Everyone on Matt and Welcome to The Good Trouble Show. Today we have an
exclusive interview with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, speaking exclusively about UAP,
otherwise known as UFOs. This is, as far as we know, is
the first time a current United States Senator has sat down to solely talk about
this critical topic. But first, do us a solid hit that thumbs up
and subscribe button. We are also on all podcasting platforms. Just search for
The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford. Finally, finally, maybe the most
important part, your financial support enables us to bring you this show with exceptional
guests. You can become a Patreon supporter for the price of a Starbucks coffee.
Just go to www dot patreon dot com, forward slash the Good Trouble
Show and choose the plan that is right for you. Also, on YouTube,
super chats are open and are a great way to show us your love.
We we very much appreciate it. So with that out of the way,
let's get right to it. Today. We have two exceptional guests to
bring us up to date on this whole UAP thing uh and to break down
the hearing and sorry not the hearing the interview that we recorded with Senator Kirsten
jilla Brand last Thursday. So please welcome. On the in the middle screen
there journalist Christopher Sharp of The Liberation Times, and on the right Vinnie Adams
of Disclosure Team. Guys, thanks, thanks for joining us. Oh all
right, just making making sure we're making sure we're good there. Sorry anyway,
Yeah, no, thanks for joining us. So, yeah, we're
very very excited about this. So we've we've been in contact with Senator Jill
Brand's office for a very long time and this this interview has literally been months
in the works, and we're very very, very very excited about it.
So, you know, as I mentioned, often a lot of our viewers
are they don't really track this whole UAP UFO topic very much. We primarily
have political guests and message and things like that on that front. So the
UAP thing is new to some folks. So with that in mind, Vinny,
if you don't mind bring us up to date or sort of give us
a short historical timeline of how all of this really began in my view,
which was the New York Times twenty seventeen article, and kind of walked us
through from that point up until today. Yeah, sure, I'll do my
best, but yeah, you mentioned it right there. The December sixteenth,
I think, was the release of the New York Times article which was titled
Glowing Ores and Black Money, the Pentagon's Mysterious UFO Program, which really laid
out the work that had been done from two thousand and seven to twenty twelve,
this five year period where the UFO subject was studied within the Pentagon headed
by Luelizondo. Now we know that since then there's a lot of points come
up about the consistency of the dates, the program, its relationship to all
SAP, but I won't go too deep into those issues right now. But
this was really what kickstarted things off in the last few years with regards to
the coverage of the UFO subject, especially in the mainstream media. And going
forward now, following the article, we had the release of the three Navy
videos which came out of the Pentagon and were officially acknowledged as real and genuine
videos. Then I suppose the next important point was the National Defense Authorization Act,
and I believe that was for fiscal year twenty twenty one, and this
was where we were given the one hundred and eighty days for them to produce
a public report on the UFO subject or UAP, which we got in June
of twenty twenty one, and then consistently over the last few years since then,
in each National Defense Authorization Act, there has been language pertaining to UAP
and legislation, and it just keeps getting deeper and bigger each year. And
here we are in, you know, in this year, and it's you
know, this is why we're here to talk about the All Domain and Nominally
Resolution Office and how that's been run, you know, since it sort of
started about nine ten months ago. So yeah, it's it's like it's kind
of been a progression in the last five years. Yeah, it definitely has.
And Senator Jill Brand along with some other senators, but I feel like
she's really led the fight on this whole, on this topic in particular,
we really owe her a debt of thanks and the people that have been supporting
her on both sides of the aisle. And I always like to emphasize that
I'm a registered Democrat, I'm a liberal, but but people on the Republican
side are doing a lot of great work on this as well, and this
topic in particular, is really transcends any sort of parties. So while we're
championing the efforts and what Senator Gillibrand and her staff have done, there are
people on the other side of the aisle that are equally as supportive in doing
a lot of great work on this. So so speaking of Senator Jill Brand,
I want to play a clip. This was. This was I think
about a month ago with the Senator during the Intelligence and Intelligence Committing Committee hearing
with the Director of the Office of ODIE and I, Director Avril Haynes.
Let's watch this, Senator Jill Brain, thank you, mister Chairman, Director
Haynes. And last year's Intelligence Authorization Acts, Senator's Rubio Warrener, Heinrich Blunt
and I created the arrow that All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to break down the
stovepipes which between the intelligence community and the military regarding unidentified aerial marine and other
phenomenon which could pose a risk to the safety of our service members as well
as collection risks against sensitive facilities and overseas military bases as Oh, sorry,
it's the wrong thing, We'll just listen. Yeah, So that was sorry.
I cut away from the video a little bit too soon, But that
was Odie and I Director the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, n
Avril Haynes. So so Christopher, she's Senator Gillibrand and really all of the
people in the the in Congress that have supported this ARROW office. They've really
had a bit of an uphill battle getting the support from the intelligence community and
the Pentagon. Correct. Yes, and the battle has not been run one
yet. In fact, I get the impression as backed up by the letter
which came out on Saturday, but was was from the twenty seventh April from
Mark Warner and Senate Senator Reviews, so the chair and vice chair of the
Intelligence Committee, and yeah, they voiced their frustrations. So it's still an
uphill battle for senators within both predominantly the UM the Intelligence committees and the Armed
Services committees that have really really led the charge on getting this language up and
running. And yeah, and still despite the National Defense Authorization Act and the
language containing within that for the ARROW, the law still has not been implemented
yet. So for instance, um that that there's no deputy director the ARROW,
and also the communications isn't great as well, that there's no there's no
more activity on Twitter for instance, and let first tweet that it led off
last summer and there's no there's no secure public facing website as well, so
that whistleblowers can come forward. So it is a really, really still an
uphill battle for all senators involved pushing me and these representatives as well, such
as bur Chet's Carson can go. It will being really ready pushing this forwards
as well. Yes, So speaking of the lack of support, one of
the one of the initial issues was a lack of funding. So I want
to play this clip with Senator Jill Brand and get your thoughts and is the
Arrow Office fully funded in your budget? Yes? I believe it is.
You make sure because it was left off last year, so from both the
DoD and Intel's budgets. So right, so it's INDOD, but I think
our support is funded in the National Intelligence Program, and I will check to
make sure everybody else can answer the question. I believe it is funded.
Thank you, Yes, I support center, thank you. Yes. Yeah.
It's just crazy that they would mandate the creation of this office and they
have all of this language in and I think Vinny you had said that this
was this what went back to, uh, what was the year twenty When
was ARROW established? Was a twenty two or or when when was that?
Yeah, I don't remember. It was established in the summer of twenty twenty
two. Well, that's certainly when doctor Kirkpatrick became the head of our It
may have been a month or two before he was officially announced as the director.
I'm not too clear on, you know, the start date compared to
when they actually announced his you know, directorship, because I think well,
and I think Chris, you had you had touched on this. They had
to send a letter a Senator Jillibrand and I believe it was a thirteen or
fourteen other senators Chris Christopher that that said, hey, where's the money we
have this office and the OUSDI or Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and
Security. They weren't apparently saying that they didn't have any money, so it
sort of felt like no one knew that they didn't have money, which is
just really strange. Chris, what have you heard on on that? It
seems to me that it just isn't a priority at the moment. Before the
likes of Ronald Moultrie, Lloyd Austin and others within the d o D and
also within the intelligence community as well. I mean, look at a few
weeks ago, for instance, in the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee for Emerging Threats
and Capabilities, when jitter Brand asked Michael J. McCord, the unseconded Defense
Controller, it's saying I was disappointed for the second year in a row the
ARROW was not fully funded in the department's budget requests. Understanding that we cannot
get into specific budget figures in this forum, can you discuss why ARROW was
not fully funded? And in his response, Michael J. McCord seems to
suggest that that Ronald Moultrie had not relayed any concerns or requests for funded for
further funding to him. So, I mean, it just doesn't seem like
it's he's really really engaged with the process. And I would argue it's been
like that from the start since ai MSG was first put together. I mean,
we had a similar situation around about this time last year when the law
still hadn't been fully implemented, and I mean we thought all the troubles had
gone away because from an operational perspective, the ARROW was supposed to be reporting
directly too. The Deputy Secretary of the Defense and also I think it was
Stacy Haynes as well. I think is the principle deputy for OD and I
as well may have got that wrong. Sorry, So she was. So
the arrow was supposed to report to those two basically, but still because it's
not being implemented, the director of the ra is still reporting to Rotal Moultrie.
Well he was last year, So we're really the stage posed still has
not changed, and you can see why the Congress is really really going frustrated
all of this. Yeah, it's it all seems and from what I've observed,
seems to land at the feet of Ronald Moultrie. And as lou Alesando,
who was the director of the Pentagon's previous program a tip to study this
particular issue of UAP as he noted, all of the obfuscation and all of
that sort of stuff started with or really the source seems to be the Office
of Undersecretary of Defense u OUs D I n S, which is under Moultrie.
So um, and you know, I have some thoughts about that anyway,
So so let's let's get to the interview. So, as I mentioned,
this interview was a year in the making, and this is the first
time a sitting United States senator sat down for an interviewer to speak about the
topics. So we're going to roll the interview and afterwards we'll break it down.
