Speaker 1: Everyone. I'm Matt Ford, and welcome to the Good Trouble Show.
I said I wouldn't do any more live shows, but
here we are once again, so hopefully the train won't
go too far off the tracks. Last week, the Congressional
House Oversight Committee held a hearing on UAP. Retired Navy
Rear Admiral Tim Galladett, former government official lou Elisondo, journalist
Michael Schellenberger, and former NASA administrator Michael Gold testified in
front of Congress with one clear message. UAPs are real
and we can no longer ignore this problem despite the
best efforts of the Pentagon and the IC to explain
this away. Is stuff like balloon seagulls, airborne trash. Whatever.
Congress of course smells bs from the Pedagon. Their excuse
is stink and the source of this stench comes from
the Pentagon's in house bullshit factory, otherwise known as ARROW
or the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. ARROW, led by
its former director, doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, perfected the art of
shoveling cow dung to lawmakers and showing members of Congress
what a UAP historical report written by a fifth grader
looks like last December, doctor Kirkpatrick pulled the ripcord, resigning
from Arrow sporting a nice golden parachute, landing himself a cushy,
well paid job at oak Ridge National Laboratories, while continuing
to shovel conspiracy theories about UAP, likely at the direction
of the gatekeepers of the Deep Legacy UAP crash Retrieval
and reverse engineering program. Speaking of gatekeepers, on the day
of last week's congressional hearing, I issued a statement to
members of Congress revealing that one of the UAP Legacy
program gatekeepers was on doctor Kirkpatrick's double secret advisory board.
Multiple confidential sources informed me that the former head of
the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology was on Sean's
secret panel. So is the very I mean think about
it this way, the very Pentagon UAP office, which is
supposed to function as the authorized recipient of classified whistleblower testimony,
and I remind you the identities of the whistleblowers are
supposed that are supposed to remain secret, is being advised.
Think about this is being advised by one of the
primary UAP gatekeepers for the Deep Legacy program. Its name's
Glenn Gaffie, I mean you, Gaffney. You cannot make this
stuff up. Today, a new director of ARROW, doctor John Koslowski,
will be testifying at the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing shared by Senator Kirsten Jillbrandt. Will Arrow turn
a new page under this new leadership. I don't know,
I'm trying to be optimistic, but today we will air
this hearing live and we'll be joined by two special guests,
Seankhill and Vinnie Adams to unpack the goods. But first,
please hit the subscribe ban thumbs up buttons on YouTube,
leave a comment and let us know what you think
about this episode. You can also find us on x
at Good Trouble Show and everywhere else on the Internet
at The Good Trouble Show. You can also find us
wherever you enjoy your podcasts. Search for The Good Trouble
Show with Matt Ford. And as always, if you would
like to chip in to help keep the lights on,
you can become a Patreon member of the Good Trouble
Show by going to www dot patreon dot com, forward
slash the Good Trouble Show, sign up and you can
support our work. And yeah, we always need help with that.
Our guests today are no strangers to the world of UAP.
They've both been on The Good Trouble Show. Please welcome
on your left retired US Navy Chief Master at Arms
and witness to the famous tic TAC event Sean Kahill,
and on your right the host of Disclosure Team and
who was actually the very first guest on The Good
Trouble Show, Vinnie Adams. Guys, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 2: How are you good to be here?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Matt? What was the pleasure?
Speaker 1: Excellent? Excellent, glad glad to have you here. It looks
like we're off to a to a rip roaring start.
As I said, welcome back to the show. I want
to before we dumped into this to this hearing here,
and I'll bring it up. We still have the splash screen.
Before we had nothing but nothing but static, so at
least we have the splash screen, so that gives us
some hope. But anyway, I want to talk about last
week's hearing. Sean, what was your takeaway overall of the
whole of the whole hearing? Do you think it moved
the ball forward in terms of disclosure and overall public
awareness of the UAP issue I did.
Speaker 2: I think that what was said at the hearing is
incredibly important. What we witnessed, as I'm fond of saying,
was competent authority giving acknowledgment of probable non human intelligence
specifically at least a crash retrieval program that ended up
with biological retrieval as well. And I think having those
things said in the public forum is very important. As
always were very interested in what the closed door sessions
afterward might yield.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, Vinnie, what was your take on the whole thing?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, these are some witnesses that we would
have liked to have seen some time ago. Is really
good to see lou Alizondo under oath testifying, you know,
with some really straight to the point facts and things
that he stated. I think, like Sean said, it's important
that things are happening behind closed doors.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: I don't think there was a closed session at the
time on the day, but I was led to believe
that there were some individual meetings with some people, so
hopefully the relevant information is now in the right hands
to progress this forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I thought too, like the overall like grouping
of the witnesses, I mean, Admiral Tim Galladatt. I think
his testimony was soon super important in that he brought
up something that we were aware of before that he
actually he went into Arrow for a meeting and and
he felt like the whole thing was just a giant
psychological operation, that was that he was being subjected to
where they were trying to convince him that that the
tic TAC was a balloon or blue technology or or whatnot.
Now this was before John Koslowski, Doctor John Koslowski, This
was the interim director of Arrow. Doctor I think doctor
Tim Tim Phillips. But I thought I thought that Admiral
Galadep's testimony was great. Of course lose Lose was great.
That for me was was the highlight. And I have
a question for both of you, what was the thing
that you were most surprised about to hear coming out
of the mouth of lou Elizondo. Sean, We'll start with you.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't say I was so much surprised as
I was and vigored by his his his very direct
answers to very direct questions. Mistrell Zano's put enough effort
and enough investigation into this subject to understand that it's
it's broader than the so called cover up that gentlemen
like mister Kirkpatrick are fond of moving forward. There's more
to it behind this, and mister Alesando gave him some
very serious answers.
Speaker 1: He did, and I think for me, like one of
my big takeaways was the fact that he supported essentially
what David Grush had claimed in terms of a crash
retrieval program and all of that stuff. Any what were your.
Speaker 4: Thoughts, Yeah, exactly that you know, lou has asked about
the crush retrieval reverse engineering, and you know, he stated
that he had signed some documentation or something in the
past to not talk about it. Therefore, if there's nothing
to see and how is there something to sign to
not talk about it?
Speaker 1: Do both of you feel? What's your take in terms
of did this the ball down the field? Was it
as far as you thought it would move? Of course?
I think a lot of us we hope that these
hearings will be like some kind of big bombshell, And
I think in a way, like the way I kind
of look at it is the hearings are the input
and the legislative action is the output. So people come in,
they testify to Congress, and hopefully at the end of
the day there's some legislative action on that. What do
you think, Sean, as far as like, did it move
as far as you would have liked? Did it meet
your expectations? What are your feelings on last week's hearing
in that regard, I felt really.
Speaker 2: Good about everything up until the point where lawmakers started
asking how do we move forward with this? Who do
we go to? Who do we talk to? For example,
the chair of today's hearing, Senator Gillibrand, knows exactly how
to get in touch with Lockheed Martin as she is
landed one point three billion dollar deals within her district
for them. So getting the CEO of Lockheed Martin under
oath and subpoena and in front of excuse me, not
in that order, of course, subpoena, under oath and in
front of Congress should be a simple, normal daily task
for these folks. I'm not sure why they don't know
where to look when they're being told. If I may add,
the Foreign Technology Division at right Patterson Air Force Base,
the Secretary General, the Secretary of the Air Force, those
people can and should be able to answer the questions
at least that Congress has, especially behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: Vinnie, how about you.
Speaker 4: Well, I know one point of Representative Berlison, I think
it was said, you know, we're holding these hearings to
get answers from you to point us in the right direction.
So hopefully they've got some more answers they can start
honing in on the gatekeepers, knocking on the right doors,
asking the right questions. That way, this ball will continue
to move down the field. Otherwise we're going to just
be stuttering and staggering every kind of twelve to sixteen
months between the next hearings. So fingers crossed, we have
some constant motion happening with people really going that's it.
Speaker 1: Agreed, Okay, So today's testimony, and we'll cut to it
as soon as it goes live. But this is the
hearing of activities of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office,
which is supposed to start in a few minutes. We
understand that it may may be running late because the
closed session occurred before this. But for the folks at
home that have no idea what Arrow is or who
doctor Sean Kirkpatrick was. Despite my very flowery description of
doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, let's talk about arrow Sean if you would,
and kind of like how it's previous director, doctor Sean
Kirkpatrick seemingly was intent on getting to the truth of
this whole UAP thing.
Speaker 2: Well, I have to check my notes here because I
always mess it up. But the All Domain Anomaly Resolution
Office was set up in twenty twenty two. Mister Kirkpatrick
was placed at the head of it, and they were
tasked with, first of all their title, which was all
Domains meaning air, sea, land, space, et cetera, of scrubbing
the records and the historical records and finding a good
picture of what was going on with UAP. That's the
simplest way I can put it. And doctor Kirkpatrick seemed
to have taken the job very lightly. At first, he
seemed like he was going to put his due diligence
in as a public servant. But then as time more by,
he seemed to engage with a different aspect of it.
Seemed to want to call out ufology and the people
that were working on this as being crackpots, et cetera.
And the air of a for lack of a better word,
of dismissal seemed to come over the way that he
was treating this very flippantly and not seriously whatsoever. And
I think that's one of the reasons he's no longer
the director.
Speaker 1: I would certainly hope. So. I mean, Vina like when
I started hearing like and it all started with his
LinkedIn post where he just seemingly like went off the rails.
