0:00 Because the mainstream is actually talking about it right now. They're actually saying, you know, we've heard about the crash UMPs. Tell us about those. Specifically, recently, Australia talked about it on mainstream media. And that's really strange. Mainstream news. So anyway, it's all getting bizarre. Wow. Welcome back to Strange Normal. My name is Brad Burnham. We talk about the strange events that happen in your normal life to give you a biblical understanding of what is happening around you. And there's a lot happening around you. So hit that subscribe button. Hit that little bell icon so you can be notified when things like this happen. In fact, tonight's show is going to be very interesting.
0:56 We're taking the hour and a half live stream, reducing it down to just the highlights. And Mikey Jenny, another creator, is joining me tonight to discuss this U.S. congressional topic where they came and talked about the UAP problem that they're having in the Pentagon. Let's get right into it. UAPs are unexplained. It's true. But they are real. They need to be investigated. And many threats they pose need to be mitigated. And civil society groups like the Mutual UFO Network, Mr. Corbell, and others have been collecting data on this issue for years. The last time Congress had a hearing on UAPs was half a century ago. I hope that it does not take 50 more years for Congress to hold another because transparency is desperately needed. I now turn to Ranking Member Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While this topic evokes creative imaginations of many, aside from all the hype and speculation, there are important underlying issues posed by UAPs.
1:56 So he's saying transparency is needed. Like, what are they not being transparent about? So far they're saying we've been seeing them every day for years. We don't know what they are. They're not of this world, basically. They're not our technology. They're not their technology. Like, what's he mean by we need to be more transparent about this? I think he's talking about how they've been hiding it, right? Forever. That's what it sounds like. We've been talking about swamp gas and weather balloons and all this other stuff. And now they're saying we need to be more transparent about this. We need to talk about it. But if they're already telling us, yeah, we see things that aren't ours and we don't know what they are, how much more transparent can they be? It sounds like he thinks that they know more than what they say. These guys, from what I understand, these Congress guys are receiving the brunt of it from the public. And so they're going to... The higher-ups and saying, hey, look, you guys got to tell it as it is because I'm getting a lot of flack here.
2:52 Let's get on this and let's get going. So he's kind of just saying from the very beginning, hey, look, these are real. We know this now. Tell it as it is. Come on, guys. Fess up. And I agree. I think that this has been a psyop for a long time. I think what they've been doing is trying to bring the public to a point where the public is saying, we know they're real. You're hiding the truth. You think... You think we can't handle it? Tell us the truth. Instead of just unleashing it on us, I think that they've been purposely slipping out the alien autopsy and purposely slipping out footage of this and that and making us feel like, oh, we caught you, when really they're purposely leaking it out because they want us to get to a point where we're saying, tell us the truth. We know they're real. Yeah. And we know that for sure because of how Tom DeLonge went to them and said, hey, I'll help you leak this stuff out. And then the Podesta email files, right, came out and said, we've been communicating with Tom about this stuff. So it legitimized what he was saying about them wanting to leak this stuff out and give it out slowly.
4:01 And so this isn't any conspiracy anymore. This is real stuff. I'm going to bring you back a little bit so I can actually see you in here. And I don't care if that's on video. Whoa. I'm just going to leave that alone. OK. Maybe I'm not going to do that. Woo. There we go. This is the fun of being a... Dude, if that thing falls and shatters, that's some blooper worthy. OK. Anyway, let's go. With regard to the importance of transparency, the department is fully committed to the principle of openness and accountability to the American people. However, we are also mindful of our obligation to protect sensitive sources. You all did it, Jim. That's our job. So our job is to do the work that you guys are doing, providing education to the American people. We're working with the people of Northpl себ.
