[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESTORING PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH
UAP TRANSPARENCY AND
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
TASK FORCE ON THE DECLASSIFICATION
OF FEDERAL SECRETS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-718 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Ryan Giachetti, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian
Kaity Wolfe, Deputy Director for Oversight
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida, Chairwoman
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas, Ranking
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Member
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Eric Burlison, Missouri Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Eli Crane, Arizona Dave Min, California
Brandon Gill, Texas Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Anna Paulina Luna, U.S. Representative, Chairwoman.......... 1
Hon. Jasmine Crockett, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member....... 4
WITNESSES
Mr. Jeffrey Nuccetelli, U.S. Air Force Veteran
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Chief Alexandro Wiggins, U.S. Navy
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. George Knapp, UAP Journalist
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Mr. Dylan Borland, UAP Witness, U.S. Air Force Veteran
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Mr. Joe Spielberger (Minority Witness), Senior Policy Counsel,
Project on Government Oversight
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Letter to SECDEF Regarding Major David Charles Grusch
Reprisal; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Article, NYT, ``DOGE Put Critical Social Security Data at
Risk, Whistle-Blower Says''; submitted by Rep. Lee.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
RESTORING PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH
UAP TRANSPARENCY AND
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets
Washington, D.C.
The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., Room
HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Anna Luna,
[Chairwoman of the Task Force] presiding.
Present: Representatives Luna, Mace, Burchett, Boebert,
Burlison, Crane, Gill, Crockett, and Lee.
Also present: Representatives Biggs, Begich, Ogles, Perry,
Grothman, Titus, and Moskowitz.
Mrs. Luna. This hearing of the Task Force on
Declassification of Federal Secrets will come to order.
Welcome, everyone. Without objection, the Chair may declare
a recess at any time. Additionally, without any objection, the
following members are waived onto the Task Force for the
purpose of questioning witnesses at today's hearing:
Representative Biggs of Arizona, Representative Begich of
Alaska, Representative Ogles of Tennessee, Representative Titus
of Nevada, and Representative Moskowitz of Florida. There are
no objections.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN ANNA PAULINA LUNA
REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mrs. Luna. Good morning, and welcome to the hearing
regarding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) disclosures.
For too long, the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomena,
commonly known as UAPs, has been shrouded in secrecy, stigma,
and in some cases outright dismissal. Today, I want to state
clearly that this is not science fiction or creating
speculation. This is about national security, government
accountability, and the American people's right to the truth.
I have spoken now to a number of whistleblowers from the
military to include the infamous Eglin Air Force Base incident
that occurred when myself and former Representative Matt Gates,
as well as Representative Burchett, followed up on a lead from
multiple active duty Air Force pilot whistleblowers that
alleged that the United States Air Force was covering up UAP
activity at Eglin Air Force Base.
We have heard from a number of whistleblowers, specifically
military pilots, that the reason for not coming forward
publicly is out of fear that speaking out would cost them their
flight status and potentially their careers. This is
unacceptable. We cannot protect our airspaces if our best
trained observers are silenced. We cannot advance science if we
refuse to ask questions. And we cannot maintain trust in
government if we keep the American people in the dark.
Now, Congress has tried to fix this problem. Congress tried
to create formal channels through the All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office, also known as AARO, and the intelligence
community inspector general for servicemembers and officials to
make disclosures. But the reality, the reports come in are too
often brushed aside, slow-walked, or met with skepticism rather
than serious investigation.
Recently, the former AARO director known as Sean
Kirkpatrick attacked our witnesses and members on this
Committee. It should be noted that he is a documented liar and
brings into question what his purpose at AARO really was if it
was not to followup on investigations and disclose his findings
to Members of Congress.
A former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, Chris Mellon, described a report published by
AARO that found no evidence that any USG investigation,
academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has
confirmed any sighting of UAP represented extraterrestrial
technology as the most error-ridden and unsatisfactory
government report I can recall reading after decades of
government service.
Mellon further noted that this was a first AARO report
submitted to Congress without the director of national
intelligence's sign-off and seemingly excluded input from any
scholars or experts who have studied or written extensively
about this topic, as would normally be in any other case in
this field.
Mellon determined that this report failed to fulfill the
congressional mandate under which it was required, omitted
entire agencies with known investigations or activities related
to UAPs, and omitted any discussion of efforts to hide
classified or unclassified information about UAPs. Such efforts
were unaddressed by the report, despite the existence of agency
records and investigations concurring with them, including
those at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If we set up
offices and oversight bodies only to let them become graveyards
for testimony or, worse yet, ruses for pretending to
investigate when in actuality there was no followup, then we
are not doing our jobs.
In recent months, Congress has also been presented with
evidence that points to technologies that to our knowledge are
beyond our current capabilities. It is our duty as elected
representatives to follow the facts wherever they lead and to
ensure that those facts are not buried under classification
stamps or bureaucratic excuses.
Let me be clear. Whether UAPs represent adversarial
technology, natural phenomena, or something beyond current
human understanding, Congress has a responsibility to
investigate. If these objects are foreign in origin, then they
pose a direct threat to our national security. And if they
represent something unknown, they demand rigorous scientific
inquiry--not ridicule, not secrecy, and not silence.
The stakes are very high. Adversarial nations are not
waiting for us to catch up. They are studying these phenomena
aggressively, as multiple nations have also announced their own
parliamentary investigations into this very topic. If we are to
continue to hide information from ourselves, we risk strategic
surprise. If we continue to ignore our pilots and
servicemembers, as well as countless government whistleblowers,
we risk losing their trust. And if we continue to shield the
truth from the public, we risk eroding the very foundation of
democratic accountability.
This is why this hearing matters. This is not about fueling
speculation. This is about demanding the basic transparency
from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community
and other military contractors. It is about asking the
questions every American has the right to ask. What do we know?
What do we not know? And why in a free society are we being
told so little?
A major barrier to this Committee's inquiry into UAPs has
been the lack of cooperation and transparency from the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community. In
preparation for previous UAP hearings, the Committee repeatedly
asked the Department of Defense to allow members to view videos
and files related to UAP incidences.
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense notified the
Committee staff that, due to the Department's special access
program rules, only members of the House Armed Services
Committee, as well as the Defense Subcommittee on House
Appropriations, also known as HAC-D, were allowed to be read in
onto such programs. For a non-committee member to be allowed to
view these documents and videos, individual members must be
approved by the Chairman and Ranking Member of both HASC and
HAC-D.
Independent staff oversight has presented a consistent
problem for Congress, as well as program budgets are
classified. Additionally, oversight reporting to Congress is
classified and only provided to the authorizing and
Appropriations Committees of jurisdiction.
The American people are not fragile. They do not need to be
shielded like children from reality. What they cannot tolerate
and what they will not forgive is a government that withholds
the truth and punishes those who dare to speak up.
I want to close with this. Future generations will look
back at this moment and ask what we did when presented with the
unknown. Did we look away, embarrassed or afraid, or did we
pursue the truth with courage? I intend to be on the side of
truth, transparency, and accountability, and I hope my
colleagues on this Task Force will be able to do the same.
To quote a few elected officials, Senator Schumer has
stated multiple credible sources allege a constitutional crisis
over Unidentified flying objects (UFO)s. Senator Rounds has
stated that these are brilliant individuals, and they are not
making this stuff up. And our current Secretary of State, Marco
Rubio, has stated very high clearances and high positions
within our government in regards to these whistleblowers.
Senator McConnell also described these whistleblowers as sane
and credible.
And the witnesses today are not alone. In fact, they are
far from it. In fact, 34 senior military government and
intelligent officials have broken their silence. This includes
Senator, now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Senator Rounds,
Senator Gillibrand, General Jim Clapper, the former director of
the government's UAP Task Force, the former head of aviation
security for the White House National Security Council, the
former Secretary of Defense, and many more.
Again, to quote Secretary of State Rubio in an upcoming
documentary known as The Age of Disclosure, even Presidents
have been operating on a need-to-know basis that begins to spin
out of control. And to quote Senator Gillibrand, who also went
public in this documentary, ``It is not acceptable to have
secret parts of this government that no one ever sees.'' It is
time for the fundamental truths of UAP to be revealed to our
Nation's leaders and the public. It is time for this government
to exercise transparency.
Mrs. Luna. And with that, I yield to Ranking Member
Crockett for the opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
JASMINE CROCKETT, REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
At a time of increasing distrust in government, it is
important for Congress to take action to restore the
government's credibility. Bringing transparency to an issue of
great public interest is a step toward doing just that, so I
thank Chairwoman Luna for calling this bipartisan hearing to
discuss unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP, which is
today's term for what was commonly known as UFOs, unidentified
flying objects. And while some people think of flying saucers
when they hear these terms, it is vital that we focus on the
real-world impact of UAPs on critical infrastructure, civilian
safety, and national security.
There is good reason to believe that most UAPs have origins
far closer to home. Currently, NASA has not found any evidence
that any UAPs have an extraterrestrial origin. Our adversaries
are working to develop new capabilities to gain military
advantages, and those efforts are a likely explanation for the
mysteries that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the Federal Government has a responsibility
to the American people to investigate and provide transparent
disclosures about every incident. The Federal Government is
equally obligated to protect those who report what they have
seen, especially to commanding officers and supervisors. And
Congress should do everything in its power to protect
whistleblowers and conduct oversight of agencies that are
failing to provide that protection. Democracy depends on
transparency, and transparency often relies on the courage of
individuals willing to risk their careers, reputations, and in
some cases their personal safety to tell the truth.
So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. We
should welcome their accounts and acknowledge the bravery they
have shown to come before us. We must ensure that all
whistleblowers feel that they can come to Congress to tell
their stories without fear of retaliation or professional
consequences.
We need transparency not just to make better policy, but
also to ensure that information flows between all those who
need it. There are too many tragic examples in our history
where information lapses and a lack of cross-agency
coordination led to disaster. Just this year, failure to
communicate between FAA and the Department of Defense led to
tragedy over the Potomac.
The Biden-Harris Administration sought to eliminate some of
these lapses when it established the All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office at the Department of Defense. AARO can
convene sources from all branches of military, the FAA, and
NASA to combine forces to create a comprehensive picture of
what is happening in our skies. Some UAP reports have perfectly
normal explanations--satellites, consumer drones, weather
balloons, even pranks--but we need to track down each and every
single UAP.
The United States has millions of eyes in the sky, both
electronic and human, but only the combination of civilian,
commercial, and military sources can begin to create a complete
picture. So, we need to ensure that people can come forward and
report what they have seen to the relevant authorities, and
they have to have the right to do so without fear of
retaliation.
This country has a history of dedicated public servants
standing up for what is right, even in the face of potential
consequences. From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to torture
programs, whistleblowers have not only informed the public but
also empowered Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty of
oversight. Past Congresses have written laws to grant legal
protection for whistleblowers, and it is up to us to work
responsibly with all sources to hold the executive branch
accountable.
We are here today to listen to the stories of those who
have witnessed events of interest to the American people and to
support the policies that cultivate an environment that
welcomes and protects whistleblowers. I hope this hearing will
be an example of the respect and protection whistleblowers
deserve and the importance of conducting oversight of the
Federal Government.
I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. I am pleased to welcome the panel of witnesses
for today's hearing. I would first like to welcome Mr. Jeffrey
Nuccetelli. He is a United States Air Force veteran and a
career Federal employee with more than 20 years of experience
in national security, law enforcement, and public
administration.
Next, we have Mr. Alexandro Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins is
currently serving as a senior chief operations specialist in
the United States Navy. Mr. Wiggins is testifying in his
personal capacity today and not on behalf of the United States
Navy.
Next, I would like to recognize a gentlewoman from Nevada,
Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Ranking
Member, for allowing me to sit with you on this panel today.
I am honored to be able to introduce a witness here who is
from my district, George Knapp, who has been the definitive
expert and reporter on this topic that you are exploring today,
UAPs or UFOs. George is a longtime friend, I would say that up
front, but a very respected journalist and a recognized expert
in this field nationally and internationally.
Just a little something about George, he came to Las Vegas
in 1979 and joined KLAS television station as a general
assignment reporter in 1981. Since 1995, he has been the chief
investigative reporter for that channel. He also hosts a
national radio show you can listen to on Coast to Coast AM,
which covers many of the paranormal topics that you all are
discussing.
Over the years, George has been, as I said, recognized for
his work. He has been honored with the Peabody Award, the
DuPont Award, the Edward Murrow Award, and 27 different
regional Emmys for his investigative reporting. Indeed, he has
told Nevada's story with clarity, with objectivity, and with
integrity, so I know that his testimony today is going to be of
great interest and value to this Committee. So, thank you very
much.
Mrs. Luna. Next, we have Mr. Dylan Borland. Mr. Borland is
a United States Air Force veteran and has a long career in
Federal service.
And finally, I would like to introduce Mr. Joe Spielberger,
senior policy counsel at the Project On Government Oversight.
Pursuant to committee rule IX(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Luna. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative.
Thank you. You may take your seat.
We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we
have read your written statements, and it will appear in full
in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5
minutes, but I understand you have a lot to get through, so if
it goes a little over, do not worry about it.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow, and when
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we
will ask you to please wrap it up.
I now recognize Mr. Nuccetelli for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY NUCCETELLI
U.S. AIR FORCE VETERAN
Mr. Nuccetelli. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna,
Ranking Member Crockett, and Members of the Task Force, for
giving us the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Jeffrey Nuccetelli. I am a former military
police officer with 16 years of active-duty service in the U.S.
Air Force. I am here today because the American people have
both the right and the responsibility to know the truth about
unidentified aerial phenomenon. That truth remains hidden,
classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and
confusion. Today, we are here to help break that silence.
Between 2003 and 2005, five UAP incidents occurred at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense
Project, a top national security priority. At the time, we were
conducting launches deemed by the National Reconnaissance
Office as the most important in 25 years. These were historic
launches. These facilities were vital, and they were repeatedly
visited by UAP. Each incident was witnessed by multiple
personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain
of command. We sent information up, but we got no guidance down
on how to handle these events.
I personally witnessed one of these events and investigated
others as they occurred. Six other servicemembers have provided
me with the information that I will share with you today.
The incursions began on October 14, 2003, when Boeing
contractors reported a massive glowing red square silently
hovering over two missile defense sites. After several minutes,
it drifted further east onto the base and vanished over the
hills. This event, now known as the Vandenberg red square, was
referenced by Representative Luna at the first hearing on this
topic. Official Air Force records of this event are in
possession by AARO and the FBI.
