"IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION"UFO WHISTLEBLOWER MATTHEW BROWN FULL TESTIMONY **BONUS**

0:00 Speaker 1: And we will hear testimony today concerning recent revelations about aportedly secret UAP program whose existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from Congress. This is going to be the original document about Immaculate Constellation.

0:18 Speaker 2: Those of us who have been following this very closely have been hearing whispers of the words Immaculate Constellation for a few months now.

0:25 Speaker 3: The Immaculate Constellation. It's a UAP reconnaissance program. I can affirm this one percent.

0:31 Speaker 4: What is in here as wild.

0:33 Speaker 2: I mean they're saying, I'm paraphrasing, but reports of F twenty two is getting like boxed in by flying orbs that they couldn't shake. They were satellite images or satellite image of a football field sized flying saus or hiding in clouds.

0:45 Speaker 3: I have personally walked people into members offices for private meetings so they could see eye to eye and they could meet. You are the author of what the world knows as the Immaculate Constellation Report.

1:00 Speaker 5: It has been allowed to corrupt and infest every aspect of our society to serve the interests in whims of a very elite select few.

1:18 Speaker 4: The following is an interview with the author of the Immaculate Constellation Report that was submitted into Congressional record.

1:24 Speaker 3: Is it ironic you have to put your face out with us to protect yourself at this point. That's what we're doing, right, Yeah, that's what we're doing.

1:33 Speaker 5: This is absolutely what I did not want to do.

1:37 Speaker 4: You've worked in secret programs, you've got clearances, You've made oaths that you would keep secrets. Let's talk about secrecy and the UAP topic. Shouldn't it be secret to some degree? I mean, we have there's a race for the technology to try to understand it. We have adversary nations who'd love to get it ahead of us. Why not keep this stuff secret?

1:59 Speaker 5: Well, if it was just technology that we are worried about protecting and maintaining humilitary advantage, you know, there's strong arguments to be made and have successfully been made for decades in this country that the American leadership and American people seem to be finding acceptable to be left in the dark about. You know, where science, technology, and their military is taking them. This isn't just technology. This isn't something somebody came up with in a lab, and it's sensitive because once the cats have the bag anybody can do it.

2:30 Speaker 5: Fundamentally, this comes from in a secondary to what we've been told is the biggest question, which is humanity alone. The answer is no, And the secrecy that has been defended is at the cost in my mind, human dignity, freedom and progress. And it is no longer permissible or acceptable in my mind to continue this course to deprive another generation of not just Americans, but humanity with their birthright to know who they are, where they came from, and what's with us.

3:11 Speaker 4: Can you give us a general description of the size of the secrecy apparatus? You know, we're going to drill down to this, of course, about income in one particular facet of the secrecy that you came across, and other parts of it. But how big of a secrecy apparatus is it? How many stovepipes are there, how many people are involved in different ways of keeping this secret, confusing the public, lying to Congress, lying to the world.

3:37 Speaker 5: Simply put us, it's a parallel reality. The secrecy apparatus is all pervasive. It is not just in the intelligence community governing their world. It's not just in the military protecting their operations. It's not protecting Churt diplomats and leaders as they conduct their work, sometimes in very dangerous places. It has been allowed to corrupt and infest every aspect of our society to serve the interests and whims of a very elite, select few.

4:12 Speaker 4: And it's been used to intimidate, threaten destroy the lives of people like yourselves who have been doing their job, keeping their oaths, trying to protect their country, being true to humanity, and have paid prices for it.

4:26 Speaker 3: Absolutely, this has been a difficult process for you, for me and you, you know kind of going through this. I've seen what you've gone through personally with this. You're taking a personal hit, like a painful risk, just talking becaus just doing this. Finally, after all this time, I think I understand why you're explaining something philosophical, what you believe about the secrecy, just personally, Like what is this step for you to do this? Like why I need to understand? Why why are you telling this to everybody now?

5:06 Speaker 5: Now there's no short answer something you know, I have many, not even competing, but parallel motivations. But why now? Look out at the world, look inside our country. We are not headed to a good future.

5:35 Speaker 3: You're concerned. I am explain the concern.

5:39 Speaker 5: Uh, Ultimately, my biggest fear is what humanity will do to hisself out of fear and greed and what we have done, and we have built a prison around ourselves visible, but it's not complete and there is still time to maybe alter our trajectory, have a different future. May not be the best one that we had hoped for, but it's going to be damn sight better than what they have planned for us.

6:18 Speaker 4: You know, there's no going back after you tell us this on camera, We had this conversation. This is it, This is the wine in the sand you're about to cross over here.

6:26 Speaker 5: Absolutely, I am, on a personal level giving up the future that I made for myself and was going to try to make for a family. I'm proud of what I accomplished in my time in government, and it's painful to leave the good people there and to know that

6:50 Speaker 5: there really isn't room for people to act according to their conscience and our constitutional ideals. It is side. Is it your belief based on materials.

7:03 Speaker 4: Things that you've been exposed to, that you've seen, people you've talked to and communicated with over a period of a couple of years. Is you believe that this the technology, the race for the technology, the understanding of the big secret is entirely in the hands of people outside the government, and not for the benefit of the public or to protect American national security. It's in some other realm, in some other hands.

7:27 Speaker 5: I think it's a mix. I think our military, you know, a long historic involvement in this. So does our intelligence community and our scientific academic community. We have as a country allowed ourselves to be penetrated, co opted, and corrupted by an internationalist force that serves their interests and views nations peoples as tools and means to an end like.

7:59 Speaker 4: A business ball, international corporations that have no loyalty to any nation, let alone this one.

8:04 Speaker 5: That's a large part of it. I think we go have to go above that too, to start to explain that the degree of the level of deception and the level of commitment they've had to maintaining that deception, it's above just monetary gain and power they're afraid.

8:23 Speaker 3: George and I have talked about whistle blowers that come to us, and we protect them. We don't often report on when people come to us. We're doing this now, you know, what are the repercussions. People talk about whistlers being afraid, and there's one set of being afraid, which is when you're squeezed by outside entities you know that are fucking with you, and which has happened to you, And we'll talk about that, But what are the just the legal implication of what you're about to talk to us today?

8:49 Speaker 3: Tell me the gravity right now? What are you facing? I want our audience to understand what it means for you to talk to us right now. What could happen to you?

8:58 Speaker 5: I hope is that the stakes are not pay it out, but they are life imprisonment and the possibility of execution.

9:12 Speaker 3: And you've tried all the right ways. I've helped you on some of it. We've tried, you have tried all the right ways to do this, but you have something much bigger that is pushing on you that you have to take this next set step forward. And so now I just want people to understand where you're coming from. And we say we protect Whistlebush and people come to us. Not everybody goes on camera, but also just you work currently in Department of State. But maybe he should tell us his history.

9:40 Speaker 4: Yeah, let's do a chronological So you got a degree in what?

9:45 Speaker 5: So I got a degree in international affairs, came out to d C, started working in a small think tank. From there I applied to and was accepted to an intelligence agency. Ended up taking a job at the Pentagon. Basically waiting for the right opportunity for that world to pop up? Was which one it did? I, you know, was having too much fun as so I said.

10:15 Speaker 4: No, you're in the Pentagon weapons of mass destruction as a general umbrella under which you're working. Did you got a security clearance at that.

10:23 Speaker 5: Point, Yeah, I had been cleared by ADA for a top secret sci clearance.

10:30 Speaker 4: You get to see, I guess firsthand, all this different information that comes in from all over these places, different platforms. Right, You're exposed to that and you get the idea of just how big that apparatus is.

10:42 Speaker 5: Yes, yes, absolutely, UFOs and aliens aside. It's a it's a different world without anything exotic in it. When you are exposed to that information and learning over time, not just from the intelligence but the experiences of the people around you. Because not everything that's true when this has happened in the world is written down on paper.

11:03 Speaker 3: I mean you've given a lot of rules and responsibilities. It gives you access to very sensitive information. When you said sci that's secret, compartmentalized information. Is the acronym.

11:13 Speaker 5: Sensitives departmentalized information, I always yeah, it's probably right.

11:16 Speaker 3: Yeah, so you know about me. But I'm just saying, you know, you are a sane human being. You're given a lot of these responsibilities, you know. I just think it's important for people to understand. So you have access to very critical information through the United States government. There's separate from the UFOs and the alien you know, topic that we're going to talk about.

11:38 Speaker 4: For the world, for the world, US and the world.

11:40 Speaker 3: Yes, and that wigh is heavy on you. I'm sure like you're you're really looking to defend the United States of America where you live, and you are looking at information that is just highly sensitive. I think it's important for people to know good people like you doing great jobs and there you had access and responsibilities. People trust you. That's you can't get there without that.

12:01 Speaker 5: It is. Yeah, it's a very burdensome rule. I feel deeply for the people who have been there for many years. There's a lot of hidden suffering that comes from it. But it is a you know, I thought it was a noble and good mission.

12:21 Speaker 4: I still do and risks. I imagine there's all kinds of information that comes across your desk and that desk of other people you're working with at that point about weapons of mass destruction, the movement of nuclear weapons, or suddenly material that disappears and where did it go, black market biological weapons research, things that are going on around the world that we need to keep an eye on, right, yeah, and things that never make the news.

12:47 Speaker 5: You're absolutely right, Yeah, there is. Like I said, there is a whole many there's many worlds. There's many shells to our reality that the public, including our professional media class, our professional academic class, our political class, has absolutely no idea exists, and if they do have an idea, they have a very distorted one, sometimes intentionally.

13:11 Speaker 3: So I mean, you're not like some secret agent. You're not like some sie secret agent. So like, so people understand when you're working at the competigon is where we're out in the thing. I mean this is we have a lot of great people that are bright minded working on these problems for the United States, keeping the United States safe. Looking at geopolitical aspects, of nuclear weaponry, that kind of thing. But just to be clear, I mean, you're not some secret agent with more access than anybody else or anything like that.

13:36 Speaker 5: No, I never wanted to be a field officer. I danced with the idea and in my dreams maybe and read the books, but I knew that wasn't for me, especially the task and the cost of befriending and manipulating and ultimately using people. I don't think I would have been very good at that.

14:01 Speaker 3: Like human human intelligences, yeah, false friendship exactly?

14:05 Speaker 4: Does that stuff come across your desk? Human intelligence, signals, intelligence regarding weapons and mass all sources, all.

14:11 Speaker 5: Sources intelligence, all sorts of intelligence. And then if there are questions and go ask them and usually get the answers.

14:18 Speaker 4: And the kinds of things that you see that come across your desk, does it give you pause? How am I going to sleep that I knowing that this X Y Z is going on somewhere At times when I think, oh crab, how did this happen?

14:31 Speaker 5: Everyone has like their different standard of what's going to shake them like that, and I've definitely had a few of those. I'll share them, but.

14:40 Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean just with security, bring national security kind of stuff.

14:43 Speaker 5: Right, stuff unrelated to exotic things that are very just world that there.

14:48 Speaker 4: Okay, you're there for a while, you do that for how many years?

14:51 Speaker 5: Oh? See there a little over four years, but as depending on a little over five because I moved out of there briefly into the undersecretary to for Intelligence and he's smaller office in there.

15:05 Speaker 4: We've heard of that office.

15:06 Speaker 3: We have heard of that office.

15:09 Speaker 4: Was there a different sort of work or the same thing just for a.

15:11 Speaker 5: Different book the same field, different work, different boss, different community.

15:16 Speaker 4: So you're working for a contractor, but you're working at the Pentagon on Pentagon business and that's sort of a model that is used for all kinds of programs.

15:23 Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, that's that's the industry in DC.

15:28 Speaker 4: Is that to have a buffer of some sort. Why why is that?

15:32 Speaker 5: Well, you have government management and they're supposed to be the ones that you know, they signed the checks, make the final decisions. But yeah, most of the staff is contractors, military people on detail, people on fellowships from you know, either think tanks or universities.

15:50 Speaker 4: So you get to be familiar with snowpipes and how you know, you could be working on this, and the guy may be in the office next to you or the desk next to you is working on something else, and you don't melt what they're working on.

16:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean that it can be that way. My experience was more that we had a team. It was all more or less on the same information level. But then there'd be other teams that, yeah, they have their own, so it's not quite as isolated. I've heard from others. It can be just you know, it's you and no one else around you who knows what you're doing.

16:19 Speaker 4: You got a company, it's a contractor that's working there in the Pentagon. How much oversight is there from the actual Pentagon the military of a contractor's work.

16:27 Speaker 5: Well, I mean the day to day is overseen by the government. So in that sense, it's it's there.

16:35 Speaker 4: And is that generally true for all the contractor programs that will be getting into later that somebody in the military or I see is looking at what the contractor does.

16:44 Speaker 5: No, I couldn't say, right, yeah, I could not say.

16:48 Speaker 4: We got the one degree and then you went on to try to get a master's.

16:53 Speaker 5: Yeah. I went to George Washington University Masters of Security Policy Study, got to the point where I had a fesis to submit, and then I started working at the Pentagon. That took a break and kind of got caught up in the churn as the term.

17:08 Speaker 4: Is right, I'm curious about just what it's like to work at the Pentagon. I mean to think, you're driving to work there. It is the heart and soul of the national security of our country. You're doing important work, weapons of mass destruction in the biggest office building in the world. I would think it'd be a lot of satisfaction in that. But I wonder what day to day is like. Are you under surveillance, do you have to do polygraps? Can you tell your wife what you're doing? Do you socialize with colleagues or do you have to worry about what you say to whom and where?

17:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, so I mean started with the first part. I think for me at least, Yeah, it was what I finally made it right working at the Pentagon. It's cheesy, but I felt pride pretty much every single day that I rolled in there.

17:57 Speaker 4: That's not cheesy.

18:00 Speaker 5: It was I was very fortunate to join an office that cared a lot about their people, not just their performance at work, but their goals, their desires, and how they were getting on with life in general. Fewer places are like that, But I look back on the time with a lot of with a lot of happiness.

18:24 Speaker 4: How do things begin to sour? Is it because of this topic that we're able to discuss. Yes, let's take it from there. When when does that start? What's your first exposure?

18:35 Speaker 3: I mean, were you like a UFO guy like before? I mean, like there's something that happened, and there's always an instigator, right, But it's like, you know, were you like a UFO guy all year years back or not?

18:47 Speaker 5: To some degree, I've always been interested in aliens and UFOs, secret histories, the things that are hidden from us. It's been a lifelong kind of passion. It's not always aliens, you know. While I was always interested in these things, they were never they were only a realm of possible. And when I looked at UFOs in a serious way, as I was more in my like college years, I got just not exposure, but you know, started learning about the sort of ecosystem of secrecy in the military industrial complex, what SAPs are, what caps are, and you start to realize like, oh, yeah, there's a good chance a lot of what these UFO things are some really cool stuff that we have, whether it's in the air, under the water, or right in part of you.

