Understanding UAP: Science, National Security & Innovation (House Oversight and Government Reform)

0:00 All right, folks. It is 11:45. Uh, this venue will be u segregated into three separate panel discussions uh with a 10-minute break in between. So, again, that will be a good opportunity if you need to use a restroom or to get a drink of water. Um, I am going to first turn this over to Representative Luna before I begin my little my little speech. Um, ma'am, do you prefer to speak up here? Do you want to speak at the table? I can I can sit here. That's perfect. Um, first and foremost, thank you for everyone who's come up today and I see a lot of good journalists here. Ma'am, I appreciate actually read your book directly. So, appreciate you for being here as well and all of your hard work. Um, as you know, up until really the last Congress, I think it was Representative Burchett that was actually leading out the um investigation solely on his own. So, credit due deserved. Uh, Mr. Burchett's been really, I think, at the forefront of this fight. We do have an opportunity right now where we are seeing not just a complete and a complete push for transparency out of the current administration on this topic but also to we have biccameal and bipartisan support on this. So um thank you very much Lou

1:02 for your help and then also to the experts and people being here today to testify really to tell us and help lead us out or lead out u the investigations with us. Again this is a community effort. This is not just you know Democrat Republican thing even just an American thing, right? There's a massive push for this for good reason. We know recently in working with the National Archives, they were able to actually update on the archives website all things UAP, there will continue to be documents scanned and updated and be on that tab page. So you citizen journalists can actually go forward, do the research yourself, help us ask the tough questions and then I can also tell you that we have posted dates for the next UAP hearing. We are going to be doing two. One is going to be government focused. We are asking um various appointees. I don't want to release the names yet, but we have been getting good response on them. We will make those names um soon. As well as um military and or former military that will be coming forward. Also to note that we were told um by one of uh Mr. Berles's staffers that's helping us out this

2:03 investigation about someone that wants to come forward in regards to a crash retrieval program. And so that's pretty interesting to hear someone going on record about that. Obviously, we've had a lot of people try to dispel the research that the UAP community has done and so we're just simply putting out the facts and letting the American people and really the world decide for themselves. Um, but I'd also like to have some of my counterparts say a few things so Representative Brunson. Thank you, Anna. Um, I first want to just say thank you again to Tim for leading the charge on this when it wasn't when it wasn't popular. It was uh difficult and it took a lot of courage and and we all recognize that and I just want to acknowledge that and I want to say thank you to Anna for her leadership and I'll tell you she is amazing to work with. She is very humble in her attitude and her approach. She doesn't uh she likes to you know to to let people other people join in the credit and she is a very gracious uh and good leader for this task force. I want to say thank you to everyone that has come forward, you

3:05 know, from Lou to Mr. Melon to Mr. Grush and others that have have taken bulgress Mr. Graves who's here um who have done taken a bold step and and you know at the risk of their reputation and their career. There's a lot of people that have sacrificed their career in order to get get information out to the American people. Um we are grateful for as well for the cooperation that we're getting with Tulsi Gabbard um and whose director's initiatives group is actively harmonizing classification guides to facilitate responsible releases. She been she's been very effective with the JFK assassination records and others. And then the other last thing I want to say is that this is not a one-time thing. This will not be it's clear this is not a one-time data dump. This is this is a systemic change to the process and the way that we are transparent with the American people. And with that, we're working on legislation that will

4:09 that will put that into practice. And again, thank you for everyone for being here. I'm looking forward to today's Thank you all for being here. I'll be very brief. Lou, thank you for the introduction. Sure. Thank my colleagues up here for their kind words. I'm not sure what that's all about. I think I'm buying pieces that I just think you're crazy. I got a daughter that rides horses. I don't know how I'm going to get home today. But it is a pleasure being here and I want to thank the people that are they're sitting right there. Some dear friends of mine, people in the media and elsewhere that are always kind to me. We don't agree on a dumb thing politically, but we do agree that this is the biggest cover up of our lifetime and that we need to get to the bottom of it. And I want you tell folks to know out there that we believe you. And for so many years, people that believe like we do have had to live in the shadows. And

5:09 when you bring it up, you get criticized and people uh say all kinds of awful things about you. I'm over that. We know this thing's covered up and it we're going to blow the dad lid off of it. So, thank you all for being here. Let's get on. Well, what I'd like to do is uh because uh time is precious, especially for the members. Obviously, they have a real job to do. Uh this is part of it, but they have a whole lot of other responsibilities. So, with that said, I'd like to first begin by thanking specifically Representative Luna from the 13th district, if I'm not mistaken, in Florida. uh for her leadership uh on this particular in this particular forum and on this topic. This would not have been possible if it was not for Representative Luna in her pursuit of the truth. Uh she has a uh she has served her country u quite honorably and her husband as well. If any of you been in the military may run across him. So on behalf of a very grateful nation, ma'am, thank you for what you continue to do and your

6:10 continued service to this nation and that of your family. it is greatly appreciated in your service specifically as well with regard to the military. So, thank you. Um, secondly, I'd like to thank um, Representative Eric Burlson, somewhat newer to this topic than some of the other folks maybe on the Senate side and even the House side who has also changed in truth and transparency within the American government. I would refer to him as a healthy skeptic u, which I think is important, right? Always keeping an open mind, allow the data to speak for itself. And in my interactions with Representative Burlson, I've seen him to be every time and exclusively honorable and truthful. And he is now um I think it's translating into the form you see here with media present. We're going to have a very interesting conversation today. And again, this is only possible because of the three individuals up here. So if you have time later on, I would I would suggest you you give him a a good deal of thanks for what he's doing for our nation. And last but certainly not least is Representative

7:12 Timber from Tennessee who has been spearheading this topic for quite some time at great personal risk to his political career. As most of you know um that's one thing that politicians tend to avoid is risk especially when it comes to election time. And um Representative Bashett, I would uh I would probably define him as um bringing a working man's perspective, a common sense perspective to the bureaucracy we call Washington DC. Certainly a breath of fresh air and um a champion for again truth and transparency for for our government and for our institutions. So with that said, I'd like to offer a quick round of applause for them. Secondly, I'd like to thank the esteemed panelists that are with us here today. Can you all hear me? Okay, in the back. Okay, I can adjust the mic. I can use my drill sergeant voice if I need to. Um, we're going to have uh three separate sessions with panelists uh with

8:13 extremely esteemed backgrounds. I'm not sure there's ever been assembled a panel like this in front of the American people. And I I don't say that lightly because I've been part of a lot of meetings, a lot a lot of sensitive meetings both in the intelligence community and within the national security apparatus. Um we have elements from academia, elements from the scientific community, elements from the national security arena, elements from the intelligence community, um all speaking here today to you about what they know regarding the UAP topic. Um the assembly here is is dare I say possibly even historic and I'm truly honored to be with you here today. I will be your moderator. Real quick reminder for our panelists. Um I'd like to if you're asking a question try to keep it within try to keep it within 3 Eric, um if you go beyond that, I might have to kind of get the conversation um

9:15 directed to some other questions because we do have a lot of panelists and uh I also have a tendency to to talk a lot. So, I'm going to try to keep myself in check as well. Um but panelists, if you could try to keep your responses to three minutes, some panelists have for you a presentation. So, for those who have a presentation, we'll do the presentation first and then we'll be followed up with questions. And of course, esteemed members of Congress, if you have any questions at any time, please feel free to ask them and we will uh we will certainly have our panelists address those questions for you. Uh one more reminder. Um again, a security reminder. I know I said it before, but for anybody who's come in here after, uh I'm going to be asking questions. Some of those will be very pointed questions. For those of you who have a security clearance or who have held a security clearance, I ask that you please be mindful that this is an unclassified venue and not to discuss classified information. Um, for the record, none of us look good in an orange jumpsuit. Certainly, I don't. So, we want to be mindful of that. And I'd also like to thank the media. Uh, thank each and

10:15 every one of you for being here. I know this is a topic that for quite some time was fraught with stigma and taboo. this would have been considered career suicide for any respectable journalist to cover this topic just like it is for for politicians uh and our like the leaders of this nation and um times are changing times are changing because of you and so I want to I want to do a hearty thank you to the members of media who are covering this and last but not least and probably perhaps most important I would like to thank each and every one of you in the audience each and every one of you that's tuning in each and every one of you that's watching this each and every one of you that might sitting on your sofa at home or around the dinner table and are interested in this topic and have asked questions. Um, this is because of you. Our elected officials put this on because of you, not me and not even our esteemed guests because of you. And that should tell you something. That means democracy is working, folks. That means transparency is working. That means we the people are

11:16 winning. And that's a lot. That's that's profound. This is democracy in action and you're watching it. So, I want to thank each and every one of you and I also want to thank real quick the staff here in on Hill that put this help put this together and coordinate this. I know it's a bit of a zoo. Uh but thank you so much for for being patient with us and helping us with the audio visual and the media and the seating and it is very much appreciated. So with that um let's go ahead and begin shall we? So I'd like to introduce uh the first of our panelists here is Dr. Abby Lo. Now bear with me because he has his academic vite. It's probably about 10 pages long. So I'm going to just try to truncate a little bit. So Dr. Abu Lobe is a PhD uh professor of science at Harvard University. He is also the head of the Galileo project. He is also the founding director of Harvard's black hole initiative. He is a contributor to

12:18 Arrow. Uh he is also a trained astrophysicist. Let's see if we can get this right. Director of the what institute? Institute for Theory and Computation. Director Institute for Theory and Computation. Um and a former member of the President's Council on Science and Technology. So think about that for a minute, right? Advising the president um former chair of the board of physics and uh astronomy of the nationalmies and uh also author of eight books and over 1,000 scientific papers and he's here before you today. By the way, none of our panelists are being paid. Everybody's doing this um out of their own kindness and goodness in their own heart. The second panelist uh we have here is Rear Admiral Tim Gaudette. Um for those of you who served in in the Navy know how hard it is to achieve the rank of Admiral. That is no easy feat.

13:21 Uh he's also former acting administrator of the National Ocean Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aka Noah. Former oceanographer for the Navy. A advisory board member of the UAPDF. folks here that are helping make this happen. Um, but I'll tell you something else about about Tim. Tim also happened to be one of uh the Navy officers that was present at privy during the Roosevelt incidences uh the Roosevelt raised from I say plural because there were many of these UAP incidents that the USS Roosevelt encountered in the 2013 2014 time frame uh when she was conducting military operations in the uh support of the global war on terror and so Admiral Gaette I I would consider indirectly a witness to some degree of some of the dysfunction that the bureaucracy had overlaid on some of our servicemen and

14:21 women in uniform reporting UAP. And certain last but not least is Dr. Eric Davis. Um not only colleague but a friend and in some cases even a mentor. uh he is a theoretical and applied physicist, senior science adviser at Earth Tech, former researcher at the aerospace corporation. And now those are just some of the let me tell you who he really is. Dr. Eric Davis was one of our senior scientists during my tenure at 8, the advanced aerospace threat identification program and OAP as well. Um he was one of our chief chief scientists and by the way he was also part of other legacy efforts before that working with elements of the US government and I think what you're going to find him have to say today is going to be very very compelling. Um he's an honorable man. He has served his country time and time again in some cases at great personal expense professionally and personally to

15:23 uh and probably one of the smartest individuals I've ever had the honor privilege to meet in my life to work Um if you get a chance, I'd shake his hand because I would consider him like the rest of these gentlemen, a national treasure. Um and I think like what he's going to tell you today is going to be very interesting. So this is why I do the reminder of three minutes because even myself, I would love to just let him roll for about three hours. Um, so with that said, I think we have a presentation we're going to present first by Dr. Abby Lo. So, if we could just give him a quick round of applause. Thank you so much. It's a great pleasure to be here. Let us be honest. There are objects in the sky that we don't understand. That's not the first time that we don't understand something. You know our knowledge, scientific knowledge is an island in an ocean of

16:24 ignorance. We don't know what n what 85% of matter in the universe is. We call it dark matter, but we invest billions of dollars figuring it out over the past half century. We haven't yet figured it out. My point is simple. We should invest a billion dollars in figuring out what is in our sky. And that means developing artificial intelligence algorithms software that would help us analyze data from state-of-the-art sensors. And in one case, if all of these objects are produced by humans, the defense department will have a new tool to monitor what's out there in the sky. It's important for national security. However, if one out of a

17:24 million objects came from outside the system, the person who finds that object will get the Nobel Prize. It's a winwin situation. We need to invest a billion dollars in this task and I will mention a few details of what we can do with it. This is a subject that the public cares a lot about and so it's one of the unusual opportunities to invest a billion dollars in science and technology that will make all taxpayers happy. If you were to ask them, do they care more about what dark matter is or whether we have a neighbor that is intelligent from which we can learn? They will tell you it's the second question that they want the billion dollars to be spent on. So to make taxpayers happy, let's invest the money. And if we don't find any technological

18:24 relics from other civilizations, this would be a very precious defense system for our country. So I will show a few um slides describing what we have been doing over the past few years in the project that I'm leading at Harvard University, the Galilo project. What you see in the first slide is a title of an article that appeared in New York Times magazine and I was not happy with the content. I contacted the editor and said it was if this is the way you describe science, how can I believe anything you say about politics? That's a good take. We can leave now. You already now. Enrico Fermy in 1950 had lunch at Alamos and in his Italian accent he asked where is everybody? And that's a

19:25 question that every lonely person asks. And what you tell a lonely person is don't be presumptuous. Your partner will not come to you. You are not that attractive. You have to go to dating sites. And and Rico Fermy didn't even build a telescope to look out. Didn't have cameras to check. And so saying where is everybody is arrogant. And many of my colleagues in academia argue extraordinary claims require evidence. If you read the news, you would conclude that we are not extraordinary. There is room for improvement. And imagining something like us on a planet that has similar conditions to Earth is not an extraordinary claim. It's just an ordinary claim to say under similar circumstances you will get life and eventually intelligent life and most stars in the Milky Way galaxy 100

20:27 billion of them formed billions of years before the sun. So we are late for the party. They may have been before us. So it's an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence. When people make this statement, they also imply that we should not invest any funds in searching for them. And without seeking evidence, how can we find them? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So my point is that in within the scientific community, innovation is suppressed by people who assume the answer in advance. I when I was a kid, I was most frustrated by the adults in the room because I would ask them a question and they would pretend to know the answer. And the one reason I became a scientist is because I don't care what other people say. I don't care how many likes I get. I just want to figure out the answer based on evidence. That's the way a detective works. We shouldn't assume anything. But if we don't collect

21:28 data, we will never find anything new. Now another important point is new scientific knowledge doesn't fall into lap. To find the Higs boson, the CERN invested10 billion dollars in the large hydron collider to find the first generation of stars and galaxies in the universe. the scientific version of the story, the biblical story of Genesis. We had to invest10 billion dollars in the web telescope. I was one of the people in the first advisory committee that designed back then the next generation space telescope. My point is in order to find something new, you need to invest resources, time, and effort. It's a lot of work. You can't just sit on your chair and figure out the answer the way most people

22:29 do. And just to give you an example, you know, we are familiar with objects that have a positive mass. We are also aware that the universe is not just expanding, but its expansion is accelerating. So we see evidence for negative gravity. Gravity that is repulsive, pushing the universe apart. And if we had access to a negative mass, just like there are positive and negative electric charges, if you put a negative mass next to a positive mass, the total mass would be zero. This object would float under gravity and you wouldn't need any fuel to move it around. So when they look at Starship, our best rocket, whoever has an access to a negative mass would would laugh at it. We are putting most of the mass in the fuel of the rocket. It's a huge gigantic thing and if they had access to a negative mass that would not be necessary. You would

23:30 just use the payload plus a negative mass that balances it. Just to give an example of something beyond our knowledge if negative masses exist or not. We don't know if you can bottle this dark energy that fills up the you. Now, the Galileo project at Harvard University that was established a few years ago and it followed the first report from the office of the director of national intelligence to Congress and I suggested also to NASA just around that time that they should look into that. uh this is a subject where the intelligence agency cannot really make a lot of progress on because the data is limited. So why not build observatories monitoring the sky? The sky is not classified. Astronomers have been looking at the sky for a while. The oceans are not classified. We just need

24:31 sensors and then analyzing the data with state-of-the-art AI software. That's all we need. So this was not happening and you know I'm sort of I'm not happy with looking at past reports because when you look at past reports you have very data and you can't make a lot of progress if the data is fuzzy. You can't really get it to be crispier. If you have a working observatory that monitors the sky all the time, all the oceans, and you see something unusual, you can try and collect better data. And therefore, I always say the best is yet to come. If we were curious enough, and that's what we should be, we can collect data, forget about the hundreds of reports from the past, and have a collection of millions of objects that we look at. That's what the Galileo project is about. And in the future, we can get