Later that night, while I was on duty, security guards at a
critical launch site reported a bright, fast-moving object over
the ocean. I responded to the incident. Chaos ensued over the
radio as the object approached rapidly. I heard my friends
screaming, ``It is coming right at us, it is coming right for
us, and now it is right here.'' Moments later, I heard them say
that it had shot off and was gone. When I arrived on scene, I
talked to five shaken witnesses who described a massive
triangular craft larger than a football field that hovered
silently for about 45 seconds over their entry control point
before shooting away at impossible speed.
About a week later, another patrol reported a light over
the ocean behaving erratically. Believing it might be an
unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency, and an armed
response force responded. Before the forces could arrive, the
object descended and either landed or hovered on our flightline
and then took off again at impossible speed. The witnesses to
this event were threatened and intimidated afterward. They were
told to keep quiet and think about what they were reporting.
After that, things did get quiet until about 2005 when
another patrol reported a massive triangular craft larger than
a C-130 silently floating over the installation. He watched it
for a few minutes. It traveled west and disappeared into the
night.
And then I had my own encounter again in 2005. I was off
duty sitting in my backyard with two other police officers when
we noticed what first appeared to be a satellite in orbit, but
it was not acting like a satellite. The light was strange, it
was pulsing, and then it started to maneuver. It dropped in
elevation, at times it would vanish from view and reappear in a
different location in the sky, and eventually it reappeared 200
feet over my house. It was a 30-foot diameter sphere of light.
My friends and I watched it for a moment, and then it gently
accelerated and traveled up and disappeared into the stars.
These events profoundly changed my life and the lives of my
friends. We stand at a pivotal moment in history. The question
is no longer whether these events are real, but whether we have
the courage to face them. True leadership requires vision, a
willingness to confront the unknown with transparency and
resolve. So, I ask the Congress to help we, the people, enact
this vision.
There are three goals: Fund independent research and treat
UAP study with the same seriousness as we would any other
scientific field.
Two, end secrecy and overclassification. Transparency is
the foundation of truth. Without it, witnesses like us are
dismissed.
Three, protect the witnesses. Many stay silent out of fear
for their careers, reputations, and the safety of their
families. Protect them, and you will embolden others to join
this cause.
These phenomena challenge our deepest assumptions about
reality, consciousness, and our place in the universe.
Exploring them can unlock transformative breakthroughs in
technology, biology, and human understanding. Let this be the
moment when America chooses courage over fear, transparency
over secrecy, and progress over stagnation. Let us show the
world that our Nation leads not only through strength, but
through fearless pursuit of the truth.
Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Nuccetelli.
I now recognize Chief Wiggins for his opening statement.
Please press your button. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRO WIGGINS, U.S. NAVY
Chief Wiggins. Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking
Member Crockett, and Members of the Task Force and the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Alexandro Wiggins. I am an active duty U.S. Navy
operations specialist, senior chief petty officer, father of
three, and dedicated American testifying today in my personal
capacity. The views I share are my own, and I do not represent
the official positions of the Department of the Navy or any
subordinate organization.
On the evening of February 15, 2023, at approximately 19:15
PST, in the Whiskey 291 warning area off the coast of southern
California, I was serving onboard USS Jackson. During that
period, I moved between the Interior Communications Center,
ICC-1, and the bridge wing, correlating the sensor picture with
visual observations, part of my routine responsibilities for
surface and air picture management. What I observed and what
our crew recorded was not consistent with conventional aircraft
or drones as they appeared on our system. A self-luminous tic-
tac-shaped object emerged from the ocean before linking up with
three other similar objects. The four then disappeared
simultaneously with a high-synchronized, near-instantaneous
acceleration.
I observed no sonic boom and no conventional propulsion
signatures, no exhaust plume, no control surface articulation
on the SAFIRE image system. Shortly after the synchronized
departure, radar tracks dropped. These observations were multi-
sensor and recorded inside of ICC-1 with time location overlay
visible in our source frames that have been made public by
journalists.
From my experience operating in this region over many years
and consistent with our public characterized encounters,
unidentified objects reoccur in United States operation areas
off southern California. That fact alone does not tell us what
they are, but it does argue the systematic stigma-free
reporting and for the preservation of sensor data so analysts
can evaluate safe and intelligence implications with rigor.
I want to underscore three points for the Task Force and
the Committee. Aviation and maritime safety: When crews and
watchstanders observe objects that maneuver or accelerate in
ways that does not match known profiles and do not--and do so
near our ships and aircraft, that is first and foremost a
safety issue. Standardized checklist and training should ensure
we capture the best possible sensor data in real time,
including infrared (IR) settings, slant range estimates, and
bearing and range altitude snapshots and immediate change of--
chain of custody for any recordings.
Reporting without stigma, protection without retribution:
Sailors need to know that reporting UAP encounters will not
harm their careers. Congress can help by reinforcing witness
protection and by directing the relevant office to maintain
confidential destigmatized channels for servicemembers who step
forward with data.
Declassification and transparency where possible: The Task
Force declassification mission is directly relevant here. Where
operational security permits releasing metadata-preserved
sensor excerpts or at least technical summaries would improve
public trust and accelerate outside scientific scrutiny. That
includes, when feasible, the time geo-reference IR frames and
radar parameters needed for independent analysis.
To be clear, I am not here to make claims beyond my lane. I
am here to provide a first-hand account of what I saw, what our
systems recorded, and why I--why it matters for safety, for
intelligence, and public confidence. My request to you is
practical. Help us capture, protect, fairly evaluate the
evidence, and provide a safe pathway for those in uniform to
report it.
In closing, I want to thank the Committee and the Task
Force for holding this hearing and for the--and for placing
this discussion in a forum where evidence can be examined
carefully and openly. I appreciate your attention and stand
ready to answer your questions. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chief.
I now recognize Mr. Knapp for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE KNAPP, UAP JOURNALIST
Mr. Knapp. Good morning, Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member
Ms. Crockett, and Members of the Task Force. And Dina Titus, I
just knew we were going to get you involved in this topic at
one point. Great to see you here.
I am George Knapp, chief investigative reporter at KLAS-TV
in Las Vegas. I began my pursuit of this weird mystery way back
in 1987, and for 38 years, I have always approached this as a
news story. It is not a matter of faith or belief to me. It is
a story, and it is an important one.
I am proud to be here alongside these witnesses today, men
who have seen strange things and stepped forward to tell the
world about it. Whistleblowers and witnesses who step up are
routinely insulted, belittled, or worse. They risk their
reputations, their careers, their clearances, their
livelihoods, and sometimes much more than that, even their
freedom.
I know that one of the goals of the Task Force here is to
figure out ways to protect whistleblowers and witnesses, and it
is a tall order because so many of the things that happen to
witnesses like these are extra-legal. They are carried out by
persons unknown, as Mr. Dave Grusch, sitting up at the top of
the room, knows all too well, including events in recent days
to--that have happened to him.
I want to share a couple of things that I have learned
along the way on this long journey, and I submitted most of
that in written form because I estimate that my statement here
today would take about 4 1/2 hours, so I am going to try to
jump over and touch on the more important salient points. I
submitted the detailed written statement for the record and
will not go into a lot of that here, but the--you know, public
has been told over and over since the late 1940s there is
nothing to worry about here. These mysterious craft seen by
millions of people in the skies, in the oceans, over the land,
are not real. They are not a threat, the witnesses are wrong,
they are crackpots, do not believe it.
That changed for me. What got me hooked is the paper trail,
documents that were squeezed out of the U.S. Government after
the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, became the law of the
land. And those documents paint a much different picture than
what the public, the press, and Congress have been told over
many years. The documents from military and intelligence
personnel behind closed doors admit that ``These things are
real.'' They are not fictitious. They can fly in formation,
they are evasive, and they outperform any aircraft known to
exist, including ours.
The public, of course, as I said, has been told something
much different. You know, back in 1989, I reported about a guy
named Bob Lazar, who claimed that he worked at a facility
dubbed S4 out in the Nevada desert, very near to Area 51. He
said he was part of a reverse engineering program. He said
there are alien craft that would be taken apart to figure out
how they operated out there, and that was a tall order. I had
clearly taken a dive into the deep end of the pool there. But
in the years since then, I have interviewed dozens of other
people, and I have detailed what their testimony has been in
the written statement. They include Senator Harry Reid; Senator
Howard Cannon, also of Nevada; a guy named Al O'Donnell, who
was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada, which managed
the Nevada test site, which blew up hundreds of nuclear
weapons.
There is a guy named Dr. James Lacatski, who was a career
scientist with the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was the guy
who initiated a program called AAWSAP, Advanced Aerospace
Weapons Systems Application Program, which is, as far as we
know, the largest acknowledged UFO program ever funded by the
U.S. Government, which put together an amazing pile of
information that members of this Committee and the world, most
of which have never seen. The DIA still has not released 95
percent of what was prepared by that program at a cost of
millions and millions of dollars.
The one name I do want to bring up in this section--
session, though, is Robert Bigelow. So, looking into the idea
of crash retrievals and reverse engineering, while AAWSAP, that
program, was active, the DIA's contractor, Robert Bigelow of
Las Vegas, made a bold attempt to acquire physical proof of UFO
crashes. It has been widely reported and suspected that
Lockheed Martin is one of the contractors--the defense
contractors, that has held this stuff, stored it away in
secrecy, and tried to figure out how it works.
I have confirmed on the record that Robert Bigelow and a
trusted colleague from AAWSAP met with and negotiated with
senior executives at Lockheed Martin and hammered out a deal
wherein Bigelow's company, BAASS, would receive a quantity of
unusual material that had been stashed away and protected at a
facility in California. That material was not made here.
I want to move on now to the Russia files because that was
going to be sort of the central impetus of what I was going to
talk to you about today. Back in the early 1990s, I got into
Russia, met with a number of their defense officials, ministry
of defense and others, who confirmed for me that Russia had
been doing the same thing that the United States had been
doing, that is, secretly studying UFOs while publicly saying
something completely different.
The documents and interviews that I obtained and have now
shared with this Task Force show that the USSR launched what is
almost certainly the largest UFO/UAP investigation in the
world. The first phase of that was an order was sent out to the
entire USSR military empire that every unit, you see anything
strange in the sky, a craft, an orb, something unusual, you had
to gather all the evidence, collect testimony from the
witnesses, look for physical evidence, and all of that
information went into one program at the Ministry of Defense.
Thousands and thousands of these reports came in. A lot of
them were first routed to the KGB but then back to another
program that came after this collection effort called Thread
III, and Thread III was an analysis program. We provided to the
Committee the documents of what they were trying to do, and
essentially, they were trying to build their own UFOs. They
were using the information from their observations and studies
to try to figure out the technology. The guy who was in charge
of that program, Colonel Boris Sokolov, told me that their goal
was to basically develop technology that would be superior to
anything we had based on what they learned from UFOs.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Knapp, just in the name of time----
Mr. Knapp. Sure.
Mrs. Luna [continuing]. To my understanding, did you have
anything you wanted to submit for Congress to see in this
Committee?
Mr. Knapp. I have submitted those documents. There is----
Mrs. Luna. Would you like to play any videos? Do you have a
video that you would like to play?
Mr. Knapp. I do not think it is for me to play. Yes,
Alexandro's video.
Mrs. Luna. Okay.
Mr. Knapp. You could play it. He could narrate it.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. In the name of showing that video to
everyone on the Task Force, we would like to play that video at
this time.
Mr. Knapp. Sure.
Mrs. Luna. If we can get rid of the audio real quick.
Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Knapp, we will get back to what that
video was in a moment, but we just want to make sure that it
was entered into the record, as well as all the documents.
Those will be able to be publicly found for everyone in the
country to view.
If we could, Mr. Knapp, we will continue on the line of
questioning, but I am going to move on to Mr. Borland's opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DYLAN BORLAND, UAP WITNESS
U.S. AIR FORCE VETERAN
Mr. Borland. Good morning, Members of the Task Force and
the Committee. I would like to express my gratitude for being
invited to testify to the current Task Force created under the
people's chamber and the American public. As an American
citizen, veteran, and intelligence community professional, it
is an honor and a privilege to serve under oath before you on
behalf of our country. I speak for myself and no former agency
or company I have been previously affiliated with.
My name is Dylan Borland, a former 1N1 geospatial
intelligence specialist for the United States Air Force in an
active-duty enlisted capacity from 2010 to 2013. I have also
been employed with BAE Systems and Intrepid Solutions as a
senior analyst, expert in analyzing video radar and advanced
electro-optical imagery for official identification of aerial
order of battle, as well as naval and ground order of battle.
I am a Federal whistleblower, having testified to both the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) and
AARO with direct firsthand knowledge of and experience with
craft and technologies that are not ours and are reportedly
operating without congressional oversight. Because of my direct
knowledge of the reality of certain legacy UAP programs, my
professional career was deliberately obstructed, and I have
endured sustained reprisals from government agencies for over a
decade.
From 2011 to 2013, I was stationed at Langley Air Force
Base, Virginia, conducting 24-hour operations via manned and
unmanned aerial vehicles for special operations forces in the
global war on terror. During the summer of 2012, my team was on
standby for weather, and I returned to my barracks on base, and
at approximately 0130, I saw an approximately 100-foot
equilateral triangle take off from near the NASA hangar on the
base. The craft interfered with my telephone, did not have any
sound, and the material it was made of appeared fluid or
dynamic. I was under this triangular craft for a few minutes,
and then it rapidly ascended to commercial jet level in
seconds, displaying zero kinetic disturbance, sound, or wind
displacement.
Some years after that experience, I was further exposed to
classified information from the UAP legacy crash retrieval
program through a sensitive position I held within a special
access program. During this time, intelligence officers
approached me in fear for their own careers, citing misconduct
within these programs and similar retaliation that I was
already enduring at this time. These issues include medical
malpractice committed by Veterans Affairs staff; denial of work
I performed while enlisted in the United States Air Force;
forging manipulated employment documents; workplace harassment,
including colleagues being directed to not speak with me;
manipulation of my security clearance by certain agencies
blocking, delaying, and ultimately removing my ability to be
employed within the IC.
The retaliation I faced and the retaliation against
individuals I know who worked in these programs is what
convinced me in March 2023 to become a whistleblower. I came
forward out of concern for people's lives and to ensure I did
everything I could to let our elected representatives know the
truth about what is really happening in the executive branch.
At the end of March 2023, I agreed to meet with AARO
following the suggestion of other Federal officials, believing
it was what our Nation required of me. I had reservations with
AARO due to assessments they were reporting publicly at the
time as a misrepresentation of the truth. Because of these
concerns, I did not share sources and methods information in
order to protect current and former Federal personnel who had
firsthand exposure to technologies of unknown origin. I did not
want anyone to face further retaliation beyond what they had
already endured, and unfortunately, a staff member ended up
getting in some trouble because of that.