So everyone here we go. Our next guest is a trailblazer in bringing
the UAP subject out from the shadows. In twenty twenty three, she led
a bipartisan effort to place thirty three pages of legislation on UAP in the National
Defense Authorization Act that is now law. Please welcome from the great State of
New York, Senator Kirsten Jillibrand, Senator how are you. I'm fine,
Thank you for having me, Thanks thanks for being here. And we know
your scheduleist tight. So we're going to jump right into the subject of hand.
So, Senator, there have been reports of objects in our skies and
undersea from our military pilots and other service members that they just they couldn't explain.
Now these objects are referred to is Unidentified Anomalous and Undersea phenomenon or UAP.
So, Senator, what was your turning point when you decided that we
as a nation, you know that we have to take these reports seriously and
look into them. Well, it was a combination of things. The thing
that really got me highly concerned was when service members had come forward with digital
evidence, whether it was video or radar, different sensory data, that they
were retaliated against, or disregarded or somehow diminished or demeaned in their roles.
And I thought, as chair Personnel at the time the Personnel Subcommittee of the
Armed Services Committee, I was not going to tolerate our service members being in
any way disparaged because they were doing their jobs to report these sightings. And
so once I heard about that, I started getting much more detailed in my
review of what is this, what is the you know, the scope of
these unidentified air phenomenon, what is the military's role? Are they reviewing them?
Do they actually analyze them? Do they identify them? And unfortunately I
found out that the answer was largely no, and they weren't actually doing the
work, Which is why me and a few other senators on the Armed Service
as an Intelligence committee decided to create a specialized office two years ago within the
Department Defense that we're supposed to review all sightings and to make sure that whistleblowers
can come forward, to make sure that no one can be retaliated against,
and that people are obligated to report, because we wanted to make it clear
that the military could not disparage or retaliate against people who were just giving evidence
of things they've seen, which is absolutely essential from a domain awareness national security
perspective. So we are now just pushing the military and the intelligence to fund
this office and to do the work now. And we're going to talk about
the whistleblowers a little bit more in depth here and a bit, but one
thing I wanted to touch on, so these military servicemen and women that have
testified observing UAP operating in a way that exceed our current understanding of physics,
and a lot of these cases they go all the way back to World War
Two and beyond. So with that in mind, would this preclude adversarial operations
such as those from China and Russia from the equation. No, and in
fact, for a lot of people, that's what it's all about. What
the goal of the office is to do is review all data related to unidentified
aerial phenomenon present, past and as reported. We also now have the goal
of increasing our collection, so actually increasing the sensors and the radar capabilities and
the ability to glean information and data from airspace that obviously we really didn't monitor.
We do very little monitoring of airspace outside of commercial airspace, and we
have requirements for commercial airspace. You have to have emitterage, you have to
have lights. But many of these sightings can be in the areas that we
don't monitor very effectively. And so the new ambition for this office is to
make recommendations about additional sensors what we need developed. And also it's important from
just plane on national security. If you've got China developing hypersonic missiles, you
need the ability to detect those as well as a Chinese by balloon or Chinese
drones or Iranian drones or any other adversary's military capability or spying capability is being
utilized over our military bases, over our missile sites, over our assets.
It's vital that we have that domain awareness and that we can ultimately have superiority
air superiority in places of conflict. Now, going back to Arrow, so
when when you mandated that the Pentagon established this office that eventually became ARROW,
what was a reaction from the Pentagon. Did they attempt to interfere or take
take control of the narrative. How did they react to this legislation that you
passed or did that passed? So I'm not sure. I mean, we
know what was publicly available, and you know, when we were recommending this
office, they quit. They set up the road office, which was a
bit a bit odd, But I don't know why that might have been in
the works. Who knows, um. But our goal was to really create
something transparent and accountable to the American public, that has of public facing aspect,
that has public reports, and that destigmatizes the sightings of an aerial phenomenon.
It is imperative that we destigmatize this because we need facts and we cannot
allow the like spy balloons to just coast over the United States taking photos and
getting data from our missile sites in our bases. It's unacceptable. And you
know, in many respects, we were asleep at the switch because we weren't
looking for this stuff, because from the military's perspective, it didn't exhibit hostile
behavior. It wasn't attacking, it wasn't shooting, it wasn't chasing, and
it wasn't evading. All of those types of behavior are things they would have
cared about and would have really tried to not only understand but defend against.
But because the behavior of a lot of this aerial phenomenon that we've captured is
by chance, like the fact that some device goes under an existing craft that's
recording data and information, is really how we're catching these. It's when our
pilots fly by something and say, what is that? What is that object?
What is that? What is that aircraft? What is that doing?
And why is it moving that way? And that's hard to understand. Our
devices and sensors on our aircraft aren't caliber to capture this information and easily reposit
it to a scientific group to review it. So we're going to try to
change our sensors on aircraft to do that so we could actually capture the data,
review the data, and be able to assess it one way or the
other, known, unknown, and if known, what is it we've been
able to assess? You know, let's see our January report. We assess
three hundred and sixty six pieces of data from sightings. Since the last twenty
years, we've had a huge influx in reporting, and now we're up to
seven hundred I think is what they said in the hearing, Yeah, six
hundred and fifty unknown aerial phenomenon. And so of the six fifty, we
know that in the first batch, the three sixty six they designated about one
hundred and fifty were orbs or balloon like objects, about two dozen or drones,
a handful or debris or birds, but one hundred and seventy one and
the first tronch we're unknown still. And so in this larger tronch of another
three hundred or so, we'll assess what they are. And this office and
review isn't isn't ideal for UFO enthusiasts in that they aren't necessarily getting to the
bottom of past sightings like is it real? Is it true? Did that
happen? Because all they can do is review data that they have access to,
and all you have is a video clip or all you have is a
photo. You don't have any additional data to weigh that against to assess what
actually is it. So a lot of the goal of this office is to
get much more data so we have the tools we need to assess what is
it in real time as opposed to having to go back historically, so we
may never of the let's say the top ten sightings historically that enthusiasts are certain,
are you know, a flying saucer or whatever it is? You may
never actually be able to assess that and say yes or no because you have
no additional data. And so what's so important about ARROW is it's not only
gathering the data that the Air Force and the Navy and other arm services detection
has, which is high quality data, and then comparing that with publicly available
data things like what if the FAA record on that date, time and space,
did anyone have any weather balloons in the area, Did anyone have any
other detection devices to see if they got any photographs or any video evidence.
All of that is so much more scientific and capable of assessing. And so
if you saw the hearing, Doctor Kirkpatrick gave us two examples and they both
looked, you know, bizarre, but one he was able to cross reference
enough data and information from public information like BAA and they could actually identify ultimately
that it was, you know, a puddle jumper. It was it was
a slower flying aircraft that because of the lens and the camera that was able
to get the digital images, it was too blurred and too undefined to know
what it was, but with cross data they identified it was an aircraft.
The second one they showed us was just an orb that came right in a
camera's view that traveled is seemingly very fast over some kind of military site,
and they don't know what it is, and so they might not get any
more data to clarify, you know, is it a drone, is it
a balloon, is it an aircraft? Is it unknown? And so that's
the hard part but also the good part. So we won't necessarily know all
the past secrets, but my intention is to make sure we know all the
future secrets before they become secret, because the whole point is to do the
scientific analysis to identify what it is, because if it is Russian or Chinese
or Iranian, we must know, and we need to know what technology they've
developed, and whether they're investing in drone technology or balloon technology or is by
technology that we've never seen nor heard of. Got it? Yeah? So,
and I think that's fantastic that we're finally taking this seriously. Let's let's
jump back, if you don't mind for a second, to the whistleblowers.
So as many people may not be aware you spearheaded. I think it was
like thirty three pages of legislation on UAP and the twenty twenty three National Defense
Authorization Act, and I think one of the most important provisions that is in
there that you guys put in there was was this provision that protects whistleblowers against
reprisals and retaliation. Now sources have claimed to us that they still fear retaliation.
Do these claims surprise you at all? No, and are off is
here to assure them they cannot be retaliated against by law, and if they
still fear retaliation, they should reach out to my office because we can make
sure that they get interviewed by doctor Kirkpatrick. We can make sure that they
can submit any of their data or information in a confidential way. We can
do everything possible to make sure that they can be heard and protected. At
the same time. You may not know this about my history, but we've
been working on military sexual violence for a long time and we were able to
help a lot of service members who wanted to tell their story but we're still
afraid of retaliation, and we were able to make sure they got lawyers that
they had a confidential way of reporting and we made sure that they were able
to do with what with their testimony that what they wanted to, whether it
was a republic or not public based on their needs. So we're here to
help and we're here to make it easier. We are going to have a
public facing website soon. A draft has already been submitted to the higher ups
to approve, so as soon as that's approved, and I asked all the
higher ups want to get to prove this, and clearly there's a bottlenext somewhere,
but I'm going to get to the bottom of it. And so eventually
there'll be a place where anyone can upload data, information, video, photographs,
and can also see the stuff that's been declassified, which is important so
that people can see like this is how we took this video, and this
is how we know where it was, and this is the publicly available information
we laid on top of it, and that's why we know what it is.
