Today, we're going to talk about the UAP congressional hearings. Greg, tell us about the videos we're going to watch. Yeah, quite simply, this is what you said. This is hearings from Congress, and the people asking the questions are, I believe, members of the House, I believe. But the people answering to our fighter pilots, both retired and the middle guy, is Mr. Grosh we've covered before, who is an intelligence officer who was involved in the program. And that's about as much as you need to know to start. Please talk of each of your experiences and observations. Do you believe UAPs pose a potential threat to our national security? Yes, and here's why. The technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had, and you could put that anywhere. If you had one, you captured one, you reverse engineered it, you got it to work, you're talking something that can go into space, go someplace, drop down in a matter of seconds, do whatever it wants and leave, and there's nothing we can do about it. Nothing. Okay. You two? I would also like to add from commercial aviation and military aviation perspective, we deal with uncertainty in our operating space as a matter of our professional actions. Identifying friend from foe is very important to us. And so when we have unidentified targets and we continue to ignore those due to a stigma or fear of what it could be, that's an opening that our adversaries can take advantage of. What steps should we be taking to better understand and respond to UAP encounters in the interest of national security? There needs to be a location where this information is centralized for processing and there needs to be a two-way communication loop so the operators on the front end have a feedback and can get best practices on how to process information, what to do, and to ensure that their reporting is being listened to. Right now, there is not a lot of back and forth. Mr.  What kind of information do you think was hidden and do you think it should remain hidden? Yes, I can speak to that very briefly in an unclassified manner. As you know, the reponderance of my complaint was classified to the intelligence communities, both material acquisition and exploitation activity, also baselining the UAPs but not sharing it with, you know, intelligence professionals that are actually doing step-briefs, the pilots, that kind of information. Yeah. Okay. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I always love when somebody illustrates exactly what we mean by one of the big five pieces of body language. We talk about regulators, meaning how do we control conversation or turn taking and signaling, watch it.  So that's a great example of what we call regulators and a way to control a conversation. Fravor, who is the gray-haired guy with the glasses, who's the guy who saw the tech video, does yes in his telling tone, telling down tone. Cadence is consistent.  So we'll take Joe's word for it. I think he knows. And then we'll look at tone when he says nothing. What's that change in tone? He's emphasizing nothing. His volume rises and falls when he says drop down. Then there's a request for approval, but you see that forehead up in this guy as a baseline. So there's nothing big. And then his lip compressions, I think also mean nothing big. Now let's move to Graves. I think he has a new organization. His mission is about getting a clearinghouse for information. So he has a mission statement. You can't miss it. It sounds raw. Bump, bump, bump, bump. It is because that's his elevator speech for his new organization, and he's very clear.  Then he responds with a down tone when he's talking about these adversaries. He is telling, this is dangerous. If you have a gap, then you will create an opening for the adversary. Now in my world, I'm an intel guy by trade. Anytime you have a gap, it's a bad thing. It doesn't mean that aliens are there. It doesn't mean any of that. It simply means there's a gap in us reporting something because there's a stigma associated, then we got a problem. The real truth about intelligence gathering is something you'll hear from me often here. I often don't make judgments on who we're talking to because that's not what intelligence gatherers do. We collect intelligence. We collect information. We collect information. It's evaluated, turns into intelligence. And so a lot of times when you get like a pilot, he's going to collect. He's not going to try to understand what it means. There are whole businesses of analysts in the background who do nothing about that. Lots of guys, we never see the light of day. They simply look at information and data and move it. Last time we looked at Grush, he was less believable than he is this time. He's a little more believable because he's illustrating and moving his fingers to count. And he does a couple of things he does is brow down it. That's it. I'll leave it at that. This is a good start because we're talking about, is there something going on? And as we go through it'll get a lot more detail. Mark, what do you got? Yeah. So there's a considerable difference, I think, between those outsiders and the insider. So physical outsiders there and maybe technically outside as well or philosophically outside or anyway. Look, they're giving a technical story on the outside there. And so really quite believable. Why wouldn't it be? They're technically saying, here's what we saw. Here's what went on. Grush is a whole different matter from my point of view. He doesn't answer the question. What was hidden and what should remain hidden is the question he's asked. He says, I'm paraphrasing that it's mostly classified. He says what they have and how it's used was hidden or maybe should remain hidden because he doesn't clarify. So he doesn't really answer the question. Let's just suspect he's saying what they have and how it's used was hidden and what these things do and how they show up was hidden. It doesn't say whether it should remain hidden, which was the question. And then he says, well, that kind of info. Yeah. I mean, it's really a non-answer. The main problem for me is the chair totally accepts that answer and goes, okay, well, that's an unacceptable answer. He didn't answer the question. He didn't clarify to which part of the two-part question he's giving information to. He shades on the classified part of it. His head goes away. His eye contact goes away. And he looks for approval on the non-answer. Just doesn't look good. And the questioner accepts all of that. Not a good start from my point of view. Chase, what have you got on this one? Today's video is sponsored by Aura. I'm excited for this because I've been using this app for over two years. If you didn't know how much private information is out there on the internet about you, when you first see it, it's pretty shocking and maybe a little disturbing. These people that collect all these private things about you are called data brokers, but there's a secret here. They have to take down your information if you ask them to, so they make it incredibly hard to do. So what we do is let Aura handle that for us. And you can do the same. You can let Aura do all the work tracking down and removing all the stuff that you don't want online. And you can try Aura for two weeks for free using the link right at the top of the description down there. And Aura does a ton more than just getting your information off the internet.  And it's super easy to set up. You don't have to go download a million different apps to get all the benefits that Aura has like parental controls, antivirus, VPN, software, password management. They even have identity theft insurance, everything. One of my friends was over here sitting in this office just a week ago and I typed his name in and within just a few minutes we found everything. Even his anonymous accounts were on the dark web and the passwords associated with those. He downloaded Aura that night. So you should look into this. Your private information should be private. You can go to Aura.com slash TBP, just like the behavior panel, TBP, right now to start a free two week trial that I've also linked down in the description. Well, I've been around a lot of Navy commanders and the behavior of these two guys on either side of Grush or whatever his name is is very normal. By the time you become a commander in the Navy, you've been almost programmed to speak this way in an official capacity. It's clear and candid speech, upfront and honest and mostly humble communication. And this typically comes from spending a decade or more having to brief and deliver mission briefings to higher ranking admirals and higher ranking commanders and stuff who are literally going to tear you apart, asking all these questions about every slide on your PowerPoint. And it hones them all into this. And it's almost kind of a standard. I can only speak for the Navy. And Grouch's behavior is just a little more bizarre. And if you ever watch these other two guys and then this person, you're going to maybe be feeling like it looked like a performance. And I think this is a performance. And it starts off with this feigned eyebrow raise, which we typically do nonverbally to request social approval from the other party. Then you're hearing this sing song voice that's artificial sounding. And his movement is also rapid and jerky. And we associate the increase in body speed with the increases in us feeling fear. And we do that when we're nervous too. And when we're trying to play a role and maybe trying too hard or nervous about whether the role is going to be believed. But finally, you hear him use the word classified in a way that I think is unusual if this wasn't a performance. I think he's using the word classified here internally and maybe deep in his brain. Maybe he did this on purpose to borrow credibility and authority by placing emphasis on the access to classified information. And I'm going to show you evidence or my evidence of what led me to this in a few videos. But it's this overly dramatized behavior. And we're going to see it in some coming videos, but I'll let you take a look at it. But if you saw this and thought something felt very artificial or forced or contrived, then you saw the same thing we did. And all I did was act as a translator for you, Scott. Okay, I'm glad you brought up those differences, because that's what I'm going to focus on today are the differences in grush and graves and flavor. The use of illustrators of these guys is very low, with the two on the outside, very low. As we go through here, we'll see him use more and more. But in the beginning, not much happened at all. Whereas grush, you get into what he's doing, lots of illustrators, big illustrators, you're right, Chase. It's a lot of expressions, facial