19:37 Speaker 4: You're not getting a job at the Pentagon because you want to get access to the UFO c No.

19:41 Speaker 5: Now, when I joined, I thought, you know, I pretty much locked down that you know, there might be life out there, but most most of what we're seeing in the skies at that time I thought was either hours or ally or adversary.

19:55 Speaker 4: If you don't go over the deep end, you're not going to move on conferences. You're not worth a beanie and alien stuff on your head.

20:01 Speaker 5: No. No, in fact, you know I would be looked at like I had a third eye just by suggesting there were stealth satellites.

20:08 Speaker 3: I mean, in fact, like you've never been to like a UFO conference or anything like that, have you? No, right, that's not your style. No, you're a very analytically minded person. Something I've learned. I bet you're fucking really good at your job because just the way our communications, the way you deep dive into research, that's the talent to be able to pull a lot big source information, all source information and kind of come to conclusions that you that is one of your skill sets.

20:33 Speaker 5: Yeah. Absolutely, Did you ever work nine to five?

20:37 Speaker 4: Because you're kind of a workaholic, right and you go over the top.

20:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, you know, I really liked depending on. I learned an immense amount there and I would stay there till the wee hours of the morning learning.

20:51 Speaker 4: Which is also how you found out information about the topic topic rend the I delved too deeply and.

20:59 Speaker 5: You came across this sort of accident one hundred percent accidentally, well sorry, the immaculate constellation piece of this one hundred percent accidentally. Before I was exposed to that, you know, I had seen UAP on military videos in the Pentagon, but nothing that suggested you know, origin, uh intent or in the level of detail that you know I came to find later.

21:29 Speaker 3: I had so explain that to the apertude, like, how do you just come across UFO videos in the Pentagon? What does that mean? What tells somebody who has no idea how that happens?

21:40 Speaker 5: So you have a clearance and there's a secret Internet, and on that secret Internet there's just a generic access like you and I. It's all very secret sensitive stuff, but more or less everyone can look at what's on there. Then you know, you have on this secret Internet some compartmentation, light compartmentation as it were, and then there's entirely different systems for truly truly sensitive stuff. But the point is is that there is essentially, you know, a shared a shared community of knowledge, and it goes back, you know, just like our own Internet, it goes back over decades.

22:25 Speaker 4: If you have a top secret clearance, you go on jwix, you can pretty much go and see whatever is on there, except for special compartmentalized stuff, yeah.

22:34 Speaker 5: Pretty much, or things that you know are just people protect their business processes.

22:39 Speaker 4: So who would be putting UFO type or UAP videos on there? How does that happen? How do they end up there?

22:46 Speaker 5: Service members and intelligence officers who for one reason or another decided to put that footage there?

22:55 Speaker 3: What's the first UFO video? See? What'd you think of it? Military film footage of a UFO? What did you what was that?

23:04 Speaker 6: Like?

23:06 Speaker 5: Well, technically the first true like military footage was that I saw was that Tictac video and the go Fast video. And I think there's one other else, the Gimball video. That all came out in twenty seventeen, granted I didn't see those on military systems, but just being precise here, Yeah, and so things that I saw after that kind of look like all that, but just much more duration. The videos. You know, it's the Internet, whether it's secret or not. There's compression, there's upload and file sizes.

23:43 Speaker 5: So some things are crystal clear, but it's only fifteen seconds. Some things you can see forty five minutes of something moving around, but it's kind of blurry because that's a lot of data.

23:53 Speaker 3: So you've seen crystal clear at times videos of what appeared to be would you say non human intelligence made craft? I mean, what you see evidence that the rest of the world doesn't get to see that starts happening.

24:06 Speaker 5: Yeah, nothing in those videos necessarily proves it's extraterrestrial or non human. It certainly is anomalous, exotic, and unexplainable and advanced.

24:19 Speaker 3: Yes, beyond our capabilities that you know.

24:22 Speaker 5: I don't know. Some of it might might have been within our capabilities to replicate, even in an inferior manner, but quite a lot of it, you know, it's either something else or we live in a world where we have been left behind.

24:40 Speaker 4: Twenty seventeen, these stories come out New York Times and other media. The videos become known that sparked your curiosity and you start looking around for that kind of stuff or it would just come across your desk, going to in front of your eyes naturally.

24:55 Speaker 5: Yeah, so not looking for that stuff.

24:57 Speaker 3: Did you have access to live feeds? Yes, so live feeds real time you could go into like a reaper drone and see if there's something going on. Just I mean, not that you're specifically looking for UFOs, but you had access even to live feeds.

25:11 Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, not anything special, no special access, but you know you you know where those resources are. You can go look at them.

25:20 Speaker 4: And I did I want to go back to this. You said these nuclear facilities, nuclear weapons, nuclear labs, nuclear power plants that within a year or two, Like, are you saying all of them get visited or there's some strange phenomenon.

25:35 Speaker 5: I can't say that they all do, but I would I would suspect that, you know, anything that is sufficiently nuclear will draw attention at some point and will be uh, they will be encountering.

25:50 Speaker 4: And what are they? What do you see it? What kinds of things are you seeing?

25:54 Speaker 5: So? I mean, nothing too dramatic when it comes to like these facilities, A lot of times it's poor of you know, it's hard to always judge the size, but I'd be surprised if it's bigger than a cessna. Probably something somewhere in between, whether it's white or silverish, or if you're looking through different sensor apparati, it'll you know, look like whatever hot or cold is. But usually orbs around these facilities. Sometimes things that look a bit more irregular, but the vast majority being orbs.

26:29 Speaker 3: I mean, the world's been exposed to some of this. There's been a clarification to the general public about what are you seeing when you're seeing infrared or flear It takes some translation. There are people that focus on that and like they can read that, But basically you're looking at things that don't have flight control surfaces, that don't have traditional propulsion. They seem to tag on, which we've heard forever with nuclear events and that kind of thing, nuclear structured. But you see a lot of these sharketing exposive I mean, just to begin, doesn't that does that start or doesn't that start to kind of feed that curiosity in you?

27:05 Speaker 3: You just all of a sudden, the average person that you're now seeing stuff that you can't.

27:12 Speaker 5: Yeah, you have to be a special kind of boring to not be interested after those states. It's shocking, especially knowing the context.

27:19 Speaker 3: Of what you're looking at, right, which you get when you have those systems that can look at that. What's the context with the big picture, like what's what's the content?

27:28 Speaker 4: Yeah, and in this in this way you're seeing images. Is there discussion as their text that comes along with us, Hey, we saw this thing, what the hell is it?

27:36 Speaker 5: It's not us Surprisingly little of that. I think the community kind of knows or new we don't talk about this, it's there. You know, that changed some years ago, but it's since been i think shut down again in terms of, like you know, community participation and solving the problem.

27:59 Speaker 3: So people within the intelligence community to know, you don't talk about this out loud, you don't say the quiet part out loud, you post stuff you kind of get. Then you get an era of discussion when this starts coming forward twenty seventeen New York Times story. But then you're explaining that there's been a kind of clamp down on that dialogue and discussion. I've heard that from a lot of people on the inside. You witness that too.

28:23 Speaker 5: Ah, yes, absolutely, both firsthand and from hearing from friends and connections. I guess the screws were tightened and certain agencies you're not allowed to mention certain whistleblowers' names or you'll be fired immediately.

28:38 Speaker 4: So if there's no announcement on the PA system, there's no leaflets left in the cafeteria and no memo put out that says don't talk about this stuff.

28:46 Speaker 5: But you know, yeah, yeah, you can pick.

28:49 Speaker 3: Up on that vibe real quick when you say there's certain whistleblowers' names you can't mention. This brings me back to a friend of ours when when George is doing his news report on Bobs our first time is going to air. He just said when he was up at Area fifty two, he just said, hey, you should pay attention to the news. His career was over. He get pulled into room the next day. I would call him a friend of ours. I interviewed him about it. I mean that was done. He just mentioned to watch George's news report.

29:15 Speaker 3: Again, we're not equating Bob Blazaar to anything. What we were just saying that happened. So what do you mean if you mentioned certain whistibles who who David Grush? You can't mention David Grush in certain professional settings or you are fucked.

29:29 Speaker 5: Yeah, if you're not fired, you are in for a very rough time, is my understanding. Ella Zondo, you know I didn't hear Elizondo is a no.

29:37 Speaker 3: Go word saying. Look, David Grush testified in open congress, So that makes sense. So what have you seen it happen? Have you seen people like mention his name? How do you become away? You can't even talk about him?

29:51 Speaker 5: So that specific example, her FU friend at that agency, that was essentially the word of mouth from man. Nothing written in paper, nothing in emails, but from what it sounds like, people got a conversation with their leadership and we're told as much as we've just gone over and his name was absolutely the first end experience sort of radioactive in the chatam. So it would either all of a sudden, these people that never participate are there really slamming him and slamming the people talking about.

30:24 Speaker 3: Him on the class about Internet in our space is when we've talked about about it. But these these where people had open dialogue, it just got to clamp down. And his name was part of that. That's what you meant when you said certain people are radio active. You can't mention their names, right, Okay, glueless and good Yeah, no, we're nuclear. He's radio act with different designation. Yeah.

30:43 Speaker 4: So you're seeing these videos and some limited discussion. You can't really openly talk about it, but you're curious, you're you're kind of hooked on the topic.

30:51 Speaker 5: Yeah, And to be clear, twenty eighteen, when this first exposure happened, and for about a few years after, it was more it did at least feel more open. Looking back on it, this was probably a counterintelligence prerogative at the time, but it was allowed to exist, The discussion was allowed to exist, and it felt more like, you know, people were excited to finally actually be able to talk about this and finally be able to try to compare notes figure it out.

31:19 Speaker 4: Well, it's when the UAP Task Force was created. They didn't call it that, but it was up and running and they were trying to make entreaties out to the intelligence community and DoD Hey, they wanted input from and partners.

31:31 Speaker 3: Yeah.

31:31 Speaker 5: So I saw that emerge, and I saw it die. It's all die.

31:35 Speaker 3: And when you say exposure. We're going to get into this, but you mean it. Technically, it's called spillage. It's when you see something that is of a compartmentalized or nature that you are not specifically clear to see, and you were exposed to something and it was like, holy shit, what is this? And the first thoughts at that I'm interested in. So if we're at that point, yeah, okay, so let's talk about that. Look, the whole world that knows about incon maclic constellation. We're saying that word out loud.

32:03 Speaker 3: At one time that was very dangerous to say out loud, to write to text. We should talk about that. But before this is your gateway. This is the entrance point. What happened, How did it happen? What did you see? What did you think?

32:19 Speaker 5: Yeah, so the first exposure or the exposure to maclic constellation happened on a shared server that was shared by all the offices in OSD. What I was doing throughout, what I was doing at the time was opening files that were clearly misfiled and either sorting them to our offices you know, part of that server, or putting them in their own box to be sorted by other responsible Your jobs I mean this is more like volunteer duty.

32:50 Speaker 3: But yes, so because.

32:51 Speaker 4: You're a workaholic and you're curious and you read a lot, you come across a file that really is what leads us to be here today.

33:01 Speaker 5: It's this.

33:02 Speaker 4: It's the Shreiver file.

33:04 Speaker 5: Yeah, so it was labeled twenty eighteen Schreiver wargame. Might have been brief for something else, but that's it. There's nothing about that that screams you know, it's a very interesting thing. In fact, usually a lot of wargame briefs are pretty boring, so there's nothing that stood out about it.

33:24 Speaker 4: Accidental exposure for you one hundred percent. You go into it, and what do you see.

33:30 Speaker 5: There's just a generic title slide. There's a banner without classification markings that just says immaculate constellation. And it has a placeholder slide that shows like the Shreiver War or Shreiver air Base logo and some logos of the units involved. But at that time I believe it would have still been like Air Force Base commands adjacent, So still nothing particularly stunning. I think the name at the top probably just then of the exercise. So the next slide, though, is where it gets interesting because the face of Luela Zondo is on that next slide, and I was not who I was expecting to see, And it was accompanied by text to summarize, please have some grace with me.

34:18 Speaker 5: It's been seven years. But it was saying that Immaculate Constellation is an un of Knowledge Special Access program established after the exposure of a tip in twenty seventeen by former USDI officer Luela Zondo. And you know, that's the gist of that first slide. And so I'm looking at that and you know, nothing particularly convincing that that's alien related or what the SAP is or what it's doing.

34:52 Speaker 5: So I don't know what to make of this. So I read the whole thing and it got very interesting, very quick.

35:00 Speaker 3: So it's designated a SAP. You know, this is a SAP. It's sitting on a serve. Maybe it shouldn't be on correct right, So I think that's important. And also it seems like it's just a response to the public spillage or exposure that we saw come forward with people like and specifically Louel Azando. This was like an internal classified response to the fact, oh shit, some of this is out now.

35:22 Speaker 5: Yeah, that's exactly the tone of those words of that slide, and that's the implied order of events that led to being established.

35:32 Speaker 3: It's like twenty eighteen.

35:34 Speaker 5: Maybe, yeah, the file was at least last accessed in twenty eighteen. I can't remember if it did, say you know the file creation nator if I looked it up, but I know it was last access to And.

35:45 Speaker 3: You see who's accessed it prior to you? I can't And what did you see?

35:50 Speaker 5: So everyone says that I'm wrong, it's impossible. But the name I recall and recalled at the time, thinking oh that's odd. Was name redacted?

35:58 Speaker 3: And did you know who that was?

36:00 Speaker 5: Vaguely at that time? I you know, people are considered superstars in leadership circles, so you just hear names like that, and that's what her name was.

36:09 Speaker 3: Why would that be impossible? Why are people now in directors? Why are people telling you that would be impossible?

36:13 Speaker 5: Oh, she wasn't at the Pentagon? Then where was she? She was at the Pentagon to my knowledge, but they're saying she wasn't.

36:20 Speaker 3: There, right, interesting?

36:22 Speaker 4: So all right, so Shreiver war games used to keep reading. There's a big slide with Louella Zondo's face on it. What comes next? I mean you get a sense that I shouldn't be able to read this here.

36:33 Speaker 5: No, not yet. Actually, to be clear, at that point in time, I had no formal training in what SAPs were. There was no SAP marking on this, just a name Immaculate Constellation. The opening slide, you know, just we would call it improperly labeled, improperly classified. What was it? What did the show? So the next slide, the third slide about just jumps straight into the miss of the SAP and showing what apparently the results of that mission are. And it's a collection incident in the Pacific Ocean.

37:10 Speaker 5: The subject of collection is several Russian naval intelligence vessels in the middle of the ocean at night, and above those vessels is a large black triangle floating in the air. This is a still image, but it is a color.

37:27 Speaker 3: Okay, So that's the first kind of event. But what was the mission? What was the mission? That's what people want to know is what was the mission of Immaculate Constellation as described in the product.