I believe it was July of last year, June July
somewhere last year. It seemed that he just he literally
flipped on a dime, because I remember and one of
his reports or commentary he was speaking about like you know,
flying metal lorbs, things of that nature, stuff that obviously
deserved some investigation, and then it was like he just
flipped on a dime. Andy thoughts as to why do
you think someone got to him? Do you think he
just changed his mind or I don't know. I can't
figure it out for the life of me.
Speaker 4: No, it is very difficult. I mean, if you just
look back to I think it was the nineteenth of
April twenty twenty three, with the first sit down he
had in the Senate Committee with Senator Gillibrand. He was
airing some frustrations there with the lack of authorities that
he had going after some of the data which he
felt he needed for his investigations with Arrow. Maybe I
think he might have even been he just didn't have
any title fifty authorities at that time, so he seemed
frustrated and needed to get them put into place to
be able to gather all the information to really dig
into the investigations. So maybe his frustrations just continued and
grew from there. But you know, it was quite a
short tenure.
Speaker 3: Really.
Speaker 4: A lot of it seemed rushed, a lot of it
seemed frustrated. And I think we are better seeing the
back of him now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's I think so as well. And I think
the thing that really sort of surprised me the most
with all of this was this kind of like continual
sort of disparaging of you know, members of Congress, people
like David Grush and others by doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. It
was even though he had exited the d D and
worked for the was working for the Department of Energy,
it was like he continued to be on this mission
of really spreading conspiracy theories about about you know, the
whole UAP thing, saying it's all circular reporting and whatnot.
I mean Sean did any of that? Just seem odd
that he was continue to message while he wasn't working
for the Pentagon. You would think that they would have
shut that down.
Speaker 2: It seemed very odd to me, and not not to
to be very careful with this. It sure seems like
somebody that got put on the proverbial payroll to just
start putting the bs out there, because that's not what
an investigator does. And unless they called in someone that
they knew was a yes man that when he went
to investigate these things, was going to take the status
quo answer of nothing to see here. If that's not
the case, I have to ask is he is he
negligent or is he wilfully ignorant?
Speaker 3: I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't tell with doctor Kirkpatrick, but the way he
has acted since leaving the position is starting to make
me think that it's more negligence and more wilful ignorance
combined that there is something. There's an inside play of
some kind here, gotcha?
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's let's uh. I printed out doctor John
Koslowski's bio and that, of course, as I understand that
he is going to be the sole witness at this hearing,
so doctor John T. Koslowski serves as the director of
the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office otherwise known as ZERO.
Prior to that, doctor Koslowski held technical and leadership positions
within the Research Directorate of the United Sorry of the
National Security Agency. In that capacity, he led advanced mission
oriented research in the fields of networking and computing and
served as a subject matter expert in the area of
free space optics. And I think probably sounds like somewhat
like doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. With all of his laser work.
He was advising various DoD agencies. In addition to his
optics research and crypto mathematics, Doctor Koslowski invented an advanced
language agnostic search engine and served at the DoD Special
Communications Enterprise Office. Goes on to say here he received
a bachelor's degree in mat addicts and physics from cal
State University. Oh, here we go. It looks like we
are going to the hearing. And if for some reason
the feed drops out, everyone just tune tune into it
at home.
Speaker 5: ULL DO Million Anomaly Resolution Officer ARROW and Office Congress
established in the fiscal year twenty twenty two and DAA
to investigate this very serious problem of Unidentified anomalist phenomenon
or UAP. Doctor Kozlowski comes to Arrow from the Research
Directorate of the National Security Agency, where he worked in
areas of optics research and cryptomthematics. He previously served at
the DoD Special Communications Enterprise Office.
Speaker 6: We look forward to regular engagements between you and the Committee.
Speaker 5: When unidentified anomalist phenomenon enter our airspace, we need to
know about it.
Speaker 6: We need to identify it.
Speaker 5: But in order to do that, we need to reduce
the stigma and credibility challenges associated with these events. Our
service members, scientists, foreign partners, and the general public need
to know that their reporting, research and analysis will be
taken seriously and acted on in good faith. In the
spirit of transparency. ER recently released a consolidated annual report,
just a few months after releasing the first volume of
a historical record.
Speaker 6: Report in March of this year.
Speaker 5: These public documents help highlight the challenges still facing this office,
including the lack of timely and actionable censor data, the
need to resit the need to revisit places cases placed
in the active archive, and the importance of improving reporting
sources both in the interagency and internationally. In this hearing,
I want to probe a series of specific issues. First,
as incidents at Langley and elsewhere have demonstrated unmanned aerial
systems or uas continued to pose significant threats to our
national security. In addition to safety of flight issues, these
uas create for our own pilots and aircrew. The uas
present clear and undeniable counterintelligence concerns around some of the
most sensitive airspace. While standard uas are not part of
arrow's mission, your work on sensors at military installations across
the country will be critical to making sure that we
have the domain awareness necessary to accurately identify and track
these objects. I expect your office to also play close
attention to any anomaloust characteristics that these systems could present
in the future. Second, I look forward to your presentation
of three case studies demonstrating cases that ARO has resolved,
including the Go Fast which is one of the most
prominent UAP cases. However, I believe it is important to
acknowledge ongoing public interest in the Nimitz incident, the Gimbal video,
and other prominent UAP cases, and for ARROW to share
what it can about those cases as well. It's also
important that EROS speak to unresolved cases and what types
of anomalist activity have merited further analysis. And while I
know ARROW has gone through a period of transition over
the past year, it is important to share these disclosures,
both resolved and unresolved cases, with the public, even when
a Senate hearing is not scheduled. Lastly, while some have
been hesitant to come forward to ARROW in the past,
I hope that potential individuals with firsthand knowledge of unreported
programs view your arrival in this position as an opportunity
for a new start. ARROW was created by Congress to
do this work. Congress waived non disclosure agreements for those
who disclose information to ARROW and gave ARROW the authority
to go and turn over every rock. I hope those
with information to share use this opportunity so that we,
as your senators who represent you, can do our jobs.
Speaker 6: I look forward to hearing more.
Speaker 5: On these issues from doctor Kozlowski and for members to
start a dialogue on this important topic.
Speaker 6: With that, I'd like to turn to Senator Earns for
her opening statement.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you doctor Kozlowski. Our
hearing today is about identifying UAPs and understanding their potential implications,
which could range from technological advancements to potential threats to
our national security. Are these phenomena tied to foreign adversaries
such as China or Russia, leveraging advanced technologies beyond our
current capabilities, or do they represent unknown scientific phenomena that
challenge our current understanding. We must answer these critical questions
to ensure that our national security is not compromised. It
is vital that all agencies work in tandem to aggregate data,
identify patterns, and develop robust analytical frameworks. Our ability to detect, track,
and respond to UAPs requires the latest technology and full
cooperation from all government branches. Thanks very much for your
attention to this matter, and I look forward to the
valuable insights that you and ERO can provide to our committee,
and I yield back.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Doctor Kuzosi, please make your opening statement.
Speaker 8: Thank you Chairwoman jillibrand, Ranking Member Ernest, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here
on behalf of the Department of Defense. As the new
Director of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide a status update on Arrow's work
and respond to your questions about Unidentified Anomalist phenomenon or
UAP on behalf of the Department and the entire AERO team,
I want to say how grateful we are to Congress
for its continued support. Unidentified objects in any domain posed
potential threats to US safety and security.
Speaker 3: Reports of UAP activity, particularly.
Speaker 8: Near national security sites, must be treated seriously and investigated
with scientific rigor by the US government. By way of introduction,
I'm John Kozlowski. I'm a researcher at my core with
an academic background in mathematics, physics, and engineering. I've spent
most of my career at the National Security Agency, leading
advanced research in the areas of optics, computing, and cryptomathematics.
By nature, I am drawn to tough scientific problems, which
is what brought me to ARROW and the UAP mission.
Since I arrived at ARROW in August, I've been impressed
by the breadth and depth of my team's experience and
the framework they've established to rigorously analyze UAP reports. Arrow
has taken meaningful steps to improve data collection and retention,
bolster sensor development effectively, triage UAP reports and reduced the
stigma of reporting UAP events. Last year, ERROW worked with
the DoD's Joint Staff to issue guidance to defense personnel
worldwide on how to report UAP observations and is working
with the military services regarding implementation. Arrow has also launched
a public website that features UAP imagery, case resolutions, material analysis,
archival records, and more. These are only a few examples
of arrow's recent progress, and we're just getting sty. To date,
ARROW has over sixteen hundred UAP reports in its holdings
from across the US government. I'll share a slide in
just a few minutes with updated UAP analytic trends. You'll
see that many reports resolve the commonplace objects like birds, balloons,
and unmanned systems, while others lack sufficient data for comprehensive analysis.
Although only a small percentage of reports received by ARROW
are potentially anomalous, these are the cases that require significant
time resources and a focused scientific inquiry by ARROW and
its network of partners. It is important to underscore that
to date, ARROW has not discovered any verifiable evidence of
extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology. To accomplish erro's National Security Mission.
I have set three priorities for the office, building strong partnerships,
promoting transparency, and scaling up the work of the Office.
ARROW cannot do its work alone. Building partnerships across government, academia,
and industry, and with the public is essential to the
success of the office. Strong cooperation with the military services
is particularly important. We rely on their support to implement
our reporting guidance and to amplify the message that there
should be zero stigma associated with UAP reporting. We also
rely on partnerships with the national labs, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence FBI, Department of Homeland Security NASA,
all of which play a role in the whole of
government effort to address UAP. Recognizing the talent and expertise
that reside outside of the government, ERROW will continue to
explore new ways to partner with the academic and scientific
communities to investigate its most complex UAP cases. A related
priority for ERRO is transparency. Our ability to collaborate with
key partners, including the scientific community and the public, relies
on information sharing to include downgrading and declassifying UAP related information.