4:59 They should be well enough to know that those rights do really come without respect to those İike those laws. We should not need any state guidelines to protect or inventor anything from them. And, of course, I'm going to leave it to the english law, the law. But I'll wait for theancia ab drinker. Sounds good. Thank you. And UK effect. Thank you. Thank you. Next question. Intrusions by unknown aircraft or objects pose potential threats to the security of our operations. From the very beginning, we took these reports very seriously. The message is now clear. If you see something, you need to... Wait a minute. From the very beginning, we took these things seriously. I've been hearing for years, like, oh, it's nothing. You know, just look at Roswell, for instance. You know, oh, it was a weather balloon, and this guy is, like, taking a picture with some aluminum foil, looking like an idiot when he's a military, you know, soldier, and he knows what he saw.
5:53 And yet what they released to the public was some tinfoil and saying that they saw a weather balloon. How's this guy saying that we've been taking this, you know, taking account of sightings seriously since the beginning? I think he's going to go into that. In fact, they mentioned Roswell, which is really surprising to me. And I left that part in. I think what they're saying is, oh, well, I'm going to wait. I'm going to wait. Let's get there. Yeah, they can't wait to hear it. Need to report it. And the message has been received. Additionally, subject matter experts from a wide variety of fields, including physics, optics, metallurgy, meteorology, just to name a few, have been brought in to expand our understanding in areas where we may not have organic expertise. I thought that was interesting. Because they said, you know, we've brought all these experts in to talk about this stuff. And he specifically mentioned metallurgy. Isn't that the study of metals? That's what it sounds like. So, I mean, I guess because oftentimes these accounts we hear are like it was like no thing I've ever seen on Earth.
7:03 Like there was no seams, no rivets. It was some kind of strange metal, you know? Yeah. And it also made me think about. Well, there's controversy about a guy named Bob Lazar. I've been kind of looking into, you know, who that is. Everyone that has studied this stuff kind of knows who Bob Lazar is because he claims that he helped reverse engineer some crashed UAPs. Right. And what we know that if that was true, that's part of a huge deception, right? Right. It I mean, that would go beyond anything I would even ever fathom. Some people think that he's just mad. I mean, I don't know if I'm making it all up and there's there's way good weight evidence on either side. I've been kind of going over it, thinking about making a video about it. But but the thing about Bob Lazar is he had nothing to gain from his stories or whatever. Like he purposely would say, like, this is the last time I'm talking about this. And he never went out of his way to try to talk about it.
8:02 It was always people prying it out of him. And they'd be like, all right, if you want to hear it, I'll tell you. But he had no kind of agenda for. Notoriety or anything. You know, he had no, no, sorry, we're not agenda, but yeah, no motive. Yeah, no motive. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know. And so what leads me to think that he's he's not telling the truth, aside from things like they they found out he didn't actually work at MIT and there's all this other stuff. And they did find pay stubs of him working for the government. So that's really interesting. But and so there's there's there's weird evidence on both sides of his story. Interesting. But anyway. And then and then again, you're talking about, you know, if you work for the government, they can manipulate any kind of evidence and make it look like he's not telling the truth or whatever, you know?
8:58 Right. Right. So I don't know. But the reason why this is this is interesting to me because they mentioned metallurgy, which means they found something physical. And they've been saying right now. That they have material that is from not this planet, whether it's ships or fake ships, you know, created deceptions, physical created deceptions. That's that's a whole nother story. So I don't know. That's that's interesting. That is interesting, because so far, all the stuff that I've kind of seen, you know, that that's credible or whatever, is like we have footage of this and our U.S. pilots can't tell what it is. I haven't really heard any kind of like mainstream narrative that we have crafts that we, you know, physical crafts and stuff. You know, I've heard that kind of stuff all my life looking into this subject, but not like official mainstream out there like that.
