleration in UM, this disclosure effort, if you want to call
it, that is due to the increased commercialization of space, Like you would
think at some point these folks, somebody Elon Mosker or whoever, is going
to film something that is very definitive or compelling. Daniel, what do you
think do you think that could have anything to do with with why this whole
thing seems to be moving moving along? And by the way, it's seven
forty five, we still do not have anyone, We still do not have
a live hearing feed up. So take that for what it's worth anyway,
Daniel, going ahead, I guess they got lots of questions for Kirk Patrick.
Um, I think so I will say this, Yeah, I mean,
if there's a there there, there seems to be a there there.
It's only a matter of time before the commercial technology catches up at the point
where it's kind of gonna hard to not talk about it, right. Um.
Absolutely, I mean not just in satellites, but just in I think
any kind of sensor technology. It's not obviously the military has the best and
the most late in the latest, but you know, plenty of scientific organizations
use technology that for you know, whatever you weather or you know. NASA
is like viewing a study right now trying to figure out what they can utilize
that's in the public realm. Yeah, I think that definitely could be.
Perhaps what's motivated some of this is just that there seems to be things going
on and it's not really only going to be detectable within the classified world.
If you know, as yours as yours on, I usually want to technology
improves, we're gonna see the same things there, right, Yeah, I
totally a go ahead, shoon I. I highly doubt that this is only
detectable in the classified world. Again, I like like I said, and
I think other people have said publicly that if you have the geolocation time and
date, there is an abundance of sensored data available commercially that could be UM
queried and UM potentially have some information. It's just sitting there and they don't
know to look at it. They don't they don't know to look at this
this time and data at this specific you know, you know location. But
if if if you send that out to you know, Noah's satellite, even
if it's a cloud dispersal or something that moves or or something anything or the
overlapping radar systems that we have or UM again, the commercial imagery, it's
they're taking those pictures, those things are those birds are in the sky.
All are you going to do is at least see if it's there. Maybe
maybe there's something that's picked up. Yeah, I have an unclassified picture of
something right, Yeah, it's that's got to be around the corner, I
would think. Now, on a totally different topic, uh we we put
out a video a couple of days ago essentially making a direct case, direct
message to doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, and the previous it wasn't in the center in
the house hearing on UAP. I think everyone pretty felt, pretty much felt
that there was a great degree of dancing around the subject and you know,
shiny look over here at this really bad video, and everyone I think was
I think was pretty disappointed. And part of the point of this video.
We know some of the whistleblowers that have come forward to Arrow and testified directly
to his office, and we were essentially addressing doctor Shanker Patrick saying, look,
that is the data that you should be presenting to Congress. I mean,
you can talk about science all day long or this paper we did with
doctor Avie Loebe, but where I was sort of fearful that Shanker. Patrick
was trying to reset the conversation and the scientific clock back to zero when he
has eighty plus years of billions of dollars in government taxpayer funded, uh,
you know, government information that he can build upon. My point in in
that video, which did very well. I've heard a lot of people in
DC watched it. Our point was the data that should be presented right now
to Congress and to the American people is the whistleblower testimony. It's it's significant,
It's it's I mean, I don't know the total number of hours,
but it's tens of hours of you know, who knows. But there were
a lot of whistleblowers that testified regarding to UFOs interfering with our nuclear weapons or
disabling them completely for a period of time. There were people testifying, pilots
testifying on their aerial encounters with UAP, and then you had people testifying regarding
the crash retrieval programs that this country is run for decades down to telling them
what the name of the SAP was and where all this stuff is stashed now.
So I'm hopeful that we will hear some of the whistleblower maybe not everything
Obviously it's a certain amount of data has to be classified, but hopefully we'll
hear something about that. Sean, do you think that that's a possibility or
do you think you'll skirt around it. I think it would be a possibility
at least if you to call if the Senator wants to call them, DARTR.
Kirkpatricks out because in the National Defense Authorization Act, they were supposed to
have prompt sharing of information within seventy two hours of learning something. If the
Congressional committees, by for partners of Evidence don't receive the information, but I
don't already have the information, then ARROW was supposed to tell them. So
if if the committee or a senator knows that somebody went to ARROW provided them
information about a potential SAP or crash retrieval program within seventy two hours, they
didn't make the report to the congress Congressional Committee, then they would be in
violation of what they were ordered to do. So that would be a way
to say that, you know, we didn't receive this information from you.
We received it from them well after seventy two hours of you were receiving it.
So what where was the breakdown here? Because and then so that that
would be a way of oversight it could come in. Yeah, the uh,
I think that makes sense. Just a quick going back here, we're
still waiting. It's uh seven fifty, so they're already twenty minutes late.
Uh somebody somebody uh uh dark uh and I because I'm trying to listen to
the conversation and stay engaged. It's difficult for me to watch the chat room,
which is why our friend uplifting Tweets is there. But dark Spark just
commented Kirkpatrick is being revived. Lola could certainly be the be the case.
I mean, I certainly hope not. I'm sure he's I'm sure he's okay.
Anyway that I totally uh spent spend dub tracks as must be a hell
of a closed hearing, uh, clearly. And we've had quite a few
donations on super chats. Uh. I can't really scroll back and see who
all who all's donated, But thank you very much for supporting our work here.
Anyway, back back to whistleblower testimony. So so, Daniel, what
what do you think do you think do you think we would hear about crash
retrieval? Some some people would would say that, well, that's you know,
far too classified to to to even speak about that. But do you
think that they're a well, I actually I have two questions for you.
What do you would it surprise you that we've had a crash retrieval program that's
been managed by fifty or so people that's been hidden from congressional oversight? And
then two, do you think that that is something that could be discussed in
an open hearing without national security implications? Sure, I'll do the I'll answer
the first one. First. Um, so that's the age old question,
right. Um, there are certainly documents that have been since declassified that point
to that being a possibility, and there are people that I respect and trust
who say that is the case. That being said, you know, I
think that's certainly something that until that is something that is such a big story,
you know, like that we're talking about the biggest story arguably of our
species. That I really don't think and I'm probably like most people can't one
hundred percent believe that until it's a proof or evidence. And I'm sure most
people understand that as well. But people who are saying that that is the
case and that people are coming forward and saying that are not people who you
know, they're serious people, and that they're putting their credibility on the line,
right, you know. So it leaves me kind of just like,
I don't know what's going on. This is crazy. Um you know,
I think people paying attention to who are are skeptic but curious. It's kind
of like, man, this is nuts. I don't I don't really know
where this is and agoum so I think it's definitely possible. I think I'll
say this that if it exists, yes, it would be very very compartmentalized.
And my theory is not even within oversight anymore, but probably you know,
over at some contractor with like as the rules overset as possible, and
that's a common popular theory as well. Um. So I because of that,
I will say I don't think that will ever be mentioned, especially in
not yet at least in this setting, if it exists, because I think
that is a big national security you know you're talking about if that's if we
pretend that's true for a moment um, that that that's that's just gard of
all doubt. That's that's real. What's happening. Um, you're talking about
us being a possession of the technology that could be technically you know, millions
of years ahead about sunups, Like how can you even comprehend what extraterrestrial means
or whatever presents or or nance terrestrials whatever other um. So whoever can crack
that technology through reverse engineering has an advantage that would quite literally change the geopolitical
situation. So I can't imagine anyone whatever talk about that willingly because of the
national security implication. But that being said, I mean people are talking I
don't know, like how can that leak? How long can that stay?
Like why are people coming forward? Now? There's so many questions that kind
of stem from that reality if that is what's happening, and people who I
trust seem to be saying it is. But I will say that I do
wonder, as Sean was mentioning whether Gillibrand might ask John Kirkpatrick, have witnesses
come forward to talk to you? You know, that's the ess no question
that I don't know if really would harm nation security. So and if you
says yes to that, that's interesting, you know, and we know that
certain people have like Robert Stalis, But I'm talking more about people referencing programs
that are related to UAP that Congress did not know about. And I think
there's worth mentioning that there are certain specific types of SAPs where Congress isn't notified,
like I think they're called WAVED unacknowledged special access programs, So that is,
who are the Secretary of Defense signs off on it? Even allowing Congress,
even the Gang debate necessarily to be notified. So it's it's a it's
a wishywashy area, but I think in most circumstances Congress legally it does have
to be notified. And it is my suspicion that, no matter what's going
on the government has been very interested in this topic for a long time.