In some cases, it may be unclear to the public.
Why the deals classified a piece of information in the
first place. Why are photos of seemingly benign objects such
as balloons classified. It's often the case that an object
or phenomenon isn't itself a security concern, but the location, source,
or method used to capture it is still sensitive. Many
cases are difficult to quickly release to the public, but
are reported to the appropriate committees in Congress that are
authorized by law or House and Senate leadership to receive
the information. It is important to note that AERO does
not unilaterally declassify information. Instead, we work with the originator
of a classified record to ensure that declassifying that record
does not inadvertently harm national security. This can take time. Nonetheless,
the Department is committed to declassifying and publicly sharing more
information on UAP while protecting sensitive sources and methods. I'll
be sharing some newly declassified imagery in just a few minutes.
ERO is also working closely with the National Archives and
Records Administration to make UAP related documents publicly available in
a digitized collection. Meanwhile, ARROW continues to review the US
historical record relating to UAP. We welcome any former or
current government civilian, contractor or military service member with relevant
information to reach out to us at www dot Arrow
dot MILL. My final priority is scaling up Arrow's work
to match its mission. Arrow needs to bolster the quantity, quality,
and diversity of data that it acquires and examines. This
means tapping into existing data sources within the interagency, while
deploying Arrow's own organic sensor capabilities to the extent that
UAP results from the domain awareness gaps. More and better
data will help us fill those gaps and help us
understand what is being encountered. In closing, ERROW is committed
to the highest standards of scientific integrity. We will not
foreclose on any explanation for UAPP prematurely. We will continue
to follow the science and data wherever they lead. We
will continue to have an open and frank dialogue with
Congress in settings like these and in classified briefings. We
will continue to keep you fully and currently informed of
all UAP information, active or historical. And finally, we will
share as much information as possible at the unclassified level
to inform the public of errow's activities and its findings.
For now, I'd like to turn to a brief presentation
of UAP trends and cases, and then I'd be happy
to take questions.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 8: This chart represents the UAP reporting since nineteen ninety six,
and as has previously been discussed by AERO, that sense
replacement seems to have caused a bias in our data,
both geographic and at altitude, and we're working to resolve
that bias in twenty twenty five or reduce that bias
through broader engagements with the DoD as well as the
IC and the rest of the government, also by incorporating
broader sensors into our data, and through a public reporting
mechanism that we hope to have live in mid twenty
twenty five. On the left side shows the altitudes and
we'll see a bit cut off. We'll see that most
of the reporting occurs between fifteen thousand and twenty five
thousand feet. That happens to be where most of our
sensors are, and the reporting above and below that is
also often coming from those same platforms. In the center,
we'll see that the resolve cases have the vast majority
being balloons and uas. We're seeing a great increase in
satellites recently, particularly with the launch of Mega satellite constellations
such as Starlink, where the satellites are catching what is
called satellite flares or glint off the sun just after
sunset or just before or sunrise. And on the rightmost
we'll see the morphology or the shapes that have been reported.
The majority have been lights or orbs. We think that
there's going to be a increase in the lights with
the mega constellations. But our most interesting cases, some of
which I'll discuss later, are actually the shapes such as
the triangles or the cylinders. And at the bottom we'll
see the geographic bias that I mentioned before, where most
of the reports historically had been near the government sites.
This bias has been reduced recently by reporting from the FAA.
We now get weekly reports from them, and great thank
you to our aviators for making those reports. It helps
our analysis quite a bit.
Speaker 3: OK.
Speaker 8: A case that we thought would be a trans medium
case as it was reported, is well known on the outside,
known as the Puerto Rico case, was data collected in
twenty thirteen when a Customs and Border Patrol aircraft observed
an object flying near an airport in Puerto Rico. The
green line in this diagram is the track that the
airplane was taking, and those many crossed lines are the
directions that the camera was facing at the time that
the airplane was flying around the airport, and we'll watch
the video in just a moment. The orange arrow in
the center is where we assess that the UAP was
actually flying, and trans medium means that it goes from
one domain into another. In this case, it looks like
it goes from the air into the water and then
back into the air. We assessed that it was actually
flying over the airport the entire time, and this video
was taken with infrared, and what appears to be the
trans medium part where it goes into the water, is
actually where the temperature of the water is equal to
the temperature of the object, and the camera can no
longer distinguish between the two. It's not that the object
actually goes into the water, and so we assess that
the object, likely a pair of balloons or sky lanterns,
was floating at about seven knots over the airport and
descending to about two hundred meters. And this video will
be released and our report will be released later this year.
The go fast was captured the public attention and congressional
attention when it was made public in twenty seventeen, looks
like an object flying very fast over the water, very
close to the water. Through a very careful geospatial intelligence
analysis using trigonometry, we assess with high confidence that the
app object is not actually close to the water, but
is rather closer to thirteen thousand feet. Diagram here shows
as the platform is flying and capturing the object. If
it is closer to the platform at a higher altitude,
a trick of the eye called parallax makes it look
like the object is moving much faster, and so we've
written a detail tailed paper on parallax released that on
our website so that the public can literally check our
math on this analysis. An interesting case which I don't
believe the public is familiar with, is captured in twenty
eighteen from a UAV flying the Mediterranean watching Mount Etna
as it was erupting, and it appears that that object
is flying through the plume of superheated gas and ash.
This was a rather difficult case to resolve. We had
to pull in support from a number of IC and
S and T partners and even reach out to a
volcanologist and through very detailed three D modeling and pixel
by pixel analysis of the object as it's traversing across
the clouds. They assessed that the object was actually one
hundred and seventy meters away from the plume and not
flying through it. And to be clear, AERO does not
believe every object is a bird, a balloon, or a UAV.
We do have some very anomalous objects. It's just the
nature of resolution. We can only resolve things that we understand.
So we're now working on additional products where we can
inform the public, Congress and others of the objects as
we're studying them, rather than once we've resolved them. With that,
I'll take your questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you, doctor Kaslowski.
Speaker 5: I appreciate your testimony. It's been widely reported that individuals
claiming first tail and knowledge of unreported UAP programs have
been reluctant to engage with ARROW. What message do you
have for those individuals and how we work to gain
their trust.
Speaker 8: I would let them know that Congress has gone out
of its way to create the organization AERO specifically to
conduct these sorts of investigations and has uniquely empowered them
to have access to all UAP related information, whether that's
historic or current, and we take that responsibility and those
authorities very seriously, and so we have been reaching out
to a broader community cocouraging folks who had talked to
Aero personnel in the past and maybe felt uncomfortable to
come back to us. We've met with several of their
interlocktors and a couple of firsthand witnesses, and we are
making great progress in those first hand witnesses that we
have talked to do feel comfortable coming back to us,
and so we hope that more folks that do have
information would go to www dot Aero dot mill, fill
out the form, send it to us so we can
bring them in for interviews and add their information to
our investigations.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: I recently just read your report from March, your historic Report,
and I would encourage anyone who's interested in this topic
to read the report, because when I was asked by
a reporter about it, they said, well, it doesn't show
any evidence of secret programs that have aliens.
Speaker 6: That's not how I read the report.
Speaker 5: What I read the report is the US government took
citings extremely seriously over the last seventy five years, put
some of the greatest minds ever to analyze these cases,
because they have assess them as some deeply unknown phenomena
that may or may not cause threats, that may or
may not be related to adversaries, but are certainly something
that the US government need to know about. And what
I read from this report is that we resolved numbers
of cases, but in almost every instance, whether it was
in the forties, the fifties, the sixties, the seventies, the eighties,
the nineties, the knots.
Speaker 6: Half the cases were unresolved.
Speaker 5: So I don't think this is an example of the
government not taking these cases seriously. I think this is
an example of our government spending seventy five years taking
these cases very seriously. And interestingly, for the group that
put together this report, they didn't have access to any
first hand reporting, and so from my perspective, for whistleblowers
and people who want to commit police comm in because
the purpose of ARROW is so that the Senators can
do our job to provide oversight, accountability, and transparency, we
find it very concerning that our pilots, that our Navy officers,
that people who have sightings of UAPs are dead integrated,
are somehow dismissed or disregarded. They need to be protected.
This is a huge issue for national security because number one,
we don't have domain awareness, which is very problematic. Number Two,
we don't have domain superiority if we don't understand how
different UAPs are flying, what technology they're using, what their
mission is, what their purpose is. And at the base level,
we have so many UAPs around our bases, around our
military sites, around our nuclear sites, that it's deeply disturbing
that adversaries, at a minimum, could be using these opportunities
to spy, to glean intelligence that will harm our long
term national security. So I'm grateful that you're taking the
whistleblowers very seriously. I'm grateful that AERO is trying its
best to integrate the private sector the public into their work. Interestingly,
in this hearing, we heard that the FAA is now
working hand in glove, which is very helpful. We want
this public facing accessibility to be put in place by
twenty twenty five so that people can upload their videos,
their data, their reports. I've met with people who have
followed this issue for decades and they have thousands of examples,
thousands of pieces of data that Ultimately, I want uploaded
into ARROW so you can cross reference historic information with
current information. Because this group at ARROW are the best
scientists that we can find anywhere, and they will do
the work that's needed to be done.
Speaker 6: So I just want to thank you for that. And
then with my last forty two.
Speaker 5: Seconds, can you tell us about any of the cases
that merit further analysis by your ic in science and
technology partners?
Speaker 6: What is it that makes these cases anomalist?