After David Grusch testified under oath in the summer of
2023 and provided historic disclosure, I was then asked to go
to the IC IG and did so in August 2023. It was very clear early
on during my intake interview, which was video recorded under
oath, that the objective was to solely assess how much I know
and not move forward with an investigation with new information
I provided them. The aftermath of that IG complaint still
troubles me to this day.
Since my IC IG complaint, I have been prevented from
assuming prior employment and can confirm I am still
blacklisted from certain agencies within the intelligence
community. In addition, multiple agencies attempted phishing
attacks to assess what I had divulged to the inspector general,
including being asked to disclose details of my IC IG complaint
during a Counterintelligence (CI) polygraph for a position
unrelated to UFO/UAP matters as recently as November 2024.
As I sit before you today, I and many other whistleblowers
have no job prospects, no foreseeable professional future in a
nation every single one of us came forward to defend. Numerous
individuals have come forward in various ways to reveal the
truth of the UAP reality as patriots and defenders of our
Nation, yet many feel discarded, isolated, hopeless, separated
from the country they serve. Efforts to rectify this situation
for all whistleblowers have been difficult and troubling, and
to my fellow whistleblowers and officials who know this
information, I offer you my apology, something that I have
never gotten, and I am giving it to you.
I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States,
an oath that demands truth and transparency for our democratic
republic to function. Each day these truths remain hidden from
our citizens as humanity drifts further from the principles our
Nation was founded to uphold. Each day, victims of crimes
committed by agencies and companies maintaining this secrecy
are denied justice is another day our Constitution is shredded.
In 2023, patriots provided this Committee and the executive
branch with undeniable proof of the UAP reality, and I commend
your continued commitment. The future of humanity is one which
we either travel to the stars or regress to the stone age with
this technology. My career has been to deliver critical
information to decisionmakers. Your role as elected by your
representatives is to act on it. The time to act is now. Thank
you.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Borland, thank you for your service to our
country, and we appreciate you. And we are sorry about how you
have been treated, and we will make sure that we try to rectify
that situation.
Mr. Borland. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Spielberger, please, your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF JOE SPIELBERGER (MINORITY WITNESS)
SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL
PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
Mr. Spielberger. Chairwoman Luna, Ranking Member Crockett,
and Task Force members, thank you for the opportunity to
testify here today about the importance of strengthening
whistleblower protections, especially in the context of
national security. I am a senior policy counsel at the Project
on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan independent watchdog
organization that investigates and exposes waste, corruption,
abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve the
public or silences those who report wrongdoing.
Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to root out
waste, fraud, abuse of power, and corruption in our government.
Congress relies on whistleblowers so that it can fully exercise
its oversight and legislative authorities. It is understandable
that former Presidents of both parties have often taken a
hostile approach toward whistleblowers. Their disclosures can
embarrass the President and their political party or even lead
to a national scandal.
But whistleblowers continue to play a vital role during
both Democratic and Republican administrations. They help
Congress and the public identify and understand what government
corruption looks like. Their disclosures fuel investigations
and allow us to address wrongdoing and hold those responsible
to account. That is why historically there has been a strong
bipartisan consensus in Congress to support and protect
whistleblowers. Doing so protects the country and ensures our
government is more responsive and accountable to the people.
National security whistleblowing in particular is a
tradition going back to the founding of our country, and over
time, national security whistleblowers and their disclosures
have impacted some of the most fundamental issues and questions
about how we wish to be governed and how our government can
better serve its people, from the role the United States plays
around the world to holding powerful actors accountable,
government ethics and transparency, human rights and civil
liberties, executive branch authority, First Amendment freedoms
of speech and dissent, freedom of the press, and the public's
interest and right to know.
Despite this invaluable public service, blowing the whistle
comes at great personal risk. Whistleblowers risk losing their
jobs, careers, livelihoods, and reputations. They can face
retaliatory investigations, lawsuits, and even serious criminal
charges. And they can endure deep mental, emotional, and
psychological harm, all of that risk to speak the truth, to
ensure that agencies fulfill their core missions and that they
serve the best interests of the people.
Those who retaliate against whistleblowers do not just
violate their legal rights. They inflict real harm on our
government and betray the public's trust. Targeting
whistleblowers instead of the corruption they expose wastes
agency resources and further allows that corruption to continue
unaddressed. It can instill a chilling effect across an agency,
fostering a climate of fear and distrust, quieting dissent and
free speech, and deterring potential whistleblowers from coming
forward in the future.
Whistleblowers are often some of the most dedicated and
principled public servants we have because of their willingness
to put themselves on the line to do what is right. And Congress
has historically supported them, again, on a bipartisan basis.
But unfortunately, whistleblowing has increasingly become more
politicized with support for whistleblowers often hinging on
which party is in power and which party is politically
inconvenienced by the misconduct being exposed.
But to be clear, targeting whistleblowers individually
risks undermining whistleblowing, period. The Project On
Government Oversight (POGO) advises Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle to focus on the evidence, not the
individual. We will always need whistleblowers to achieve the
government that best serves its people because when people of
conscience, integrity, and good character refuse to speak up
out of fear, complacency, or self-preservation, and leave
corruption to fester behind closed doors, that is probably the
most dangerous risk of all.
If we are serious about increasing government transparency
and restoring the public's trust, we need public servants
committed to the truth. Whistleblowers need safe and effective
channels to make lawful disclosures. They need stronger
protections against retaliation. And when they do face
retaliation, they need a fair shot to be made whole.
Congress has made strides to pass whistleblower
legislation, and these laws need to be updated and expanded so
that whistleblowers truly receive the protections they need,
retaliators are held accountable, and we can achieve the type
of government the people deserve. We strongly urge Congress to
continue its historic tradition of championing the rights and
protections of all whistleblowers.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here this
morning. POGO is committed to working with you and the
Oversight Committee to address these critical issues. I look
forward to any questions.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, sir, very much.
Additionally, without objection, the following Members are
waived onto the Task Force for the purpose of questioning
witnesses at today's hearing: Representative Perry of
Pennsylvania and Representative Grothman of Wisconsin.
Sorry, what is it? Oh, and Representative Biggs from
Arizona. I already got you, but yes, we are good.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Also, as my friend Mr. Moskowitz might have to go, would
you like to go now? Okay. All right.
Mr. Borland, in your testimony, you described witnessing
large triangular craft while stationed at Langley Air Force
Base in 2012. Can you explain what you observed in terms of
size, behavior, and why you are confident it was not
conventional technology?
Mr. Borland. Great question, ma'am. So, on barracks--on the
base, I lived in the barracks. There was a little smoke pit
outside. I was there on the telephone and looking across to the
flightline, and I see a white light pop up and stop about 100
feet in the air. I thought it was a weather balloon. I have
seen tests from there before, a weeknight, you know, normal
thing, not surprising.
I actually finished my cigarette, and I began walking up
toward the flightline. There is a track, and because I was on
three months of night work, I began--I would walk the track at
night when we were weathered down. And as I began walking
toward the light, toward the flightline and the track, the
light then flies across the base, across the flightline, and as
it flies to me, a triangle manifests around the light. I cannot
tell you if it is active camouflage. I cannot tell you if it
appeared around the light, but I can tell you that it was a
white light, and then it was a triangle.
It stopped about 100 feet in front of me and approximately
100 feet above me. My telephone got extremely hot, completely
froze, dead. I remember how thick it was. It was between one to
two stories thick, equilateral triangle. I could never see the
top of it, and the edges were 90 degree--90 degrees. There were
four lights in total, one light on each corner, and a larger
light in the center, two to three times the size of the corner
lights.
But what was really odd was the outside. The best way to
describe it is like looking at a James Webb telescope picture
where you have the colors and then the black background. So,
the craft itself was this black metallic flake paint, but on
top of the craft was this gold, lava, plasma, some type of
fluid going over and around the craft.
I am under this for about 2 to 3 minutes, and then the
center light flashes two to three times, no sound, immediately
shoots up to commercial jet level minimum, in my opinion, and I
immediately feel static electricity all over my body, and then
I smell the smell of after a thunderstorm or lightning storm,
that really strong summer thunderstorm smell.
It gets up to flight level. I am trying to get my phone
reset, and I can only see the center light at this point. If I
did not actually see it take off, I would have thought it was a
star. And then it hovers up there, and it begins to slowly move
due east out over the Atlantic Ocean. I finally got my phone
reset. The entire thing was about--from the time I saw the
light pop up near the hangar until it took off out over the
ocean was about 15 minutes.
Mrs. Luna. And following up to that question, after you
disclose this information to the intelligence community
inspector general, you are subject to phishing attempts and job
blacklisting. How widespread do you think this is across the
intelligence community for those who raise concerns regarding
UAP programs?
Mr. Borland. It is a difficult question to answer. I think
prior to David Grusch and people beginning this process of
bringing people into awareness of the reality of these programs
and certain things people have witnessed, probably extremely
widespread. I think today there is still an issue, but because
people are able to come before you and people are speaking out,
I think it has been somewhat less. I would hope, though, that
people would because if this goes back into closed doors, this
is going to get really ugly.
Mrs. Luna. What type of behavior have you witnessed from
former AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick, as well as his staff, in
relation to this information you provided to them? Did they
ever try to classify this information as non-human technology?
Mr. Borland. Good question. The problem with this is that I
know what I experienced firsthand, and I know other things. I
think the staff at AARO that I met with in March 2023, I think
they were good people doing the job they were told to do.
I did not meet with Kirkpatrick. He was either not present
or did not want to meet me that day. However, they did classify
information about the reality of this subject, and it was very
concerning because in my AARO MFR, they had actually referenced
a former staff member that was the one who told me to go there,
and they probably should not have done that.
Mrs. Luna. And real quick before my time is up--and we
might go to a second round of questioning just so you are all
aware. How important, given everything that you have seen and
experienced, is the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 in restoring
both public accountability and trust?
Mr. Borland. I think very important. I would hope, though,
that the 7-year window could be shrunk, my opinion, but very
important. The truth needs to be known.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Jared Moskowitz of Florida.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
allowing me to waive on to the Committee.
I remember, you know, the last Committee when we had a
bunch of former military personnel folks that either served on
bases, were pilots, or were in different programs experiencing
knowledge. It made me recognize that the narrative has changed,
right? It is politically convenient for the government if you
all were not military folks in suits. It would be much better
if you pulled up in Winnebagos and were wearing hats. And so,
the picture of this, because that is important for the American
people on how you tell a story, what the message looks like,
and who the messenger is.
So, this is now the second or third Committee where we have
former military folks with impeccable records with information
and knowledge. And it is definitely clear on a bipartisan basis
that we have to protect our whistleblowers--there is no doubt--
and in a day in which it is really hard to tell what is true or
not from a political standpoint. And so, I don't really know
what is true. I don't know on this subject. But I do know when
we are being lied to, and we are definitely being lied to.
There is just no doubt about that.
Mr. Wiggins, I want to talk to you. I find your background
testimony compelling. When you first saw what you were looking
at, what were your first thoughts?
Chief Wiggins. My first thoughts were I think everything
that I was told and taught as a kid and a growing adult no
longer, you know, was applicable. If I am able to see something
that I thought defies gravity in such a way, then what else
could be possible? That was my first thought.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, did you think what you were looking at
was a weapons program that you were unaware of? Or did you
think what you were looking at was obviously some
extraterrestrial piece of technology?
Chief Wiggins. I did not--I--neither one of those crossed
my mind. It was just in the----
Mr. Moskowitz. How about now? What do you think it is now?
Chief Wiggins. I am not the expert. I think it--I want to
be as skeptical as everyone else and just hope to know the
information----
Mr. Moskowitz. Did anyone in the U.S. Government tell you
what you were looking at to try to dissuade you from what you
thought it was?
Chief Wiggins. No.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, no one was like, oh, you know, there was
some anomaly with the technology? No one from the government
did that?
Chief Wiggins. No one.
Mr. Moskowitz. How do you think you were treated when you
reported this information or talked about--you know, the TikTok
video is well out there. It is well reported. How were you
treated?
Chief Wiggins. I have had no pushback at all. I have not
had anyone reach out to me or try to, you know, dissuade me in
either direction, militarily speaking. So, I was treated fair,
and I appreciate the Navy itself with assisting me with coming
here to being able to testify.
Mr. Moskowitz. That is good. So, what do you think the
American people should take away from watching your video,
right? Because when we watch it, obviously, right, we have
never seen anything like that. It defies what we know to be
technologically possible. What are we supposed to think?
Someone is lying about something. Someone is hiding something,
right? That is not normal, what you looked at.
Chief Wiggins. I think what the American people should
think when seeing that video, along with others before me, is
that there is something out there, and we should know as the
people what it is.
Mr. Moskowitz. Right. And so, let us eliminate
possibilities. So, they did not come to you and say there was a
technological error with what you were looking at, so we put
that aside, right? They did not say it was broken. So, we look
at that, and we see something. So, it is either a weapons
program being reverse-engineered by our governments or other
governments, or it is nobody's government, and it is not from
here. Those are it. Do you agree with that assessment?
Chief Wiggins. I agree, one or the other.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Borland, when you first experienced what
you were looking at, what did you do next? Like what was your
next step after it had passed and you were done?
Mr. Borland. I actually kind of laughed to myself and said,
okay, so this exists as well. Worked in enough programs, been
exposed to enough that I was like, okay, so this is a real
thing. I went back, walked the track, talked with a couple of
my friends about it. I did talk with some of my coworkers, one
in particular, which I thought was a joke, and it definitely
was not, was like, you probably should never say this to
anybody. And then what happened to me happened, so----
Mr. Moskowitz. What about you, Mr.--how do you pronounce
your last name?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Nuccetelli.
Mr. Moskowitz. Nuccetelli. And sorry, I know I am running
out of time, Madam Chairwoman. So obviously, your incident
happened well before we could record things on cell phones and
things of that nature, right? What did you do when you first
experienced--because what you saw, right, you saw it happen
like right out of your base.
Mr. Nuccetelli. Correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, tell me what you did after you saw that.
What was like your next move? And I want to hear what your
experience was.
Mr. Nuccetelli. My next move, I went into my house after it
left. I made sure no one had been abducted. And I picked up the
landline. I called the Security Forces Command Center. I
reported it. I requested that they give me a call back and make
notifications up the chain of command. I got a call back in
about 15 minutes. They reported that the weather station
reported no balloons or aircraft, nothing on radar, no aircraft
inbound or outbound, so I got that notification. And then
within the following day or two, me and the other witnesses
wrote statements, we prepared a report, and then we filed all
that information.
Mr. Moskowitz. Madam Chairman, thank you for your
indulgence in my questioning, and thank you for continuing to
lead on this subject. What do you and your friends think about
it today? You all have talked about it.