expressions. And the way he's talking is a lot different from them as well. His vernacular is completely different than these two guys. Now, I don't know what the guys on each side, what their educational thing is, but I didn't look up grush. And this guy's studied. He's really smart. I believe he must be a really smart guy, even though he does get on my nerves because he pronounces some words wrong. But I think he knows the meanings of them. For some reason, he's pronouncing them wrong when he says nuclear and et cetera from the last time we talked about him. But his thing is completely different than these other two guys. He does what I'm going to start calling alluding and inflating information. Like he says, there's all this stuff happening, but I can't tell you about it and stuff like that when he says, and stuff like that, and things like that, or there's more. And we're going to hear him do that a lot. So he comes in like he knows all these things, but he really can't talk about it. And he gets into later on about where he wants to get into a skiff with him. And I'll go over that as well, what that is and how it works and that. Not that I've been part of those, but having read up on them, I got a handle on it. I'm sure you guys will have a good one as well. But that's where I'll focus today is on the difference in Grush and the two guys on the outside because it is completely different from the way they talk to how fast they talk to their tone of voice, to the words they use, to their structure, their sentence structure, to their paragraph structure, their complete approach is different than his. Now, I know we've also heard maybe he's on the autistic, on the autism spectrum, or on the spectrum, how do you say grammatically correct or whatever it is correct these days, who knows. So that may be true. That may have some do with it. I don't know. I'm just going to point out the differences in those things. All right, we good. Hey, let's talk about two things. Since, you know, people like it when we do talk about that kind of stuff. Number one, I've read that he at least says he's on the spectrum somewhere. So that can have all kinds of reasons. For that reason, we're not going to compare him to these two guys in that way saying he's different from this guy. We're going to compare him to himself as he goes. The other thing is these two, when we talk about language, Chase, Army guys are the same way. We speak in seven word sentences. We are concise with what we say and there's a reason for it. And add to that both of these guys are fighter pilots or pilots.  It makes no sense. So a lot of their communication style is going to come from that and then what's acceptable and Air Force guy who's in the intelligence business is going to have a very different thing. So it's worth us pointing those things out. The other thing is these two guys, probably they're amygdala doesn't respond quite as quickly to stress as his does. That's something for us to keep in mind. Based off of each of your experiences and observations, do you believe UAPs pose a potential threat to our national security? Yes. And here's why. The technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had. And you could put that anywhere. If you had one, you captured one, you reverse engineered it, you got it to work. You're talking something can go into space, go someplace, drop down in a matter of seconds, do whatever it wants and leave. And there's nothing we can do about it. Nothing. Okay. You would also like to add from commercial aviation and military aviation perspective, we deal with uncertainty in our operating space as a matter of our protection, professional actions. Identifying friend from foe is very important to us. And so when we have unidentified targets and we continue to ignore those due to a stigma or fear of what it could be, that's an opening that our adversaries can take advantage of. What steps should be taken to better understand and respond to UAP encounters in the interest of national security? There needs to be a location where this information is centralized for processing and there needs to be a two-way communication loop so the operators on the front end have a feedback and can get best practices on how to process the information, what to do, and to ensure that their reporting is being listened to. Right now, there's not a lot of back and forth. Mr.  What kind of information do you think was hidden and do you think it should remain hidden? Yes, I can speak to that very briefly in an unclassified manner. As you know, the preponderance of my complaint was classified to the intelligence communities. Both material acquisition and exploitation activity, also baselining the UAPs but not sharing it with, you know, intelligence professionals that are actually doing step briefs to pilots, that kind of information. Okay. And so will you just pour the public record again once again, just briefly either describe or note that aircraft that we witness, particularly by the 30 folks that you're working with are essentially outside the scope of anything that we know of today and the technology we have today. Mr. Graves, Mr. Fravor? Yes, the objects that are being seen by commercial pilots are performing maneuvers that are unexplainable due to our current understanding of our technology and our capabilities as a country and that applies for the military as well. Mr. Fravor? Yeah, I concur with that. We have nothing that can stop in midair and go the other direction, nor do we have anything that can, like in our situation, come down from space, hang out for three hours and go back up. Thank you, my last question. And sometimes, you have also said some of these answers in the past. We're trying to get them on the public record as well, which is really important. Mr. Graves, finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs? Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years. And where? I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General and some of which to the Intelligence Committees. I actually had the people with the firsthand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think that these questions are important questions and I look forward to being involved in the process to get those answered. I know there'll be a lot of questions from other committee members, so I yield back. Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Richard himself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I would like to have you on my legislation to do just that on the reporting. And we'll get together on that. Maybe you can be my co-sponsor on that. That'd be really cool. Thank you for those great questions. Mr. Graves, again, I'd like to know how do you know that these were not our aircraft? Some of the behaviors that we saw in a working area, we would see these objects being at 0.0 Mach. That's zero airspeed over certain pieces of the ground. So what that means, just like a river, if you throw a bobber in, it's going to float downstream. These objects were staying completely stationary in category four hurricane winds. These same objects would then accelerate to supersonic speeds 1.1, 1.2 Mach. They would do so in very erratic and quick behaviors that I don't have an explanation for. Okay. Have you spoken to commercial and military pilots that have seen these off of our east coast? I have. Okay. All right, Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so the question there, essentially, where are the UAPs kept? What's the location? Where are they kept? I actually had people with firsthand knowledge. I actually had people with firsthand knowledge, and there's, again, eyebrow raise and look for approval. The Gold Watch guy in the back, I'm going to call him the Gold Watch guy. It's Jeremy Corbell, and you may know who Corbell is or not, and I'll tell you a little bit about him later. But one of the interesting things about nonverbal communication is the location that things happen, and who else is there? What else is happening there? Corbell looks to me, lovely watch, seems to me like a yacht master in many ways, but with a Speedmaster or Daytona dial on it. So I don't know if it's a Franken watch of some sort, or made by a manufacturer that I don't quite understand. So put in the list below what Corbell's very nice Gold Watch is there. Clearly makes good living whatever he's up to. He adapts in his seat around this idea of knowing people with firsthand knowledge.  I know Corbell wanted to speak himself at this event, and the chair actually thanked him for organising this event. So he's a little hot in the seat there at this point. He says, and Grush says that these people with firsthand knowledge provided protected disclosure to the Inspector General. And then he barriers and protects joints on that. So clearly there's something there's some unbalance there around around where they're kept. And does he really know where they're kept and who else wants to speak around this? Anyway, Jeremy Corbell knows Grush because they met at a Star Trek convention. Apparently, Grush approached Corbell at a Star Trek convention. Corbell is a UFO media creator and relies on the idea of strange phenomenon and the doubt and the mystery around strange phenomenon for his living. And the chair says made this happen. So somebody who the chair is saying is the instigator of this event is sitting behind and it may be interesting to watch his reactions to all of this. You'll see him on shows on the History Channel, Skinwalker, Skinwalker Ranch, a place owned by the aerospace engineer Bigelow, by the way, got a $22 million contract in order to investigate his own property. Interesting. Interesting what's going on. Confusing, kind of a little confused. Chase shed some light on any of it for me. What do you got? So we're seeing these two commanders here still just being commanders here, candid, honest, and most of all, they are themselves. That's a big deal. They are acting like themselves. The Grush guy, we're still seeing these rapid jerky movements which we associate with fear, fear makes us move faster. We're seeing these vocal clicks and I cannot believe that Mark did not talk about this and mimic the sound. I'm sorry you missed that. But just this weird permanent eyebrow raise, it's just strange and there's an immediate mouth closer and lip compression. It might be baseline for him, but I think it's only baseline for this persona or whatever you'd like to call it that he's using for this. I'm just going to call it a campaign. Whatever's going on here, I'll call it a campaign. And one thing you're going to see a lot of amateur actors do, and Mark, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is place emphasis on the wrong words in their speech. You're definitely seeing that here. It's like, I don't know where I was going to. So you're hearing this emphasis on words. Yeah. When you're talking about having these people with firsthand knowledge provide reports, something makes him fearful. And there's this unusual arm across that you're seeing at this moment. I wish I could figure it out fully. Then there's this hand or hard mouth closure with lip compression again, which we see in people who are being withholding. And these signals are occurring in a cluster. They're a deviation from his normal behavior. And in this context, the rapid shift into this body position is also unusual. So I'm going to plant one giant red flag right here that something is either untruthful or deliberately misleading about that statement. You see no desire in these two commanders to make this dramatic or to garner some kind of status from any of this. And it looks so far like we're seeing the opposite with this person in the middle. Scott, what do you got? All right. I think Grush's answer ends with a huge adapter. The other two guys, they're adapting some, not a whole lot, a lot of some work going on, which is fine because they're sitting the way they should. They're looking professional.  