Speaker 5: And a large number of reports are placed in the
active archive because AERO does not have enough information. What
might prompt you to reopen a case like that?
Speaker 6: And do you have any examples?
Speaker 8: Sure, I'll start with the active archive case. So that
is just the place where we put cases where we
don't have enough scientific information to resolve them at that time.
But we're always looking for opportunities to correlate them to
new cases that come in as the new cases come in,
as well as enriched those cases with additional data. We
do have one example that I'm aware of where we
were able to correlate a number of observations of interesting
lights in the sky and eventually we concluded that it
was multiple people observing starlink flares. Just as an example,
three cases that merit analysis that we're working on right now.
One we might be in the process of resolving, but
nonetheless is still interesting. The first one was brought to
us by a law enforcement officer out west where he
observed a large orange ORB floating several hundred feet above
the ground a couple miles away. He went to investigate
what was going on with that orb, and as he
was pulling up to the location where he thought would
be below the orb, about forty to sixty meters away
from some object that was the area was well lit,
he saw a blacker than black object. He said it
was about the size of a Prius, four to six
feet wide, and as he got forty to sixty meters
away from the object, it tilted up about forty five
degrees and then it shot up vertically. He says, ten
to one hundred times faster than any drone he's ever
seen before. And it did that without making a sound
as far as he could tell from inside of his vehicle,
And just as it left his field of view through
his windshield, then it emitted very bright red and blue
lights that he limited he illuminated the inside of his
vehicle as brightly as if someone had set off fireworks
just outside his vehicle or street flares. So that's anomalous
because of the size of the vehicle with the great acceleration.
And when he came back to investigate that area, he
found no disturbance of the ground beneath it. So that's
one interesting one. Another one comes to us from southeast US.
There was a US facility where two cars of government
contractors were leaving the facility around nine o'clock in the morning.
They looked up in the sky and saw a large
metallic cylinder about the size of a commercial airplane, and
it was stationary. They observed that there was a very
bright white light behind or around the object. They saw
it stationary for fifteen to twenty seconds, and then it disappeared. Obviously,
an object that large stationary unless it's a blimp, is unusual.
But then disappearing, we can't explain how that would happen.
And then the last case was interesting. We had a
aircraft that was flying parallel to another aircraft and it
was capturing imagery of it, and a small looking object
appeared to fly between the two of them, much faster
than them through very careful analysis, we think that the
object might have actually been further away than the object
that it was videotaping, But it requires very careful analysis
to come to those conclusions, and we don't have the
metadata to support that yet.
Speaker 7: Senator earned Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and doctor Kosloski.
You mentioned that you do work with the intelligence community.
You're working with the FAA. Has AERO involved academia. Have
you gone to universities? Do you have outside organizations that
you are working with, and if so, can you walk
us through some of that collaboration.
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 8: Right now, most of our collaborations that are peering towards
academia are with your university affiliated research centers associated with
universities or with ffrdcs. Our partnership with universities, I would say,
is lacking right now. We have some one off associations
with university professors. However, that's our fault, and it's largely
because of the need to declassify data. We need to
give the professors something to work on before we can
really engage them. So we're working significantly on a declassification effort.
Hired a number of declassification experts, and we're going to
be trying to get cases like the ones that I
just discussed here declassified so that we can engage with
the universities on a regular basis and provide them the data.
Talking to a scientist without data is going to be
rather disappointing. So hopefully in twenty twenty five will be
increasing those efforts.
Speaker 7: Right, Well, I appreciate that. I think there's a huge
pool of talent out there that you should tap into.
Given the publics growing concern and interest in UAPs, how
do you balance the need for the transparency that our
public is demanding with the potential risks of revealing classified
defense information.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's always a concern that's on the front of
our minds. We want to make sure that we're deconflicting
both on potential US programs and what the IC might
be tracking for adversarial programs as we're aggregating that information
and preparing to share it. However, oftentimes we can remove
the discussion of the unidentify an anomaloust activity from the
sensitive information that our partners are concerned with, and that's
usually going to be the platforms that the information was
collected with. If it is a truly anomalist and so
we have our partners working alongside in the declassification of
that data.
Speaker 3: Very good.
Speaker 7: And then without having to explain the UAP, what do
we need to begin really doing about them? What precautions
can we take, what should we be doing about them?
Speaker 8: I think that removing the stigma. Reducing the stigma is
the first step. We need to make sure that we're
having honest and transparent conversations about them, because if we're
hesitant to discuss them, then it opens the opportunity for
an adversary, as you mentioned earlier, Senator Jillibrand, to come
in and conduct some activity. So we need to do that,
and we need to have more persistent monitoring and understand
that whether it is a UAP or a counter UAS issue,
that we need to have that complete domain awareness around
our national security facilities.
Speaker 7: Wonderful, Thank you, Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 5: Just a couple of follow up questions we didn't discuss
in this setting. The most recent UAP or UAS encounter
with bases like Langley. I know that the incursion by
UASS that were publicly made available through the press that
took over two weeks was fairly alarming to senators because
there was a question about what technology they were using,
There was a technic, there was a question about why
it was so hard to detect. Can you speak to
how ARROW will be integrated into the review of these
kinds of cases and how you can be helpful to
both the intelligence community and the Department of Defense in
analyzing or being able to more quickly analyze what's no
and what's not knowable so that because once you do
identify it as a drone, for example, it then goes
to the right department a DoD or the intelligence community
to assess, deal with, or take down as the incident
might be. But talk to us a little bit about
what role you can play for the both the DoD
and the IC community in these kinds of incursions that
are happening when we don't know what tech is being
used and we don't understand a flight pattern or we
don't understand how they arrive and depart in the way
they do.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we are generally going to be supporting them through
an advisory capacity as an organization that naturally needs to
conduct baseline experiments of the environment to see what normal
looks like, whether it's balloons, birds, anomalist activity, or drones
flying through an environment. We're going to gather a lot
of data that will allow us to characterize an environment
very well and then detect and follow those tracks, hopefully
rather efficiently. There's also a lot of overlap in the
type of sensors that are going to be used for
the counter UAS mission and the UAP mission, whether that's
active detection like radars or passive like cameras, and so
as ERO is trying to push the bounds on detectability
for UAP, We're hopefully going to have best practices that
we can also provide to the counter UAS, and potentially
we might have additional technologies that we can offer them
to support.
Speaker 5: I'd like to just address a little bit of reporting
and feedback. As you know, Ero is required to develop
a mechanism for the public to report UAP information. Now
that that mechanism for current and former military, civilian and
contractor personnel has been established, can you speak to Arrow's
plans for a public reporting mechanism and how did ARROW
arrive at this approach and were other options considered? And second,
for pilots and operators who have reported a UAP, what
feedback if any Arrow provided to these individuals related to
what ERO is doing with their report and how the
report has been resolved. How does such feedback or lack
thereof impact the frequency of UAP reporting.
Speaker 8: Yeah, the public reporting mechanism that we've decided to go
with is going to look similar to the reporting mechanism
that we currently have for historical events, where we're going
to ask folks to go to our website, download a
PDF form, put in the narrative for their account, and
then email that to us with accompanying media. Usually it'll
probably be imagery. We went with that option because we
thought one we could do it rather quickly, we could
do it efficiently, make it very cost effective for the taxpayer.
But also we think we can gather all the data
that we're going to need to conduct our analysis, and
then we're going to have that feed into an automated
processing system that will cross correlate that against all the
other public reporter cases as well as the US government cases.
We did consider a number of other reporting mechanisms as
to include automated online forms as well as cell phone apps,
and we ultimately decided that this would be the safest, cheapest,
and easiest to maintain in the future while protecting the
private information of the individuals who are reporting. For the
regarding the feedback from the result reports. Right now, we
don't have a good feedback mechanism. It's fairly informal. We're
working on building a case management system that ERROW will
use at all classification levels, and hopefully in that we'll
be able to provide feedback as the case is going
through the resolution process that we have multiple phases. Then
the folks who report that, whether it's a pilot at
the classified level or someone potentially reporting through another mechanism,
they'll get that automated feedback. And then it is not
determined at this point yet how much information we'll be
able to include in that feedback where it is in
the process. It'll depend on the classification of the resolution
of the case.
Speaker 5: My final question is is there anything that you need
to tell the Senate that you need from us, Whether
it's funding, whether it's support, whether it's legislation. Is there
any request that ARROW has of us, or anything else
you need to brief us on for us to be
able to do our jobs to protect our service members
as well as integrate public interest and public data and
information into the future.
Speaker 6: Analysis efforts of ARROW.
Speaker 8: So, first of all, I want to say thank you again.
I think that the authorities that we have are remarkable,
and I think that we are well resourced as an office.
The only ask that I would have is that you
continue to champion us, particularly with witnesses, encourage them to
come forward and report to us so that we can
have a more fulsome investigation of the potential historic or
ongoing legacy programs.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. Hearing adjourned, Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, that was mute. This So that was doctor John
cosquad Copter. He went to the doctor Sean K. Kirkpatrick University.
His he is clearly, in my view, carrying the same
water as before. Sean your your your initial thoughts.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody said the right thing, and nobody said anything.
Senator Gillibrand identified cases that could easily be discussed, like
tik tak, for example, which I was present for, but
they're not brought up. The methods and sources and locations
on that are all well known except for a few
of the systems. And the fact is, as it keeps
getting pushed down the road, I saw someone who is
a better speaker than doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. And as I said,
he said all the right things, but his first his
next chance up to bat will prove whether he has
anything to offer or not.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure, Vinnie, what do you think?