25:33 very good data with equipment that was never tried before. Because astronomers usually focus on a small part of the sky and look at things that are far away. They ignore objects flying overhead. And the Galileo project has developed an observatory at Harvard University first that monitors the sky in the infrared, optical, radio, and audio. And as of now, we are actually doing triangulation. We have multiple units that look at the same object from different directions so that we can figure out the distance, the velocity, the acceleration of the object. That's extremely important. And we are building additional uh one in Pennsylvania, another one in Nevada. Hopefully by the end of the summer we'll have three observatories collecting data on a few million objects every year. And I say even even if one in a million is of extraterrestrial origin, that would be the biggest

26:34 discovery that humanity ever made. It would mean that we have a partner. We shouldn't assume anything about the neighbor, but it would be useful to figure out what they are capable of because we can do better. They're probably more advanced than we are if they reached our backyard before we reached their backyard. So, we collected data on many uh by now millions of of objects. We it and obviously we are happy to share data with whoever is interested. But also over the past decade the first objects from outside the solar system were discovered for the first time by astronomers. There were three of them. The first was identified by US government satellites that are monitoring the Earth for any ballistic

27:35 missiles being launched by adversarial nations. And in 2014, they noticed an object that collided with Earth and exploded with a fireball that released 1% of the Hiroshima atomic bomb energy. and they decided it's not humanmade and therefore it can be shared with astronomy community. So NASA published a catalog of all these meteors over the past decade and uh one of them was this one. We looked at the catalog and uncovered it and realized that it came from outside the solar system because it was moving very fast. It was moving faster than 95% of the stars in the vicinity of the sun outside the solar system. And so the question is, was it a Voyager-l like probe because it's moving fast or maybe just a rock from another star? That was the first one. And then

28:38 the second one in 2017 was a much bigger object. The first one was half a meter in size. The second one was the size of a football field. It didn't collide with Earth. It would have been catastrophic if it did because it would have killed all. But it passed near Earth within a sixth of the Earth sun separation. It was observed by a telescope in Hawaii monitoring near-Earth objects because we are all afraid of what happened to the dinosaurs, right? We don't want to have the same fate. And um they realized this object is moving too fast to be bound by gravity to the sun. And they called it omua mua which means a scout in the Hawaiian language. Now this object at first was thought to be a comet but there was no cometary tail around it. No gas or dust and then it exhibited an excess push away from the

29:39 sun without any rocket effect acting on it. And moreover, it was it had a very extreme shape, most likely flat like a disc based on the reflection of sunlight. The amount of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of 10 every 8 hours as it was tumbling. Very unusual object. So, it wasn't clear. It's not an asteroid. It's not a comet. What is it? And I suggested, well, maybe it's a space trash, an empty trash bag from civilization. So that was 2017. And then oops. And then there was Oops. I'm not sure. Okay. Then there was a comet which looked just like the comets that we are familiar with in 2019. also came from outside the solar system based on its speed. And my

30:40 colleagues said, "Well, this one looks familiar. So, doesn't it convince you that the others are also natural?" And I said, "Well, if you go down the street and you see a weird person and after that you see a normal person, it doesn't make the weird person normal." So, um, Mua was really strange, most likely flat. And, um, it's not clear what it was. I suggested maybe it's a very thin object pushed by sunlight, reflecting sunlight. And in fact, a lot of technological debris that we produced is being pushed by reflecting sunlight. fact, I'm not sure what. Okay. In fact, the the space trash that we produce on January 2nd, 2025, just this year, an amateur astronomer noticed an object

31:44 passing near Earth and it was cataloged as a near Earth asteroid. 17 hours later, it was realized, oh, this object moves exactly the same way as the Tesla Roadster car that was launched by SpaceX in 2018. Elon Musk, it is the It is a car. It's not It's not an asteroid. They removed it from the catalog. And I actually have a bet with Elon. I am willing to put 1% of my net worth against 1% of his net worth to search to check if there is any other space entrepreneur who is more accomplished than he is since the big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Let's figure it out. It's not a lot of money for him. And then uh actually in 2020 there

32:46 was the same telescope in Hawaii that discovered the MUA Mua discovered another object that was pushed by reflecting sunlight and then after a few weeks the astronomers realized oh that's a rocket booster from a 1966 launch by NASA. So we know that some of the objects that are unusual being pushed by sunlight are humanmade. The question is who produced omua mua? And my point is that the next revolution remember copernicus realized we are not the physical center of the universe. I actually visited Poland uh a year ago uh a day after visiting the Munich Security Conference where I spoke as the first astrophysicist that ever by the way I saw on the roof of the hotel at the Munich Security Conference there were

33:47 snipers with black head covers. They were there to protect the politicians. I realized being an astrophysicist is really very fortunate but nobody wants to kill me. But u at any event it's overrated um the next copernican revolution is that we are not at the technological center of the universe. We have something to learn from a smarter kid on our cosmic block. And I wrote a paper a couple of months ago where uh I explained that with a space telescope we can actually go through the million objects roughly meter in size within the orbit of the earth around the sun that came from outside the solar system and figure out whether among them among all the rocks there is space trash from other civilizations because over the past billions of years they predated us and

34:47 they polluted interstellar space because we sent out five probes. Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and New Horizons. They are heading out of the solar system towards interstellar space. We did it over 50 years. Just think how many more we would produce in the next billion years. Uh, and all of that keeps accumulating like plastics in the ocean. All of this trash produced by civilizations. and we just have to look in our backyard and figure it out. Again, a billion dollars will go a long way in this direction. But right now, this subject is outside the mainstream of astronomy. Instead, the the highest priority defined by the Decal survey is to to to spend more than $10 billion in the search for microbes for the molecular fingerprints of microbes in the atmospheres of exoplanets. And frankly, I'm much more

35:48 excited about finding intelligence than finding microbes for a simple reason that we can learn from a higher level of intelligence. One reason I seek intelligence in interstellar space is because I don't often find it here on Earth. And you may ask where is where will Voyager be in a billion years? It will be on the opposite side of the Milky Way galaxy. So if most stars formed billions of years before the sun, we know that for a fact. They had I mean if there were civilizations like us out there they had plenty of time for their spacecraft to reach us and we haven't really checked until the last decade we didn't really know about interstellar objects. So I'm saying this is new. Now, the meteor, the object that collided with Earth, was interesting because for a cost of $1.5 million that I received uh from a donor,

36:52 we were able to go to the Pacific Ocean and search for materials left over from this interstellar object. It exploded only 20 km above the surface of the ocean. And uh that implied that it had material strength tougher than all other hundreds of meteors in the NASA catalog. So it was unusual in its material strength in its speed. And the question was could it be a Voyager like uh Meteor? Could it be a Tesla Roadster car like Meteor? Because that car actually will collide with Earth probably in several tens of millions of years. and my colleagues if there are if there are any astronomers at that time they might argue it's a rock of attack that we've never seen before. So actually the US space command looked back at the data after I reached them through the white house and um they confirmed yes

37:53 this meteor actually came from outside the solar system. The data was reliable and they also released uh the light curve of the explosion that indicated how much energy was released and at what uh altitude was the explosion. And so I decided to lead an expedition to the Pacific Ocean. We went there uh slightly less than two years ago. And what you see here is the deck of the ship that was fittingly called Silver Star. Uh we built a sled with magnets on both sides and we placed it on the ocean floor which was a mile deep. And we surveyed a region that is 7 miles in size looking for any molten droplets left over from the explosion just to figure out was it a natural rock maybe a gadget? And I told my students before I

38:54 left, if we find a gadget and it has buttons on it, should I press a button? Don't press the button. The opinions were split. Half of the class said, please don't do that. He put all of all of us at risk and the other half said, "Please do. We would like to see if it's JGBT 100." Um, so we brought back materials. Um, and it was a two-eek expedition. I put the this all the materials in this black suitcase and shipped shipped it by FedEx to to my home and then brought it to the laboratory of my colleague at Harvard Stein Jacobson uh who has is a worldrenowned geochemist that has the best instruments in the world. And on on the other side of me in this photo is the summer intern Sophie Bertram who worked with me that summer and she discovered

39:54 850 molten droplets within the materials that we brought back. And I uh gave her the honorary title the spiral hunter. And you can see here what these molten droplets looked like. They were very distinct relative to the background sand. and we picked them up with tweezers and published the results. And so there was one type of those molten droplets about 10% of the entire reservoir that uh looked very unusual. They had a composition, a chemical composition that was very different than solar system materials. up to a thousand times higher abundance of burillium, uranium than you find in solar system materials. And so that's a possible indication that we found some material from the original object, but we want to back and search for bigger pieces with a robot that we will put on the ocean

40:55 floor. It will cost $6.5 million. We don't have a fun of yet. If anyone is interested in joining us, let me know. This is an image from the last day of the previous expedition where I was standing on the ship looking at the sunset and next to me is an 88 years old art wolf artich who was um a commander of a destroyer during the Vietnam War. And I really liked him because he wouldn't speak much. He would solve problems and everything he said was true. And there aren't many people like that these days. What you find most often are people that are virtual signaling that are trying to impress you. That's partly the culture of social media. But this mission was a success thanks to art. And he reminded me of my father. I really liked

41:57 him. Now this year, this in August 2025, there is a new observatory in Chile that was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. It's called the Vera Rubin Observatory and it will survey the southern sky every four nights and could find more like objects every few months if they are out there. And now we know to look at them in much greater detail. We can use the web telescope to do that. And this telescope will use a camera is 3.2 2 gigap pixels in resolution. So a thousand times more than the number of resolution elements you have in your cell phone. So I'm very excited about the coming year or two. Uh we will have new results from the observatories that the Galo project is building. We will have potentially a new expedition where

42:58 we can look for bigger pieces of this first interstellar meteor. And the Ruben Observatory might find more like But if we really want to make fast progress, we need more funds. If I had a $100 million or a billion dollars, I know exactly what needs to be done and we can make we can get much better understanding of our neighborhood. As I said before, uh this the software that we developed would be of great use to the Department of Defense. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh I'm just going to be followed very quickly by uh Admiral Gary Dent. He'd like to say a couple words and we're going to try to make this uh brief so we can go ahead and uh start getting to some of the questions. Sir, over to you. Thank you very much. Just great to be here and representatives Luna and Berles and Brett appreciate you giving us all

44:00 an opportunity to to share what we want to share and say what we want to say about this important topic of UAP. So I'll be about five minutes here maybe a little less. But today I call on the American scientific enterprise to mainstream UAP research and development. And to do that properly I should first begin by assessing the current state of UAP research. There are a few brave individuals and organizations conducting such research including professor Avi Lobo through the Galileo project at Harvard, Professor Diana Pulka at UNCW, Drs Gary Nolan and Peter Scayfish at the Soul Foundation with Stanford University, Doc Professor Jeffrey Krypaw with the Archives of the Impossible at Rice University and the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies. But these are by far the exception for UAP. Research and scientific study is shunned by the American science community at large. Even with dozens of credible former military witnesses coming forward as well as legislative action from Congress in recent years, the stigma remains too great to jeopardize the reputation,

45:02 promotion potential, and tenure of those in academia. To better understand this resistance, it might be useful for me to describe the state of climate science in this country where the complete opposite is occurring. As a former administrator of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration with a PhD in oceanography, I've studied the changes occurring in our Earth system. And while they are indeed significant, and I am by no means a climate denier, climate change is is far from the existential threat that the mainstream media and some in the science community claim it to be. A false narrative has been propagated that global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is the cause of every severe weather event on any given day. This is mainly the result of a large number of scientific studies that employ extreme and implausible emission scenarios. Lacking the expertise to critically evaluate such studies. The average citizen has readily accepted such misinformation. Conflating every extreme weather event with climate change is imprecise, incomplete, and incorrect. The most glaring examples come around every hurricane season for which

46:02 satellite data over the 50 years shows there's been no trend upward or downward of these storms. The same goes for wildfires where news coverage always links climate change to their occurrence. But wildfires have actually been decreasing in this country. So even the intergovernmental panel on climate change has been unable to conclusively detect changes in extreme weather and climate event frequency and intensity. However, saying that we are not in fact in a climate crisis is heresy to the mainstream media and the global science community. This is the situation with UAP, but in reverse. Ample evidence, even congressional testimony, attest to the scientific validity of UAP. But the response by members of the scientific community has been either a to bury their heads in the sand or b to make baseless mockery of the courageous contrarians like professor lobe who seek the truth. Why is this so? Well, the reason is partially uh due to overclassification and a deliberate decadesl long disinformation campaign by

47:03 the US department of defense and intelligence community. Unlike climate change, UAP and the non-human intelligence which control them very well could be an existential threat as our moderator Lu Alzando eloquently described in his book aptly named imminent. The scientific community needs to wake up to the reality of UAP which represents the most monumental development since the Capernac revolution. Consider the extraordinary report I received this weekend when a former US Navy SH60 Seahawk helicopter crew chief who was embarked on the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in 2021 described to me his recording on forward-looking infrared video of a metallic sphere at an altitude a few hundred feet above the ship traveling along a linear trajectory horizontal the sea surface before it accelerated into the horizon at an incredible speed disappearing completely upon landing. uh he discussed this with some of the pilots and the other air crew before

48:03 transferring the flur footage to the carrier's intelligence officer. Moreover, this was not an isolated event for the Eisenhower strike group. during that deployment saw many many instances of UAP primarily F-18s frequently encountering them at high altitude and uh and this topic was widely discussed by the airwing during the entire uh deployment and later fellow air crew members of this this crew chief uh from another squadron deployed on board the USS Gerald R. Ford and shared similar experiences. The crew chief also informed me that the secret laptops in their ready room provided access to a share drive where numerous UAP sightings on Fleer were archived. They stored these videos on a folder named range fowlers. You'd like that, Ryan? And uh and his commanding officer and safety officer were aware of these incidents, but there was an unspoken understanding not to discuss them openly in the ready room. I have spoken to other sailors

49:04 still in active duty and their sightings UAP have become so numerous that they are desensitized to the phenomena. My point being that the Navy possesses a trove of video evidence and data regarding UAP. And I see no reason why flur footage of UAP and Navy training ranges could not be declassified and shared with the scientific community. With open access to more data like this, we could transform every institution of higher education by establishing a Galileo project within their astronomy and astrophysics departments, a soul foundation with their within their biio medicine and humanities programs, and an archive of the impossible in their religious studies and philosophy curricula. To close, I point out that last month at the Endless Frontiers Conference in Austin, the president's science adviser, Michael Casios, committed the Trump administration to creating a golden age in American innovation. I'm convinced that UAP research can not only support this, but accelerate it in ways beyond our imagination. The time to destroy the stigma associated with UAP is now. I ask

50:04 the House Oversight Committee and other members of Congress to demand the DoD, DOE, DHS, and NASA release more UAP data for open science. And I call on the White House to include UAP research in this 2025 R&D priorities memo. Thank you all. Thank you very much. So we get to our first question here and uh it is not scripted and it is to uh my former colleague Dr. Eric Davis. Um and be very careful how I ask this question. Welcome Mr. Gold. Good to see you as always. Sorry. Um Dr. Dr. Davis, I I know your background and I know your work uh in our former program, the advanced aerospace threat identification program. I also know to some degree some

51:06 of the history and firsthand experience you have on UAP. I believe that this committee uh and the esteemed members of Congress and the American public would love to hear to the degree you're able to discuss it, the direct access you had. Um for those who don't know, Dr. Davis was, and I'll let him answer this, was it was submitted into into into the matter of record for Congress a couple years ago, the Wilson Davis memo. It was alleged that he was the author of it. And if you don't know what that is, I encourage you to look it up. It has been entered as a matter of public record in the congressional record, and it is significant. Um, this is the man. I won't say he did or he didn't. I'll let him tell you. Um, you authored that potentially. And furthermore, I know has had involvement in the UAP program specifically from a crash retrieval perspective. Now, I'm

52:06 going to be mindful here. Uh, Dr. Davis, please be careful of security classification, but do you mind sharing to the degree you're comfortable with your involvement with information relating to crash retrievalss and u and your experience? Sure. Thank you, M. I've been uh I'm an astrophysicist and also a what we what Mark Mills at NASA and I called the breakthrough propulsion physicist. We worked on breakthrough propulsion together from 1996 to 2002 and then we continued after that to develop a book that we published at the AIAA press in 2009. Uh Frontiers of Propulsion Science. So my background is in uh advanced deep space and interstellar space flight mostly faster than light propulsion through the use of general relativity theory and quantum field theory as well as advanced nuclear propulsion like nuclear fision and nuclear fusion and um beamed energy propulsion which I worked on as a principal investigator for the air force research lab at Edwards Air Force Base.