And this is what, again, separates these two on the outside from Grush. And what he's saying is pretty much hearsay. These guys are giving you facts, things that they've seen and seen with other people. In my opinion, what they're talking about is just saying, here's what I saw. Here's what I saw. Here's what happened. Whereas Grush hadn't really seen anything but reports about what he's seen. And who knows if that's true or not? For example, when we hear about the 738-55 rule of communication, we know Albert Moravian, because I talked to him and asked him years ago, that's not, that whole thing is not true because not the whole thing, but there was, people took two different studies and put them together and came up with this thing that became the 738-55 rule of communication. Look up the 738-55 myth, Google it. You'll see what I'm talking about. And you still can go out and read that. That looks like it's true, but it's not true. Same thing with Grush. He could be reading all this stuff and he's presenting it as facts or it's just, in court, it would be hearsay. I believe if I'm correct about that. There's nothing, he didn't see anything except reports. Later on, he says he's seen the ships or the spaceships or whatever. Right now, he's saying, is he's seen the, heard reports or read reports about that stuff. And then Graves, this guy, he's on it, man. He's prepared. This is a guy, I bet he made straight A's and all that and doesn't mess around. I bet he's doing really well, whatever his gig is in the Navy. I bet he's doing great because he's one of those guys that's real serious. He's getting everything done.  It's almost perfect. He's studied in this and his delivery is perfect. The words he's using, his sentence structure, all those things make those pictures in your mind of a very analytical situation. Here's what happened. He is getting some information from other people because he talks about that. He's also talking about his own experience as well. And then you have Fravor, this guy. If you don't believe he saw what he's saying he saw, then you're watching the right channel because we're going to show you how to know he's telling you the truth or what someone looks like when they look on it and when they're being honest. That's him. That's exactly what it looks like. And then compare those two to Grush. I'm not saying Grush is lying. I'm just saying he's not giving you information from a first person's perspective. He didn't see anything, but he read a bunch of reports. So that's the difference in those two. These happened not from the very beginning of the hearing, but as you go through that, it just gets worse and worse. And it gets worse and worse in here because you really didn't have that much to say about anything except the same things over and over. Whereas these other two guys can say, oh yeah, here also this happened. Here's what I saw. And you see the proper excitement happen with these guys. With Grush, you don't see the proper excitement like Chase was saying. See this fake light up with them and this fake excitement, the fake, not fake expressions, but they look, the whole thing is squirrely to me with this guy. So that's why I take on the comparison there. Let's think about number one. Let's start off by talking about why he would be different. First of all, he's not a band member. He's not a musician. He's a manager. This guy's seen nothing. He's seen secondhand everything. So let's talk about that first. Let's talk about what that might do to him. But there are lots of red flags. The biggest one, Chase, we're on the same page. That one red flag in the ground that I'm all over right now is that body cross and that sudden change in cadence and all of those things when he talks about somebody doing protected disclosure. Why? I'm with you, Chase. We can't tell. Maybe he got reamed for something around that. And so he's feeling awkward. Maybe something else.  We can't tell that. The good news is we don't try to pretend we can read minds. We're just telling you what we see. Let's also then talk about hearsay. Scott, here's the difference. So when we talk about hearsay in court, even in intelligence, it's even worse in intelligence. You have to caveat that what you have is hearsay. Not only do you have to caveat what you have is hearsay. Who did you hear it from? How did they know? And what's the date of the information? Every time you write a note, if I say Scott Rouse saw the UFO, who told you that? Mark. When did Mark find out? And what date? So you got to clarify all of those pieces. So this guy's living in a second or third-hand world, and he's sitting between two guys who have seen what's going on. He's probably read their reports over and over and over. It's a little bit like us going and talking to somebody that we've kind of idolized or that kind of thing. So he's sitting between them. We're going to see a lot of body language that tells us that as we go through this. So I think part of his fear is coming from that. The other part is, we've already said we didn't believe the guy at times. So there's a whole lot of reasons for him to show fear. Let's talk about why we know the other two are telling the truth. Bump, bump, bump. They're telling you facts. Your hands are folded more out of boredom than anything else or more out of, we as military people learn to stand a certain way, sit a certain way, do certain things. There's finishing schools for colonels, for commanders. Same thing. 06 is we're talking about. Those guys have been in the career. They're going to move and behave a certain way. It just is. It's just part of the culture. These guys also are fighter pilots. That's another level of, even in the military, everybody's going to say, well, Gresh is trained to resist interrogation because he's at a high level in the government. No, probably not because there's no reason for us to train a guy who works on internal work. Guess who is trained to resist interrogation? Both of those guys sitting on his sides and they've been through the Navy school, which is the hardest school. Just I'll say that out loud. Somebody in the Air Force of the Army will say, no, this is harder. That's harder. The physically hardest school in the military is the Navy at Brunswick or was. I don't know about now. So then as they get into here, Graves does a lot of eye-lock and we're paying attention to this. But I was getting a little nervous when he's talking about what the shapes of them were. But when he starts to illustrate, his thumbs come up to point out everything and his hands start to move. Gresh has a list of things. And I think part of it is because maybe, like we said before, he says he's on the spectrum. So we give him benefit of that. We don't know. We haven't been involved with him. But that's going to give him weird quirkier outside of mainline body language. So it can. But there's, the reason I say he is a manager, there's a production quality to everything he says. Everything feels like it's big. Everything feels like it's prepared. These guys are going, nope, that didn't happen. Yep, this happened. Nope, nope. That, yep, yep. This speed. And his head, his forehead is always up in a request for approval. That last embrace just makes us, every one of us want to go, hold on a minute, something changed and why. But the people who are sitting on Congress don't have our training. And so will you just pour the public record again once, once again, just briefly just either describe or note that aircraft that we witnessed, particularly by the 30 folks that you're working with are essentially outside the scope of anything that we know of today and the technology we have today. Mr. Graves, Mr. Fravor. Yes. The objects that are being seen by commercial pilots are performing maneuvers that are unexplainable due to our current understanding of our technology and our capabilities as a country. And that applies for the military as well. Mr. Fravor. Yeah, I concur with that. We have nothing that can stop in midair and go the other direction, nor do we have anything that can, like in our situation, come down from space, hang out for three hours and go back up. Thank you. My last question. And sometimes I know you have also said some of these answers in the past. We're trying to get them on the public record as well, which is really important. Mr. Graves, finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs? Absolutely, based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years. And where? I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the inspector general and some of which to the intelligence committees. I actually had the people with the firsthand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the inspector general. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think that these questions are important questions. And I look forward to being involved in the process to get those answered. I know there'll be a lot of questions from other committee members. So I yield back. Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Richard himself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I would like to have you on the legislation to do just that on the reporting. And we'll get together on that. Maybe you could be my co-sponsor on that. That'd be really cool. Thank you for those great questions. Mr. Graves, again, I'd like to know how do you know that these were not our aircraft? Some of the behaviors that we saw in a working area, we would see these objects being at 0.0 Mach. That's zero airspeed over certain pieces of the ground. So what that means, just like a river, if you throw a bobber in, it's going to float downstream. These objects were staying completely stationary in category four hurricane winds. These same objects would then accelerate to supersonic speeds 1.1, 1.2 Mach. They would do so in very erratic and quick behaviors that we don't, I don't have an explanation for. Okay. Have you spoken to commercial and military pilots that have seen these off of our east coast? I have. Okay. Mr. Favre, do you believe that you witnessed an additional object under the water in relation to your encounter? I will say we did not see an object. There was something there to cause the white water. And when we turned around, it was gone. So there was something there that obviously moved. Okay. It was, it was not the same object though that you were, you were looking at, correct? No. We actually joked that the tic-tac was communicating with something when we came back and because the white water disappeared. We were, in another instance, were told about the capabilities of a jamming during viewing of some, when there were some people chasing some of these objects. Did you experience any of that jamming or interrupting your radar or weapon system? My crew that launched after we landed experienced significant jamming to the APG-73 radar, which was what we had on board, which is a mechanically scanned, very high-end system prior to the APG-79. And yes, it did pretty much everything you could do, range, velocity, aspect, and then it just hit the lock and the targeting pod is passive. That's what we were able to get the video on. I'm about to run out of time, but are you aware of any of our enemies that have that capability? No. Okay. All right, Chase, what do you got? When he's asking, do you believe that you saw this object underwater? This moment, if somebody wanted to leverage this for some other reason than truth, would have taken advantage and made a more vague remark about something being there or, you know what, there was white water there, which means something had to be there. Instead, you're seeing a clear admission of his lack of certainty, a clear admission of his lack of certainty. He just continues using simple language with no dramatized, nothing deliberately vague to make himself more important or to elevate the dramatic aspects of that story. And the APG-73 that we're hearing about is mechanically scanned versus the 79, which they refer to in here, which is electronically scanned. So it's essentially way more advanced in its technology. It's a smaller package because it has less moving parts. So it's more capable of distinguishing aircraft that are closer together, traveling information. It's kind of what that means. And he's talking about something called the ECM or electronic countermeasures here, which the 79 is a lot more resistant to. So just to give you some background, I know a little bit about these radars working in the military. So what he's trying to illustrate is that even the more advanced radars are vulnerable to this. And that's, he doesn't try to hammer that down your throat. He communicates this in a way that a commander would communicate it to another commander. And when he saw this thing, this pod, this is actually called a fleer forward looking infrared as the acronym, being passive. And that just means that it's not sending out signals from the aircraft when he says that. And I mentioned all this because he's answering questions in a way that he's not feeling a need to explain how dramatic this is for effect. And that is a huge deal for me when it comes to determining who in that room, which more lies have been told in that room right there than just about anywhere else. So watching stuff in that room, this is one of the ways that just keep writing down to see this. Are they comfortable doing what you just saw in this clip here? Greg? Yeah, let's talk about a couple of things.  And you get accustomed when you do that a lot to answering questions the way they're answering questions. That's number one. Number two is this guy is just telling facts because, well, they wouldn't ask you, hey, what did you think it was? That's not in my business, we don't care what you thought it was, we want to know what you saw. And we'll ask you a ton of questions about it. Chase, I'm sure you've seen that. The other thing is, I always say these words, Alphas don't strut folks around Alphas strut. This is a great example, kind of laid back both the two guys on the left and right are like, yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever. The guy in the middle is doing all this performance art that we're seeing. And I think part of it is that, you know, if you want to feel inferior, and you're kind of a guy who is a desk jockey, let's assume he is, you should certainly feel a little bit of that sitting between an F18 pilot and I forget what flavor flew. But those guys are, you know, they're at the top of their heap. And everybody knows that even Chase, you've been around the Navy, you've been on boats where those guys are, I'm sure those guys are kind of the top of their heap. It's just where they're at. So let's talk about how we know he's being truthful. Consistent cadence doesn't sound like a repetition. This is not wrote. He's not gonna bump a bump a bump a bump. He's just talking his cadence changes speeds up and slows down as he tries to make a point as he talks about the detail. He pauses at the right spot when he says we joke bump bump bump because that's a good indicator. This is not rehearsed to practice. The concern when he talks, see that concern in his face as he talks about jamming and his thumbs start to adapt more. That's a good indicator. Something's going on. And then when you take that telling tone, this is all really believable stuff much different than what we're going to see a little bit later from some other folks. Scott, what do you got? All right. Yeah, I agree with you. That's what I was going to get on as well was again, we're seeing everything that looks like it's that looks like someone's being honest, like they're telling you what they saw and what happened. One thing I found interesting is and we were talking about him earlier, the guy in the back and he's not wearing a suit. What's the name? Corbell? Yeah. Watch his hands, what he's doing and then watch Framers hands. They match. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody says, oh, there's some conspiracy conspiracy thing that comes that goes, oh, these guys are connected because when he does this, the other one does this. So and I think because when Corbell is listening, he just keeps checking, he keeps doing his head. Yes. As he's agreeing with him, almost like I'm part of this as well. I don't know what his role is in this. I don't know anything or I've seen him on the internet before, but I don't get into all the UFO things. But I think somebody might put those together and say, oh, they're in there in Cahoots or something or he's connected somehow. So I thought that was really interesting. But we're seeing all the things that like, you know, someone's being honest. We talk about Bray's studies out at Bray. The more illustrators you use, the more honest you're being. Well, in this case, we know from their baseline, Framers using a whole lot of illustrators. They're very small. They use his thumbs and they go up showing confidence in what he's saying. We see, I think zero cues that say he's unsure and being deceptive. We don't see anything like that. He's like Greg was saying, his cadence stays the same. His volume stays the same, except when he gets more excited about what he's talking about. He's excited about this. He really is being able to tell you what he saw. He knows this is a big deal. So I think everything we're seeing with him so far has just been completely honest about what he has seen, his experience in this, not a second hand. Somebody told me or this is what I read or whatever. He's saying what happened. And I think out of all the people we've seen on here that we've had in question, this guy looks the most like he's telling the truth so far. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, Chase, lies in Congress. I mean, I can't agree with that. You've got James Clapper in the background there. He's always been a great up honest guy in Congress. I apologize to everybody. Chase is talking about that. So always pay attention to who people are around and though I think these stand up guys at the side on the periphery, as you say, Scott, are not connected to my understanding with Corbell, but certainly the guy in the center is very much connected with Corbell and the other writer to the side of his lawyer. It's Krush's lawyer who's behind him. Anyway, we'll talk about him later. But anyway, Frivan, stand up guy. You couldn't have anybody who's delivering something more accurately and more factually. I mean, that's the kind of person he is. That's his role and he fulfills that role very well. However, one little mistake I think, and I really do think it is a mistake, the questioner says, did you experience jamming? Did you experience jamming? He says, my crew that landed after, no, sorry, my crew that launched after we landed experienced significant jamming. Well, that unless I've got that wrong, that suggests that he did not experience jamming, but a second crew that went out experienced jamming. I may have that wrong. And at the end of that, there feels to me, though he's very strong with his hands, a little bit of soothing at the end there. So my thoughts might be is maybe he understands he maybe hasn't been quite accurate with that answer. But I don't think he's trying to be deceptive about that. But there may be a little more second hand information there. But maybe I've got that wrong. That's all I got on that one. Yeah. And Mark, you could be talking about his crew, you know, his team, because he's a commander. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mr favor, do you believe that you witnessed an additional object under the water in relation to your encounter? I will say we did not see an object. There was something there to cause the white water. And when we turned around, it was gone. So there was something there that obviously moved. Okay, it was it was not the same object, though, that you were you were looking at correct. No, we actually joked that the tic-tac was communicating with something when we came back and because of white water disappeared. We were in another instance were told about the capabilities of a jamming during viewing of some of it when there were some people chasing some of these objects. Did you experience any of that jamming or interrupting your radar or weapon system? My crew that launched after we landed experienced significant jamming to the APG-73 radar, which was what we had on board, which is a mechanically scanned very high end system prior to the APG-79. And yes, it did pretty much everything you could do, range, velocity aspect, and then it hit the lock and the targeting pod is passive. That's where we're able to get the video on. I'm about to run out of time, but are you aware of any of our enemies that have that capability? No. Okay. Are there common characteristics to the UAPs that have been cited by different pilots? And can you describe what the convergence of descriptions is? Certainly. We were primarily seeing dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere. I'm sorry, dark gray or black cubes? Yes, inside of a clear sphere where the apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere. And that was primarily what was being reported when we were able to gain a visual tally of these objects. That occurred over almost eight years. And as far as I know, it's still occurred. So I take it that you're arguing what we need is real transparency in a reporting system so we can get some clarity on what's going on out there because there are many pilots in your situation. But we should have a way of developing a systematic inventory of all of such encounters. Is that right? Yes. And I think we need both transparency and the reporting. We have the reporting, but we need to make sure that information can be promulgated to commercial aviation as well as the rest of the populace. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, his illustrators and voice are up at the same time every time he hits a key point or a feature. Then when the guy asks him and repeats what he says, he just affirms, yeah, that's it. When somebody's trying to persuade you of something, they're going to take every opportunity to reinforce that you believe them. I see it all the time. If you'd said this and then the guy goes, boom, you go, you know, you'd glom onto him and suddenly become his best friend. Yeah, that's exactly what we saw. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You see it a lot and people are being deceptive. So that very calm, yep, that's what we saw. And then to give you the rest of the details, I think is a really good indicator. Then his hands illustrate when he's talking about the apexes and he's talking about things touching the inside of the sphere. His hands start to illustrate more than he normally does. Again, Scott back to Vare, who says larger illustrators are better indicators of the truth. And if you watch it, he's not just talking about his own knowledge. He's talking about reports that he's picked up from these times. And you can tell a difference when he's talking about that. If you want a really good baseline for this guy, when they started asking about the need for reporting, that's absolutely his normal communication style because he's got no reason to lie about that. We're going to see the same thing in Grush later. When we get a few videos in, we're going to see him when he's normally talking about something. He's talking about evaluating reports. That's what we call baseline. What we don't call baseline is you sitting at home on your couch eating Cheetos. What we're talking about is how do you behave normally when you're talking about something that's zero stress. So I think that's a good point. And I think we're seeing really truthful indicators here. So both Fravor and Graves are both giving us truthful indicators. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, this is what it should look like. Clear communication that's understandable. And when something is described, you can even picture it in your mind. Can you picture it if someone describes something? There's no attempt to sell anything here. And he's not on a mission to deliver drama or to push some narrative. And there's no behaviors that I saw that were indicative of heightened stress over dramatizing behavior, acting, what all of us might refer to as linguistic deception checklist behaviors, none of which we're hearing here in this clip with Mr. Graves. And both of these two fighter pilots on either side are displaying some stress signals. The difference between social stress and deception stress is that social stress permeates and stays relatively constant and doesn't just spike up into this mountain right when a certain topic comes up. So that's another thing that we're looking for. What's the context? And are we seeing that stress just spike up in the context? We're seeing them just doing these small little pacifying behaviors. So when you see some of these that we typically call stress indicators, keep in mind that it's pretty constant throughout. They're on camera. They're doing all this stuff. That's a normal and predictable social stress. And that's where we use context to identify what we're really looking at. Scott. All right. Let's talk about steepling. Quite often people take this for steepling. It's actually really not, this is steepling. You use all your fingers and you're like, ah, I'm the guy who knows everything. But what we're seeing here, this is confidence. And going back to Joe Navarro, we talk about every episode. He's the one where I was first focused on that was Joe's books talking about how when the thumbs are up that indicates it denotes confidence. And I think that's what we're seeing. The guy has no problem telling you what he saw. He doesn't feel weird or goofy about it. He's not like, well, there's a sphere and had a cube in it. None of that. He's saying there was a sphere and had a cube in it. And it was touching on the side. He's telling you the way it is. So that's confidence.  But I think that is just in this case, I don't think it really means much at all. I think he's watched his mouth up to this point. So I think he's being kind of careful. And I think maybe that's why I see that little that quick little pop there real quick. And he's still using these really perfectly crafted and tight analytical phrases and descriptions as he's telling what happened. And that's tough to do, unless you've actually been there, or you sat there and studied exactly what you're going to say. His is flowing too easily to be studied. And to be, I have to say this, this and this, because there are no hard stops or anything. It's just flowing right out and nothing changes. It just keeps coming out of normal speed. Again, this is what it looks like when you're telling the truth. People are always in the comments and we do read all the comments about all that we can. They always say, show us something where somebody is telling the truth. Well, right here, you're seeing two of them that I would put all my cards on and telling the truth. The guys on the outside are being completely honest with you. And this guy graves. I think he's such an analytical. If he were to start being deceptive, I think it would just start flagging right and left or we'd have no problem that I'll point out things on this guy. I think he's solid. So that's why it's so easy to read him being honest because that's what he's like, I think, all the time. He's being honest about that. But he has, he is prepared for this, but he's not prepared phrase by phrase and hitting specific things for each answer like that the way I wanted the impression that Grush is. Let's talk about this. Is it Grush, Grouch, Groo, Groo? I think it's Grush. Okay. So that's again, that's the difference in the two guys on the outside and the guy in the middle. Or I just keep the guy, Grush is a little bit squirrely for me comparatively. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I couldn't agree more with all of you. Both Frevon and who's the other guy? Not Grush. Graves. Both of them have had ample opportunity if they wanted to to create a very dramatic story. They've been given many opportunities to expand and be gregarious with it and really create something very, very exciting for us. And they're not taking that opportunity. And what I see with people who are often shown to be being dishonest is they take those opportunities and they haven't. And I think that's really key. Now, so there seems to be a bit of show business happening in the center there. There's also some show business there from Raskin who's asking the question there because he repeats the description. The cube within the orb is what's described. He says, hang on, you know, a cube within an orb. And then the guy has to repeat it again. So we hear that description now three times. It's like you heard it. You didn't need to repeat it and you didn't need to get him to repeat it. So why do we need this repetition of this? Well, what is a Euclidean enigma? Which is how do you square the circle? What is that enigma of pi? The square within the orb? How does that fit? Because that's a beautiful piece of geometry that's being described there. And I mean, I'm not a ufologist, but that seems quite new to me. This is a new description. I've heard about the tic-tac stuff, but this thing seems pretty new. Why do you need to keep repeating this new idea to me? And why is it so? What a wonderful, beautiful idea. And why do we need drama around this? And yet, you know, the describer of it doesn't want to join in on that drama. It doesn't need to. Anyway, interesting. Seems to be a lot of show business from the inquirers and some show business in the center. And there's definitely some show business in the background there, but not really any show business from those outsiders there. Maybe they're not in show business. I'm not, I'm not sure. Anyway, that's all I got on that one. Okay, Chase, I'll give you that one. Thank you, sir. It's been too long. I know. You earned it. Are there common characteristics to the UAPs that have been cited by different pilots, and can you describe what the convergence of descriptions is? Certainly. We were primarily seeing dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere. I'm sorry, dark gray or black cubes? Yes, inside of a clear sphere, where the Apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere. And that was primarily what was being reported when we were able to gain a visual tally of these objects. That occurred over almost eight years. And as far as I know, it's still occurred. So I take it that you're arguing what we need is real transparency in a reporting system so we can get some clarity on what's going on out there because there are many pilots in your situation. But we should have a way of developing a systematic inventory of all of such encounters. Is that right? Yes, and I think we need both transparency and the reporting. We have the reporting, but we need to make sure that information can