37:36 Speaker 5: So in the product itself you had to piece together the mission by reading the whole thing and kind of putting together the parts. You know, it never spelled out fully like as it should the mission of the SAP, and I assume that's because this is a type of brief where there will be inserts to the deck which would be inserted by the SAP control officer during the briefing. That would provide another level of detail. But based on the information included in there and its description, the mission becomes apparent.

38:10 Speaker 5: And that is a bare minimum. It's the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission of globe of a global nature. For UAPs and r vs ARVs, the hesitation there is sometimes passed. One of those acronyms is in there, either r V or ARV, and that is how the triangle in this case was labeled.

38:35 Speaker 3: Been seven years. So as you're reading through this and that, you're remembering r V or ARV just for our audience. So RV is you know, reverse reproduction vehicle, and the ARV would mean ani reproduction.

38:50 Speaker 5: You know, we see people in the literature say alien reproduction vehicle. It could just be anomalous advance or advanced. It could be anything that can go after a So you don't know what that is, but I don't this is a pretty interesting image. Here it is. And then the text at the companies it describes the incident and can you tell us, Yeah, the summary of that is just the how how it unfolded. I should I should actually back up and say the image itself was unique. This isn't by a plane or a satellite.

39:22 Speaker 5: It looks to be a image pretty close to the waterline. So something that to me read is we have a clandestine submersible asset close by this fleet and it's taking pictures trying to stay unnoticed. And so yes. In the description, it basically lays out what occurred that night, which was that they are collection assets where they're in area monitoring Russian naval vessels. Not sure what they're doing there, but they've been hanging out in the middle of the ocean in this place apparently for a few days keep an eye on him.

39:57 Speaker 5: And this night, while they are being the Russian vessels, a large black triangle materializes or de cloaks or something. The point is is it did not move. It appeared above the directly above these ships, probably no more than two hundred meters, pretty close and interestingly, as noted in the report it self, there was no visible reaction from these vessels from what would almost certainly be considered a hostile approach.

40:25 Speaker 4: What do you take away from that they didn't notice it, or they're not upset about it, or they don't know what to do with it or what.

40:33 Speaker 5: So the implication also in the text describing it was I'm sorry I should say the analysis in the text was that the Russian Navy had fore knowledge that this vehicle would appear in that area of the ocean, and they were there specifically to either collect on it themselves or to interact with it in some way.

40:53 Speaker 4: Any indication that it might be there, so that they knew it's going to be there because they control.

40:56 Speaker 5: It, not in that document, And I haven't seen anything to make me think that they controlled that particular craft. But didn't see anything of the contrary either.

41:10 Speaker 4: I guess it could be that they've seen it before that there's nothing they can do about it, so don't get excited about it.

41:16 Speaker 5: It might be although it is interesting, you know, if it's something that's part of their environment, as it were, why are they making an effort to be in this space at this time to collect on something they already know about?

41:28 Speaker 4: Is it like in the middle of nowhere.

41:29 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's off the coast of Camp Chotka Is, as I recall, in the Pacific Ocean.

41:35 Speaker 3: That's what struck me. I My mind goes to the idea that they were kind of camped out, you know, deep kind of ocean in this one specific area durationally. It kind of implies to me, if I'm thinking outside the box here, there's some form of calms or communication with whoever the operators are of this craft. Am I going too far with that idea?

41:56 Speaker 5: I think it's a reasonable one to have, but it's not one that I can like validate.

42:01 Speaker 3: Yeah, let's be clear, you were exposed to something. We're just touching the base. It's here, we're theorizing. We're talking about a bunch of stuff. I don't know, But the descriptions that you were exposed to kind of give you a little insight that we can at least look at some of those assumptions.

42:15 Speaker 5: Right right right, absolutely, And I'm sure there's a literature out there that can help narrow down.

42:22 Speaker 4: So immaculate constellation. You've never heard this term before, and it doesn't give you the full picture there, But what other additional information did it give about what this was and how it operates.

42:34 Speaker 5: Just describe the events and that analysis of the event of the Russians having Foreknoledge to be there, and describing how the event occurred. As I just went over.

42:43 Speaker 3: So this is a page turner, So you know, you're just yeah, you're curious.

42:47 Speaker 5: Now, absolutely, what do you do next? What do you go to the next page? And it was disappointing because we get into a couple slides of orbs and I had already seen orbs at this point in an official setting.

42:57 Speaker 4: So the next page is shout orbs different parts of the world. It looks like the pattern is that there's under this immaculate constellation they're gathering UAP images from all over the play.

43:09 Speaker 7: Absolutely, I mean that's the core of it, right, is the idea that we collect data on these UAP and someone needs to bring them, correlate them together to provide intel to who needs it.

43:22 Speaker 3: And we're assuming or not assuming it's been pretty laid out the market constellation was a kind of place to bring everything together to provide those briefings to senior leadership. Is that correct.

43:35 Speaker 5: I don't know about to provide briefings, but definitely to collect data from the military intelligence enterprise specifically and the sensors associated with that, and yes, to collect that data, centralize it, and have it there for presumably both analysis and operational needs.

43:55 Speaker 4: The Schreiber wargames document with the images twelve pages, fifty pages somewhere in there.

44:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's yeah, twelve to fifteen, but probably more like yeah, twelve.

44:05 Speaker 4: And is that the only document you ever saw where the term immacula constellation.

44:09 Speaker 5: Was used until I wrote one.

44:11 Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll get into that, but instead of like, go through, people will be so curious, So what comes on the fourth page talks through the pages? Just go ahead.

44:20 Speaker 5: Yeah, So, I mean, like I said, the second series, second and third examples were less interesting to me, but you know they are images of orbs transitting from coastal facilities out to the ocean and sort of describing, you know, what those facilities were, as I think pete unspoken implication of why something like this would be out there, and yes, just a similar or just just a big not day, but a general description of we observed this coming from this direction or from where this facility, sensitive facility was left over the ocean.

45:05 Speaker 5: You know, this was our task asset and it happened on this date.

45:10 Speaker 3: Anything really striking, And the rest of that document that really highlighted to you anything else in that document is really striking.

45:19 Speaker 5: Yeah. So the last example of the four was back to Russia again, this time I believe in the Atlantic Ocean, and it shows another Russian intelligence vessel underway, this time at night. The image is green infrared and it shows above this Russian vessel another black triangle. But where is the first example? And the Pacific was an equilateral, large, pretty stunning object that was of comparable size to the vessels below it. This was a more definitely smaller is smaller than the vessel, and it was more angular in shape and sort of swept back.

46:04 Speaker 5: And it was also accompanied by text saying that there was no indication that the Russian vessel was responding in any way to this ship hovering above it. And this it did not describe in this instance whether it had miraculously appeared or if it was tailing the ship.

46:20 Speaker 3: But triangular in shape and hovering.

46:23 Speaker 5: Well, hovering, probably matching speed though too with the ship.

46:26 Speaker 3: Like Uss Russell, other people argue, and I don't care what shape it is. You know, when you have someone with rangefinders off of a ship that goes with it, stops with the ship continues. So this is not a new thing. This idea of triangular by angle of observation pyramid in shape, some would say, be right, So that's striking and you saw that.

46:46 Speaker 5: Too, yes, yeah, And that was the last example. After that was sort of a summary slide or two about just recapping like the fact that these incidents are we are collecting, sorry, we are collecting these incidents on the world that we are focused on u A p r B collection incidents by task and untasked assets and the collection and analysis of those data streams.

47:12 Speaker 3: So sometimes we know where it's going to be task assets. Sometimes we just happen to capture untasked ask.

47:18 Speaker 5: Correct correct And I think a good example is in that brief itself, where the ORB incidents appeared to be untasked assets. They were not there to collect on orbs. They were there to collect on something else and they happened to catch something. Whereas the two russianssents, we were there, we were there to watch the Russians and the Russians interactions with this technology.

47:39 Speaker 4: Wow, So your suspicions after seeing this twelve page report is that these are freeze frames of what are videos? Yeah, videos, So somewhere there's a bigger collection of this stuff that's also very interesting.

47:52 Speaker 5: Absolutely yeah, like uh, you know, there was informal collections of this stuff by interested people on those systems, and there's absolutely a professional mission task databases for this.

48:11 Speaker 3: Okay, so you've seen now you've had this exposure. You try to do the right thing, and you take great steps to try to do it. Takes a little while for you, it does, so, so explain that to me what you tried to do. So there you go. You see something that you know shouldn't be there on that archive. You know what happens? What do you do?

48:31 Speaker 5: Absolutely nothing? In fact, the first time I read that, I don't know what I just read. And if it's even real. Maybe somebody just made this thing.

48:39 Speaker 3: Okay, explain that so you can. It would be like a joke or something, or.

48:43 Speaker 5: They put it together literally for a war game. Right, they had maybe created an imaginary program that maybe they wanted to have, right, or a desired capability or something that was a representative of the true.

48:58 Speaker 3: Thing to be. And is that normal or common? Now that's a weird thought, and.

49:03 Speaker 5: It is a weird thought, but this is what's going through my head because it's so bizarre, okay, And you're like, oh, oh way, yeah, I'm going through everything, all the options why it's not what it is?

49:15 Speaker 3: Right?

49:16 Speaker 5: Yeah? And so I do nothing for some time, and then our office gets a training on like refresh training. But this was new in my career, so my first time on what to do in cases of spillage for SAP material. And I realized, well, no matter how weird this is, this has all the hallmarks of what you guys just said is a big fucking deal. So you know, I can either pretend like I didn't open and read this thing eighty times and hope that it doesn't notice that either, or I can report it myself. So I did that or I tried to do that.

49:53 Speaker 3: You tried to report it. You read it a bunch as it's fascinating, and then you try to report So what does that look like when you try to report that? Did you do so?

50:01 Speaker 5: The first time? I went just quietly to my I guess my immediate supervisor, a retired Army colonel.

50:10 Speaker 3: So you go to your supervisor superior, I.

50:14 Speaker 5: Gotta say, hey, I got to show you something in our in our closet, our whole office is a skiff, but inside the skiff is another tiny skiff, and I think we we have like a spillage things, and so I need to show it to you because this is apparently we're supposed to show it to your boss and then follow the reporting chain and you sign it. Hey, you sign a paper, and that's how it's supposed to be handled, all by the.

50:34 Speaker 3: Books, and they just trained you on it, and they'll be like, okay, here's what.

50:37 Speaker 5: I'm supposed to do, right exactly. So I tried to follow that while also being you know, quiet about it. Take him in and he's like, okay, so, so show me what you found. I pull up that slide and uh, you know, the first the first slide is just because of so generic gets no reaction. But then going to like maybe the second slide or even the third slide, he's just like, okay, stop, like stop, did you read this? And I don't answer, but I just look him in the eye and I look at the screen and I'm like, of.

51:08 Speaker 3: Course I've met this, that's how you know it exists.

51:11 Speaker 5: And he definitely picked up on that, and he the conversation ended with him saying, delete it, and he left the room and we never spoke of it again.

51:17 Speaker 4: He's cutting you some slack there in essence, without me knowing, Yes, yeah, you didn't read it, so you're not in any trouble. That's ended here.

51:25 Speaker 3: Delete it.

51:26 Speaker 5: And also, as I claim to learn, you know it, certain material you get exposed to, and it's you're kind of marked for life that that happened, and it's probably not good for your career at a minimum.

51:39 Speaker 3: We've seen other whistleboyer friends of ours have experiences like that. They're marked.

51:44 Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, I didn't realize that at the time, so that happened. I sit on that for a few days. Didn't sit right with me because I'm still thinking, like, well, that's not what we're supposed to do. I could do that, but everything, supposedly everything we do on those systems, every click, every keystroke is monitored. So like I just I need to self preservation. I need to do to keep trewing the right thing here. So I go to his boss or his boss's boss, I change my approach. I don't say what it is, I don't show it to them.

52:14 Speaker 5: I don't print it out, and I just say, ma'am, we have a spillage incident. I believe it's SAP material. You please provide guidance on how to handle this. And so. Through that I was connected to our parent offices special access Special Access Program Control officer had a meeting set up to go meet with them. A few days later that happened. I go to that meeting in a sap f SO where this material is supposed to be stored and handled, and this person says, okay, show me the material. So I sit down to write exactly what you're showing the material.

52:58 Speaker 5: I sit down, I pull it up. It's like it's right there at the top of the shared servers, though I'm not like it's it's almost instant, like this right there. I pull it up. I start scrolling through it from the bottom. I get no reaction. Then he says, okay, let me look at it. He takes my chair, he goes through, He scrolls through it, no reaction on his face. I'm watching him very closely at this point because I'm exceptionally curious about all of this. No reaction. Then he scrolls through it again and he makes a very deliberate scene where he pauses on lou Elizondo's slide and starts guffawing in a very non believable way and saying, somebody's having a joke this.

53:38 Speaker 5: You don't need to worry about this. You can go. And that's not the reaction I was expecting. I was expecting to at the very least sign the paper right saying, you know, this incident happened, reported it, signed it, Yeah, it's done, so you know. I try to ask him like, are you sure like that? Do I need to sign or anything. He's like, no, you can go. And so I left that room and I never ever had anything about that incident come up again.

54:09 Speaker 3: Except immediately went and checked again for the file.

54:12 Speaker 5: Yeah, I went upstairs and I went to see what had happened, and it was gone.

54:16 Speaker 4: So the idea that it could have been a war game, could it have been something you know some of these UFOs that have been seen over nuclear missile bases, silos and things of that sort. There, The implication has been, as with drones, that it's a readiness test to sub sort We're going to put some secret operation unexpected and see how people and systems react to it. Could that have been what was gone on here?

54:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean it is something that you know, on the surface level, appears plausible. I do not believe that to be the case, given the circumstances of how it was located, the fact that hundreds of people had access to that system, the fact of it's generic labeling it wasn't you know, there's no red flags on that to draw any draw any fish, to de bait as it were, to catch somebody. And then the process of reporting it, you know that there's no outcome from that besides apparently making a lot of people pissed off and worried and kind of scared.

55:16 Speaker 3: And let me add to that, such something that we noticed, and I believe it's true reporting, which is it when David Gresh testified imact of the constellation before the world ever knew those words, was searched on Google a ton. Additionally, over the research and time and sources that we have, you know, it has been confirmed to us under no uncertain terms. That was the name of a program with that nature. So if we're looking at it as like a lark kind of thing, we get to the point where there's too many outside confirmation after the fact as well as that.

55:50 Speaker 3: Yeah, if that had been.

55:51 Speaker 5: The only thing I had seen in none of the rest of this saga had happened, right, we wouldn't be talking totally.

56:00 Speaker 4: You wrote in a paper that was submitted to Congress, and we'll go to a lot of details in that, but that this was deeply disturbing overall. Why was it disturbing to you?