53:07 So, I've got quite a broad background and I began my work in uh UFOs uh or UAP starting in 1996 when Robert Bigalow hired me to work for him as his director of aerospace physics and astrophysics at the National Institute for Discovery Science. And that was a um that was a pretty transformative job for him because as a physical scientist, I'm seeing for the first time my phenomenon. I'm investigating and using forensic uh science techniques in the field interviewing witness collecting data and I have a team of uh colleagues on the staff that I work with also PhDs and uh we had a world class science advisory board which uh my former boss in Austin Halpa uh was on the was was on the board of director was on that science advisory board and was the last chairman of that board actually we also had Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell and for a short time Apollo uh 17 astronaut Jack Schmidt and uh we had many uh many academicians

54:08 and former CIA, national intelligence officers, uh social psychologists, psychologists, medical doctors, um and uh nuclear engineers and the list goes on. We had shock police primarily as well. So uh it was a really transformative because I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I became familiar with Carl Sean. Carl Sean and uh astronomer for the page co-authored a book called uh UFOs the scientific debate which was published by the tripleas press. Um the tripleas is the American uh association for the advancement of science and science is their prestigious journal that they publish and um so that was a prestigious publication. Every chapter was authored by experts in the field in academia who have studied UFOs and some angle of it from scientific data uh standpoint data that was collected data that was analyzed and so they presented it and published a book uh for a bizarre reason in the 1980s Carl Sean had his

55:09 wonderful astronomy show called Cosmos and he could hand a book for that and what's ironic is that he changed 180 degrees all of a sudden went from being UFOs we have in this book that I co-authored or co-edited with Thornton Page. Uh all this wonderful data that's been collected that is not explainable due to conventional astronomical weather or man-made explanations or events or objects. Uh I'm I'm now calling it um pseudocience. It's fringe science. People are mistaken. Pilots uh have poor vision. uh military pilots especially and I've heard that from Leonard David who's a SC uh a aerospace engineering aviation space exploration uh writer and uh people like him have said that our military pilots especially the ones at the USS Nimmits during its encounter of the Tic Tac UAP back in November of 2004. Oh yes, those pilots have poor

56:12 They're flying what? $20 million fighter aircraft. Yeah, 41 million. poor vision. How did they get through the naval aviation program and top gun school with poor vision? Uh Dr. Davis, could you could you elaborate a little bit on your again to the degree that you're comfortable? Oh, I know. So, so it was a transformative uh issue for me or or a job. It uh transformed my worldview. It opened up my worldview uh to a lot more possibilities. And when I was used to thinking as a trained PhD physicist, I earned my doctorate in astrophysics at the University of Arizona in ' 91. And so um I worked on three space missions in graduate school. The uh IOS which is the infrared astronomical satellite program and the two Voyager missions to the outer planets. So as pertaining to the topic that Lou wants me to talk about, I'm not trying to avoid it. It is a sensitive subject. Um, so, uh, it's due to astronaut Ed

57:12 Mitchell, um, Dr. Ed Mitchell, captain US retired. Because of him, and I won't go into a long story, but it's because of him that I got on the trail of looking for the so-called, uh, legend within the UFO community, uh, of the retrieval of crashed or landed UAP craft or UFO craft as they were known back in those days. And by the way, UAP, the term unidentified aerial phenomenon goes back to the 1940s even. So, um, so I followed this trail and I ended up over the course of the following two and a decades working for Bigalow, working for the Air Force Research Lab, working for Haluto off atteorated, uh, and then, uh, and then working at the aerospace corporation. So, we're we're working in a combination of industry and classified programs that we were contracted to do on behalf of the uh for the Defense Intelligence Agency and for the Pentagon agencies that Lou worked at and uh the UAP task force that

58:14 Jane Stratton led uh at the Office of Naval Intelligence. And so uh a long story short is that I came into contact with industry leaders, technical scientists, uh both active duty and later retired as well as intelligence officers, generals, admirals, colonels, uh people who directed intelligence or human intelligence collection and analysis directorates at the DIA and the Central Intelligence Agency who uh reached out to me to have me do some foreign UAP uh intelligence analysis and assessment and so uh I have been exposed to so much in the classified realm that I can tell you definitively that there is there uh the human race basically the world biggest governments uh like the United States our adversary China and Russia at least as far as I know have had the uh occasion to recover craft that have either landed or crashed or boat uh in their territory or even

59:16 outside of their territories and have taken those back to their more the most sensitive of their programs that they've ever had. These programs are uh even more sensitive and more well hidden than uh the Manhattan project was or or the modern nuclear weapons industry and and the US military and the department of energy programs to uh maintain and and upgrade and modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal. And so um this is one of the this is one of the most well-hidden programs. It is hidden from congressional oversight and always has been and it was hidden by the action of the President Eisenhower who instituted presidential emergency action directives during his administration. These directives are not shared with Congress. They are classified and when the Freedom of Information Act was instituted in the 70s and is not subject those are not subjected to the Freedom of Information Act uh request. Um this these directives provide cover for actions that are associated with the with the retrieval

1:00:17 of these vehicles and the uh and the scientific and engineering study of them. And that takes place within the industry. Um what happens is the department of defense offices, CIA offices, they create shell companies. They give a soul source contract to the shell company who passes the money to a selected group of uh defense industry firms and those firms will take that contract money and turn them around and uh use that as internal things called internal research and development funds which they give to their own people inside their company, their own employees to do the reverse engineering and um analysis and study of of these recovered vehicles. And so this avoids all congressional oversight. It avoids the gay debate. And um it's one of the most clever techniques used to hide it. And as far as I know, only one fourstar general uh and one three star admiral were able to locate these programs. And um and that's about as much as I can say. They located the programs uh and

1:01:20 they uncovered them. one got a lot of resistance and hostile reception and was uh told that uh he found who he was looking for. They were who they were suspected of being. Yes, they were a UFO UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. The other one had a lot more political power behind him because of his stature as a four-star general and uh he was able to get into the program and uh use his authority and his access. I think they call that a uh um a super user. A super user that have access to all weight access programs. So he had his capability to be able to put into that whole thing. Uh I was fortunate to meet Dave Drush at the behest of Jay Stratton. Dave was a NRO liazison officer to the UAP task force and Dave was working for his boss at the NRO which was situated in the second force gifts uh of the aerospace corporation building Colorado Springs. and I was assigned to work at the aerospace corporation facility in Huntsville,

1:02:20 Alabama because I was supporting NASA's space nuclear propulsion program office. So, uh, Jay put Dave and and Dave's, uh, boss and I together, and I briefed them for two and a half days, just the week before COVID struck. And, uh, Dave took all of my classified and proprietary information of all the investigations I did at NIDS, AFRL, and working for, uh, helping off attemouth of that was his classified whistleblower complaint to the IG of the IC. And um so there is a air there there we have had this program going on in various guys's various code names. Code names change roughly every three years. Um they often shift around due to major office and programmatic new organizations from presidential administration presidential administration maybe every 5 to 10 years in some cases. And so these things are are very old. They uh they've come in they've gone but they're still around.

1:03:21 and uh the amount of money that's been involved uh I would say since the beginning of 1944 with the reverse recovery in Italy of a of the US Army's recovery of a craft that crashed in Italy back in 1933. The United States Army when it invaded Italy and pushed the third Reich down they were able to recover that craft and bring it back to right airfield. And uh all of the crash retrievals that have taken place generally on land have gone to right airfield. the majority of the crash retrievals or recoveries of whatever uh situation it was uh take place in the maritime environment and I'm not sure where that is going. I think they're probably also going to write were in those days right airfield. I don't know where they're going today though because I've only worked on the legacy uh history of this part of it up until about uh the early 2010s and ever since the end of the OSAP and the ATIP I don't know where that those operations are going on these days. So, I think that's about it. Lou, is that it?

1:04:23 And there's a question I would always ask, and I'll just say this really easily. Uh Leslie King and Ralph Lumenthal asked me this for an interview I gave them um in July of 2020 for the New York Times article that they published. They interviewed Lou and uh Senate uh former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I think Harry was already retired then, wasn't he? Yeah. Okay. So I said basically my interface with the leadership at the industry uh which were a number of individuals is the following. The craft that have been recovered are not of this earth. They're not made by human hands. They are not from this planet. They are not human. They are an alien technology. Whatever the word alien means. Are they extraterrestrial? We don't know. We don't know. Uh what motives do they have? Well, we need anthropologists and social psychologists and philosophers to figure that out because they haven't communicated that to us. Yeah. So, physicists like me and Avi, we can't answer questions like motive. We just need to take data. We we call it

1:05:24 measurements and signals intelligence in the intelligence industry. And Aby, I support 10,000% because we need him to do what he needs to do. UAPX is another group from the University of Albany in New Alb, New York. They're doing that as well. And there are other groups out there building up their own sensor suites to try to scan the sky fulltime 247 to look for something that's eye and definitely not weather, definitely not an aircraft, definitely not a kids little quadcopter. Well, thank you, Dr. Davis. My recommendation would be at some point here to get you in a classified setting like some of the rest of us had already done that before and have a frank conversation with some of the representatives who I think would be um very interested to hear the other part of that conversation which I' I'm aware of and been part of. Um with that said uh before we go on I wanted to thank real quick uh Rep. Nick Bag for uh is that how do you pronounce your name sir? I apolog Okay, forgive me. baggage, uh, Rep. Nick

1:06:27 Baggage, uh, who arrived, uh, here just not too long ago. So, thank you, sir, very much, uh, from from Alabama. From Oh, Alaska. He's like the hub. Sir, my humble apologies. Obviously, I'm going to blame my dyslexi instead of whoever wrote this for me. So, um, thank you, sir, for being here and also great singing yesterday. Um, as far as uh the next question, what I'd like to do is direct this to Admiral County debt. Sir, only about 50% of the seafloor has been mapped in high resolution. In fact, some have stipulated that we have no we know more about the surface of our own moon than the depths of our own oceans. What concrete mapping campaigns, autonomous gliders, deep sea sonars, or observatories would give researchers the best chance of detecting undersea UAP activity. Up to

1:07:29 this point, we've been discussing about the stuff we see in our skies and possibly space. But the one thing we've neglected are those observations of UAP that are underwater. And this kind of goes to the whole trained medium characteristic that we're seeing that some of these UAP can display particularly as a former Navy man and uh member of Noah. What what what advice could you offer there? Thanks Lou. That's a great question and in fact I would advise us to continue what we started in Trump's first administration and what we did is we got him to sign a presidential memorandum on mapping the US inclusive economic zone and that directed the establishment of a strategy a plan national strategy a plan and a council an area agency council to contribute to the effort. And so in the few we did this in 2020 and in the 5 years since we've been able to go from having 40% of our EEZ map to 50%. And and it involves not only using ships

1:08:30 with sonar but also exploring the water column with deep diving remotely operated vehicles, swarms of drones, underwater drones. I used to own 120 in the Navy and that that fleet's grown and uh and Noah has a pretty sizable fleet of of underwater and surface drones and they partner with the private sector that has a vast capability as well. So I'd say I'd say we really want to ex expand the work that's already occurring within the government and the private sector and and target it because most of it is targeted towards ocean science and that's great but if we open the aperture a bit and include UAP as a research target I think we'll learn a lot more about the phenomena as well as the Thank you very much. Uh the next question we have is uh is geared towards Dr. Abilo here and my question for you sir is what is your recommendation for the new generation of scientists who want to enter into this field of study but don't

1:09:31 know exactly where to begin. Yes, I actually gave up on the senior members of our community and I had great hope that the young generation will approach it without any bias because science is all about evidence and curiosity and we lose that when we become the adults in the room. So for the young uh people in fact I was asked to establish a galo observatory in a new stem cell uh campus that will be built in Indiana and I'm very excited about that because those high high school students and uh fledgling scientists would be unbiased. They would look at the data and try to figure it out. That's the way science should be done. And very often if you assume something if you say there is nothing out there and you are not looking that obviously that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I very much hope that the young generation will approach this subject without any

1:10:32 stigma, without any prejudice, without any bias because it's of great interest to national security and even if it has nothing to do with what lies outside the solar system, we need to figure it out. Maybe other nations have technologies that we are not aware of. And if we do find something from outside the solar system, it's the biggest discovery ever made in science. It will change our perception and our place in the universe. I had a group of um religious people that came and and they belong to Christianity today organization and they asked me what would be the implications to religion and I said well I have two daughters and when the second one was born I didn't lose any of my love to the first one so imagining that God can only attend to one civilization is very

1:11:33 limiting and I think in fact you You know, it would be enriching to realize that we have siblings. We might be jealous if they're more advanced than we are. Maybe they get more But, you know, that's exciting. We may get inspiration from finding something better than us. So, why is it that academia, the mainstream, is shying away from this? Partly because the public cares so much about it. And you know there are lots of statements that are not correct that being made by people who have no evidence. But that should not be a reason to avoid this subject. We should study it. And young people I think have the ability to figure it out. If we have the resources allocated to the research, we'll figure it out. We have the equipment. It's much more exciting than figuring out what dark matter is. whether there are microbes on exoplanets which probably

1:12:35 exist in any warm water environment similar to Earth. I'm I'm willing to bet that there are microbes, but I don't care much about them. I really want to find things that are better than us so that we can get better. we can improve oursel and the young generation hopefully will do it for us if we only allocate the resources if we don't block them because the gatekeepers you know use this technique of not funding such research ridiculing it and even when I went on the expedition people said oh he will not find anything oh he went to the wrong place we don't believe the US government data from the US space And my suggestion is just to ignore the naysayers because they are boring. All right. Thank you, Dr. Lo. I'm going

1:13:37 to make this very quick. I know one of the representatives is very short on time, but there's a question I would like to ask in her presence. Uh the question goes to Dr. Davis, Eric Davis. Um we've had discussions at length in certain settings um in formal official setting you might be part of where we talk about exotic material. I think it might be very helpful to the degree you can can you please explain um what is what makes exotic material that has been recovered from the US government exotic? What makes it different from atomically and chemically? It's actually a very simple answer. It's the way it's fabricated. It's the way it's fabricated. That's what makes it exotic. It's not a new element that's never been discovered uh and placed on the periodic table of elements. No, no. Uh the materials are in the periodic table. They're either radioactive isotopes that we already know of or they're any of the other non-raactive nonactide elements on the table. It's just the combination of the materials is

1:14:38 unusual. Uh it could be that you could say that that's exotic, but it's the composition. It's how you built the craft, the materials that form the craft and everything inside the craft. It's it's quite exotic because uh one of the company's uh leadership was a young material scientist when he graduated with his doctorate in material science from one of the university uh one of the uh universities in Illinois back in 1970 and he was hired by Ben Rich to go to work with him and a team at Skunk Works. That was the uh advanced projects a development agency. I think is what Blackie Aircraft Company called him back in those days. So um so basically this is what he was telling me. He's an advanced material scientist and he said well we could use the best diagnostic equipment we had back in those days uh which was 60 uh 70s 80s and 90s and um we could see the elements through mass spectrome mass spectroscopy that compose

1:15:40 these structures. But when we look at how they're composed and structured, uh, it's it's like nothing we've been able to fabricate on Earth. We've never been able to reproduce it on Earth. And we have no extrapolated engineering or physics technology to tell us or inform us on how we could possibly learn how to fabricate this on Earth. So they they understood that it's the combination of the elements was very unusual. Uh, it was counterintuitive, but it's the way the materials are fabricated. That's what makes it exciting. Excellent. Thank you very much, sir. Um, next question is going to go if I can roll. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. Floor is yours. Yeah. So, thank you for you guys coming today. I have to get going, but I am charging Burlington and Burchchett um to be here and continue on while I am not here. Um, but I will say that I mean the stuff that you guys have all told us today mind-blowing and I think you know going on record is even more important. So, we are going to invite you back to also testify at some point. Um, but I do

1:16:40 have to head out. So, thank you so much for your time setting this up and we'll be back. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, the next question is going to be to uh I will um I've got a long list of questions. We're obviously not going to get to them all. We have to try to stay on track. So, it's probably going to be my last question for this and we can go on all day, but we've got two other panels we have to get through. There's going to be some new information for you. Uh, last question before the break. Admitted to the incidents in regarding the USS Roosevelt. In fact, there's another distinguished guest we have with us here today, Ryan Graves, who was a pilot uh who uh has been very helpful informing Congress about some of the air safety issues because he himself has come up close and personal with one of these objects, whatever they are. Um could you please provide a brief synopsis on your experience and more importantly what was the reaction by certain elements within the