I would be very surprised that they haven't been looking into it. And I
bet you they did not tell Congress Sean. Do you no, that's that's
fantastic, Sean. Do you know if if WAVED waived special access programs,
what the reporting requirements to Congress are on? In other words, is it
only the gang? Can they are they mandated legally to report to the Gang
of Ate and no one else, you know, for instance, on Sendate
arm services? How does that work. Yeah, I would assume that,
but I wouldn't be able to speak confidently about that. So I would assume
that they would need to have budgetarian oversight through the legislative branch. So I
would assume that that's how the chain of events would occur. However, again
I don't think I'd be able to speak confidently about that, but I mean
i'd like to if I could back up Daniel on this is the on the
crash retrieval programs. The it already does exist because the United States has units
that and this this is of course open stories, have units that recover,
recover, you know, Russian aircraft or Chinese or technology, so that it
already exists. So I don't know, it doesn't matter if it's a crash,
Russian sty Delight or starship from Zata Articuli. If something went down,
the United States would have a reason or a desire to go after it,
get a hold of it. What it is, who knows. So I
guess, yeah, that it already exists because we do acquire foreign technology and
then we reverse engineering. So all you'd have to do is you just grab
it. And the units that do that are just trying to get it secure
and back to somewhere where somebody smarter can get a look at it. You
got a you know, a bunch of you know, big guys that wear
combat boots all the time that need to just go in there and you know,
get it and then get it back or get it somewhere safe so that
it does exist per se, you know, but it might not necessarily have
to be the next level of us, some secret organization or some some you
know, something crazy. It's just it does it already does exist something.
If there's new technology somewhere, we have a reason to go after it and
get it and reverse engineering. So you just gonna have to add that extra
layer on it where they if the compartments, so the wave programs do exist,
they acquire it, you tell everybody, oh, this is a classified
aircraft or something. Those people go about doing their their thing, and then
you stick it in the compartment, you know, and then and then it's
gone, and then it's it doesn't have to be something really large and I
guess conspiratorial, like. The mechanisms exist already. The only thing that we're
missing is that the waved program or or who takes it after it's acquired because
it would be the same as any other foreign tech. You know, you
can get it, you acquire it. I mean that the CIA went into
Russia and took a part of Russian satellite that so these organizations exist, if
they have the capability to implement those types of visions, it's already the stories
are out there and to do that, or you know, terrestrial technologies,
they just add something came down, we don't know what it is, Okay,
let's get in there and get it figure it out later, you know,
so that the unit or the organization would go in, grab it,
bring it back, and then where to go I don't know. I just
my job is to get it, bring it back, and hand it off
to the next person and then it's gone forever or gone, and whoever is
looking at it is looking at it. So I would say that absolutely,
even if even if they've never had captured craft or materials, the mechanisms exist.
So this it's already there, right that that completely makes sense. And
going back going back to what back to a little bit of what Daniel was
talking about. So my personal belief is the only way that you're going to
convince the public that we are being interacted with by non human and tell us
it's not going to be Joe Biden getting up on a podium. He could
he could go up there. Literally half the country will not believe anything that
he's saying. The White House Press Office could air a video and say,
yeah, this is real. Half the people are not going to believe it,
maybe even more. I believe the only way that the only thing that
will deliver the amount of ontological shock to the public to shake them, you
know, to what's going on, is a show and tell. So if
we have crashed recovery, if we have crashed vehicles, which all of my
sources have said, yes we do, and it's more than one a show
and tell, you could do a show and tell that would not jeopardize national
security and what I mean by that. So, just recently, I think
it was about two or three months ago, Northrop Northrop Grumman revealed the I
think it's called a B twenty one Radar Raider, which is a long range
nuclear capable uh bomber next generation stealth and and I watched the reveal. It's
actually pretty cool, you know they Lloyd Austin did a did a speech and
and uh In the background. You saw the you know, the hangar,
and then ladies and gentlemen, here's our new kick ass bomber. And then
the doors open up and the thing is silhouetted by a backdrop and they put,
you know, a small amount of light on it. But that was
the reveal. They didn't they said, Okay, here's our bomber. But
they didn't say it does this, It does this, it has these types
of countermeasures, it's got this type of stealth capability. So there's a way
to reveal something like that without you know, giving away the whole um all
of your secrets. Right. So um, I think that they could do
this in a very similar fashion and not jeopardize national security. And I think
that it will only be through a public reveal, a show and tell of
what our country possesses, that people will go, oh shit, because we
need to we need to figure out how we're going to deal with this,
with this reality. Daniel, do you think that that would be enough to
to would that convince the skeptics, the mcquests of the world and bunker boy
a camp basement boy, camp blanket on his name Green Street, do you
think that that would convince these folks or are you still going to have folks
saying, ah, yeah, this is all a psi op or whatever.
Both. I think it would givince mcwest and green Street because I will say
they are right in the sense that if the government in the government right,
who is the government, but let's just say, the government, for the
sake of argument, is going to share pretty evidence evidence that's pretty hard to
refute. I think that would change a conversation pretty quickly because re Street Mcwest
are right in the sense that there's very little the sense of conclusive evidence of
what the hecks going on, um publicly at least um. But yeah,
so I think that would convince them. I think there is always going to
be people who are saying this is just a psyop or a shell game and
show of force to freak this is freak out our adversaries. And I will
say too, you know, pushing back on this on this, what if
a bit the B twenty one was revealed only once it was done, you
know, and before then there were people talking about it, and you know,
people knew it was existing, but there was very hush hush, And
I think if if if we still don't know what this crashed vehicle is I
don't know if we'd ever talked about it, because then what we're saying is
we're tipping our hat that we have this thing, but we also have figured
it out yet, right, Um, so this is all this big what
ifs. So yeah, sorry, there's definitely a whole other analysis of the
legal ramifications of everything that would would come out. So let say something,
where's the I guess again the lawyer side, where's the liability on this?
So again, so a national defense contractor as a board that governs it,
now, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. So if all of
a sudden they say they roll out this technology that they're reverse engineering, you
know, what's that going to do from the bottom dollar that you know,
is that going to give somebody else a technological advance that they would have had?
Are they now open for lawsuits? Also? How did they acquire that
technology? Did they steal it from someone? Did it fall on somebody's land
and they now they're the owner and I came on your land, pretended to
be an Air Force guy and stole it from you. So like there's there's
levels of you know, lawsuit that could could occur that go back decade.
So again, yeah, if if Broadswell happened and that piece of technology,
which I guess if you look at property rights, landed on your property and
you captured it, are you now the owner of it? So you the
owner of that and then the Air Force took it from you and then handed
it over somebody else? Do they owe you a trillion dollars in technology that
that was derived from? That was their contract between any of the parties.
Are they contractually obligated to keep this secret? You know? Are they not
allowed to you know, tell anybody that this existed? So I guess there's
there's a lot of the morality and the legality don't always align. I guess
in our in our society, like you, there's things that are right and
wrong but not necessarily legal. So they're gonna be held accountable for it.
But yeah, they might be you know, a hero towards disclosure, but
there you know, be poor and sit in jail the rest of their life,
you know, so just not really or their decision might negatively impact other
people that don't really care about disclosure. I think those those analysis should you
know, at least come into play with this is if everything's tangled up in
a legal mess, then you have to untangle that legal mess, which could
also be something that going on in the background of this well you know,
the you know, the other thing that's that's an interesting thought as well.
So the Air Force recovers this technology and tells, you know, farmer Joe,
oh, it's a weather balloon. We're just going to pick up the
pieces and go on and go on. So the Air Force or whoever has
this recovered craft, and they're probably not going to send this out to bid
on who's going to reverse engineer it. So they're just going to say,
okay, here, Northrop Grumman, you take it there, and excluding other
potential bidders, I would think that there would be a lot of finance,
sorry, legal ramifications for that, right, right, So all of a
sudden, if you have if you have a um a company that existed at
one point and then went under and a lot of shareholders lost their money but
they were not allowed to openly bid, you know, there's there's you know,
acquisitions as a whole, all the legalities that go around that, what
the legal things that you have to do, uh to get contractual work and
if they basically skirted that whole thing. And yeah, there might be legal
ramifications, you know, there's there's probably there's things if if if, if
everything we're hearing is true. This is a legal mess. There's a horrible
legal mess, and it might not be in people's best interest to bring this
out. Yeah, speaking speaking, this is the rotten fruit. Yeah,
no, for sure, speaking a mass, there's a scheduling mass where eight
ten and we still have not heard from the our our our friends over at
the hearing it. I keep actually checking my phone. They just went on,
went on, are you serious? Oh shit, here right now,
all right, let's see it's not shown up here, so give me a
second. Here, he will come to order. I'd first like to thank
our witness, doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, for testifying here and in today's earlier close
session, and for his long and distinguished career both in the intelligence community and
in the Department Defense. Doctor Kirkpatrick is the director of the All Domain Anomaly
Result Lucian Office or Arrow. Congress established this office in law to get to
the bottom of the very serious problem of unidentified anomalist phenomenon or UAP. Doctor
Kirkpatrick has a very difficult mission. While we have made progress, there remains
a stigma attached to these phenomenon. There is a vast and complex citizen engagement,
and there's also very challenging scientific and technical hurdles. So we appreciate the
willingness of doctor Kirkpatrick to lean in on this issue and the work that he
has accomplished thus far, and we look forward to both his opening statement and
his presentation of examples of the work ARROW has done. In late twenty seventeen,
media for its surfaced about activities set in motion by the late long serving
Majority Leader Senator Harry Read more than a decade ago. We learned that there
was strong evidence of advanced technology reflected in the features and performance characteristics of many
objects observed by our hardly highly trained service members operating top of the line military
equipment. We learned that for the at least the past eight years, military
pilots frequently encountered unknown objects and controlled airspace off both the East and west coast
across the continental United States in test and training areas and ranges. We don't
know where they come from, who made them, or how they operate.
