Andre Carson: More than 50 years ago,
John Greenewald: the US government ended project
Bluebook. On May 17 2022, Congress held its first hearing
on UFOs and more than 50 years. This video contains some of the
highlights, at least, the highlights in the eyes of the
black vault. Join me as we watch together some of the best
moments and get some extra information and commentary along
the way. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the
black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for
tuning in. And taking this journey inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, John Greenwald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault.com. And first off, let me apologize,
it took me a couple of days to get what I intended to do days
ago. And that was do a live stream have a lot of fun, maybe
open up the phone lines. While all of that came crashing down
as the plan when Sadly, my three year old, had come down with a
pretty high fever turned out to be a double ear infection. And
although I'm never happy with those, it's a lot better than
going through COVID. So I was a little bit of a afraid that she
may be going through that. So this day and age of high fever,
being lethargic for a dad and a mom. Not very fun. But when I
could what I've done here in the last couple of days, and maybe
it was a blessing in disguise was I was able to go through the
UAP hearing more times than I want to count bits and pieces
here and there when I could to try and figure out what the best
pieces were to share with all of you. And also try and figure out
what the best pieces were. For me as a researcher, what can I
utilize? What can I use to my advantage and let's say FOIA
requests or FOIA appeals things on the record and under oath,
yes, really do speak volumes when you are, let's say fighting
for something under FOIA, writing certain things in
appeals and so on. So you always want to look for that kind of
stuff. Going through, it really kind of made me see the value in
what this hearing was. And to be honest with you, I'm pleasantly
surprised. I see a lot of comments out there in social
media land, where people were let down, they wanted more, they
wanted more. And to be honest with you, I didn't expect this
much. So I did put a video out the day or two before the
hearing, put some thoughts out there. And of course, just
speculation, I had no idea what to expect. But overall, I am
pleasantly surprised at what we got, simply because it's a lot
more than I thought. Reason is, is we've got some visuals now
even though they weren't exciting. I'll go over those
with you. But I was surprised that they went there. But then I
think it was part of the plan. When you see what they're trying
to do, I think that's a big motivator for me. So overall,
generally speaking, I wanted to at least say, Look, this is a
positive development. I always thought that it would be if a
hearing ever came to pass. I didn't think it would happen
this quickly. I figured we'd maybe be like a year plus out
from that. And no matter what you might have the words UFOs on
Capitol Hill in a hearing with people under oath. That's great,
because that is all good stuff. But when you look at what
actually went down and you look at at the people that were
testifying and what they couldn't answer, that also is
telling, you've heard me say on this channel before that
sometimes you get a fully redacted page. And for many
that's frustrating you thinking, hey, they couldn't release a
single word. Why release it at all? Well, I want them to
release it because those blacked out pages tell a story. The same
with hearings like this silly answers, answers that they have
to push to a closed or classified setting, meaning they
can't let you or I hear it. All of those are frustrating, of
course, but telling. And those are the things that you can
utilize either in those FOIA appeals or FOIA requests or so
on when you go after information. And you can see
where the sensitive points are. So overall, I think that this
was good. Will it happen again? I hope so. I know there's a lot
of talk out there that it will and this is the first of many to
come, and I won't be surprised. I think that that was one of the
other things that I'll put generally speaking on the
hearing that the congressmen that were there seemed generally
interested. Most of one in particular, I felt just kind of
winged it the whole way. But regardless, I mean, some of the
questions were really solid. Some of them were really just
Where did you come up with that. And other ones were kind of what
I called facepalm. Where, which caused me to just go Oh, cheese,
really. And we'll get to that as well. But some of you may have
have seen my quote in Politico yesterday where I said just
that, about the Wilson Davis documents Coming up, we'll go
over that in this video. So here's the deal. I'm going to
make this as quick as possible, but it's going to be long. This
is one of those deep dive videos where I feel it's just warranted
to go in deeper, go over the highlights, play the video for
you. And then give some extra information where applicable,
some commentary where I feel it's warranted, and go on from
there. Normally, I have a PowerPoint presentation this
time I have a video, what I'm going to go ahead and do is play
the clips, pause at certain points. And we'll just go from
there. Let me last say if you're really kind of not interested in
any more commentary here, because you're you've seen it so
many times here in the last few days from so many different
people. Not a problem, I won't be offended if you turn it off.
But if you are interested and want to take this journey with
me, let's take a look.
Scott Bray: Since the early 2000s, we have seen an
increasing number of unauthorized and or unidentified
aircraft or objects in military controlled training areas, and
training ranges and other designated airspace, reports of
sightings are frequent. And continuing. We attribute this
increase in reporting to a number of factors including our
work to D stigmatize reporting, an increase in the number of new
systems such as quad copters, and unmanned aerial systems that
are in our airspace, identification of what we can
classify as clutter, mylar balloons and other types of of
air trash, and improvements in the capabilities of our various
sensors to detect things in our airspace.
John Greenewald: Well, that all sounds great, right? And they
give all of those mundane explanations for UFOs that we
hear a lot from skeptics, and so on. So to congressmen who don't
know any better, maybe that would fly. But to anybody that
decides to actually look at the information and look at the data
that's there and look what the government has already done, and
said and explained almost a year ago, you'll realize that all of
those explanations didn't fit into a single case, there was
nothing they could attribute it to clutter, there was nothing
that could they could attribute to those drones or quad copters.
The increase in capability to detect, as Mr. Scott Bray just
pointed out, didn't fit into the 143 Unidentified cases that they
talked about in last year's report. What you're looking at
now is a screenshot from the classified version that I got
released from the Director of National Intelligence, and it
reiterates exactly that now there was one case that they
labeled a deflating balloon, and that's fine. Those are that's
going to happen. But Scott praise leading off his opening
statement by giving you a laundry list of explanations
which sound perfectly plausible. But when you look at their own
report, not a single one fit into any of those categories.
But why didn't you tell Congress that?
Scott Bray: In the early stages, the task force work to
standardize the reporting mechanisms and processes to make
it as easy as possible for personnel to report any
engagement so that we were getting that wide range of
reporting that we needed. We also spent considerable efforts
engaging directly with our naval aviators and building
relationships to help destigmatize the act of
reporting sightings or encounters. And we work with
naval aviation leadership to provide additional equipment to
record any encounter Navy and Air Force crews now have step by
step procedures for reporting on a UAP on their kneeboard in
their in the cockpit and in their post flight debrief
procedures.
John Greenewald: Now, even though we knew that there were
guidelines that were posted a few years ago for the Navy, this
now solidifies an oath that there is a document outlining
all the procedures for UAP. That is in every aircraft, well, at
least according to Scott Bray. Now, why is that important?
Well, we know now under oath that that document exists. Now
even though we've safely assumed it. We've seen people talk about
it in news articles and stuff again about the guidelines. Now
it seems like there's a structured document that is in
naval aviator in air force pilots aircraft Now for a long
time, I've had FOIA requests going back about a year and a
half, specifically with the United States Air Force under
the assumption that they would have such a thing. But this is
one of the examples of an under oath testimony, that now becomes
gold. Many people not may not pick up on it, because you don't
do FOIA is you really don't care whether or not that there's a
manual or not. But for me, it's gold, because that will outline
everything that they're looking at. Hopefully, we can get it and
I believe we likely could. There might be some redactions in
there. But regardless, the form itself that they fill out, or
whatever it is that they're instructed to do, hopefully will
be releasable. But this solidifies that it exists. So
there's no way now it just cuts them off at the past of them
coming out and saying, Hey, sorry, we don't have anything
like that. Nothing like that exists. Sorry. Well, now we can
solidify that it's there. Again, that may be something that
doesn't sound too important to some people. But the moment you
have that much, you start carving out the excuses, that
the US military or the government can give you to deny
you access to documents.
Scott Bray: Additionally, subject matter experts from a
wide variety of fields, including physics, optics,
metallurgy, meteorology, just to name a few have been brought
into to expand our understanding in areas where meet, we may not
have organic expertise. In short, we've endeavored to bring
an all hands on deck approach to the better understand this
phenomenon.
John Greenewald: That's fantastic. We really didn't hear
a whole lot about what the UAP Task Force now aeoi MSG or what
they call aim SOG what they were doing with the reports. But just
to kind of connect this to a piece of the puzzle that I
posted months ago when I got declassified records from the
National Reconnaissance Office, that there is what's called a
UAP TF UAP Task Force advisory panel. And we can see here in
the middle, I can't do a pointer as I usually can with
PowerPoints. But just look at the middle of this graphic here
and NRO officer on the UAP Task Force advisory panel provided
feedback on NRO platforms, sensors, data processing and
information exploitation, and then a bunch of redactions, when
I had received these documents, they were that was never
acknowledged before, as far as I know, again, that's one of those
things that's always assumed, we would hope that they would have
a list of experts that they would go out and be able to call
upon, should they should they need it. But this document
solidified it. So I had immediately turned around, filed
Freedom of Information Act requests for records relating to
the advisory panel and who's on it. Now anybody who knows
anything about FOIA, when it comes to who's on it may
absolutely be redacted. That's exemption B six. So for privacy
reasons, especially when you start naming an NRO officer,
that becomes very problematic, not only would that fit into
exemption B six of the FOIA, but there's also statutes with the
NRO, with the CIA, with the DIA, which ties into exemption B
three, that essentially warrants them to redact everything that
connects a human to their agency. So they try and separate
for protection for security reasons, the identity of
individuals, so it may come redacted if I can get anything
at all. But it will show how big it is. Because maybe the name
will be redacted. But the specialty will be there. That
maybe not redacted. I don't know I'm not a fortune teller. But
you have a lot better chance to get that kind of identifier to
somebody versus their name. And that to me is just as important
as a name because it tells me and all of us the specialty that
they are focusing on. And that could be incredibly telling for
trying to unravel exactly what's going on with the advisory panel
and what they're talking about.