1:17:41 department of defense and some of your frustration that you experienced regarding that reporting that type of reporting. Thanks Lou. Yes I'd be glad to. So at the time of the Roosevelt UAP sightings, I was the onestar admiral in charge of all the Navy meteorologists and oceanographers and I had I had aographers mates on the ship doing the weather forecast and and as the chief meteorologist of the Navy, my responsibility was safety of flight, one of my main responsibilities. And at the time I received an email um Navy's classified system, secret system. Uh and it was addressed to every subordinate under a command called Fleet Forces Command, the four-star command that I reported to and that the commander of the theater the Roosevelt strike group reported to as well as several other units. And attached uh to the email was the go fast video that everybody's seen now and has been declassified and released to the public. Uh, and the email title was urgent safety of flight issue. And all capital letters and it came from the operations officer of Fleet Forces Command asking if any of the recipients of the email knew what

1:18:43 these were, these UAP because they were having numerous near midair collisions as as Ryan Graves uh saw firsthand, his his squadron mates. And u and then the next day uh that email was wiped from my computer and no one talked about it in any subsequent meetings at Fleet Forces Command. And this was very unusual because the primary job of fleet forces command is to prepare Navy units to deploy like the theore Roosevelt strike group and that exercise was a critical pre-eployment uh requirement to get pilot certified to land on the flight deck. And so not talking about an urgent safety of flight issue for for example the UAP that split a section of aircraft. You don't want anything to get within a mile of an FAT when it when it's operating. So that that they didn't talk about it that was covered up uh didn't sit well with me and and that's the reason I have come out today and or really for the past few years uh to talk about this and make sure we we support all these reasons to uh to acknowledge uh and and make and be more transparent about UAP activity and data. And that's

1:19:45 why I'm on the advisory board of Brian's American for Safe Aerospace. And we've been advocating for the FAA to institute a system of reporting with standards to get more information out there uh to support safety of flight and science. Excellent. I uh we have a question by uh Representative Burlson. Go ahead, sir. Floor is yours. Yeah, thank you. Um Mr. Davis, but I wanted to ask before you before this panel is over. Um I want to pull some threads here. the um what is your understanding of the physics um or the likely propulsion technology? What is your assessment of of what the capabilities are and how it's being achieved? And then also it what I want to ask about materials and energy as well. Uh we can only speculate. Um these things are so far in advanced uh we can speculate. The best speculation I can come up with is general relativity does

1:20:46 a great job predicting something like a warp bubble. Uh UAP do exhibit the phenomenon of sublight or less than light speed warp bubbles. Um, however, that's becomes a challenge when you talk about UAVs that dive into the ocean and climb out of the earth from under the ocean and up into the earth. So, uh, warp. So, it's not warping spaceime. It's a warp in space time. Yeah, it is. That's described Einstein general theory. Yeah. And so, the problem is you doesn't gravity warp spaceime. That's right. Right. Yeah. So, so the these objects are changing the spaceime around them. Yeah, they you can have a thin shell of energy and the type of energy it has to be would have to be negative energy density and it would be consistent with the type of energy density that you can create from the quantum vacuum and examples of that are the case cavity that has a little vacuum uh uh region that's bound by the two plates of the cavity. Uh there's also

1:21:49 squeeze lights, squeeze states of light where that's a laser beam where you're going to take uh uh some part of canonical uh noise fluctuations from out of that part of the beam you're not interested in and pile it up uh elsewhere in the phase space. And this is getting really technical. So So I'll just kind of keep it this way. You're going to take the quantum vacuum fluctuations that we know is quantum noise shot noise in Razor Beach. you're going to pilot it up somewhere else uh in an area you're not interested in measuring and you only want to measure the amplitude of that beam. At that point when you take the quantum vacuum fluctuations out of that amplitude that energy density goes negative and the energy density is the square of the amplitude. So that goes negative and um that's an example of negative energy. The um the mass of the earth creates space-time curvature. If it was I'm sorry. Oh, I was going to say so that space-time curvature which we feel is the force of gravity on the surface of the earth drags down quantum vacuum fluctuations of the quantum fields that are out in space near near

1:22:50 the earth in the vicinity of the earth. And uh that energy density happens to be negative. And so this is an example of theoretically predicted astronomical sources of negative energy as well as laboratory sources of negative energy. So that's what you would need to build a workb and that's what you would need to build a uh construct a shell. Just a brief comment of clarification. We have two pillars of modern physics. Quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity which is curvature of spacetime. Right? We don't have a reliable theory that combines the quantum gravity. So what we are hearing is speculation. We do not have the knowledge to figure out if you can create curvature of space time out of negative energy density because we have never mastered this. We don't have an understanding of that. So it's possible that you know a millennium from now we'll have those quantum gravity engineers. You know that's

1:23:50 possible. Currently we just you know we're just like too primitive technologically to figure it out. The question is, is there something in possession of government that scientists should look into? And you know, I would love to to help government figure it out because it may guide us about a theory of quantum gravity if if we have something. So we have good ideas about these things and we can speculate on uh on what the best approach to take to build a work bubble or the shell of negative energy that would create a traversal wormhole which would be a shortcut through space time between two distant points. But um we have we have crafted our possession. Um there are no physicists literally working in those programs. They're basically mechanical aerodynamics, aerospace, thermal control engineers, electronic electrical engineers and material scientists. material science is a part of engineering often uh usually kind of overlaps chemistry as well and they've never had a physicist like him or I uh

1:24:51 they've never had an applied physicist or an experimental physicist and so they are really lacking in the ability to understand how these things fly the legacy programs are very insulated and insular so unfortunately um it's a bit of a for my approach here but a bit of an incestuous community uh there's not a whole lot of outside involvement because it is so highly classified and that's been some of the frustration and I think challenges technologically speaking because we haven't been able to recently apply new talent, new ideas, new theories to what may be uh what the US government may be in possession of. What about the energy potential? Um the energy is a question of accomplishments we're seeing, right? Yeah, we I haven't been able to access that. Dr. Davis, can you talk for a moment? I'm sorry. about the Nimits incident the calculations for the object to go from 80,000 ft within less than a second 50 ft over the water what what type of energy uh requirement talking about hundreds of times the

1:25:52 total interal energy produced in the United States annually that's the kind of energy that is representative of the observed features and performances of UAP craft especially the tic tac that encountered in November of 2004 and uh so it's hundreds and hundreds hundreds of times what the what the United States produces annual electrical power and so uh that that compares really well with interstellar spacecraft that would travel relativist ultra relativistic ultra relativistic being anywhere from 90 to 99% speed like the energy is is astronomically huge so um these craft uh I have not been I don't have the security clearances I need to know to get access to the technical details but I remain made to understand that the craft are consistent in size with the tic tac uh even double in size of the tic tac uh that would be up to about 100 ft long by uh 50 ft diameter of that

1:26:54 type boomerang shaped craft arrowshaped craft triangle shaped craft and so forth. Uh the biggest ones that had been observed especially that we investigated at mids in 1999 involving Scott Air Force Base. That one was a 600 foot long craft and it was about roughly 100 ft tall and um so they don't have possession of craft like that. I've never been told that. It's usually the more man scale. They couldn't move. Yeah. So we might know it. Yeah. So uh so we we can only speculate. Um, I know Jim Cowy wrote in his book, um, uh, I don't remember the title of it, but anyway, it was co-authored with Coler who I worked with at N and George now of KL TV in Las Vegas. And so Jim mentioned and I, Jim was the program manager for the AAS, the ASAP, the AAS, uh, uh, WAP, I think it was. And um uh and so basically he described in his book somebody I I don't know if it was

1:27:56 him because he never I think he said it was him uh went inside one of these craft that he had access to and they couldn't recognize any propulsion or power devices or systems inside the craft. It was completely unusual. Travis Taylor and I have speculated that possibly they're teleporting energy from a remote distant location where the energy is produced is teleported to the craft and that's how the craft can move around without having to carry propellant uh or a rocket engine or or an advanced work drive engine on it. That's one possibility that we speculated on on the material. So what you have me thinking is carbon can take multiple forms, right? And are you saying that that is the same with other material other elements the way in which what we found is different forms of these elements that we have it would be different alloys it would be different combinations of the elements and isotopic ratios as well correct yeah so you're you're you're going to have a

1:28:56 variety of uh whatever structural part of this that came off of and I don't know because I wasn't I didn't have this uh way done at all I only had TSSCI. So at the SCI level, I was informed that there would be combinations of elements from the periodic table, combinations of their isotopes. So we have the variety of elements uh as they naturally occur or some isotopes of them mixed together in a certain way and then they're uh structurally built in a very unusual way that even today we have no um equivalent or analog to. So these were these this is about as much as I was given information at an SEI moment. And then do you have or can you comment on whatever species have been um that have been piloting these crafts? How are they large in are they are they multiple species? Are they are they like what what's their size and how many are usually on a craft? They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with the grays the Nordics. uh people

1:29:59 who talked about reptilians and insecttoids is not that they're reptilian or insectoid. It's that they resemble uh to the precipitate a reptile or an insect type humanoid because they have this a head and four limbs and torso. So large small uh human size human scale and are there are there how many are a crew? Well, the well the grays I'm familiar with from uh investigating the crash of Corona which is mis misnamed the the crash in Roswell. It's not the crash of Roswell. It's the crash of Corona in Mexico. Uh those were braz um the Nordics are typically human size. U probably I've heard five six feet tall. Um and same with the people who mis mislabel reptilian and insect. are roughly that top height too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight or 9 ft tall of that

1:30:59 nature. So, uh, folks, what we're going to do here for time at the wrong we are going to take a 3minut break for a change here of the panel. We're going to roll right into it. If you need to use a restroom, please do so. But we are going to truncate this break significantly because we've got a lot to cover and you definitely want to stick around for this next panel as well. Big round of applause for our panelist. The next part of this uh the panelist discussions will involve um national security. Um, before we begin, I would like to share something with you that has not been planned and I just received permission to share this with you this Um, and the reason why I'm sharing this with you now is because I think it's important and relevant to this next

1:32:00 conversation with these two individuals who I'll introduce to you in a minute. Um, very relevant to this conversation. We talk about national security a lot and our pilots. There are men and women in uniform that were able to fight wars for us in combat, but there's a whole sector out there that we also have to be cognizant of. That's our commercial pilots and civilian pilots. And I'm going to share with you a photograph that has never been made public. It was taken in 2021 over the Four Corners region at an altitude approximately 21,000 ft by a private pilot outside his aircraft. Um, and this is a photo. I'll do a copy for Congress to see. It was taken by a uh we have all the information on the camera and I just received permission today to share this with you. Um it is a licular object and when you look at the shadow being cast, it is significantly large. This is an altitude of 21,000 ft taken by a civilian pilot. Now, why is this important? I'll

1:33:03 pass this around. Um, I'll hold another copy here if you Kirk, when you're finished as well, if you pass it on down to them. This is taken from a civilian pilot, right? Not a fleer system, not an system, but an average person with an average camera at 21,000 ft. And the object potentially is anywhere between 600 to,000 ft in diameter. Wow. this one particular object and it is silver. Now, uh I cannot vouch for the veracity of this photograph. I didn't take it. Um but this is an example of one of many, many, many incidents involving commercial and private pilots. And guess what? They don't know where to report it. Guess what? Congress has no idea that this is happening on a regular That's the problem. And why is this

1:34:03 relevant? Because right now you're going to hear from two speakers. I'll introduce you to them in a moment who uh who are experts in national security and have been um following this topic for some time. What I'd like to do is uh introduce you to Mr. Chris Melon first and foremost. Uh Melon is a uh call him a former boss's boss's boss's boss. Um he was a senior staff director if I'm not mistaken uh here in the Senate at the time with uh Bill Cohen, Senator Bill Cohen and then later went to the Department of Defense and became the first uh what you might call the under secretary of defense for intelligence. the position before there was a DAZD deputy assistant secretary of defense where basically Chris was responsible for all the intelligence globally globally for the department of defense right anything from human operations to special access programs

1:35:05 and everything else um Chris has been a spearhead in public engagement getting the academic community the scientific everybody intelligence community all to apply their efforts and time and talent and resources to this very real problem. The next individual uh is Mr. Kurt McConnell, uh, senior mil former senior military officer as well and very senior staffer on the Senate side for the Senate Armed Services Committee who was instrumental in helping get Dr. Eric Davis to provide classified briefings to certain members of Congress. I won't say who, that's not my place to say. Um Kirk has been in the shadows for a very long time and he has been extremely effective in getting this topic at the highest to the attention of the highest levels of our government and that to

1:36:07 include other administrations as well, not just this one and the one before, but the one before that as well. Um so with that said, there's a whole lot more could go in. I could spend probably half an hour going over their academic retail and their accomplishments. um but rather what I'd like to do is spend some of that time instead and allowing them to have a discussion with you here today and some questions. I think Chris Melon first um has a presentation you'd like to provide. So I'm going to give the floor to Chris Melon. Please uh welcome our our new panel there. Would you like to present? Maybe I'll come up there project a little better. Thank you, Lou, for that uh overly uh kind introduction and uh my thanks to the to the congressman for taking time out of their busy schedules to be here with us and everyone else who contributed, especially Jordan Flowers. Uh I just returned from uh South America

1:37:10 uh for about 4 weeks and uh um promised I would not work on anything related to UAP the whole time. and uh got back here and made a quick turn uh a little under the weather. Wouldn't have a briefing if it wasn't for uh for Jordan and uh and his assistance. Uh what I want to talk about uh is I don't think the public is aware of the extent of our airspace vulnerabilities and failures and the degree to which they've already been exploited and are being exploited today. and the challenge that we face in trying to sort this out. I also want to pivot a little bit based on uh earlier conversations. I wasn't uh going to get into this so much, but Dr. Loe talked about spending a billion dollars or so to develop new sensors to collect information. One of my career

1:38:11 frustrations in the intelligence community has been that we have sensors that are far more than a billion dollars and we have a great many of them and they are collecting information today which is directly pertinent to this topic but that information is not reaching congress it's not reaching the scientific community uh in many cases I don't I think it's reaching ERA which is the office that Congress established to study and evaluate this phenomenon. So if we could have the first slide please um or is this going to do that for me? Yeah. So here's just a little overview of uh the topics I'm going to touch on which is the word shocking I think is uh is not an exaggeration or hyperbole in this case. uh we really are effectively naked from an air defense standpoint when it comes to these drones. Uh I'll

1:39:12 talk and provide very specific examples to illustrate that uh and the UAP uh and um let me begin here. Okay, this is a uh unfortunately I don't have this right in front of me, but this is a map that displays roughly the coverage provided by something called the solid state phased array radar system. These are reportedly the most powerful emitters on the planet. If there are other civilizations in nearby systems, they're more likely to detect these emitters than probably anything else on our planet. Um, how many UAP would you guess they have detected in say the last 20 years that have been reported to Arrow? Zero. Zero. Zero.

1:40:14 How is it possible that the most powerful raider I've been writing about this for years by the way fecklessly this is not a new point I've been trying to get Congress to somebody in Congress to listen to this and pay attention for years Kirk will will testify to that at the Armed Services Committee because I keep going up there and have been for years saying guys how come this thing never detects any UAP how is that possible these are the most powerful emitters on the planet and look at the area they cover. And oh, by the way, when you look at the area they cover, we keep having reports over and over again from tactical systems from ships, plane, and aircraft in the areas covered by these radar. So, Eegis ships, planes flown by uh Mr. Ryan here and his naval aviator colleagues and others are reporting UAE uh UAP constantly in these areas, but

1:41:16 somehow these systems never seem to see a UAP ever. How is that possible? And how come nobody's asking about that? Is this a Chinese balloon situation where all we need to do is tweak the filters? And lo and behold, we're going to bring into focus something which is uh it drones if nothing else. They're a vital absolutely uh air security significance. We know that in Russia and the Ukraine today, drones are causing more casualties and killing more people than any other weapon system. Right? So, this is utterly transformed warfare as we know it. Here's a multi-billion dollar system. It's up and running. This is the successor to the old ballistic missile early warning system. So its primary function is to detect ballistic missiles coming over the poles from Russia or

1:42:17 China or from North Korea and to develop intercept solutions. Uh but it also has a mission of detecting sea launch cruise missiles and bombers and so forth. So there's a couple there's one of several possibilities. either we've spent billions of dollars on a system that's not performing as it should be or uh it just you know maybe needs some some tweaks in the filters to expand the the range of things it reports on. You know, one of the challenges with these systems is to avoid clutter, right? Because they're so powerful, they collect so much, they've got to filter it down so what's being displayed is reasonable and appropriate to the mission. Uh, it could be a problem of that sort or it's simply so highly classified that the information is not narrow. I favor the latter. I think that's what's going on.