As former Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist observed, had any of these objects
had the label made in China, there would be an uproar in the government
and media. There would be no stone unturned and no effort spared to find
out what we were dealing with. We can look at the recent incursion of
the unidentified PRC hiot to balloon for as an example. But because of the
UFO stigma, the response has been irresponsibly eMac and slow. Congress established ARROW,
we made it clear that we expect vigorous action. We added very substantial
initial funding for the office, but despite our best efforts, the President's budget
for FISCUOS twenty three and twenty four requested only enough funding to defray the operating
expenses of ERROW. It included almost no funds to sustain the critical research and
development necessary to support a serious investigation. It took a letter to Secretary Austin
from Senator Rubio and Me and fourteen other senators to get the office temporary relief
for the current fiscal year. In this yearing I tend to probe a series
of specific issues. In the recent incidents where multiple objects were shot down over
North America, it seemed that Pentagon leadership did not turn to ARROW Office to
play a leading role in advising the combatant commander. We need to know whether
this will continue. We need to know whether the leadership and DoD will bring
ARROW into the decision making process in a visible way, and we need to
know what role ERROW will play an interagency coordination after the NSC Working Group disbands.
In the fiscal year twenty twenty three National Defense and Intelligence Authorization Acts,
Congress established a direct reporting chain from the ARROW Director to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. The role of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and Security is limited to providing administrative support. We need to know how this
direction is being implemented. Uap are frequently observed flying in extremely high or very
low speeds and come in various sizes and shapes. During the recent shootdowns over
North America, disclosed that filters on radar systems were adjusted to allow for detection
and tracking of diverse sets of objects for the first time. While opening the
aperture can overload the real time analytic process, we cannot keep turning a blind
eye to surveillance data that is critical to detecting and tracting UAP. We need
to know whether doctor Kirkpatrick can achieve the necessary control over sensor filters and the
storage and access to raw surveillance data to find UAP anomalies. Finally, one
of the task Congress set for ARROW is serving as an open door for witnesses
of UAP events or participants in government activities related to UAPs to come forward securely
and what they know without fear of retribution for any possible violations of previously signed
nondisclosure agreements, congressmandated that ARROW set up a publicly discoverable and accessible process for
safe disclosure. While we know that AERO has already conducted a significant number of
interviews, many referred by Congress, we need to set up a public process
that and we need to know where that effort stands. With that, I'd
like to turn a Senator Earns for her opening statement. Thank you, Madam
Chair, and thank you doctor Kirkpatrick for your testimony today. I'll keep these
remarks very brief so that we have maximum time for your briefing. The recent
downing of the Chinese surveillance balloon and three other objects underscores the need for domain
awareness. Adversaries like China and Russia are working to hold US interests, including
our homeland, at risk. That's why your testimony is so important and I
so look forward to a progress update on the establishment of your office. As
members know, your office from the Navy led Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force to
the All Domain Anomalous Resolution Office known as ARROW. Doctor Kirkpatrick, your extensive
background in science and technology, research and development, and space makes you well
suited to discuss these emerging challenges. My priority is that we understand the full
range of threats posed by our adversaries in all domains. That is what the
Joint Force needs to be prepared to fight and win in defense of our nation.
This committee needs to know about Chinese or Russian advanced technology programs to exploit
our vulnerabilities, and it needs to know whether your office, along with the
IC, as detective potential Chinese or Russian capabilities to surveil or attack US.
Finally, we need to ensure efficient interagency coordination. Multiple elements of the DoD
and IC own a piece of this submission. To add value. ARROWS efforts
cannot be redundant with others. Thank you again, we look forward to your
testimony. Doctor Kirkpatrick, you can give your testimony. Thank you, Chairwoman
Joel Brand, ranking member Ernst, distinguished members of the subcommittee. It's a
privilege to be here today to testify on the Defense Defense's efforts to address unidentified
animalist phenomena. First, I want to thank Congress for its extensive and continued
partnership as the Department works to better understand and respond to UAP in an effort
to minimize technical and intelligence surprise. Unidentified objects in any domain pose potential risks
to safety and security, particularly from military personnel and capabilities. Congress and DoD
agree that UAP cannot remain unexamined or unaddressed. We are grateful for sustained Congressional
engagement on this issue, which paved the way for the DODS establishment of the
All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office in July of last year. Though ERRO is still
a young office, the spotlight on UAP in recent months underscores the importance of
its work and the need for UAP to be taken seriously as a matter of
national security. All leadership that I've had the pleasure of working with, whether
DODIC, DOE, Civil, scientific, or industrial view Congress as a critical
partner in this endeavor, ARRO has accomplished much in the last nine months since
it was established. The ARROW team of more than three dozen experts is organized
around four functional areas, Operations, scientific research, integrated analysis, and strategic
communications. In the nine months since Arrow's establishment, we've taken important steps to
involve and improve UAP data collection, standardize the Department's UAP internal reporting requirements,
and implement a framework for rigorous scientific and intelligence analysis, allowing us to resolve
cases in a systematic and prioritize manner. Meanwhile, consistent with legislative direction,
ARROW is also carefully reviewing and researching the US government's UAP related historical record.
ARROW is leading a focused effort to better characterize, understand, and attribute UAP,
with priority given to UAP reports by DoD and IC personnel in or near
areas of national security importance. DoD fully appreciates the eagerness from many quarters,
especially here in Congress and in the American public, to quickly resolve every UAP
encountered across the globe from the distant pass through today. It's important to note,
however, ARROW is the culmination of decades of DoD intelligence community and congressionally
directed efforts to successfully resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by US military personnel,
specifically Navy and Air Force pilots. The law establishing a ROW is ambitious,
and it will take time to realize the full mission. We cannot answer decades
of questions about UAP all at once, but we must begin somewhere. While
I assure you that ERRO will follow scientific evidence wherever it leads, I ask
for your patients, as DoD first prioritizes safety and security of our military personnel
and installations in all domains. After all, a UAP encountered first by highly
capable DoD and IC platforms featuring the nation's most advanced sensors are those UAP most
likely to be resolved by my office, assuming the data can be collected.
If ARROW succeeds in first improving the ability of military personnel to quickly and a
confidently resolve UAP they encounter, I believe that in time we will have greatly
advanced the capability of the entire United States Government, including its civilian agencies,
to resolve UAP. However, it would be naive to believe that the resolution
of all UAP can be solely acomplished by the DoD and IC alone. We
will need to prioritize collection and leverage authorities from monitoring all domains within the continental
United States. Arrow's ultimate success will require partnerships with the interagency, industry partners,
academia, and the scientific community, as well as the public. ARROW
is partnering with the Services Intelligence Community DOE, as well as civil partners and
across the US government to tap into the resources of the interagency. The UAP
challenge is more an operational and scientific issue than it is an intelligence issue.
As such, we are working with industry, academia, and the scientific community,
which bring their own resources, ideas, and expertise to this challenging problem.
Set Robust collaboration and peer review across a broad range of partners will promote
greater objectivity and transparency in the study of UAP. I want to underscore today
that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be
described as anomalius. The majority of unidentified objects reported to ARROW demonstrate mundane characteristics
of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena, other readily explainable
sources. While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved.
This is primarily due to a lack of data associated with those cases. Without
sufficient data, we are unable to reach defendable conclusions that meet the high scientific
standards we set for resolution. And I will not close a case that I
cannot defend the conclusions of. I recognize that this answer is unsatisfying to those
who, in good faith assume that what they see with their eyes, with
their cameras, and with their radars as incontrovertible evidence of extraordinary characteristics and performance.
Yet, time and again, with sufficient scientific quality data, it is
fact that UAP often but not always resolve to readily explainable sources. Humans are
subject to deception and illusions, sensors to unexpected responses and malfunctions, and in
some cases, intentional interference. Getting to the handful of cases that pass this
level of scrutiny is the mission of error. That is not to say that
UAP wants resolved are no longer of national security interest. However, on the
contrary, learning that a UAP isn't of exotic origin but is instead just a
quad copter or a balloon leads to the question of who is operating that quad
copter into what purpose. The answers to those questions will inform potential national security
or law enforcement responses. Arrow is a member of the department's support to the
administration's Tiger Team effort to deal with stratospheric objects such as the PRC High Altitude
balloon. While when previously unknown objects are successfully identified, it is Arrow's role
to quickly and efficiently hand off such readily explainable object X to the intelligence,
law enforcement, or operational safety communities for further analysis and appropriate action. In
other words, ero's mission is to turn UAP into SEP somebody else's problem.