Speaker 4: It seemed like he was trying to correct and right
a lot of wrongs that Sean Kirkpatrick had brought in,
almost begging witnesses that had already spoken with Arrow previously
to come back, give us another chance. We'll treat you
better this time. Maybe it's too little too late. It's
very clear that there are some a lot of hoops
for Arrow to jump through for any semblance of credibility
or seriousness. I don't know if it's just been lost.
It's too little too late, with the implementation of some
of their new systems not till mid twenty twenty five,
it's a long road ahead, and just looking at the
comments there and nobody's happy with them at all.
Speaker 3: So maybe it's a lost cause.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's yeah, kind of speechless about the whole thing.
One of the things that caught my eye or ear
was there was absolutely no talk about last week's hearing.
I mean, it is like that hearing never even took place.
So I just don't understand how this doctor Koslowski couldn't
even have couldn't even bother mentioning it. And I do
wish and I am a big fan of Senator Kirsten
jill Brand. I do believe that we would not even
be having this kind of hearing if it were not
for her. But there was no mention of it any
Sean your thoughts as to why.
Speaker 2: I saw a lot of a lot of pre prep
and a lot of deflection. I saw nothing of substance.
It's really hard for me when a senator asked someone
in charge of an office like ERO to discuss anomalies
and they discussed pro se case, they presented no anomalous
information whatsoever. I'm not sure what we're doing. I understand
that Senator Gillibrand she has champion this to a great deal,
but we need to see more aggressive questioning. We need
to see people like we saw last week placed on
the spot to answer some yes or no questions. We
have no idea what Arrow has really been up to.
Have they discovered anything or is this just one big
boon doggle?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would I would say it's one one big,
one big boon boon doggle. And Reniic Patel, someone that
was actually out in Washington, d C. Helping us at
a UAP disclosure fund. We were really grateful for his help.
Someone he found this on Twitter, so or excuse me
x So if anyone wants to know how close doctor
Koslowski's handler is, look no further than just a few
feet away. So on your left there is Pentagon Public
Affairs off us, sir, who who has a I think
a master is in psychological warfare if if I remember right,
That's what Loue Elizondo pointed out. So there on the left, uh,
sue sue go Pentagon public affairs officer, where literally any
public media inquiry regarding the UAP issue goes through her,
goes through a psychological warfare officer. I mean, you know,
you just can't make this ship up. It's it's it's insane.
Speaker 2: Well, she literally wrote a portion of the book on
psychological warfare and has also written papers on shaping operations
in a domestic sense utilizing media and other outlets. It's
pretty clear that that at least one person is holding
some puppet strings. The question is who's holding Susan's Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well that that is that is a good, good question, Vinny.
One of the things that he said or appeared to
try debunk was the Awkwadia thing, and I didn't catch
all of it. I was doing a couple of technical things,
but I noticed someone in the chat said that doctor
Koslawski explained it away as a Chinese balloon. Is that correct?
I get.
Speaker 4: I was kind of paying mixed attention to different things,
making some notes, But what it seemed it was a
very rushed, quick presentation.
Speaker 3: He didn't point to it being completely debunked.
Speaker 4: I think it was just a very whimsical attempt at
saying that they've done something with it, you know, And
these are the things that he was focusing on, whereas
the focus for me should have gone on what we
had in the recent Arrow report. They've got nine hundred
outlier cases in their active archive. Three point five percent
of them could represent breakthrough technologies or something genuinely anomalous.
I think that's where the focus should have been a
little bit more, to persuade in Congress that these are
what they're really looking to deal with, rather than just
everything else.
Speaker 3: It seems like smoke and mirror.
Speaker 1: Smoking mirrors. Indeed, and if I remember correctly it was
either I don't think it was Senator jillbrand I think
it was doctor Koslowski that that said, and correct me
if I'm wrong. I may may have misheard it that
ARROW had all of the authority it needed to investigate
these claims. Did I imagine that? Or is that exactly
what was said?
Speaker 3: You heard that right? That was towards the end there.
Speaker 4: This is where Sean Kirkpatrick last time, he clearly didn't
have the authorities because Losky was very adamant that he
had everything he needed in that respect, and so no
excuses going forward.
Speaker 1: No go ahead, Shan.
Speaker 2: Please, How does one call up to the CIA and
say give me all of your stuff on UAP and
they go we got nothing, And you say, okay? Is
that all the authority that you need is to make
a phone call and to accept what another department head
or another civil servant tells you about a one hundred year,
eighty year cover up. This is blatantly ridiculous that they
can't find anything to work.
Speaker 1: On blatantly ridiculous as well. And there's something we mentioned
this on the show a while back. There is something
that's called special Agent authority or eighteen eleven authority eighteen
eleven authority. If you're a special agent, you can carry
a gun, you have subpoena power, you have the power
to arrest, you're essentially acting. You have the authority to
act as a law officer to conduct a proper investigation.
Arrow has no eighteen eleven authority period. They have no
subpoena authority. They have no authority to break down doors.
They cannot go to Lockheed Martin or any other place
and demand to be let in to see what is there.
They do not have the proper investigative authority period. The end,
Arrow telling you that is a bunch of bullshit. John Koslowski,
he should know better. This is something that Kirkpatrick went
on about. And the fact is legally they do not
have the authority they need to be digging this stuff up. Vinny,
do you think that this guy is Kirkpatrick two point zero?
Is he just more polished or or is he just
doing what people up the chain are telling him to do?
Any thoughts.
Speaker 4: I think it's a mixture there. There's a little bit
of everything that you just just said there. I think
he was clearly nervous. I think, you know, we can
give him that, but at the same time, he seemed
to still be going for the low hanging fruit when
it came to some of the things he discussed, And
I think he should have been a bit more prepared
to kind of put it out there a bit more
give us some confidence back to the to the general
public and to the Senate. I mean, Gillibran was holding
no punches back there. She was straight in there, knew
what she wanted to say. It was really quite good
to see because we hadn't heard a lot from her
in the past few months. It almost felt like maybe
she'd kind of given up a little bit. But she
came back full force today and I think, you know
that put him on the spot a little bit, but
still too little, not enough.
Speaker 1: It's indeed, Sean, any what do you think to Kirkpatrick
two point zero or is he just doing what the
folks up the chain are telling them to do.
Speaker 2: You know, I want to be nice. I want to
be nice to the new doctor and say that he
was on the spot today and that he deserves a chance.
But we did the same thing with doctor Kirkpatrick, and
today was an opportunity to shine. We've had drone incursions
over Langley. Recently, we've got things like the two thousand
and four tic Tech incident, which was over a nuclear
vessel and a fleet of warships. Why are you showing
us balloons off of Puerto Rico if that's what she got,
Why is the Unidentified Anomaly Office only showing us identified things?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly the whole drone thing. So, over the past
past several weeks, I've been speaking to a law enforcement
leader in the middle of the country who had drone
incursions over their town, over their county, over two hundred
drone incursions. And I'm using the the word drone with
quotes because it's my belief these are these are not drones.
This this particular police chief said that there were over
over around two hundred drones or two hundred of these
vehicles appearing over their town over a two week period
between one and fifty or so nine to one one calls.
These things were viewed by multiple law enforcement officers. None
of the drones, and this is something that you heard
also on the Langley thing, none of these drones made
any noise. That is the key. None of them made
any noise. So when I hear this guy basically saying,
and this is something that I sort of a frame
that I think that we're hearing all the time. Is
you know you're hearing it from You've heard it from NASA,
you're hearing it from Arrow. Is you know what, we
need to spend a bunch more money and put out
some sensors and let's figure out what this new thing is.
That's that's that's going on. He mentioned something regarding regarding
Arrow and Langley and that how AEROW will be integrating
a new sensors to take sort of baseline measurement. So,
in other words, use these sensors look at the sky
and figure out what's normal, and so that when we
have two hundred of these drones flying over the over
the Air Force base, we'll know what they are. Well,
the logic just seems ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Matt, can I can I interject for a
second thing. I spent my career as an anti terrorism specialist,
and every nuclear facility, every vessel, every United States military
installation as in place anti terrorism response procedures for low
slow flyers. That's what we call them. Okay, it might
differ between services, but the fact is we've been dealing
with autonomous and remotely controlled aircraft and ready for that
fight for a very long time, even before they became
as common as they are now. The fact is is
there in all of those places, there's a standard operating
procedure for the personnel to respond to that, for intelligence
gatherers to take photographs, for capture of data from all
of the systems that are in the area, to include surveillance,
personal phones, et cetera. The idea that we don't know
what's going on over Langley is insane. It's kind of
like when we shift the conversation over to something that, yes,
is very important, which is aircraft safety, but at the
same time that is kindergarten level stuff to what the
conclusions are from some of these things.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I could follow up on that as well, Matt. Sorry,
just to add in. They're talking about getting baselines for
these things. They might to have these baselines already. Some
of these drones have been reported to as big as
twenty meters in diameter. I believe we have some. Sorry,
the US has some of the most advanced anti drone
technology going. I think the drone buster has failed at
Langley on multiple occasions. They must have all this data,
Where are these things coming from? Where are they going?
This is this is this doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: It makes no sense. And for instance, this police chief
that have had the pleasure of speaking with, he described
one particular hell. These folks refer to them as drones.