1:43:17 And I think if Congress were to to poke hard on this, uh maybe get an inspector general to look at these possible options or otherwise uh look into this, they they would get some answers. Quick question. Is that data from that system being archived? I believe so. I don't know how far back they go and how how that's a great question. I don't know how far back it goes. And uh one of the things so when you approach NORAD about this or the Air Force and you start asking about this data and what are they seeing? So right now my understanding is by the way that they don't even tell Arrow uh which whose director is supposedly cleared for everything. They don't even tell him when they scramble fighter aircraft to conduct the intercept. So they're regularly scrambling fighter aircraft. I've talked to and interviewed on television a NORED officer who told an

1:44:19 account of walking into Cheyenne Mountain uh where he uh for duty and everybody was standing on their feet looking at the big screen and there was a UAP coming down from the Arctic along the east coast United States and the commander-in-chief of NORAD said quote I want that thing and everybody said yes sir and they were launching everything we had in the east coast. Couldn't get it near it. Couldn't get a radar lock. Uh it disappeared out over the southern Atlantic. Is that the only time that ever happened? That was the one time that this NORAD officer gave this account from the 1990s when the system was much less capable than it is today and when we were seeing fewer uh things than we are today and and fewer intrusions over restricted airspace. I rather doubt it. Uh this is by the way only one of a number of multibillion

1:45:19 dollar systems that are already deployed that are collecting data that bears directly on this topic that don't seem to be reporting anything to Arrow. So the Arrow issued a report and their last reported they said we don't have anything in they haven't seen any UAP in space but there were I think 40 instances in which groundbased reporters like civilian airline pilots reported things far above beyond what they call the Karman line and 100,000 ft which is what they consider outer space for these purposes. Now, there's another system called the groundbased electrooptical uh deep space surveillance system, which is a ring of cameras circling the globe that does nothing but stare at the night sky all night long. How come those systems didn't detect what these pilots are talking about? They're looking up saying, "I saw

1:46:20 these bright lights moving, etc., etc." Well, there's one of those cameras on top of uh of uh our one of our highest peaks in Hawaii, and it does nothing but stare at the night sky. That same night sky all night long. Did it miss that? Was it a cloudy night? Have any of those cameras ever collected one of these incidents? They said there were 40. Uh, I would think somebody ought to take an inventory and say we want to know which of these surveillance systems is reporting UAP and uh which are not and what specifically are they reporting? Take an inventory again. Is there a systemic problem or failure with these systems? The taxpayers spending billions of dollars. I would think we would want to know that. Now, interestingly with regard to the GID system, I uh one on one occasion had a colleague who was visiting for a sort of routine oversight

1:47:22 uh purpose many years ago. And I said, "While you're there, Pete, why don't you ask him if they ever seen anything strange?" I didn't want to say flying saucer, but that's what I was alluding to. And he knew what I was talking about. So he asked the question and sure enough just a month before on that one occasion when the question was asked they had indeed collected uh photographic imagery of it was four or five objects moving through the night sky and formation traveling parallel to the earth's surface. I don't know that the question has ever been asked since that was probably 20 years ago. I find it hard to believe that in all that time that they haven't collected anything relevant to this question and I don't understand why that data is not getting to error. I don't know if anyone has again has even got a checklist to make sure that when

1:48:23 Congress issued this directive and said you're going to there's a reporting requirement now everybody needs to report this stuff. It needs to go to the Air Force. It needs to filter down through the commands. Is anything coming back up from these systems? Do these people even know they're supposed to report? And is there any reporting of that kind going on? There's another system called the space-based infrared system. Multibillion dollar system. This is again in the unclassified domain. what I'm talking about here. There's quite a bit, you know, additionally that is paid for by the taxpayer that's pertinent. It's a very robust system with satellites in multiple orbits, highly elliptical orbits, geospatial orbits, very high precision. It's looking for infrared uh in heat kinds of events. Uh, as far as I know, they have detected reported to arrow zero UAP

1:49:26 incidents. Okay, maybe nothing happened. Maybe they haven't seen anything. But it does make you wonder. In this case, it's particularly strange since we know there are dozens, if not hundreds of UAP incidents happening within the areas that this system is supposed to providing coverage of. For example, the famous NES incident occurred, excuse me, almost directly in front of the radar at Bele Air Force Base right off the coast. And this went on for about a week or so. and you had objects descending from 60,000 feet and back up. So, I don't think anyone could say, well, they were so small and they were so close to the water, it wasn't within range of the radar. These things were at very high altitudes and this was going on on a sustained basis. So, my suspicion is now I understand that that data could be

1:50:27 highly classified. I could understand why it might not be in the public domain. What I can't understand is why Arrow does not seem to be aware of this data if it exists and why the appropriate congressional committees do not seem to be aware of and informed of this. Do I realistically expect anything to happen because I'm raising this here? No, because I've been doing this for years. But what the heck? We're here. Might as well try again. Um let's go on to uh to the next slide. uh we have uh uh an incredible series of events that have been happening. I wrote an article a year ago to this month called Who's Operating the Drones Plaguing the US Military? And uh uh it did actually get read by a producer for

1:51:28 60 minutes who subsequently did a piece which featured several uh fourstar officers who in fact confirmed what I was discussing and alleging in the article uh with regard to the events that occurred at Langley Air Force Base and elsewhere. And it is truly shocking. Here is the air combat command which is supposed to be protecting these gentlemen in this institution where we're sitting and Capitol Hill and the White House and the US government and they can't protect their own airspace. They have to move uh our cutting edge F-22 fighter squadron to a Navy base from an air force base. And this is going on for I forget how long it was, a couple of weeks roughly. Uh, and we're talking about strange

1:52:28 craft, bright lights appearing over this base, making it unsafe to fly night after night after night. And to this day, we have no idea where they were coming from. We don't know their capabilities. We don't know who who was controlling them and that remains true not just for that base and that incident but for numerous other bases. So the first incident and the war zone is a great source for people interested in this topic by the way. They do terrific reporting. 2018 in Guam, we've installed a billion anti-bballistic missile system. And these brightly lit small crafts show up. They go right to the THAAD missile battery and they're shining bright lights down on it like they're photographing it. And this happens two nights in a row. So back in

1:53:30 2018, it wasn't as apparent as it is now, but obviously those drones could have been weaponized. They could have easily taken that battery out and eviscerated the the uh ballistic missile defense on our leading facility in the Pacific. Not to mention the fact I just went to that uh Google maps this morning to check that air base and that air base like Langley and like so many of the others has very few hardened shelters. So those multiund million dollar aircraft that are on the runway could easily be destroyed by drones that are costing what a few thousand bucks. Okay, that's how vulnerable we are. Then in 2019, we began to see this activity off the coast of the United States in California. And I'll read a little uh excerpt from one of those

1:54:33 reports. USS Paul Hamilton observed four UAS with a closest point of approach approximately 200 yards off the bow, port, and starboard beams. the they had a uh on time station of approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. So if you ever if you have children and you have drones at home, you know that they usually are have a maximum time of about 20 minutes. Okay, these were in station for 2 hours and 20 minutes, 60 80 miles off the shore. uh not apparent where they could have been launched from and what their total uh dwell time was. Uh the anti-UAS systems on the ship were ineffective in uh in bringing them down. The first UAS spotted by lookouts at 240 uh observed with a single white light. They go on to report others within 500

1:55:34 yards maneuvering four and a half with four white lights and a flashing red light. They're not trying to be sly. They're not trying to be clandestine. Approximately 200 yards above the ship again, maneuvering right around the ship back and forth up and down. Uh they went to the bridge of the ship with a powerful search light or photographic device. So they're actually we've had cases where they go right up to the bridge of the ship and shine a bright light in on the captain and the crew. That's how overt and provocative this is. And that apparently reflects their degree of confidence that we can't intercept them and bring them down, whoever it is that's operating them. That same year we began to see them around nuclear power plants. in 2020. Very strange uh situation out west. This went on not just for weeks.

1:56:34 This went on for months in one of the least densely populated There's a slide that kind of shows I think maybe it's back uh roughly the part of the region we're talking here. Yeah, eastern Colorado and western Oklahoma. So, we're talking about farmland. I drove out of West Indigo Keane last winter and drove kind of through that area. It is incredibly sparssely populated. There is uh there is very very very little there. And yet these drones were operating in groups clusters as many as 40 drones at a time. They formed a uh this was so extensive and there was so much um uh eventual fur raised among the ranchers and farmers that they formed a task force involving the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, local law enforcement. They

1:57:35 deployed a special plane that the governor of California authorized that had sensors on it. And this continued to occur and we never found out where these things were coming from, who was operating them. I called a sheriff there and spoke to him about it. He told me a fascinating story. He said he was actually the deputy sheriff, but the sheriff was also a witness. They responded to a call and there were a group of these lights over this farm and uh a brighter light came in, a larger light and the smaller lights went inside of it and it took off at an extreme velocity and passed almost directly over the sheriff and the deputy. And he told me, "I've never seen anything move that fast." He's also in the military reserves. uh this individual. So uh and that report, by way, he called it a mothership. Uh it's

1:58:37 not just a story that I happen to hear. If you look at the documentation from Air Force officers, special investigation, the FBI, and so forth, you'll see written documentation from other witnesses that refers to a ship. So this is actually well very strange and very concerning. Uh we don't know what is in operating in our airspace and this continues often in militarily sensitive areas. 2023 Arizona test ranges. You've heard about Langley, but we do u a lot of flying in the southwest. Flying conditions are great. It's a terrific place for the Air Force. We have large air force bases there and the some of the strange things they're seeing in the number and the rate and frequency with which this is happening extraordinary. So um this includes now your average drone

1:59:39 is restricted to a flight of 450 ft. We've got F-35s and F-22s. Well, in this case, F-35s, they're encountering drones at 15,000 ft, 17,000 ft, 35,000 ft going 500 miles hour in restricted military airspace. Meanwhile, in an adjacent area, and I included in my PowerPoint briefing, you can find uh videos from the Department of Homeland Security, nine of them, about some of the strange things that they're seeing on the border. Very, very odd things. Now, this raises a little bit of an issue that I've written about recently also um with the hope that that it might prove of some assistance to this task force, which is why is it the Department of Homeland Security can publish all

2:00:42 videos, but Arrow can't and DoD can't? There was a hearing before Congress a few years ago with Mr. Brave from the Navy and he said, "I assure you I'm going to review these videos and make sure that we get out to you and the public everything we can." Um, I think maybe there's been one video in three years since then. Uh, when I've looked into this and talked to people at different parts of the federal government and so forth, they basically said nobody feels it's their job to turn this over to the public. Nobody wants to make the effort to submit it for public release. So back in 2017, I provided three unclassified videos to the New York Times. You've all seen those. Gimble, Fleer, Go Fast, right? There are a lot more like that. they just haven't been released because

2:01:42 shortly after that somebody created a classification guide which suddenly said in contradiction to the executive order on classification signed by the president that anything essentially anything having to do with UAP is now mystically classified because it might damage national security. Even though those three videos, the FBI, the the Office of Special uh Investigations, the Air Force investigated, confirmed they were unclassified, not only did they not damage national security, they helped national security. They helped raise an awareness for the public and for Congress that we have an air defense problem here. And the scientific community is very eager to get more of those kinds of videos because they want to train AI systems. They want to know what it is we're looking for. They want to measure the signatures. There's a lot they can contribute to this, but the bureaucracy uh is not responding. And I

2:02:45 think there I couldn't put a number on it, but I believe that if someone were to to poke that system and force them to review that classification guide, if someone were to establish some advocacy for taking that which is truly unclassified and admittedly absolutely there are many things, videos that would be are appropriately classified. Not questioning that. What I am saying is that there are others that fall into this camp that would have value to the public, value to Congress, value to the scientific community, and this is not an expensive proposition. It's just a matter of getting somebody to focus on it and and put these through the And uh I think the public not only has a right to know. I think it's beyond that. I think there's a it's there's a

2:03:45 utilitarian function. There's great value in the public knowing this information and value to the scientific community in having this information. Uh, I give the example sometimes of what happened with, and I promise I'm going to get off the stage like real fast. Um, because I'm starting I'm starting to fall into my own uh stuff here that I get into. But um the uh the Sputnik program, I have no doubt if they could have kept it secret, the CIA would not have told the American people the Russians had a satellite in orbit and we wouldn't have had the space program when we did. We wouldn't have gotten to the moon when we did. Uh because the people wouldn't have gotten fired up and said, "Oh my god, this is not acceptable that the Russians are ahead of us and we need to act." and Congress took action and it uh you know it actually ironically we ended up collaborating with the Russians

2:04:46 in space and it actually helped from you know facilitate some peaceful uh developments and relations. I think there are a lot of uh benefits along those lines that uh that that could acrue but it's going to take some uh some effort and uh on the part of um uh Congress I think to compel this to happen if it's going to happen. So with that, I will close and thank our sponsors for taking an interest in this and giving us the opportunity to express our concerns and uh share what we uh what we've learned thus far about this problem. Thank you. Can I ask a 5-second question? This high resolution 4K videos of UAP, is this stuff that you know about or is this stuff that you've seen? Well, there's some stuff that I've seen and and uh I've asked about and I think

2:05:47 there's one video I've seen that they're going to declassify and um I hope that happens. Um it wasn't for I would say it was 4K. was more like what you've seen, you know, was infrared sensor gun camera video along the lines of what the New York Times published and the Washington Post subsequently. Uh so it's that kind of of video from that sensor system. So we know it exists. It's there. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And now, by the way, we are at a point now the Arrow has received uh somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,800 military 1,800 in just the last few years. I Some of those are iPhone videos, so I don't think there's a big sources of methods issue there.

2:06:49 Uh there's there's a variety of some are from, you know, stuff you get at Best Buy from sailors on the ship with a video camera on the deck. Uh there's got to be a number in that mix that could be revealed. And uh beyond that, as I said, I think there's a lot of high caliber sensor data. The American people have already paid for for many of these sensors. are out there many of them and they're collecting pertinent data. Aby is Dr. Lo has benefited from the data that had to do with the re-entry of the interstellar vehicle. It was a great example of a taxpayerf funed system that contributed to science in a very meaningful way. I'm here to tell you I think there's a lot more of that kind of thing that could be made available if someone did a thorough assessment of the sensor systems that we have and what they're collecting and took a hard look at the classification

2:07:52 issues. We also had a system a uh precedent once where we cleared for global warming some scientists to look at some classified data related to that scientific problem set and that's conceivably another it has there's problems with that because scientists want to be able to publish of course they want their colleagues to be able to see everything possible about the sources but there are variety of opportunities I think we're missing at the same time there's a huge huge national security issue here. And we've got stuff in our skies. Some of it could represent technological surprise that we need to find out about. When you've got these unmanned systems at 35,000 ft, that's a mile higher than the top of Mount Everest going 500 miles an hour in restricted military airspace. I would say we've got a lot of work to do.