The US government, the DoD and the IC in particular, has tremendous capabilities
to deal with those encountered objects. In the wake of the PRC HAB event,
the interagency is working to better integrate and share information to address identifiable stratospheric
objects, but that is not Arrow's lane. Meanwhile, for the few cases
in all domains space, air, and C that do demonstrate potentially anomalous characteristics,
ERO exists to help the DODIC and Interagency resolve those anomalous cases. In
doing so, Arrow is approaching these cases with the highest level of objectivity and
analytic rigor. This includes physically testing and employing modeling and simulation to validate our
analyzes and underlying theories, then peer reviewing those results within the US government,
industry partners, and appropriately cleared academic institutions before reaching any conclusions. I should
also state clearly for the record that in our research, ARROW has found no
credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity off world technology or objects that defy the
known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever attained that
a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin. We are committed to
working with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform US governments leadership of its
findings for those few cases that have leaked to the public previously and subsequently commented
on by the US government. I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views
to submit your research to credible, peer reviewed scientific journals. ARROW is working
very hard to do the same. That is how science works, not by
blog or social media. We know that there is tremendous public interest in UAP
and a desire for answers from Arrow. By its very nature, the UAP
challenge has for decades lent itself to mystery, sensationalism, and even conspiracy.
For that reason, ARROW remains committed to transparency, accountability, and to sharing
as much with the American public as we can, consistent with our obligation to
protect and not only intelligence sources and methods, but US and Allied capabilities.
However, Arrow's work will take time. If we are committed to do it
right. It means adhering to the scientific method and the highest standards of research
integrity. It means being methodical and scrupulous. It means withholding judgment in favor
of evidence. It means following the data where it leads, wherever it leads.
It means establishing scientific, peer reviewed theoretical underpinnings of observed data. An
Arrow is committed to all of the standards. I'm proud of Arrow's progress over
the last nine months months. Much remains to be done, but the hard
work is under way. Thank you for your continued support. And before we
turn to questions, I'm going to walk you through some of our analytical trends
in a couple of cases that we've prepared. So one of the things that
ARROW does is high integrity analysis. As I've said, this chart represents the
trend analysis of all the cases in Arrow's holdings right to date. What you'll
see on the left is a histogram of all of our reported sightings as a
function of altitude. So most of our sightings occur in the fifteen to twenty
five thousand foot range, and that is ultimately because that's where a lot of
our aircraft are. On the far right upper corner, you'll see a breakout
of the morphologies of all of the UAP that are reported. Over half about
fifty two percent of what's been reported to us are round or spheres. The
rest of those break out into all kinds of different other shapes. The gray
box is essentially there's no data on what its shape is, either it wasn't
reported or the sensor did not collect it. The bottom map is a heat
map of all reporting areas across the globe that we have available to us.
What you'll notice is that there is a heavy what we call collection bias,
both in altitude and in geographic location. That's where all of our sensors exist,
that's where our training ranges are, that's where our operational ranges are that's
where all of our platforms are in the middle. What we have done is
reduce the most typically reported UAP characteristics to these fields, mostly round, mostly
one to four meters white silver translucent metallic ten thousand and thirty thousand feet with
apparent velocities from stationary to MOK two. No thermal exhausts usually detected. We
get intermittent radar returns, we get intermittent radio returns, and we get intermittent
thermal signatures. That's what we're looking for and trying to understand what that is.
Next LT so I'm going to walk you through two cases that we've declassified
recently. This first one is an MQ nine in the Middle East observing that
blow up, which is an apparent spherical object via EO censors. Those are
not i R. If you want to go ahead and click that and play
it, you'll see it come through the top of the screen. There it
goes, and then the camera will slew to follow it. You'll see it
pop in and out of the field of view there. This is essentially all
of the data we have associated with this event from some years ago. It
is going to be virtually impossible to fully identify that just based off of that
video. Now, what we can do and what we are doing is keeping
that as part of that group of fifty two to see what are the similarities.
What are the trends across all of these Do we see these in a
particular distribution, do they all behave the same or not. As we get
more data, we will be able to go back and look at these in
a fuller content. Next, how are we going to get more data?
We are working with the Joint staff to issue guidance to all the services and
commands that will then establish what are the reporting requirements, the timeliness and all
of the data that is required to be delivered to us and retained from all
the associated sensors. That historically hasn't been the case, and it's been happenstance
that data has been collected. Next, let this particular event South Asia MQ
nine looking at another MQ nine and what's highlighted there in that red circle is
an object that flies through the screen. Unlike the previous one, this one
actually shows some really interesting things that everyone thought was truly anomalous to start with.
First of all, it's a high speed object that's flying in the field
of regard of two. MQ nine's second appears to have this trail behind it
right which at first blush you would think that looks like a propulsion trail in
reality. If you want to play the first slide, we'll show you what
that looks like in real time or first video. So we're looking at that
there it goes once you play it again and then pause it halfway through right
there, all right, if you might be able to see that trail there
behind it, that's actually not a real trail. That is a sensor artifact.
Each one of those little blobs is actually a representation of the object as
it's moving through and later in the video as the as the camera slews,
that trail actually follows the direction of the camera, not the direction of the
object. We pulled these apart frame by frame, we were able to demonstrate
that that is essentially a readout overlap of the image. It's a shadow image,
right, it's not real. Further, if you later follow this all
the way to end, it starts to resolve itself into that blob that's in
that picture in the top of the right, and if you squint, it
looks like an aircraft because it actually turns out to be an aircraft. Go
ahead and put that on so you'll see the tail sort of pop out there.
And so what you're looking at is this is in the infrared. This
is the heat signature off of the engines of a commuter aircraft that happened to
be flying in the vicinity of where those two mq nines were at. Why
am I showing you this? So the first one that I showed you we
don't have resolved yet, right, that is an unresolved case. We are
still studying this one we can resolve, but this is the kind of data
that we have to work with. Then the type of analysis that we have
to do, which can be quite extensive when you have to pull these apart
frame by frame. Further, we're now matching all of this with the models
of all of those imaging sensors so that I can say I can recreate this.
I can actually show how the sensor is going to respond. All of
these sensors don't necessarily respond the way you think they do, especially out in
the world and in the field. And I believe that's all I have,
and I will open it up for your questions. Thank you so much,
doctor Kirkpatrick, Can you just give us some raw numbers of how many UAPs
you've analyzed, how many have been resolved and sort of in what buckets,
and then how many are still left to be resolved? Just an update from
your January public report where it was three sixty six or something and about one
hundred and fifty were balloons and about two dozen words owns, you know,
just give us an update if you have sure. So, as of this
week, we are tracking over a total of six hundred and fifty cases.
Now, the report in January basically said about half of the ones at that
time, about one hundred and fifty were balloon, were likely balloon like or
something like that. That doesn't mean they're resolved. Oh so what Let me
let me walk everyone through what our analytic process looks like. We have an
essentially a five step process, right, so we have we get our cases
in with all the data, we create a case for that event. My
team does a preliminary scrub of all of those cases as they come in,
just to sort out do we have any information that says this is in one
of those likely categories. It's likely a balloon, It's likely a balloon,
a bird, it's likely some other object or we don't know. Then we
prioritize those based off of where they are. Are they attached to a national
security area, Does it show some anomalous phenomenology that is of interest If it's
if it's just a spherical thing that's floating around with the wind and it has
no payload on it, that's going to be less important than something that has
a payload on it, which will be less important than something that's maneuvering.
Right, So there's there's sort of a hierarchy of just binning the priorities because
we can't do all of them at once. Once. We do that and
we prioritize them when we take that package of data in that case, and
I have set up two teams. Think of this as a red team,
Blue team, or a competitive analysis. I have an intelligence community team made
up of intelligence analysts, and I have an S and T team made up
of of scientists and engineers and the people that actually build a lot of these
sensors, or physicists because you know, if you're a physicist, you can
do anything right. But they're not associated with the intel community. They're not
Intel officers. They look at this through the lens of the censor of what
the data says. We give that package to both teams. The intelligence community
is going to look at it through the lens of the intelligence record and what
they assess and their intel tradecraft, which they have very specific rules and regulations
on how they do that. Scientific community technical community is going to look at
it through the lens of what is the data telling me, what is the
sensor doing, what would I expect a sensor response to be, and back
that out. Those two groups give us their answers. We then adjudicate.
If they agree, then I am more likely to close that case. If
they agree on what it is. If they disagree, we will have an
adjudication. We'll bring them together, We'll take a look at the differences,
will adjudicate what why do you say one thing and you say another. We
will then come to a case a recommendation that'll get written up by my team
that then goes to a senior technical advisory group, which is outside of all
of those people, made up of senior technical folks and intel analysts and operators
from retired out of the community, and they essentially peer review what that case
recommendation is they write their recommendations, that comes back to me. I review
it, we make a determination, and I'll sign off one way or the
other, and then that will go out as the case determination. Once we
have an approved web portal to hang the unclassified stuff, we will do,
you know, we will downgrade and declassify things and put it out there.