9:59 Yeah, well, it's really weird because the mainstream is actually talking about it right now. They're actually saying on the news, there's two snippets I might throw in here that that say, you know, we heard about the crash. You. Know, we heard about the crash. You know, we heard about the crash. You know, we heard about the crash. That's the other piece. Tell us about those specifically. Recently, Australia talked about it on mainstream media. And that's really strange. Mainstream news. So anyway, it's all getting bizarre. But there was also testimony wasn't there from a member of Congress that there's wreckage being found? Talk us through that. Well, that's what's really interesting. They were trying to obfuscate the idea that we actually have either shot these down or we have physical objects. That we call UFOs machines from somewhere else. But the fact is, we do have them and the questions were posed. And so this is like the door opening, just a crack that we're going to learn more. And public will has pushed it this way. UFO Twitter has pushed it this way.
10:58 People are starting to get answers and there is much more coming. UAP Task Force database has now grown to contain approximately 400 reports. The stigma has been reduced areas. So the stigma has been reduced. I'm not going to pause too long here because we've already talked about another topic way too long. But they originally said 100 or so reports. And now they said, well, now we have about 400 or we can't explain it. I believe they have a lot more than that. But right. That jumped up there. Actually, was it only 100? Because I use a clip on Disclosed. Of a lady in a red dress talking about it.
11:45 I thought it was like a couple. I thought it was like a thousand or something. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was like at least a couple of hundred. And she goes, only one could be identified or whatever. But yeah, yeah, yeah. That was the one. Yeah. So it's increased and it's going to keep increasing to keep people. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. This isn't going anywhere. People think this is just, oh, remember when we used to talk about UFOs? No, it's it's not going anywhere. It's going to get worse and worse. So so this is now going into a clip talking about the. The pyramid UFOs that they released and they're going to discredit this. So I thought this was interesting. They were saying, hey, this is legit. This is a big problem. But this one is fake. Now, listen to this. So this is the one that they could identify this. No, no. This is one they could identify. But then they came back and said, well, actually, this is this pyramid. One is actually a.
12:34 OK, in this video, U.S. Navy personnel recorded what appears to be triangles, some flashing recorded several years ago off the coast of the United States. This was recorded while the U.S. Navy ship observed a number of small unmanned aerial systems in the area. And importantly, the video was taken through night vision goggles with a single lens reflex camera. These remained unresolved for several years. Several years later, U.S. Navy personnel again in a swarm of unmanned aerial systems and again through night vision goggles and an SLR camera recorded this image. But this time. Other U.S. Navy assets also observed unmanned aerial systems nearby, and we're now reasonably confident that these triangles correlate the unmanned aerial systems in the area. The triangular appearance is a result of light passing through the night vision goggles and then being recorded by an SLR camera with respect to the second two videos showing the small triangles.
13:37 The hypothesis is that those are commercial drones that. Because of the use of night vision goggles appear like triangles. Is that the operating assessment? Some type of drone, some type of unmanned aerial system. And it is simply that that light source resolves itself through the through the night vision goggles onto the SLR camera as a triangle. And have we, in order to prove that hypothesis, flown a drone and observed it with that same technology to see whether we can. Reproduce the effect of the task force is aware of studies that have done that. They're basically saying that this was a unmanned aerial vehicle that we created, but because it was filmed through a regular still point and shoot camera through one of the night vision goggles, it made it look like a triangle.
14:33 And we've tested that to see if it's true or not. For what it's worth, that's interesting because I mean, I wish we could see that that footage. I wish they could say, you know. Here's the drone and here it is in night vision and go back and forth. Right. Yeah, the public see. Exactly. This is the third version of this task force. And to be frank, one of Congress's concerns is that the executive branch in administration, both parties has been sweeping concerns about UAPs under the rug by focusing on events that can be explained and avoiding events that cannot be explained. So we're open to all hypotheses. We're open to. We're open to any conclusions that that we may encounter. What about the hypothesis that they're demons? No. Receiving you. Exactly. Now, listen, what this guy says about about that, about what he enjoys.