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. I mean, so what do you think about your
experience as a collective group? That will be my last
question, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Nuccetelli. I mean, we have been talking about this for
20 years. We do not know what we saw. What we saw changed our
lives and the way we think about everything. It was incredibly
profound. The object I saw, I do not even know if it was an
object. It was a light. It was an orb. It did not look like a
craft, but it did look solid. And that is what we talk about.
We noticed the object. And this was a pattern across all
the encounters. Someone would see a light. They would pay
attention to the light. And then the object responds. It
performs for you. And then they come down and they investigate
you. So, it is almost like they are curious. So that is the
thing we primarily talk about. You know, why did it come after
we noticed it? Maybe it noticed us after we noticed it.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Representative Mace for 5
minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all
of our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Borland, I would like to start with you and ask a few
questions. Were there any other witnesses--when you saw the
equilateral triangle, were there other witnesses that saw the
same thing?
Mr. Borland. Not to my knowledge, ma'am. At that point, the
only people that would be awake is those of us that were doing
operations for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and then
security forces, so not to my knowledge.
Ms. Mace. And do you think, in your opinion, that the
equilateral triangle was the U.S. Government's technology?
Mr. Borland. I did once upon a time, but knowing what I
know now, I will have to answer that question in a sensitive
compartmented information facility (SCIF) probably.
Ms. Mace. Well, my next question is, you teased us, so
knowing what you know now means what?
Mr. Borland. I know enough to know that if you want an
answer to that question, go to AARO.
Ms. Mace. Okay.
Mr. Borland. They have the answer.
Ms. Mace. Do you think it was a foreign government?
Mr. Borland. I do not, no.
Ms. Mace. And AARO is supposed to be disclosing--the last
time I was in a SCIF with AARO, they said they were going to be
doing disclosures. Had they been doing much of that?
Mr. Borland. I do not have an answer to you----
Ms. Mace. Yes.
Mr. Borland [continuing]. For you. I do not know. I know
what AARO reports publicly, and I know what I have been
through.
Ms. Mace. Yes. And some of this stuff can be, I think,
debunked, right? Sometimes, there are weather balloons that
look kind of a little funky or drones or whatever, depending on
the angle, direction, speed, et cetera. Are you scared for your
safety?
Mr. Borland. That is a complicated question. So, being here
today, if I say the wrong word, technically, I can be charged
with espionage. Espionage is a death penalty. Whistleblowers
have faced it, John Kiriakou, for example. I am not scared for
my physical safety in the sense of an agency or company coming
to kill me, but I have no job. My career is--has been
tarnished. You know, I am unemployed, living off of
unemployment for the next three, four weeks until that is gone.
So, it is a complicated question.
Ms. Mace. Have there been stories leaked about your life to
try to discredit you in the public eye?
Mr. Borland. I--as of now, I do not know. Up until----
Ms. Mace. We know they did that to Mr. Grusch.
Mr. Borland. I am aware, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. They leaked his private medical information,
horrific things.
Mr. Borland. It is.
Ms. Mace. Okay. You said in your testimony earlier with the
Chairwoman, you know other things. I guess that has to be
mentioned in a SCIF----
Mr. Borland. It would----
Ms. Mace [continuing]. The other things.
Mr. Borland. It would, pending if I am even legally allowed
to speak on, and the people in the room are even legally
allowed to hear it.
Ms. Mace. And would we need to know like the
compartmentalized word, like what the code word is or the name
of the program, the special access program, or even hear it?
You have to know the word, right?
Mr. Borland. I would----
Ms. Mace. The name of it, right?
Mr. Borland. I would suggest that to the--as to Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) Gabbard and work with her for that
because I cannot give you the answer on what is the
requirement----
Ms. Mace. But this is what the U.S. Government does, right?
They compartmentalize the information. Only certain people know
the name of the program, and if you do not know it, you cannot
get the information. If you do not have the name, you do not
know what to ask for. Even when we are reviewing the budget, we
go into a SCIF, we look at DOD budget and the budget of like
black box programs, and we do not know what we are looking at
because we do not know what these programs are. Is it a way for
the government to hide from Congress what is really going on
and where the money is going?
Mr. Borland. In my opinion, absolutely, yes.
Ms. Mace. You mentioned too in your testimony earlier that
you went to speak with the government and they said somebody's
name, a colleague's name, and you said they should not have
mentioned that staff person's name. What does that mean?
Mr. Borland. A Senate staffer who was the one who helped me
get to AARO recommended me I go there, gave me the email and
the phone number because I could not find that information at
all at the time. In fact, I believe you guys have talked about
how AARO did not even have a website for quite a period of
time.
Ms. Mace. We were told they were going to do disclosures,
both what they have debunked, because some of it can be
debunked, and then what they have not been able to debunk. And
to my knowledge, you know, it has not been a thing.
I only have 1 minute left, so Mr. Knapp, we are definitely
going to you, watch every documentary. You and Jeremy have done
a terrific job. I usually have more questions than I have
answers. I think we all do. And you guys are doing a terrific
job to bring information to the public. Do you think that any
of this is a psyop by the U.S. Government?
Mr. Knapp. Entirely possible. I mean, they have--our
government and other governments have admitted that they have
tried to use UFOs to cover secret projects. But I think they
also do some reverse engineering of those claims. So, years
after people start seeing UFOs over Area 51, for example, they
come up with a story. Oh, yes, that was--we planted that story.
So, I read in a major newspaper just a couple of weeks ago,
they planted this story. An Air Force colonel went out into the
desert, went to a bar at Rachel and gave them some fake UFO
photos, and that is how the whole story about Area 51 started,
which is preposterous.
Ms. Mace. Yes, I did not even get to the crash retrieval
program stuff yet, Ms. Chairwoman. There is just so much. Okay.
Thank you so much for your time today. I wish we had more time.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Ms. Crockett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you
so much to each of the witnesses that have come before us
today.
The Federal Government has had a longstanding
overclassification issue in general. We all know that from the
assassinations of MLK and Malcolm X, to the FBI's
Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and torture programs,
to now UAPs. The Federal Government has kept the American
public in the dark about issues of immense public interest. The
Federal Government has routinely made excuses for failing to
provide transparency to the public, the most common of which is
national security concerns.
Mr. Spielberger, can you provide an example of when
national security was inappropriately used as a pretext for
classification?
Mr. Spielberger. Congresswoman, probably one of the most
infamous examples of that is the 9/11 Commission that found
that overclassification was a key factor in the failure to
adequately prevent the attacks of that day.
Ms. Crockett. In addition to that, what lessons from these
oversight failures should guide Congress in approaching UAP
oversight?
Mr. Spielberger. Generally speaking, we would advise this
Congress to ensure that agencies adopt general policy in favor
of disclosure instead of a kneejerk needing to overclassify
information and documents. We should ensure that when
information is classified or deemed sensitive, it is only for
legitimate national security and privacy concerns. And we would
recommend adding additional factors to the considerations of
cost value and certainly to the extent that it is critical for
the public interest and the public's right to know, especially
when we are talking about these very serious national security
concerns and implications.
Ms. Crockett. Can you speak to how whistleblowers have
historically helped Congress uncover the truth in other areas
and how that might apply here?
Mr. Spielberger. Absolutely. So, again, Congress has always
relied on whistleblowers coming forward and making disclosures
in a number of different issues across different agencies,
anything from national security to airline safety, railway
safety, environmental concerns, workplace health and safety, a
lot of issues coming out of the COVID pandemic, for example.
Whistleblowers have come forward with important disclosures on
just about any critical issue affecting our government and
affecting the American people, all of which have grave
implications for the rights and protections that we have and
how we live our lives in communities across the country.
Ms. Crockett. How important is it for whistleblowers to
have strong protections when it comes to UAP-related
disclosures or disclosures of other topics of excessive
government secrecy?
Mr. Spielberger. It is absolutely vital. This has been one
of the disappointing failures of doing this work of advocating
for stronger whistleblower protections. We recognize the
invaluable public service that brave whistleblowers play in
coming forward, again, taking all of these risks that we have
heard about just to speak the truth, to get important
information out in the public consciousness, but they can only
do so when we have safe and secure channels for reporting, when
there is trust in the independence of agency watchdogs like
inspectors general, like the Office of Special Counsel, like
the Merit Systems Protection Board, that play critical roles in
investigating whistleblower disclosures and enforcing the
protections of whistleblowers. All of that is essential to
allow whistleblowers to keep coming forward and playing these
incredibly important public roles.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. Let me just say this.
People look at Congress, especially now, and they see a lack of
unity. They do not see the ability for us to come together,
really, on much of anything. I will say that I do applaud the
Chairwoman and the work of this Committee because, for once, I
feel like we are focusing on governing, which should be about
transparency.
The reality is that we cause more harm than good when we
allow a lack of transparency to fester. It allows for all types
of conspiracy theories instead of us actually making the
investments that we need to make to get the information and
actually provide it to the American people.
The reason that I wanted to focus on making sure that we
answer some questions specifically around the protections of
those that are willing to come forward is because the only way
that we can make this government actually work for all of us is
if, no matter where you are in this Federal Government, you
feel as if you are safe when you come forward with information
of any issue.
And so, I do want to thank you for all of your stories. The
reality is that we only get 5 minutes, and the vast majority of
everything that you have to say cannot be contextualized within
5 minutes. But I know that my colleagues are going to get to
kind of pulling some more of that out. But again, I really just
want to thank you for your courage in this moment, and thank
you for your service to our country.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for
5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady, and thank you, Ranking
Member Crockett.
I see a lot of friends out there, and I see a couple
enemies, so I will remember that. It is a pleasure being here.
I want to remind people too, this thing is an ongoing deal. We
are not going to get this overnight. We have been fighting this
battle, some of you all, for 30 years and maybe longer. I hope
we just keep focused on what we are trying to get to as total
disclosure. We get a little wrapped up in a lot of things, but
the government has something, and they need to turn it over to
us. We pay their dadgum salary, you pay our salary, and you
ought to get more out of us than you do, and that is what
disgusts me about this whole thing.
I think they are just trying to run the clock out on us,
really. They will poke us a little, and they will make jokes to
us and try to pull us off the target, but I think we know where
we are at, and that is why they are firing at us, because we
are over the target.
My first question is, Mr. Knapp, I recently introduced the
UAP Whistleblower Protection Act to help provide whistleblower
protection to Federal personnel for disclosing the use of
Federal taxpayer funds to investigate UFOs. I still do not want
to say UAPs. How can Congress further increase whistleblower
protections?
Mr. Knapp. I think you have got to unleash the dogs and go
track down the money and where it goes because a lot of this
stuff has been moved out of government----
Mr. Burchett. Sure.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. As you know, Rep. Burchett. It has
been given to private contractors who have stashed it away.
They have had it for so long that there is nobody left inside
government, or very few, who know where it is.
Mr. Burchett. And they do that to keep us from FOIA,
correct?
Mr. Knapp. Sure. Yes----
Mr. Burchett. Yes.
Mr. Knapp. [continuing]. It is to keep it from FOIA. And I
think that the contractors who have had this stuff for a very
long time set their own standards about who is allowed to know
what, and it is a very small group that ever cracks that.
I think Rep. Luna has been looking at the use of
classifications to hide things. I am not sure that even this
Committee getting security clearances that should allow you to
see this stuff would allow you to follow where it really goes.
Mr. Burchett. I worry about the people that are looking at
it do not even know what they are looking at. I mean, it has
gone through so many--I mean, since Roswell, for instance. I
mean, you think there is nobody even alive that was around any
of that stuff so----
Mr. Knapp. Yes, I do not think they have made much
progress--from the people that I have talked to, I do not think
they have made much progress in learning that technology. Might
have made some, but you wonder, you know, the implication is
tic-tac, oh, yes, that is ours. What flew over Washington, D.C.
in 1952, is that ours too? When are you going to break that
out? You guys authorized tens of billions, hundreds of billions
of dollars on weapons systems that cannot do half of what we
have seen UFOs do. So, when do they break this out if it's
really a classified project could change the world? I do not
think they have made much progress, and I think they have been
lying to us and to you and the rest of the world, and they are
still doing it.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir, I agree with you. How did you
manage to obtain the classified Russian UAP documents? And how
did you get them back in the United States?
Mr. Knapp. Well, I met this Russian physicist who was in
the United States----
Mr. Burchett. And I want to clarify that. I cannot even
take a thing of honey home on my airplane----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. When I fly back to Tennessee,
so----
Mr. Knapp. Yes, I did something pretty dumb----
Mr. Burchett. And I am bitter about it, but go ahead.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. I did something kind of dumb. I met with
these officials who, you know, during that time period,
Glasnost, Perestroika, the Russians were trying to open up to
the world, and I saw it as a window of opportunity, and it was.
And we were able to talk these folks into providing us
information that otherwise we would never have seen. Some of
that was classified.
Mr. Burchett. Well----
Mr. Knapp. I found out that they are--they only stamped the
top pages of these documents that were classified, so I just
removed them. I removed those pages, and I carried them out.
And if they had caught me, I would be in a gulag still.
Mr. Burchett. Yes. We would be saying, what happened to
George Snapp? Oh, yes. What happened to the Russians that came
forward to you in 1993, and were there any repercussions for
them?
Mr. Knapp. Well, there were. The first thing that happened
when I talked about this after getting back and going through
the files and things and sifting through it, the Russian
physicist who had helped us be--introduced all these people,
wrote back and said there was a huge eruption, that there was--
the real right--far autocratic forces that wanted a return of
the USSR had--really go after these guys. They described them
as traitors.
Nikolai Kapranov, the physicist friend of mine, said, look,
if this had happened five years earlier, we would be in prison.
If it had happened ten years earlier, we would have been shot.
Mr. Burchett. Right.
Mr. Knapp. Luckily, at that point, Putin was not in power,
but none of those people that we talked to on that trip in 1993
would ever talk to me again.
I went back in 1996, and it was like I had the plague. I
spoke to different people, but they were scared. And
eventually, the story was spun where the Ministry of Defense
officials who gave us this information were described as
ufologists who said there was nothing really significant to
these files. They did not really find anything a big deal. And
I can tell you, you will see those files that I shared with
you, they did find stuff.
There was an incident in October 1982 over an ICBM base
where UFOs popped up, was observed over this base where the
missiles are pointed at us, the United States. These UFOs
perform incredible maneuvers. They split apart. They fuse back
together. They would appear and disappear. And right at the end
of this 4-hour period, the launch control codes for the ICBMs
lit up. Something entered the correct codes. The missiles were
fired up and ready to launch, and they could not shut it down.
The Russian officers were panicking. The UFOs go--they
disappeared. The launch control system goes back to normal.
Colonel Sokolov and his team came in, took the thing apart,
could not figure out what it was. It was not a power surge or
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or some of the baloney excuses that
our country has given for similar events involving our nuclear
missiles. They thought it was a message from wherever the UFOs
were from. And that is a chilling thing. I mean, that was--we
were a couple of seconds away from World War III starting, and
the UFOs were responsible for it.