Scott Bray: So what have we learned so far? Any given
observation may be fleeting, or longer. It may be recorded or
not, it may be observable by one or multiple assets. In short,
there's rarely an easy answer. For example, let me share with
you the first video that we have here today, which shows an
observation in real time.
John Greenewald: I was pretty excited when the started go
down. Didn't expect visuals.
Scott Bray: There it was. That's in many cases. That's all that
report may include. Then I started and in many other cases,
we have far less than this.
John Greenewald: So what you just saw was one of the video
owes. And jokingly on Twitter I had posted the quote unquote
Batman balloon was starting to make an appearance, simply
because when you start to look at that it looks very similar.
Now it ended up not being the same. But But regardless, it's
the same, essentially quality. We'll get to one of the funniest
parts in the hearing in a few minutes. But here is the full
video file that was later released by the Pentagon. I was
one of the recipients of it, I posted it immediately on the
black vault, what I call the raw files, but they are not the raw
files from the cockpit source, which is likely by the looks of
it a phone of some kind, but rather the raw files when the
DoD released them. So this is not screen grabs from the stream
of the video, but rather, the full video itself, take a look.
And it's that fast. Now, here I slowed it down for it comes in
at three frames, frame one, frame two, frame three, then
it's gone. I'll play it again. frame one, Frame to Frame three.
Now, of course, a lot of people out there like Mick West are
already analyzing that video, because although it's not the
raw source, he can immediately go in and start dissecting
what's there. Fans of this channel will know if you don't
know Mick West. I mean, he's a self described debunker I don't
like the word myself, I feel it's more of a demeaning term
against somebody. Because I really respect Mick, we don't
always agree. I've seen some stuff, especially of late of MIS
that I really disagree with and have posted responses to, but
but when it comes down to the end of the day, he's somebody of
great value to this conversation he just is. So he immediately
grabbed the video and starts, you know, analyzing it the best
that he could, and you know, starts to make conclusions about
it likely being either I think he said a balloon or something
to that effect, regardless of what his going theory is, it
really starts to make you wonder, number one, is this
really the best that they have? And I highly doubt that. But
number two, is this intentional? Is this intentional to put this
out there that may be likely a balloon or weather balloon or,
or something of that nature, just easily explainable whatever
it may be. Don't don't write me hate mail. I'm not saying that
it is. But But regardless, that what we're seeing already in the
days that followed the hearing, was this intentional? Was this
something that they want us to do? Where we see quote unquote,
the evidence that many will assume that's the best they got?
Because they're not showing anything else. They assume
that's the best they got. And then people like MC, come out
and conclusively show or maybe closely to conclusively, I'll
select a better word than that. But really kind of put the doubt
out there that this is anything spectacular. Maybe that's all
part of the plan. Did they strategically choose the worst
video that they could to put out there into this public public
sphere, it's possible, and maybe it plays into a bigger plan
we're getting
Scott Bray: incidents are resolved, they likely fall into
one of five potential explanatory categories, airborne
clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government or US
industry developmental programs for an adversary systems or a
other bin that allows for a holding bin of difficult cases.
And for the possibility of surprise and potential
scientific discovery. We stand by those initial results. Since
the release of that preliminary report UAP Task Force database
has now grown to contain approximately 400 reports. The
stigma has been reduced.
John Greenewald: Did you catch that? 400 reports in a database.
Remember what I said earlier about picking up on the small
things. Some may say great, 400 Cool. That's how many that's how
many it's grown to. But he solidified that there is a
central database. Again, all things that we can assume. And
some of you may be wondering why I'm pushing points like these,
because again, it locks in and with the backing of under oath
testimony, there is a database with at least 400 reports in it.
So what did I do? Well, you you probably Yesterday, I
immediately filed a case, based on Scott braze testimony for the
entire database 100% of it will also get into his we'll call it
promise to Congress about transparency. So I think that
with the testimony here under oath, about the database
existence, and their drive for transparency, and we'll get to
those clips, that will put up a good case for the majority, not
everything. But hopefully the majority of these 400 cases to
be released to the general public, because he said, that's
what he wants to do. Now, I put a rather large agreement for the
FOIA request of I think I did $300 to agree. So if they come
back and say, well, it's voluminous and there's, you
know, 400 reports times, however many pages, I've already locked
in and allocated a few 100 bucks for that they may come back for
extra money. Now, just so you guys know, I don't take any
super chat donations from the YouTube channel, or donations on
the website and go out to dinner, or buy my wife a
present. What would I say it's 100% into this channel. That's
what it goes. When I literally show receipts. You'll see
recently I did a request with NASA, which stretched to about,
I think it was $360, that is going to be the payment. And I
literally show the receipts. So for those of you that support me
on Patreon or decide to do those super chats, it is so incredibly
helpful for situations like this, because that's what it
goes to, of course, the black vaults a little bit expensive to
run anyway. But just so you guys know, I always try and show you
exactly what those dollars go to. And this is a prime example.
So I put in a a confirmation to the US Navy for this database
that at this point, will say $300, I'm happy to pay it, they
may come back and say it's higher. And of course, I'll
probably pay it regardless. But that I just wanted to kind of
give you a quick point. If you're watching this on YouTube
and wondering what those super chats go to this as a prime
example, what you're looking at is my Twitter post that I that I
made it public that I was requesting this database, and
I'll keep you guys informed every step of the way, just like
I did on that classified UAP report, which turned out to be
pretty cool the way the way it turned out. By the way the
appeal is still going. Let's keep going.
Scott Bray: We've also made progress in resolving the
character of a limited number of UAP encounters. For example, let
me show you a couple of another video and image taken years
apart in different areas. In this video, US Navy personnel
recorded what appears to be triangle some flashing recorded
several years ago, off the coast of the United States. This was
recorded while the US Navy ship observed a number of small
unmanned aerial systems in the area. And importantly, the video
was taken through night vision goggles with a single lens
reflex camera. These remained unresolved for several years.
John Greenewald: Their psychology behind letting this
play letting everybody see it. Kind of get like a little UAW.
We've seen it in the media
Scott Bray: several years later, but and off a different coast.
US Navy personnel again, and a swarm of unmanned aerial systems
and again through night vision goggles, and an SLR camera
recorded this image. But this time, other US Navy assets also
observed unmanned aerial systems nearby. And we're now reasonably
confident that these triangles correlate to unmanned aerial
systems in the area. The triangular appearance is a
result of light passing through the night vision goggles, and
then being recorded by an SLR camera. I don't mean to suggest
that everything that we observe is is identifiable but the it
but this is a great example of how it takes considerable effort
to understand what we're seeing in the examples that we are able
to collect
John Greenewald: considerable effort now again to bring up
Mick West, he nailed this one, pretty much from the get go and
the leak of the video by Jeremy corbello. Now I know a lot of
people are attacking Jeremy kohrville For for kind of
talking about the pyramid UFOs and this and that. And I'll
defend him on this point. Scott Bray just said under oath that
they were unidentified, considered unidentified to them
for a couple of years. It is quite possible that when Jeremy
got them, he was under the impression that they were
unidentified, and that's what he was being told. Scott Bray just
Put it into the testimony that it was on identified for a
couple of years. And it was not until they had, let's say,
corroborating evidence, in addition to visual sightings of
unmanned aerial systems, or drones, that they could say, oh,
the combination of the night vision, the DSL, the DSL, the
LSR camera, you know, that that combination, the way the light
passes through the, the shape of the aperture of the lens, I'm
into all that stuff, is what Mick said. But in the same
respect, right, when I'll defend that that was the stance that
was just given. It always bothered me that when the
government actually came out, and said, Yes, it was a real
video. Yes, it was being utilized, utilized by the UAP,
TF. But they wouldn't comment on what they designated the UFO.
That bothered me. And it was because I thought that there was
some other plan, because they weren't doing anything about the
leaks. So I thought, okay, if if they're letting this stuff leak,
there's got to be an issue here. But there wasn't meaning they
weren't concerned about it. They were they were quick like that,
to confirm that UAP TF was utilizing these videos, that
they were real authentic. They were shot by naval personnel.