be promulgated to commercial aviation as well as the rest of the populace. Let's talk about the laws of physics for a second. Mr. Graves and Commander Faber, I heard you talk about speed. When those objects broke the sound barrier, did they make a sonic boom? I was in a jet. You can't hear anything. It's kind of loud in there. Yeah, you're not able to actually personally tell within the vehicle. We'll say the objects that we were seeing, they were spherical and they were observed up the Mach 2, which is a very non-aerodynamic shape. What about G-forces? Let's talk about G-forces of those vehicles. Could a human survive those G-forces with known technology today? No. No, not for the acceleration rates that we observed. Okay. What about what they look like? How close did you get? Did you see a seam or a rivet or a section? And what I mean is, obviously, the jets you're flying have all those things. Did these objects have those? Do you want to go right? I didn't have the detail to be able to tell that. So we got within a half mile at Tic Tac, which people say that's pretty far, but in airplanes that's actually relatively close. No, it was perfectly white, smooth, no windows, although when we did take the original FLIR video that is out there, when you put it on a big screen, it actually had two little objects that came out of the bottom of it. But other than that, no windows, no seams, no nothing. All right, Chase, what do you got? Here's a list of what I'm initially looking for in this video. So I'm looking for changes in tone, volume, speed, cadence or pitch. I'm looking for hesitancy and vagueness and the absence of details. And I mean, detail absence for a specific thing, whereas a person is being very detailed in what they're saying. And all of a sudden, the detail falls out of their story and vagueness just jumps in. And I think lastly, I want to look for nervousness, spikes and stress indicators that occur around these specific topics. There's none of this here. There are at least three topics that are brought up that these people could have easily made into something dramatic and serious, scary or more newsworthy than it should be. And I use that word deliberately here because it seems like there somebody deliberately shifting things from a boring fact to a dramatic newsworthy bit of information. That's all I got. Mark. Okay, so I think what we get here from Muscovitz, I think is the guy's name, inquiring, is some skeptical questioning. I think it's skeptical questioning because he says, let's talk about the laws of physics. And then there's a cough afterwards. I think that cough is a territorial cough. He's like, there, I've marked out my territory. We're going for the laws of physics here. Let's see whether you can handle those. So he marks out his territory of how he's going to question. It's a bit like the movement of the hair before somebody makes some kind of attack. It's to mark out here come the big guns. I'm bringing out the laws of physics. Anyway, the pilot here brings up the idea of the sonic boom and you can't hear a sonic booming inside the aircraft. I don't know whether that's true or not. But anyway, Grush and George Knapp and James Clapper in the background, they all enjoy that little palpable hit there. We can see their enjoyment of that little manoeuvre. Grush adapts on his papers with wide fingers at that. And there's a there's a smile of content at that hit. This movement here, watch that movement. It doesn't need to be done. His papers don't need moving at all. That's why I don't think he's much liked in the office. That he's the, you know, he comes across. See, there's point score maneuver the papers there. I don't think, you know, I think, I don't think he's got that many friends in I could be wrong, could be very well loved in the office. But I don't think with that kind of behavior, he is. But that's just me. That's just me.  No, hang on, we've had Chase. Who we got, Greg? Sorry, Scott, what do you got in there? You can go, Greg. Okay, whatever. So let's first start by talking about personality types.  They're recruited. They're, they're created. These, these fighter pilots are created because they have a certain personality type. They're not dramatic. This other guy, he might have been in the chess club versus the playing hockey or something. Who knows, but certain personalities are more drawn to drama and to overdramatizing whatever they're doing. I think we got one of those. Now, does that mean he's lying? Not necessarily, but it will make him a grand dice, things that don't matter in a way. And Chase, I think you're set it over and over and over.  They operate in a, in a, in a concrete world. This guy doesn't necessarily, it feels like I also say there's no qualified, no qualification to be a member of Congress. So asking a question about something like this and stepping your foot in the bear trap and looking kind of silly is par for the course. If you step in there in the interrogation world, we talk to people who do things that we have no frame of reference for all the time. It's the reason we have questioning guides. We have all kinds of manuals. We'll walk in and pick up a manual and spend two hours prepping to talk to somebody. I've talked to people about chemical weapons. What do I know about them? What I read. So you get a frame of reference to be able to talk. You might want to read that about what it's like to fly, you know, a fighter before you ask questions about sound. For example, this guy was just doing, I think in his own mind due diligence and it just blew up on him. Fravor. What I say here is we always want definitions. I said there's a definition of regulators earlier. This is a definition of congruency. What I look for in a person and Chase, you hit some of them as well. I look for cadence of speech. I look for volume. I look for tone. I look for choice of words. I look for illustrators all to be the same. I look for facial expressions and movement. I look for all of that, volume, everything to be the same. And listen to this guy. Very good details.  That's a definition of congruency. That's what we look for. If you were doing that and I were questioning you, I might say you can leave.  Let me talk to your friend in the middle because he doesn't look like that. The interesting piece for Grush, Chase, or Scott, he's got your extra face is what all that is, in my opinion. When he does the paper moving, I think he's trying to control what he can because he's sitting between two people that he feels awkward and he doesn't feel like he adds a whole lot. Let's also add to that. If he's on the spectrum somewhere, he probably is an odd guy out. But he's on stage right now where really important facts are coming out. He didn't have any. So look for the extra face. I think Scott, he's got that better than anybody. What do you guys got? I think you nailed it. Yeah. Another interesting thing going back to what everybody's been talking about is let's take a look at what's in front of these guys on the table. As we're sitting there, you can tell a whole lot about this. There was a guy named Michael Burcham. He was the CEO at the National Entrepreneur's Center. One day we were talking and he said, when this guy comes in, watch all the stuff he puts out on the table there, watch how he claims his territory.  And so what this guy, Grush, is doing is he's laying out all the, look at all the stuff he has in front of him. He's got papers like Mark was saying and Greg and Jason, he's moving this stuff around. He's got a lot going on in there. He's got so many things he needs to check on and read, excuse me, and go back over and make sure everything's cool with what he's saying.  There's not much there at all.  I know we may be talking about some kind of difference there when it comes to being on the spectrum, but still, look at that. I think he's tried to make an alpha move and like Greg was saying earlier, the alpha's not the one that comes in and starts, hey, check me out. They're the ones that are quiet and everybody finally ends. They're the ones that end up being the leader because they're the ones that are in charge anyway when they come in. But look at this guy, he's not in charge. I don't feel like what he's saying, everything he's being completely honest about it. But look at all that stuff in front of him. He's got stuff, it's wide too. He's got things, all kinds of things laid out there. So look at that as we go through here. One thing I thought was interesting though was toward the end there when Fravor grabs his wrist in that weird way. He's grabbing it and he holds on to almost a double hold on himself. And I think he's containing excitement there. I think that's about, I think he was so excited about that and has so much to say about it. But he's not, like Greg was talking about earlier, or Mark was talking about earlier, he's not going with these big huge stories. Man, you're not going to believe it, which I couldn't help but do that. But that's why I believe he's trying to control some of that, that excitement. That's why we're seeing that. Doesn't mean he's being dishonest, doesn't mean he's being honest. But I think that's what it is. I think he's controlling his excitement at that point. So it's sort of an adapter and in a way he's regulating his own behavior by grabbing himself like that and holding on so that stuff doesn't leak out, so the excitement doesn't leak. All right, they good? Good. Yeah, Mark goes in first. You got that one. Oh, I forgot. Yeah, I didn't realize till Mark leaned in. The difference of the pro. If you don't come to the match, Chase, you can't win the prize. Let's, you know, but I won so much that I didn't do the lean in this time. Let's talk about the laws of physics for a second. Mr. Graves and Commander Fever, I heard you talk about speed. When those objects broke the sound barrier, did they make a sonic boom? I was in a jet. You can't hear anything. It's kind of loud in there. Yeah, you're not able to actually personally tell within the vehicle. We'll say the objects that we were seeing, they were spherical and they were observed up to Mach 2, which is a very non-aerodynamic shape. What about G-forces? Let's talk about G-forces of those vehicles. Could a human survive those G-forces with known technology today? No. No, not for the acceleration rates that we observed. Okay. What about what they look like? How close did you get? Did you see a seam or a rivet or a section? And what I mean is obviously the jets you're flying have all those things. Did these objects have those? Do you want to go, Ryan? I didn't have the detail to be able to tell that. So we got within a half mile at Tic Tac, which people say that's pretty far, but in airplanes that's actually