Mr. Burchett. All right. I am out of time, but real quick,
who are the contractors that have this material, the
corporations?
Mr. Knapp. Well, one of them is Lockheed. And I will you, I
mean, you know, I am not saying Lockheed's the bad guys. They
are doing what they were asked to do.
Mr. Burchett. Sure.
Mr. Knapp. They have lied about this because that is what
they are supposed to do. But Lockheed would be one. There is a
list I can give you, Congressman. Some of the big ones, the
usual suspects.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Thank you. Yield back, Chairlady. Sorry
for going over.
Mrs. Luna. It is all good.
Mr. Burchett. It is all George Knapp's fault.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Ms. Boebert for 5 minutes.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Wiggins, based on your training and operational
experience, could the behavior that you witnessed, a
transmedium object vanishing without a sound, be explained by
any known technology that we possess or other governments
possess?
Chief Wiggins. It cannot, no.
Ms. Boebert. And has any government agency debriefed you or
any of your shipmates regarding the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) and radar-confirmed UAP encounter
aboard USS Jackson?
Chief Wiggins. No one has, no, ma'am.
Ms. Boebert. What was that encounter like when you brought
that up, if you want to briefly summarize that? When you
brought that to their attention and then you were not provided
any followup, who was told, and how did you feel when there was
no contact back to you?
Chief Wiggins. As far as the actual incident happening----
Ms. Boebert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wiggins [continuing]. Or the reporting level?
Ms. Boebert. Yes, Chief.
Chief Wiggins. It was--within the event happening, my
duties are to report to the tactical action officer on watch
while we are standing watch. So, a tactical action officer was
there. I made my report. I have not had any discussion outside
of that day. There has been no communication to me or requests
from me to--you know, within the side of the military.
But speaking of that actual incident itself, once the
report was made to the tactical action officer, that is when I
made the decision to ask the individual watchstander that was
controlling SAFIRE to be able to slew into the location. And
that is what you see in the video itself is when the
watchstander is slewing in and kind of showing us what we are
looking at. But outside of that, that is as far as the
reporting went that I know of.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Chief. Just for the sake of time,
Mr. Nuccetelli, has AARO, the Air Force, or the FBI ever
followed up with you personally about the red square event?
Mr. Nuccetelli. I did have followup by AARO, nothing with
the Air Force. The AARO office updated me, I think, at least
two times. They let me know that they were unable to locate any
records, that the records had been destroyed by the Air Force.
The Air Force is destroying all their police records every
three years on a schedule so----
Ms. Boebert. You were informed that this--that these
documents were destroyed?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Well, I have a Freedom of Information Act
from the Air Force that states clearly that they destroy all
police records on a 3-year schedule.
Ms. Boebert. Okay. So, they were sitting on documentation,
destroyed it, refused to question any of the lead
investigators, anything leading into this investigation?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes, basically, they destroyed all the
police records, so you could not even, like, call the Air Force
and ask them if there was a vehicle accident in that timeframe.
So that is a big problem. We are losing data in real time, so
we will never be able to go back and track----
Ms. Boebert. I think our Federal Government has a history
of destroying records. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Nuccetelli.
Dr. Borland, as a geospatial intelligence officer, have you
seen classified data indicating UAPs operate in restricted U.S.
airspace? And has that information been withheld from Congress?
Mr. Borland. I have not in U.S. airspace. That is
intelligence oversight, so I did not have domestic authorities.
Ms. Boebert. After filing your inspector general complaint
over retaliation inside the Pentagon's UAP office, did you
receive any kind of protection or just more retaliation?
Mr. Borland. Within the IG or the--or AARO, ma'am?
Ms. Boebert. Either.
Mr. Borland. AARO, they went after the staff member and
classified everything, shut that down. The IG, to this day, I
do not even know if my complaint's active. I know my attorney
that represented me was very, very, very concerned. And the
best of my understanding, I was determined credible, not
urgent.
Ms. Boebert. And do you think that that experience would
suggest that the internal UAP investigations may be
compromised?
Mr. Borland. Possibly. I mean, it is so hard because this
goes back to people doing the job they are told to do. And very
few people are going to want to give up their careers, 20-, 30-
year pension, give up--get rid of their kids' healthcare, get
rid of their house. It is possible, yes.
Ms. Boebert. Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Borland.
Mr. Spielberger, do national security whistleblowers
currently have any external appeals processes to challenge
retaliation, or are they just stuck relying on the same
agencies that they are accusing?
Mr. Spielberger. Congresswoman, this is one of the biggest
concerns that we at POGO have, basically, around the
independence of investigations and accountability for
retaliation. Basically, yes, national security whistleblowers
have to rely on internal administrative processes that go
through agency inspector generals. There are some
differentiations, but the bottom line is that they are forced
to rely on protection from the same agencies and people who
they are alleging retaliated against them.
Ms. Boebert. Yes. Well, I thank you all for your bravery.
We are out of time here. Thank you so much for coming forward,
and we will do everything that we can to ensure that you are
all protected. Thank you for trying to bring truth and
transparency to the American people.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Burlison for about 5
minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, everyone. It takes such great
courage to come forward, and we acknowledge that, and I hope
that you see that we are taking that seriously, and so very
thankful for what you are doing today.
I am also very thankful for previous witnesses that have
come forward. I see Matthew Brown in the audience. He
courageously stepped forward as a witness. I encourage
everybody to look and seek his testimony.
I want to thank the people that came in our first hearing,
Ryan Graves, David Grusch, David Fravor, and in our second
hearing, Admiral Gallaudet, Lou Elizondo, and Mr. Gold, and the
many others that have come forward. We hear you, and it is time
that we--you know, enough is enough. It is time that we take
action.
Look, I have not jumped to the conclusion that I believe
that there are, you know, aliens coming from another planet,
but I am open to that. And I think that it is our
responsibility, especially when we are seeing that we have a
government that is actively blocking information from us.
Just last night, I tried to get an amendment onto the
National Defense Authorization Act that fit in the germaneness
of that bill to have UAP disclosure. And conveniently, it was
named nongermane, mostly deemed by staff, not even an elected
official. This is the kind of stuff that we repeatedly see.
Last year, we were blocked by someone in House
administration from being able to receive a full briefing from
AARO, so not an elected official, but someone in staff blocked
us. And I have had it. Enough is enough.
I want to queue up a video that I have been given. And
before it starts, I am going to describe, this was taken
October 30 of 2024. This video is of an MQ-9 drone tracking an
orb, or this object, off the coast of Yemen. You will see that
another MQ-9 launched a hellfire missile. You cannot see that
drone. And I am not going to explain it to you. You will see
exactly what it does.
Mr. Burlison. This is when it zoomed out. So, you can still
see it traveling. So, Mr. Knapp, have you heard about, you
know, events like this occurring? And what information might
you have?
Mr. Knapp. I have heard about events like this. I have
heard about this event. Jeremy Corbell and I talked about it in
one of our episodes a while back. We did not have the video,
though. There are servers where there is a whole bank of these
kinds of videos that Congress has not been allowed to see, that
the public has not been allowed to see. Occasionally, some of
that stuff gets out in the wild, and it comes our way. It
should be going to you. You know, the public should be seeing
this stuff. And why you are not allowed to, I do not know. But
that is a hellfire missile smacking into that UFO and just
bounced right off, and it kept going.
Mr. Burlison. It kept going. And it looks like the debris
was taken with it.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. What the hell is that? What----
Mr. Burlison. So,----
Mr. Knapp. What flies like that?
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. Again, I am not going to
speculate what it is. But the question is, you know, why are we
being blocked from this information consistently?
I want to ask this question. How in the world--this is the
document. I want to enter this in for the record if it has not
already been entered, Madam Chair. The document that you----
Mrs. Luna. So, ordered.
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. Provided on Thread III, this is
a huge file. How in the world did you smuggle this out of
Russia?
Mr. Knapp. Carefully.
Mr. Burlison. In your socks?
Mr. Knapp. I do not think I want to be really specific
about it because I might have to go back there and get some
more sometime, though.
Mr. Burlison. Okay.
Mr. Knapp. No, that would be crazy to do that. Well, I--
again, I took the top pages off that were stamped with the
security signature, and I carried them out on my person. But
the rest of them, I just threw in my suitcase and threw some
caviar in there as a distraction as well and hoped for the
best. Otherwise, I would be a citizen of Siberia right now.
Mr. Burlison. And you reported James Lacatski came to you
with government possession of non-human intelligence (NHI)
craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to
the veracity of that claim?
Mr. Knapp. Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most
of his career with the DIA, a very trusted, high-level rocket
scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP
program, as I said earlier. And in--you know, in full
disclosure, I have co-written two books with him. He dropped
this on myself and our other co-author out of the blue. And it
took 14 months for us to get Defense Office of Prepublication
and Security Review (DOPSR) approval for him to release two
sentences on that.
He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It
had no wings, no rotor, no tail. It had no fuel, no fuel tanks.
They did not know how it flew or how it was operated. It
clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go
further. He is a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance
to say more about that, I do not think we are going to hear
much more, but it is not ours. It was not ours. We did not make
it. We did not know who made it and how it was built and how it
operated. We have got at least one. And I do not know, I think
that's enough confirmation that we have--we do have----
Mr. Burlison. And last----
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Recovered disks and materials.
Mr. Burlison. Lastly, Mr. Borland, in the classified realm,
have you been exposed to undeniable confirmation of NHI
technology? And then my second question is, is BAASS Systems
involved in any way with reverse engineering exploitation of
nonhuman intelligence craft?
Mr. Borland. Yes, we are going to have to call--we are
going to have to have a conversation in SCIF for that, whether
I am legally even allowed to answer that and whether you are
even allowed to hear it, sir.
Mr. Burlison. Okay. Again, you can sense our frustration.
And so, I just want to thank you for coming forward. We will
continue to fight because, look, this is about making sure that
this government belongs to the people and restoring the
republic the way it was intended to be.
Madam Chair, I also have further witnesses of courageous
individuals. It was given to me by Dr. Steven Greer, including
Michael Herrera and his testimony. We have Roderick Castle and
his testimony; Randy Anderson, his testimony; Steven Digna, and
others, three others, all saying similar things to what the
witnesses today have said, and I would like to enter that into
the record as well.
Mrs. Luna. No objection.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Representative Lee for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we need to make sure that we do not get distracted
by sensational stories, only of unidentified anomalous
phenomena, and lose track of what the core of this hearing is
about. This is all a perfect example of why whistleblowers are
so important and why it is so important that we step up and
protect them.
With Trump, RFK Jr., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Lee Zeldin, and others committed to dismantling
government and firing professionals who do dare to speak out
against the threats this administration's disastrous policies
create, we have to focus on protecting all whistleblowers, not
only the ones who are reporting on UAP.
I would like to thank the whistleblowers who have agreed to
come before the Committee today and speak their truth. This
administration claims to care about waste, fraud, and abuse,
and so often, it is whistleblowers who care and who are the tip
of the sword fighting against the real waste, fraud, and abuse.
One study found that whistleblowers exposed fraud at more than
twice the rate of third-party auditors.
So, Mr. Spielberger, what are some of the best examples of
whistleblowers exposing fraud and abuse in the Federal
Government?
Mr. Spielberger. Thank you, Congresswoman. Again,
whistleblowers have played such a vital role across so many
different issues. One prominent example goes back to the 2014
VA waitlist scandal. POGO actually played a very instrumental
role coordinating with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America. At that time, we received tips and whistleblower
disclosures from over 800 different individuals talking about
the VA subjecting veterans to extensive wait times in order to
get the basic standard of care that they deserve. It certainly
prolonged serious illnesses, even contributing to hastened
deaths. And we were able to help shed more light on that issue,
which I think just emphasizes the importance even outside of
the national security context. We are often still talking about
serious issues and even life and death concerns.
Ms. Lee. And unfortunately, whistleblowing can lead to
serious repercussions and retaliation, especially in this
vindictive and lawless administration. Mr. Spielberger, in the
past, what kinds of retaliation have they faced, and what are
we seeing today under the Trump administration?
Mr. Spielberger. So, we have certainly heard about a number
of different examples of retaliation. One that I would like to
highlight that Mr. Borland referenced previously is retaliation
through abuse of the security clearance process. That can have
grave implications not just for a whistleblower but also their
ability to seek legal counsel and defend themselves against
retaliation.
And when we look at the past several months of this
administration, unfortunately, we have seen a really systematic
approach toward dismantling the nonpartisan civil service. We
have seen the mass firings. We have seen undermining of
independent agency watchdogs, mass firings of inspectors
general, undermining the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit
Systems Protection Board, again, these entities that are meant
to be independent and play a critical role in investigating
whistleblower disclosures and ensuring that their rights are
protected.
Ms. Lee. Yes. Thank you. In 1989, Congress passed the
Whistleblower Protection Act and then broadened it again in
2012 to ensure that Federal workers could feel free to come
forward to their elected officials. And it is a good thing we
did because whistleblowers have played a more important role
than ever since Trump has taken office.
It was thanks to a whistleblower that we learned that DOGE
allegedly put every single American's personal security
information at risk by bypassing safeguards and copying all
this data to an unsecure server. I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a New York Times article titled ``DOGE
put critical Social Security data at risk, whistleblower
says.''
Mrs. Luna. Good to go.
Ms. Lee. Thanks. We have had whistleblowers at the National
Labor Relations Board reveal that DOGE minions may have shipped
case files outside of the agency, possibly to help then co-
president Elon Musk continue to exploit his workers. And last
week, whistleblowers at the National Institute of Health came
forward to say that RFK Jr.'s vaccine misinformation campaign
had pervaded even the highest levels of the agency. Typically,
whistleblowers have an inspector general they can rely on to
investigate their claims and register issues with agency
leadership, but President Trump has fired or demoted over 20
inspectors general.
If I may ask one more question, Mr. Spielberger, can you
explain how eroding the independence and capabilities of
inspectors general further endanger these whistleblowers?
Mr. Spielberger. Absolutely. So, again, whistleblowers
already face incredibly great challenges in coming forward
under normal circumstances, and when we erode these entities
that are expected and required to enforce whistleblower
protections, fairly investigate their disclosures, it calls
into question the integrity of their investigations and
findings, whether they will take whistleblowers seriously when
they come forward, and whether we can trust that they will use
their authority to enforce the protections of whistleblowers
who do come forward, essentially whether they will continue in
their role as an independent watchdog or basically become a
lapdog for a current or future President.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. And I will take no more liberties. I
yield back.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Crane for 5
minutes.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.