2:08:58 Well, thank you, Chris. I'm going to have to adjust is I do not have the advantage of height that you do, so I have to way down. Um, I think uh Chris brings up a very good point. And the reason why I decided to share this photograph with you taken from a civilian pilot now is because the same challenges that our pilots or military pilots are facing as to where to report it, who's going to analyze it, what do you do with the information, multiply that for the civilian aviation community. Do they report to the FAA? Do they report to NORA? Maybe the Air Force, maybe a civilian organization, right? who's responsible for getting this information out. Again, let me caveat. This has not been vetted. Uh this was taken by a pilot. But once again, you would think this information would be important for somebody to look at. Certainly someone in government, certainly some some of our representatives that are sitting here, right? This these are over

2:09:59 sensitive military installations. Whose are they? What are their capabilities? What are the intent? Right? Um, but enough of me right now. Let's let's let's go on to uh our our second expert here, uh, Mr. Kurt McConnell. Yeah, I could sit here all day. Once again, these these guests are just unbelievable. Um, Kurt, my question is for you, and I'm going to go off script here for a minute. You have deep expertise and experience with the Senate Armed Services Committee. What is right now the greatest challenge you see for our Congress to tackle this topic on behalf of the American people? What is if you had to narrow it down to one one to three challenges, especially for our reps here that are sitting with us here today so patiently, what would be in your estimate the three greatest challenges facing Congress tackling this Well, I I I would uh speculate. I'm I'm

2:11:02 not an elected official. Can you all hear back there? No. Okay, let's go ahead and either that. Try it again. How's that? Perfect. I mean, um I certainly don't want to uh speak for Congress. Uh, you know, I I do want to mention that um I did serve 37 years as a staff member on Capitol Hill for the Senate Armed Armed Services Committee and both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Uh I was not in the military. You got that wrong. Uh but uh so I've been up here a long time, but I have no u voting card. Uh I never have. Uh I have tremendous respect for the institution. Um, and I don't uh intend to reveal sort of inside baseball information. Um, but uh you know what I would say is uh on a topic like this, my sense is that Congress needs a lot of to push really vigorously. And where are they going to

2:12:04 get that confidence that there is an absolute assurance that there's a a reality here? And I think as much evidence as has been accumulated in the public domain uh over such a long period of time, it is subject to uh to question and we all know how that has has proceeded over the period of decades. Um, the key to this, in my opinion, is firsthand sources who can testify to direct involvement in this so-called legacy program of, uh, crash retrievals, reverse engineering. Um unfortunately uh there are people out there I I believe from from many reports that uh are interested in coming forward and telling their story but they are very much intimidated and frightened about doing that. uh they're

2:13:06 afraid of u of the consequences including their own personal safety is what they relate their personal safety certainly their career uh starting with their security clearances which is the means that they have to make a living um and they have observed uh some folks uh who have come forward not to mention you Lou and Dave Rush and have seen uh what those folks have gone through and most of them say, "Yeah, I'm not doing that." Um, so I think we're we're sort of in a a tough situation. It's almost like u you know, catch 22. Um, we need we need more uh more primary sources. Uh, but it's hard to get uh people with that kind of uh that kind of information to come forward because of the of the fear of retaliation. Do we need a better whistleblower protection?

2:14:06 Sir, that's uh something that I'm sure as you know has been discussed in both the Senate and and the House. Why don't you draw me something up really tight? Yes, sir. Um so, uh whistleblower protections is uh and and you know, finding ways to even uh uh compensate them if they do uh uh have negative consequences from coming forward. uh and so forth. So I I certainly uh I certainly think this is uh this is a ma a major a major factor. Uh I would just let you ask a next question. Okay. Can I comment on that as well? Absolutely. Chris, please jump in. Yeah. So there was uh I came prepared to address that issue as well and the use. Yeah. I I came prepared to contribute what I could to that question as well. Uh but the classified session was cancelled. Um I

2:15:07 think due to the sensitivity of the names of the individuals and and so Um I you know I didn't think it was appropriate to move as much I could do in an unclassified setting. Um if they do reschedu classified setting. I think I'm more than happy to try to provide some very some specifics. Uh I published a signal message I received from a very senior official. He described a specific Secretary of the Air Force memorandum. He described a specific recovery site. He described you named the Air Force gatekeeper for the program. Uh, nobody from Congress has asked me to follow up on that. I have all that Um, you know, I was prepared to share what I could about that, but um, I don't

2:16:09 know that it would be definitive or lead to any conclusion, but uh, I do think those names due to the, you know, privacy concerns of the individuals and so forth, obviously that's very sensitive. So right, uh I'm prepared to try to help with that as I can as well, but in this session I wanted to address uh uh some of these other issues related to declassification. Yes. A general question to either of you. What are the consequences and either or both of you can answer. What are the consequences of Congress not taking action on this topic from a national security perspective? Well, the uh you heard uh Dr. uh Eric Davis u um expressing expressing u u his understanding of the state of affairs in this uh arena which namely which which is that the program the legacy program

2:17:11 if you can call it that has uh has uh has been sort of stalled that um we're not uh we're not making the best use of allegedly we're not making the best use of the best minds in the country. Um the compartmentalization allegedly has prevented the kind of coordination and collaboration between uh scientists to really uh you know crack this very difficult set of uh physics problems. Um and uh and the I'm sure that the security uh element uh that's had to be applied to this uh to this uh activity has uh come with a lot of costs in terms of uh effectively managing managing the program. And it is alleged that this even extends uh within the executive

2:18:11 branch that very senior uh leaders in the executive branch aren't aware of this and are not uh um you know managing the effort. So it doesn't it's not a leap uh or stretch to to suppose that we're hampering ourselves uh immensely by this compartmentation. Um and certainly Congress does not know whether this activity is being managed appropriately or not. We don't know if it's got the right level of resources, if it's got the right management structure, the right incentives, and so on and so forth. Um, you know, we think our government can work pretty well when we're when we're uh managing things according to the to the rules. Um, and uh so I I think that this is uh this is

2:19:12 a a detriment to national security, the lack of of oversight and and and that awareness. It's certainly possible to keep appropriately classified things classified, right, and still have effective oversight and management both in the executive branch and within Congress. Speaking of uh of keeping uh national security and and secrets uh classified, which I completely agree with, there are very specific reasons why we want to keep certain aspects of this topic classified, sources of methods, etc., maybe certain capabilities but let me ask this is a question probably for for you Mr. Nel in your opinion Mr. Melon why did I become Mr. Hello. Well, I because the fact I'm not wearing a tie, I have to make up for some. I've already been accused of being he's not used to see me in a suit. Too casual and too lax. So, I'm trying to trying to be more formal here. Chris, um, in your opinion,

2:20:15 what are the consequences of retroactively classifying information previously unclassified? And are you aware of any specific incident of information or data that was once unclassified that is now classified? Well, as I mentioned earlier, Lou, I I think there's piles of that stuff and I think there's so much of it, it's kind of hard to gauge what the consequences are because uh my understanding is that they adopted a classification guide which basically says anything and everything to do with UAP is classified here forth. Now, people who haven't read the executive order may not be aware. The executive order says when in doubt, you should heir on the side of going unclassified. It airs you're supposed to heir on the side of transparency and openness to the American people.

2:21:15 And when we're talking about many of these videos, uh, if an F18 atflear targeting pod video was unclassified in 2017, and we're not talking about a denied area or some other unusual exception, how could it be classified two years when you take the same video from the same system in the same area two years later? I don't get it, but that looks like what they did. And it avoids it's typ you know I I argued viferously against it at the time. I knew some of the people involved and tried to make the argument to them guys you wouldn't even be here. We wouldn't be having a discussion if information hadn't gotten into the public domain via Congress and the press. And that's why we've made the progress we've made to date. Now you want to drop the curtain on everything. What do you you know what I don't get it. So, um I can't really gauge the the

2:22:18 implications, but I do think they're negative and I think it's it's inappropriate and I think it's probably Uh my last question here before we move uh to a very short break for the next panel, I want to be uh respectful of time of both the congressional members and of course um our panelists as well. This next question goes to you, Um, you mentioned a little bit about whistleblowers and I know that my understanding um, and you don't have to talk about it, but I know you received classified briefings before on this topic from specific subject matter experts and some of your colleagues. What can Congress do, specifically members such as Rep. Carlson, Repet Luna, their colleagues to better protect whistleblowers to incentivize individuals to come forward and provide at a minimum unclassified information in a way that they don't have to worry about retribution through

2:23:18 their careers and perhaps much worse and classified information in the proper venue. what what can Congress do to to help improve that flow of information and minimize the reprisals that some of us have have faced in the past? Uh Lou, I would uh I would first off like to say that um that uh there is a an option like people who do come forward and want to talk to uh committees in Congress don't have to go public. Um they can and have uh come to the armed services committees, the intelligence committees and uh uh in in confidence on a classified basis have related what they know and what their experience has been. Um uh the members who have uh who have

2:24:21 received that kind of uh of uh uh sto accounts and uh witness statements uh have protected the identity of of such people and they have um they have thereby been protected. Um the the the uh negative side of that is that the members uh can't go around and tell their colleagues uh uh what they what they have learned because that's uh that risks the identity of the people that have come forward in in confidence. And therefore it doesn't it doesn't empower members to then uh uh procilitize and and get everyone uh geared up to really make a strong investigatory push. Um but it is an it is an option uh for for people to consider. Um I would also uh say that um

2:25:26 uh we have a gentleman here in the audience who has uh uh conducted a a legal uh history of uh people who uh come forward to make uh classified uh statements uh to Congress over long period of time. And uh he tells me that uh he can't find an instance where someone coming forward and giving classified information to Congress without sort of formal uh permission from the executive branch that there's never been uh I I hope I'm getting this right. There's never been an indictment or much less a prosecution for doing that. Um, now I I certainly I'm not a lawyer and I certainly uh don't want to encourage people to uh to sort of break the rules as they see as they understand them and what they're bound to by agreements that they sign. But it is at

2:26:29 least something to think about um and uh and and potentially uh act on that. Obviously takes a lot of courage uh to do that. I'd just like to this is a little bit of a nonsecor but our panel is coming to an end and I I did want to make a share a concern I have which is that we have two different issues here we have UAP objects that we're observing uh in flight active around military facilities etc and we have an issue of of possible recovery of of materials uh these two issues in the public mind are blended. It's entirely possible that we might not have recovered materials, but UAP are very real and here in pressing and it's an urgent issue and I have a concern that if that issue is not in some way validated or addressed, it

2:27:29 runs the risk of discrediting the entire topic. And we've made enormous progress. uh nothing happened essentially from the blue book days until 2017. Uh and I I fear that if there isn't some uh effective way of addressing this that we run the risk of of a major setback. I don't know how secure Arrow is in the long term. I'm not seeing interest on the part of the chairman of the committees that fund it on the armed services and intelligence committees. they don't seem to be engaged or supportive at this point or defensive probes. So, I think we're in somewhat tenuous ground. Kirk might be is probably in a better position to address this than me, but I think that the second thing that follows that if you were to confirm that then how do you manage that? Who deals with that? It's such a transformational issue that it

2:28:29 cannot be a press release that comes out from a you know from from Congress some afternoon at uh Friday afternoon or something. It's a literally cosmic issue that runs the risk of having of terrifying tens of millions hundreds of millions of people frankly. So it's a very complex interrelated set of issues and uh I think we we and whoever in Congress is providing oversight to this like really needs to think through how to to handle the two of those things and uh our foundation obviously wants to help if we can. Um, but I don't uh I think it's a tough challenge for members who are very very busy people with a lot on their plates and a complex one. I'm going to make an exception. Are we going to continue this conversation because there's a question I want to ask. It's very very important related to with

2:29:30 their expertise. Go ahead. Well, I I wanted to uh get to the question that you actually asked me, which is about whistleblower protections. And I'm uh by no means uh an expert or even really conversant uh on the topic of uh whistleblower protections. Um but uh you know applying a common sense kind of standard um you know you need to you need to have uh uh you would need to legislation that uh that really is strong. uh you know there's a long record of whistleblowers despite whistleblower protections in the law uh they get uh retaliated against and they they lose their jobs, they lose their careers and uh it happens with enough regularity that no one could blame people for not wanting to not want to risk that. So the

2:30:32 legislation would need to be would need to be very robust and I think it would need to include things like restitution, the possibility of uh of uh of u the government uh making good on the loss of uh loss of their career, loss of security clearances if if it comes to that. and uh and and making uh you know ma making sure that uh that people are not going to uh you know uh suffer these um even though the law says they should never have suffered those consequences. You got you got to clean up the mess uh that that that tends to happen here. Um, so anyway, I uh I I'll limit myself to those. So, one last question. I know I said it before. I'm gonna again break the rule here real quick, but I'm gonna ask it very quickly. Let's try to if we can big question, but try to keep this succinct if we can. Um, and this is for

2:31:34 both of you and and I think uh this is part of the challenge that Congress faces. Okay. So, you have we all want to protect national security. How do you separate protecting blue force technologies perhaps perhaps hypothetically gain from the insights of UAP recovery programs but at the same time leveling with the American people about the reality the fundamental reality that there we a we do not have a current understanding of everything in our sky right US air domain awareness we do not have a complete sight picture and two that there may be technologies that are not from us and um that warrants further investigation again but at the same time protecting if we have any technologies hypothetically that have been developed as a result. Well um Lou you know uh we heard from Dr. Davis that and and many others who believe that we haven't made much progress uh in in in with respect to

2:32:37 deciphering what the physics are behind uh NHI and these craft that are coming here. Uh at the same time I mean we don't really know uh that that is true that we haven't made progress. maybe we've made great progress and and that we have stuff ourselves that that could be uh that could be pretty marvelous, right? Um and certainly there can be absolutely vital um reasons for protecting that kind of information. Um I mean one thought that is uh that is crossed my mind is u uh you know people say you know if if the United States government has been into this why in the world wouldn't the government have u made these kinds of technologies known for the betterment of our citizens and for mankind and you know one thought is like what if it what if once you understand the science what if the engineering I know Uh Eric Davis thinks

2:33:40 that we're you know we're maybe a thousand years from being able to do this but but what if that's uh what if it's not true and you know the government is on the horns of a dilemma like it's got energy sources that might be an absolute boon to mankind but it also is looking at the weaponization of that and it's terrifying. Um, and so, you know, gee, is there a way that you can exploit that for your own benefit militarily, but keeping this uh uh keeping this thing somehow this genie bottled up uh where it doesn't uh come into the hands of a of a North Korean dictator? Um um so uh I I don't have answers. I uh Lou, I think uh I think you've got to deal with this uh this range of uh of um of possibilities, but the first thing you got to do is understand it, right? We have to we have to understand what the government knows. And until we do, it's going to be hard to to develop a

2:34:42 rational strategy for managing this. I don't know if that's helpful. Chris, any thoughts? Um I don't think I'll I think we can manage it. Um, I'll leave it at that. I've said too much already and uh I'm eager to get off the stage and turn it over to others. All right, folks. 3 minutes. Thank you very much. So, first folks, uh, let me first extend my sincere appreciation and thanks for everyone's patience. Um, as you can see, we could probably stay all day with just one panelist alone. lot to discuss. We are barely scratching the surface here. Um the next discussion is really going to be part of a scientific discussion. And so the two panelists you have here are experts in their own fields uh and and recognized um as a as a global leader in their particular expertise. So, what I'd like

2:35:43 to do first is introduce Miss Anna Brady Estz, founding partner at American Deep Tech, former SBA innovation advisor for Kaufman, a Kaufman fellow and uh on the UAPDF advisory board. But what you may not know is that uh Miss Brady Estz is deeply involved with the National Science Foundation. Um, and that involvement really includes looking at pioneering new ways to invest American talent, scientific talent into new and emerging areas of science, right? Where do we where do we decide to put our money and our effort in the next 20 years, right? Where do we get that return on investment? What does that look like? Right? And how do we how do we force ourselves to think outside of the box to to be creative? Don't invent tomorrow's technology. Invent the technology after tomorrow. Right? And

2:36:46 it's that type of creative thinking that has traditionally kept this country ahead of everybody else. And uh I ask you to when she when she um listen to what she has to say because this is in my opinion this is the future not just this topic but any topic requiring innovation because if you don't innovate you stagnate if you don't stagnate you perish. That's just the bottom line right we live in a competitive world. The next individual is a uh colleague and friend of mine Mr. Mike Gold. Mr. Dr. Mike Gold is president of the civil and international space uh at Redwire, member of the NASA UAP independent study team, former NASA associate administrator for space policy and partnerships, former acting associate administrator for the office of international and inter agency relations and senior adviser to the administrator for international and legal affairs. former vice president for

2:37:46 civil space at Maxar Technologies, former director of DC operations and business growth at Bigalow Aerospace. You might remember that word from somewhere else and that involvement. And last, but certainly not least, uh as a um member of NASA, uh am I correct to say a a mission manager uh with the Aremis team. Is that did I get that right? I've got two things wrong so far today. So, I want to make sure you're right. I'm a recovering attorney. They wouldn't let me close to ply running a mission. So I was the architect of the Artemis Accords. However, the global partnership of 54 countries to explore the moon, Mars, and beyond. Excellent. And that's it, right? Explore explore moon, Mars, and beyond. Um there is a um something for you to consider. There was an estimate done that u the future of man, mankind, our species um is not here. In fact, if you were to look at the financial opportunities, it was estimated that 1* 10 to the 18th

2:38:48 18th power amount of money this this this world has ever made globally in all its time as modern civilization. Multiply that by a factor of 18 and that's the value of the resources that lie within the inner asteroid belt of our solar system. So, so the future is there. As a microbiologist and imanologist, there's one primary directive of all life systems that we know and that's to expand. If you don't expand, you will perish. In fact, you can look at a petri dish. If you put the right amount of nutrients, bacteria will do the same. Take a plant, give it nutrients and water, it will grow and take over. That is the primary directive of wildlife. And we are no exception to that. So keep that in mind as these two individuals are going to talk to you uh about uh about the importance of this topic, the UAP topic and how it relates to the scientific community. Um am I mistaken that you have a you have a presentation for? So what I like to do is turn it