That's important so people can know. It may look like something on first
blush, but with scientific rigor, it's not that. Or it may look
like something and we still don't know what it is. So the truth is
we will get to whatever facts we can, but there'll still be things unknown.
Yeah. Some of the feedback that we've received, in particular from whistleblowers
that have worked on alleged like you CUAP programs but they're hesitant to come forward
is is what they've shared is that there's no published legal protection mechanisms. Uh
that or give them the legal assurance that they are indeed in to be covered,
so they can reach out to your office and and you can download or
make it clear exactly what protections are in place. Yep, they can definitely
do that, and they can We have an email that is confidential, just
casework at Jillibrand dot Senate, dot gov. And if they just put up
in the ray line, it'll get to our military staff who will then follow
up and make sure that they are given confidential support and advise on what their
next steps could be and where the protections lie. Excellent, Okay, great,
So if you have time, we just have another couple of really quick
questions. Um, so what would you say to the elected or the unelected
gate keepers and government who do not want to level with the American public about
UAP. So my concern is that's not their judgment, that's not their job.
This type of work should be public. We should have transparency and accountability.
There's going to be some stuff that we find that we won't want to
share publicly. Like, for example, if we assess that the Chinese have
this one kind of drone technology that's a huge national security risk, the Department
Defense may decide something like that needs to stay on the secret level so they
can not only prepare against it, but they probably don't want China to know
that we know what they're doing. So something like that I could imagine we
would try to stay non public. But anything that's not related to national security
we should definitely be declassifying. I completely agree with that. So finally,
should there be legal amnesty for pastor president government employees or contractors who have been
involved in keeping us from Congress and the American public, sort of as an
incentive to for these people to come forward. That's what the whistleblower language in
the twenty three NDAA is supposed to protect. But if that language isn't sufficient,
these people just have to tell us what parts not sufficient and what they
would need in the Defense whistleblower protection to cover them. We're happy to amend
the bill this year. I mean the goal is to give one hundred percent
amnesty and whistleblower protection in this space of unidentified aerial phenomenon. And you know,
there may be explanations about what programs people were working on. They might
have thought it was about something, but it really wasn't and they were never
told what it was about. So there can be those kinds of misunderstandings.
But the truth is, we have the ability to take classified information, We
have the ability to talk and classified settings, so then they're not breaking their
classification NDAs. We have the ability to do that, and so we will
write the whistler blower protection to make sure it covers compartmentalized programs, special access
programs, and intelligence oriented or top secret programs. We can make sure that
there's a setting, a skiff or a a top secret setting where they can
give their testimony. We will not allow them to be harmed. Fantastic and
well, we will do whatever as consistent with whatever agreements they made. Excellent,
Okay, Well this is great news. And Senator Gillibrand, I mean,
we really appreciate you coming on our show to talk about this really important
topic, and we know our audience really appreciate your leadership on this Senator Kristen
Gillibrand, ladies and gentlemen, thank you everyone, thank you for the opportunity
to talk on your show. All right, there we go, so um,
so a few thoughts. One thing I think folks need to keep in
mind is any any senator, they're going to really be careful to stay in
their lane. So we asked questions that we felt that she would be in
a position to answer and and not filter, just so we could get as
as as much information as possible. And the other thing too with these folks,
and you see this also with with Senator Marco Rubio, you have to
read between the lines, uh, with with what they're saying. They're not
going to come right out and say there's a non human intelligence or uh,
you know, we've got a saucers stashed in the garage somewhere. You have
to you have to read the sort of subtext so you know when they're when
they're talking about unknowns or or even just orbs. You know, orbs aren't
just gonna you know, fly around like a like a balloon. You have
to really, um, you have to really listen, but listen to what
they're saying very carefully. And my prediction as this thing continues to roll out,
their um sort of calculated nature and what all of these politicians say when
it comes to this subject, that's going to relax as more and more information
comes forward. So so yeah, so let's let's jump into this interview and
just sort of break down some of the questions. So, uh, you
know, we asked what was her sort of turning point, and Jill Brand
noticed for her that it was service members coming to her with digital evidence,
video radar, or different sensory data, and that these folks were retaliated against,
and they either retaliated against, disregarded, or somehow diminished or demeaned in
their roles, and that she wasn't going to tolerate it. And she found
that no surprise that the military wasn't really doing anything about this other than sort
of propagating, in my view, the stigma. So Vinnie, the DoD,
they really have had a very well documented history of obfuscation and retaliation against
a lot of these folks. Correct, absolutely, we know it's been I'm
going for decades. But one thing I will say just before we kind of
get into that, is that you know, cudous to you, because what
you've been doing is actually cultivating a relationship with Senator Jilla Brandon. You know,
we all could think of a million questions that we'd love to put in
front of her when it becomes you know, when it comes to UFOs non
human intelligence. But you can't just throw that a senator. It's not you
know, it's not the thing to do. It's not just another UFO enthusiast
that we're just having conversations back and forth. We have to be very careful
about the way we approach this, and I think after that interview, you
know, it's likely that we'll be able to continue this relationship and maybe you
know, get to those more important questions further down the line. So you
know, I know some people might be discouraged by the fact that we didn't
say what do you know about non human intelligence and things like that, So
I ask people to bear in mind that we're talking with a sitting senator here,
so it's not just a case of throw everything at her and see what
she's got to say. But yeah, as far as the obfuscation and the
cover up, we all know it's been going on for so many years,
and there is data somewhere, you know, on in classified programs, and
you know this is you know, there were a couple of comments that the
Senator Jit Abron mentioned in there about you know, we may not get to
the or to know all the past secrets, but we might get to know
all the future secrets before they become secret. This is the kind of positive
kind of discussion that we want to hear from from people in power. So
you know, I do take some positives away from it. Yeah, thank
you for that. Yeah, and we definitely looked at it from that perspective.
Uh, first off, we're an unknown entity. We're not CNN or
anything like that. So just the fact that we were able to get a
sitting United States senator to come on and speak about this subject was a huge
get for us. And the other thing to keep in mind, of course,
is you know, she sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She
sits on the Senate a Select Committee for Intelligence, I think is what it's
called. So she is specifically dealing with classified information, and um, you
know, she's got to be careful and what she you know, what she
can say. I do think that he's pushing the envelope and and we should
be very grateful for really going to the mat on this particular subject. It
was it was time someone did, and the Senator was the right person to
do this at the right time. Uh so uh let's see where lost my
place here? Um? Yeah, so so, Chris, So, you
know, we asked about observing UAP exceeding our known physics going back to World
War Two, and part of that question was some people obviously there are incidents
where there are balloons or drones or things that are misidentified as something anomalous when
when they actually aren't. But one of the things that that people like Luellasonto
and others have brought up is the things that appeared to have a non prosaic
answer, the behavior of these craft and whatnot. This these sort of vehicles
have been observed going all the way back to World War two and probably beyond
where you know we're This was before jet propulsion or anything like that. So
that was part of that was really what I was asking about. And you
know, she said no and was curious, what was your Chris, what
was your sort of feeling on her response to that? Yeah? Yeah,
absolutely, So firstly, I would say to people who were expecting you know,
saying oh there should be tougher questions and stuff like that. You know,
get with the real world. You know, this isn't a movie.
This is the real world dealing with an actual US senator here, and you
know it, it's taken a lot of time to actually arrange this interview.
And you know, no matter what questions you ask, um, she's always
going to stick with her message. Whatever she wants to say, she's going
to say it. And you know, if you had to ask questions like
were the bodies and stuff like that walk out, it's going to walk out
the interview. I mean, get real people. I don't know what world
these people are living in, but with the thing with politics here, you
know, and the real world not a movie to that point. In terms
of precluding Chinese technology and Russian technology, look, I would have to disagree
with the senator there. I mean, our good friend Graham Rundell for instances
catalog so many incidents going back to the nineteen fourties, and I mean,
you know, great researchers, will you know know of events that happened even
before that. And you know, when we're talking about the fifties and sixties,
China was in a famine situation. You know, they can even afford
orse and carts, let alone fighter jets, and you know you have advanced
military equipment. So I think, yeah, I think it definitely does preclude
this from being China and Russia. So I think that, look, this
is a really really good first step. Here. She said some really good
things, and I think, I mean, I would compare it to this.
Look at the first series of you know, on a History Channel with
Luisando of unidentified Luisando Chris Mellen. They would have never mentioned et or anything
exotic like that. It was a process. And I think we're going to
see the same with the politicians as well in terms of that. You know,
just think of the enormous progress we've made. Like a year ago,
we couldn't have even thought about a sitting senator such as Kurs and Giller Brand
appearing on a show like this. And I've said this before in my Twitter.
You know, just look how people are positioning themselves. Look how the
positions are shifting. Look at look at General Wolson from the Space Force Synday
for instance, saying that UAP are basically you bit aquitous and saying that we
need internashup operations stuff, Space Force sort of never said that a year ago.