In the effort of transparency here, I got to admit to the
witnesses that, you know, growing up, I really never believed
in UFOs or any of this stuff. I always thought it was a little
kooky and whatnot. But, you know, after hearing, you know, your
testimony from honorable servicemembers, watching videos like
my colleague, Mr. Burlison, just presented, you know, I got to
admit, I have become a believer, not that I know where these
things come from or, you know, what they really are up to.
I would like to start with asking the witnesses, Mr.
Nuccetelli, you were in the Air Force, right?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes.
Mr. Crane. Did you believe in UFOs prior to your encounter?
Mr. Nuccetelli. I have always been interested.
Mr. Crane. Okay. Chief Wiggins, you are currently in the
Navy. Is that correct?
Chief Wiggins. Correct.
Mr. Crane. Did you believe in UFOs before your encounter?
Chief Wiggins. I did. I am from Las Vegas, and I have
watched George Knapp my whole life.
Mr. Crane. Okay. What about you, Mr. Borland?
Mr. Borland. I have always been open to where facts go,
so----
Mr. Crane. Were you guys scared or hesitant to come forward
and tell your story because of fear and believing that you
might be reprimanded or ostracized from society because of your
stories? Mr. Nuccetelli?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes, absolutely. I probably would not have
come forward if I did not have documentation to prove some of
my story. And I also would not have come forward without the
people that paved the way for us in, you know, the first
Congressional hearing.
Mr. Crane. Chief, what about you?
Chief Wiggins. Once I got the okay from the Navy from top
down, that gave me a level of relief. Prior to that, I did not
have any thought left or right of that. But I think the Navy to
give me the go ahead and that gave me the relief that I would
not have any level of reprisal or anything happen to me.
Mr. Borland. Mr. Borland, how about you?
Mr. Borland. Absolutely. I mean, after I went through
everything, it was pretty clear that I caused a major issue in
the executive branch, so I did what I was supposed to do. And
that is why I have not spoken publicly. That is why I am happy
to be here because this is how I wanted this to be done in
regards to me.
Mr. Crane. Mr. Borland, why do you think that you faced
reprimand and discipline for your effort to come forward and be
transparent about what you saw?
Mr. Borland. About what I saw is the reason why I got into
what I know and has been disclosed to AARO and the IG. And I
think that information, while it was--it was labeled an
extremely sensitive national security issue.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. Mr. Knapp, I have watched many of
your videos on Joe Rogan and other places. One of the big
questions, I think, for many of us is why do you believe that
the Federal Government refuses to be transparent about this
issue?
Mr. Knapp. I think there is probably multiple reasons. At
the start, when these things first started invading our skies
in large numbers, we were scared. It was right after World War
II, and we did not know what they were, and they did not want
to panic the public, and that was probably a good call. Over
time, I think the lying sort of became institutionalized, you
know? Flights over Washington, D.C. in 1952, they are seen,
they are captured on radar, jets are chased after these
objects, and then we get an explanation it was a temperature
inversion. And those kind of lies have been told for a long
time.
What was told to me by an investigator from Congress, a guy
named Richard D'Amato, who was sent after this story by Robert
Byrd and Harry Reid, he came out to Nevada, tried to get into
Area 51, did get in there, looked around, talked to people,
trying to get to the bottom of it. He believed that this
program, reverse engineering, et cetera, was inside--had been
moved inside these corporations. And he said, when this comes
out, people are going to go to prison. And he meant people who
were basically misusing legitimate national security funds,
tens of billions of dollars in order to keep this coverup
going.
I also believe there is a legitimate reason for the coverup
in that there is undeniable connection of national security
involved in this technology. If we are racing for it--to master
that technology against the Russians and the Chinese, which is
what I have been told by Senator Reid and many others, then it
is a race that is critical to our survival.
There could be a form of disclosure, I think. Yes, it is
real, it is from somewhere else, without revealing all the
details that would allow someone else to have an advantage in
the race for this technology.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. Finally, I would like to enter into
the testimony a letter I sent to the DOD regarding the case of
Major David Charles Grusch, a UAP whistleblower who has been
extremely helpful to this Committee. Unfortunately, due to his
participation in the disclosure of UAP, he suffered reprisal
like the removal of his clearance, denial of promotion, and
loss of medical retirement. I wrote the DOD on July 24, 2025,
on behalf of Major Grusch, and I am still waiting for a reply.
I appreciate any help the Committee can offer to get a
response.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection.
Mrs. Luna. We will be following up with the DOD after this
hearing. Thank you, Representative Crane.
I would next like to recognize Representative Gill for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Chairwoman Luna, for holding this
hearing, and I would like to yield a minute of my time to you.
Mrs. Luna. Perfect. My first question is to Mr. Knapp. Mr.
Knapp, how do we know that the files that you obtained from the
former Soviet Government are not BS and just given to you as a
disinformation campaign against U.S. Government?
Mr. Knapp. That is a good question. So, I shared some of
them with the Senate Intelligence Committee when I first got
back because that was requested by the Russians who shared some
of that information with me. Second, I gave all of that
material to the DIA through BAASS, the AAWSAP program. Sorry
for the acronyms.
Mrs. Luna. Can you name names real quick? Sorry.
Mr. Knapp. At BAASS or AAWSAP?
Mrs. Luna. Or who did you give them to directly?
Mr. Knapp. I gave them to Robert Bigelow and to Jim
Lacatski, and they hired a whole team to go through them and
retranslate them and analyze it, and they created a structure
of how the UFO programs in the USSR and Russia were put
together. They said they were real. The other person who said
they were real is David Grusch.
Mrs. Luna. Noted. Thank you.
Representative Gill?
Mr. Gill. And thank you. I would like to yield the
remainder of my time to Eric Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Representative Gill.
Mr. Wiggins, Chief Wiggins, in your view, what mechanisms
such as internal protocols, witness debriefings, or cross-
agency documentation should be better established in order to
ensure that such a credible sighting like the one that you have
given are preserved and made available to oversight bodies like
this?
Chief Wiggins. Thank you, sir. As an active-duty Navy
member, we--our mission is to carry out the ship's mission or
the command's mission, and we, on a general basis, do not have
knowledge of what to do when we see things like this. We just
do not. We are there to do our mission and do what is told of
us, right? So I think what would be important is giving active-
duty members a clear way of being able to report things like
this to where it gets to this point and ensuring that we have a
standard level of understanding that there would not be any
level of reprisal or anything happening because, you know, I
have been in the Navy for almost 24 years, but what about the
sailors that have been in for two years that experience things
like this? They are not going to have the knowledge, or they
will probably be a little bit more fearful to speak up, being
that their career is just starting.
Mr. Burlison. Yes, I want to commend you. You are the first
witness to come forward that is currently serving, and it is
recognized, and so I thank you. And your testimony is
unbelievable.
Let me ask this question. Are you familiar with the Witness
Protection Act that Representative Burchett has filed?
Chief Wiggins. I am not too familiar, sir.
Mr. Burlison. Anyone on the Committee familiar with it? It
is fantastic. It is the language that we need. It is language
that will protect, you know, whistleblowers from any kind of
reprisal, and yet it is again and again blocked by, you know,
this body in some way. Many times, it is being blocked not by
elected officials but by staff behind the scenes.
The other bill, the UAP Disclosure Act, which was filed
last year, Senator Schumer, who I cannot believe that there is
a topic that he and I agree on, but he and I agree on this
topic. He has sponsored it in the Senate. He put it on the
National Defense Authorization Act last year. Remarkably, I
cannot get it on the--it was stripped out by the House last
year, and I cannot get it onto the bill leaving the House this
year.
Mr. Knapp, how far would that bill go to actually getting
the answers that we need?
Mr. Knapp. Pretty far. I think that you are still going to
have roadblocks. You know, the keepers of secrets, the private
companies that have been doing this job for intelligence
agencies for a long time are not going to cough it up. You
would have to force it out of them. And whether you can get
them to admit that they have it or not, I mean, they are
supposed to lie about it. They have been lying about it.
You know, I--more power to you. I hope it works. I hope it
passes this time, but it is a daunting challenge to get them to
open up after lying about it for more than 75 years.
Mr. Burlison. Yes. And then finally, Mr. Borland, when you
engaged with AARO in 2023, you noted that their public
statements did not match the reality that you and others had
witnessed. In your assessment, what were the key limitations of
AARO?
Mr. Borland. You know, I would put it to you this way. The
statement AARO has made is scientific evidence of
extraterrestrials. Scientific evidence requires a scientific
control. Extraterrestrial is an entity on another planet. The
only way to scientifically prove extraterrestrial is we have to
go to that planet, acquire technology, bring it back, and
compare it to what we have here.
Mr. Burlison. So, you are saying they will not let anything
out because--or they will not come forward unless they confirm
that it--unless they go to the planet and confirm where its
origin is?
Mr. Borland. That would be scientific evidence, yes. And by
that statement, AARO found no scientific evidence of
extraterrestrials is basically--I do not want to call it a
psyop, but a misrepresentation because we do have things. But
making that statement is not technically a lie. It is a
misrepresentation of the full truth.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Ms. Boebert. Madam Chair, may I, just since we are on that
topic real quick, how do we get to these other planets? How do
we pass the Van Allen radiation belt safely?
Mr. Borland. Good question for you. I cannot answer that
for you.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. I would now like to recognize Mr. Perry for 5
minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I think I will start with maybe Mr. Borland. So, you have a
clearance, right? You are in uniform. You have a clearance.
When did you leave service? What year?
Mr. Borland. I left in 2013, February 2013.
Mr. Perry. 2013. Who was the President, if you recall?
Mr. Borland. 2013 would have been President Obama, sir.
Mr. Perry. It was not President Trump, right?
Mr. Borland. No, sir.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So, you have a clearance, right? You are
serving in uniform. You have a clearance.
Mr. Borland. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. Your story, you know, I think many of us are
kind of picturing the scene. You walk out in the flightline,
having a smoke, this event occurs. Do you have the perception,
at least I do, based on your story that this involves the U.S.
Government? Whatever you saw involves the U.S. Government?
Mr. Borland. That is 100 percent my opinion then and now.
Mr. Perry. And was there an after action? Did you do a
daily debrief of the activities of the day? Was any of that
recorded? Was there a conversation with the command? Was there
any documentation that you know of at the time?
Mr. Borland. Not to my knowledge. I mean, like I said, I
talked about it--on the ops Floor, and a couple of people had
pulled me aside, some older enlisted, and were like, you
probably want to keep that to yourself.
Mr. Perry. So, did you get the impression that they knew
what you were talking about, just did not want you to harm your
career or seem crazy, or that they did not really witness--do
you know anybody else that witnessed what you saw?
Mr. Borland. Again, not that night. Like I said, the only
people that would have been out there would have been security
forces and then those of us that were doing----
Mr. Perry. Security forces in uniform or contract?
Mr. Borland. Probably both.
Mr. Perry. Did you talk to them? Did anybody talk to them
in an after action?
Mr. Borland. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Perry. Was there any interest in the command to
determine and verify what you saw?
Mr. Borland. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Perry. It is unfortunate.
Chief Wiggins, thank you for your service. Gentlemen, thank
all of you for your courage to be here.
Your story is a little bit different. Sounds like it--well,
for both of you guys, and also Mr. Nuccetelli, if this were
sanctioned by the U.S. Government, even though you have a
clearance but it is classified above the clearance level, do
you see any reason why they would allow you access, being
present, viewing it, hearing it, you know, being around it? Is
this an accident? Does the U.S. Government make these kind of
accidents, mistakes like this? Like, oh, we are doing this test
of this new system, and we forgot these guys were standing
here. Does that sound like something that the U.S. Government
would do?
Mr. Nuccetelli. No, sir. Some of the launches we were doing
were like $5 billion projects that had taken like ten years to
develop the technology, and these objects were coming right up
to the launchpad. So, any kind of mistake, I mean, we could--it
could cause a catastrophe.
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Nuccetelli. So, it is very confusing why these objects
would be operating in and around our bases or during training
exercises.
Mr. Perry. It would lend you to believe that the U.S.
Government had nothing to do with whatever it is you saw?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Correct.
Mr. Perry. They would not want it there because it would
potentially interrupt the proceedings at the time. Was there an
after action? Was there a discussion by your command? Was there
an investigation? Pretty significant activities that you were
involved in. Was there an investigation that you know of?
Mr. Nuccetelli. We conducted investigations in real time--
--
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Nuccetelli [continuing]. And we document all the
evidence, but as far as anything from higher up, I do not know
if there was an investigation done. No information came down on
what we should do.
Mr. Perry. Were you ever interviewed at someone else's
request?
Mr. Nuccetelli. About that incident?
Mr. Perry. Yes, about the incident.
Mr. Nuccetelli. I do not believe so.
Mr. Perry. Do you find that odd? If something happens, you
are around multimillion, maybe billion-dollar operations and
launches of national security interests, very sensitive. There
is an anomaly in the operation----
Mr. Nuccetelli. The only person witnessed it that saw a UAP
at Vandenberg at that timeframe that was interviewed was the
one that witnessed the thing land. They----
Mr. Perry. Well, why would not--well, I do not know why I
am asking you, but it seems to me that we would want to
interview everybody associated, even not associated, to find
out if they were associated.
Chief Wiggins, how about you? Was there an investigation?
Was there an after action? Was there documentation on the
incident that you were privy to?
Chief Wiggins. No, sir, not that I know of. And in my
previous experience as an operations specialist, all operations
that I have been a part of have been deliberate, so----
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Chief Wiggins. [continuing]. They are----
Mr. Perry. And deliberate operations, after the operations,
you conduct an after-action review--or that is what the Army
calls it; I imagine the Navy has something similar--to
determine your weaknesses, your successes. Did you do that in
regard to this incident?
Chief Wiggins. No, sir. The Navy calls it after-action
reports, and not to my knowledge was there an after-action
report of this incident, sir.
Mr. Perry. It is unfortunate.
Thank you, Chair. I yield.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
I will tell you that today's testimony should alarm every
American, no matter their views on UAPs. This is not simply
about UAPs, it is about government integrity, responsible use
of taxpayer funds, and Congress' constitutional duty to oversee
the executive branch.
I have heard evidence of critical information hidden in
special access programs, off-limits to virtually every elected
representative, and certainly to the public. Credible witnesses
report retaliation for speaking out. These are clear attempts
to silence those who are exposing the truth. We must protect
the whistleblowers, and decades of government disinformation
have eviscerated public trust. So, this is not a partisan
matter. It is a constitutional matter.
And when you talk about the VA, Mr. Spielberger, and all
the problems that they had, the hub of that was Phoenix, and
they went after the whistleblowers there, and that was under
the Obama administration. So, it does not matter which
administration, which party. Both parties have got to come
clean, particularly on this. So, the government thinks it can
hide the truth and punish those who speak out. Congress has to
keep pushing until the facts, whatever they are, wherever they
lead, come to light.