56:12 Speaker 5: Yeah, So as time passed, it became disturbing, especially after the sort of the process of Grush coming forward left awake on the inside too, people were tracking that weren't even involved, but were able to see sort of the distortions on the inside, distortions of truth exactly, but also, you know, bureaucracies and offices behaving weirdly around this subject, and sort of the movements for reaching out to Congress to get legislation drafted that eventually became that Intelligence Authorization Act and that first NDAA where they provided whistle blower protections.

57:01 Speaker 5: I think that that was one of the moments that really started to convince me that this was this was not under our government's control.

57:17 Speaker 3: That's our core of why we're talking today. What do you mean.

57:23 Speaker 5: Just on an emotional level and blood analysis. Why the hell is Congress passing a law asking for UFO insiders from the intelligence and military military community to come talk to them directly under amnesty about something that doesn't exist. Isn't an issue, and if it is does exist, it is an issue, but it's secret. Apparently our most sensitive congressional committees are not briefed on this.

57:50 Speaker 3: Yeah, I find it at the core disturbing you having Arrow even asked for whistleblowers to come forward to them, having convers asking for wistleblowers to con under amnesty to come to them. Yes, something's rotten.

58:03 Speaker 5: And then also at the same time seeing the sort of EUAP Task Force and its slow death on the inside and the death of the you know, sort of open exchange of ideas and problem solving going on. There was another data point that pointed to something rotten. And the last one that really sealed it and really convinced me that I need to find a way to bring this to Congress, no matter how small it might be, it apparently matters. Was when I was in USDI, I read the transcripts of Sean K. Patrick briefing Senator Rubio, Senator Warren, and Senator Gillibrand on the results of his investigation in his congressionally tasked Arrow report in those transcripts, which were supposed to be a open kimono, here's the truth, mister senator, Miss Senator ok Patrick absolutely distorted downplay and can't prove it.

59:05 Speaker 5: But I would say outright lied to to the people who have direct responsibility.

59:10 Speaker 4: For him, saying what what would what did you say?

59:12 Speaker 5: That was a lot So it's more of a lie of the whole picture, the big picture right in the meeting, it's you know, oh, we you know, Congressman Rubio, you know, we've we've heard about this incident. Uh, we just don't have enough data to go on it to really know what this is. We don't have any way of really figuring out what's going on. It could just be an anomaly. In fact, it's most likely anomaly. So starting with an acknowledgement that you know here you oh, yeah, you have some data, but we have the insight and the scientific expertise to make you feel at ease.

59:45 Speaker 5: Nothing to see here, folks, moving exactly. Although there was also political discussion involved in historic discussion, and you know, I read these transcripts once, uh, and immediately knew it.

1:00:05 Speaker 4: Yeah, veiled threat.

1:00:07 Speaker 5: No, I knew that. I was now something else I was. I had inside knowledge into the deception of our government by elements of our intelligence community. My blood ran cold. A specific point in that transcript where mister Rubio is discussing the Legacy Program. This was a subject of direct discussion with Sean Kirkpatrick in these meetings, and based on mister Patrick's replies about as vague as they were but unable to escape the truth of the Legacy Program, mister Rubio's response was, well, what the hell is the executive branch doing?

1:00:46 Speaker 5: Have they been running this for sixty years without congressional oversight? I might be paraphrasing a little, but that's near enough verbatim. And I saw that line and I basically closed that file and had a pre sleepless night.

1:01:01 Speaker 4: All Right, you said your blood ran cold, meaning you're pissed, you're.

1:01:04 Speaker 5: Spooked, scared. What is scared? Scared for your country? I just think in general, it's like a I don't know, there was nothing associated. It was just like immediate, oh fuck, good response.

1:01:17 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean you now know this is real. This is a cover up. They are lying about this stuff.

1:01:22 Speaker 5: Yeah, at that point I definitely knew the phenomenon was absolutely really. I knew we were tracking it. I knew we had lots of resources on it for some time. But getting to that final like step in the ladder, that seemed like, oh, and the cover up is real and it's inside the house.

1:01:39 Speaker 4: Give us a sense of it. You read one document that said immaculate constellation and had some images with it. What additional information did you come across that reinforced your belief that there is a big surveillance program collecting this stuff?

1:01:53 Speaker 5: Well, I mean one is just that the fact of its existence. Right in the brief, it's talking about the general mission. It's given examples, but it's clearly talking about a collection mission. And then there's programs that have since become public. The most relevant one in this case is the NRO sentient program that kind of, at least in the open source way, demonstrates how you don't need a massive workforce to do this anymore. You don't need buildings without windows for acres to people taking this information and sanitizing it, making it sure it gets to the right people without the wrong things in it.

1:02:31 Speaker 5: And that's just on the inside.

1:02:33 Speaker 3: Right, like you don't also need exposure to a bunch of human beings with individual egos and identities. To be clear, there's kind of AI siphoning off of data and information to keep it compartmentalized without spine of human eyes, even within our intelligence agencies. If I'm understanding it.

1:02:48 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a bit of a Janus, a two faced god. It takes things in one end and make sure you hear what you need to hear out the other.

1:02:54 Speaker 3: Right, and you suspect that UAP when that data is collected and brought in and ingested, that there is a whitewashing or not whitewashing of it. There's a clarifying of that stuff to make sure that general people in intellig just can you.

1:03:09 Speaker 5: Don't see it absolutely And that's a long standing practice for especially for imagery intelligence. Just nothing about UFOs. You know, back in the Cold War days, if something a facility or an aerospace platform was seen that sorry was collected, you know there would be either there'd be a full version right for those who needed it. But if you just needed to see the facility but maybe not the plane, you know, those would be manually excized. Now we have tools to do that for us?

1:03:40 Speaker 4: Could you describe then for us how you think this works, whatever the name for it is, now, how it works due did we have an AI system in twenty eighteen that could do what we're describing?

1:03:52 Speaker 5: Well, we know we did. Those documents have since become public sentience. Sentience, right, And the fact that sentient operational at those dates of the documents mean it was operational for years before then, years before twenty eighteen.

1:04:07 Speaker 4: You know, We've had our conversations private and otherwise about this kind of an operation, and it just seems like, gosh, there should be somebody who's collecting all this information and studying it and trying to figure it out. And the fact that it goes into the executive branch somewhere, if that's what happens to it, good, I'm glad somebody is doing it. Why is that, as you've learned about it, Why is that not necessarily a good idea?

1:04:30 Speaker 5: Is it?

1:04:30 Speaker 4: Because it's not maybe really within the executive branch that it's an entity undo itself?

1:04:35 Speaker 5: Why it may not be a good idea to censor our intelligence products that are circulated within our cleared community to our service members that are on the front lines every day. Is because you are blinding them to their environment, you are opening them to threats, you're exposing them to risks, and you are essentially inhibiting the pursuit of national security objectives by doing so. So there's a reason you guys have talked to so many whistleblowers from the military who see these things. That's because partially because they're reporting it, they feel endangered by it, and nothing is being done and no answers are being given, and they are in some cases suffering legitimate injuries.

1:05:18 Speaker 4: These images that would pop up here and there on some system, on some platform, this AI program that was once called Immaculate Constellation, it would grab them, take them away, and then they're gone from those platforms, those places, so like CIA or so.

1:05:34 Speaker 5: I believe where it could it. You know, the data was ingested essentially in a you know a stovepipe, right it's locked off, it goes in, it goes into the black box, and then a product comes out for what you're cleared to see and what you have a need to not to see.

1:05:50 Speaker 4: Wouldn't somebody say, hey, where's my image that I recorded? And then where to go?

1:05:55 Speaker 5: There's a lot of people who have had incidents like that. Helps you have to remember there's a lot of surveillance and reconnaissance platforms. Not all these are controlled by military or national intelligence. And the thing I believe a lot of what was you know, circulated for some time among the community was people at combatant commands or with operational units. They have their own platforms. Essentially they control that data to a large degree, and they were able to decide that it goes on jwix, not into the black box.

1:06:27 Speaker 5: Right.

1:06:27 Speaker 3: So, I've heard this over and over and over that there are these pipelines of communication, let's say overseas to Scentcom, but there's a squeezing point, there's a narrowing point where stuff doesn't get where it's intended to get, and that that's been a problem operationally, especially when it comes to UAP stuff. People have tried to track and follow what they've submitted and it didn't get where that it needed to. It's been siphoned off. To be clear, Macula Constellation is not an AI scrubbing program, just you know, so our audience understands that we've described what maclt constellation is, but that is an element we suspect from the literature and knowledge of what is public that there is that capability to scrub instead of like air brushing out ufros from NASA or something.

1:07:11 Speaker 5: And part of the way of knowing what this is is knowing who in the d D at least has primary responsibility over SAPs. OSD policy really only has control over operational SAPs and logistical SAPs. Then you will have OSD Research and Engineering and Acquisition sustatement. They will have your science and technology SAPs that they are the people who r up who they're the gatekeepers for that world. And then you'll have your intelligence or USDI in this case, their SAPs and caps and those are intelligence apps.

1:07:48 Speaker 5: They are the primary keepers of that. So the implication there is that you know if OSD policy is being briefed on that emactly. Constellation is a parent SAP, not for eight specific platform, but for a mission.

1:08:03 Speaker 3: I think the core of this for me is at one point Matt realized, holy shit, this is real. This is a problem, and people are being lied to people that need to know the truth that it's being siphoned off outside of control of what should be our representative government. And let me know if I'm saying anything that's wrong from your perspective, But I think there's a point that he hits like you and I have hit. We're being fucking lied to and it's becoming dangerous. Your first sentence in the report that we fought to get on congressional record.

1:08:34 Speaker 3: We'll get into that. We've fought for that together. This document is a result of a multi year internal investigation into the subject of unidentified anomalist phenomena. That first sentence in your report that we fought to get into congressional record for a reason. So basically your blood goes cold. You're like, oh fuck, and then you do a multi year internal destigation explaining that's your first sentence.

1:09:01 Speaker 5: What did you do at the time of that knowledge? You know, I was still in the Pentagon, but I was not a whistleblower. My investigation at that point was in the pursuit of my duties encountering WMD, also my professional curiosity. You went deep, Well, the report is you know, seven categories of evidence, right in macic constellation is the tension of grabber, but it's the one where there's the least amount of detail, right, So I basically conducted my own amateur all source analysis of what the US government, specifically the do D, because that's what I had access to knew about UAPs, and I collected that information and sought out a way to go to Congress because they asked and provided amnesty for whistleblowers.

1:09:57 Speaker 5: If they did not want that, they should not have written that into a law.

1:10:00 Speaker 3: Right they said they did, And you started to go down that path. And that's our kind of next step is you're seeking whistleblower protection. Okay, So now you realize you got to do something, and you feel compelled. I think we understand why he feels compelled. It's dangerous you seek whistleblower protection officially. Is that the next step or what's the next step?

1:10:19 Speaker 5: The next step is to figure out how to even get to Congress, okay, And actually a little bit before that, to figure out, like am I even needed Okay, because at this point, you know, the legislation was there, but grush was not. I was aware of people on the inside, some of who have since become public, some of who have not, who the very least shared an interest in this getting a wider exposure in the intelligence community. So I started talking to people in that world and trying to quietly figure out, you know, what's the state of play?

1:10:55 Speaker 5: Is what I have valuable or needed?

1:10:58 Speaker 3: Should or do I need to go forward?

1:10:59 Speaker 5: Right?

1:11:00 Speaker 3: Right?

1:11:00 Speaker 5: So there is a long feeling out period. There lots of mistakes made, but those were mistakes born of risk because you know this this is there's no channels for this, there's official process, and I'm literally in the belly of the beast.

1:11:17 Speaker 4: Back to constellation, you begin to get the sense that it is, in fact a constellation with a lot of individual stars or stove pipes underneath it. Could you describe that structure what you learned and how you learned it?

1:11:30 Speaker 5: So that just that's just more of a nature of SAPs, apparently learning and how they're constructed, and especially how the internal security for SAPs is run. I think you guys have reported on it that the budget for security is much higher than the budget for the actual research on this, and that is a very there's very real world effects as I came to learn.

1:11:53 Speaker 4: Describe those. For example, you're you're telling us that you realize the guys you're working for or lie? Yeah, do you start to feel marked because of your interest in this or do you make mistakes that put you in somebody's crosshairs.

1:12:07 Speaker 5: So there was no indication that anything untoward was thought about me as far as I knew, nobody even knew I was interested in this stuff.

1:12:16 Speaker 3: You feel a sense of duty Congress sea so no, you know they've been lied to specifically, people tell you, yeah, this is an important piece to the puzzle, and you felt a sense of patriotic duty to do that, and so you took steps to that. You said, cool, they're going to give me whistleblower protections. I am a whistleblower. What happened? How did you do that? What were the steps?

1:12:36 Speaker 5: So I had to find them. There was no way that I could find to get into contact with Congress. I tried, So then I started talking to other people who were at that time more vocal about their intent to be a whistleblower to Congress internally.

1:12:54 Speaker 3: More vocal yes on classified syst.

1:12:56 Speaker 5: Yes, or in not so much on systems, but in classified facilities, verbal conversations. So meant one person who did go forward kind of watched that person without letting them know what I knew to see you know what they were doing and how it went for them. At that time, it just seemed to be The report was, you know, I went in, talked with the staff. The staff then had a separate meeting to talk with the member. And there's no paperwork, no lawyers involved. It's just you're in, you say what you have to say, and you're out.

1:13:35 Speaker 3: That's the channel. No repercussion. That's what they said. We know all of those people as.

1:13:39 Speaker 5: Well, the assumption, none of there's not a sop written. Now you know, this is what I'm learning.

1:13:44 Speaker 8: And observing, and you told them what you know correct officially, Yeah, the first meeting, I wouldn't say I was especially transparent going in.

1:13:56 Speaker 5: Remember I knew it. I knew my bosses were lying. I'm talking to a permanent member of the Senate staff, not a member on the elect representative. I don't know what there.

1:14:07 Speaker 3: Could have been bait, you would have been careful. It could have been bait.

1:14:10 Speaker 5: So I shared, you know, the tension grabber, the in con story, and slowly worked my way around those other categories of evidence, but left it at like, you know, I got more to say, but like you know, we should probably do you want me to say more? Like what comes next? So that meeting was had. I spoke to that person in the skiff in the Heart Senate Office building. I signed my name on the log my true name on the logbook on August seventeenth.

1:14:40 Speaker 3: We've been into that skiff and to enjoy three that line as well.

1:14:44 Speaker 5: So unless that page goes missing into there.

1:14:47 Speaker 3: Yep, you got balls at church bells man. I' mean going in there and doing this on charted territory, just trying to do the right thing. I can kind of feel it. You know that that's a difficult thing, and you did it, and you went in.

1:15:00 Speaker 4: Yeah.