And yet they wouldn't tell me if they were considered
unidentified. This is a tweet that I wrote in May of 2021. Let
me see here almost a year, a little over a year ago,
ironically, and almost to the day, why is it the Pentagon
seemingly doesn't care about the leaks, will confirm the
authenticity of the material will confirm it's taken by Navy
personnel will confirm it's used by the UAP ATF, but won't
comment on their designation. And my honest opinions, in my
honest opinion, shenanigans are afoot. Stay tuned. That was May
of 2021. Fast forward almost a year to the day. And now we have
a UFO congressional hearing. And all of that comes to light
again, where these triangle UFOs are nothing more than an
artifact of the camera and the way that it was shot, that they
weren't triangles at all, but they rather their best
assessment was drone swarms. So for the last year, plus, we have
seen these videos in the media time and time again, they've
created this intrigue, behind UAP. And the fascination by the
general public that doesn't do this stuff every day, like maybe
you and I. But rather they're looking at this going, Wow,
pyramid, triangle shape, whatever they are the so cool
UFOs nightvision cameras. And it's been instilled for a year,
just to be blown out of the water. But the one that they do
show that they say we have no idea what this is right. And the
public kind of seems like they're getting something cool.
What happens, we get a video that has three frames of an
object, that likely is potentially just a balloon of
some kind, I said likely again, no hate mail. But regardless,
it's nothing extraordinary based on the evidence that we have. So
now the public completely blow that can blow out of the water,
the stuff that they've seen for a year that has fascinated them,
that turns out to be nothing. And the new stuff is shot on
some cell phone and a cockpit that only captured three frames
of an object that really isn't that mysterious looking or
intriguing. All part of a plan. I don't know shenanigans. That's
what I said last year. I stand by it.
Scott Bray: And given the nature of our business national
defense, we've had to sometimes be less forthcoming with
information and open forums and many would hope no kidding. If
UAP do indeed represent a potential threat to our security
than the capabilities, systems, processes and sources we used to
observe, record and study or analyze these phenomena need to
be classified at appropriate levels. We do not want we do not
want potential adversaries to know exactly what we're able to
see or understand or how we come to the conclusions we make.
Therefore, public disclosures must be carefully considered on
a case by case basis.
John Greenewald: Really, let me add one thing there, Scott. What
happened last year when I tried to get all of the UAP cases that
were being utilized by the UAP Task Force? They were denied to
me under grounds of national security, each and every one. It
was a blanket denial. There was no case by case basis at all. So
based on what I knew then last year, I appealed and I won the
appeal I told them based on the facts final determination that I
got that all of those UAP cases that they denied in full across
the board. However many they wanted to admit that they had at
the time, which they didn't give me a number. But regardless,
however many they had at the time 100% denied in full for
exemption b one, which was national security information, I
appealed it, put up a case and said, No, this is why you can't
do that, and outlined all of the information that I could
accumulate and won the appeal. It was remanded back to the
Department of Navy. And they are being forced to review all of
that information. So even though Scott here decided to tell
Congress, it's a case by case basis, and they want to
essentially be as open as possible. What he left out of
that testimony is that was not the case that they wanted to
deny 100% of it. He comes from the US Navy. And that was a US
Navy decision. And I guarantee because he literally wrote the
security classification guide, or excuse me, he literally
approved the security classification guide that was
written to give this enormous amount of secrecy surrounding
UAP. He's the guy that approved it. What he just told Congress
was definitely not the case. From the beginning. It was sugar
coated, just for his testimony.
Scott Bray: That's next, we're concentrating on a seamless
transition to the new organization and future analysis
of complicated issues of UAP issues will greatly benefit from
the infrastructure, the process and the procedures that we've
developed to date. I'm confident that the task force under Navy
leadership has forged a path forward that will allow us to
anchor assessments in science and engineering vise anecdotal
evidence, we remain committed to that goal, as I know, the Usdi.
organization does as well.
John Greenewald: It didn't really sound too convincing
there, Scott at the end, but
Andre Carson: quickly before I pass it to the ranking member,
and Chairman Schiff, I want to thank you both for taking the
time and I had a good time meeting with you. Last week,
Director Moultrie, Undersecretary Moultrie. It's
fair to say that you are a science fiction fan, is that
correct?
Ronald Moultrie: It's fair to say that I'm an inquisitive
mind, who has spent 40 years in the intelligence field and is
focused on both science and science fiction atmosphere.
Andre Carson: Could you tell us about it? Yeah. Well,
Ronald Moultrie: look, my generation grew up looking at
space sagas and the Apollo program. So all of us who grew
up in the 60s, were just thrilled by watching our first
astronaut land on the moon that was a man that momentous
occasion to people who were of different generations. Some of
them didn't believe that happen, I still have relatives and
friends whose don't believe it happened, write science fiction
to them. But to us, it was snow. That's the progress that we've
made. And so I was enthralled by that. And I've taken that to
heart, I enjoy the challenge of what may be out there. I have
mentioned to you that, yes, I have all science fiction, I have
gone to conventions, even I'll say it on the record. Got to
break the ice somehow. But you know, I have done that. Right.
But there's nothing wrong with that. Don't necessarily dress
up. But I do. You know, I do believe that it's important to
show that the Department of Defense has, you know, we have
character, and where people just like you just like the American
people. We have our we have our our inquisitiveness, we have our
questions. We want to know what's out there. As much as you
want to know what's out there. We get the questions not just
from you, we get it from family members, and we get them night
and day, not just in committee hearings. So finding what's out
there is important. But first and foremost, it's important for
us to do that. So we can ensure that our people, our personnel,
our aviators, our bases and installations are safe. And then
that curiosity factor is something else that that we just
want to know because that's the human race. It's just you know,
that insatiable desire to know
John Greenewald: what a question from left field, but this is
what they were doing. And let me first say I really was impressed
by Ronald Moultrie I, he's a very likable guy. He was very
impressive. I know he didn't give us all the answers that we
wanted. I would venture to guess maybe the next five plus years
afterwards, depending upon how his career goes within DOD. I
wouldn't be surprised if you see him come come out of that kind
of structure and go into politics, because he has that
very likable quality. I wish he didn't tell everyone that we're
just like you, like all of you. Because that is exactly what I
think the intent was there was to humanize the Department of
Defense, that there's this big. You want to talk about stigma.
Essentially the stigma about the big bad government people that
are trying to cover up all the UFO stuff. To me it was such a
left from left field question, obviously planned. And although
I love his answer, I think it's very cool. I wish he didn't have
the comment part about hey, we're just like everyone else.
Because to me that that really shows what the intention was
there. But rather, he should have just left it at, hey, I'm a
sci fi geek. I love going to conventions. I'm inquisitive,
this and that. I know a lot of people thought that that was
ridiculously silly and cheesy. I dug it, I didn't think it was a
bad thing. But regardless, there's still psychology behind
what these guys are doing up there. And that is creating this
aura, that they are just like everyone else. They're
humanizing the effort. They're trying to tell everybody they
want to tell everyone else what's going on, but for
national security on some of this stuff, hey, we need to sure
that's understandable. But it just seems like a lot of that
really was acting, which is a shame.
Adam Schiff: Mr. Break, can you rerun that first image looked
like it was outside of a plane window. And if you wouldn't mind
going up to the screen and tell us what we're what we're seeing.
Not that you can necessarily tell us what we're seeing, but
right explain what we should be looking at in that first image.
Scott Bray: Absolutely. Alexei, what I'll ask is if you can pour
like stop it at
John Greenewald: the whole world's can turn upside down
right now. And Schiff has no idea what's going on. She was
trying to pause the video where the UFO is, you can see on the
screen there. They're using I think this is called a VLC
player, the VLC software, which is pretty old. And she's trying
to stop it right in those three frames that captures the UFL
quit missed it. And this goes on for minutes. I'm going to speed
it up in the video and I'll notate it where I'm speeding it
up at and
Adam Schiff: we're looking outside of a civilian aircraft
window is that what we're looking at us maybe
John Greenewald: so that didn't come through you're looking
outside a US Navy F 18 I can verify that on the audio. I had
to crank it way up. But you could see it just keeps going
that's eight times that right there
Adam Schiff: can you point to the screen again what we're
supposed we're looking at
John Greenewald: and Alexei is probably just sweating bullets
right now trying to eight times the speed
Adam Schiff: right. Okay, if you could stop that
John Greenewald: frame I think she's trying to and still can't
do it. Let's just push play. Let's see for Alexei.
Scott Bray: You'll see coming. Is there. I
John Greenewald: think this was part of the plan logic
Scott Bray: right here zooms by the window, right where? Right
in this area. Right
John Greenewald: and it's gone.
Scott Bray: There we go. There when you see that part right
there again, going by I think we're having a hard time
stopping at the right spot. No kidding. Okay, so as you can
see, it's difficult to the laptop we're working with is not
as easy for us stopping that video. But
John Greenewald: yeah, poor Alexei. Makes you wonder, was
that part of the plan? Let them see how difficult it was to work
with three frames of a video. When she could have just one
frame by frame with VLC. I think you can do that. But regardless,
nobody thought ahead. These are the men and women that are
likely investigating these UAP that are analyzing the videos
that are collecting the data. And for a congressional UFO
hearing one that they knew was gonna get a lot of attention.
They couldn't figure out how to pause on those frames. How about
just export the frames before you go into the hearing and show
those who knows
Adam Schiff: por Alexei, though? And is this a situation where it
was observed by the pilot and it was also recorded by the
aircraft's instruments.