15:31 It's fair to say that you are a science fiction fan, is that correct? It is fair to say that I am an inquisitive mind who has spent 40 years in the intelligence industry. I've been in the intelligence field and has focused on both science and science fiction. That is fair. Could you tell us about it? Look, my generation grew up looking at space sagas. And I have mentioned to you that, yes, I have followed science fiction. I have gone to conventions. Even I'll say it on the record, got to break the ice somehow. But, you know, I have done that. Right. But there's nothing wrong with that. Don't necessarily dress up. But I do. You know, I do believe that it's important. It's important to show that the Department of Defense has you know, we have character and we're people just like you, just like the American people.
16:19 We have our we have our our inquisitiveness. We have our questions. We want to know what's out there as much as you want to know what's out there. Mr. Rolte, you said you don't necessarily dress up. That wasn't a real strong statement. So I think. I think it's important to point out here that no matter if you're high up in Congress or if you're you're a low man on the totem pole, you're going to be influenced by your environment. Oh, yeah. So if you walk out and you'd be like, hey, I'm going to go to these conventions and I'm not necessarily going to dress up. Right. He said it's himself. He's very fascinated by this and he wants it. I think he has a bias. He wants it to be one thing. And exactly.
17:10 That's the way Joe Rogan is, too, man. Like when Eddie Bravo was on Joe Rogan and he was talking about William Cooper, you know, he worked for the CIA and all these things and he saw the UFOs himself and he was on the radio trying to expose it and saying that UFOs are real. I've seen it and I've seen all the documented papers and stuff. And then he's like, wait a minute, they're trying to set me up. They want me to do this because they're going to fake an alien invasion to bring about a new world order. And Joe Rogan was like, whatever. And it's like. Dude, you're just going to throw this out without even considering it because you want there to be aliens. You want to have contact with beings from another planet. It's like the X-Files poster that says, I want to believe, you know? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. And are we looking outside of a civilian aircraft window?
18:04 Is that what we're looking at? So this is interesting because they spent about 15 minutes trying to get this video. To show the UAP that is outside this fighter jet. I remember seeing this one on Facebook, too. And they can't get it. They can't get Windows Media Player to show the UAP in the right frame. And I actually. They're using Windows. Can you point to the screen again what we're supposed to be looking at? Okay, if you could stop that frame. That's not the one. That's not the one. Sorry. Spherical object, right here, zooms by the window, right in this area right there. Did you see that part right there again?
18:59 I think we're having a hard time stopping it in the right spot. The laptop we're working with is not as easy for stopping that video in the right spot. We'll describe what we have seen in that. What are we observing? What you see here is aircraft that is operating in a U.S. Navy training range that is observing. I saw some zooming by. I saw some zooming by in that area, and as they fly by it, they take a video. You see a, it looks reflective in this video, somewhat reflective, and it quickly passes by the cockpit of the aircraft. The majority had multi-sensor data. When I talk about the 400 reports that we have now, that number will certainly go down because a lot of those new reports that we have are actually historic reports. Right. Right. So that percentage will go down just as a factor of the fact that the destigmatization has resulted in more narrative reports.
20:00 So without getting into that part right there, what we saw was, I actually cut that part down when they were talking about the tiny speck that was flying by the window. Right. Number one, I thought that was a terrible video to reveal to Congress and be able to be like, hey, this is a UAP. And they're like, what? I can't even tell what that is. Yeah. Literally two frames out of that whole five, 30-second video. And so they were like, yeah, see it? There it goes. See it? There it goes. And you know, these guys are 60 years old. It's not supposed to be this thing. And they're like, that could have been a glitch or something. And so they needed to take the frame and stop it. And so I'll throw the frame in here and you can actually see the little ball. It looks like a little ball. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
20:45 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a little Mylar balloon, honestly. And it flies by the cockpit of this thing. And so what I think, the reason why I think they chose this video, they didn't tell this, but this is all my conception. This is all my theory in my head is because after this public announcement, they have a private one where they talk about adversaries and what they are capable of and how it's not them. And here's what our weapons can do and things that they can't talk about in the public session. And I think they're going to show the reason why they chose this video is they're going to show that that same video was also caught on their secretive cameras of the aircraft. And so they can say, here, here's a better resolution of it.