1:15:01 Speaker 5: I don't know who to trust them either. So what happens next is I'm told, okay, so we're going to set you up. To be clear, I spoke to a staff member from SISSY. I was told that next you will speak to a staff member from SASK and then we will have a meeting with both SASK and SISSY, with the elected members of Congress there and the two people or sorry, and the STAFFERSTO. That's what was supposed to happen. So I feel a little better leaving this meeting. Actually, the person I interact with seemed very genuine, took my concerns for safety very seriously and perhaps oddly, but it was somewhat comforting.

1:15:42 Speaker 5: Seemed to know more than me, because at that point I hadn't really meant anyone who at least willingly was going to answer questions, and seemed like they knew even a degree of what I knew at the time. So yeah, I felt like, Okay, we're on track. There's a process here. Congress actually is getting this under control. I'll have these meetings and it's you know, I got a handshake, maybe a nice little thank you, and I feel like I did my duty and I can get back to my career.

1:16:11 Speaker 3: They're asking you to come forward, and you do it.

1:16:14 Speaker 5: So none of those meetings ever happen. Weeks go by, or reach out, Hey is this going on? Like I told you I had more. I want to give that more to you, So I don't have it. When can we meet? Got the run around, and then eventually the blunts reply like, you either send me what you have in writing here on this non official channel, or you know you don't and we don't need it. So I sent that extra information and then for many months I thought, you know, I'm done.

1:16:54 Speaker 4: It's disillusioning, isn't it that the Congress has made a show of this Hey, we want the information. We're going to pass this legislation protect whistleblowers. Come on and tell us this stuff, and then the channels really don't work.

1:17:05 Speaker 5: I came to be dissolution at the time. I just I came to believe like, Okay, I had something that was of minor importance. I'm just really not important enough to talk to anymore. So you're the little guy. Shut up, we don't need you anymore or else.

1:17:19 Speaker 3: Fun just the fear, right, the fear that you're you're trying to do the right thing, the sensitive topic. You know, people are lying. Who do you trust, and all of a sudden you do what they say. There's got to be fear. They're like, oh shit, should I have opened my mouth?

1:17:31 Speaker 5: Yeah? Yeah. But I think at that point, though it was mostly hurt, I still thought like, I guess I'm too small, but too small, and I guess you guys got this already when I talked. To be clear, David Grush had just spoken the month before or before then. I was clear, like, hey, you know, this meeting has been in the work for months. I saw David Gresh's testimony. I don't even know if you need what I have anymore hurt. This guy seems to have it all. But yeah, they still wanted to talk.

1:17:56 Speaker 3: Right.

1:17:56 Speaker 4: Did there come a time then when you start meeting physically me with other people who are sort of like whistleblowers or at least making sounds like whistleblowers.

1:18:06 Speaker 5: Yeah, so that came about. The person who connected me to Congress started trying to make a network of people in the IC and the military, you know, for what ends. It was kind of vague, but it was more of at least a community of interests, maybe looking towards like a group of current and former national security employees that can you know, be a resource to the Congress, can call onto either like you know, speak or just to like make a statement.

1:18:34 Speaker 3: You know, le Jake getting organized.

1:18:36 Speaker 4: Yeah, you've got to be thinking, well, look, I'm going to go hear from some other people, see what their experienced and like made me I'm doing this right. There's another way to do it.

1:18:43 Speaker 5: Well, I mean, at that point I had accepted that, you know, they didn't need my information. I didn't feel like there was anything left to do. Now I'm back at well, I just want to know what's going on. These are the people like me sort of.

1:18:56 Speaker 3: Did you have to tell your bosses, Hey, I'm under whistleblower protection. Allegedly, I went and whistleblw Did you have to tell your bosses at your normal job?

1:19:04 Speaker 5: No, I did not tell my bosses at this point in time. I was at the Department of State when I was a whistleblower. To be very clear, I was a whistle blower when I sorry, I was at a Department of State employee when I reached out to Congress, and I was a Department of State employee when I spoke to Congress. So I get another job with an FFRDC. I was going to work at DHQ doing nuclear force planning. Pretty cool job, yeah, and then last minute, a job posting goes up from the Department of State and I'm told about it.

1:19:35 Speaker 5: I kind of knew some of the people at the State Department program, so that was a bit of a draw. If I feel like I need some protection, this could be this could work out well on the long term. So at the time it was kind of self interest there, whereas like, yeah, if I need to cover my ass and write something and have it not be redacted, this is a good place to do it.

1:20:00 Speaker 3: That's pre planning right, and that comes from a sense of a worry, a sense of fear in a way, you have to protect yourself. State Department's a good place. You're already thinking ahead. You're not doing pre pubs so you can write a book or be in a movie. You're doing pre pub to protect your ass.

1:20:15 Speaker 4: You've got a new job at the State Department. You have in the back of your mind. Look, if I decided to take it a step further, this is a good place to do that, right. What's your job at State Department? And did you like it?

1:20:25 Speaker 5: Yeah? So my job was on paper sort of similar to what I had done at the Pentagon working encountering WMD A cool job.

1:20:35 Speaker 3: Why was it cool?

1:20:36 Speaker 4: So?

1:20:36 Speaker 5: The State's part one was mainly the draw I mean is to travel, and is to travel to, you know, countries that I wanted to in my case in Europe, you know, you're interacting with universities, industry groups, government sort of associations. Much more slower speed, much less dark and grim and in the real world as it were.

1:21:05 Speaker 4: Was there ever a period where you're thinking, maybe I'm just leaving this you uap st up behind me and oh no, no, no, you've never hooked. You were done.

1:21:15 Speaker 5: Well, I mean the subject matter obviously, and then knowing what I knew about the situation government, you know, I don't think it's something that you know, you have that level of knowledge that you can leave behind.

1:21:30 Speaker 3: Morally you couldn't.

1:21:31 Speaker 5: Yeah, morally. And also is it's still to this day is endlessly fascinating, right, But my job would have nothing to do with that. And yeah, I I it felt like at this point, again, I had not gone to Congress, but I had met people who either were going to or had felt like, you know, okay, somebody's it's handled. People seem more senior than me, who have connections and know what they're talking about. Are they got this? So I can rest easy?

1:22:02 Speaker 3: Let it go?

1:22:03 Speaker 4: At what one did you read the transcripts of Sean Kirkpatrick speaking to the senators? Was that at the State Department?

1:22:09 Speaker 5: No, that was at USDI.

1:22:10 Speaker 4: I'm just trying to figure out at what point you decided all right, you know I tried to go to Congress. Obviously you knew that arrow wasn't the way to go, So you had to make a decision at some point. Oh yeah, I'm going to take some action some way.

1:22:24 Speaker 5: Yeah, so the the NDA language comes out. I recognize how serious that is. I'm talking with these people, even though now I'm at States, I'm still tracking what's going on and start getting the the scuttle, but that you know, somebody big is going to come forward and you know the implications of what they had to say are like not good. And they're making these people who are more senior than me feel or talk about like you know that there's corruption involved, that there is a conspiracy, conspiracy involved, nothing is being whispered, but you know, things start to feel like, oh maybe this isn't so just a Cold war black program that was allowed to go on for too long and now just coming in from the cold, all nice and cute, like something much darker.

1:23:17 Speaker 3: Right.

1:23:18 Speaker 4: You see people like Dave Grush come forward and get slimed. You know that there are other whistleblowers who have come forward bits and pieces there. You have to realize at some point there's a lot of risk and taken action.

1:23:32 Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean I went forwards in such close proximity to Grush that I didn't have at that time, I hadn't observed you know, the blowback. It looked like from the outside that you know, he had some friction on his way there, but looked like he got to Congress, was saying the right things, and Congress was going to do.

1:23:54 Speaker 4: Something about his momentum.

1:23:55 Speaker 5: There's momentum, and you know, I again at that time, I was already in talks to go talk to Congress, just at that point, not so much like, you know, out of fear and desperation, just as like, yeah, they're asking for people. It seems like they needed right no matter how small, it seems like it's important. And this person told me it was important. They balloted this person I met with, I met with one on one. I told them about this you sap which at the time, you know, I still to myself, I was like, I don't know if it's real or not.

1:24:28 Speaker 5: You say you've been to Congress and you know these things firsthand, Like is this it said? It was? And yeah, so have those interactions that we've already been over where do things start going for me? What's the phrase here? More serious

1:24:52 Speaker 5: is after Congress, after sorry, after speaking to Congress as a whistleblower, I interact with continue to interact with this person who was trying or at least they told me they were trying to start a fund for whistleblowers to help get people out of the Legacy program who wanted to speak but couldn't because they're both afraid of their life and their livelihood. And I thought, well, there's something I can help with good at writing paper, you know, we'll make this organization that can contribute there.

1:25:23 Speaker 5: And so the honeymoon phase of you know, I I spoke my piece and now it looks like I'm helping the good guys, and things aren't that serious continues after August of twenty twenty three. The result of that is sorry, the result of grush and all that we get the UAP disclosure acts, or at the attempt to do it. And so I think when that failed was the first blow to that hope that, you know, things would be handled constitutionally, constitutionally.

1:26:00 Speaker 4: Is there a point at which you see, let's call it the whistleblower community, a small group of fairly small group of people who have different stories, that you become disillusioned with them and with their media contacts who are being fed bits and pieces of information.

1:26:17 Speaker 5: Now yes, then no, there also wasn't as much media penetration or connection whatever, you want to term it in those circles at least that I was a part of.

1:26:29 Speaker 4: In those days, did you consider going to.

1:26:32 Speaker 5: No I had no outreach, no connections to media, and I was not pursuing connections to media at all.

1:26:39 Speaker 3: And you know, to be fair, you're kind of navigating all of this stuff. You're seeking advice from people, trying to figure out what do I do. And you're a smart guy, and you look at the world and you start reaching out to a couple people or they're being introduced to you, like myself, and you're kind of feeling it out too, like you know, what is the best path for here?

1:27:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, that's so sort of What happens next is the uap DA fails. And before that we get word it's going to fail. And this person tells me that Congress needs people to start fires to try to save the uap DA. I ask him, are you serious? Is Congress has told you to ask people to make some noise and try to save this thing? That person told me yes, And so then I started trying to find some media personalities who could potentially be trusted. One of my next steps, which was, well, now I got to get something cleared but then set back in a different way, which is, well, ship, we still have all these people apparently who are in danger.

1:27:47 Speaker 5: There's no help from the government, there's no help from Congress, there's no help from Arrow Arrow, there's no help from people who say they care about humanity, but they're actually don't bear that out. So back to square one, and for me, square one is going back and re engaging with Congress. So I reach out in that. Yeah, I guess this would be winter of twenty four twenty three around there. Back to my Sissy connection, and that person I learned had since moved on, and he connected me to the current person, a current staff member for Sissy who's handled this, arranged a meeting in a few months because I told them, Hey, I'm going to just First of all, I asked like, hey, did you get any of my testimony?

1:28:40 Speaker 5: The answer was no, or at least that was the claimed answer. So I said, well, did you get any notes? Like I know he took notes. Did you get notes of what I said? Nah? So I okay, you know what, I'm going to write this all up for you guys. You have it and you can't lose it, and you're going to guarantee to me that this is not just going to stay with Sissy. It is going to go to sask, is going to go to hask and it is going to go to Hipsy like it was promised before.

1:29:02 Speaker 4: But never did those acronyms, meaning for the Senate committees and the Health committance that would deal with these classroide sensitive stuff.

1:29:10 Speaker 3: You're like, fuck this, I'm writing it all down, writing down, going to make it really your problem.

1:29:15 Speaker 5: Right, And you gave me amnesty. Do you want this, I'm giving it to you, right. So I spend some weeks laboriously typing this out hidden drives on encrypted drives, using open source software, only only opening it when I know I'm not connected to anything on a new device. Not a very fun drafting process. And that's just the technical aspects of trying to be secure about it at this point. And I'm on definitely no illusions that the US government some capacity knows about me. I'm mainly concerned about foreign intelligence, their possibility of collecting on on me.

1:30:02 Speaker 5: I'm in DC, spy capital of the world. I I was very concerned about that and wanted to do even the writing of this the correct way. Uh So, during that time draft this uh, I observe what's going on, continues to go on, the the final death of the U U A p U A p Disclosure Act one and the attempt to get the second one, which is totally watered down and not even worth our time to consider.

1:30:40 Speaker 5: And I go and I have a meeting with Sissy, give them the paper. It's a much longer version of the report, both in my analysis and the level of detail, additional detail and the evidentiary evidentiary sections including the various compartments and programs that they could themselves look into to access the same information that I saw, which is ridiculous that Congress has no access to. Gave all that to them,

1:31:15 Speaker 5: then really had the press to even get to peace speak to sask eventually got to speak to Saska permittent staff that I believe the raverer and office building. Then after I had met with both Sissy and SASK, I I after I met with Sissy, but before I finally met WITHASK, I submitted a version of this report to the State Department. So I after I gave it to them the first time, they said thank you very much and then never heard again.

1:31:51 Speaker 6: Didn't even I mean, they're asking keep going on, they're asking for you to come and they're asking for this, and you're so I designed kick open doors, right, Sally, please this exactly.

1:32:02 Speaker 5: So I decided to make myself a little dangerous and said, hey, I'm going to submit this for pre pub review to and I'm going to brief my leadership at State Department on this, which it did, and then after briefing them, I submitted it to pre pub review and at the State Department met with SASK provided a copy of the full report, and at that time the cleared one before if that ever reached any media sources, so that they knew what the media would see before anyone else. You know, doing what I thought was only fair.

1:32:37 Speaker 5: You know, you want you're our leaders, you want control, you want this to go the right way. I'm giving you full insight into what my words are. You can tell me at any time to stop or what to change in my.

1:32:50 Speaker 3: Words, nothing transparent. But also you ain't fucking around anymore, right, Yeah.

1:32:54 Speaker 5: No pushback at all, none except for not after this sasas being never getting access to house at that time you make this and no access to members still and that's where.

1:33:06 Speaker 4: We start a process, but right, so you make the submission, you get an answer back up what's it say?

1:33:15 Speaker 5: You know, I get no redactions requested and essentially a one word, sorry, one sentence answer.

1:33:23 Speaker 4: You may proceed, not exactly something. It gives you a lot of confidence at all as well. But I mean it sounds like they're saying, go ahead, we have no problem with it.

1:33:33 Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean we have the emails. You can read between the lines and also the tone. Certainly nobody there was thrilled about what I was doing.

1:33:42 Speaker 3: Right, but they weren't stopping you. And you know a lot of people hear about dops or and that kind of thing, and this is a very interesting way to go about it. You get pre pubbed through State Department, which later Sean ker Patrick and became public made some disparaging comments about what gets passed through when it comes to going through State harmit doesn't matter. Basically, it's a process for you to cover your ass and we'll inform everybody and say I'm not messing around here. We go and get you get it all written out, you get approved and one sentence you know, email back that we've seen and you don't have high level of confidence right of, Like, well, what does that mean?

1:34:21 Speaker 3: Can I move forward?

1:34:22 Speaker 4: So there you are.

1:34:23 Speaker 3: What happens next?