Let me go to you, Mr. Knapp, first. You have interviewed
numerous UAP whistleblowers over the years. The question is,
how do you verify their claims before deciding they are
credible enough to report on?
Mr. Knapp. It is a combination of factors. First, you check
their credentials. Did they really serve where they said they
did, and did they work where they said they did? Are there any
other witnesses? Is there visual proof, film footage, things of
that sort? You ask the people around them that know them, that
used to work with them if they are credible people. That is one
way.
You know, I think about AARO, the organization that this
body created to deal with witnesses and whistleblowers. I hope
I am not taking too much of your time here, but they invited
people to come forward, servicemembers who knew--saw things and
had experiences. And I can tell you that the people that I have
talked to who went through that are deeply disappointed.
There was a guy named Bob Jacobs who was a lieutenant
attached to Vandenberg in 1964. His unit would record missile
tests. They recorded all of them. On one of those particular
tests, a UFO comes out of nowhere, zaps what looks like a laser
beam at what would have been a nuclear dummy, a nuclear weapon,
and disabled it. And he is called into the commander's office.
Two guys in suits clip that film footage out that shows the
UFO, and he has ordered to never talk about it. He comes
forward to AARO. He heeds the call, thinking he is doing his
duty as an American to tell that story, and they completely
dismissed him. They made up a story that they had tracked down
the original footage, and there was nothing like that in it.
Well, there was no original footage. It had been taken away the
day the footage was recorded. He is deeply disappointed.
People like Bob Salas, who had worked at a nuclear ICBM
base, who saw UFOs flying over the base, and these missile
silos were taken down. He went to AARO too and was completely
disregarded. It almost looks like AARO operated as a
counterintelligence operation to get people to come in, tell
their stories, and then discredit all of them.
I cannot imagine that any whistleblower or witness will
ever go to AARO again because of what happened under the first
director, who is now long gone but still seems to act as the
spokesperson for that organization.
Mr. Biggs. And I would say, Madam Chair, maybe at some
point we need to really dig deep into AARO, and I would
encourage us----
Mrs. Luna. Oh, I would be happy to send maybe a subpoena to
Mr. Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Nuccetelli, you have testified that official
Air Force records of the red square incident are now held by
AARO and the FBI. Has Congress or you been denied access to
those records? And on what grounds would we be denied access,
you or us?
Mr. Nuccetelli. No, the records are unclassified, so----
Mr. Biggs. Okay.
Mr. Nuccetelli [continuing]. They can provide them to you.
Mr. Biggs. In the 2003 to 2005 incidents you described,
were any physical effects, electromagnetic interference, radio
anomalies, or security system disruptions documented in base
logs or any reports, official reports?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Wiggins, has the full resolution unedited
footage of your incident been provided to Congress?
Chief Wiggins. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. Were you or your crew ever instructed
formally or informally not to document or discuss the event
ever?
Chief Wiggins. No.
Mr. Biggs. Good. Mr. Borland, you have talked about
manipulation of your security clearance records. Can you
identify which agencies or offices were responsible and whether
they provided any written justification?
Mr. Borland. I can do that in a SCIF, sir, 100 percent.
Because of being a part of a multi-agency special access
program, I cannot give those publicly.
Mr. Biggs. So, I would encourage us, Madam Chair, to have
that SCIF meeting if we can.
And then, Mr. Borland, again for you, you testified that
you withheld certain sources and methods from AARO due to
mistrust. Can you give us some specifics that led you to
believe they were misrepresenting the truth?
Mr. Borland. Well, as I said already, what I said about
scientific methods, scientific control, extraterrestrials, I
mean, I know what I have seen, I know what I know, and I know
it is true, so any agency that is going to go public and try
and manipulate the public perception of this subject in such a
way that is negative when I know the truth about it is why I
had extreme reservations with it. And also what I have been
through and other whistleblowers and people in the know about
this subject have been through.
Mr. Biggs. So, Madam Chair, thank you for letting me waive
on. I think the key thing there you talked about was
manipulation of message, manipulation of narrative. That is
really the problem with this entire system that we have seen
since you have started these wonderful hearings, Madam Chair,
and I thank you so much.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Representative Biggs.
The Chair would now like to recognize Mr. Begich for 5
minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First question, Mr. Borland, earlier today, you mentioned
that in a SCIF you would be able to discuss whether a Member of
Congress is actually legally able to access certain
information. Under what authority would a Member of Congress be
restricted from accessing information on this topic even within
a SCIF?
Mr. Borland. I would suggest reaching out to Director
Gabbard and speaking with her about that. I am hopeful that
this goes back to the executive branch and who even has
authority. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a 100 percent solid
answer because I do not even have that knowledge.
Mr. Begich. Next question to George Knapp. What is the
estimated annual budget, your view, for the program for
investigating or reverse engineering UAP-related technology,
including official, misappropriated, or black budget funds?
Mr. Knapp. I would not have a clue. I do not know of any
person that has ever seen it.
Mr. Begich. Does anyone on this panel wish to address that
question? Okay. Moving on.
Are any of you willing to name specific gatekeepers within
the root cell of the UAP SAP federation?
Mr. Knapp. You mean specific people and contractors that
have dealt with this and kept the secret?
Mr. Begich. Specific individuals.
Mr. Knapp. Well, one of them was named Dr. James Ryder at
Lockheed. But, you know, again, to emphasize, I do not fault
these contractors for doing what they were asked to do by our
government. They are supposed to lie if people ask about it.
And the intelligence agencies who gave this stuff to them, CIA
I think primarily, told them to keep it quiet, and they have
done that. And I suspect that they would like an offramp, that
they would like some help with figuring out this technology at
some point.
Mr. Begich. And this is, again, available to anyone. Is
there a security classification guide for UAP or NHI?
Mr. Nuccetelli. I was--I remember in the 2003 or 2023
hearing, it was stated that all UAP-related material is
classified secret or above.
Mr. Knapp. I have a name for you.
Mr. Begich. Go ahead.
Mr. Knapp. Glenn Gaffney, CIA.
Mr. Begich. Glenn Gaffney, CIA. Another question for you,
Mr. Knapp. In your view, having investigated this issue for so
many years, what is the long game with respect to disclosure of
this information to the public? Because with the advent of
essentially a video camera and a high megapixel phone in
everybody's pocket, at some point, this information is going to
be impossible to withhold from the public. What do you think is
the long game here?
Mr. Knapp. Well, the secret's out. I mean, how many videos
have there been already? You know, videos that are leaked from
within the military and intelligence agencies and contractors
and censor platforms, it is out there. But they have the high
ground. The people that do not want us to take it seriously
dismiss it, discredit the witnesses, come up with a cover
story. I mean, it has been out there a long time. The public
senses that it is real, and the people in authority dismiss
them. It is a game that's been going on a long time, and I do
not think they are ever going to release it. I think that there
is an attitude among the people that have been involved in this
for a long time that the public does not deserve to know and
that the public probably cannot handle it, but they can.
Mr. Begich. Final question. Again, this one is open to
anyone who would like to answer it. Describe your understanding
of the org chart or lines of control within the executive
branch with respect to these topics. And if you would like to
address that in a SCIF, feel free to say so.
Mr. Borland. That could work as long as I am legally
allowed to, and you are legally allowed to receive it.
Mr. Knapp. I think these programs are in the executive
branch, the National Security Council, and over on that side.
That seems to be what some of our witnesses have told us over
the years. So, you can--you know, Congress can file all kinds
of requests. The FOIAs can be filed with the Department of
Defense, Department of War now, and they can honestly say,
well, we do not have it because they do not have it.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. Is there anything in my remaining 30
seconds that you would like to share on any of these questions
that I have asked you today?
Mr. Knapp. I applaud the Committee for trying to tackle
this monster of an issue. I really appreciate that it is
actually--it might be the only bipartisan issue in Washington
where everybody can agree. We have watched multiple hearings
now. Everyone is asking the same kind of questions, whether
right or left, and honestly want the answers. And, you know,
Chairman Luna--Chairwoman Luna, your--I appreciate your
dedication to this, Tim Burchett and the other Members, for
sticking with it because, you know, it has come up in Congress
before, and they had hearings, and then they dropped it for 50
years. So, it is going to take a time--a lot of time to get to
the bottom of this, and I applaud your commitment to getting to
the truth.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Mr. Knapp. Pursuant to Committee rule
IX(c)----
Mr. Burlison. Madam Chair, can I ask a parliamentary
question of you?
Mrs. Luna. Yes, sure.
Mr. Burlison. Does this Subcommittee have the authority to
do subpoenas?
Mrs. Luna. Task Force. So, the Task Force, to answer that
question, has to do it through full Committee.
Mr. Burlison. Okay.
Mrs. Luna. And also in regards to immunity, which to Mr.
Borland's point, we are going to be doing a motion to ask for
immunity for you and a few other people to come into a SCIF and
tell us what you know without being subject to the Espionage
Act, et cetera.
Mr. Borland. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. So, that is just kind of an update. But as a
Task Force, because we are not a full Subcommittee and there
are certain authorities that have not been granted to us
probably because they do not want us to have it, but there are
ways to work around it, so we are kind of figuring that out.
Pursuant to Committee rule IX(c), the majority and minority
will have an additional 30 minutes each to ask questions of the
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
With that being said, if you guys want to jump in the
queue, I know Representative Crane, Burlison, and likely
Burchett have a few more questions. I will just start out with
two, and then I will pass the buck to Burlison.
Burchett, do you have anything?
Mr. Burchett. Yes, I----
Mrs. Luna. Burchett and then Crane.
Just real quick, Mr. Knapp--and short answers, please,
because of time--how much of these alleged Russian crash
retrieval documents have already been physically out there? So,
I mean, percentagewise of the documents that you submitted to
Congress, what was public already and what was not newly
released?
Mr. Knapp. Maybe one percent.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. So, the rest of it should be predominantly
new information?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Also, can you just elaborate real quick? I know
you had, I think, mentioned a Thread III program, but also
alleged in those documents, I got through maybe half of them
last night. There is a lot, and I do not speak Russian,
contrary to what people might allege. What does the Thread
III--was there any specific programs that existed within the
Soviet Government or groups to specifically investigate this by
name real quick?
Mr. Knapp. It is a number. There is a number in those
documents I gave you. There was a larger program that actually
had three subprograms that was--Thread III was the name I got,
and then the DIA guys who looked at it figured out there was a
much larger organization. It is----
Mrs. Luna. And it is listed in those documents?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Thank you. Real quick, I would like to ask
the Committee to replay that video that Burlison had played
earlier. I want to ask every witness here, specifically ones
that have sensor training or have been able to recognize some
of this movement real quick. So, if you guys can please roll
that real quick.
Okay. While this is still rolling, Mr. Nuccetelli, real
quick, yes or no answers, are you aware of anything in the U.S.
Government arsenal that can split a Hellfire missile like this?
Ms. Lee. No.
Mrs. Luna. And do whatever blob thing it did and then keep
going? Nothing?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Nothing.
Mrs. Luna. All right. How about you, Chief Wiggins?
Chief Wiggins. Nothing to my knowledge, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. And how about you, Mr. Borland?
Mr. Borland. I prefer to answer that in SCIF.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Does this video scare you guys? Yes or no?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Wiggins?
Chief Wiggins. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. I had a different reaction. I was really happy
that it got out. Thanks for providing that----
Mrs. Luna. Curiosity kills the cat.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Congressman.
Mrs. Luna. All right. Mr. Borland?
Mr. Borland. Yes, for----
Mrs. Luna. Okay. All right. That is the end of my
questioning.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Crane.
Mr. Crane. Thank you.
Chief, I was on a ship for a little bit. I was a gunner's
mate on the USS Gettysburg for a couple years. My question to
you is when you had your encounter and you saw it on the
screen, you were in the Combat Information Center (CIC). Is
that correct?
Chief Wiggins. That is correct, on a Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS), the CIC is on the bridge, so it is called ICC-1, but
yes, same----
Mr. Crane. Did a bunch of the other folks in the CIC come
and check out what you were looking at?
Chief Wiggins. Yes, we all did. The tactical action
officer, myself, the RCO, and two others that was--that were on
watch, we were all in the same space, so we were all looking at
the SAFIRE screen all at the same time.
Mr. Crane. Because in the other couple instances with the
witnesses, you guys just saw it by yourself, is that correct?
Mr. Borland, you saw it by yourself?
Mr. Borland. For me, yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Mr. Nuccetelli, you saw this by yourself?
Mr. Nuccetelli. No, there were multiple witnesses in every
case at Vandenberg.
Mr. Crane. Okay. So, Chief, did that spread like wildfire
throughout the ship in the next day or two, what you guys had
seen?
Chief Wiggins. No, sir. It did not spread throughout the
ship, but it spread throughout ICC-1 conversation. As you do
your turnover, we talk about it, but it did not go further than
just the watchstanders that stood watch on the bridge and in
ICC-1, so it did move around there throughout a few days.
Mr. Crane. I am kind of surprised. Stuff usually spreads
around the ship pretty fast. Why do you think the rest of your
fellow sailors on the boat did not hear about it?
Chief Wiggins. Potentially uninterest, possibly, you know,
with engineers or combat systems like yourself do not make
their way up to the bridge enough to get within sight of the
circle of talk about the incident.
Mr. Crane. Was it hard for you to get permission from the
Navy to bring that video?
Chief Wiggins. I myself did not bring the video. I just saw
the video. When I saw the video, I got in touch with Admiral
Gallaudet. That is how I wind up knowing about the video itself
when I first talked to the admiral. And you can hear my voice
at the back end of the video, and that is--I was like, hey,
that is my voice, and I wanted to talk about it.
Mr. Crane. How long did that encounter take place, Chief?
Chief Wiggins. So, the encounter itself from the time I
recognized on my radar to the time after the video ends was
probably about 5 to 7 minutes.
Mr. Crane. What speed was the object moving at?
Chief Wiggins. When I first witnessed off the port bridge
wing the object moving out of the water, what I thought was
originally just a light on the water or something on the
horizon and surfacing and going into the air, I then knew it
was an air contact. But as an air controller myself, I started
thinking and going through kind of like my checklist in my
mind. Could it be a helo, but it is not blinking lights. So, I
then realized this is something I have never seen before.
So, the speed itself just going from the horizon to about
maybe 3-4,000 feet in the air was very slow, slowly rising, and
then it sped up. I am not an expert at, you know, knowing
specific speeds of aircraft just by visual eye, but I would say
probably 1, 2 Mach instantly into the rest of the formation. I
did not notice visually with my own eyes the other three
objects until I went back to my radar and also utilized SAFIRE
to see that, in fact, there were four total. And then again,
when they all left after a certain amount of time, it was
nearly instantaneous.