Scott Bray: We'll talk about the multisensor part in a later
session. But in this case, we have at least that
John Greenewald: weird time for that audio to count how it's
got. Its it was I think one of the first times they said that
they were going to push things to the classified session. And
that's what they mean by closed hearing. So when you hear closed
hearing for those who aren't aware, that means that whatever
they're encroaching on there when they're talking about
certain information, that's the classified stuff and they cannot
talk about it to you and I
Adam Schiff: last year's report also said that of those 144 18
of them, reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight
characteristics appear to demonstrate advanced technology
and some of them appeared to remain stationary and winds
aloft move Have against the wind maneuver abruptly or move at
considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion.
That's pretty intriguing. And if you're able to answer this in
this setting, are we aware of any foreign adversary capable of
moving objects without any discernible means of propulsion?
Scott Bray: I think I would say without discernible means of
propulsion, I would say that we're not aware of any adversary
that can move an object without discernible means the
propulsion. The question then becomes, in many of these cases,
where we don't have a discernible meaning propulsion
in the data that we have, in some cases, there is likely
sensor artifacts, that that may be hiding some of that there's
certainly some degree of, of something that looks like
signature management that we have seen from some of these
UAP. But I would, I would caution, I would simply say that
there are a number of, of events in which we do not have an
explanation in which the narrow, small handful in which there are
flight characteristics or signature management, that we
can't explain with the data that we have.
John Greenewald: Part of that answer, I think, was written on
the roof. But it's always fascinating to see people like
Scott Bray, who you know, is highly clear to see probably
quite a bit, try and answer some of these questions. And he just
really has to choose his words carefully.
Adam Schiff: Finally, with respect to the second two
videos, showing the small triangles, the hypothesis is
that those are commercial drones that because of the use of night
vision goggles appear like triangles is that the operating
assessment,
Scott Bray: some type of of drone, some type of unmanned
aerial system, and it is simply that that light source resolves
itself through the, through the night vision goggles onto the
SLR camera as a triangle.
Adam Schiff: And have we in order to prove that hypothesis,
flown a drone, and observed it with that same technology to see
whether we can reproduce the effect UAV
Scott Bray: Task Force is aware of studies that have done that
John Greenewald: the UAP Task Force is aware of studies that
have done that, it didn't say that the UAP Task Force has done
that, Regardless though, if you look at the work of Mick West,
they did do some experimentation on essentially cooperating that
theory. And and I feel that they that they nailed it. And I think
that the evidence in the video, if you look at the stars, versus
those craft with the blinking light, the stars are triangular
as well. So it very much coincide. So I think that it's a
proper debunk. But regardless, it goes back to that was this
part of a master plan to really let the public get really super
excited about something for a year, let those things leak out,
and then just destroy them in this hearing, you know, because
it's one thing when Mick West says it, it's another thing when
under oath and a congressional hearing, they tell you the exact
same thing. So I do find it interesting the way he phrased
that final word, or excuse me, final phrase where he just said
we're aware of studies, but they said that they didn't conduct
it. Regardless, I feel on that particular case, the evidence
checks out, but it really does play into that question mark of
was that part of the plan?
Brad Wenstrup: Are we capable? Or have we made any
breakthroughs or anyone made any breakthroughs to be able to cite
something and make some determination at all of its
composition? Whether it's a solid or a gas? Do Is there any
such capability? From not asking what I've just read
Scott Bray: from some of the returns, I mean, it's clear that
that the majority Well, it's clear that many of the
observations we have are physical objects from the sensor
data that we have
Brad Wenstrup: fit well, gases, physical is a physical object,
watch the guy in the back. And so you see where I'm going with
this. I'm trying to determine what it is we're looking at. So
if we can decide if something is a solid or gas, and if there
been any conclusion on its capabilities, like its
capabilities of movement, of turning, going, you know, 180
degrees or 90 degree turn anything along that line that
we've been able to determine
Scott Bray: within the and again, I should point out that
you know that there is not a single explanation for UAP they
make up there are a lot of different things that are
unidentified,
Brad Wenstrup: basically, we really don't know much on that.
That's all I'm trying to get at. And I'm pleased that you have
protocol right now for Our military, but are there any non
military reports coming forward of similar events? Or is it all
coming from military?
Scott Bray: The UAP Task Force has a very good working
relationship with the FAA. They have very good working
relationship with other parts of the US government so that we can
ingest reports from Do we have any
Brad Wenstrup: reports non military? Yes. Thank you.
That's, that's, that's my question. And do we need to put
out protocol for civilians that may be in that arena, like
through FAA? Do you think that would be appropriate and
helpful?
Scott Bray: I think standardize the reporting, without a doubt
is key to helping us get to the, to ascertain what some of these
are,
Brad Wenstrup: I think it would be important as well, do we,
there are other people besides the US that have had these
experiences and reported them? Is that correct?
Scott Bray: There are That's correct.
Brad Wenstrup: Is it all of our allies? Or is it allies and
adversaries? What have we learned publicly?
Ronald Moultrie: So some of that, I think, sir, will say for
closed session?
Brad Wenstrup: Well, that goes my next question publicly have
others made anything which would not have to be considered
closed? So I don't want you to answer what they've said
necessarily.
Scott Bray: Allies have have seen these China has established
its own version of the UAP task force. So clearly, a number of
countries have observations of things in the airspace that they
can identify.
Brad Wenstrup: And do we share data with some with all? Are
they sharing with us?
Scott Bray: We share data with some and some share data with
us.
Brad Wenstrup: But not necessarily all that have
publicly reported something?
John Greenewald: That's correct. Okay, in the back.
Brad Wenstrup: And I think that's an important thing. And
for the other session, actually, that we don't discuss that now.
John Greenewald: Tell me you didn't prepare for the hearing
by not telling me you didn't prepare for the hearing, I just
get a kick out of the guy in the back wondering what in the
world, the guy in front of him is asking about. I laugh
throughout that, throughout that testimony, but there was some
important bits in there, especially about other countries
sharing data with us, China having a UAP Task Force. I know
that was reported, I believe through the debrief A little
while back, but again, you know, just kind of solidifying that as
fact, all that, you know, was was interesting. Nonetheless, I
just loved the fact that gas got brought up again, and that whole
message just very reminiscent of swamp gas from the 1950s, trying
to explain UFOs and Bray, God bless them. How do you answer
that when you're clearly not talking about a gas? But a
congressman is trying to connect it as such? Who knows?
Jim Hines: I think, Mr. Bray, you said something that I want
to unpack a little bit. A number of these UAPs, you said we can't
explain? Again, in the service of sort of reducing speculation
and conspiracy theories, we can't explain can range from a
visual observation that was distant on a foggy night, we
don't know what it is to. We've found inorganic material that we
can identify right? Those are radically different world world.
So when you say we can't explain give the public a little bit
better sense of where on that spectrum of we can't explain we
are, are we holding materials organic or inorganic, that we
don't know about? Are we, you know, picking up emanations that
are something other than light or infrared that it could be
deemed to be communications give us a sense for what you mean,
when you say we can't explain?
Scott Bray: Sure when I say we can't explain I mean, exactly as
you described there, that there's a lot of information,
like the video that we showed, in which there's simply too
little data to create a reasonable explanation. There
are a small handful of cases in which we have more data, that
our analysis simply hasn't been able to, to fully pull together
a picture of what happened. The and those are the cases where we
talked about where we see some indications of flight
characteristics or signature management, that are not what we
had expected. When it comes to material that we have, we have
no material. We have detected no emanations within the UAP.
taskforce that that is that would suggest it's anything non
terrestrial in origin. So there's, when I say unexplained
I mean everything from too little too little data, to we
simply the data that we have doesn't point us towards an
explanation. But we'll go wherever the data takes us.
Again, we've made no assumptions about what this is or isn't.
We're committed to understanding these and so we'll go wherever
that data takes us.
John Greenewald: Tom somehow I don't believe that, but we'll
give you the benefit of the
Mike Gallagher: doubt there. Mr. Moultrie as the Chairman
mentioned, DOD had initiative to study UFOs in the 1960s called
Project Bluebook has also been well reported in our briefing
and other places that we have more we have more recent
projects, specifically a tip. Could you describe any other
initiatives that the DoD or DOD contractors have managed after
project Bluebook ended? And prior to a tip, beginning, did
anything also predate project? Bluebook?
Ronald Moultrie: So I can't speak to what may have predated
project Bluebook. I mean, of course, there's Roswell and all
these other things that people have talked about over the
years. I'm familiar with blue book I'm familiar with, with a
tip. I haven't seen other documented studies that have
been done by DOD in that regard.
Mike Gallagher: So you're not aware of anything in between
project Bluebook. And a tip
Ronald Moultrie: I'm not aware of anything that's official that
was done in between those two hasn't been brought to my
attention.
John Greenewald: Okay, so let me unpack two things I'll first
I'll deal with the the, well, we'll get to the official versus
unofficial but unpack the the study in between, let's call it
a tip the timeframe and project Bluebook. beyond a shadow of a
doubt the US Air Force had on their manuals, how to report
UFOs, they were being sent to the NORAD installation,
generally, you don't create manuals like that, for nothing.