2:39:49 over uh first of all welcome our two guests or esteemed guests and um ma'am did you have a presentation or you going to do the just questions and answers? I'll go verbal. Yeah. Mike, come on up and let's uh get you started. Thank you so much. Is it okay to move if I do it from here? Yeah. Yeah. Great. Wonderful idea. In terms of expansion, I can tell you my doctor says I'm expanding far too much every day. A lot of trouble. Thank you so much, Lou. Not only for today, but for all you have done to push this topic. You are an American hero, as well as the congressman and many others in this room. From, you know, the journalists to the scientists, the advocates, the pilots. It's just an honor to be here. I appreciate what everyone has done. Also, thank you Redwater board directors for letting me out of the meeting early. That was a wonderful discussion. I think this is going to be a lot more exciting. If I could point you to my opening slide, that is actually an image taken by the blue ghost winterlander with redwire Argus cameras. I'm going to get in that is such an extraordinary image

2:40:51 in a moment. But before we get there, uh, we were having a discussion about substances and what these new substances look like, new materials, what this UAB technology would be. And I've been given the challenging, if not unenviable task of saying, how could UAP technology impact innovation without knowing quite what that UAP technology is, uh, even fundamentally. So what I'd like to try and do today is give you an example of microgravity is impacting innovation in really almost every industrial field and how that could be transformative. I don't know if extraterrestrial civilizations are using this. I think they likely would be, but I think this is an example of how a fundamental shift in technology could change everything. Uh our company Redwire has been conducting experiments on the International Space Station on the space shuttle for literally decades. We have flown hundreds of experiments uh over the past 35 plus years. We have 11

2:41:53 experiments active on the International Space Station right now, more than any other company. You see Senator John Glenn running one of our experiments there. The first one I'd like to show you is the biofabrication facility, the BFF or graded acronyms at Redwire. If you can play the video, please. This is, by the way, an over 400 lb payload. It broke a table at our facility in Greenville, Indiana. Much easier to handle in orbit. That astronaut, a Cubs fan, working very quickly, a lot of coffee at 20 times speed. Uh, but he's installing what is a biofabrication unit. And that system has allowed us to manufacture human tissue in space. It resulted in the first human meniscus being printed in space. Who needs a meniscus? I know I could probably use two. Right. Exactly. This is the impact of microgravity that if you tried to create that meniscus on

2:42:54 Earth, and again, I'm a recovering attorney, so I'm going to put it simply, it squishes. You couldn't do that in a gravity environment. It's not space per se. It's the lack of gravity that allows you to do these incredible things. uh subsequent to the success we had with the meniscus, we printed live cardiovascular tissue and we brought it back from the International Space Station, still live. Think what this could mean for people suffering from heart disease, the creation of heart patches. And of course, the goal of all of this is ultimately to create whole organs in space. How many of us have had friends and relatives die while waiting on an organ donation list? This could change all of that. Additionally, because we would be using your own stem cells to create the tissue, the organs, we would avoid the dangerous and expensive anti-rejection therapies that you go through. So, we see how microgravity could have a dramatic

2:43:55 impact in terms of life sciences. Also, pharmaceuticals. Redwire has flown 28 pill boxes. These are systems where we take pharmaceuticals, drugs, fly the seed crystals, and seed crystals, by the way, they're like a sourdough starting kit. They're what the drugs are made out of. And when you create seed crystals in microgravity, they're larger, more uniform, and that results in drugs with better efficacy, better longitivity, fewer side effects. Here's a example that is very near and dear to my heart. Insulin. We partnered with Eli Liy. We flew insulin. Over on the left side of that, that's what insulin seed crystals look like when you create them on Earth. Over on the right side, that's what insulin looks like in space. The seed crystals. Again, I got a B minus in biology. As a high school student, even I can tell the difference between one and the other. And because of those larger more uniform crystals, you could

2:44:55 have a version of insulin, we've seen versions of cancer treatment drugs that whereas you'd have to go through chemotherapy that would be injected again long painful, you could potentially get to a version of the drug where it could be administered orally. So a tremendous difference here relative to the pharmaceutical sector. And by the way, it's not just us who know this, it's China. And the Chinese have their space station. They're going after the same research. So, you know, congressman, I would beg as we look at the International Space Station, replacing it with a commercial space station. This revolution with biotech and microgravity is going to happen. The only question is it going to happen here in America in the free world or is it going to be happening in China? And I do not want to be buying my next generation of pharmaceuticals and drugs from the Chinese. So, we need to continue to support this, you know, create new developments. But this is just life sciences and biotech. Again, microraph will impact semiconductors. The same principles. When you form crystals in space, you can create new types of

2:45:56 semiconductors that are more powerful, more tolerant of heat. Agriculture, you can create seeds, new types of plants that can flourish in the desert. We have a a greenhouse that we're flying in space looking at many of that efforts. You see that there. Uh we also have systems for what's called Zblan fiber where it's a new type of fiber optic that could be incredibly more powerful. Again, every aspect of our technological society could be changed by this innovation. Is this something that UAP are using? Is this new substances that they're using? I don't know. Perhaps. But you see how this field will revolutionize everything. And I believe in the future leaders in microgravity will not only be the leaders in economics but in national security as well. As a matter of fact that meniscus sprint the customer for that was the uniform services university because the number one injury to our men and women in uniform are meniscus tears. Now I'd

2:46:56 like to talk about who wants to see some unclassified data right let's talk about some imagery that we're getting from NASA. As Lou mentioned, I was proud to be a member of NASA's UAP independent study team. We had some very common sense recommendations. One of which that I testified here in the House not too long ago alongside the great Lu Alzando and others was that we need to go into the NASA archives, get the imagery, review it, make it public, and look at what we've got. This is an example that hit the internet not too long ago. Is it Tic Tac? It's on Mars. I don't know. I'm not qualified to say, but someone should be looking at it and we should be collecting and collecting the data. Here's one that's even more interesting to me. Lunar horizon glow. This is a phenomena that we first saw with the surveyor systems. This is, as it's named, a glow that we're seeing on the horizon of the moon. We saw it with the

2:47:58 robotic surveyors. And what you see in the upper left hand side are sketches that Apollo astronauts made of this phenomena. A glowing dome, streaks of light shooting out from the lunar surface. Pretty extraordinary. And then most recently, this was my cover slide with the blue ghost system, which is NASA's commercial lunar payload services programs, a wonderful public private partnership to reach the moon with red wire Argus cameras. We took this image of the lunar glow. What you might hear uh if you go on a NASA website or talk to some in the scientific community is that this effect is from dust that has been electrostatically charged and then levitated to create this impact. Now again I'm not saying one way or the other but um Dr. and I should go back to give him credit

2:48:58 uh Dr. Manett's dire I got to I'm going to mess up his name and I apologize it's in the slides but a wonderful professor who's been associated with the UAP disclosure fund uh and doing work on this topic provided me these slides and I can tell you NASA's own research latty other systems is putting some big question marks as to even if there is enough dust create this effect which looks unlikely and that if dust could be electrostatically charged to cause what I mean looks like the second sunrise. And that's not the sun, by the way. It's below the horizon. I mean, that is an extraordinary image. And by the way, when I first saw this picture, I was like, is that algae on the moon? And what you're seeing is light refle refraction occurring due to I don't know what. So, I don't know what this is. Is it a dome? Is it some type of natural phenomena that we don't understand or

2:49:58 aren't aware of? But I'll tell you definitely it's a unidentified anomalous phenomena which bears looking at and understanding. And this is a good example too of even if it's a natural or prosaic phenomenon, there is something extraordinary occurring here. We should be delving into it. We should be studying it and understanding it. And on the off chance that does turn out to be something extraordinary. I mean, we need to know what is occurring here. Uh, additionally, here's another shot publicly available from the NASA archives. You've seen some imagery of the triangular UAPs in the past. What's that? Debris, satellites. And that's from the moon, right, Mike? That's Apollo 17. We had that picture. Images from Apollo 17. A few of us saw something like that uh last Friday. Yeah, actually extraordinary satellites,

2:51:00 debris, Klingons. What is it? I don't know. Lou, do you know, congressman? Do you know what that is? Why are we not investigating this? And what I would ask of our brave members of Congress who are here is again with relatively little effort and money, we should be leveraging AI and ML to go into the NASA archives. So much of this has been digitized more every day and conduct a review of what's publicly available on UAP. We spend so much time here and justifiably so talking about classified material, what's being hidden. Yet there is a treasure trove of data that if not a smoking gun, certainly is fascinating and worth looking at and applying the scientific method to. And these images that you're seeing here and here's more of another UAP from Pollo. More of potentially a Stonehenge, strange structures on the moon, lunar anomalies

2:52:02 that look like Buddhist temples. I'm not saying necessarily all of these have extraordinary explanations. Maybe some of them don't. Maybe some of them do. But it certainly is worth the effort to investigate. And we're not doing that right now. Why? Because of the stigma, this pernitious stigma that prevents us from tackling it. And sir, that's where we're going to need your help. that I have many friends at NASA that are interested in this topic, fascinated by it, want to delve into it, but they need top cover. And that's why I'd be so grateful to maybe offline talk more about what we can do with a new NASA administrator coming in. And this isn't going to cost a lot of money. You know, this could be done with very little time, very little effort, yet the results could be extraordinary. Finally, as we get back to technology, I just wanted to level set relative to what it takes to travel in space. Three days to the moon, 7 to 10 months to Mars. I can tell you exposure to radiation during that trip quite dangerous and

2:53:06 77,000 years to Proxima Centtory, our closest star. I mean, that's worse than my flights on United. I mean, that is rough. And then 1.7 million years to get to where we've seen some bio signatures for the first time. If we're truly going to explore space, we're going to need some innovative technology. And here we already spent some time discussing the Alcub warp drive. This was a Mexican physicist who did the initial work proving that within demonstrated science, and that's right, I would defer to Eric Davis here, but but this is not extraordinary science that a warp drive could exist. The challenge with Alcub's warp drive is that it would require roughly the mass of Jupiter converted into energy to operate. I mean, I had a Chevy Suburban and that was not fuel efficient. This would be even more difficult. But a scientist at NASA, what was then NASA's Eagle Works, tweaked basically the architecture of the Alib

2:54:08 Drive and perhaps found some ways to get that down to more the mass of a VW, you know, something that we could work with. So these are the kinds of technologies that if there is a gravidic system or some kind of extraordinary technology we must have it in order to traverse those distances and have America and our international partners lead in space exploration. Additionally, energy. I mean, if we are sitting on extraordinary technology, zero point energy, the Castmir effect as we discussed, think of the good we could do in terms of saving the environment, improving the economy, creating a postcarcity society. It would be extraordinary. It would be wonderful. And let me just end by saying the reverse of that is we do not want to fall behind China relative to leveraging extraordinary technology. I don't know if there's alien tech out there. There may be, there might not be. But can we

2:55:10 risk falling behind the Chinese and reverse engineering if there is such technology? And this is again where the stigma is so pernitious that I'm sure China has its top officials working on 247 coordinated whereas US it's separated it's compartmentalized is MIT working on it is Caltech working on it no we cannot risk losing the communist China because we can't take this issue seriously we must not let a lack lack of vision turn into a lack of freedom. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you for the uh brief presentation, folks. Um again, time is of the essence, so I'm going to make these uh as succinct as possible. Is it okay if I present as well? Yeah, absolutely. I'd love you to present. I was ask questions actually about that.

2:56:11 So, please have the floor. Thanks. Uh well, I just wanted to say I really appreciate Mike all the work you've done in microgravity and and certainly for you know any of these craft that are you know that are in space above the bone garment they have that access to microgravity should they choose to use it. Uh at our firm American Deep Tech, we're very focused on a number of areas of deep technology, including space tech, energy, and advanced bio, including one of our co-founders, Cat with Aspera. They they believe they've identified a cancer kill switch, and I know you've worked together. We're talking with her. Yeah, it's cancer kill switch and microgravity. So, just, you know, for pharmaceuticals that access to microgravity, you see the aging within 9 days that it would take a year terrestrially for a tumor. So that ability to speed up that iteration on drug development is very important. And so we've got some some really interesting people that we work with. A CTO coming out of NASA, a branch chief

2:57:11 uh coming out of Space Force, some very high growth entrepreneurs. And we also work uh with some leaders, you know, as our advisers and venture partners in the UAP space because we see the keys, you know, of these areas of technology to drive that abundance, that competitive advantage, you know, and just societal benefit. some people like we're you know we're fortunate to have as our adviser Hal Putoff uh and also to work with people like uh Julia Mossbridge and Ryan Graves and Diane Finchen. So I I know that they are active in so many areas of technology uh but also in UIP and so how did we come in my former roles which which I thank you so much for that kind introduction which I I've completed my roles in the US government where I was the co-chair alongside NASA of the US space economy inter agency working group we worked with exceptional innovation forward UAP forward and open leaders across inter agency And those meetings

2:58:13 are public. They're available online. US space disruptors day. And that was a day of about uh you know 10 sometimes 12 hours of presentations on inspace biotechnology in space semiconductors US launch uh also UAP also advanced consciousness AI communications and satellites. So there was uh actually inter agency leadership on that co co-hosted this UAP leading content from NASA, Space Force, DHS, Air Force, these were all very senior people um NSF and SBA. So while I would say um that in years past before this great movement towards transparency and gratitude for those in the room who have really led that um you know since the 2017 time frame and before time has changed and innovation is not about

2:59:14 unfortunately because we we want everybody to come along you know we we appreciate you know it's great once you get beyond 50%. Innovation and science are not about consensus. This isn't we don't wait to get to 51%. This is the the the leaders are are doing this. The fast followers are also doing this. And the the reasons why they're doing this is because they're sitting in rooms, groups of people. We had an extended electronamics group of uh leaders from across the inter agency and also the private sector and they were working on advanced energy. They were working on advanced communications. They were there are funded entrepreneurs. I uh at well at NSF public awards we funded and I funded companies working on what the entrepreneurs later described as UAP adjacent or UAP inspired technologies. uh one of those actually multiple of

3:00:14 those people have spoken to having worked on uh programs that they can't go into great depth about but certainly others are undertaking that private sector research where it's not about it being classified first and this um but the the point on how do you how do you get your communications uh back and forth to Mars you know without dealing with the 40minut latency how do you do that and what are what are the approaches for breaking those barriers? How do you achieve this energy abundance and and that more efficient launch capability? So it was these conversations on what could be achieved and what's already been in some cases declassified in terms of uh work and outcomes or was never classified really led to conversations where we invited in experts who then said do you want my my extended electronamics uh presentation or you want my UAP presentation? We said you know we'd like both of those. And so that what that led

3:01:16 to was receiving that tremendous presentation uh from Hal, from Charles Chase and from others and saying uh can can you give this to more people? And so they gave that those types of presentations um to hundreds of people. And what we found with those entrepreneurs was this was the highest level of engagement we ever got in any field of science or technology. And I'm seeing people in the audience who are part of it shaking their heads. Yes. So the entrepreneurs were so eager and scientists to engage in the UAP um science and technology. And as a frame of reference when we talk about disruptive technology, I've worked with a few of them because I've had the opportunity to fund around 400 companies. So work with thousands of entrepreneurs. Those companies from just a quarter billion a quarter billion plus put out have gone on to raise 8.5 billion in follow on financing and 17.5 billion in total market cap just in the

3:02:17 early years. That's coming out of a place that the program which is not the UAP program but a program that has catalyzed well over $350 billion you know from well less than 20 probably 12 billion put out over several decades. So these entrepreneurs oftentimes these highest growth ones regardless of what they're working in it can be batteries they're told never going to work I mean we all have batteries right people will say a higher performing battery here's why it's not going to work so these entrepreneurs are used to being told no and why not and they still build things and what's happening today not just in America but around the world because the first time I saw these experiences was overseas is people are seeing seeing ultra advanced craft that are higher performing. And for people that are building the highest performing craft and the highest performing energy, they are not trying to unsee what they have seen, you know, and that they've caught on a a wide range of sensors. There is

3:03:20 the classified sensors and then there's the sensors like this. We have imagery, you know, on our phones um from going out and and seeing things. So I think that the um the impetus to build things is what's driving this and what would be the right levels to really go after this. You know this is something that a few of us have spoken about but uh my background is also as a strategist so we we do a lot of strategy math and uh I used to be at BCG and the question of if you're building the highest performing systems what type of resources would you put in place so if we look at you know we and I'm I'm sharing kind of casually googled numbers so you can we can get to better definition but how much money went into the ISS, our long-term inspace laboratory. Some of the numbers online say that it was well over 70 billion for the US part of that and that with other nations contributions it might be 150