Kurson Giller brand wol never appeared on your show a year ago. So
I think positions are shifting on this, and like I've said before, I
think some major revelations coming down the line and people preparing for thoughts. I
completely agree, and again, thank you, thank you both for the for
the kind kind kind thoughts I mentioned. Uh I mentioned at the top of
this, I said, probably gonna be fifty percent are going to love this
interview, and then the other fifty percent will be why didn't you ask this?
Why didn't you ask that? And I certainly understand that frustration. I
would have liked to have had asked some more pressing questions, but again we
were being very careful in um and putting forth questions that we knew she would
be able to address, so it wouldn't be a lot of no comment,
no comment, no comment. We wanted to get as much information out of
her as as possible. Now, when we asked about about arrow and we
asked, you know, when she mandated it, what was the reaction from
the Pentagon, she seemed a bit tickled about that. About that you know,
she noticed or noted sorry that the Pentagon quickly set up their own office,
and with Arrow, she wanted to create something transparent and accountable that has
a public facing aspect, creating public reports, and that would destigmatize UAP topic.
She also noted that with the Chinese balloon situation that we were completely asleep
at the switch, which seemed to certainly be the case. Uh And and
she said that you know that our sensors are not calibrated to catch some of
these things. Now. Out of that, out of her reply to this
particular answer, what I thought was interesting were some of the statistics that she
pointed out. She stated that three hundred and this was under Arrow, three
hundred and sixty six cases were studied over a twenty year period, which that
that I wasn't aware of that it was going that far back. She said,
one hundred and fifty were orbs or balloons, about two dozen were drones.
And since since since this particular since they started looking into it, they've
had six hundred and fifty more cases. One hundred and seventy one are still
unknown. My question to you is, you know, obviously balloons and things,
drones, whatnot. That's all explainable, but her using the term ORB,
I think that's pretty significant. ORB. When I think of ORB,
I don't think of anything prosaic in terms of a balloon, a drone,
swamp gas, a seagull, whatever, or by feel is a pretty specific
thing. And for one hundred and fifty of them to be orbs or balloon
like objects, I think that was a pretty significant admission. She said,
there any of what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, absolutely, I
completely agree. I mean she kind of almost brushed over it like it was
nothing. It was like, yeah, one hundred and fifty from the first
traunch of reports were orbs and balloon like objects. Well orbs, Yeah,
it's it's that's pretty substantial in balloon like objects. You know, what does
that actually mean? Well, we do know from the report that we had
in January of this year that when they were putting things into categories, and
you know, the balloon like entities was used, that they also clarified in
that report that just because they had categorized some of these cases, it doesn't
mean that they had confirmed or gotten to the bottom of what they were.
So, you know, these objects that are still in this one hundred and
fifty bracket could still relate to something anomalous. They're just trying to categorize them
even though there is still the unknown bin on top of that. So,
yeah, I was very surprised that that one she mentioned orbs and two that
it was kind of just brushed over slightly. Yeah. I and this kind
of goes back to the what I was saying earlier that you really have to
read between the lines with what politicians in officials are saying. They're they're very
careful in their wording and it's for a reason. So so moving on from
that, So, Chris, let's talk about the whistle Blower Protection and the
National Defense Authorization Act. Why was that put in place? And I believe
that was one of the first two clauses in the NDAA. Correct, that's
correct. I would have to look through the NDAA myself just to make sure,
but it was certainly in there, and it refers to understanding, refers
to retrievals and back engineering and stuff like that. Look, we're not reverse
engineer. We're not talking about reverse engineering drones from Russia being used currently in
Ukraine. We're not talking about this. We're talking about reverse engineering of potential
non human intelligence. That is literally what we're talking about. So when you
guys having a discussion, you know about whistleblowers, this is true what we're
referring to. It's already come out. People like to help put off come
out, for instance, saying that they've actually come forward spoken to Kirkpatrick.
Others have as well, And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some very
very high ranking people who have spoken to the Congress that haven't spoken to Kirkpatrick
in the Arrow yet. And it's very, very shocking to me that because
the law hasn't been implemented, that she is actually going up to you and
saying they should contact my office. I mean, this is literally why the
Arrow exists, so they could deal with this stuff. But I mean,
I'll give Kirkpatrick the benefit of the doubt because they don't have a big budget,
they have a lack of funding, they have a lack of resource.
You know, perhaps she's saying, look, we realize that Kirkpatrick, we're
going to help you out. Because look, the Congress and Senators in particular
actually have the powers. They have some pepner power. They can do investigations,
so they actually probably could argue that they have more power than Kirkpatrick who
actually instigate these whistleblower plains about such special access programs that have not properly been
reported and clearly reported to the Congress like they should be. Um. So
I think that's that's that's a major thing that that you are actually hearing here.
So um yeah, bravo. Yeah, I would agree. And and
moving forward to the to the next question that we asked. You know,
we mentioned a sen Senator jail Brand that sources have reached out to us and
told us that they still fear retaliation regardless of the fact that this legislation is
in place. And I asked her whether it surprised her that these whistleblowers were
still fearful and uh, and she said no. And as you just mentioned,
Chris, she said that folks need to directly contact her office, which
is very very significant. Vinnie, would what was your thought, what was
tongue tied today? What were your thoughts on her response to that? I
mean, I'm not really surprised, and I think it's important as well that
whistleblowers are going to be cautious about coming forward. You know, it's a
big deal. And how can they really be given the clarification that there's not
going to be further down the line some kind of repercussions. And you know,
it's great that Senator Jella Brand is willing to offer the direct direct access
to her office. I was very surprised that she released the email address publicly
here because I just know what some people are like, and they're just going
to be bombarding her with all sorts of you know this and that. But
you know, it just shows the transparency that she's talked about and the fact
that she said that whistleblowers can also let them know or let her know what
amendments need to be added for the Defense Authorization Act going into the next year
for twenty twenty four. So you know, so you know, she's willing
to not only receive testimony from these witnesses, but then for them to also
help put into place what would be needed going forward to really, uh,
you know, secure that trust that they're not going to have any reprisals if
they do testify. Another interesting response I thought was, you know, I
asked her in this question, is for you Christopher? You know, I
asked. She noted that in one of her responses that that they're going to
have a public facing website soon where people can meet, people can upload data,
photographs, all that sort of thing videos, And she also said that
she's going to get to the bottom of why this hasn't been done yet.
And this is this is something where again I'm very critical of of of both
Arrow and ousd I n S. It's if if I were in charge of
a program, so let's say Ronald Moultrie that their number one mission was to
bring in whistleblowers and bring in data, the first thing out of the gate
I would do is have a website up in no time flat. And that's
really puzzled me as to why it has taken that long for this to happen.
Chris, what do you what do you know about all of that?
I know that that that's something that I clearly she's wanting to know why it's
taken this long for for anything to happen. Also, in addition to that,
there has been literally zero engagement on the Aero Twitter website, which just
blows my mind. Patrick said it himself. He's a scientist, he's not
a communications expert um. And he's having also to deal with multiple amounts of
within the DAD, within the intelligence community as well. Look, um,
let's give him in a benefit of the doubt. Again, he said that
he actually um put forward a proposal. I think it must have been to
the to the d and I see, although I still need to confirm who
he actually submitted it to, that he submitted something that's say, a website
proposal before Christmas and it's not got there yet. And I would say certain
people would question whether he's pushed that enough in terms of from from understanding,
he is too star he can do something pushed that through if he wanted to.
But look, I think it was made very very clear from the hearing
that he's very very much into the science. But I would argue, this
is great because you want communication, you want transparency, and this website will
accomplish that. Fantastic but very very good sources of mine, who I trust,
multiple sources now are coming at me saying that we have special access programs
dealing with captured and reverse engineering craft which appears to be from non human intelligence.
This is not science. This is an investigation, an investigation, you
know, boots on the ground, taking down doors, getting to the bottom
of what's happening, and I think that's needed. We need someone like Lua
Lasondo or j Stratton in there basically giving zero fs and basically just going all
in and you know, making a big racquet to ensure that the information is
getting through to both the public and Congress as well. That that that's so
important. But also I would ask as well that you know, we have
the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, we have the Natural Comms Office, we have
Space Command Space Force that they must be collecting data, so I mean it's
getting into those agents as well. We have the former DNI John Rackliff going
on foction. It is basically saying that these things are being seen by satellites.
By the way, it was most likely got him into trouble. So
look, why are we relying for spy drone footage when we we think they
must be capturing these on satellites as well, And if sources are corrective,
then they're coming from space. This nature exists, it's just getting access to
it. And that's also the same as well with these special access programs.
And I think patients is running really reefin here. I think it really really
has I mean, bureaucracy is running its course and this isn't a priority despite
the fact, by the way that some UAP, because we're talking about unidentified
craft, they could be Chinese, they could be Russian in origin. I
mean, if these punks aren't taking it seriously, you know, if I'm
China, if I'm Russia, I just create something that looks like a UAP
that they usually take seriously. You know, surprise attap there because they clearly
don't care. So you've got yourself. You know, it doesn't matter how
much money that you're spending in the defense budget each year in America. If
you don't have people on the ball here in terms of being aware of what's
going on, making sure that all the gaps that plugged in that then you're
in serious trouble. And despite all the rat coming out from Multuary, from
Lloyd Austin and others, they obviously don't care because the funding still wasn't there.