I discovered this back in I believe it was 2000 talked about
it for quite a few years, when the media was going to highlight
it, it literally disappeared. It's a much longer story. But
that's the nutshell. But it literally was rewritten. 48
hours after the Huffington Post and journalist Lee Spiegel was
profiling the black vault, and some of the top documents that I
had given them, that was one of them. Specifically, it was Air
Force manual, 10 Dash 206. And again, it outlined in chapter
five, all about UFOs. And what to report and, and gave specific
details on what the report needed, and then they sent it to
NORAD, whether or not that that was a attach to an official
program or not. In my opinion, there was probably more than one
or two reports over the years that that was on the books by
pilots. But the NORAD installation told me they had
nothing. Canadian government gave me a pile of service
reports that essentially tied into NORAD and the collection of
this type of data. So I wanted to bring that up, because there
is clearly an effort of some kind, or at least there was
between what we consider a tip and that timeframe versus blue
book. Now, I want to spend a minute or two based on I know a
lot of things thrown my direction about a tip and its
connection to being a UFO program. And whether it was or
wasn't or was or whether it was a nickname or not, or whether it
was real or not, or whether it was UFO related or not. All of
that mess, and to be honest with you.
I don't from this hearing anyway. But with that question,
I think that we can really take a lot to the bank and go aha,
it's settled with a tip. And I know that some of my haters out
there are going to you know, clip this segment out and go
Greenwald's in fill in the expletive because I'm saying
this, but when you look at the question, and you look at the
media, and he admitted in a podcast, he did about five, I
think his quote was like five hours of research for this
hearing. And kudos to him. It doesn't sound like a lot. But
you know, I mean, he really looked into it and let's face
it, I mean, a tip was a program according to the internet and
and all of the media articles out there. So no matter what the
truth is, right? Like take my personal finding out, take your
personal finding out. If you are a newcomer, and you go to the
internet, and you spent a few hours and you look, that was a
documented timeframe of UFO quote unquote, UFO research.
Yes. I'm saying quote, unquote, because that is what the what
the stories were. And that was a point, you know, like a time
point that he could he could reference Moultrie saying that
he was familiar with a tip. That's great. That's, that's
fascinating. But it doesn't really take away from the fact
that it was either official or unofficial. In addition, let's
say the DoD changes their stance tomorrow on a tip and that it
was some UFO research effort, led by Luis Elizondo, I'll
report it to you I'll bring it to you. I'll put it on this
channel and put on my website. I don't hide from the fact that it
doesn't, doesn't bother me at all. But as it stands right now,
their stance is it wasn't a UFO program. It all stemmed back to
the SAP program and wasn't paranormal or UFO related at
all. That's what the official line is. Don't kill me for
delivering it. But rather that is what the DoD is stance is
what I think what that we're getting digging into from what
I've kind of learned and seen and heard over and over and you
dissect every syllable and character that that is that is
used by the Department of Defense and Pentagon
spokespeople and FOIA people. After researching this for so
many years, here's what I think that this is really ultimately
ending up in. And I know others have echoed very similar things
as well, is that my guess is this wasn't an official effort
sponsored by, you know, the Department of Defense to go out
and look for UFOs like the media led us to believe I've said that
for years now. I truly think that that's where this is going.
Lewis Elizondo, I believe probably heard about what was
going on probably saw the importance of UAP, the security
issue behind them the question mark, and to his credit, and I
and I would fully support this, took that under his wing to kind
of pursue, and I think what's going to come out in the next
year or maybe two, three years, is that this was just a group, a
small group at this time of people that were not working on
any official program whatsoever. I believe you'll see the term
Friends of the program come up, that they essentially were
people that had very similar beliefs, to Luis Elizondo, I
know Brian Bender, from Politico has referred to it as a
portfolio. I think that's probably over overstating it.
Where are the reports? You know, it's these age old questions,
like, where is everything? So I think that that's where we're
gonna end up. Okay. And I want to do at least put that in this
part of the hearing. Because now let me go back to Moultrie. Is
this the setting for him to get into the weeds and the dirt? And
well, it wasn't a program really, and a tip this or this
guy did that or was all off the books. Nobody really cares about
that, in this particular setting? They just don't. So
Moultrie is just going to take this the Congressman's question,
that that is the the timeframe that he's talking about that
that is the effort that he's talking about the clearly the
DOD has heard more than enough about and, and not get into the
weeds of arguing what was or wasn't official, or a portfolio
versus a program or a hobby or, you know, a lie even, he's just
going to answer the question. So again, my haters out there,
they're gonna hate this section. But I think that that's what
we're gonna come down to. And I give Mr. Elizondo credit,
despite the drama that's going on right now. Give him credit
for taking that topic. Seriously. I just wish when he
exited the shadows, so to speak that we heard that, that if they
you know, and I'm 98% sure that that's how that this is going to
play out that he did do work within the Pentagon, but it
wasn't like nobody really cared that that as long as it didn't
affect his other duties, that he had his job. And if he did this
other effort to try and help out or do some extra stuff that, you
know, the bosses that did no, because apparently a lot of
people were left in the dark. They say, yeah, yeah, go, you
know, as long as it doesn't interfere with your other
duties. You go right ahead. And that's what this is. So I give
them credit for that. I just wish we heard that from the
beginning. But regardless that that going back to Moultrie, I
think that that's the eight tip reference. This was not the
setting to get into that. And to be honest with you, the
congressman just doesn't care either. You know, I mean, he's
just interested in what he's asking about, not the nitty
gritty details.
Mike Gallagher: So just to confirm, you're not aware of any
technology or engineering resources that have been focused
on these efforts besides what we've mentioned today.
Ronald Moultrie: Once again, I'll say no contractual or
programmatic efforts that are involved, the reason why I
qualified. Yeah, let me qualify it that way. I can't speak to
what people may be looking at in the department, somebody says
I'm looking at something, I'm looking at something that may be
identified, and I can't speak to that speak to official programs
that we have on the record.
John Greenewald: I think that that solidifies it a bit, in a
nonchalant way that he can't really speak to those that were
kind of doing this on their own free time that they became aware
of a pilot's video or a photograph or a story, that
they're sitting there and doing this on either their own free
time, or their extra time that although it was considered DoD
work was nothing official. So I think he recognizes that that
that is something that you can't speak to, because he's not
mandating it him as the head of Oh Usdi ins and and whomever
that works alongside him is not saying you investigate this, you
invested. Let's go, here's the manual. Here's the program name,
I need a report by five. That's not necessarily what this was.
And I think what he's essentially alluding to there Is
there likely were people whether it be Mr. Elizondo or other
people within the navy or open AI, or wherever they were By
doing this that is not to diminish their work, but rather
putting it and framing it in a proper context and that that's
always what I've been interested in more than
Mike Gallagher: it's also been reported that there have been
UAP observed and interacting with and flying over sensitive
military facilities, particularly not just ranges,
but some facilities housing our strategic nuclear forces. One
such incident allegedly occurred at Malmstrom Air Force Base in
which 10 of our nuclear ICBMs were rendered inoperable. At the
same time glowing red orb was observed overhead. I'm not
commenting on the accuracy of this. I'm simply asking you
whether you're aware of it and whether you have any comments on
the accuracy of that reporting
Ronald Moultrie: path. Mr. Bray, if you've been looking at the
APS over the last three years,
Scott Bray: that data is not within the holdings of the UAP
Task Force.
Mike Gallagher: Okay, but are you aware of the the report or
that the data exists somewhere?
Scott Bray: I have. I have heard stories, I have not seen the
official data on that.
Mike Gallagher: So you just seen informal stories, no official
assessment that you've done or exists within DOD, that you're
aware of regarding the Malmstrom incident.
Scott Bray: All I can say because you know, what's within
my cognizance, the UAP Task Force, and we have not looked at
that incident.
Mike Gallagher: While I was I missed a pretty high profile
incident, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But that's out
there in the ether. You're you're the guys investigating
it. I mean, who else is doing it?
Ronald Moultrie: If something was officially brought to our
attention, we would look at it the there are many things that
are out there in the ether that aren't officially brought to our
attention how it has to
Mike Gallagher: be officially brought to you and I'm bringing
it to your tour. It's pretty official.
Ronald Moultrie: So we'll go back and take a look at it. But
certainly there is some authoritative figure that says
there was an incident that occurred we'd like you to look
at this. But in terms of just tracking what may be in the
media that says that something occurred at this time at this
place, there probably a lot of leads, and we would have to
follow up on I don't think we're resourced to do that right now.
Mike Gallagher: Well, I don't claim to be an authoritative
figure. But for what it's worth, I would like you to look into
it. And if for no other reason, you could dismiss it and say
this is not worth wasting resources on.
John Greenewald: This is one of those sections that all defend
Moultrie and bray here. And the reason is, is because what was
not asked by the senator or excuse me by the congressman,
was, or what was not in his question, I should say, was the
timeframe of the incident, and we're going back more than 50
years. Now, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't look at it.
But there's only a select few people that you're going to
speak with, right? And let's talk about this. From an
investigative standpoint, there's only a select few people
that you can likely speak with Robert solace being the top one.