But when you read at least from these incidents, read
the nine to one one call reports and whatnot, they're
usually described as large balls of light. In one particular case,
when he was going out to a call, he said
that this thing was literally the size of his Ford
F one fifty pickup truck. And it just it just
blows me away that that they think that we're going
to buy all of this, you know, all of this
bs especially on this whole this whole drone thing. And
and Shawn, as you were pointing out in terms of
in terms of sensors, I went and just did some
basic research on the ground, uh, the unclassified ground radar
systems at Langley, and I don't remember the acronym, but
these were ground excuse me, ground based radars that are
for the purpose of controlling the airspace in terms of
aircraft going in and out. It's sort of like air
surveillance radar and just about I think there were four
systems that I saw. They all said that the aircraft
in order for targets to register, you didn't need a
transponder it. I think one system said it could measure
any airborne target as small as like, I think a
basketball or something like that. So, so as you were
pointing to Sean, It's like, I find it incredibly hard
to believe that they do not have data on these things.
So I guess my question to both of you, do
you do you think that this sort of ignorance is
an act. Is it a delaying tactic so that they
can say, oh, we need you know, we need another
year to collect data. What do you think the end
game or the motivation is or do you really think
that they just don't have it? Sean?
Speaker 2: You first, I think that for this too have being
kept secret for one hundred years, whatever is the ultimate
truth behind it, is going to make some people lose
their jobs. Let's put it that way. I don't think
anybody wants to be left holding the bag, and no
one wants to be to look like a fool if
they make some kind of pronouncement that they've been given
without the physical evidence that's required to stand behind those convictions.
This is a lousy place. This is a time when
the executive branch and the legislative branch need to come
together and they need to give us a clear history
of what's been going going on. We've received no definitive
answers on what's been going on for the last eighty years.
Is this just an arms race? Is it a cover
up between our advanced programs? Is this something truly unknown there?
Anybody who investigates this as a as a profession, so
to speak, will find that that it is very clearly
laid out that this is not a nothing burger, and
it's the idea we're going to keep kicking it down
the road. Is very disheartening.
Speaker 1: Any One thing that a phrase or refrain that we've
heard quite a bit, is this phrase of no evidence
of extraterrestrial, verifiable extraterrestrial activity. Why do they continue to
use the word extraterrestrial? To me, it seems by design.
Speaker 4: I thinks, by design and somewhat lazy at the same time.
I mean this In this recent transcript that I think
was released from a meeting with Kazlowski the other day,
there seem to be some contradictions in there almost saying
we've seen no sign of this, we've seen no sign
of advanced technology or breakthrough technologies. But then you know,
when pressed by the press further into the interview part
of that meeting, he said, well, you know, some of
it obviously could be because we.
Speaker 3: Don't know what they are.
Speaker 4: So he's almost always taking it back a little bit
and switching things up. So it's just a little bit
of the same old story, this continuation that we've seen
for so long that probably is just hiding the embarrassment
that they genuinely don't know what they're dealing with. They
cannot control their airspace and they cannot ultimately control the
safety of the general public.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's also, please it's very projective of their assumptions,
and it's very projective of what they intend to deliver
to us when there is no sense of urgency and
no sense of seriousness around the first letter in their title.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I couldn't, couldn't it, couldn't agree more. One of
the things that he also mentioned was he wants zero stigma,
and I think at one point he was talking about
that that they you know, that they are taking this seriously,
that they want whistle blowers to come in and provide secure,
secure testimony. But how when you had doctor Sean Kirkpatrick,
the former director of Arrow, basically making fun of anyone
in a way that is involved with this, saying that
it's that it's there's nothing to it and and it's
all circular reporting from a bunch of UFO zelots. If
if I were a whistleblower and I were hearing the
guy that's set up Arrow, the guy that was the
head of it, I don't know that I would certainly
trust Arrow because it would seem like it's a trap.
As whoever that guy in Star Wars said, Yeah, I
just it makes me insane. Vinnie, what do you think?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that loses a lot of trust, absolutely,
But I think some trust had already been lost. We
know as podcasters we've spoken to certain witnesses who had
went to Arrow, Robert Salas, Mario Woods to name a few.
We know that their testimony was taken a lot of
the times over the phone, sometimes not recorded. Brief notes
were taken. It didn't seem like it was being taken seriously.
It doesn't show a lot of trust in what they
were talking about. Then you have doctor Kirkpatrick coming out
with such bold and embarrassing statements that he made, of
course is going to be no trust. This is why
we heard and saw whistleblowers going directly to common members
of Congress and just completely circumnavigating around Arrow. There's got
a lot of work to do to even bring the
trust back to allow that to happen going forward.
Speaker 1: Sean, if you were a whistleblower, would you go into
Arrow today and spill the beans.
Speaker 2: I see? I don't see a comprehensive investigation coming out
of the information being given to Aero.
Speaker 1: Do you think that whistleblowers are jeopardizing their safety by
going to Arrow or jeopardizing their identity?
Speaker 2: Well, I've been privy to some of the disgusting tactics
used by Susan Go and by others within the Department
of Defense to try to silence certain people within the communities,
editing of Wikipedia pages, slandering, sending surrogates out to write
blog posts, and to defame people on forums like Reddit
and Twitter. I'm not sure what we're going to get
when that's the status quo.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think. I certainly don't think that we're
going to get any sort of any sort of forward movement.
So in January, and this is some information most people
may or may not be aware of. In January, doctor
Sean Kirkpatrick in with the blanket on the name, but
he was the NASA scientist debunker of the of the
NASA UAP study. Sean Kirkpatrick and this guy are having
a network special on PBS. UH. It's not called Noble
actually it's nov or something like that, but they essentially
are debunking the Aquaedia case and the UH. And I
think the other video as well, So it's probably like
a carbon copy of what we saw today. Why do
you think, and I put this to both you any
any thoughts as to why Kirkpatrick continues to do this.
I would think like if I worked for the government,
I worked for do O D, I exited d O
D and went picked up a job at DOE. My
boss is a Doe would say, hey, man, you know
you're you're talking. You need to stay in your lane.
Is is is this They're just giving him free reign?
Is this by design? Sean? What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: Well, it's obvious the way that mister Kirkpatrick is behaving
benefits someone, and those that seem to prop him up
are those that have a have some kind of motivation
to not discuss this topic, to not bring any of
the great conclusions that the American people in the world
in general are entitled to. So I just see a patsy.
I see someone who's going to cash in where he's
told he was allowed to go have fun. He's going
to go have fun. And as many seem to take
very serious, they take very serious things these days, and
they think that being a troll and being a disruptor
in them is somehow what people need, and it's not.
They need trust, they need faith, and they need answers.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Sean Kirkpatrick Vinnie out there parroting
all of this stuff. Is this helping or hurting the conversation?
And do you think it's intentional He's he was just
given a loose reins or do you think that there
could be something more behind that.
Speaker 4: It does almost certainly point to it being he's been
directed to do it. He's had every opportunity to wash
his hands of this subject. Look forward to his cushy
little job where Oakridge and be breathed a sigh of
relief that he no longer has to deal with the subject.
Yet here he is, he keeps coming back taking little digs.
So it almost seems that there's an ulterior motive out
there for the reason why he would even do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't get it. Finally, so what is your
sort of takeaway? Any other points that I'd missed that
you would like to bring up. I'll start with you, Sean.
Speaker 2: You know, I have an adversarial attitude to people who
get in front of the mic and say that what
we've all worked so hard on is nothing. But at
the same time, I am very emboldened by what we've seen.
If we'd spoken to any of us ten years prior
to now, we would be absolutely and just over the
moon with what we're seeing happen right now. We have
to remember that these things do move slowly. They are
moving fast behind closed doors. It's a question of getting
people with integrity in front to tell us the truth.
Speaker 4: Betty your thoughts, Yeah, I think obviously it's going to
take time. We heard some mid twenty twenty five dates
thrown forward there. I think what I'm going to be
really looking out for is when the general public are
able to submit.
Speaker 3: Reports to Arrow.
Speaker 4: Let's see how they deal with members of the public
if they give them the time, respect and decency.
Speaker 1: Indeed, So, Vinie, where can we find your show and
any new guests on Disclosure Team that you would like
to tell us around the corner?
Speaker 4: Yep, So you can find Disclosure Team on YouTube and
most podcast podcast platforms. I've got all sorts of guests
lined up. I've got Thiago and I'm going to butcher
his last name Lichetti or something. He featured recently in
George Knapp's investigation Alien covering the Kolaras incident. So really
looking forward to digging into that case. But yeah, lots
more guests lined up.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Sean, you were recently on News Nation. Anything else
coming up for you.
Speaker 2: I'll be announcing soon a podcast I'll be doing with
our in conjunction with our nan new app called The Experience.
We'll be announcing our guest list and some of the
subjects will be going after and very soon we'll be
launching our app and it's open beta and we look
forward to putting those dates out and providing links to everybody.
Speaker 1: What can you tell us about this app? I'm very
excited about this.
Speaker 2: It's a social media app that looks to give people
who study the phenomenon, who have interacted with it, or
maybe just generally curious about it, a place where they
can go, where they can meet, where their data is protected,
and where they can have a discussion about this with
like minded people share their very much like what Aero
is trying to set up, but not a form with
a PDF that you fill out, something that's interactive and
something that has community management, where the stigma is not
applied and where everyone has a safe place to have
a conversation.
Speaker 1: Excellent, And actually we have a question from Shelley Montgomery
and folks at folks at home, if you're watching, if
you have any questions for Sean or Vinnie, now the
time to post those. Shelley Montgomery, mister Cahill, your thoughts
on a possibility our company or whatever they are also
watch just normal town power plants? Have any been spotted
in these in these areas.
Speaker 2: I've seen reports of UAP over power lines, over power transformers,
substations and things like that. It is a common experience
and I've even seen some of those reports that went
up to the u a PTF at the time. So yes,
that is that is pretty common. I hope we see
more about that.