relatively close. No, it was perfectly white, smooth, no windows. Although when we did take the original FLIR video that is out there, when you put it on a big screen it actually had two little objects that came out of the bottom of it. But other than that, no windows, no seams, no nothing. Satellite imagery. Let's talk about satellite imagery. We have satellites all over the place, some that we're aware of and many that we're not aware of, right? We're taking pictures of everything at every point in a second. Mr. Grush, are you aware, do you have direct knowledge or do we talk to people with direct knowledge that there are satellite imagery of these events? That was one of my primary tasks at NGA since we process, exploit and disseminate that kind of information. I've seen multiple cases, some of which to my understanding and of course I left NGA in April, so that's my information cutoff date, but I personally reviewed both what we call overhead collection and from other strategic and tactical platforms that were, I could not even explain prosaically, and I have a degree in physics by the way as well. And I am aware that you guys have not seen these reports unfortunately, and I don't know why. Do you have direct knowledge or have you spoken to people with direct knowledge that this imagery applies to crash sites, crash imagery? I can't discuss that in an open session. Do you have any information that the U.S. government is involved in a disinformation campaign to deny the existence of certain UAPs? I can't go beyond what I've already stated publicly in my news nation interview because it touches other sensitivities. Okay. All right, Chase, what do you got? I'm going to give you a question. You can take home and ask yourself this question regularly in your everyday life. Is someone shaping how I perceive something? Is my perception being shaped by this person's words? And here's what you're hearing from Mr. Grouch. If you go back and listen to this clip, I worked at high levels at the NGA. I had a lot of access. I have a huge vocabulary. I have a degree in physics. I saw reports that you did not. And in my opinion, he's more worried about the disinformation campaign or whatever it is question than anyone that we've seen so far when they talk about this campaign. And the question should not cause so much fear, which you can see on his face at the final frame of this clip right here. And I think something is off about every aspect of this demeanor. Initially, I thought maybe he's just having to hold his tongue. And that's causing these behaviors because of what they told him he can't say. But I was watching, what is causing this dramatization? What's causing the inflammation of the stories, the self-promotion and the unusual stuff that we're seeing here that has every landmark that I would look for in a person who's acting? I'm at a loss for right now, but I can tell you, I'm not at the end of this. Great. What do you got? Yeah, a couple of things for me. I'm seeing the same thing you're seeing in that. There's a lot of jargon and no content. A lot of intelligence guys will overdo that. It's classified.  Look, anybody who knows real classified information simply doesn't talk about it. That's how it works. You don't say, hey, I know this. You don't deny it. You simply walk away. Next video is really interesting for that point. I'll talk about something he does there. But here is, interestingly, his body language and his mouth are saying the same thing. You know what they are? Nothing. It's a lot of words with no content. And again, he's not a musician. He's a manager. This guy knows nothing. He can't play anything. He can talk about the people who do. And he's talking about everything he's seen with long, rambling caveats and qualifiers before he ever answers. Now, if he's telling the truth, what a shame he's wasting all that energy, because that's a lot of energy to tell the truth. And he doesn't answer questions. He qualifies himself and then he gives you his data of information. That's all intelligence speak. Qualifies him makes me know he is an Intel guy and he comes from that background. But I want to believe him, but I would crawl all over him right here because he's given me the tools for PE, for pride to go up and down because people who are insecure fall for those. You beat them up and then you flatter them. You know, it's kind of like an abusive relationship. You beat them up and you flatter them and you keep alternating that and they start bleeding information. And he's bleeding that everywhere. Now, is he telling the truth? We don't know because he's not saying anything. He's not giving us anything that has content. Anyway, there are some good regulator use again in here when they're asking questions. But actually, there's in here one time where he uses a regulator to resist questioning. And the guy's asking questions, if he would let him keep going, he probably would have answered. I don't know. When you ask a person a question and they've gotten the answer, they usually will answer it the first time, if they're being honest.  So maybe he knows something, but we don't hear any of it here. We hear more Intel speak, more jargon and no content. Mark, what do you go? Yeah, I couldn't agree more.  There's a vocal click from him. I hope that you appreciate that one, Chase. I'll mention it just once there, but we've heard them throughout. I don't think it's a baseline for him, but I like what you said there, Chase, that it's maybe a baseline for that persona or that attitude that he's being forced into or he's taking right now. He starts with a resume statement. He starts with his resume, here's how important, how big I am. He uses the word some, my understanding personally. So it's now become personal beliefs about some things that he's then surrounded with his resume of importance. And he says, I could not even explain in words, but he doesn't say in words, uses the word prosaically, which means in words or more importantly, that it could only be explained in some kind of art form. Maybe he thinks he could do some interpretive dance about it or write a piece of poetry or maybe do an entertainment show about it, maybe on the History Channel with his two friends in the background who he met at a Star Trek convention. Maybe there's a show coming out. It could be nice. I think it'd be good in a show. I think it'd be fantastic. He says he can't openly discuss anything definite. I mean, I'm paraphrasing the spirit of what he's saying there. He can't openly discuss anything definite. That's unfortunate as a whistleblower. And I know everybody will have all kinds of reasons, but he can't say stuff. Well, then as Greg says, then don't say it. People who are under certain notices, they just don't say anything in my experience. You're right, Chase. Again, there's this worry about disinformation. And that's interesting. He says, I can't state anything further than I did in the News Nation, the TV interview. No, what you could do is say all again under oath in front of the public because there is a massive difference between saying something on in a news interview and saying it under oath. The same thing under oath to the American people and the world watching. There is a huge difference because in the first instance, you can say, oh, I just misspoke on that one or the lights and I just emphasized stuff a bit more misspoke. In the second one, you're lying to Congress. And that's important. So he won't say under oath what he said in the News Nation interview. And when he talks about the News Nation interview, there is a Wallace and Gromit look of fear on him there. And then look for approval on that. Did he say something in that News Nation interview that was a little bit too big, a little bit effusive, a little bit too entertaining? I don't know. But certainly, I see that Wallace and Gromit fear and that look for approval. Scott, what do you got? All right. Grush is doing that alluding and inflating thing again.  He's watching his mouth like this is feeling more and more like an act the longer it goes. It doesn't feel squirrely anymore. It just feels wrong. It feels off. Maybe it's that comparison of the two guys sitting next to him and him sitting there in the middle that's making him stick out like that so big, but really starting to bug me. And when he talks about, of course, I left NGA in April. He uses a huge regulator there. I mean, that's a big one. It's like an almost a hands-off thing. He's doing it at that point. But his illustrators are pretty much start disappearing at that point. And then he's alluding to this plethora of sensitivities that he can't talk about more alluding and inflating. Then when he talks about prosaic, prosaically, he makes it sound like something that's really deep and heavy. And actually, prosaic means boring, you know, almost like mundane of the world. It's like if I said, oh, but I can make it sound cool. Like say, you know, here comes Mark for those prosaic stories about Greece. And he was just there. Mark tells me, you know, but I'm actually, it's a smack in the face. Tell us about one of those boring stories you talk about, Mark. So he's kind of, I think, you know, showing off a little bit today. I agree with Mark on that. Now, one thing that bugged me about this, there's a guy behind the guy who's asking the questions. It's on his right. Look at this guy. He's goofing around. He's not paying attention. He's telling jokes or something or making fun of somebody with the person sitting next to him. I know what that looks like. Takes one to no one. So keep an eye on that guy if you get a chance. He's not paying attention at all. I think he probably got in trouble after this, if they watched it and paid attention because we're talking about some very serious things. And this guy is supposed to be, what do they call those? Are they pages interns? What are they? Handlers. That's what I call them. Handlers. Handlers. This guy is too young to be handling anything important, I think. And if he had anything he was going to do important, he won't be doing it anymore because he's goofing off with this woman sitting next to him. So that kind of- I think they're called aides. Congressional aides. Okay. He could be in charge based on what we have in there now.  