1:34:25 Speaker 5: I fly out to California and meet with Michael Schellenberger HM. I told him, Hey, I got a story for you. Would you like to chat with me? You know, I had met him previously, very briefly, totally something unrelated, and his work on in the Twitter files defending you know, free speech against a very pervasive and insiduous censorship regime, regime that our government, even before the Biden administration had implemented, inspired me that he would do the right thing.

1:34:56 Speaker 3: Logical, great choice, you know. That was My hope is to have a lot of journjournalists working on this from different angles so you can trust who are honest. So that's where your head's at.

1:35:06 Speaker 5: Yeah, So before we have a good we have a good meeting, I show him the document. This has been cleared by state. You know, you know, I would prefer to like maybe cut it down because it's pretty long, but you get to look at it and are you interested. The answer is yes, We're going to do a story that's in summer of twenty four I believe early summer, late spring. So with that in hand, and knowing that I had at least tap tapped Sask and Sissy, thought it was okay to move forward with that story and then try to talk to House with you know, the full details in the meantime before that story came out.

1:35:47 Speaker 5: You know, it takes time to bet things. He has to look into me, just you know, find out who I am, look into the details of what I'm alleging.

1:35:55 Speaker 3: You know, I know that Georgian and I know the process well.

1:35:58 Speaker 5: So it takes months, you know. So I got some time, and in that time, I for the first time get connected with David Grush. I have a very enlightening conversation with him, and at his suggestion, he connected me with you, and that is how we came to meet.

1:36:15 Speaker 3: Yeah, and I'm looking not to report on what you're saying initially, I'm looking to help you achieve the goal that we're all fighting for, which is getting the people asking for the information. This doesn't have to be public, it doesn't have to be a public display. This is let's facilitate these conversations. That's where we started. I'm not really doing journalism work with you. I'm trying to just help the process go That's how that was my headspace.

1:36:39 Speaker 5: Yeah, I was asking Grush, like, I'm having a real hard time a meeting members themselves and be just even talking to anybody house, who's the guy to go to? And it was you, okay, So that was our the nature of our meeting.

1:36:52 Speaker 3: George and I have had a great relationship trying to help facilitate information, knowledge and human beings in this sort of thing. So it makes sense. It was a good movie. We did well with David Grush. So George and Ize our role oftentimes is to connect people. We are reporters. It is to break stories, tell the news. But really a lot of what I was personally doing was trying to facilitate, help facilitate the process they're asking for. At that time, we had had a great hearing. David Grush also a fravor who had a beg to testify.

1:37:30 Speaker 3: It was great, it was a success. Everything was clean on that one. On that hearing. This was a new thing, a new era. It felt different from the get go, but the idea was we're going to have another set of hearings. I'm all for that. They tapped me to try to help connect them with people, and George and so we've had many calls, through many processes, and now I'm out there to have meetings directly about firsthand people with firsthand experience who can directly testify about this, whether they talk publicly or not, this is the information you need.

1:38:00 Speaker 3: So I go to have these established meetings. You and I meet, I do you know physically, and we talk about it, and you want to come with me, and I can bring you in, but I can't let them know because we're still trying to protect you, trying to pet your identity. So it was kind of like we'll talk about it more in depilated, but a kind of harrowing experience. You were very nervous. I mean it was like you're exposing yourself in the in the you know, in those meetings.

1:38:24 Speaker 5: Absolutely right, and just by walking into those offices or the buildings those offices are in.

1:38:30 Speaker 3: Right right, So you public very public. So we kind of hid you in the in the camera cruise the way I say it, and that you were walking with us and getting into the buildings. But I asked each member, I said, okay, you wanted direct people, I have one here to speak with you. Everybody needs to leave the room, including the cameras, it'll just be us. Is that cool? And each one although they gave us wisdom along the way as we did our progression of getting you right in front of people to give them your quick testimony and some documentation.

1:39:00 Speaker 3: So that's what we went through. And we go in and there you are, You're sitting in front of and you know, somebody with position. I just want to know what did that feel like? First of all, that that that moment where you've got to finally get to them.

1:39:16 Speaker 5: I mean, in the moment, it just was somber, serious. Also, you know, nervous. I got a I got like, you know, so it's five minutes, but I only have probably like a minute to speak.

1:39:30 Speaker 3: Bro. You were sweat and you were stressed. I mean it was it was intense.

1:39:33 Speaker 5: So getting yeah, getting the most important information across and also establishing my credibilious past as possible.

1:39:43 Speaker 3: And I was making sure you were a fucking plant, you know, to be honest. That was part of the process, is making sure he'd say the same thing too, you know, to to Congress, that that to members, that that he said to me, not that I didn't believe you and I had done the vetting, and I was there, but I want to here you say it, show it, so you're not trying to entrap me. I mean, honestly, that's part of my thing. Man. We got through that, didn't we did.

1:40:09 Speaker 4: It worked well, it did, so you come out of that thinking, okay, all right, this is good. I made contact. Maybe we'll see where it.

1:40:16 Speaker 3: Goes mold Yeah, yeah, pretty strong.

1:40:19 Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, at this point in time, I'm very Actually a skeptico is not the right word. I do not believe, did not believe that this would work in Congress, but I knew that the attempt had to be made. We had to try. We had to try. I knew that I alone wasn't big enough or important enough to shift the tides of history there to shift what apparently the executive branch had decided, which was, we are going to squash this, and anybody that tries to bring it up, we are going to you know, silence cut out in disparage.

1:40:53 Speaker 3: They were asking for whistleblowers, and there we are, and he's blowing the whistle on this, and that's what they were asking for. So for me, it was a big win for them to meet you face to face because I knew down the line if this is going to progress, Look, you would have testified. Let's get real clear on this. They were asking for it, you would have testified. You were not asking to testify. You're saying, here's the little piece that I have. But you you said in that room that you would if if requested.

1:41:21 Speaker 5: I would if asked. And I did not want to do it at the upcoming hearing, of course, because that was very close and I in no way felt ready to do that.

1:41:28 Speaker 3: But you put the ball in their court. I said you would. They didn't ask, right, and we got to there's a whole thing about that, but just you really put it out there.

1:41:36 Speaker 5: I did.

1:41:37 Speaker 3: Yeah, Okay.

1:41:39 Speaker 5: I think it'll take white a change in our present circumstances for anybody to ever testify under oath on this subject again in a way that would make a difference. I think they know the power of in and open hearing and putting your hand on the Bible and swearing that you're going to speak nothing but the truth and doing so. It's symbolic and it's very valuable, and that is why I believe that they are desperately attempting to deny.

1:42:12 Speaker 3: Well in natural that's what we saw. You know, we don't got to rehash that. That's what we saw. The second hearing absolutely controlled represented. Burchett testified to it by saying it publicly that the executive branch did limit what could be set and by who. And George has brought that up a bunch when you know so, so I.

1:42:30 Speaker 5: Agree, executive branch in the halls of Congress determining what the business of Congress is, and not even through the courtesy of a phone call to the Vice president of the president, but through minions and stooges unelected probably Cia.

1:42:47 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, certainly, yeah.

1:42:49 Speaker 4: Would you when you hear about the lineup for the hearing that was held, you've got to be feeling pretty good about it.

1:42:55 Speaker 5: Joe.

1:42:55 Speaker 4: Yeah, there's going to be a witness. He's going to talk about immaculate constellation.

1:42:59 Speaker 5: And not just a witness us on his own, next to lou Elizondo, Tim Galladett and this guy I've never heard of before but seems nice. Nick Gold or Michael Great, they're all right, good, all right.

1:43:10 Speaker 4: It's going to come out.

1:43:10 Speaker 5: We're all punked.

1:43:11 Speaker 4: Did you know exactly what was going to be discussed by the Schellenberger.

1:43:15 Speaker 5: At that point, I asked, I mean I knew it was going to be you know, me and my words and my report.

1:43:24 Speaker 4: Because the two of you met with him the night before the hearing.

1:43:27 Speaker 5: Well, yeah, and I mean I I met with Michael to give him the story. I seem like, there's no mystery here why they're bringing him.

1:43:35 Speaker 3: There was a lot before that too, But I mean, I have a two plus a month process of prompting trying to get something on congressional record, knowing that what your testimony was valuable. It wasn't just like spur of the moment. There is a process. It was three major meetings that occurred to validate the information that you provided to me. It's it's not just like so getting on something on congressional record is a little bit more tricky than people think. They have to have time with it. So I very slowly with your authorization over those months, had in person meetings, not just you being there, but then working with them showing them the information, so they had time to that.

1:44:18 Speaker 3: They're worried about getting scammed too, right, So it was a process, This process that for me was very artuous personally.

1:44:27 Speaker 4: There are a lot of phone conversations that we said and on with House staff, and it got curious or and curious or is that the people who were in on these these conversations.

1:44:38 Speaker 3: With us on the other security folks just popping in on a meeting that I'm supposed to be having with them. You know, they wanted to know what assets George and I have to visually show them we were going to provide them. They were saying at one point that we were going to testify, and I said, cool, and I want to give something substantial to the American public. This is what I want to give them. Well, you know, at some point they're trying to get us into a skiff, and my federal lawyer, our federal lawyer said, do not go in there because they will immediately classify all that information that alleged the U Mayo access to and then you're never reporting on it.

1:45:10 Speaker 3: So we went through our own journey. We don't have to get into that in this discussion. But there was a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes. But hurrah, hooray Congressional record your report which is misrepresented when Nancy Mays talked about a big time But we're happy for happy and I was stoked to have Michael Schellenberger, who at that time I was like, this is great, He's going to be a good ally moving forward, and he's the right man for the job. Yeah, bottom line, no matter the Shananigan's involved, and how revealing that second hearing was about the control mechanisms in place about UAP, I was elated, and I think so were you.

1:45:52 Speaker 3: That without having to put your face out to the public and endure all that like you're doing and get experience now your testimony got on the Congressional record, that was a big win.

1:46:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, there was a bit of a personal pleasure too. I at the very least got to see someone else be scared. Who wants who was scared? Not the bosses of the people who interfere in Congress, but the minions themselves because their bosses didn't tell them what was going to happen.

1:46:23 Speaker 3: Can you dive a little deeper into that?

1:46:26 Speaker 5: Well, By all appearances, both behind the scenes and in front of them, the submission of this report onto the Congressional record and its announcement caught people by surprise. Its distribution was allegedly very tight, and these unelected members on these congressional staffs that get to set the agenda for our elected leaders had to scramble and adjust in real time. They panicked.

1:46:58 Speaker 3: See, having something on congressional ras record is different than just putting out a news report. News report goes away, one click, done. This is much bigger. And I saw that too, So it was a big move and it was probably was filled with pleasure to see it stirred shit up. Kiss you know you said it before, and I want to drill this home. At one time, saying these words, putting these words in text, saying them over the phone, there was repercussion for that at one time. I understand it as I understand it as well.

1:47:30 Speaker 3: But so it gets published and I was stoked. I remember that day. I went on a news show and I was like, I had nothing. I didn't do it. Somebody put it out. I mean, you let me know that it was going to be public, But I was like, I was like stoked to hear those words mentioned, but getting it on record, watching the table's turn was filled with pleasure.

1:47:47 Speaker 5: Yeah, no long term outcome, but this is a fight without many wins, so you take the small personal pleasures.

1:47:55 Speaker 4: As this news travels, is there a blowback. Do you suddenly realize something might happen to me as a result of this getting out there. You're happy that it's finally there on the record, But then does that change over the days or weeks afterward?

1:48:09 Speaker 5: Not so much. Definitely, under no illusions. At this point nothing would functionally change. But what mattered was, you know, adding new fuel to the fire to what looked like was a dying cause.

1:48:26 Speaker 4: Is there a blowback for you personally? Does anybody call you and say you shouldn't have done that? Or does somebody figure out who you are? Is there an attempt to identify who you are?

1:48:34 Speaker 5: I'm sure there were attempts, and I'm sure some of them were successful. But I mean, I've been known to internal security undoubtedly since almost day one.

1:48:46 Speaker 3: You know, here's the deal. People misunderstand because it was misrepresented in Congress. This is not a Pentagon paper, a product.

1:48:57 Speaker 6: Yea.

1:48:57 Speaker 3: You are the author of what the world knows as the Immaculate Constellation Report. This is a report based upon a field report, based upon your investigation what you've discovered, trying to do the right thing bringing it to the people that need to see it, because it was so hard even though they're asking for you to get it to them. So just to be really clear for the fundamentally for people, immaculate constellation report. What was submitted into Congress onto Congressional record, which we fought together to get that done, is your words.

1:49:28 Speaker 3: It's not some government Pentagon report like it was misrepresented by Nancy Mason Congress. Not all.

1:49:35 Speaker 5: All my words, one hundred percent authored by me.

1:49:40 Speaker 3: One of the striking things for me in kind of talking with you through this process was just reading the final report that went on to Congressional record. I mean you list and label cuboid formation of metallic orbs. These are UFOs right, so fast mover observed transiting over satellite or sorry, sensitive facilities, Intelligence vessels positioned to collect on reproduction vehicle equilateral triangle UAP tails unwitting vessel. This one struck me large. Disc using clouds as concealment, and why that struck me is because George and I have been exposed to a lot over the years, and I think I know and other people know what you're referencing here.

1:50:25 Speaker 3: It sounds like you watched a video you said on US government networks. There exists O P I R. Footage.

1:50:32 Speaker 5: What is it overhead persistent infrared? That might be a correction that satellite may not have been an OPR satellite after all.

1:50:38 Speaker 3: But this one, and you keep going on a boomerang shaped, jellyfish shaped, you know, tic tac shape. You're not just making these words up, like you saw visual evidence of these? Yeah, and so didn't have George Knapp and I we have been exposed to along the years, a lot of visual evidence. But this one, the large disc in the clouds. Just explain to me seeing something like that.

1:51:02 Speaker 5: Well, number one, it's pretty striking because you're watching it from sphinx. It's always cool to watch satellite beads and that's just something the general public doesn't get to see. And then too, just the size of it. It was immediately like, well, what the hell is that? It was in? I assume infrared either, Yeah, black hot for that one, so the white clouds around it, and yeah, it's almost playful in its activities or like it was startled. But it's one of those cases where I look at it and you know, it looks like applying saucer.

1:51:38 Speaker 5: But it might be one of the things that maybe that was actually one of ours in the wrong place at the wrong time.

1:51:45 Speaker 3: What do you mean I look to start? What does that mean?

1:51:49 Speaker 5: You know, it's just looking at an area over the ocean, is what it appears. And this thing just comes tunneling along like underneath the cloud cover comes up, and then right when it's like almost or frame, it scuits off to the side and like tries to get out.

1:52:05 Speaker 4: Of like it comes into us earlier and going oops, I'm being somebody spotted.

1:52:09 Speaker 5: Me exactly that it was visibly. That's the feeling it had.