21:38 And here is actually what it looks like. But we also have him showing his camera with it. And they didn't show any of the instruments in the plane, any of the top secret technology. And it was just, here it is right here. And it's gone. And so it kind of makes people go, oh, this is what we're talking about. That's crazy. But it allows Congress to expand on it privately, which that was what I think they're doing. So they're sitting there having this meeting saying that we need to be completely transparent. Come back for the secret meeting afterwards. Yeah, exactly. Wow. I mean, I get it. I get it. You don't want to tell everything. You don't want to tell everything that your adversaries do it. But they're going to go into that a little bit further. That's the object we're looking at right there now. That's it right there. Okay. Last year's report also said that of those 144, 18 of them reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics, appeared to demonstrate advanced technology, and some of them appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion.
22:55 That's pretty intriguing. And if you're able to answer this in this setting, are we aware of any foreign adversary capable of moving objects without any discernible means of propulsion? I think I would say without discernible means of propulsion. I would say that. We're not aware of any adversary that can move an object without discernible means of propulsion. Have the sightings been stationary, or have they always been sighted from a moving object? The UAP Task Force does have reports from a stationary observer. Are we capable, or have we made any breakthroughs, or anyone made any breakthroughs, to be able to sight something and make some determination?
23:50 The UAP Task Force does not make any determination at all of its composition, whether it's a solid or a gas. Right. From some of the returns, I mean, it's clear that the majority, well, it's clear that many of the observations we have are physical objects from the sensor data that we have. Well, if there have been any conclusion on its capabilities, like its capabilities of movement, of turning, going, you know, 180 degrees, or 90 degree turn, anything along that line that we've been able to determine. Any non-military reports coming forward of similar events, or is it all coming from military? The UAP Task Force has a very good working relationship with the FAA. Do we have any reports non-military? Yes. Thank you.
24:38 Are they just citizens? That's my question. There are other people besides the U.S. that have had these experiences and reported them. Is that correct? There are. That's correct. Is it? All of our allies, or is it allies and adversaries? What have we learned publicly? So some of that, I think, sir, we'll save for closed session. Well, that goes to my next question. Publicly, have others made anything which would not have to be considered closed? I don't want you to answer what they've said, necessarily. Allies have seen these. China has established its own version of a UAP Task Force, so clearly a number of them have observations. Oh. They're all of the same kind of things in the airspace that they can't identify. And do we share data with some, with all?
25:28 Are they sharing with us? We share data with some, and some share data with us. But not necessarily all that have publicly reported something? That's correct. Mr. Moultrie, as the Chairman mentioned, DoD had an initiative to study UFOs in the 1960s called Project Blue Book. It's also been well reported. And in other places that we have more recent projects, specifically AATIP. This guy really did his homework. This guy, I really enjoyed this guy because he really nails them hard about some things. And he has a few things that I had never even heard of before. Check this out. Could you describe any other initiatives that the DoD or DoD contractors have managed after Project Blue Book ended and prior to AATIP beginning? Did anything also predate Project Blue Book?
26:20 So I can't speak to what may have predated Project Blue Book. I mean, of course, there's Roswell and all these other things that people have talked about over the years. I'm familiar with Blue Book. I'm familiar with AATIP. I haven't seen other documented studies that have been done by DoD in that regard. So you're not aware of anything in between Project Blue Book and AATIP? I'm not aware of anything that's official that was done in between. Nothing that was done in between those two hasn't been brought to my attention. Okay. Additionally, are you aware of any other DoD or DoD contract programs focused on UAPs from a technological engineering perspective? And by that, I mean are you aware of any technology initiatives focused on this topic other than initiatives focused on the individual case investigations? I am not aware of any contractual programs that are focused on anything related to this other than this.