Speaker 1: I think so too. I sometimes wonder if arrows what
seems to be reluctance to deal with the drone issue.
And I think both of you guys would would agree
with this. There is a long history in UAP literature
of UAPs using mimicry or or signature management to appear
as something prosaic or relatable to folks. There are any
any kind of comparisons or examples of that either of
you can give.
Speaker 3: I think just continuing, Oh sorry, Sean, no, no, you go,
you go ahead.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to just wanted to continue on the
drone incursions over kind of power plants and nuclear facilities.
We have to remember that these have been reported in
the last five to six years in other countries such.
Speaker 3: As Sweden, Germany.
Speaker 4: There's been quite a lot of media headlines overseas about that,
and nothing really ever came of them either. Now we
had Arrow in the report talking about alliances with a
lot of the kind of five eyes and that wasn't
mentioned today. Hopefully we start to see more of that
sort of conversation happening across the seas.
Speaker 1: Absolutely as Sean, you were going to add something.
Speaker 2: Oh Anny got it?
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, great, well, awesome, Well, guys, thank you very
much for coming on. I hope that this is the
first of more hearings from Arrow, but I don't know.
I was a bit underwhelmed, to be honest.
Speaker 3: We have a lot to do.
Speaker 1: We have a lot to do, that that is for sure. Okay, guys,
thank you very much for joining us, and look forward
to having you back on the show. And thanks thanks
for taking taking your time both of you guys for
coming on. And Vinnie, I'll be on your show hopefully soon.
And Sean, I look forward to your podcast.
Speaker 2: Good to see you, gentlemen.
Speaker 3: We thanks, thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, Yeah, I mean I don't know. I I
it just so here here, here's the deal. When we
want to talk about whether we can trust Errow, I'm
going to read a statement. I'm going to pull it
up here that I put to that I put hopefully
to be picked up by Congress. I don't have a
screenshot of it, but I'm going to pull it up
here in just a second. So I'm kind of doing
this doing this on on the on the fly. So
this was something that I wrote that I think very
well may end up being entered into the Congressional record.
I'll know more about that here in a bit a
written statement of Matthew Ford for the US Committee on
Oversight and Accountability Subcommittees on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government,
Government Innovation, National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Unidentified
anomalist phenomena exposing the truth, which, of course was this.
Hearing this in the statement, here's what I say, Chairwoman Mace,
Chairman Grothman, ranking members Conley and Garcia, and members of
the Committee. I'm Matthew Ford, an American journalist and host
of the Good Trouble Show podcast. Today, I'm introducing damning
information regarding the former director of the All Domain Anomaly
Resolution Office or ARROW, doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. I'm a patriot
who cares deeply about our nations security, but above all,
I care about the truth. In November of last year,
journalists Christopher Sharp, Josh Josh Boswell and I published a
story in The Daily Mail exposing for the first time
the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology's Office of Global
Access and its classified UAP crash recovery program. Last weekend,
Christopher Sharp published a follow up article in The Liberation
Times providing further detail on how the CIA's Directorate of
Science and Technology operates its UAP, UAP related crash recovery
and reverse engineering programs through the Office of Global Access
and the CIA's Counter Proliferation Mission Center WCPMC. The Head
of the Directorate of Science and Technology serves as the
primary gatekeeper of the entire UAP Deep Legacy program. Again,
the Head of the Directorate of the CIA Directorate of
Science and Technology serves as the primary gatekeeper of the
entire up Deep Legacy program, overseeing operations such as detection
of UAPs through classified programs, recovery operations, disbursement of recovered
craft to government agencies and private defense contractors, and protection
of derived off world technologies. My sources have alleged that
Glenn Gaffney, the former head of the Directorate the CIA
Directorate of Science and Technology, is one of those gatekeepers.
Last year, I revealed that doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. I revealed
this on The Good Trouble Show for the very first time,
that doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, the former director of EROW, had
assembled a secret technical advisory group to Council Aero. Following
my story, doctor Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of this committee
two members of Congress, but refused refused to disclose the
member's identities. So Congress was asking doctor Kirkpatrick, who is
on this secret board that you have assembled, and doctor Kirkpatrick,
in typical fashion, refused to divulge those names. Multiple sources
have confirmed that Glenn Gaffney, the former head of the
CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology and gatekeeper of the
UAP Deep Legacy Program, was handpicked by doctor Sean Kirkpatrick
to be on this advisory board. I emphasize this, I continue,
I emphasize this. The most consequential person involved with the
cover up of non human technology is advising, is advising
the office which Congress has given a legal mandate to
find it. This is an abomination. I continue. This is unconstitutional,
This is criminal. Furthermore, this revelation is significant because one
of arrow's primary missions is to provide a means for
government whistleblowers to make protected disclosure on classified UAP Special
Access programs and controlled Access programs or CAPS to ARROW
and its staff. The fact that doctor Sean Kirkpatrick chose
as one of his primary advisors, the very gatekeeper overseeing
CIA controlled UAP access programs, raises serious questions about doctor
Kirkpatrick's true motives as the director of ARROW. Reporting indicates
that ERAW may function as a fly paper operation, intercepting
whistleblowers testimony and feeding their identities back to the CIA.
You have heard that there are whistleblowers who don't trust ERA.
My sources have informed me that this is one of
the reasons why if the CIA intercepts their testimony before
it reaches Congress, whistleblowers are in grave danger. Therefore, I
employ you to wield your subpoena powers against hostile witnesses
such as Glenn Gaffney, former p D d and I,
Stephanie O. Sullivan, and the former head of the CIA's
Office of Global Access, Douglas Wolf. Dozens of whistleblowers are
depending on you. Thank you, Thank you for your leadership
and for your attention on this h on this urgent,
urgent matter. So you know. So here here we have
doctor Koslowski saying to whistleblowers, Hey, come on in. This
is a new ARROW, and I can tell you as
of two weeks ago. As of two weeks ago, this
secret Technical Advisory Group Advising Arrow put together by doctor
Sean Kirkpatrick, and one of one of one of the
primary folks on that technical Advisory group is the very
guy that is one of the primary gatekeepers of the
CIA portion of the of this entire thing. So I
say it again, the the Technical Advisory Group Advising Arrow,
the group that Sean Kirkpatrick refused to tell Congress who
was sitting on that on that panel is one of
the main gatekeepers. The head of of UH the or
was head. He's no longer there. But the head of
the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology now the head
of of C I a DS and T. Guess who
works Guess who is under his his or her jurisdiction
the CIA Office of Global Access. That position, this CIA,
the head of the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology
oversees the CIA Office of Global Access. And also, and also,
and this is critically important when I talk about jeopardizing
of whistleblowers physical safety, their lives, their lives, the head
of DS and T, who was Glenn Gaffney, would have
had visibility into retaliatory measures taken by the security contractors
working for the defense, the aerospace Defense companies that have
these goodies. I say it again, Glenn Gaffie, who was
the head of DS and T for the CIA, under
his responsibility, he would have had visibility and or involvement
possibly in retaliation against whistleblowers. Includes physical threats, This includes
kinetic retaliation. That position in the CIA would have had
visibility that would have been part of their portfolio. So
that's why I say in this letter to Congress, you
have to subpoena these folks. You have to drag Glenn Gaffney,
the former head of Office of Global Access, Douglas Wolf.
You've got to get all of these folks under oath,
in a skiff, under the threat of perjuring themselves and
ask them very direct questions. I can tell you multiple sources,
multiple sources of former and current government employees specifically stated
that former head of CIA Directorate of Science and Technology,
Glenn Gaffney has been involved in this UAP issue and
the legacy, the deep legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program.
Glenn Gaffney has been involved with this for a very
very long time. Those are the allegations. Now, do I
have direct firsthand knowledge of that, No, because I don't
work for the government. I do not hold a security clearance.
But the way you get to the bottom of that
improved if those allegations are indeed true. And again I'm
hearing this from multiple people, multiple people that were former
or current government employees that worked this topic as part
of their portfolio. All of them said Glenn Gaffney is highly, highly,
highly involved with all of this, and that particular position,
the head of the Directorate of Science and Technology for
the CIA, is one of the primary gatekeepers of the
deep legacy UAP controlled access program. Now, why isn't that
being asked at these hearings. That's what I want to know.
It's it is high time that this happened. I mean, look,
he I'm trying to give doctor Koselowski the benefit of
the doubt. He certainly seems much more amenable. He's nowhere
near as arrogant as doctor Sean Kirkpatrick. I certainly hope
he can write above the fifth grade fifth grade level.
We know doctor Sean Kirkpatrick literally, for whatever reason, cannot
write a report that would even pass a fifth grade
science class. So I I am confident that doctor Koslowski
is a good step forward. But here's the thing, everyone
at home, I want all of you to keep in mind.
Lifers in government they are still there because they are
not risk takers. The senior executive service folks, they want
they want their retirement, They want to sail off into
the sunset. Of course, they want to do the right thing,
and I think by and large they attempt to do so.
But as a career government bureaucrat, there is zero, there
is zero incentive for any of these folks to buck
chain of command. Zero. They don't want to jeopardize their retirement,
they don't want to jeopardize their security clearance, which will
ensure that they have that they have employment post government work.
There is literally no incentive for them to do the
right thing. So let's say that doctor Koslowski was fully
read in to the legacy UAP, the deep legacy UAP program,
but his bosses, the folks up the chain of command
from him, say, look, you can't go there. We don't
want you to open these doors. If someone tells you
to go open up a door A because Lockheed Martin
has something stuffed behind that door, do us a favor.