It's not being prioritized, Okay, So I mean that's one issue as
well. So it really really is frustrating. I wouldn't be surprised that if
more stuff starts getting leaked in the next few months and stuff starts coming out,
because I think really the frustrations building here, and I don't think it's
good enough anymore. And even I'm running out of patients now, you know,
so I think we need to make some progress. Yeah, I think
everyone's everyone's really running out of patients. And sorry, I only just bring
up one note. So you know you were talking about crash retrieval programs.
We've heard this as well from multiple people in d D I see. And
then on top of that, doctor Gary Nolan has has it said it himself
that these do exist? Then he what what what's your what's your thinking on
all of that? And what Chris was just talking about? You're about to
say something before I interrupted. Yeah, something that I've mentioned previously when when
I was spoken to Hi Matt, is that if Dotor Kirkpatrick is not running
under the title fifty authorities and he's hearing witness testimony from whistleblowers, how is
he able to go and verify that information if he doesn't have access to the
relevant agencies, the relevant special access programs wherever they may lie. You know.
Even recently, Senator Jellabrand was in her Senate Armed Services Committee meeting where
she raised the issue of collaboration with General Anthony Cotton of Stratcom, and he
did sort of reiterate that Stratcom and the other co commands were talking with Arrow.
But to what degree is Dotor Kirkpatrick getting this information which can then be
relaid onto Senator Jellabrand and others? You know, is there sort of bottlenecking
and stovepiping and all these things happening that you know, it's just not running
enough to go anywhere. You know, there are so many frustrations that we've
seen and heard about publicly and from various sources. So you know, this
is still early days, and with all the frustrations, we're not likely to
get anything, you know, just thrown at us these big answers straight away.
So you know, I think it's just a case of just keeping the
pressure applied and seeing where this goes. I totally come back. I come
back that quickly. I would say, why did it take appearing for him
to request the authority titled fifty authority to actually have that? Why has it
taken that long to actually request that? And also I questioned something else as
well, in terms of the testament taken taken by Kirkpatrick. It was referenced
in the recent letter from the sentences Warner and Rubio that they want regular reporting
to be kept updated. What the test what the testa mey of what the
content of the testament taken from the whistleblowers was so reason behind between the lines
here that is telling me that information which is important isn't getting through to the
Compress some time, or isn't being reported at all currently by Kirkpatrick. Is
why would they even mention that in a letter. I would argue at this
point, when it actually comes down to whistleblow testimony and actually getting to the
bottom of potential SAPs, I would say that arrows potentially redundant because senators have
more powers, I would argue to actually get to the bottom of this.
And I think, like I said before, I think you could argue that
the Arrow and kirk Patrick potentially being boxed in because all these whistleblowers have already
spoken to Congress. They spoken to Congress, which is why the intentionals Authorization
contained the initial the initial language whistleblowers. They've already spoken to Congress. So
what's happens. They're going to Congress, They're having conversations of Congress, giving
all the testimony, and then they're going to Kurt Patrick. Sometimes kirk Patrick
may not even be aware that these people were spoken to Congress beforehand. And
then what the Congress is doing is there exchanging notes? Okay, what did
the testimony say when they spoke to us? And what is kirk Patrick telling
us? So I think I think to an extent, you could argue that
being boosed in And I mean my dream scenari would be to have a chech
making thought two where really we lay all this bear in terms of the olfuscation
coming from the dad And it's just yeah, so I'm getting bravery straight.
I need a cup of tea. I totally understand. I mean I would,
I would completely agree with this. I to me and my perception,
it seems that Ronald Moultrie and these folks were purposely hamstringing Arrow, laying impediments
in their path to make it almost impossible for him to do the job.
And again the title ten, title fifty thing. And I think that that
is probably one of the reasons why Senator Jill Brandon her interview, encouraged folks
to come directly to her. She has more legal authority than Arrow. And
again, this is all kind of borne out of my opinion, an attempt
by the DoD to make Arrow as least efficient as possible and make it impossible
for doctor Kirkpatrick to do his job. Now, having said that, I've
also been very critical of him. I've you know, I'm trying to give
him the benefit of the doubt. But you know, as you mentioned earlier,
he's like an SCS two, almost like a two star general. If
I would think he would be able to pick up the phone and within a
one month period have a front facing website, but if he if he's being
hamstrung by not having the money to do this, and this goes back to
the earlier part, it just blows me away that they did not get the
funding that Senator Jillibrand and these other senators spoke about. And I want to
kind of jump off a little bit. You you mentioned this um, you
mentioned this letter that was sent to Secretary of Defense Lay Austin. This letter
was dated on April twenty seventh, and I believe this became public the following
day, and the letters to the Honorable Lloyd J. Austin, Secretary of
US Department of Defense, and the Honorable AVRILD Haynes, Director of National Intelligence,
and this letter is from US Democrat Senator Mark Warner and Republican Senator Marco
Rubio, Warner being the chairman of the what is this intelligence I'm not sure
what department, this, what committee this came out of, but I want
to touch on a few of the things here. And again, this goes
back to the obfuscation that elements of the DoD and the intelligence community have done
for literally decades. And well, after we cover this, well we'll go
back to what I asked Senator Gillibrand about the these gate keepers that are clearly
doing what they can to hide all of this from the American public. And
sorry, I'm gonna jump take another left turn here. One thing to keep
in mind is who is who in the d D is going to hide balloons
or quad copters or anything like that. I mean, obviously specifics, but
to go to the extent of ruining people's careers and engaging in administrative terrorism.
There the d D or the IC. They're not going to do this over
some kind of prosaic thing. There's obviously something non prosaic that they are trying
to protect. Anyway, I know I jump around a bit, but let's
let's talk about the bullet points in this letter. So one of the things
he says in here, the senators say, the FY twenty three NDAA requires
the Director of Arrow, doctor who would be doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, to report
directly to the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence PDD. And I we know
they love their acronyms and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Despite assurances that there
is a proposed plan to implement this change and in reporting in circulation, we
have yet to see any final guidance issue issued. We request that you provided
us provide us an update on the proposed plan, including the timeline for issuance
in the final final guidance. Chris, what what? What are they talking
about here? Specifically, is this about moving Arrow out from under of ousd
ion s? Yes, Yes, that's that's that's correct. So basically that
they're now going to report or Kirkpatrick is directly going to report to UM,
the principle UM Deputy Directive Natural in turgents. So I think Daisy Dixon and
Deputy circum Defense Happing Hicks. So you know that that was a really really
big deal getting this thing moved out of OSD and I I s and multual
basically I think that any reporting to him now for minor things something it's like
hr issue and things like that. But otherwise they're reporting Tom too very very
superior figures and more superior to more severe superior than Moultrie as well. Now,
so um yeah, so yeah, they're they're basically asking and this is
the chair and vice share of the Intelligence Committee, and they're basically asking,
what why has this not been implemented yet? And I also I'll add another
thing as well with that, at least Lloyd Austin serves within the National Security
Council were in the White House, and we know that the National Security Council
was set up its own up interagency team. Now, so one wonders what's
going on with that, whether there is something else happening behind the scenes here
in terms of control over the UAP issue with the White House versus the Congress
on this. So perhaps you have a situation where Moultrie Andes, who actually
previously seams much more open to being transpired in this topic, maybe you have
a situation now where they're reporting Darky to Biden's team on this, and they
tried to make some progress, and in the meantime that they're basically ignoring the
Congress. I don't know the riction there between the Congress and the White House,
definitely for sure. And let's we'll go through a little bit further on
this on this letter. So one of the things, another bullet point here
FY twenty three DAA specified that the Director of National Intelligence will which is Avril
Haynes, will appoint a deputy Director of ARROW from the intelligence community. However,
to date a deputy director has not been identified. This Deputy Director of
ARROW is intended to be the focal point for IC integration and to be fully
empowered by the PDD and I to to convene the IC on the UAP issue.