1:52:14 Speaker 3: That that was kind of funting to be. I checked. We checked when we were with some friends recently. I never know. We are not qualified to know if some of the things we've been exposed to are legitimate or not. But when I get confirmations like you describing this and other people we've just recently talked to, I know that footage exists, We've been exposed to it, and I think that that's a nice piece to the puzzle for the public.

1:52:39 Speaker 5: What about jellyfish hmmm, yeah, so, I mean I only heard that term once it was released. It's similar stuff I had seen on the inside, and it was often labeled like a floating brain or an organic or irregular shape, so that's why it's in there. So yeah, I've seen multiples of instance is of irregular shape things that look thematically similar to the jellyfish. I've never seen the jellyfish video itself, but seeing those, you know, there's an instance of their one in southcomb right at our border, crossing what appears to be into the United States airspace.

1:53:23 Speaker 5: Let me get club detected from Mexico, I believe from one way or another. I can't recall the compass orientation right now, but I would assume into the US, which is why it was interesting.

1:53:33 Speaker 3: Yeah, let me get clear on a couple of days. Well, first of all, you know, people like yourself, you get it's happened with lazarre, happened with like every word you say. You know you're worried about if your memory is a perfect this way, you've done a great job of really curating, making sure what you said is accurate. It's okay to make a mistake. It's okay to like not remember the exact equipment that did this or that in your brain. Just so so you're saying the word jellyfish you first heard kind of when George and I released that thing.

1:53:59 Speaker 3: Into the public needed jellyfish, although it was described differently for different assets you've seen on servers.

1:54:04 Speaker 5: That yeah, yeah, yeah, that term was describing something I had seen before.

1:54:12 Speaker 3: Okay, okay, but we just called the jellyfish because that's what it was told to us. They had two Spaghetti Monster was our other auction. It was said to jellyfish works. But that morphology or shape is something that consistently you had seen within these classified servers.

1:54:28 Speaker 5: Yes, in other contexts outside of the Middle East, Okay, you.

1:54:31 Speaker 4: Never see any any videos where we're engaging with them. Either we're chasing them our warplanes or something are going after a disc, a saucer, an orb or something like that.

1:54:42 Speaker 5: So I've seen videos and red reports of engagements, but not live like we're not shooting them, but engagements where you know, either we are trying to intercept something. Read lots of reports on that and from other countries as well, trying to intercept these things. You know, each report will have its own shape that they're chasing, but guess what they are. But then, yeah, when there's an example in there up the East Coast, what would be classed as an engagement where we're up there protecting our airspace and encountering these things and interacting with them in a way that we would consider hostile.

1:55:26 Speaker 5: And if it was, if it was anything else, you know, if we had a Russian bomber patrol that had a fighter escort and they tried to box our fighters out force them down from the wash, the jetwash, you know, that would be a hostile engagement. But for whatever reason, you know, we're not describing it that way internally.

1:55:46 Speaker 4: So we're sending a plane up to take a look, yeah, maybe get a better look or even some imagery, but not to engage, meaning shoot it down, shoot a sidewinder.

1:55:55 Speaker 5: At it or something, right, I would you know, I'm not gonna be able to say that's never happened, but I have not seen them engaged, yeah, with weapons.

1:56:06 Speaker 3: Well, it recently happened and we became aware of one more details on that I think we'll report on. And what happened was the missile quote bounced off and so they're trying to figure that out. But you know, what does that imply like a field around it? I don't know. We also released one that was so embarrassing to release. We had to call it look like Kermit the frog. I think we called it Syria dome up. But the reason we released it because verified we tried to engage it, We tried to shoot it, and I believe we hit it, but we don't know the aftermath or what happened to that we reported on.

1:56:40 Speaker 3: That is actual information, even though it looks so silly, we had to report it because it's uap. So from the recent event to that, it brings me back to what you said, George about the official orders back in Russia back in the day. Tell me that real quick again.

1:56:53 Speaker 4: So the Russian military that from seventy eight to eighty eight, they had a standing order for the any reunit in this vast Soviet military empire, any UFO or ball of light flying saucer or anything weird in the sky, it had to all be investigated. And the guy who was in charge of that program at the Ministry of Defense said that there had been several dozen instances where they sent planes warplanes to intercept these UFOs and they mostly they couldn't keep up with them. They just poofed, they're gone.

1:57:24 Speaker 4: But in three cases they tried to engage and shoot them down. Three cases where those planes, though Russian warplanes crashed, two of the pilots died, and after the second pilot died, they issued in order leave them alone because, in the words of the commander of the Russian Air Force, they said they have incredible capacities for retaliation.

1:57:45 Speaker 3: So why so many shapes? Why do you think so many shapes? I used to think FLA saucers were discs. I used to think UFOs were for flight saucers, and that's what I used to think. Now, after knowing this guy for so long, reading all reports, getting whistlers, talking with him, why sony shoots?

1:58:00 Speaker 5: I think part of its Sometimes these might be made to purpose, so you know, if they're only making it for a specific use case scenario, they'll design it to excel in that mission.

1:58:16 Speaker 3: I guess not know that. Absolutely have bombers that look a certain way, and then we have the reconnaissance vehicles that look another way.

1:58:22 Speaker 4: I have Star Wars, they have giant cruisers, and they had to have the ex fighters for different jobs. Would you be surprised to hear about cases where these things large objects come out of the ocean or go back into the ocean. Does that sound familiar?

1:58:37 Speaker 5: I would not be surprised I have not seen very large objects go in and out of the water, but I've definitely seen small to medium sized UAPs either going into the water and disappearing, or going in and out or coming out of the water. Fact fact and on video and described.

1:58:56 Speaker 3: Is a video and described any kind of change of a nerve shit SORR multiple videos, any kind of we have also been exposed to some Let me ask you this, any change of like any inertial effect, any change of speed or motion.

1:59:10 Speaker 5: That's like the water wasn't there.

1:59:11 Speaker 3: It's like the gold for anybody wants to see. I wonder if it's ever enough, like is video ever enough?

1:59:17 Speaker 5: Like?

1:59:17 Speaker 3: What is enough for people to wrap their heads that there's a real issue here. I don't know. I don't think one video is ever going to change. I want to talk to you about signals intelligence signet right, that was a big part of your investigation. Can you explain that and why?

1:59:30 Speaker 5: Yeah, so it was one of the sources where uh, you know, we have a fantastic intelligent posture. It's not as data heavy, so there's just it's just much easier to move around and access and read through quickly. Now it's one of the shortest sections in there because in my mind, you know, those are these are incidental collections, right, Yeah, I'm sure we are specifically collecting signals intelligence on this, but my research was not in those sort of data streams.

2:00:11 Speaker 3: That majority is accidental kind of capturing.

2:00:16 Speaker 5: Of exactly from other countries, other militaries, activities related to this, and their observations related to this, or sometimes historic things that we acquire that happen to pop up in those in the Singan channels. Yeah. So the reason there's less detail there though, is we're using those every day. We rely on them a lot, and they're very fragile, very sensitive, and diplomatically sensitive as well.

2:00:42 Speaker 4: The things you're describing that you'd seen that are in these reports are mostly things that are there's the Pacific and the Atlantic, there's over Africa, there are foreign things of something coming over the border from Mexico. Where about cases in the US? Is is Norad? Is that just a black hole for these kind of it's so something that happens over our country you don't even get to see it.

2:01:03 Speaker 5: Yeah, Northcom is a black hole you need. I mean just legislatively, there's there's legal things keeping us the military and the IC supposedly from looking at the states. That' supposed to be a domestic law enforcement mission. In general, you got to have a very good reason to be looking at, you know, over your neighbor's fence. Basically, this is a I think it's you know, it's functionally a barrier to prevent prevent accidental or just curious people, you know, doing things they shouldn't in our home, in our homeland, which would actually get them in trouble.

2:01:39 Speaker 5: It's one thing if we're doing it a no some foreign country. Is one thing if we're crossing the line and spying here without a specific mission.

2:01:51 Speaker 4: The complaint we hear from UFO world is I don't care about these blurry images. These things are blurry. The tik tac to me, that was a fantastic image.

2:01:59 Speaker 3: You know.

2:01:59 Speaker 5: There.

2:02:00 Speaker 4: You're not sending a Dave Fravor up with an Imax camera to make a movie. These are captured on sensor systems the same as like twenty nineteen the uss Omaha Pitch Black one hundred miles off the coast of southern California. They're picking up an image that they follow for an hour on a thermal camera. They're blurry, but they're amazing images. I mean, is there a reason that the public doesn't see crystal clear movie quality images of UFOs?

2:02:30 Speaker 5: Yeah. I think unfortunately it's a product of our education system, a lack of curiosity in general about the world. There's a lot of arrogance in our academy, and that arrogance filters down to our citizens. We know the world, we haven't figured out there's something really left to discover here, And I think in general, there's so much misinformation, stigma, mythology that people grow up with that lead them to just automatically categorize any of this as just you know, false, fake, not real, misidentified.

2:03:12 Speaker 4: Well, I mean, getting an image on a thermal camera one hundred miles out to see in total blackness sounds pretty cool to me. That sounds like an amazing accomplishment. But is there a ore additional reasons that have been maybe discussed behind closed doors? Force fields of some sort around these craft that make things blurry even from a big camera or image, you.

2:03:33 Speaker 5: Know, probably a very real explanation for why certain shapes

2:03:41 Speaker 5: you know, are harder to observe than others. I think, you know, whether it's active camouflage and like the skin of the vehicle itself that definitely seems to be in play or a field like you describe. I've seen evidence of fields around crafts.

2:03:58 Speaker 3: Yeah, some things we've seen have looked so bizarre it makes no sense to my brain. It is possible, I've heard that from a number of whistleblowers at different levels, that what you're seeing could just be a part of a greater structure, you know, so it could be something like that. Speculating.

2:04:17 Speaker 4: We had this Chinese balloon thing that happened three different objects UFOs. Three UFOs shut down in a couple of week period, and then we saw people use that the usual people in the media world who bashed this stuff, who tried to blame it on the UAP Task Force. The reason we're not nor AD is not looking for something like this because the UAP Task Force confused the whole situation. It's as if nor AD would only look for things that look like planes, bombers or missiles, so we didn't look for UFOs.

2:04:50 Speaker 4: Is it possible that we didn't look for UFOs because it didn't really want to find them, or is it we were looking for UFOs. It just the public and most of the never saw.

2:05:03 Speaker 5: We've always been seeing these things with things like radar, so it's yeah, it's part of standard operating procedures to deny this and to not acknowledge it.

2:05:16 Speaker 4: So we've been seeing it. We're just pretending not to see it.

2:05:19 Speaker 5: Absolutely our public institutions like the FAA or similar in their even local context, it's not allowed to be discussed. And there might even be technical measures in the technology of this place that just prevents it from you even popping up on a screen.

2:05:36 Speaker 3: Right like tic TAC.

2:05:38 Speaker 4: So that happened for two or three weeks. They could get a little glimpse of it on these systems, really sensitive advanced navy systems at the time, and then poof it fell off. At the uss Omaha, they had twelve or fourteen of these things zipping in. You'd see them on the radar screen and then poof. If they didn't want to be seen, we weren't seeing them. I guess it could be that as part of an explanation. If they don't want to be detected on radar, they have ways to avoid radar. Whoever they are.

2:06:06 Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a dangerous dynamic to have willful ignorance on our side and their capability to at least attempt to divate detection at any time on theirs. If we are so certain they are friendly, why is this a secret?

2:06:26 Speaker 4: I have one more, Yeah, drones. So sixty minutes just did a big piece on drones. Langley Air Force Base had these things flying over it for seventeen nights in a row, stayed in New Jersey for weeks at a time, Sensitive bases, restricted airspace at us UK bases in Britain for days and days. We can't track these things coming in, we can't track them when they leave. We can't shoot them down. We don't know where they're from. But don't worry. They're just drones. They're foreign surveillance drones.

2:06:56 Speaker 4: Give me your take on that whole situation.

2:06:59 Speaker 5: Well, if you're a member of the public and you are still listening to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, we're reading New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, all of that is controlled. It's propaganda. It is shaping your life narrative intentionally. So as for the government reactions to that, I was very disappointed to see continuation of the dismissal of these events by the Trump administration's press secretary. I can guess why they decided despite the campaign promise to immediately address that issue, to not has to do with geopolitical situations we are currently involved in, and the fact that we are living through a constitutional crisis related to this issue.

2:07:51 Speaker 4: Just seems to me that it is a worse thing to say these might be foreign surveillance jones and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Can't track them, we can't see them, we can't shoot them down. Then it is to say these are genuine unknowns. You know, it seems like they're ONKNNS, not just something some drone that the Chinese are floating off off of New Jersey.

2:08:13 Speaker 5: Well, there's an infection in our security thinking, which is that you know, we must they're prime asists, they must be on top. To admit weakness is to admit defeat, and to say you don't know what something is a pretty big signal of weakness. There's not much humility and a lot of arrogance driving I think these responses more so than any strategy.

2:08:44 Speaker 3: You know, got just I want to defend footage real quickly too. I get three things. I want to defend footage. There's a lack of education about what people are seeing in thermal So, first of all, these are weapons systems. These aren't Imax cameras, but they're kind of better than an Imax camera because you can see in the fucking dark. So I think there's an education process, and we've been trying with our reporting to teach people when you see something in thermal what you're seeing is the heat signature, and that heat signature represents that shape and of the heat.

2:09:14 Speaker 3: It's just a I think it's an education process. It has to come from curiosity, but people need to be told what they're seeing. It's new to a lot of people. It was new to me when I started seeing military videos for the first time. So in defense of grainy, bad footage, people just need to understand what they're seeing to understand the impact if they're curious enough. Question like the Allie, like any country in this world could disclose at this point, a major country with technological development could disclose.

2:09:42 Speaker 3: We are not alone in the universe. There are others as visitors who have been here a long time. Why Why has everybody agreed to not say that to the public. Do you have any philosophies?

2:09:51 Speaker 5: Why think in the West this is the reaction, and that's an important distinction. I cannot comment so much on why Russia or China have have not addressed this in a different way than us, But I think in the West and the Five Eyes Alliance and its subsidiaries, you know, there is a understanding at least that this is not talked about at official channels, especially if you're a you know, small kid on the block. You don't you don't speak out of turn. But it also points to, I think the fact that this doesn't ultimately reside in the government anymore.

2:10:39 Speaker 5: This is held in an illegal internationalist regime, some sort of international cabal of sorts, mix of corporate, military, political intelligence, and criminal interests that have come together and they have

2:10:58 Speaker 5: subverted us and have taken this and have made it the source of their wealth and power.

2:11:06 Speaker 3: So I had asked you, maat Doctor edgar Mitchell told me in one of the last film before he died, he used very similar words.

2:11:12 Speaker 5: Well that doesn't make me feel good.