27:15 But a commonly asked question is doing a separate analysis of what we are doing in the Navy Task Force and what we are about to launch. Matt Romero What he's saying is do we have any contractors out there that are working on this, nuts and bolts of this stuff just like perhaps Bob Lazar? Are you aware of anything like that? A lot of times, what I've found out through studying the revealed files is that they have contractors like Lockheed Martin, for instance, Goethe planes like Lockheed Martin. out and they they they they take a little bit of data that they have here and they try to duplicate it or they try to reverse engineer it or they try to understand it and he's asking hey do you know are you aware of these contractors are they working on this stuff right now i think he's lying through his teeth i was about to say if he says no man that's just false yeah so that's interesting to me that he's he's positioned forward like this and like he's trying to cover up something i don't know his body language to me to me screams i don't know what i can say in this situation but right that's that's the whole double talk about this the whole uh bias hypocrisy of this is that they're saying we need to be completely transparent i'm not sure what i can say what i can't come on like i don't want to get sued i want i want to lose my job yeah it's all about wants in terms of our effort same question for you mr brad same answer not aware of anything outside what we uh are doing in the uap task force so just to confirm you're not aware of any technology or engineering resources that have been focused on these efforts besides what we've mentioned today once again i'll say no contractual or programmatic efforts that are involved the reason why i i qualify yeah let me qualify it that way i i can't speak to what people may be looking at in the department somebody says i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something i'm looking at something something that may be unidentified and I can't speak to that and speak to official programs that we have on the record.
29:16 That's interesting to me because originally Lou Elizondo said that when he joined a tip, it was kind of a side project of a bunch of people that were off work hours looking into. So they might be doing a bunch of stuff, but it might be a bunch of higher ups saying, we're going to do this on the, on the download. Kind of like off record. Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's also been reported that there have been UAP observed and interacting with and flying over sensitive military facilities, particularly, and not just ranges, but some facilities housing our strategic nuclear forces. One such incident allegedly occurred at Malmstrom air force base in which 10 of our nuclear ICBMs were rendered inoperable at the same time, a glowing red orb was observed overhead. I'm not commenting on the accuracy of this. I'm simply asking you whether, you're aware of it and whether you have any comments on the accuracy of that report.
30:11 Let me pass that to Mr. Bray. You've been looking at the UAPs over the last three years. That data is not within the holdings of the UAP task force. Okay. But are you aware of the report or that the data exists somewhere? I have, I have heard stories. I have not seen the official data on that. So you've just seen informal stories, no official assessment that you've done or exists within DOD that you're aware of. So you're not aware of the report that you have regarding the Malmstrom incident. All I can speak to is what's within my cognizance of the UAP task force and we have not looked at that incident. Well, I would say it's a pretty high profile incident. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but that's out there in the ether. You're the guys investigating it. I mean, who else is doing it? If something was officially brought to our attention, we would look at it.
31:02 There are many things that are out there in the ether that aren't officially brought to our attention. So how would it have to be officially brought to your attention? Excuse me. I'm bringing it to your attention. Sure. This is pretty official. Sure. There you go. So we might take a look at it. But generally there is some authoritative figure that says there is an incident that occurred. We'd like you to look at this. But in terms of just tracking what may be in the media that says that something occurred at this time at this place, there are probably a lot of leads that we would have to follow up on. I don't think we have a resource to do that right now. Well, I don't claim to be an authoritative figure, but for what it's worth, I would like you to look into it. Sure. If for no other reason you could dismiss it and say this is not worth wasting resources, we'll do it. We'll do it. And then finally, are you aware of a document that appeared around 2019 sometimes called the Admiral Wilson Memo or EW Notes Memo? I am not.
31:49 You're not. Are you tracking it? I'm not personally aware of that. Okay. This is a document in which, again, I'm not commenting on the veracity, I was hoping you would help me with that, in which a former head of DIA claims to have had a conversation with the Dr. Eric Wilson and claims to have sort of been made aware of certain contractors or DOD programs. That he tried to get fuller access to and was denied access to. So you're not aware of that? I'm not aware of the conversation. In my 10 seconds remaining then, I guess I just would ask Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to enter that memo into the record. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know of all those things. I don't know the Admiral Wilson thing. I'm not a UFOlogist. I don't study this stuff regularly, but I think it's interesting because he's pulled up this stuff and he's done his homework. He's grabbed this stuff and said, hey, you wear this stuff?