3:04:24 billion. What was the cost of the Apollo program? That was 26 billion, you know, uh, you know, from the 60s to the 70s. Uh, some estimates put that at inflation adjusted, well over 200, perhaps $250 billion. So, if you were to ask me today, what is the right amount of money to be investing in these ultra high performing technologies, these Manhattan style projects? It's well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the right answer today. Whether the US makes that investment or whether somebody else does, we are talking about advantage for multi-trillion dollar markets. So some would say perhaps we've made the right investments over time that we've invested those tens of billions of those hundreds of billions. And if we have, how do we celebrate the accomplishments that might have come out of those programs? How do we give the

3:05:24 recognition to those scientists, those people who have served who perhaps have not been able to speak about their work? How do we derive value from that? How do we say these pieces that might have been constrained because you didn't have access to the tools everybody else has access to on the outside and the collaboration, how can we bring the pieces in in a way that is respectful to national security and increases resilience and and abundance? And I I am concerned. I mean I I appreciate I think many of us want transparency but also how do we make that so the people who may have worked in this want to come forward you know so if we're offering them oh you built something you're given resources and here's some punishment that that's going to be hard to get the technology out. How you know and there's lots of ways that that could be brought fully forth. it could be anonymized into a centralized clearing house. If there is valuable technology there that can help people in the United States and

3:06:24 around the world, let's celebrate what's been built and let's fill the gaps that are there. So, we see tremendous opportunity. Um the race is on. Some would say those are exceptionally uh large programs. uh many of us have seen these this wide range of phenomena be they craft be they orbs these the reason it matters so sometimes the first time you see this phenomena it's a point of interest and you say wow you know I kind of thought there was life off planet whether it's life off planet or advanced terrestrial technology but you you think well okay interesting now back to our dayto-day what do we do with this and so a number of us came to because our core core roles were advanced energy, advanced computation, advanced biology. The answer was people who are working in their core fields of biotechnology, quantum that they're seeing some of the potential paths forward through this UAP and GSM technology. Can we classify it

3:07:27 today? I don't know how. I mean, there are parts that we can say stay away from this due to this risks. But the challenge on some of this is if if you're to say we'll classify UAP technology, you just got to stop working on it. For people that are familiar with the science and the technology, there are elements of this that are relevant to quantum and quantum entanglement. So what does that mean for our national posture on quantum? AI is interwoven with this. You talk about microgravity and advanced materials. So, do we just not do certain layering or advancement of certain materials because they've been found at a crash retrieval? We're not able to walk back because this is so interwoven. So, saying that UAP is off limits, that's like saying let's go home. Let's, you know, maybe can we still use fire? You know, maybe maybe, you know, let's look into it, you know, can you still use rocks? So many of the fields of technology would be off limits. So honestly we don't know how to

3:08:28 to you know this idea we don't once you're in that you don't even know it's like saying stop using math. So the entrepreneurs are getting inspired they're seeing things and and so this is kind of humorous to scientists. So we both appreciate that people are talking about crash retrievals and reverse engineering. Are there crash retrievals? Well are there crashes? I mean there's deer retrievalss where I live. I mean, a crash seems a lot more interesting than a deer to pick up. And uh anybody who knows an engineer says the first time you see anything of interest, you are certainly going to reverse engineer it. So whether that happens inside government programs or whether it happens out in the streets, Americans and people around the world are seeing this phenomena and uh those that build things are saying, you know, what do we build together? So we we've seen these on a number of occasions. We've brought some high-ranking uh scientists down to folks who are able in in spots where these show up more frequently. And uh

3:09:29 it's worth noting that there are people a number of groups of people who are currently pulling in or attracting craft, you know, and other phenomena. And some some people just happen to see them. I'm looking right at you, Ryan. You saw a lot of these. But um so there are people that have seen these infrequently. There are people who have seen these on a dayto-day basis when we've spoken with scientists, you know, over the past year or two. And so this is this is coming out of places that some would see as the scientific establishment and can can we talk about this? Can we not? You know, and some of these conversations hadn't taken place as openly. When they did, what we found was when we go into rooms and we talk with people who are innovators, they're usually it's usually 30 to 50% of people will share that they've seen or experienced anomalous phenomena. You know, sometimes they say, "Oh, no, I haven't seen the UAP." And then they say, "Well, you know, I did see this orb over a football field and you know, it was huge." And then so people have seen things and we've had to have the

3:10:31 conversation with leaders in science where we say by the way times have changed. There's all this great work that's been done towards disclosure. And when we started talking to people about it where we might have thought it was one in 20 or one in a 100 seems like it's more like one in three or two and three or maybe three and three and three three people aren't talking about it. And um so that so we've had the conversation which is it is not credible or viable to act like this isn't going on. So it's it's a little we use the analogy that it's a little bit like whale watching. It's both normal to if you live by the coast only certainly but if you live by the coast you know you have access to get out of the water. You know there's a percentage of people who would have seen whales. There's a percentage who haven't. It's normal both ways. So nothing to feel like you know special or not special you know regardless but it's ubiquitous. So if you can't go in front of a room of people you know if you've seen that and and cred and if you haven't seen it we

3:11:32 say listen people are seeing this they know. So to be credible you you do need to acknowledge it's out there. There's so much data. There's so much people have on their iPhones, you know, there's so many people who will speak to the programs. On the high side, they're in, but the low side, you know, is not waiting for agreement. They're not the fortune one, the US government can lead this. We can try to figure out what benefit we have from the great work people in this country and perhaps around the world have done or people are ready to move forward. And uh when I was in government, I used to receive proposals and without going into the details on any of them, you know, in various fields of technology where people think they were the only ones here. No. Any idea you have, believe me, dozens of people are working at the same time. So this is something that right now both in this country around the world, there are so many people that are eager to build this and a number of them are already building these things out. So just because you don't see it doesn't

3:12:34 mean that it isn't happening all over the place both in this country and abroad. So if we need to lead if we want to lead we need to be active. So I'm I'm looking we always listen with respect to innovators and entrepreneurs and I want to thank so many of you for sharing what you've seen. uh there is an opportunity I I I expect more scientists are going to be engaging directly with the phenomena and as scientists they're going to be doing experiments and and methods. Okay. So if you want to talk about something that people talk even less about than UAPs. So the the thing that was even more of a third rail than UAPs is the sources and methods for some of this. So as you're hearing about there's a number of teams that are working calling this phenomena and they're talking about all these different things. Some of them have these okay ultra exotic protocols. And then one of the one of the groups that we went to visit with some scientists. Their protocol was prayer. And it was not some exotic thing. It was

3:13:35 the Our Father, the Hail Mary, you know, conversation. And I'm not trying to constrain it to any any denomination or any faith or lack thereof because I I think one of the hesitancies people have is they don't they want this to be for everybody and not um not to be specific or linked with one thing but sources and methods when we're talking science there are people through meditation or very you know dayby-day prayer are calling in these crafts you know and these orbs. So uh it's science let's talk about what it is and then assess it. So my first question actually is to you Anna. Um so there was a recent statement by a government official and it kind of went unnoticed. I think it was a few weeks ago where they said we are now manipulating space time. We have the ability to manipulate space time. So I'll let that sink in for a moment. That was an official statement by a US

3:14:35 government representative and you can elaborate on that. Well, there's certainly been um publicly visible funding that has gone into that and um I I'll say a couple things before I would say there's a a much better expert in the audience uh Dr. Julia Mossbridge in terms of um space-time work. Um also that's something that Dr. Hal Kutoff with spacetime metric engineering has been very active in. Um so so there's been plenty of work on that and um there there's a lot that's going on. So in the backdrop of that, the National Science Foundation has been a fundamental Oh, sorry, just one quick thing to say. But by the way, um we we also a few of us were also maybe several of us in the room about over a year ago were on uh the National Mall at the National Academy of Sciences where it was National Space Week and there were some uh presenters from around the world and that also included a representative uh from the the Chinese government

3:15:37 presumably the CCPA and the presentation that they were putting up included request us for we want to work with people on I believe it was space-time metric engineering. Uh it was gravitational control and it was also alien life off planet amongst other things like renewables. So the Chinese are literally coming down to the National Mall and saying hi come talk to us about this you know and so come on seriously another thing that they said by the way you know in terms of many of us have been advocating for much higher levels of capital to go into innovation and also into inspace infrastructure which does not have access to the terrestrial financial tools like debt you know so if you buy a house Most people they're making a smaller down payment 20% 5% whatever they could do more of a minimum in space it's typically you've got to front all

3:16:38 of the money up front can you not going to build a hospital for the individual patient you need to have the financial model so anyways when I was trying to figure out what was the space budget for China they wouldn't tell me but um the the gentleman did look at me in disdain he's talking to all of you he said when we look at putting up a space station. We view that as that costs the same amount of money as putting down a couple kilometers of metro. Basically, we're going to do that all day every day. So, if we can't figure out how to make the investments to win in these transformational markets for abundance, for societal benefits, and for economic growth and gain, uh we're going to be left behind. So, this is a so the people that are moving forward are moving forward. We really hope that the u the US government the fortune one um you know is able to share some of the great work that's been done you know previously across all these fields but the private sector is moving

3:17:39 forward folks we're going to have time for only two very quick questions. We're already way over our time and we have to unfortunately surrender this room back over to folks. So let me finish. I've got two here and then afterwards if you want to get with our guests you can. Um we're not going to have time to open it up right now for for public questions. I have uh let me get to this real quick and if we could our guests could please keep um the answer as succinct as possible uh before we actually get kicked out of the room. Um let me start with with with you Anna. Um the National Science Foundation has been a fundamental pillar of some of America's revolutionary technology and concepts for many decades. How can the NSF help the government now concerning the topic of UAPs? Well, I guess one of the things that's just publicly visible is that we have been uh when I was formerly at NSF, uh I would just say that there's lots of publicly visible content of us being very uh forward on the topic, listening

3:18:39 to innovators, working with strong colleagues from across the inter agency. So, I I think that um NSF has shown and NSF leadership has also just been extremely supportive. So I just want to be very clear. I left the government because I'm excited about building things in the private sector and I only ever received the greatest support and collaboration from my inter agency colleagues and from the agencies with which I worked who are extremely forward on all areas of innovation but certainly UAP fits within that including our publicly visible awards that were made to uh fund UAP science. There's plenty there's great people that are highly supportive you know particularly over there. Excellent. Very encouraging. Thank you, Mike. Um, last question. You were on the NASA UAP independent study team. My question for you is, what were the recommendations of the NASA UAP independent study team and how those recommendations how should those recommendations be implemented? Uh, for

3:19:42 the purpose of time, Lou, and thank you for that question, I'll focus on two of those recommendations. We already discussed going through the NASA archives with an AIM ML system to get the data. Just a few examples of which we were able to show today again which could be quite extraordinary. Campbly I think there are companies that would even volunteer to do that work for NASA. But the second one and I really appreciate you showing that photo which was taken by a commercial pilot. And one of the great disappointments I had when I was on the UAP independent study team was I was asking the FAA, "How many reports have you gotten from commercial pilots? Are those reports being archived? How are we keeping track of that?" And I got confusion. Confusion and no straight answers. And here I'd like to give credit to Ryan Graves yet again uh for suggesting that we leverage NASA's aviation safety reporting system ASRS which has been operating for decades has hundreds of thousands of cases and this is a confidential system

3:20:43 where pilots crew can call in about safety anomalies that they've experienced. It's worked phenomenally well. We should be leveraging this system for the reporting of UAP. It could be done quickly. It could be done efficiently and the amount of data that we will receive would be amazing. Additionally, the images that I showed you was from BlueCOS, the commercial payload services program. Public private partnerships have driven all of this. I'm so excited for the democratization of space and the data that we will get from that. This was just one example today. As SpaceX, Blue Origin, Redwire, other companies move forward, all with our own cameras, all with our own systems, we're going to get a lot more data, but NASA still holds on to a lot of it. So, for example, with what I presented, we need the raw data. We need timestamps. We need data in a format where we can do true academic research. So if we were just to do those two

3:21:45 things and again we could use support from Congress I think to push that uh I think NASA could play a tremendously important role and particularly the aviation community and the commercial space community. the amount of data we get, I think, would completely shift the level of sophistication on this topic. And I think there's also um probably about 20 or 30 hours of some of that um forward inter agency content um in the space disruptors day and the ecosmic futures podcast which we have Diane in the room here today. So thank you Diane for helping get that information out broadly. I do have to say though I'm a little less optimistic than Anna relative to the adoption in government. as I said during my testimony that particularly academic members of the NASA UAP independent study team were threatened out threatened not for saying UAP are real but for just having the tmerity of even reviewing the topic you can't do science in that environment and part of the reason that I'm calling for

3:22:45 Congress to help is there's still a great deal of skepticism even just at NASA and careers that get ended just for having again the temerity to research for it. So I think it's incumbent of all of us to push for real science, objective science, overcome that stigma. Let's get to the data because our economy and our national security may be depending on and I think you contributed so much. So what I would say is some of the things that you experienced, you know, or that Lou, you know, and Chris and others experience, there's that body of having been able to point to those leaders. So we had the advantage of being able to point to your study, you know, and to this prior work. So um you know and again I I think there's the opportunity for the government but I would say that it's it's not there are industries that move forward that are not um forwarded by the government. But I I think just to be something very important that came out because sometimes if we say oh UAP this UAP that

3:23:45 um there's going to be some great technologies that come out of that. that is very fluffy, you know, and who cares? So, I think um something that I got briefed on in an unclassified just informal no classification level environment and both in in personal capacity, but then I later brought that person in to brief others in the agency. Is there a real and meaningful technologies that have come from these programs? And I think with a lot of this information, you're going to see that, you know, the story about it has been in the internet for decades perhaps. So what I have though on uh from a very credible source was that yes, there are people who say that this came out of the UAP programs when we talk about lasers and semiconductors and that was so important. you know, semiconductors, the top 10 companies today, a $6.5 trillion industry that we all

3:24:45 benefit from and underpins our global economy. That is something that it's not just, oh, maybe we'll get something. It's that there are tremendous people who have built things, you know, both in classified and unclassified environments. And u that's been you know put out by so many authors and people in the news but some of us are in environments that we can say this is taken seriously and those people have told the government that yes there's been real advantage on some of these most important core technologies from coming from crash retrieval and I think to get the government to take it seriously we need to engage the public we've got to get outside the UAP bubble and Dan Farah did a tremendous movie age of disclosure it's really blue story in many ways is extraordinary himself and Jay Stratton. If we can touch the public, if we can get them engaged, if we can get them the same information that we just saw, I think that would be completely transformative. Well, let me since time is on the first of all, thank you sincerely for your participating. It

3:25:47 was it was fantastic conversation. Let me leave a couple thoughts here if I may before we say final thorough. Uh, one of the recommendations we made to Congress is the um, generation of a national intelligence strategy that would be promulgated on an annual basis just like we do for other our targets. Um, it's a system that we have perfected already and then right on the heels of that a national strategy every year annual strategy on UAP and drone. basically any unattributed objects that are in our skies uh we should have a strategy for because we're seeing uh both on the combat field and even in the streets of New York we're seeing technologies that we we can't really explain and frankly could be used against us in a very nefarious way if we don't get a handle on it. Um, two, what I'd like to do is propose and and hopefully Congress at some point will be open to this, that we should do a forum like this every year for the American public and for the media and allow Congress to get to uh the bottom of things and ask the questions that they normally wouldn't be

3:26:48 able to ask and bring in the Department of Justice and the intelligence community, the Department of Defense and bring them all here. Why not, right? Send them down here in front of the American people by way look at it. You're paying their their their paychecks anyways, right? they kind of owe you some answers and they owe Congress some answers. Um, I would also say please let your members of Congress know that you support this. If you like what Representative Berles and Representative Luna and Bashett and others have done here today, let them know, right? They need to hear this and so other members of Congress can see this and say, "Hey, that works, right? Tell them that." They need to hear that feedback. Unless you don't want one of these again. Um, but that would be my suggestion. And last but not least, I want to thank specifically our members of Congress. Um, because at the end of the day, they're your representatives. They represent this country. They are very much part of this country. And they are the reasons why you're all here today and we are here. They have facilitated

3:27:49 this. They have sponsored this. They have gone out of their way to put their political careers potentially in jeopardy for even having this conversation for you. So, um, if you appreciate this, let us know. And last but not least, thank you to every one of you. Again, our friends in the media, the folks that came over here, some cases, uh, came from across the world and traveled here very long distances to be with us here today. Thank you very much. Um, is very meaningful and we are only here because it's been a group effort. So, with that said, let's give a round of applause for our guest here.