Mr. Crane. So, you spotted it visually first, Chief, and
then went back to your radar? Did you guys spot it on radar
first?
Chief Wiggins. Radar first because that was my watch
station was----
Mr. Crane. And then you went out to the port bridge wing,
is that correct?
Chief Wiggins. Correct, to verify what I saw on my radar.
Mr. Crane. What range was it at, Chief, when you were not
able to see it visibly?
Chief Wiggins. I would say about seven nautical miles,
seven to eight nautical miles of a light from the ship.
Mr. Crane. Wow. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. I now recognize Mr. Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Wiggins, you said that it emerged from the ocean. Is
that right?
Chief Wiggins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burlison. And before it did, it was a glowing object
under the water?
Chief Wiggins. That part I could not tell because it was
nighttime, at 1915 approximately, and it was also at a
distance. So, it is very hard to tell the difference between
something on the horizon and something surfacing from the
water. My personal thoughts after seeing what I saw is that it
did, in fact, come from the water, but I do not have visual
evidence showing exactly, you know, that it did, in fact, come
from the water. But I had--again, I had to go through my
process of elimination and try to figure out was this a ship on
the horizon just showing its lights at night, but to see its
surface, then it made me question, okay, where did this come
from? If it is flying and it is not a drone or anything like
that, where was its origin? Where did it start?
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Knapp, in your testimony and in this
document, you detail an event that happened in Russia where
their nuclear missiles were activated, and we were close to a
World War III at that time, which is startling to hear. It is
also good to know that, as we have investigated the JFK files
as well, that we are learning that there was a document that
was sent between Russia--there was an agreement between Russia
and the United States that if they were to see some
unidentified objects over sensitive sites, that they would
report it to each other. Are you familiar with that document?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. I am also familiar with the rhetoric--
public rhetoric, between President Reagan and Gorbachev at the
time too, that they traded statements about would it not be
something if we were threatened by something from way outside
how we might work together. I know for sure that they had
conversations about it, and I know we did reach an agreement to
try to lessen the possibility that us detecting a UFO or group
of UFOs would not be mistaken for a bunch of Russian missiles.
There were exchanges of that sort that went back and forth.
Mr. Burlison. Yes, and I can imagine this is--to me, the
validity of this document is underscored by the fact that
Russia would not want this to be known. They absolutely would
not want the public to know or the United States to know that
there was a vulnerability in their missile systems. Would you
agree?
Mr. Knapp. Absolutely. And, you know--and we had many
similar incidents at our nuclear weapons facilities here that
have all been sort of swept under the rug, but it is pretty
scary when you take down ten missile silos during tense times
and you do not have a better explanation for it than it was a
special test of security mechanisms or using EMPs, which is a
preposterous explanation.
Mrs. Luna. Real quick, we are going to cut to Mr. Ogles. He
just got back. We are in a special kind of lightning round, so
5 minutes, and then we will go back to our line of questioning.
Mr. Ogles. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, at this point, I think it is clear from the
hearing that there is advanced technologies that are taking
place in our airspace. You know, the question is--and I posed
it in one of the previous hearings--is it ours, is it theirs,
or is it otherworldly? There may not be a silver bullet at the
moment, but when you look back through the hearing and the
evidence that has been presented, if you are going to point the
American people to one piece of evidence to start their journey
on this topic, what would you suggest, sir?
Mr. Nuccetelli. One piece of evidence, I would start with
this hearing, in the first hearing. There is no evidence----
Mr. Ogles. But is there a specific--exactly, but is there
specific evidence or footage or document that you think lends
extreme credibility to what we are discussing today?
Mr. Nuccetelli. I would say this new video we are seeing
today is exceptional evidence that we are dealing with
something----
Mr. Ogles. With the kinetic?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ogles. Mr. Wiggins?
Chief Wiggins. Sir, I would have to say that if just the
average person here in America looked at absolutely everything
that has come across television, the internet, et cetera, you
cannot tell yourself that 100 percent of what is being recorded
is fake or false. You have to, at some point, understand that
there is something else out there.
Mr. Ogles. Well, I mean, and you bring an interesting
point. You know, in the law enforcement community, any time you
are conducting an investigation, you are always looking at the
totality of the circumstances. You are looking at all the
evidence and how they piece together. And so that would be my,
you know, advice to the American people, that this is a journey
that is just beginning from a Congressional perspective, but
you have decades of data, some of it not real, much of it is,
but thanks to Chairwoman Luna, we are now presenting this to
the American people.
And I think this latest video from Mr. Burlison is
something that should give everyone pause when you see the
three orbs that drop. Was that in a defensive posture, or was
that in an offensive posture? And what capabilities did those
orbs have that we, quite frankly, may not have? Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks,
what hooked me on the story was the paper trail, these
documents that should not exist. We have been told for decades,
over and over, there is nothing to it. It is not a threat. You
can go about your business. And then when FOIA becomes the law
of the land, thousands of pages to the contrary leak out. There
is a memo by General Nathan Twining in 1947 when the country
was being overflown by dozens of UFOs, hundreds of UFOs, in
which he said, look, this is not visionary or fictitious, it is
real. These things are craft. They are not ours. They
outperform anything we have got.
I mean, if you follow the paper trail of documents that
they wrote before the military got wise and realized that FOIA
really exists and changed their tune and not put things in
writing, it spells it out pretty clearly.
I will go--refer back to Russia. One incident I did not
mention, Representative Burlison, is there--Colonel Sokolov in
that Ministry of Defense program said there were 40 incidents
where Russian warplanes were sent to intercept UFOs, and they
were ordered to fire on them. And for the most part, the UFOs
would zip away. Three of the pilots, though, did fire at these
things. Those three planes stalled out, crashed. Two of those
pilots died. And after that, the Russians changed the standing
order. If you see a UFO, leave them alone.
No country in the world wants to say and admit that these
objects are flying around in our airspace, and there is nothing
we can do about it. I mean, who wants to say that? The United
States certainly does not, and the Russians did not either.
Mr. Ogles. And I have got to be almost out of time. But Mr.
Borland, you, sir, real quickly.
Mr. Borland. Yes, to be honest with you, I think Bob Lazar,
and not for the reasons that most would talk about, mainly
because Bob Lazar was immediately discredited. They said he
never worked where he worked. They said he never did what he
did. But yet Bob Lazar showed up with a bunch of friends in a
video camera and was filming these test flights in the middle
of the desert, so clearly, he knew something.
Mr. Ogles. Madam Chair, if I am out of time, I yield back.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you very much, Representative Ogles.
I would like to go back now on our lightning round of
questioning to Representative Burchett and then Burlison.
Burchett, always number one.
Mr. Burchett. As well I should be. Number one in your
heart, number 435 on the chart, that is me.
Dylan, knowing you testified to AARO, are they obfuscating
when they claim to have discovered no evidence of
extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology? And are they
lying to the American public?
Mr. Borland. As I said before, it is a manipulation of the
public perception. The statement ``scientific evidence of
extraterrestrials'' is a true statement. It is not the truth
about what is happening and what we have.
Mr. Burchett. Would any of you all like to comment on that
further? Mr. Knapp, you are getting edgy.
Mr. Knapp. Well, it is splitting hairs. No proof that there
are extraterrestrials, what would that proof look like, a piece
of kryptonite? What would it be? I mean, we could be talking
about different forms of nonhuman intelligence. I think the
dominant paradigm is that they come from outer space, somewhere
else, and they have some way that they can cross those vast
distances that we cannot even imagine doing but not
necessarily--that is not necessarily the answer.
So, asking for proof of extraterrestrials might not be the
answer at all. It is splitting hairs. You know, we do not know
where they are from. I do not know anyone who knows the answer
for sure. They call them aliens just as a place-keeper kind of
a word. But no one in all these programs who have studied this
stuff for years, people with much bigger brains than mine,
knows the answer for sure.
Mr. Burchett. I mean, I have talked to Navy folks that some
of the deep sea areas, they think there might be something
there that they are here, and I do not know when they got here.
Another point that needs to be made is every time--you
know, we say we are going to back engineer or whatever you want
to call it these craft. I always say it would be like if you
took a--I ride motorcycles, but if you took like an Indian or a
Harley to the people that came over here on the Mayflower, you
know, they would see a bright, shiny object. They might polish
it. You know, they might get it started. I doubt they could.
They could not work on it. They could not put fuel--they would
not have the capability of putting fuel in it.
I just think that, you know, we are scratching at something
that we do not have any knowledge of, and that is why it has
just taken so dadgum long. But they do know the first one that
cracks that code, it is over. I mean, it is energy, it is
power, it is everything. And I worry, too, that in the wrong
hands that they do that, they keep it from the rest of us
because they are so invested in whatever energy sources we have
here that their billionaire buddies are going to profit, and
they cannot retool because they know once it is out on the
internet, it is over.
And so, I think there are a lot of things going after, and
I think that is why the move to discredit folks is so rapid
too. I think, you know, they point to them and they put the
dogs on them, and it disgusts me.
Mr. Knapp. There is a price to be paid for that too. The
Russians and Chinese are trying to figure this out as well, but
they are--they do not have the same kind of stigma. They tell
their best scientists and engineers, get in there and work on
it. And they have been doing it for a very long time, might
have a head start on us. Here, we do not have our best
scientists and engineers working on it because they've been
told it is nonsense. The stigma is very real for people like
that.
Mr. Burchett. I agree. Yield back, Chairlady.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I would now like to recognize
Representative Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Nuccetelli, when you heard the testimony
of Mr. Knapp talking about that these missiles were shut down
or turned on in Russia, does that remind you--when you hear
these stories, it has got to remind you of the event that
happened on your base?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Absolutely. There are many, many accounts
of incursions of this type taking place. I believe in the 1960s
we had a similar incursion in New England, and same thing
happened. There were these objects coming over the base at low
altitude, 200 feet over the base security police, and they were
scrambling fighters, and then the objects would just fly off.
And that went on for weeks.
So, the historical record has laid out that there's a
pattern, that our installations are visited by these craft. You
know, they come in and do whatever they are doing, and then
they leave. And we do not know how to respond. We do not know
how to protect the installation. So that is why we are here.
Mr. Burlison. When you first heard and were having to
report on these incidents that were being witnessed by other
individuals, did you believe them? Did you yourself believe it
would be true until you saw it?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes, these are people I have worked with
for years, deployed with. You know, I was in some of their
weddings. These are people that I have worked with every day of
my life. Usually, when the events were occurring, we were all
together. You know, there would be 40, 60, 100 people on duty
during these encounters.
Mr. Burlison. Really?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. All seeing it at the same time?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes. These were--these encounters were
playing out while we were on duty, and we were responding and
investigating in real time as they occurred.
Mr. Burlison. And as you said, the importance of your
operation was highly important because they said it is the most
important in 25 years, the research that you were conducting.
Mr. Nuccetelli. For that particular launch, we had 500 Air
Force police officers guarding the launch, 500 people. It was
that critical.
Mr. Burlison. Wow.
Mr. Nuccetelli. But had this thing showed up, we would not
have been able to do anything to prevent it showing up.
Mrs. Luna. Real quickly, can you just redescribe size and
whether or not you heard anything? It was how big?
Mr. Nuccetelli. The two square objects were at least as
large as a football field. The second encounter, they think it
was much larger than a football field. We are talking like
flying buildings. The object I saw was about 30 feet in
diameter, which is----
Mrs. Luna. And to confirm, you were not the only person
that saw this?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Correct.
Mrs. Luna. I think I was also told that there was also
reports of this in a police blotter in the area. Can you
confirm that?
Mr. Nuccetelli. Yes. That is the documentation that I
maintained from the original event and turned into AARO and the
FBI.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Do you have any more, Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No. Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate to
the American people that if you are frustrated, so are we. We
are extremely frustrated. We have been--you know, the two,
three years, I can only imagine how frustrated Mr. Knapp is or
Danny Sheehan is and the amount of time that you guys have
poured into this to try to get answers. I mean, Maussan is back
there. He has been pouring to try to get answers into this.
I hope that you all see that we are committed to this, and
we are going to be scrappy about it. We may not have the direct
authority, but I can assure you, Representative Luna is about
as scrappy as it gets. I would not want to scrap with her.
But that being said, I think that if the American people
want to see answers, we need action. We have had the hearings.
It is time to take action. It is time that we pass Tim
Burchett's Whistleblower Act. It is time that we pass the UAP
Disclosure Act. And I think that we have had a lot of talk
about this. It is time for action.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Burlison.
I would now like to yield 30 seconds to Representative
Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I will reserve.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you.
In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for
their testimony today. I now yield to Ranking Member Crockett
for closing remarks.
Ms. Crockett. I will pass. No, I just want to say thank you
so much to each and every one of you for being here today, for
staying committed to this, and for your courage. I truly
believe that courage is contagious. And right now, we need more
courage than ever, whether it is UAPs or whether we are dealing
with any other form of government where people are afraid to
come out and speak their truth. The American people are relying
on amazing public servants like you to speak up on their
behalf, to be the watchdog, and to make sure that we are as
safe as possible. And so, thank you so much again for
conducting a bipartisan hearing on such an important matter.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I would now like to recognize myself
for some closing remarks.
This is obviously something that does not just affect
everyone in this room. I can tell you that specifically for
where I represent in Pinellas County, Tampa Bay, and Florida as
a whole, there is many sightings, many questions, people
reporting this. But I am not the only one. I was also told by
Representative Biggs, as well as, you know, our great
Representative from Alaska, that these are not isolated
instances. And so, it does give us reasoning to provide
investigative inquiry into these topics.
But also, too, I would also like, Mr. Spielberger, if you
could actually review and see if your organization would
endorse the Whistleblower Protection Act that Representative
Burchett has. I can tell you that I will be signing on to a
letter, as well as I am sure many other members of this Task
Force. And we hope that the Ranking Chairwoman or my colleague
here, Representative Crockett, as well as our Democrats that
were here today, consider also signing on to that as we do feel
that it is time to ensure that our whistleblowers are given
adequate protections and that people like Mr. Borland are not
facing retribution in the way that they have been.
With that being said, with all that and without objection,
all Members have five legislative days within to submit
materials and additional written questions for the witnesses,
which will be also forwarded to those witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection----
Mr. Burchett. Chairlady, can I say one thing?
Mrs. Luna. I would like to now recognize Representative
Burchett for closing remarks.
Mr. Burchett. I would just like to thank the Ranking Member
and the Chairlady for their courage. This is a tough issue. We
all catch hell for it. But it is gratifying that we are here in
a bipartisan nature and the way this meeting was conducted. And
I want to thank you all for your courage. Thank you all.
Mrs. Luna. Without objection, the Task Force stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Task Force was adjourned.]
[all]