In the meantime, we're putting a lot of these on our classified web portal
where we can then collaborate with the rest of the community so they can see
what's going on. That's in a nutshell. That is the process, right
So because of that, that takes time. So of those over six hundred
and fifty, you know, we've prioritized about half of them to be of
anomalous interesting value. And now we have to go through those and go how
much do I have actual data for? Because if all I have is an
operator report that says I saw X, Y or Z, my assessment is
a B or C, that's not really sufficient. That's a good place to
start. But I have to have data. I have to have radar data,
I have to have EYEO data, I have to have thermal data,
I have to have overhead data and we need to look at all that now
from a big picture perspective. I still have that's all still very valuable data,
and we're looking at applying a lot of things new tools, analytic tools
like natural language processing, so I can go across all of those reports and
look for commonalities. How many of them are being described as round spherical objects
that are maneuvering, how many of them are not maneuvering, how many of
them seem to have a plume to it, or note that's also going to
be very valuable to give us more of a global picture and a trends analysis
of what are we seeing and help us get to the determination. So go
back to your question, ma'am. We have this next quarterly report will be
coming out here pretty soon. Our next annual report you all have given us
moved it up to June July. We're going to be having that done about
that timeframe, and we will have a we'll be combining a whole number of
reports into that one. I think we're currently sitting at around if I remember,
Craig, we were around tenty to thirty ish, are about halfway through
that analytic process. A handful of them have made it all the way out
to the other side gone through peer review. We've got case closure reports done
and signed. We're going to get faster as we get more people on board
and we get more of the community tools to automate some of the analysis that
has to be done. Yeah, thank you, Madam, Chair and doctor
Kirkpatrick. The O D and I Annual Threats states that China's space activities are
designed to erode US influence across military, technological, economic, and diplomatic spheres.
Likewise, Russia will remain a key space competitor. In the course of
your work, have you become aware of any Chinese or Russia technical advancements to
surveil or attack US interests? So that's a great question. Part of what
we have to do as we go through these, especially the ones that show
signatures of advanced technical capabilities, is determined if there's a foreign nexus. That's
really hard if what we observe doesn't have a Chinese or Russian flag on the
side of it. Now, I think it is prudent to say of the
case is that are showing, you know, some sort of advanced technical signature
of which we're talking single percentages of the entire population of cases we have.
I am concerned about what that nexus is, and I have indicators that some
are related to foreign capabilities. We have to investigate that with our IC partners,
and as we get evidence to support that, that gets then handed off
to the appropriate ICE agency to investigate. Again. It becomes an SEP at
that point. Yeah, somebody else's problem, right, very good, thank
you. Yes, it is it possible that the Chinese or Russian advanced technologies
could could be causing some of these anomalous behaviors, said, and you said,
there seems to be some indicators. So just for us today, could
you describe potential threat that might exist out there if they are foreign nexus.
In order to do this research appropriately, we have to also be cognizant of
what is the state of the art and development across the S and T community.
Is what are the darpness of the world doing. What's the horizon scanning
of emerging technologies appropriate to this subcommittee? What is happening out there and if
somebody could accelerate that capability, how would that manifest itself and what would it
look like? And do those signatures match what we're seeing? There are emerging
capabilities out there that in many instances, Russia and China, well China in
particular, are on par or ahead of us in some areas. Right,
So, previously I used to be the Defense Department's intelligence officer for Science and
Technical Intelligence. That was our job was to look for what does all that
look like? And then my last several years of course in Space Command doing
space the adversary is not waiting. They are advancing, and they're advancing quickly.
If I were to put on some of my old hats, I would
tell you they are less risk averse at technical advancement than we are. Right,
They are just willing to try things and see if it works. Are
there capabilities that could be employed against us? In both an ISSR and a
weapon's fashion? Absolutely? Do I have evidence that they're doing it in these
cases? No, but I have concerning indicators. Thank you. I appreciate
that, and that's that is why it's so important that you are working with
the intelligence community as well, because you have the science, the data background,
but you also need to know from various sources what adversaries may be working
on exact correct. Okay, thank you, thank you very much, thank
you, Madam cher Well, thank you. Cheer jillibrand ranking member Ernst This
is a really important hearing. I'd like to thank you, doctor Kirkpatrick for
your service to the country and as a former systems analyst myself, I really
appreciate your flow chart, the description of the process, and particularly the trends
analysis going forward. How that's going to help us. And you've talked about
language, the large ms, the large language models of artificial intelligence. That's
really going to help us in the hunt forward predictive analysis. I think to
some of your point what we're worried about, but I want to focus on
Nevada because I want to talk about the impact of UAPs on aviation safety.
So when it comes to unidentified aerial phenomenal phenomena, excuse me, one of
my first concerns is really about the safety of Nevada's military aviator. So we
have airmen stationed at Nellis Air Force Base, naval aviators flying at Naval Air
Station Fallon, and service members across from across the world training at the Nevada
Test and Training Range. I know you know all this, and unfortunately,
the existence of advanced UAPs in the US airspace and over US military installations not
a new phenomenon. The Navy's officially acknowledge that between two thousand and four and
twenty twenty one, eleven near misses occurred involving UAPs. It required pilot action
and follow up reports. As a result, in twenty nineteen, the Navy
established a protocol for pilots to report on their dangerous encounters. So, could
you speak to any ongoing efforts within DD to ensure the safety of our aviators
with a potential m UAP encounter? And what's your relationship with Northcom nor ad
space Com when it comes to this immediate real time response and how they're they're
they're right there in the moment right. That's a great question. So let
me start with you know, my relationship with the commands are very good.
I just came back from sitting down with General van Hirk and all the all
the jay's staff out at Northcom a couple of weeks ago talking through exactly what
we need to do to help them get their arms around us. We are
also working very closely with Joint Staff, and the Joint staff has just been
very outstanding and helping work through policy and guidance issues to the forces and to
the services and I would like to just make sure that we message back to
all of the operators the importance of their reporting and the fact that you're about
to get a bunch of new requirements that we're issuing through the Joint Staff on
all of the data that we're going to need you to save and report back
to us. It is invaluable and we are working to try to take the
most advantage of that to learn what it is that we're trying to mitigate.
To get directly to your question, first thing that we're doing is normalizing our
reporting, right, We're standardizing our reporting and the requirements associated with that.
Guidance from the Joint Staff I think goes out maybe this week, maybe next
week, that we've been working with them for some months. That does exactly
what I just said. It gives them timelines, it gives them requirements,
it gives them here's all the data you have to have, and you've got
to retain it. The next thing that after that as a plan ord that
will go out to the commands for mitigation and response. So there's a couple
of things that we have to do. One, I need to work with
the commands and with the IC and our outside of our d D and IC
partners to extend our collection posture targeted at some of these key areas that you
saw on that heat map that have a lot of activity, so that we
can turn on extra collection when an operator sees something. So part of this
is generating as a response function and what we call a tactic technique and procedure
for an operator when he sees something calls back to the operations floor, they
can turn on additional collection. What does that collection look like? How do
I bring all that together so I can get more data on what is that
thing? Can I ask really quickly to have the authority you need to extend
your collection posture between agencies or branches of the military, because that seems to
me to maybe be a sticking point. I know, my time's just about
up. I'd love to follow up about your risk management methodologies for some of
these. But do you need any authorities that you don't have to get the
day? There are some authorities that we need. We currently are operating under
Title ten authorities, but we have good relationships across the other agencies, but
having additional authorities for collection, tasking, counter intelligence, that's something. Those
are all things that would be helpful. Yes, thank you to follow up,
doctor Kirkpatrick, will you help us write that language so we can put
it in the defense bill this year, so that we know what authorities you
need, we can do them. Thank you. We're gonna start second round,
so if you want to stay, you can ask another round. I
have at least three more questions. So do you want to do? You
want to go right now? So you engage, you have to leave?
Yeah, go ahead, right space. It's by balloon. It did cross
through the US airspace shot down by a sidewinder missile fired from an F twenty
two. Sidewinders cost US close to half a million dollars each. So given
the cost of these missiles, the cost per flight, all of these other
things, like I said, follow up on the authorities or methodologies, the
data collection, they can help us in other ways. But how do you
think we can develop a sustainable, affordable response to UAPs where we need to
um that may that will definitely violate our airspace, not may definitely violate our
airspace every chance that they can get because there are adversaries and they want this
information. So what do you think some cost effective measures might be that we
can get what we need out of that, or take them down whatever's appropriate.
Whatever the appropriate measure is, let's put it that that is actually wrapped
into the plan ord that we're working with Joint Staff to send out. What
are the commands need from both a capabilities perspective for kinetic and non kinetic engagements,
What are the response functions of the of the particular wings or or Navy
what have you, and then what authorities do they need. So one of
the one of the challenges that we've seen is is, you know, there's
an authorities issues with the with the owners operators of those ranges that they need
to work through, and we're working that with Joint Staff and n OSD.
So big picture, we need to do all that. If you want to
get down to the specifics for you know, there are non kinetic options to
engage pretty much everything, right, whether it's electronic warfare, whether it's you
know, laser technology, I mean the good data collection, predicted analytics.
You can in simple form make some assumptions on possibilities that's right, and we
will inform recommendations back to the department on here's what could work, Here's what
we've seen work, here's what doesn't order. Thank you so much, Thank
you, Mada. I'm sure I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Can I just wanted to just talk a little bit about your logistics, who
you report to, how that's going, whether you need different reporting lines by
congressional legislation. Your office is administratively located with the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence Security, but you're not substantively subordinate to the Undersecretary.