We ask that you update update us on the timeline. So again another
position was supposed to be filled, and the Pentagon is in my view,
purposely dragging their feet trying to torpedo this whole thing. Now, this gets
into some more interesting things here at last few points which we touched on a
little bit earlier. So the third bullet point on this letter to Secretary Austin
and Director Haynes, the FY twenty three n da A established a secure process
for ARROW to interview witnesses. We are pleased with the number of interviews Arrow
has conducted, but ask Congress be regularly informed about the content of the interviews
going forward. I mean that's significant. That's basically saying that that Arrow has
not been telling Congress what these whistleblowers have been telling them. And then and
then you have then you have doctor Kirkpatrick kind of glassing over the whole thing
in the Senate hearing that the recent Senate hearing on Arrow. Yeah, Vinny,
what do you think about that? I mean that that's for them to
have to specify. Hey, Arrow, tell us about what these whistleblowers have
been telling you that. I don't know what to think about that. But
it's not good. No, it's not good at all. I mean,
you've got two members of the Gang of Eight here, people who have extreme
amounts of power to be able to do something with this information. And if
they're not getting it, how can they act? You know? So,
Yeah, if they need to be kept in the loop with what is reported
by the whistle bowers to Arrow, you know, there's got to be some
streamline or structured way for this to be a regular thing so that the information
flows you know. But again, this is just another example of how things
are just slowed down and not happening as per the NDAA, Like the previous
point about the icy integration for the Deputy Director, that again, we're now
in May, and we still have many parts of the legislation that have not
been implemented, and it's just not acceptable. It's absolutely not acceptable, and
it completely flies in the face of Congressional intent. And in a way,
it's it's sort of giving the middle finger to Senator Jill Brand and the other
senators that they don't care what they're legislating, which that's not how a democracy
works for sure. Another point here. The FY twenty three NDAA also directed
Arrow to stand up a secure public facing website or communication mechanism to outline the
secure process for witnesses to come forward with relevant information. To date, we
have seen no efforts to Amy to communicate the existence of the secure process to
the public. We request that you provide an update on the plan to publicize
the secure process for witnesses to come forward. So these whistleblowers that have come
forward, they essentially have gone to members of Congress and then and then these
members of Congress have then you know, sent them over to Arrow. You
need to call this person. And we understand that some of these interviews have
taken place in person in a secure facility. Others have been done over the
telephone under a secure phone means. But yeah, I just again, I
just essentially a two star general that cannot find a way to make all of
this happen. I just don't understand it. And here's the other thing too.
If if I were doctor Kirkpatrick and all of this were mandated, and
maybe he has done this, but if I were being stopped at every turn,
I would immediately go to Congress and say, look, these guys aren't
letting me do my job. So I just don't understand it. And then
finally they say, we have not seen an aero strategic communication strategy. ERRO
established a Twitter presence in July twenty twenty two, but has yet to post
anything further despite attracting over thirty one thousand followers. This highlights the lack of
communication and transparency with the public. We seek to understand why ARROW has not
made use of its social media presence and the future plan for educating the public
on the mission and findings of ARROW again, same thing. That Twitter page
has been up for how long and absolutely no post whatsoever. To me,
that's just unexcusable. And the other thing I would I would say as well,
if I were standing up an office and I were the director of that
office, doctor Kirkpatrick, I would say, the number two person, the
number the actually probably the first hire I would make would be a communications director,
because your office is only going to be as successful as you're able to
communicate your mission. And yeah, so you know, I'm very frustrated by
that, Chris, am I being overly frustrated by that. No, No,
So I think that Kirpatrick would disagree with you, because he's very much
into the science. Seems like, let me just do my job. He's
probably get into a room analyze the cases basically, although I don't know how
you effectually does that without a depty director from the intelligence community, because I
remember, with the intelligence community, then you've got access to the National Security
Agency, the n RO, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. So how are you
going to work out all these cases just with a video basically using Mickwest techniques
unless you can actually have the full data. For instance, let's look at
the West coast events to happen recently, it's still not knowing where these things
came from. So I spoke to Susan Goff a few months ago and she
told me that they're investigating, UM those cases as part of that UM.
So that that that's really big. And I think with some of these cases
you can't positively be identified them unless you know who they came, where they
came from, and who these operators are. Those are basic things and we're
yeah, and what you just said in terms of communications, UM director,
Yeah, that that is that is so important. I think that, you
know, it would be great to have a communication strategy in terms of this,
in actually providing monthly updates how the progress has gone UM and if there
are any holdups or anything like that, just just communicate them. I think
if we're honest, you know, UM, then people would understand that.
And if Kirkpatrick had said before, for instance, that I need the proper
authorities to actually do my vision instead of having to wait until a public hearing
to do that, then we would have understood that. You know. So
communication is very very much key to this, and I'm very disappointed so far
about how it's gold. I would agree, And again this comes back to
my frustration with doctor Kirkpatrick. Maybe he's not the man for the job.
The director of an office, what's on a topic that this is important.
If you don't have a front facing public web page, you're not responding on
Twitter, you have no communication strategy, you're not you're not communicating to Congress
what these whistleblowers have been saying. And then you go in front of a
hearing and, in my opinion, blow off what these whistleblowers have been telling
me. I don't know. I mean, again, I'm trying to give
him the benefit of the doubt, but everything that I'm hearing so far says
to me he is not the man for the job. He may be a
great scientist and all of that, but you usually don't have scientists running this
kind of program. You would have somebody from the intelligence community that's that's going
to be open to it, and not. It's just it makes makes no
sense. So let's jump it back into the into the interview. One of
the last questions that I asked was what would she say to the gatekeepers that
have kept this secret? And she noted that, you know, we obviously
cannot have Chinese balloons, but said that it's it's not the job of the
gatekeepers to whether to level with the public. This, I think is another
really important statement that if you read between the lines, she is not,
in my opinion, is not talking about prosaic explanations. It just it makes
no sense to me, Uh, she's talking about orbs, things that are
not from here. Otherwise, why would these gatekeepers go to such lengths to
hide this and retaliate against blowers and all of that. Chris, what do
you think am I reading between the lines here too much? Or is do
you think that may have been what she where she was going with that?
No, you're not at all. You have to read between the lines with
politicians. Anyone who's a political out there, watches all the politics and who's
involved in politics. They realize that you have to read between the lines when
these kinds of statements made, especially with someone who could literally be put in
jail if they say too much because they're being they're being given class by materials
to work with. So I would say, you're right at the money there,
and I think I think she realizes and it's been made very very clear
to me that you brand knows and other members of the Congress Provydaday to realize
isn't from here, it's from somewhere else. They know that they know that
already. Um. I mean, and all those people that doubt them that
they sell you know, it's just lou Alisondo and this is just Chris Nellen.
They have no idea what they're talking about, no idea. I wonder
if let me see, I don't even think they've got a brain cell between
them, to be fair, because you've got John Racliffe. I know for
a fact that none of them know John Racliff. I don't I doubt Lui
Asondo or Chris Mallen have ever met John Racliffe in her life. But they're
both singing from their Sami hymn sheet. So others who are actually been privy
to this stature as well, they're all singing from the same hymn sheet.
I mean, unless who Alizondo has you know, telepathic powers and can like
or she do things. Um, even though he doesn't know you and I
don't know, it seems it seems very very unlikely that you know, it's
a one man mission to deceive everyone, right, I mean, we're talking
about serious, serious, you know, serious, a serious topic here and
a serious politician terms of um, Senator Giller brand Um. And I think
again, people just need to get real about this whole thing, you know,
instead of just being childish really and being ecocentric. So um, yeah,
I think I think progress is being made. She knows what she's talking
about, and you'll be right to read between the lines. So so,
Vinny, our final question to her was on legal amnesty. We asked,
should there be legal amnesty for folks that have hidden this from the public?
And I don't think she really she may not have understood exactly what I meant
by that, And of course what I meant by that were the people that
have have for decades hidden this from the American public, destroyed careers, destroyed
lives over this. And and may these these NGOs or non elected officials that
have decided on behest of all of us that you guys don't need to know
about this stuff. And again, this goes back decades before quad copts or
anything like that. So, Vinny, do you think she misunderstood the question
or do you think she was just being careful? And how how she answered
that? It's hard to say and I wouldn't like to speculate too much,
but I think she didn't look at it one hundred percent how it should have
been answered. You know, we need to and this is a conversation that
has been happening for a couple of years now that these people that have been
withholding this information from us. How much do we focus on letting them off,
like give us the information and we'll kind of let you off to a
degree, And then how much do we focus on punishing? I suppose this
is the only really word you know, this is kind of maybe could be
defined in some ways as criminal for what they've done in the past. So
which part of that do we focus on. Do we focus on just getting
the information and forgetting about all of what they've been withholding, or do we
really you put it to them? So yeah, I mean I don't think
she really focused on that. I think she was still sort of down that
whistleblower sort of a line of questioning. So again I don't want to speculate,
of course, of course, Chris, what do you think? Um?
Sorry, So you know, when we were asking her about whether there
should be amnesty extended to the folks that are being engaged in covering this up
for decades, because, as as Venie noted, they're most likely and I
am one hundred percent in agreement, there was likely criminal activity that took place.
What do you think it is? Do you think it was kind of
a misunderstanding of the question and we're actually scrapped out? Do you think that
there should be amnesty for these whistleblowers and as a mechanism to encourage these folks
to come forward and spill the beans. That shouldn't be just amnesty for whistleblowers.
There should be amnesty for arias based companies. That's where this needs to
go. I mean, if you want to if you want to get to
these programs, if you want to access to them, especially if they being
ciphered up two aerospace companies and Congress has no way of getting to them,
or at least it would take years or decades or even get through these processes.