32:42 Because this is apparently is what they're saying out there and everyone else is like, I don't know. Yeah. The unfortunate part is this whole time, he got nothing. He's like, hey, what about this? Hey, what about this? And I know this is out there and they gave him nothing. So what is the point? I keep going back to this whole transparency thing, but so far they haven't said anything. Right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. There have been no collisions between any U.S. assets in one of these UAPs, correct? We have not had a collision. We've had at least 11 near misses, though. And maybe we'll talk about those 11 near misses or any place where there's close proximity. I assume, or tell me if I'm wrong, there's been no attempt, there's no communications, or any kind of communication signals that emanate from those objects that we've detected, correct?
33:46 Good question. That's correct. And have we attempted to communicate with those objects? Boom. Right there. This is where it gets dangerous and that's where this is headed right now. Because they're like, hey, these things are in our airspace. They're dangerous. They're a threat. Has anybody tried to communicate with them? Yeah. I think we've talked to these things. Yeah. I mean, if we saw anything else, we'd be trying to communicate and be like, you're in the wrong airspace. You're about to get taken down or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I think that this is what's going to start the whole thing. If they do communicate back these UAP things, right, we know what they are, right? That's what I understand.
34:33 That's what I understand. This whole thing is going to go immediately. Immediately downhill once we start communicating with these things. Yep. I believe that too, because they're going to say we're on your side and you're going to have to take our word for it, but we can help you. And so I think what's really interesting is someone said this once, that the highest level of authority in a courtroom is someone's experience. But it holds the least credit, really. Because you can't validate someone's experience. Right. You've got to go with the facts. And so now we have someone's experience that says, hey, yeah, these things are communicating with me and we have data to show it and now you can hear it and we need to know what these things are saying and what they're saying has to be true because they're from a long ways away.
35:25 How do you know all that? You don't know a lot. You have to take their word for it and then vote on it. It's going to be a mess. Right. It's going to be a hate crime if you don't trust them. Yeah. Yeah. If you don't trust them. No. So we don't even put out an alert saying, you know, U.S., identify yourself. You are, you know, within our flight path or something like that. We haven't said anything like that? We've not put anything out like that. Generally speaking, what, you know, for example, in the video that we showed earlier, it appears to be something that is, you know, unmanned. It appears to be something that may or may not be in controlled flight.
36:14 And so we've not attempted any communication with that. Okay. So and I assume we've never discharged any armaments against UAP, correct? That's correct. What does the terminology mean? That we didn't fire at it or something? Basically, yeah. We didn't shoot at it. We didn't. But what about the, like, Los Angeles? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Los Angeles. Remember those black and white photos, all of these lights hitting the UFO, and there's like a whole bunch of military people shooting at it and made the newspapers and stuff. Made the newspapers. And there's been so many others that have said, I mean, I think it was Germany. There's another country. I forget which one it was. But it was it was said that we shot at it and it ricocheted our bullets or whatever back and sunk one of our ships. We lost a pilot.
37:04 I mean, there's been many declassified stories about this stuff. I'm surprised they said, no, we don't know anything about that. But I think we're only listening to the Navy. So I don't know. Maybe I think so. I mean, if me and you know this stuff, they should know it. I mean, if we know it just from mainstream media, I mean, they called it the Battle of Los Angeles or something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And Corbell says he recently came out and said, I know that they fired at these things. I know for a fact I've seen the proof. And so I'm going to look that up and see if I can find that video. I'm talking about that. But. But anyway, there's a there's a lot of stuff going on here that I think is sketch. Have we come across any wreckage of any kind of object that has now been examined by you?