Rather, you are a direct report to the Deputy secretary. Are you taking
direction directly from the deputy secretary? Are you able to meet and brief the
Deputy secretary? Is the Office of usd IONS working with you to have the
right framework? So USDON S and I currently report to usd IONS until they
come up with the plan for how they're going to implement legislation DoD and D
and I are working through that. Now. I'd have to refer you back
to USD I and S on what their plan is. Do I need to
update your reporting structure in the next defense bill or is this something that you
think will work its way out or does it need further clarity. I think
they're planning on coming back to you with an answer on what that plan is,
and I think at that time that will inform what you want to do.
Okay, thank you. As you know, doctor Kirkpatrick, Congress has
mandated that your office establish a discoverable and accessible electronic method for potential witnesses of
UAP incidents and potential participants in government up related activities to contact your office and
tell their stories. Congress will also set up a process whereby people subject to
nondisclosure agreements preventing them from disclosing what they may have witnessed or participated in,
could tell you what they know without risk of retribution from the or violation of
their NDAs. Have you submitted a public facing website product for approval to your
superiors? And how long has it been under review? I? Have we
submitted the first version of that before Christmas? And do you have an estimate
from them when they will respond and when you'll have feedback on that? No?
I don't, okay, we will offer a letter asking for that timely
response to your superiors. Oh, when do you expect that you will establish
a public facing, discoverable an access portal for people to use to contact your
office as the law requires, so I would like to first say thank you
all very much for referring the witnesses that you have thus far to us.
I appreciate that we've brought in nearly two dozen so far. It's been very
helpful. I'd ask that you continue to do that until we have an approved
plan. We have a multi phased approach for doing that that we've been socializing
and have submitted for approval. Sometime Once that happens, then we should be
able to push all that out and get get this a little more automated.
Great. What I would ask though, is as you all continue to refer
to us and refer witnesses to us, i'd appreciate if you do that.
Please try to prioritize the ones that you want to do because we do have
a small research staff dealing with that. Thank you. And then do you
have any plans for public engagement that you want to share now that you think
it's important that the public knows what the plan is. So, we have
a number of public engagement recommendations according to our strategic plan. All of those
have been submitted for approval. They have to be approved by usd S.
We are waiting for approval to go do that. Okay, I will follow
up on that, and then my last question is about the integration of departments
UAP Operations, Research, analysis, and strategic communications. During the recent UAP
incidents over North America. It didn't appear that you were allowed to play that
role. Do you agree that the public perception is generally that you and your
office did not appear to play a major role in the department's response to the
detection of objects over North America. What can you tell us that's going on
behind the scenes from your perspective and in the after action assessment process? Is
their awareness that there is a need to operate differently in the future and a
commitment to doing so when the objects refers to did I got called by Joint
Staff leadership to come in late one night to review events as they were unfolding
and to give them, you know, an assessment based on what we knew
at that time. I did that, worked with the Director, Joint Staff,
the J two, and the J three that night and over the couple
of following days on what are the types of things that we are tracking from
an unidentified object perspective? What databases do we use those sorts of things for
form for known objects known tracking. Beyond that the response I would have to
I would have to refer you back to the White House for the decision on
how they did the response. We did not play a role in what you
would respond other than that initial you know, advice on what we are seeing
and how we are seeing. Thank you, Matt, Thank you, Madam
Chair Doctor Kirkpatrick. I know that your office has gotten a lot of attention
recently, and of course any new agency there tends to be a push to
increase size and funding. Um, we want to make sure that you're able
to meet your goals. But what I also need to ensure is that we're
not duplicating or replicating existing functions and creating redundancy within d D and the inner
agency. So what steps are you taking right now to make sure that your
particular office and function is unique to any of the other agencies that might be
involved in these types of cases. Yeah, that's a that's a great question.
So I would like to lay down here's here's what you know of my
mission and my goal and my vision here. So the vision is at one
point, at some point in the future, you should not need an arrow
If I'm successful in what I'm doing. We should be able to normalize everything
that we're doing into existing processes, functions, agencies, and organizations and make
that part of their mission and their role. Right now, the niche that
we form is really going after the unknowns. If I think you articulated it
early on, this is a hunt mission for what might somebody be doing in
our backyard that we don't know about? All right, well, that that
is what we are doing, right but at some point we should be able
to normalize that. That's why it's so important the work we're doing with joint
staff to normalize that into POLDIOD policy and guidance. We are bringing in all
of our interagency partners, so NASA is providing a lee for US. I
have FBI liaison, of OSIRE liaison, I have service liaisons. The half
of my staff come from the IC, half of my staff come from other
scientific and technical backgrounds. I have d OE. And so what we're trying
to do is ensure again as I make UAP into SEP, they get handed
off to the people that that is their mission to go do, so that
we aren't duplicating that I'm not going to go chase the Chinese High altitude balloon
for example. That's not my job. It's not an unknown and it's not
anomalous anymore. Now it goes over to them. Very good, Thank you,
Madam chair. I want to just follow up on the filters for surveillance.
Outside observers has speculated that DD sets filters on certain sensors to eliminate objects
that are moving really fast or slow, because what we are looking for military
terrely our conventional aircraft of missiles up that doesn't fit into these programs would thereby
be weeded out and never noticed. The spec speculation was proven to be true
during the UAP incidents over North America, where DoD publicly acknowledged that we were
able to start seeing these ups only when we opened up these filters. Obviously,
our military operators cannot be overloaded with objects that are not conventional aircraft or
missiles. Can you, nonetheless, make sure that the raw data is being
captured and subsequently process that your office knows what's really out there? And is
that going to cost money? Will you expect to pay for that money out
of aero's budget. One of the key tenants that we're trying to do in
our science plan is understand what those signatures are. So we get all the
raw, for example, radar data prior to the scrubbing and filtering to allow
it to enter into our weapons systems and our detection systems. We are now
taking all that data and cross correlating it to what pilots are saying they're seeing
or other observations from other operators. What that allows us to do is then
see if there are any any signatures in that data that I can pull out
generate what we'll call automatic target recognition algorithms that allow us to then use that
signature associated with a observed UAP, whatever that UAP. Maybe we will then
make those recommendations of what those changes should be back to the department. So
the Deputy Secretary asked me last October to make those recommendations. What changes do
we need to make the radars to platforms, to detection systems and algorithms to
pull on those algorithms. Make those changes. That's going to take some time.
That's where the research and development comes in, right is not. It's
not instantaneous right now. A lot of the I won't say, you know
a lot of the the things that fall outside of the ranges of those filters
have been identified by people in the loop, and you can't have people in
the loop all the time, you know, it's just not cost effective.
So part of our budget is working through what does what does that look like
and then making those recommendations back to the big program offices for them to put
into changes in the acquisition. My last questions about the academic community. Can
you give us an update on sort of how you collaborate with the academic community
and whether how the independent study being done by NASA compliments ARROWS work. Sure,
two questions, so I try to make it quick. The nineteen seventy
nine Carl Sagan said extra claims require extraordinary evidence. I would go one step
further and I would say extraordinary claims require not only extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary
science. And so how do you do that? You do that with the
scientific method right, And so, as ARROW is developing and implementing its science
plan, it has to do so grounded in a solid foundation of scientific theory
across the entire range of hypotheses that have been presented for what UAP are.
That range spans adversary breakthrough technology on one hand, known objects and phenomena in
the middle all the way to the extreme theories of extraterrestrials. All of that
has physics based signatures associated with it, whether it's theoretical from the academic community,
known from things like hypersonic weapons or adversary breakthrough technologies as we've talked about
before, or the known objects that we have to go measure. The idea
is across that entire range. You have to come up with peer reviewed scientific
basis for all of it. The academic community plays a very big role on
the one end of the spectrum, the intelligence community on the other end of
the spectrum, and then measurement in the middle. Once I have those signatures
identified in validated, peer reviewed documents, then I have something to point to
for all that data, because all that data is going to match one of
those signatures, right, and then I can go, well, it's that
and not that, or it's that, and that helps us go through all
that. Where NASA comes in and the study that they're doing, which I'm
supporting, is really looking at the unclassified data sources that might be used to
augment our classified data sources to understand if there's a signature there we can pull
on so very similar to the radars, but civil capabilities. So for example,
we have a lot of climate science satellites, for example, that look
at Earth, lots of them. How many of those is the data valuable
in seeing these kinds of objects. The challenge in that is those platforms don't
necessarily have the resolution you need. So if you remember the slide I put
up there with the trends, the size of the objects we're looking for are
typically reported to be one to four meters. Well, the resolution of many
of the climate science civil civil satellites was much larger than that, which means
you'd have a hard time picking out something that's smaller than a pixel on the
imagery on the data. That's not to say all of it's not useful,
and there are ways of pulling through that data and going through that is what
NASA is focus on right now is what are some other data sources that could
be used in addition things like open source and crowdsourcing of data. We're exploring
public private partnerships, ma'am, as you know we've talked about in the past
to look at is there a way to smartly crowdsource additional data that might be
useful to augment some of my classified sources and what does that look like and
how would we do it so that we're not overwhelmed by you know, everybody
who wants to take a picture of everything. I'd like to tell the committee
before we close. O't you have another round? Yeah? Do you have
anything else you'd like tell the committee before we close? Thank you very much
for allowing us to come and share a little bit of insight into what arrows
up to and what we're doing. I hope to be able to share a
whole lot more in the future. We have a lot of work to do,
so if you don't hear from me outside, it's because we've got a
lot of work to do. Well. Thank you so much, Doctor Kapatrick,
Thank you for the hearing. Thank you. Wow, hold on second
here, it's making a little adjustment in the audio. Okay, Well,
let's see. That was our Senate hearing. That was on giving testimony there.