And and that's, that's great. I like Robert, I think he should
have his story told. But what resources could the UAP Task
Force or aim SOG devote to that? Because on paper, whether you
agree with it or not, or whether I agree with it or not, it
doesn't matter. On paper, they already investigated the
incident more than 50 years ago. And they determined what they
did. And that was that it was a malfunction with the silos and
then flicking off. I've got the the official declassified
histories from the Air Force. Now again, I'm not saying I
believe it, but I'm saying on paper to somebody like Bray and
Moultrie, why would they go back 50 years? To what reopen it
like, where's that? Where is that data? What is that data?
You've got Roberts, Alice's testimony. That's great.
Nothing's taken away from that. But if they hear that, and
they're sitting there, and they're taking notes, what are
they going to do after there's not much that they can do on
that particular case? So I think that number one, it's 50 plus
years ago, we've got to understand that these guys are
not going to turn into instant you follow jurists, nor should
they I mean, for them to run around and do 5060 year old
cases, would be essentially a way from the mission here. And I
think that their that their aim is to figure out more of a
present day. And when you think that the Nimitz was almost 20
years ago. That's how long ago 20 years ago was the Nimitz
encounter, and that's relatively recent to go back more than two
times that timeframe. That's that's difficult to do. I wish
Gallagher put a timestamp on it because I think Moultrie and
bray may have had a better answer, just because they seem
like very educated guys, and they can think on their feet.
And they probably would have said something like that where,
although we've taken in cases, maybe into our database, what
are you going to do when you have an F 18 pilot with a cell
phone, camera, video and data from the sensors on board? That
may be classified, but they have access to all of that? When you
have that case sitting here? And then you have one that's over 50
years old, that's already been investigated. On paper the data
is shoddy at best meaning it's old Old and the data like what
data is there other than the testimony that is valuable? But
what can you do with that? They're gonna go here, they're
gonna go with that F 18. Encounter. And, look, let's face
it, they should. So I'll defend them on that one. I think that
they, they, of course, I want them to know, they didn't know,
it's not surprising.
Mike Gallagher: And then finally, are you aware of a
document that appeared around 2019? Sometimes called the
admiral Wilson memo, or ew notes memo?
Ronald Moultrie: I'm not.
Mike Gallagher: I'm not personally aware that. Okay.
This is a document in which again, I'm not commenting on the
veracity. I was hoping you would help me with that, in which the
former head of Dia claims to have had a conversation with the
doctor, Eric Wilson claims to have sort of been made aware of
certain contractors or DOD programs that he tried to get
full access to and was denied access to. So you're not aware
of that malware, Congressman, in my 10 seconds remaining, then I
guess I just would ask Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to
enter that memo into the record.
Andre Carson: Without objection, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate it.
John Greenewald: I'm wondering how many actually knew what
Gallagher was submitting into the record at that moment. Let's
just kind of break this down. First off the Eric W. Davis
notes, the Davis Wilson notes, whatever you want to refer to
him as got entered in the Congressional Record?
What exactly does that mean? Well, I tried to find an
official answer, like what exactly does that mean? It
really doesn't mean much of anything. I don't have an
official answer for you. Is it big? Of course it is. It's
interesting to see a congressman and pull up something, I'll be
it. I think it's a hoax. And there's, for those of you who
aren't aware, I've got extensive videos on this channel, that
dive deep into the background of the documents, and prove beyond
any shadow of a doubt in my mind, that the beginning part of
the story that set Admiral Wilson off to find these secret
programs was a fake, and no one. No one analyzed the document,
but they all had it as part of their story. So the biggest
advocates that this is a true real record, has always had that
document as part of the the overall story, this quote
unquote NRO document. And so once I finally just gave in a
year and a half ago, whatever it was, to just look into these
things, because I kept getting asked, and I didn't want to
touch it, because it just screamed, hoax to me, but I just
like, I'm like, you know, what am I going to figure out on him?
So I did. I mean, I did go in, I didn't expect to find anything,
but rather analyze the document. I think it's a provable hoax, in
my opinion, that takes off the whole beginning part of the
story. And the rest of the narrative falls apart naturally,
although parts of it sound very cool and intriguing and have
some real elements to it. Just don't think it's there. So when
I saw this in the Congressman's question, I told Politico this
yesterday, which was printed in, in their, in their article on
it, it was a facepalm moment, like, Oh my God, why would you
take time referencing this? Because to me, it harms the
conversation, if more evidence comes to light to me, and then
me personally, I would change my view. Great. I have no problem
admitting that I would change my view. But the only evidence that
people can cite to say that I'm wrong, are from anonymous
sources they can't tell me about. So that's silliness.
Right? I mean, like, I can't do anything with that. So my best
assessment on that, if, if that's worth anything, is that
it's a hoax. So seeing it facepalm. But now that it's done
and over. And now that I see Gallagher's post hearing
explanation, which was given to Politico, and I wish I knew that
before I gave statements to Politico, they didn't do
anything wrong, mind you. I just was not aware of Gallagher's
intent. And he was saying, essentially, he's submitting it
for the record, to either solidify its truth, or to just
destroy it and move on. I'm paraphrasing there. But
essentially, like if there's something to this great, if not,
let's move on. Let's move on to something else. Let's put it to
bed. And I think you know what, after hearing that, I would have
not recommended that, but it's done and over with. So you know
what, fine, if they want to take it seriously. Then let's get
Eric Davis. And Thomas Wilson who's already denied that this
happened. He says it's it's bunk. He's already he's already
went on the record like that and Eric Davis skirts around giving
official statements on it and can't comment and all that. Put
those two in a chair and put them under oath. I 150% agree
with that. Support it now that this is all said and done and
Congress has interest. Cool. Let's do it. And I would almost
bet. I would bet I give out bet $1 I'll bet $1 that at least one
of them, their stories will will fall apart. I don't think that
this will go anywhere. I will be surprised. But I want to be
proven wrong, because the validity behind these documents
would change the world, right? We all know that crashed alien
wreckage and MJ 12 references and all that stuff. That's fine
with me. Let's get it on the record. Put those guys under
oath. So now it's not a podcast, right? Where somebody asked Eric
Davis and I go, I can't comment on that. Which are silly
answers. I mean, some people read into that so much. It's not
surprising that he answers it that way. But I think he likes
the mystique behind all of this. But that's that's a different
show in different conferences of sation. Regardless, let's get
them under oath. I fully support that. Let's do it settle this
once and for all. And if I'm wrong, I will gladly accept that
why people think that I would fight it is wrong. If I am
proven wrong on this humanity changes. Why would I not accept
that? Right? If it comes out that there's some crashed alien
wreckage and MJ 12 is real or whatever other thing in the
notes was, I forget. I mean, I don't even care about him
anymore. But it was a lot of wild claims. If all that turns
out to be true and humanity changes. Do you think John
Greenwald is really going to fight and say now that the
documents or the documents are fake? No, because the world
changes? Why people put that argument against me. It's so
utterly ridiculous. But show me the proof. Put Wilson and Davis
under oath. And if they say that it's all true, great. Let's pave
the way to figuring out where the wreckage is. Show the bodies
so to speak, figuratively speaking. And let's go from
there. Until then,
Raja Krishnamoorthi: it's silly. First question is there have
been no collisions between any US assets and one of these UAPs?
Correct.
Scott Bray: We haven't had a collision. We've had at least 11
near misses, though.
John Greenewald: 11, near misses, I kind of raised my
eyebrows at that point. And then I realized, oh, wait, that was
in the public report. Also, this is the screenshot from the
classified version also echoed the same. The UAP ATF has 11
reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near
misses with UAP. Now they're echoing exactly what was in last
June last year, in June, June's report. Does that mean nothing
else has happened since then? I mean, have they done anything,
maybe near misses just really aren't that common. So maybe
that's explainable. But some of the other statistics that he
rattled off also echoes, the June report, so has literally
nothing changed. The only change that I can reference we already
went over, which was the database of 400 sightings. But
we also don't know if 400 sightings existed last year
also, and they only chose 144, because, according to the
report, they had the most supporting data to them,
multiple sensor observations, you know, more reliable
information. So so we don't know if that number is the same also,
at least as far as I'm aware. So not sure how much has really
changed, but kind of eager to see some updated numbers here as
aim SOG gets underway.
Raja Krishnamoorthi: Maybe we'll talk about those 11 near misses,
or any place where there's close proximity, I assume, or tell me
if I'm wrong, there has been no attempt. There's no
communications, or any kind of communication signals that
emanate from those objects that we've detected, correct? That's
correct. And have we attempted to communicate with those
objects?
Peter Welch: And no, so we
Raja Krishnamoorthi: don't we don't even put out a alert
saying, you know, us. Identity, you know, identify yourself, you
are, you know, within our flight path or something like that. We
haven't said anything like that.
Scott Bray: We've not put anything out like that,
generally speaking, what, you know, for example, in the video
that we showed earlier, it appears to be something that is
unmanned, appears to be something that may or may not be
in controlled flight, and so we've not attempted any
communication with them.