You need adymnesty from them, and I don't, to be perfectly honest
with you, I think that I think I would just m I'll come back
in two years maybe and I'll be able to talk further detail about this,
But I think, yeah, keep keep asking that question. In terms of
aerospace companies and keep on thinking about how we got to this right stage we're
in at the MAD I totally agree. Okay, let's get to some listener
questions. Everyone has been super patient with their with their questions. Let's see
here. So a question from Nick M question from the chat. Who has
been retaliated against? And how will the retaliators be punished? So I can
what I can share is that I spoken with UM with whistleblowers that have experienced
a significant amount of retaliation from different elements. UM. It's not something I
can comment on, but it is, it has happened. The retaliation is
significant, and it has occurred even in spite of this legislation. And this
is something that we are going to be communicating directly with Senator Jill Brand's office
about these cases that we are aware of. UM, So, Chris or
Vinny, and also for any questions here in the chat, if you have
anything, any question specifically for Vinny or Chris, just say so, Vinny
and Chris, any thoughts on that or anything that you would like to share
in terms of what kind of retaliation has taken place that you can speak about.
I mean, it's happened on all levels, doesn't It's happened within the
Armed services when it comes to pilots and service personnel, even reporting this kind
of thing that's been pushed back, you know, and this goes right up
to the highest level. So other than adding that to what you already said,
you know, it's been happening for a long time and on all levels,
Chris, I would say that you have to get you have to get
as much as some really really horrible stuff has happened, and you're dealing with
trained hillers a lot of the time, but making these threats, I would
say that once truth comes out, you need you need to get beyond that,
because we may be dealing with some more concerning things in terms of the
activities from some UAP which seems to be prepping the battlefield. So I think
that the concern needs to be placed elsewhere, which is perhaps why some of
these people don't want the information out. Perhaps perhaps these people are just good
patriots and American patriots. Sorry but sorry, no, no problem. Yeah,
I completely agree. And what I will say about that retaliation, I
would classify it as administrative terrorism. That is the best way to describe what
these these men and women in uniform of experience. It's just it's just crazy.
Okay, super super chat question here. I keep hearing there are military
and intelligence people that will be coming forward in twenty twenty three with huge revelations.
What are your sources saying, Vine, I'll throw that throw that to
you first. Well, you know we did. We've been hearing about this
for some time from multiple people publicly and from sources as well. And you
know, I think these people have come forward, but they are coming forward
and classified settings, so we will not be hearing that information anytime soon.
But you know, from what I've heard, and I know from you know,
having conversations with other people that they've also been told that this information is
getting brought forward. But again it's not something that's likely to become public.
Agree, Chris, I know you're you're having having to deal with your son
popping into the into the Christopher Sharp studio there. So the question was if
he didn't hear it was this was a super chat question. I keep hearing
that there are military and intelligence people that are will be coming forward in twenty
twenty three with huge revelations. What are your sources saying? My sources have
to be very big careful with me because I'm a journalist. But I would
say, in answer to the proper of the battlefield question, these things been
here for a long time. What are you talking about? What we're dealing
with the entire university. When people say, oh, UFOs are just one
entity, it's like the universe is a pretty big place, you know,
like they're not just coming from one civilization. I mean, it's just a
little bit simplistic here. I mean, Earth's complicated enough, and we're just
one planet. I mean, seems a little bit simple. I don't know,
but yeah, I would say, I Oh, I'm hearing his chatter
from multiple multiple sources on this that there are gonna be some big revelations.
I don't know exactly what they would be, but I'm expecting some big things.
I can't comment whether they are going to be game changing things, but
I'm here wearing their big But let's just wait until they come out to see
how much of a game changer they actually are. But all I can say
is that we're not just dealing with you know, two Star Freestar here,
within the within the Pentagon. We're dealing with like some very really big players
that we've had directors of the former directors the CIA comment on UAP before.
Look, a lot of senior people know about this, so I would hope
that someone very very senior does come forward to actually kind of make more of
a wave in terms of UAP because of their name in their states. And
so yeah, that's that would be my hope anyway. But no one,
no one, no one ain't telling me anything. So yeah, what I
can share is what have been what has been shared with me. The extent
of what I can say is that some very significant things will becoming forward,
very very very very significant, and I think hopefully by the end of the
summer we will be having a very different conversation. Okay, moving moving on
here. So I'll throw this to Vinny. What if bad actors, what
if bad actors are in Arrow, how can whistleblowers trust them? It's a
very good question. It's a very good question. Indeed, I don't know.
I mean, we hear that these people may be interviewed by Dr Kirkpatrick.
I don't know if there's any other people within Arrow that they're talking to.
I really don't know. I mean, even if Dr Kirkpatrick is a
bad actor, he's still got a job to do, and he's still got
a report to the relevant people, and if, you know, if he's
not doing his job, there'll be repercussions. So I think there's only so
much you can obvious skate and hide when you're in such a such a job.
So, you know, I like to think that no matter what happens,
no matter what stone Walling's going on, that things will still you know,
slip through the net. And you know, even the delays and the
slow movement of this office getting up and running in the first this year,
I'd like to think that eventually something will happen, and if it doesn't,
then Congress and the powers that be will have to kind of reassess the whole
thing. Where do they go from here? Do they scrap Arrow completely?
Does an office need to be set up in the executive Branch that reports much
higher up to almost to the White House? You know, there are many
ways that this can sort of change in the next six to twelve months,
and I think, you know, maybe we'll see that happen. I certainly
hope. So another question specifically for you, Vinny, do you feel good
about her attitude and stance and her being Senator Jill brand in that interview.
Yes, she's given me absolutely no reason to think particularly negative of her.
I know she was very cautious in the way that she answered questions. That's
to be expected. There's no surprise there for me whatsoever. And again,
let's just see how this plays out. You know, we saw in the
hearing that I felt there should have been some follow up questions from the Senator
to doctor Kirkpatrick. But again, we don't always get what we want and
think, you know, as someone watching from cozy front rooms at home,
that maybe we would have done this, we would have done that. So
you know, I give her the benefit of the doubt on some things,
and you know, let's see how this plays out. I know people will
get very impatient and they want the answers yesterday. But you know, as
someone who follows this on a daily basis, you know, I see where
this is going and I think we can remain somewhat positive. I agree,
Chris, Chris. Do you think we will see Eric Davis, Admiral Wilson,
or Bob Lazar testify in public? I know there have been rumors of
possible house hearings this June you think we might see folks like them, or
even like Blue El Losandoor or other other folks that have been involved in this
topic. Oops, I'll throw that to Viny. I think you your mics
off there, Chris, Personally, I don't think we're going to see any
of those faces. I think there are so many more people within the intelligence
community, people within higher positions in the government as well, that are probably
more likely to be called first. I think, you know, further down
the line, we may start seeing the likes of people who worked in previous
programs that this summer. If we were to see lou or Eric Davis and
that, I'd be very surprised. But that's just my opinions I can answer.
Now. Sorry, my little boy was like, apologies for that,
but yeah, I would say that notes being taken. I would I wouldn't
suggest that a date has been put in place at moment. I say it's
very much a process still ongoing in terms of getting it all prepared. In
terms of the hearing again, I will use the language that is the intent
forum for Burchette to actually hold hearings within the OS like committee in one of
those subcommittees, perhaps I would say that we're probably watching closely what happened in
the recent Senate hearing as well and learning lessons and taking on board the feedback
from the community especially. Um but I think that we're in we're in very
very safe hands, and I think that once this is all done and over,
I think we've learned the full extent in terms of what's gone on behind
the scenes and getting the hearing. If it happens in motion, I think
I think it's going to be really really big. Actually, I would note
as well, the Representative Lunar is in that back committee, and she's former
US Air Force and she's not exactly the biggest fan of the US Air Force
either. UM, So I expect some fireworks to potentially take place. I
agree. I am very much looking forward to it. And yeah, I
think I think by the summer we're gonna By the end of the summer,
I would say we'll be having a different conversation. And I also want to
bring up to one one credit. One criticism I've heard Mickwest bring up is
that these senators staffers have have just kind of bullshitted their way with their senators
and their Congressmen, and these sort of I guess I don't know if they
consider them UFO enthusiast staffers have completely fooled the senators or congress people into putting
forth all this legislation. They just they just completely fell for some charade.
I there is no more assinine argument. I mean, vic West makes tons
of them, we know that. But there's no more asinine argument than that.
I can tell you from extensive conversations that I've had with multiple, multiple
staffers that work for these congressmen and senators. And you have to keep in
mind, these these aren't staffers that are just bringing coffee or something like that.
These are these are staffers that hold very high security clearances, staffers that
specialize in the intelligence community and community, or the DoD community. These staffers
are they number one. They're working their asses off for the people in this
country and really the world when it comes to this topic. They are very
well informed on this topic, and they have to be because they are the
ones that are going to these senators and saying you need you need to legislate
on this particular issue. This is the evidence, and I guarantee you it's
not just balloons and drones that they are concerned about. We'll ask you a
question, of course, um has make quests or any of the other these
other people criticizing, have any of them when you're understanding of what in politics
before? So Mick West my understanding Mick West and this Jason guy and Colovido,
I don't know what it is. Or the guy in the basement,
Um, what's his name? Green Street. I don't believe they've ever worked
in politics, national security or anything like that. My personal belief is that
these folks are really just there to sow distrust and chaos. They're not They're
not bringing anything constructive to the conversation. Their soul, their soul thing is
to disrupt the conversation, you know. And the other thing you have to
ask yourself too, like why if let's say I were interested in let's say
I were interested in or not interested in snowboarding or something like that, I
wouldn't I would just move on to something else. I wouldn't spend all of
my time on it. Or let's say I didn't believe in the Lochness Monster,
I would say, Okay, I don't believe in the Lochness Monster,
and then I'd go out and have it be Or I wouldn't spend eight nine
ten hours a day running some debunking website with the sole purpose. It just
makes absolutely no sense. So that's again that's my personal opinion. A lot
of people may disagree with that, but yeah, took very long when died.