That was doctor Sean Kirk quad Copter. He holds a doctorate in balloons
from a Seagull University in swamp Gas, Ohio. All I can say is
what a load of ships? So uh yeah, so uh, first of
what what I've been getting some text messages. Sean, what's your take on
on what we just witnessed? Oop? Not hearing you? Hold on one
second, let's see Daniel, can you need to say something nasty? One?
There we go. Okay, yeah, so uh Sean, I'm not
not hearing you, so check check your mic please. So we'll start with
you, Daniel, what did you think about that? Sure? And yees
I solo here you just see them? Um? Well, uh there we
go. I'll be quick. Um. I I'll say this from so my
my perspective comes from more of a academic background and scientific background, and wanting
the work on this topic to come from that perspective. And two, further
the conversation in a more mainstream way. I want academia involved in this.
I think academics should be involved in this. I don't want this topic relegated
to just the classified world because that doesn't really further transparency. And I will
say that what he said in terms of the methodology is sound. I like
what I heard in that regard. I think having separate teams, you know,
working on the same cases, and which is then said to him,
which is sent to another group that you know, this is pure view.
This is this is the process in which. I am glad to see these
incidents being evaluated in that manner because I think it is important that whatever results
that I come, they are defendable because if further down the line something because
the one thing I'll get too too is that I do wish they spoke more
about that that single percentage of cases that work quite anomalous, because that does
track with the the data over the decades. Right it's always about like what
is like five percent of cases, you know, and the question and like
back in Project blue Book days where there were the percentage of cases where they
had a lot of data but still were highly anomalous, right, Like that
number keeps coming up, and that's what I'm most interested in. Um,
if they apply that analysis to these cases, those answers are are more defendable
because they are not just arrived by three people who think think that you know,
it's gone through more of a rigorous scientific approach. So in that aspect,
I'm happy to see that the process in which they're analyzing cases it would
hold up to I think scientific scrutiny better. But yeah, I you know,
my one really big hope was more elaboration upon those more anomalous cases,
and they hint it out a little bit. But I really do feel we
got a little more clarity in that front that end, but not as much
as I personally would have. But I was pleasefully suppressed. Sean, Yeah,
I would agree. I would agree. Um. I did like that
the way he presented it, some of the key some of the words that
he said as well definitely aligned with the I guess intelligence community, which means
to me that he's doing his work and he's uh, he's building. I
mean, it cannot be easy to stand up a brand new office, So
I guess i'd have to give him some points on that, not just that
though he was wearing the same tie class as me, though I think I
got he got some of some points on that as well. But yes,
the methodology, UM is good in the fact that he is keeping the two
organizations, the intelligence in the scientific side, separate from each other. I
thoroughly UH like it's just because because each has it, it's it has a
similar approach but extremely different, and that each would then give their own evaluation
and then they would sit down up they agree, you can cancel it out.
Um. I like that he's bringing technology in again, but this is
also in theory, okay, right, so in pactum things might not necessarily
be the same. So yeah, the car can work you know, amazing
on the road and breakdown on the tracker or whatever it is. So I
guess it does seem that he's you know, doing what needs to be done.
So the one percent, I guess would probably you know, bring people
up in arms in the in the in the community. But um, I
guess if you go to any police department in any town, they get a
million gunshot calls and ninety nine point of them are fireworks, you know,
So they're just so you have to filter out all of those things that are
not necessarily anomalous and you only need one. Why do you need is one?
Right? So again I guess we didn't really come to any of the
any you know, the crash retrieval talk that's very popular in the community right
now and the things that we're hearing. Um, but it does I guess
I would say that Gillibrand had brought up sorry he Kirkpatrick had brought up thank
you for bringing witnesses to us, and you know, please prioritize those,
So he may have been talking to that aspect and then they might not have
been able to track down those things. Also, I think he did he
did touch on in the end there when he was talking about NASA is pulling
the available commercial data that's out out there, that NASA is going to be
doing that, which is what we had talked about that before this. There's
an abundance of information that's out there that if you could you know, you
basically have some unclassified information that go off the public. And then talking about
the scientific methods. He is an academic himself, that's his own language,
that's his own bias. Is the only way that you know, he's only
going to be able to, you know, speak on any subject. So
those are the elements that I did gather from this. And I know a
lot of people are probably going to be not happy about which has happened there
and understandable, but I guess if you know, if you're gonna if you're
gonna ask a doctor to talk to you, they're going to talk to you
in doctor language. So it's not really that's that's a that's a very good
way of putting it. Yeah, yeah, no, for sure. So
while this was going on, I was receiving texts from some someone that works
uh in the intelligence community, as someone that has worked this particular portfolio,
and uh, and I have to say, uh, I'll just kind of
read some of some of the messages uh that uh that came from him and
some other folks uh in that area. One of the things that he noted
right off the bat was a complete disregard of humans or human human and intelligence,
which I think I think that's well, we'll get into that. I
think I think that's mainly on the crash retrieval side. And when he was
talking about not showing anything advanced as far as data, he pointed out this
intelligence official pointed out easy, easy to scrub, censor feed and show us
the display of advanced tech. Um. He noted if this tasking were given
to a private company, they would have been so much more further along on
meeting mission requirements. He has seems to be setting himself up for a lifetime
job with basically saying we need more time and money and power, and in
another really interesting point, him saying, I report to USDI and S,
which is the under Secretary of Defense or Intelligence and Security, and as Louielizondo
and other folks have have stated many times, this has the organization that is
engaged in administrative terrorism, harassing people that have come forth about UAPs uh trying
to uh jeopardize their security clearance, other other sort of harassment. And um
and the new legislation changed that, and it seems to have not changed yet.
It has not changed. It's supposed to have changed, it it has
not changed from the folks that I have spoken with that have continue to receive
this uh, this harassment. Um uh yes, and you know, and
this is some good points too, I I and again maybe it's the scientist
thing, but I thought he had a couple of Dick's statements in there,
uh you know, please prioritize who you send forward, you know, basically
just uh you know saying, you know, telling Congress, don't tell me
what uh uh you know what I should do. Um, you know.
And it's interesting too. You know another point that was brought up. You
know, he indicates he only wants certain evidence and data and doesn't want resources
used on others. And I think that would be the case with human intelligence
and uh one person when first and said f off with peer review. That
doesn't matter considering We've been lied to for eighty years. And another person in
the Intel community, I never want to hear peer review again. We just
spent eighty years being lied to by multiple organizations. Peer review means nothing anymore.
And the last couple of the one thing he did say towards the end,
he goes, if if I don't tell you what I'm doing, it's
because I'm busy. I mean, seriously, you're gonna tell sitting senators that.
Oh and one interesting point too that, uh, this Intel official noted
the video that was shown of the ORB that was not the mosal ORB video.
This was taken more recently, yet they both appear to show the same
object. And one statement that somebody noted in the chat that I didn't catch.
I guess at some point he said something about quote, extreme theories of
extraterrestrials, which I don't know if you guys caught that. Yeah, he
was like talking about a spectrum like from this thing to the extreme end,
which is extraterrestrials, got it. Yeah, So I wasn't quite sure if
that was meant. In a disparaging remark, one whistle blower that I did
have a private conversation with that from the DoD. He testified for quite a
number of hours to a Lieutenant colonel in Arrow, and one thing that he
did mention was that he felt and he didn't elaborate why, but that Kirkpatrick
does not believe in the extraterrestrial theory now just comes from one individual. That
was his impression. I didn't ask him to elaborate on it anyway. Those
are just kind of some things that that you know that I I, uh,
you know that that was getting messages on. I mean, I do
agree, you know, Daniel absolutely uh in in Sean as well, there
has to be a scientific approach to this. But I think, you know,
I think there there was a good opportunity to talk about the whistleblowers that
have been testifying, even if he were to just generally describe some of the
reports that he's he has received, and I know that the whistleblower reports that
he's received has been pretty extensive. So he seemed to gloss over that or
or just not want to go down that path. Sean, what do you
what do you do? You have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I
mean again, I'm I'm speaking again not from personal belief, but I'm sure
I'm using this intelligence and the legal lends on this um. If he talked
about um whistle blow is coming forward and saying extraordinary things, then that would
almost be confirmatory to be true of whatever they said without him having the ability
or if they have to confirm that those things were true. So if if
I was his attorney or what if involved, I would say, just stay
away from that now until we can actually track track everything down, you know,
until it's until it's you know, yes, then it's it's a potential.