John Greenewald: You can't identify him, but you just
assume that they're unmanned. But wait a minute, Scott, you
told me that you were following the data and didn't make any
assumptions. What a fantastic question. Obviously they haven't
really thought about the the obvious like hey, why don't you
do a hail and see would they respond or some kind of Hey,
identify yourself such a simplistic answer. But I'll
admit it, I never really thought of it. So kudos to the
Congressman on that one. Because it's it's something that we
don't really talk about. We talked about capabilities. And
we talked about, could it be this? Or could it be that? Why
haven't we just tried to talk to them? And I thought that that
was just a fascinating question that that maybe a lot of you
have all thought about, for whatever stupid reason I
haven't. And then again, his answer was somewhere on the
ceiling. But regardless, well done. I thought that was that
was very cool.
Raja Krishnamoorthi: How about wreckage? Have we come across
any wreckage of any kind of object that has now been
examined by you?
Scott Bray: The UAP task force doesn't have any wreckage that
isn't explainable, that isn't consistent with being a
terrestrial origin.
John Greenewald: Well, that's neato, because now we can
solidify that there is wreckage, even though he kind of dismisses
it saying, well, it's terrestrial in origin. So
obviously, they're out there. They're collecting things. This
is where I hope the next generation UAP Taskforce, the
the aeoi MSG or a ame SOG, they said the name is going to
change, thank God because I don't want to keep saying ame
SOG in future videos. But there is a documented history that
that not many people really talk about this day and age of pieces
of in this particular case, flying saucers that had been
recovered from either crashes or something that fell off of
unknown craft or whatever. And these are documented in
classified files within namely the CIA. Also the Defense
Intelligence Agency through Project Moondust references,
that also has been done. And although a lot of that could be
like fallen satellite debris and stuff like that, I've made
discoveries in the past through FOIA of not only this debris,
but not only the realization that they don't really have an
explanation, at least for with what they've released. But on
top of that, they seemingly especially the CIA, keeps losing
these files. So when you try and get them to go back and say,
Okay, guys, this this was from 1950, whatever, 19, even 40,
whatever. It has redactions time to kind of review this, you
know, we've we've, we've passed quite a bit of time here, likely
not classified anymore. And then oops, they lost the document.
And that has happened on more than one occasion, and in a
couple of occasions, has dealt with references to physical
objects or debris that has been connected to UFOs. Or like what
you're seeing on the screen, flying saucers from Denmark.
This is actually a very kind of fun story that ties into a later
UFO case, where they found a very similar looking piece after
having their own UFO sighting. But these documents were
classified when the guy actually had his encounter, and didn't
realize that there was a case in the 1940s I think it was at a
very similar object as well. So very cool correlation there.
I've done a little bit of writing on it. So I'll link it
in the show notes below. But definitely take a look at it
because there's all sorts of cool stuff to find.
Raja Krishnamoorthi: Do we have any sensors underwater to detect
on submerged UAPs? Anything that is in the ocean or in the seas?
So I think
Ronald Moultrie: that would be more probably addressing close
assessments. Okay.
John Greenewald: Okay, so we shot that down member in the
video for those of you have watched it of my thought, my
preliminary thoughts prior to the hearing, and I said, you
probably will hear a lot of that referencing to the closed
session or the classified session that we can't talk about
that this was yet another instance. And also kudos to this
congressman for asking about underwater objects, unidentified
submersible objects or submerged objects UFOs, as they call them,
or refer to the acronym. So in a hearing on UAP, I bet you some
of the other congressmen that heard that question like her, is
that really set really an issue? Are we really and they're, you
know, write notes and stuff? Because that was a great
question. So obviously, you know, some of these are probably
fed through their staff and stuff that maybe asked some of
their constituents for answers or people wrote in and said,
Hey, you got to ask about this. It doesn't matter how those
questions came in kudos for the Congressman that asked those
types of great questions. And then by the way, the Pentagon
Press Secretary, he, John Kirby, he had addressed it later that
day, and by address it, I mean, would not touch it. That video
and that exchange from the journalist Jeff showgirl from
task and purpose and kudos to Jeff for members of the media
asked some great questions over the last year or two on UAP is
not afraid to jump in there. But he's the one that also wanted
John Kirby to expand on the UFO topic. And Kirby just quickly
shot it down. And it was like nine touching that they wanted
in a closed session. So there it's going to stay. So check out
that video that's also on the channel. I posted that in the
last couple days.
Raja Krishnamoorthi: So basically, it sounds like we
have a good partnership with FAA. But apart from FAA, we
don't have partnerships with other agencies or other entities
that might be tracking so that we could enlarge our data set to
make compare. So we
Ronald Moultrie: will. So that's the goal will be this nice
effort will be to expand that relationship with the rest of
government in the interagency so we can understand what they're
seeing what we're seeing we can correlate on each other's
holdings, because I
Raja Krishnamoorthi: think it's all this sorry to interrupt. But
I think that we're we might have a bias right now going on with
regard to just reporting on UAPs being in training areas when we
don't really track what's happening elsewhere.
John Greenewald: Now, this is one thing that I want to bring
up. And again, my haters out there will clip it and say that
I'm talking trash again about Luis Elizondo, and that's not
the intent with this. But we do have to look at this logically,
he just said, we will. Moultrie just said we will have
relationships with other agencies to essentially share
data understand UAP investigate, but whatever it is, why in an
effort that allegedly took place over the course of a decade,
where those relationships not solidified, and that, to me,
again, plays into that very miniscule effort not to diminish
results, if they got results, okay, but just framing it in
proper context, if you do something for 10, almost 10
years, because he says there's contradicting dates, but let's
just call it 2008. He goes into OS app. There's some weird stuff
about him saying he never had anything to do with OS app. But
later did and that came out and Steven green streets video I
just interviewed Steven green tree, but let's just call it
2008 takes over the program in again, contradicting dates, some
say 2009, some say 2010 All the way to his resignation 2017 in
that entire effort, he was never able to solidify any
relationships. And that's where again, I think that there's the
data is starting to support that this was that small effort based
on a couple people that that that knew there was a problem.
And again, there's nothing wrong with that. I want to stress
that. There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just trying to to frame
this properly. Why didn't they have any of those relationships
set up? And I hope that that comes out? You know, I mean, I,
I really do. Because if there were relationships, then go back
and exploit those if there were, let's say, sharing of data
protocols and stuff like that, where is that data and take the
next step. But if none of that happened, then we have to start
asking some of those logical questions that need answers. And
I think a lot of lot of things are still unanswered
Raja Krishnamoorthi: last question, have our encounters
with UAPs alter the development of our either our offensive,
offensive or defensive capabilities or even our sensor
capabilities?
Scott Bray: We'll save that for the closed session. Okay.
John Greenewald: Okay. So more of that classified stuff on
whether UAP has played a role in altering the way that we
essentially operate, sensor or otherwise.
Darin LaHood: Obviously, this topic of UAPs, has attracted a
lot of interest and people that are curious about this, this
hearing today, as we talk about, and I would say there's a lot of
what I would call amateur interest groups that are
involved in the UAP field. Mike, my question is, when there are
unsubstantiated claims or manufactured claims of UAPs, or
kind of false information that's put out there. What are the
consequences for people that are involved with that or groups
that are involved with that?
Ronald Moultrie: So one of the concerns that we have is that
there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting
information out there that that could be considered to be
somewhat self serving. We're trying to do what's in what's in
the best interests of one, the Department of Defense and then
to what's in the best interest of the public to ensure that we
can put factual based information back into the
mainstream and back into the bloodstream, of the reporting
media that we have. So people understand what's there. It's
important because we are tempting, as this hearing As as
drawn out to understand, one what may just be natural
phenomenon to what may be sensory phenomenology or things
that were happening with sensors, three, what may be
legitimate counterintelligence threats to places that we have
or bases or installations or security threats to our
platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have
with the resources that have been allocated to us, send us
off, and the spurious chases and hunts that are just not helpful.
And they also help that way, they also contribute to the
undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the
American people have that we are are trying to get to the root
cause of what's happening here, report on that, and then feed
that back into our national security apparatus. So we are
able to protect the American people in our ally. So it is
harmful, it is hurtful. But hopefully, if we get more
information out there, we'll start to lessen the impact that
symbol spirits reports.
Darin LaHood: So just taking that a step further. So though,
that misinformation, false narratives manufactured, so what
are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there
examples that you can give us where people have been held
accountable by this misinformation or
disinformation?
Ronald Moultrie: I can't give you any examples where somebody
has been legally held liable for putting something out there. But
Darin LaHood: well, I guess, what's the deterrent from people
engaging in this activity?
Ronald Moultrie: I don't I don't know. I don't have that answer.
I that's something that, you know, welcome to dialogue with
Congress to talk about that with the members who, you know,
helped legislate those laws that say, what should be the legal
ramifications that we could use to potentially hold individuals
accountable, whether it be citizens or information that
might be injected into our media by other other forces or other
countries, if you will?