38:00 The UAP Task Force doesn't have any wreckage that isn't explainable, that isn't consistent with being of terrestrial origin touch. But the ones where you say most of them. I'll represent physical objects. Can you say that they are definitely like with 100 percent certainty that they are physical objects? I can say with certainty that a number of these are physical objects. OK, so we can't rule out that some of them may not be physical objects. Some certainly could be a sensor anomaly or something like that. Some could be. Not physically. Firstly, do you have a clear and repeatable process to check with compartment programs about whether a UAP sighting. Is attributable to a U.S. aircraft? We've had that process for some time to de-conflict activities that we may have to ensure that we are not potentially reporting on something that may be a developmental platform or a U.S. operational platform that is performing either testing or performing a mission.
39:01 All right. With that, I want to thank you all for taking the time out. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in this very historical and important hearing. I think it's one of the few times we can demonstrate some degree of bipartisanship around UAPs and UFOs. So I love it. Appreciate it. Thank you. And we will see you all. We will recess this hearing for the moment and return in a closed session at noon. Thank you for this very ambiguous and elusive waste of time. But did you hear what he said at the end there? He said. I think that was pinnacle because he said that I think this is one topic we can bipartisan agree on. We can we can talk about with, you know, and totally be both parties be interested in it.
39:54 You have to be. How can you not be? How can you not be interested in like something is interacting with our society and we don't know what it is? I mean, that's why I like when when it comes. When it comes to like sharing this topic in churches and, you know, people shying away from that, it bothers me a lot because it's like, dude, they're the ones telling us now this isn't just like, oh, I believe in aliens and I'm a weirdo. They're telling you, you better believe it because it's real and we see it where the military and we're telling you on the news. So for us to not talk about it, that's really doing us a disservice. Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. We need to talk about it. I mean, it's not necessary. I mean, hasn't come out yet and said that these things are alien. But I mean, it would really harm someone's understanding of the Bible if they didn't know this ahead of time, that this was going to be a big deception, that this was going to be something that they they need to watch out for.
40:56 And that's what I think the devil is counting on. He is planning on this big deception coming and then revealing all the spiritualism that has been hidden for hundreds and hundreds of years. Yeah. Well, when me and Scotty went on the streets and did interviews with people, for one, 99% of people believed in aliens. And then we said, if aliens said that they had the answer to our world problems, and this was before COVID, would you believe them? And they said, yeah, 100% of 100% of the ones that said 100% of the 99% that said they believe in aliens. But one person said, well, I don't know if we should trust them or what if they're what if they have evil intentions, not one. So they've all bought into this, like, they're smarter than us, and they don't have any kind of evil intentions.
41:52 They just want to help us. Where are they getting this idea from? What happened to that footage? I want to we should do more. Yeah, we should do it again. We have some of it. There's some of it. Like the sound wasn't that great. I don't know. It exists. We should. We should dig it up. We definitely should. Yeah. And we should do more of that now. Since it's summertime. Yeah. Really cool. I'd love it. Cool, man. Well, I appreciate you coming out and seeing the highlights. This is very, very interesting. I think the first time in 54 years, I think having these highlights are having these congressional hearing, an hour and a half, we pushed down to about 20 minutes, and we added a little bit of commentary. So you get a longer video out of it. But. I think that this thing is moving so fast. It really is, dude, because this happened just like a year ago, like that they came. When was it? When they and the COVID 5000 page thing, they had 180 days before they had to release what they knew.
42:52 I mean, that was like. That was the end of last year, some middle of last year. It's basically been in a year's time we've got from not talking about it at all to now we're having the US Congress. You know, talk about potential threats from aliens. Right. Right. And it's going to get even deeper. So stay tuned. Stay tuned in. Make sure you hit that like button. Subscribe. Give me a comment. Tell me what you think about this congressional hearing. See if they're going to do more. You got to hit that bell icon so you know when we put another video out. Stay tuned. We'll see you later. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.