2:11:14 Speaker 3: Yeah, well he was sure of it. You're a whistleblower, not a source to me, and George, you know you're a whistleblower. You know, I wanna we do want to help are I always hear whistleblowers are scared, and we know we know some people with the same people, but there's a lot that have come to us that you don't know. Are you scared? Are you scared now coming forward? Are you scared?

2:11:39 Speaker 5: I mean it comes in waves, Okay, so yes, but I make a conscious effort every day to know that fear rule my life and my deeds. So yes, I'm scared. But this is the right thing, It's the necessary thing, and I was raised right.

2:12:01 Speaker 4: You think that by talking to us, it's possible that you might have some protection in that if somebody cuts your brake lines and you go off a cliff, at least there's going to be somebody looking into it and raise some hell.

2:12:12 Speaker 5: About it, you know, if that happens, don't try too hard. Focus on the mission.

2:12:17 Speaker 3: So this is more about people need to know than about your personal well being.

2:12:23 Speaker 4: Any regrets.

2:12:24 Speaker 5: Now, I trusted too much, and I did not trust myself enough. Took some I paid some prices, and I do not doubt that there are the seeds for future costs I'll have to pay in the future.

2:12:44 Speaker 4: Describe for us the personal costs, the reality for you going forward, your outlook forever working for the government again, for example, or with any kind of a job that requires a security clearance, personal cost to your marriage, your personal.

2:13:03 Speaker 5: Life well with the job with government. My career is dead, and it has been dead for years now. I have a file on me I will even if I went back, and even if I chose to never do any of this and just keep working, I predict that I would have found my career stunted mysteriously as soon as it would have sought to or would have sought to advance into what I thought was a noble mission. Personally, it's hard to describe. You know that I've been doing this for about four years now. Only very recently have I had anyone to talk to about it outside of like, you know, hey, can you make this meeting happen.

2:13:59 Speaker 5: I've had no out that has changed. It's been a very painful, costly process to find allies, but I have them. There's more of us. This doesn't stop, right.

2:14:14 Speaker 4: You've got to know some of these other whistleblowers who are still not public yet correct, so, who are at least close to coming forward?

2:14:23 Speaker 5: Yes?

2:14:24 Speaker 4: Is there strength in numbers that in that regard? Yes?

2:14:28 Speaker 5: And if all of us die are imprisoned. The seeds have been planted. More will come.

2:14:33 Speaker 4: Well, those seeds have been planted about deaths in the whistleblower community. That those stories circulate, I would imagine pretty quickly among you and.

2:14:41 Speaker 5: People you know. Yeah, but I'm still here.

2:14:44 Speaker 4: You think anybody has been killed because they knew too much on yes topic.

2:14:48 Speaker 5: Yes, I believe, and I think, and I could probably help someone else prove it. But lethal action has been taken. I guess people that tried to get the truth out, or maybe we're just considered a wild cards. I'm not able to be efficiently controlled, no longer useful. I think once you taste the darkness, like using it.

2:15:20 Speaker 4: They don't have to kill you. They get disreading in some way. Oh yeah, manufacture something.

2:15:26 Speaker 3: They asked you to come forward, and you even felt that you had a small piece to the puzzle and you weren't even sure if it was worth it. And then you do that, and what you suffer as the consequence is against your career. There's other things we're not saying that we suspect are related to you coming forward. God, that's got to hurt man, that's got to be painful. They've asked you to come forward, and you tried all the ways to do that. We had to go to a little bit extreme measures to get the rest going.

2:15:53 Speaker 3: It's got to be.

2:15:54 Speaker 5: Painful, Yeah, it is. I don't think it'll stop being although hopefully time is its own self. I'd like to spend that time with my wife, my family in a cell or in the ground. But you know, this is bigger than me. It's bigger than us. This is the fate of our people, and to me, I'm willing to pay that price.

2:16:21 Speaker 3: Is it ironic? You have to put your face out with us to protect yourself at this point, that's what we're doing, right, Yeah, that's what we're doing.

2:16:29 Speaker 5: This is absolutely what I did not want to do.

2:16:34 Speaker 3: I know I can attest to that. This is not This is exactly what you did not want to do.

2:16:38 Speaker 5: Correct?

2:16:39 Speaker 4: Have you gamed it out in your head? What happens next? What will likely be assuming we go forward with this interview and making public and that right now we don't know that that's the case. But when it comes out, if it comes out, what happens to you, then what are the risks?

2:16:55 Speaker 5: Well? Gaming it out? There's more than me, more will come. I could say more if I wanted to. Hopefully this rises to a level of public attention that demands it be addressed in a serious way. I can't cause that alone. Other people will, but more need to come. And I think at this point I like to say directly to the members of our military and our intelligence community, the time is now where you must choose whether you honor your oath or your orders. And if you have courage, you already know the answer.

2:17:42 Speaker 5: But for the rest of you, lead follower, get out of the way. Get out of the way.

2:17:50 Speaker 3: We know people are coming forward, and we know we've recorded George and I with other people who will be coming forward, you know, so you're not alone. But you say you could say more, just explain.

2:18:06 Speaker 5: That when I wrote this document of kind of given my state of mind and the measures I took to protected I'm also, you know, familiar with ways that information can be extracted, that passwords and encryption don't matter. So I didn't write everything down.

2:18:33 Speaker 4: So there are other bullets left to fire if you needed to.

2:18:36 Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, talk about things getting lost in the shelf. Well, I highly doubt many members of the public read eleven pages, much less the first, but at the end there's an interesting area. People might notice that it's out of order too. Things are sequentially out of order. There's missing sections, and that one of that last sections says sensitive sources from mouth to ear.

2:19:08 Speaker 3: We talked, We talked about keeping that in or what to how far to go with?

2:19:13 Speaker 5: What does that mean? Well, exactly what it says? Those words were only spoken from my mouth to another's ear.

2:19:28 Speaker 3: What is it like to have absolute knowledge that not only the UFOs are real, that we've been hiding, that that our government has controlled that information away from human the base human population, and that there is another intelligence that is engaged in humanity straight up? What does that feel like being one of the people that knows that and doesn't suspect that.

2:20:03 Speaker 5: It's weird going to the supermarket. Even more, it's bizarre to work in government and see legions of people who have no clue about about any of this, and no clue that they are being deceived.

2:20:23 Speaker 3: Why should people believe you? I mean, I know, I know you, I know what we've been through, but that's not public stuff to everybody. Every step we've taken. Why should people believe what you're saying?

2:20:34 Speaker 5: I was there I saw it. I spent years researching it.

2:20:42 Speaker 5: If all that I'm consulting is passage material, then we are engaged in a massive deception against our own military and intelligence community that I was a victim of and honest, and it would have been on a scale that probably would have been its own news story.

2:21:02 Speaker 3: Absolutely nonsensical madness. Yeah, so as a human being, why should people believe you?

2:21:09 Speaker 5: Well, as a human being, I feel like I'm I'm genuine putting myself out there, sacrificing my future, my past, and a lot of what I have now to do this for no gain.

2:21:25 Speaker 3: Now you get nothing from us. We're just reportant because it's an important storm.

2:21:29 Speaker 4: And you're telling it because it's true.

2:21:31 Speaker 5: Absolutely it is. It is true.

2:21:38 Speaker 9: And I can't think of anything more pressing for our nation to come to terms with than the fact that we have been deceived and our rights taken away to protect the privileges of an elite few.

2:21:52 Speaker 5: I am not going to I am not going to live my life knowing that I could have helped prevent another generation of America and humanity from living in ignorance.

2:22:05 Speaker 3: So let's just separate, you know, for audience and people kind of meeting you for the first and then so there's certain stuff you were exposed to an official capacity that you've come to conclusion on and that you know to be correct, know to be true. Then there are extrapolations and philosophies and ideas from other types of sourcing of information, and we can talk about that kind of in a separate realm. And I value your opinion. I think people will too, because of your exposure to certain things you're saying and not saying.

2:22:35 Speaker 3: Okay, but if we're talking just about our ideas, now you have.

2:22:39 Speaker 4: Thoughts about big picture stuff. Who they are? Is it more than one day? Is it us from the future? Ets? Interdimensionals? Do you think there's anybody in government who knows? And if they do know, is there any reason why they should say stay secret? At least some of it shou stay secret. The public cannot handle.

2:23:03 Speaker 5: No, The only reason for secrecy is fear and greed, and that is the paradigm that we must confront and overcome. As for the public and what their reaction might be to this information, good bad, indifference, I think we already have our answer. It's going to be indifference unless the stakes are made clear.

2:23:35 Speaker 3: You're an absolutist. You like, rip the band aid off.

2:23:39 Speaker 5: There's no band aid, there's no wound. This is not about protecting healing. This is about power and control. This isn't about trying to save what's good. It's about getting rid of what's evil.

2:23:58 Speaker 4: Power and control meaning control, link to technology and what it would mean.

2:24:02 Speaker 5: Those are just means. It's control in humanity everything.

2:24:07 Speaker 4: Do you suspect that there are reverse engineering programs, that there have been crashes, that there are attempts to replicate that technology. You got hints of it in the ARV or RVA that we're trying to build. What these things can do. Do you think we've done it, that we've accomplished it? Somebody?

2:24:25 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think I think we've absolutely replicated some of these capabilities in inferior forms and oftentimes maybe disaggregated from what was once a unitary system. But we're only able to do a small part what that system does.

2:24:42 Speaker 4: We've seen people say they think that the TIC TAC is something we had twenty one years ago, and I'm wondering, well, where the hell is it. I mean, if we have this technology, we've done some of it to get even inferior versions of it. Is that something that's going to be incorporated into the US military o arsenal or is it something that's outside of it, that's controlled by somebody who's not using it for national defense.

2:25:08 Speaker 5: I think the US military might be allowed to use some of this technology in the national defense, but I don't think they ultimately have control over it.

2:25:20 Speaker 3: You know, this is a kind of arms race. It's a technology race. Whoever gains the ability to effectively weaponize this, they win. We know that UFOs, due to the proportion systems, are a matter of national security and weapons of mass destruction, and we know that. We don't think that we met with people that deal with that, right. Do you agree with that? Do you think that this is we are in a race with China and Russia. There's other countries competing to weaponize this, And do you think that's a problem Because you've dealt with weapons of mass destruction in your official career.

2:26:00 Speaker 5: I think deterrence, strategic deterrence has migrated out of sorry, has evolved from being relying on nuclear weapons as the pinnacle. I believe we have and others have developed the means to maybe utilize nuclear reactions to create some very dangerous effects through directed energy.

2:26:32 Speaker 3: Your concern is directed energy weapon.

2:26:34 Speaker 5: Right among many. But when it comes to WMDs and relations to this technology, I think we have been successful in both deriving new science that we have then suppressed to prepare preserve a strategic advantage. And I think I probably don' want to talk too much more about deterrence.

2:27:07 Speaker 4: Somebody was flying these things that crashed, Somebody built these things that are being reverse engineered. Who's that somebody? And why don't why don't they come forward? I mean, you know, you may not have seen that in a document or a file or something somewhere, but you've thought about it. You're a smart guy. What are your thoughts on the big picture questions? Who are they? Why are they here? Why don't they show us what's going on?

2:27:34 Speaker 5: I think I have a good degree of confidence that the reason they're here is us. I think life, especially sentient life, it's a precious thing, and I think to some it might be a resource. I think humanity to some level is a resource for them. Look for commodity,

2:28:05 Speaker 5: possibly a commodity, possibly form of entertainment, possibly medical related. I think they live here.

2:28:16 Speaker 4: Yes, for all intensive purposes, yes, always.

2:28:19 Speaker 5: I don't know about always, but it certainly appears that they have been here for most of recorded history. At least some element of this has been here for most of human recorded history.

2:28:29 Speaker 4: You think we would see them if they didn't let us see them, even with our more advanced sensors. That they pop up, but they can also disappear. And do they allow us to get these glimpses? Is that a game some sort, I wonder or an education proms?

2:28:45 Speaker 5: Is our one that I could not understand if it is a game. I think they're both just as powerful as we think, but also less, and I think there is there is not a single they hear multiple multiple certainly multiple factions of the same species, if not multiple species, and all the complexity that brings, which might be our best hope.

2:29:09 Speaker 3: Do they have an agenda? There's different types? You know, what are your philosophies on this? Like who are the others? Why are they here? And you've touched upon it. I know we're kind of going back a little bit, but that is the big question. And I just wanted to separate so people understand your exposure and your personal conclusions.

2:29:29 Speaker 5: So I have been exposed to know. Direct information on the anatomy, biology, intentions, culture, politics, never came across those files, never came across those I think those are all some of the deepest secrets they would be. This is correct information.

2:29:55 Speaker 5: What I have learned is that we live in a dream, a carefully constructed reality. We make use of a science that is tightly controlled and suppressed and distorted. I think we are left behind humans. I think normies, the normal humans, the people have been left behind us. People need to

2:30:28 Speaker 5: understand that we might have freedom of speech, but that has been subverted. We do not have freedom of inquiry. We are blocked from learning what we need to know. Just in the public world. We are blocked from advancing in science. We are taught false science intentionally to prevent us from learning more. We live in the matrix. It's just much more boring than the movie.

2:31:00 Speaker 4: I think about whistleblowers like yourself, you're about to find out, assuming we released this, You're about to find out what the price is for coming forward. And there are other people in the same kind of position who are wondering what they should do, who are basically being held in limbo. They've worked in classified programs, their whole life. That's what they do, that's what pays their bills, and they're held in limbo and that's held over their heads, so they don't come forward and they're debating taking the same steps as you.

2:31:27 Speaker 4: There is no hope or help for anything like folks like that is there. I mean, we've heard promises will help whistleblowers come forward, We'll give them support. They're private equity funds and organizations that say they're going to help. But we haven't seen shit so far, have we? And have you? No.

2:31:45 Speaker 5: I've reached out directly to institutions that claim that they are here to help UAP whistleblowers, specifically both in the process of coming forward and any sort of stability afterwards. It's been radio silence at best. At worst, one of those institutions has stolen my information. There is no organized help for whistleblowers. It is all controlled. It is all at either the special interest of industry that wants to get in on this or by the existing.

2:32:23 Speaker 4: Powers that be intelligence agencies who have infiltrated or created these things.

2:32:29 Speaker 5: Correct.

2:32:29 Speaker 3: I have directly experienced that sadly over this last year, which is the vacuuming up of intelligence on people such as yourself who are trying to do the right thing as whistleblowers, as well as anything that reporters could possibly obtain and release. And it is a treacherous moment in our history of this. You did a call to action in people. You told them this. You know, it's time, you know, move forward. I know that you had some encouragement with David Grush. I hope people are encouraged you know, also by you.

2:33:01 Speaker 3: Look, man, if you were to die tomorrow because of whatever reason, what do you want people to know right now? Like, what do you want people to know? If you're just like fucking on, you.

2:33:20 Speaker 5: Are not free And this reality has far more to it than you have been allowed to believe. And God is real.