John Greenewald: It was a fascinating exchange about
misinformation and disinformation. And let me just
say, before I get into the comments on this section, that I
believe it should go both ways that I believe that the
Department of Defense or the government as a whole the CIA,
the NSA, whomever it is, gives out maliciously false
information about UFOs that there should be consequences,
there should be repercussions. But that wasn't the root of the
Congressman's question. Rather, he was on the other side, the
public side of people that we're giving away disinformation,
misinformation, false information, about UAP. And I'm
really intrigued by that, because I want to know the root
of what he is talking about. Are you talking about somebody who
is making up a claim that they saw a UFO, so they call the
government? And they say you have to investigate this? And
they've let's just say they fly out and do an investigation and
realize that they were making it up? I mean, how would you prove
any type of criminal negligence on wasting the government's
time? I mean, maybe they drank too much. Maybe they took a
hallucinogenic of some kind, or maybe they just really did see
something, but they have no evidence to back it up. How
would you ever prove that? And then hold them criminally
negligent or, or have a consequence from a legal sense
for that? So my question, then, in my own mind, lean towards,
are you talking about people that are making certain claims
against the government and making certain claims that they
let say, have knowledge of something that they can't
confirm to you exactly what, but lead you to believe that they
know more than they'll give you based on maybe past employment
or something like that, that then creates an issue for the
government in the sense that you're creating and cultivating
a distrust in a department that may be unfounded, that I'm not a
lawyer. But that sounds like more of what LaHood was
potentially talking about. We're now you're cultivating something
that may or may not be true, but creating an issue for the
Department of Defense, that now they have to allocate resources
to combat that if the allegation is made against dam have some
major malicious intent when it comes to informing the public
that may or may not be grounded. But if if that is considered
false, could there be criminal negligence on something like
that, that I found that a fascinating possibility, and if
I, you know, if I had the opportunity, I would love to ask
the congressman, what the root of that question was, when you
listen to military's response. I believe they were on two
different pages. Meaning like, I think Moultrie kind of
interpreted it one way, and LaHood meant it another way and
they just kind of ended up going this direction in the
conversation and I don't think they quite clicked at least that
was my A my impression. But Moultrie did make reference to
that type of misinformation or disinformation being, I think he
said self serving or something to that effect. So essentially
putting out that information and benefiting from it. And again,
fascinating exchange that I think maybe some people just
kind of tuned out on. And I don't blame me these hearings
are really awful sometimes. But regardless, I think it was a
fascinating exchange, because congressmen don't utilize their
five minutes, just to utilize them, generally speaking, I
mean, that they have roots to why they are asking these
questions. Sometimes it's just to get certain angles on the
record, if you watch enough of these hearings, and I am one of
those geeks that loves to watch them, even on non UFO related
topics, you see them utilize their five minutes, not
necessarily to ask any questions, but to sometimes just
chastise the person that's in the chair, it becomes very
political. You see a lot of fireworks sometimes in these in
these hearings. So they are fascinating to watch. But when
they ask questions, they generally have them rooted in
something. So I would love to ask the Congressman one day, if
I ever had the opportunity, what that was last point on this
before we move on, it was actually kind of funny I, I only
name names when I talk about people when I have to, and I'm
not going to I'm not going to try and embarrass anybody here.
But there's a very popular YouTube channel out there that
I'm guessing maybe some of you watch. But regardless, who was
so upset that this exchange took place? And how could they, you
know, potentially have this conversation and squash people,
I'm paraphrasing, but squash, people would coming forward with
stories and this and that. And it always makes you makes you
kind of scratch your head that if there's talk about people
trying to
decrease the amount of misinformation or disinformation
out there, and people fight that or think that's a bad thing. It
makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it? Like why wouldn't
you want less myths or disinformation out there. And
again, I preface this whole kind of sidebar with I think that it
should apply to the government as well, equally. So if there is
malicious intent from either side with myths or
disinformation, then there should be consequences. Again,
both sides, but why would people be afraid of that? They wouldn't
circumvent the First Amendment. So I think that if somebody came
out and said, I saw this UFO, and this is what it was, they're
not going to say, Go get them. He didn't really see that.
That's not what that was about. That's not how I took that. So
they're not going to encroach on a constitutional right. So why
the why the upset tone on the talk of diminishing, decreasing
or trying to get rid of misinformation boggles my mind.
But it really does make you think, because I welcome it, you
know, anything I put out there, when it comes to saying the
government has done this or has done that? I have information to
back that up in the form of evidence I'll give you I don't
do anonymous sources, as many of you know. Or I should say that I
don't hinge what I tell you on anonymous sources. Rather, I
produce evidence. So if I say the government was not truthful
with this, I can prove that. So they're not going to come after
me. I don't care. And if they do, great, let's go under oath.
I would love that opportunity. So you know, that kind of talk
is silly. So to be upset at that man should make us all think
Peter Welch: briefing of that going into the details of what
kinds of secrets that we can't share here. What is it? What are
we protecting? I don't know if you can answer this question in
this open forum, but in fact, your perception of what it is we
have to quote do I
Ronald Moultrie: think right now, what's really important for
us to protect is how we know certain things. So there are a
lot of things that we know whether it'd be about the
thinking of other leaders around the world, the weapon systems
that are being developed or how we detect things that may be
threats to us. Many of those things are the result of some of
our most sensitive sources and methods. And we'll use those
things not just for this effort, but those same sources and
methods are used to help protect us from Abbott's Ares and from
others who might mean to do us harm. There aren't separate UAP
sensors is not a separate UAP processing computer. It is not a
separate UAP dissemination chain or whatever. So it's the same
process. It's the same system that we have that helps us do
all that.
John Greenewald: sources and methods. For those who aren't
aware in the late 1970s, early 1980s. There were multiple court
cases that were brought up to fight UFO secrecy, namely by the
citizens against UFO secrecy or cause I actually wrote them
about some of the documents in my book here shameless plug. But
I wrote a book called inside the black vault and I break down
some of the the documentation that was fought for back then,
and what came out years and years later. So the judge
actually agreed with the government, namely the the NSA
in one particular case, that all of this information should be
withheld at the excuse was primarily sources and methods.
And that was what they kept referring to sources of methods,
sources and methods. So we can't tell you because of sources and
methods. So it's interesting here that now approximately 40
plus years from those court cases, that we're hearing the
exact same excuse that its sources and methods. Now, here's
where I wrestle, because keep in mind, I don't only do UFO
requests or UFO information, in fact, I don't have an exact
percentage, but UFO is probably encompass about 10% of my entire
archive of of more than 3 million pages, and in fact, is
probably not even that high. But that being said, I deal with
quite a bit. And I do support some level of secrecy, including
sources and methods that there are certain things that we
shouldn't hear about. But when it comes to UFOs, that has
seemingly been the fallback for many, many decades. And is it
warranted, because we have seen these full denials of of
documents and cases and information and they say now, we
can't give you sources and methods. So again, I wanted to
give you that historical tidbit that none of that is new, that
that is from the playbook back from legal court cases that were
fought 40 ish years ago by citizens against UFO secrecy.
And it was sources and methods that ultimately convinced the
judge in a top secret in camera off a David that was affidavit
that was given to the judge, it convinced them now we can't
release those those documents. So little bit of history there
for you. But something I wanted to stress that what you are
hearing is something that has been been fallen back on now for
decades.
Andre Carson: Gentlemen, beyond videos, is there a range of
other information that the executive branch has that will
be valuable to the American people, while protecting sources
and methods? Obviously, the details of individual
encounters, including the time place and details of an
encounter? And does the aim sock have a clear and repeatable
process? For considering public release? As part of the process?
John Carson, do you commit to building that process if it's
not in place, the UAP Task
Scott Bray: Force, you know, the security classification guide
that the UAP Task Force has been operating under that I approved,
really, it was meant to protect those sources and methods are
meant to protect any knowledge that an adversary intelligence
entity may gain, from unders from understanding what we're
tracking how we track it, or when we're tracking it, or if
we're not. And so that has been an important piece in the
balance between transparency and preserving our warfighting
advantage because the US military does train as it would
fight. What I will commit to is, at least for that material, it's
under my authority, as the deputy director of Naval
Intelligence, for information that we have when it does not
involve sources and methods, or and when we can, with a
reasonable degree of confidence determine that it does not pose
a foreign intelligence or national security threat. And
it's within my authority to do so I commit to declassifying
that. So I, I believe very much in the transparency of this, and
we work very hard to balance that with our national security
needs.
John Greenewald: Well, we're about to find out whether or not
Scott really does support such transparency, because here's
why. Here's a page from that security classification guide
that I've talked about in the precursor video, kind of my
again, four thoughts before the hearing took place. I put that
on Twitter as well, that I think a lot of people didn't realize
that Scott Bray was the guy who had approved this, this
document, and that essentially, encapsulates UAP. In such a
level of secrecy. It makes it very hard for people like me to
get a hold of it. So we're committing to transparency.
Well, that the jury's still out on that one. And we're about to
see, it sounds good in a hearing. But again, I go back to
that Navy appeal where they said, No, everything is
classified, and I won that appeal. Now he's saying he
commits to secrecy, but this is what we're faced with on the
level of secrecy for that classification guide and what it
encapsulates UAP. So it's going to be very, very challenging to
essentially extract this information and see them doing
that willingly sharing with the public. I kind of laughed when
he said that if it didn't encroach on sources and methods
and so on and so forth, essentially, if they with with
certainty could not connect it to a foreign adversary, which I
understand not releasing information so if the Russians
knew they had some