You know it could be a potential. Yes, But just to keep
it out of the spotlight right now, because that would you know, open
up for more damage for credibility down the road. If but they they say,
oh, a whistle player came forward, they said in this and this
hanger is this object and then they track it down it's not it will be
forever in UFO books that up they hit it again. So if either you
know, confirm it is true or just I wouldn't talk about it at not
at this stage. Again that the fact that you know, at the end
there it's still it's still open, you know. Again the language that he
uses this are we need to create the basis of us to be able to
even talk about this. You need, if you're gonna you need to create
the language to use the language so that you can. Again, I need
to write the paper so when we see those signatures in UAP, it's like,
oh, that is this. So without doing that, you really you're
you're getting made ahead of yourself for again, for somebody with the scientific background
to be running this organization. So I mean, if you if you want
people that you know kick kick down doors their whole life, they'll just drive
there and kick down the door that they're just going to kick down every door
of everything, and that's that's who they are. But we have a scientist
that's in charge of this. They're going to write science, scientific papers,
and they're going to make a scientific process and they're going to follow it.
So it's just I mean, I can't fault him for being the person that
he is. I can either I can figure out a way to get them
to do what I want them to do, you know, certain ways,
or but it can't be discip I can't expect it from them versus um you
know, it was it would be very much expected. And again I was
pleased by the process that are set up that too, I guess maybe address
the your individual they I was talking about humans being completely dismissed. I would
say, I don't. I don't think that it sounded like it's not dismissed.
They're not closing any of the reports unless they know what that object is,
and they're keeping those singular reports alive because and they're extrapulating, extrapolating language
trends for later analysis. So if you have thirty people that that round object,
round object, round object, if there's only one singular report, that
information is staying alive within their scientific process because that information they okay, we
have thirty reports, we got one or video that is something. It's like,
okay, now we're now we're seeing trends. Now we're doing trend analysis
and that and that would be aligned with not just I guess maybe the science.
I'm not a scientist, but that's why I'm a scientific community that's sure
as hell is aligned with the intelligence community, and that's exactly what we do.
So I would I would say that the process seems that if it,
if it continues to exist for long enough, you can get you can get
you know, censored data and imagery data only one or two, but then
fifty uh you know, human or human reports, and then it's like,
okay, that aligns with what they just said. And now you have a
larger population, so it quite possibly be could be the you know, the
right way to do this. You know, it's not gonna you know,
feel good for us because it's not you know, uh, gourmet meal through
a fast food window. But it seems that it's it's setting it up pretty
well, right. Yeah, No, I definitely hear you just real quick.
Wanted to say thank you at Chris Wolford from the super chat. There
were other super chats as well. Fig you seventy seven sixteen said question for
Sean, given that whistle blowers are allegedly saying they aren't feeling protected, that
there isn't a hotline or even email to seek help should they be harassed,
what amendment to the NDAA would you recommend to tighten any loophole that will ensure
whistle blower protection. I believe that if they're working within the resource, it
within the It seems that right now, it seems that if they are outside
of the DoD community or the intelligence community, that they would have to potentially
contact an elected official that on one of those committees and get fed either filtered
out as doctor Kirkpatrick was saying, of prioritize the people you're bringing to us
when he qualified as statement of thank you for bring us, you know that
was kind of a backhanded thank you for bring us witnesses, but please prioritize
them. Yeah, that would be the potential way to do that. Um,
total dick move. But just protect your to to avoid being you know,
I guess discovered you have to protect your own identity at that point,
right, So I guess if you if you're if you're telling everybody you're coming
forward, then you're you're opening yourself up for attack. Yeah for sure.
So so what so supposedly there are hearings in the works for June on the
House side. Of course, we'll have Tim Broschett, who's no wall flower
when it comes to this this particular thing, Daniel, do you think do
you think a house hearing will be any more different than this one. I'm
sure they'll it'll be. I'm sure they'll call doctor Kirkpatrick. I'm hoping they
actually call these whistleblowers forward because I uh, you know, at the end
of the day, I think, in my personal view, I think this
was a bit of a slap in the face to the whistle blowers that have
been coming to his office and providing tons of test testimony. So Daniel,
what do you what do you think you think it'll be any different in June?
If that's indeed when these things happen. It really depends on which committee
is doing it, you know, because as far as I know, while
timber Chet might be very vocal on the issue, I don't believe he's on
any of the pertinent committees that actually do any oversight on this issue. So
it kind of just depends on who is holding the hearing, I guess.
So it's really hard to tell. Um, they're definitely trying to think of
who. I mean, I don't know if it would be the same committee
as before. Yeah, it just really depends on who. It's homeless hard
to theorize. I would say, I don't know if they'll bringing Kirkpatrick again,
because he already came in and they might feel he's not going to give
any new answers. So maybe in this instance they would bring forth what's the
blowers? And that was the blowers. Sorry, it's just like witnesses themselves.
Maybe they have the public hear their stories. Yeah, I think that
might be a better use of their time, because I have a feeling Kirkpatrick's
is going to really give the same answers he was given before and just a
briefly touch upon I know what your intelligence sources said, I think, and
Sean can go more into this too, as he was a former intelligence professional.
But I think we're really getting at here is kind of the different ways
in which the scientific community and the Intelligence Committee a community kind of try to
address and resolve issues. Right. This is a different it's a different mission.
It's a different way to go about it, you know, like intelligence
community is, you know, it's about trying to protect this country and keep
us safe, and they work in probabilities and just the best available estimate of
the situation, right while while the scientific community they really are all about drafting
papers and getting peer review and like nothing is set in stone until like every
like there's such a unanimous you know, consent. So it's I feel like
what we're experiencing now is kind of the tension between those two communities and how
they really do go about they they do what they need to do in their
environment, and now we have two kind of separate entities trying to kind of
go about resolving something, even though they both kind of addressed it in different
ways. Because human intelligence very important. But I can tell you, you
know, from the scientific community, Sean was saying, patterns are as data
set, but human intelligence, probably you know, for better for worse,
in their opinion, just subjectively, is rather lower on the totem pole in
terms of you know, evidentiary. So that's just so yeah, it's kind
of like as it's tough. So I could say that again, I was
out. I've been out of the intelligence community for quite some time now.
However, my experience in it, sorry I wasn't human intelligence. I was
an analyst, but my experience with human intelligence people would say that that bias
against them exists. Also within the intelligen community. You could come to them
with you know, five sources and say they're all saying X, and the
commander would say, well, I want a picture of X. It's like,
well, I don't have a picture of X. I have five people
without you know, that don't know each other saying X exists. But until
it's just probably maybe the human experience. I want to hear it, I
want to see it, you know, or but I you know, it's
like I, you know, just telling me it exists, like, uh,
I'm not going to thank you for your information, but I need something
coupled on top of that, and that bias existed through my deployment in my
experience. So, you know, what I to defend Kirkcatric a little bit
is the fact that if it's a single source, it seems that the way
that he represented it was that he's not dismissing that case. That case is
still open. And then we're going to extrapolate language used in that report to
see if they we can make uh, you know, usable data you know
later on. So I guess it's it's not easy being a CI person sometimes,
I guess. So, So, Sean, what do you what do
you think about upcoming house hearings? You agree with Daniel, it's probably won't
be him, maybe maybe witnesses, even if we don't have Burchet on.
If if I guess the people asking the questions are listening or it goes somewhere,
I would ask they said that there we are and the one percent that
still exists. There are indicators of potential far in tech, So okay,
what are the Are there indicators that there are not par intech? So hit
them with the question of okay, is you're closing the cap here? Is
the cap still open or is a quote like oh wait no, there is
There are indicators that this is something that there are some that are still anomals,
because that's I guess the root of this effort is, Okay, I
don't need one hundred, I need a thousand, I need one. Is
there indicators with multiple centers and multiple reporting that something is doing something thing somewhere
that is just it it's not explainable right now, right? So I asked
that specifically, are there indicators that there's something that is not bar in tech
doing something anomalous? So yeah, no, got it? Yeah, well
yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Excuse me. Well, you know,
we had doctor Gary Nolan on our show a couple of weeks ago,
and I think somebody had asked him what he expected of this hearing and he
said, it's just going to be a song in dance, and it was,
in my view, is definitely quite a bit of that. But but
you know, nonetheless, I think this hopefully moves the ball forward and generates
more interest in getting to the bottom of this. But yeah, well,
I want to thank you guys for joining us. Sean, how can folks
find you on your social media? You find me a snake point nine and
on Twitter, or you can hit hit my email at Sean at the debrief
Great, Daniel, you can find me on Twitter at Psychopic's si ccop one
awesome. Great, well, guys, thanks for joining us, and folks,
if you enjoyed our coverage of this, we always appreciate, as we
said a retweet, subscribe all that good stuff. And again we always look
for folks on Patreon to bias cup coffee help us keep the lights on www
dot patreon dot com forward slash at the Good Trouble Show. Anyway, guys,
thank you so much for your time and your patience. Most folks here
don't don't know this, but we were on way before we went on the
air to prep for this, so I really appreciate everyone's everyone. So all
right, I'm Matt's Good Trouble Show and we will have more for you soon.
Thanks for joining us.