Way, I don't believe any of these folks A have ever interviewed a
sitting United States senator for one, or a congressman b I don't believe any
of them have ever had conversations with officials on Capitol Hill. I think they're
just they're just kind of armchair keyboard warriors doing whatever they're doing for a reason
I do not understand at all, absolutely based on that they provide zero ins
like to the conversation, zero value and be fair, they're just not worth
my time. You've got to be listening to people. Actually, do you
have insight? You know this cources involved who know people within the DAD intelligent
and politicians as well who have actually seen the classified data say multiple sources if
they're unconnected even better because they're not having conversations perhaps and they're all coming at
it from one way and they're say to clearly, what we're seeing is non
human intelligence. So I'd rather listen today's people than people like marriage for example,
who does actually have a little experience working in the Embama White House and
a game's development, or someone who clearly has psychological like many of them do.
So I wouldn't really give them any worry whatsoever or listen or take them
seriously. Right, They're irrelevant to the conversation. Well exactly. And look,
if I mean, let's say that I don't believe in the likeness monster.
Hey, if somebody wants to bring up and show some evidence about the
blackness monster being real, I'd say, okay, convince me otherwise. But
with these folks, it's a predetermined conclusion and their sole purpose in life as
he either clicks or maybe meeting performance metrics for Rupert Murdoch to keep yourself gainfully
employed at News Corp. Or I mean, who knows. I mean,
I have no idea what makes what makes these people tick. It's it's true,
truly a mystery. But they're not doing the country any favors at all,
and they do not They do not speak to multiple people in d od
Ice or elsewhere. I would be surprised if if they were. Okay,
final question here has Jillibrand ever addressed lack of US Air Force involvement. That
is actually a question I wish I would have asked it, because it is
a question that I've had for quite some time. I I don't know how
she would address it, but I think it's been very clear from folks like
Christopher Mellen, who was what a former Assistant under Secretary Defense or Intelligence,
that the Air Force has not been cooperating at all. U Again, this
is a democracy. These folks work for us. It's not the other way
around, and it's not for them to decide if they want to play by
the rules or if they want to follow the law. That's not what this
country was built on. So um, Yeah, it's my guess is that
the Air Force has a lot to hide and has a lot of legal exposure
for what they've done over the past eighty years. And the other the other
issue as well, which I've spoken about quite a bit. You know,
there have been many people that were former US Air Force nuclear launch control officers,
above ground police police officers at Mintman nuclear missile squadrons that had UAP experiences
either above ground where they encountered these craft above missile silos, or having if
they were launched control officer having UAP disable their their Minuteman fly to missiles which
fled is ten ICBMs. These these cases are documented. Uh, these people
have testified, multiple people have testified to Arrow under oath that these things occurred
under oath under the penalty of perjury. Um, these folks have have testified.
And UM, I am quite sure that is one of the main reasons
that the Air Force is looking the other way and trying to obfuse, skate
and lie about it. Um. Yeah. And and kind of one thing
we'll we'll sort of close on before before we end here. These whistleblowers,
they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward with their stories.
These are men and women, patriots that have served our country and put
their lives on the line for us. And we owe it to them to
listen to them and respect their testimony. And Arrow owes it to Congress to
tell their report. These whistleblower stories up the chain up to Congress to ignore
them and sort of blow them off, which is how I took Senator Kirkpatrick's
response, I think really flies in the face of the congressional intent. Chris
Any thoughts on that. Yeah, I'm very very confident that he has blown
them off. I'm very confident in some cases that he hasn't taken. And
I say, I don't just say that, I sincerely believe that in some
instances he's perhaps pretended to take compuriously but then behind their backs kind of blown
them off basically and said, actually, I think they were at all believable
at all. So I don't. Yeah, I think at least some cases
is when that has happened. But all I would say is that in cases
like this, it takes an investigator, sometimes not a scientist, to actually
verify and validate what to day to the relevant offices and agencies before doing before
kind of like making conclusions. And all I can say is that I think
that I think that it's very very telling from the recent Warner and Rubio letter
that they feel that certain details aren't to them. And like I said,
these whistleblowers have all come to the Congress before they've gone to Kirt Patrick's,
so they're basically they've got them say know what they've said, So they're exchanging
boots between what they've taken down from the testimony and what Kirt Patrick's told them.
So, Yeah, I think of a certain extent, I think the
DoD in general and arrow of being boxed in. I don't want to be
too unaffair to short cut back trick. He's a scientist. I think he
needs more support there. I think he do need those investigators in there.
At the same time, I think he needs that person from the intelligence community
assisting him as well to make sure that he gets that data that he needs.
And he needs the authorization as world for this data from Natural Constant Constants
Office NGA and other places that will have the data to actually help assist him
get to the bottom of live case, but also get him to the bottom
of potential illegal SAPs as well. Yeah, and that's where this whole Title
fifty thing comes in. If if Kirkpatrick is being told about a unacknowledged special
access program that has retrieved off world retrieved sorry, retrieved intact off world vehicles,
let's say, theoretically, and he does not have Title fifty to go
digging into those SAPs. He's hamstrung. How Ever, Senator Jilla Brand and
these senators, they do have that authority to look into those SAPs and everything
that I'm hearing is that there are quite a few people with that data that
have either come forward or or are coming forward. And also speaking about coming
forward, I would say what has been shared with me by several whistleblowers is
a almost a deflation, a frustration in almost I would say, an anger
in a way as to how their testimony has been taken and treated. And
I think that was a perception and how doctor Kirkpatrick seemed to gloss over what
they have really gone out of their way and put their butts on the line
to do that. My hope is with this news that Senator Jilla Brand wants
these folks to come directly to her office. Uh. I'm hoping that that
changes their attitude. We uh we we were told of specific reporting mechanisms to
relay to these whistleblowers by Senator Jill Brand's office, and we are going to
facilitate that communication and encourage these folks that we speak with um to come forward
to Senator Jill Brand's office. I would say somebody, somebody said this in
the in the chat earlier, and I think maybe the the maybe the chat
or that particular message was erased. Somebody postulated maybe Senator Jill Brand is part
of the cover up. I can tell you one hundred percent absolutely not.
In my conversations with with that office, I can, I can. You
can take this to the bank. She and others will go down in American
history books and they will be spoken about out for decades to come and what
they are doing for this country and what the sacrifices. I think that or
the risks I would say that they've taken politically to bring this topic out of
the shadows. We owe Senator Jilly Brand, Senator Rubio and others that are
supporting this effort a huge debt of gratitude. They are not part of the
cover up. They are working to uncover it. Uh. And this is
sort of like a big ball of yarn that's been wound over eighty years and
it's going to take some effort to um to yank it out un any sort
of Actually, what do you have coming up? I hear, I hear
you have a couple of really great guests coming up on your show. I
don't know who they are. I hope they're okay, Um, Yeah,
what do you have coming up? Yeah? So I am going to be
joined by yourself and another friend here Chris, Chris shup this Wednesday live on
my channel. But also more importantly is return of my amazing co host Katie
Howland. So between the four of us, we're going to have such a
wonderful conversation and I'm really looking forward to it. I am as well.
I have to say, as I've as I've said before, Vinny, you
you were you were the first person on the UAP topic I ever interviewed.
And in terms of nervousness, this interview with Senator Jilla Brand that was my
amp of nervousness was up at about eleven. But when when when I interviewed
you, I was about an eight or a nine. I was up there.
Yeah, you're you're You're a legend in this in this community. And
it was such an honor for you to give give me your time. Uh.
So we're always happy, happy, too happy to help Chris. How
about yourself other than this this party that we have coming up on Wednesday,
Uh, anything that you can speak about, I know oftentimes there's until it's
out in the open. Uh it's Mum's the word. Yeah, there's some
really cool stuff happening. It's set to be a very very boring summer.
I would just go on holiday, turn off your phone for the next six
months. Nothing going on here, But seriously, stay tuned. I think
we're going to have a really really good summer. And I would also look
towards the Excentations Authorization Acts and Nation Defense Authorization at language being published to expect
some more UAP language being there. And yeah, I'm expecting really really big
things. And Ny really looking forward to your show just so you've got some
great guests, and yeah, really really excited for that one. Yeah,
I'm very much looking forward to it, and we're just gonna we're gonna wrap
it up here. But anyway, thank you both for the generosity of your
time and your your very thoughtful input and analysis on this really really great topic.
We're very excited to have this interview. We're hoping to announce some equally
exciting interviews to come on the Good tra Double Show. So anyway, I'm
Matt, thanks for joining us. And Chris Sharp and Vinnie Adams, thank
you both from across the Pond, and we will chat with you soon.