Just don't go open yet. Well, we'll just tell you
there's nothing behind that door. He's a doctor. Koslowski is
in a position where it's a no win situation for him.
He's people are going to go after him, as we
as we saw today with this performance. But he can't
do he can't he can't go row. The guy doesn't
want to end up in jail. He's obviously not going
to leak anything that is classified a classified, special access
or controlled access program. It is just not going to happen.
The only way that this is going to happen is
hopefully the Trump administration gives them a different directive and
says this has got to come out. And for anyone
in the Trump transition team, I hope you're listening to
this show. It is time to rip this band aid off.
This is and I used to make fun of Trump
all the time about this deep state stuff. I thought
he was full of it, but it turns out Trump
was right about a lot of it. And I'm being
nonpartisan here, but this is the ultimate deep state thing,
if you want to call it that, even though it's
a politically loaded term. But at the end of the day,
you have a group afty or fifty ish or so
senior executive Service employee that are managing the special access
programs and the controlled access programs and the programs in DOE,
and all of this, half of it sits classified under
the National Security Council, and the other half sits under
the Department of Energy as transclassified for nuclear information. These
fiftiest or so folks that we didn't vote in that
we never asked any of us what they think we
should be doing about this whole UAPSU. These folks is
folks of fiftieth or so senior executive service folks. They
are the ones managing this. They are the ones gatekeeping this.
They are the ones hiding this from American presidents. They
are the ones hiding this from some secretaries of Defense.
And that, my friends, is an abomination of the Constitution
of the u United States. You cannot have a functional
democracy when you've got the the head, the head of
the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, calling the shots
deciding what possibly what retaliatory measures against whistleblowers are. Okay,
it was shared with me a while back what the
CIA was up to in terms of retaliation against whistleblowers,
and it made me want to go to the bathroom
and vomit. It made me so sick as an American
to know that this this sort of rogue element in
our in our government, thinks that doing those sorts of
things is okay. It's not okay. And and the fact
that you have a corre up Department of Defense Inspector
General Inspector General's Office operating where if you are a
whistleblower and you go and you file a PPD nineteen
Presidential Protected Disclosure nineteen form and you send that to
the DODIG to whistle blow on UAP special access programs
that you think are illegal. And oh, by the way,
when you do that, you know what's going to happen.
The Pentagon Department of Defense Inspector General is going to
leak those facts, the protected, the legally protected confidential disclosure
you made. The DODIG is going and leaking them. The
DoD IG leaked details about David Grush's testimony, The DoD
IG leaked testimony of about Loue Alizondo. So here you
have the d o d IG who's saying, come on in,
tell it, give us the goods. We'll keep your identity secret.
We'll we'll keep your your testimony classify or secret. But
guess what they're going to leak the non classed stuff.
Guess what they're going to leak your name? Why are
they doing that? So the d O d ig they
they want to they're speaking out of both sides of
their mouth. They're saying. They're saying, folks, come on in,
make a protected disclosure. We've got your back. None of
this stuff will leaked out. You can tell us everything
you want in the skiff. Nothing is going to get
leaked out. But their actions are different than their words.
They leak these things. They leak whistleblower identities, They leak
non class details regarding their testimony, and why are they
doing that. They are sending a message to whistleblowers that
while yes, we may say we want you to come
on in and tell us about all this governmental malfeasance,
but the subtext is they do not want you to
come in because if you do, you know what's going
to happen. Your identity is going to get leaked, Certain
details about your protected disclosure are going to be leaked.
And oh, by the way, chances are nine times out
of ten your security clearance is going to get flagged. Now,
why is that important. Folks that exit the government who
have any sort of security clearance TSSCI secret whatever, that
is their golden ticket when they exit government and they
want to work on a classified program for any sort
of government contractor that requires any kind of clearance TSTSSCI whatever.
If they don't have that clearance, if their clearance is flagged,
those former government and employees they cannot find a job
period the end. So think about it. You're a you're
an Air Force officer. You have as part of your
job a TSSCI clearance and a bunch of different tickets
for different SATs that you were read in and then
eventually read out of. And you want to go work
for a Lockheed Martin or a Northrop Grummitt. You go
in for that interview and you think everything is okay,
and during that interview, the security officer says, sorry, sir,
sorry ma'am, but there's a flag on your clearance. We
cannot hire you because as part of this job, you
need to be able to handle Special Access Program level information.
And since you don't have a clearance to view SAP materials,
you're out a lot. I can tell you that this
form of retaliation continues to this day. There are people
whose clearances have been flagged and they cannot find a
damn job. These folks that have served our country with distinction,
warned the uniform, men and women who have decided to
do the right thing and flag what are illegal things
taking place within our government by going to the dodig.
The Pentagon throws them under the bus. They threaten them,
they flag their security clearances, They ensure the Pentagon ensures
that if you are a whistleblower, good luck finding a job.
You might as well work for Home Depot because you
are not going to get a job that requires a
security clearance. Because the folks that are part of the
security infrastructure, the security officers that work the security, the
security aspect of special access programs and controlled access programs
for the IC, they're going to flag your clearance. They're
going to make damn sure you are not going to
get a job because they the Pentagon is hell bent.
They are hell bent on retaliating against our men and
women of uniform who are going against the grain. Men
and women who have warned the uniform or served our government,
served our country in some capacity. Folks that have decided,
you know, what this is not right. What is happening
behind the scenes is not right. And they had the
courage to do the right thing. They had the courage
to put duty above self, to put country above self.
And what thanks do they get? They get their security
clearance flagged? What thanks do they get? They have security
contractors that go and put tracking devices on their cars,
what thanks do they get? The CIA planning to do
certain things I can't talk about here. Those are the
things that Congress must subpoena these folks. They need to
subpoena the head of DS and T, whoever the head is,
the former head of DS and T, Glenn Gaffney, the
former head of the CIA Office of Global Access. You
need to throw them on the stand, make them swear
under oath, and ask them really hard questions. Ask them,
are they aware of or were they involved in any
decision making regarding retaliatory measures, either directly by the government
or through the use of cutouts, or through the use
of government defense contractors and their security their security contractors.
Were they aware and or involved in any of those
retaliatory measures against government whistleblowers or potential government whistleblowers. That's
what they should ask. They should ask, are they aware
of where the money for a Boeing charging eight thousand
dollars for a bottle of a soap dispenser for an airplane.
Let's say that soap dispenser giving a generous, generous offering.
Let's say that soap dispenser cost one thousand dollars. Where
did where did Boeing funnel that other seven thousand dollars?
Guarantee you they funneled it into areas that they don't
want us to know about. Congress must also subpoena the
c suite of all the major defense contractors. I'm talking
aerospace corporation. I'm talking Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin. They
need to bring the corporate leadership in before Congress put
them under oath and ask them exactly what they have
been up to regarding any program cap SAP, or any
of their private programs involving technologies of unknown origin or tuos.
They need to ask about UAPs. They need to ask
what other funding mechanisms that are below the radar will
say funding mechanisms that they have to fund these projects.
They need to ask what materials that should be in
the government's possession. They're not giving that those are the
things that need to be asked. So any whistleblowers, there
are potential whistle blowers that are asking or asking themselves
right now, if they should go trust Arrow and go testify,
Absolutely not. I would not recommend any government whistleblower, current
or former, go to Arrow. The mere fact that Arrow,
as of two weeks ago, has this secret technical advisory group,
of which at least at some point ago Glenn Gaffney,
former head of CIA Director to sign Technology, was part
of the other thing I can tell you as well,
any members of Congress that are watching this, there are
other members of the of Arrow's advisory board, their technical
advisory group, the group that they don't want to tell
you who is on that group. There are a host
of other members that you would probably flip your lid
if you found out who is on that group. So,
Senator jillibrand anyone else watching this, if you want to
know whether you can trust Arrow right now, you need
to demand the list of names of who is sitting
on the Arrow Technical Advisory Group. You're going to be
floored and you're going to be enraged, And I guarantee
you Once you find out who is on that list,
you're going to be asking a lot of questions and
throwing a lot of people under oath because what is
going on is illegal, it is wrong, and furthermore, sending
somebody to ARROW when you've got the head of DS
and T, one of the primary gatekeepers of the deep
legacy program, I can tell you he or she that
is in that position right now. There is a damn
good chance that any whistleblower that is going to ARROW,
that person sitting on that technical Advisory Group is likely
funneling all of that information back to the CIA and
back to the defense contractors. And it is the defense
contractors that are the primary group that is engaged in
retaliation against whistleblowers. So you know, I absolutely there is
no way that I would recommend anyone go to ARROW
that has any concern about their safety, because there is
just no guarantee that your identity and or what you're
disclosing is not going to get funneled back to CIA,
DS and T. It is probably going to get funneled
back to the defense contractors, who who are at the
end of the day, are just more concerned about power
and their bottom line. You don't want to do it.
It's not it's uh, it's it's just not worth it.
So anyway, I really appreciate everyone joining the show today.
Please tell your friends about us. We we only can
grow as fast as people will tell us. Tell us
about tell your friends about the show. Please hit the
subscribe and thumbs up button buttons. YouTube looks at those
metrics and decides whether those signals are gonna are gonna
encourage them to recommend our show to people that do
not track the UAP topic. At the end of the day,
as lou Elizondo so eloquently stated at the hearing, this
is about our democracy. This is about whether our constitutional
republic survives. You cannot have a functioning democracy when you
have a cancer, a malignant tumor that is eroding the
very foundation of truth and what it means to be
an American. You cannot have a democracy when the Pentagon
throws under the bus the men and women that have
worn the uniform in service to this country. It is unacceptable,
it is wrong, and has got to come to an end.