You know, he's bored. He's bored or something making fun of somebody, but watch him. He's making fun of somebody because I know that, look, I try to get people to do that myself. So keep an eye on that guy. Satellite imagery. Let's talk about satellite imagery. We have satellites all over the place, some that we're aware of and many that we're not aware of, right? We're taking pictures of everything at every point in a second. Mr. Grush, are you aware, do you have direct knowledge or do you talk to people with direct knowledge that there are satellite imagery of these events? That was one of my primary tasks at NGA since we process, exploit, and disseminate that kind of information. I've seen multiple cases, some of which, to my understanding, and of course, I left NGA in April, so that's my information cut-off date, but I personally reviewed both what we call overhead collection and from other strategic and tactical platforms that were, I could not even explain prosaically, and I have a degree in physics by the way as well, and I am aware that you guys have not seen these reports, unfortunately, and I don't know why. Do you have direct knowledge or do you have spoken people with direct knowledge that this imagery applies to crash sites, crash imagery? I can't discuss that in an open session. Do you have any information that the US government is involved in a disinformation campaign to deny the existence of certain UAPs? I can't go beyond what I've already stated publicly in my News Nation interview because it touches other sensitivities. Okay. And so I want to get down to, if we can, some specifics, right? So at one point you said that there has been harmful activity or progressive activity. Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports? I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured, and the activity—by UAPs or by people within the federal government? Both. Okay. So there has been activity by by alien or non-human technology and or beings that has caused harm to humans? I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed—and I have to be very careful here because you don't, you know, I tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed myself and my wife was very disturbing. Okay. One of my constituents actually sent this next question, and I figured I'd ask it since I had the same thought. You've said that U.S. has intact spacecraft. You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen—have you seen the spacecraft? I have to be careful to describe what I've seen firsthand and not in this environment, but I could answer that question behind closed doors here. And have you seen any of the bodies? That's something I've not witnessed myself. Greg, what do you got? There's a ton here. I'm going to cover one thing. And this is the first time there's anything that makes me say, okay, I want to talk to Grush. And this is incongruent behavior, but it has a real indiscernible meaning. If you've never worked in the intelligence business, you may not even think of this.  You could be prosecuted. So listen to what he says and pay attention to his body language and everything else around it. If you've never—if there's no classification against something, it doesn't matter. And there's never a classification on something you haven't seen. I could ask Chase a question. He could give me an answer and he may be divulging classified information, but he's not violated anything if he didn't know it was classified, if he didn't know that that existed. You may ask Chase, hey, do they have UFOs on board the ship? And he goes, yeah, he's just joking. Well, if they do later and it turns out he didn't know, he's not violated a security clearance. But if you say, I have seen this thing, you have violated it. So they ask him two questions. The first question, have you seen Kraft? And he is very careful to avoid saying no. Pay attention to that. He's very careful to avoid saying no. But when they ask him, have you seen any alien bodies? No. This makes me want to talk to him because now there's credibility in what he just said to me. It shows me he's dancing around a topic and clearly not dancing around another one. That makes me wonder, maybe there's something to what he's saying. The first time I've actually thought it. Now, each person in the world is going to deal with how to interpret dealing with classified themselves. We all get read on, we all get told what we're supposed to do. But every time you ask a question, you have to work around it. Look, if I'd seen, I'll just leave it at that. Just right there is a very complex answer to a fairly simple question. And if you've never dealt with intelligence, you've never dealt with classified information, you might feel okay with saying, yes, or no. But when you're in front of Congress, now you have a double edge short, you have to navigate and he navigates it very effectively. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, I agree. I got it here. He can say he's not seen bodies. He won't say that he hasn't seen intact spacecraft. Well, an intact spacecraft is anything that's going to give or take 100 miles or so. Give or take, depending on which scientist you're going to say, you're going to go with his where to space. I mean, I've seen intact spacecraft. It's not defined as to whether they're off world or on world or run by biologics, which could be sugar. That's sugar. So why he has to steer around that question? I agree, Greg. It's very interesting that he starts to navigate that one very carefully. Same way that he says, has alien or non-human caused harm to a human being? Well, when that question was less defined, he said he'd said he'd both, both. But when they get specific with it, when it's specific, what was a yes becomes a I can't say. So why does that change as well? The better the questioning, the more he climbs up. The worse the questioning, the more opportunity he has to put on a show that you might see on the history channel very, very soon. But look, that last part around the intact spacecraft, all of that has a lack of illustration to it. Lots of vocal clicks in there. That lip compression that Chase has been talking about. Shall we say it's tight mouthed at that point? Well, undoubtedly, you know, it's intelligence. Undoubtedly, he's seen craft that can go to space that or near, near enough that he can't talk about, I would say. Greg, you've got to talk. Yeah, one other thing. Remember, in video two, he said when he was asked about craft, he said, I know about people who have firsthand experience. And now he's avoiding a question. So production again. Sorry to affect you.  I'll tell you what, I've seen spacecraft. I've seen intact spacecraft. And there's a fellow named Elon Musk. I've seen him landing. I've seen video of what I believe is real spaceship landing. This guy could be telling the truth at this point, because we've all seen those. Everybody watched when those things started landing back down the ocean. We've all seen the parachutes of the when the Apollo mission came back. We've all seen those. Like Mark was alluding to. We've all seen spacecraft. So he's really not lying there, but he's talking about the specifics of seeing this new stuff, this outer space stuff. I believe that's the road he's going down. And that first question is yes or no. You guys are right. He doesn't say yes or no. And you say yes or no. Have you seen him? Yeah, or no. Neither one of those. And then he says, I have to be very careful because they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft. Then just answer the question that yes, yes, or, you know, he's not doing anything. And then why, for God's sake, open that can of worms about his wife. Why say that? Me and my wife. So, you know, are you kidding me, dude? So, because that's when I want to say, hang on, everybody hang on to say, Hey, man, what about this?  Was she with you in the car? Were you in some secret place on a base? What's going on? She's not cleared. I wouldn't think so either. And because she hasn't come up in this before and he didn't mention, he didn't say anything about it. So, I don't know why, why even bring her up? So maybe he's talked about something he's seen out in the wild, like driving down a little road or something. If anybody's seen UFOs outside of this, if you're not an airplane, you know, a fighter or something, maybe that's what he's talking about. You know, maybe this guy's nuts. I don't know. I'm not going to say he's nuts. I won't assume he's maybe nuts. I'm just saying, maybe that's the road he's going down. There are my wife. Why in the world would you bring her into this? That's, I don't know. That's, that, this seems like James Piles to her for me. There seems like a whole lot of questions that could be asked in here in a mellow way to get this guy to start talking. So, I think it's just a lame attempt to hide information that he doesn't have to make it look like he has information that, that alluding and inflating. I think that's, that's what's going on. Chase, what do you got? I have actually seen a alien spacecraft pull a human being off of the earth into the craft. It's a movie called Fire in the Sky. And I saw that craft. So what he's thinking here, I'm willing to bet that someone showed him a sketch or something of a craft and he might associate seeing a sketch of a craft with seeing a craft. And he's deliberately not telling us the difference there. I think that might be what's going on. And this has every hallmark of what I would just call a campaign where some, there's a very hard narrative being sold with this campaign. With the vagueness and the dramatization, there's dramatic flair and language. There's what I think is acting and inauthentic expressions and there's exaggerated language. And it's just kind of pointing in a direction to suggest something while saying nothing whatsoever. And the backtracking and word smithing, his way out of questions is just bizarre. He's contributed nothing of value, no, nothing of substance. On the entire news interview he did and this entire congressional hearing, they say, I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured. Who doesn't know multiple people who have been physically injured? Because that's all he says. He doesn't say it was by these things. He just says, I know lots of people who have been physically injured. And I think he does that deliberately. And I think he wants you to think that it's by these beings. And I think it's not because we can all say those words and it'd be true under oath. But the congressman sees this and calls him on it. And then he says, both UAPs and people within the government have done this. So he says UAP instead of this entity, UAP means it's something up in the air, right? It's a phenomenon up in the air. But they're referring to the craft as UAP. And so is he, who should be the expert. And he didn't right here. So he admits it like Mark said and then backtracks and won't talk about anything. Now, when he's saying they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, there's something about that statement right there that feels a lot like I'm literally witnessing tradecraft on the screen being done on me. So he redirects to this vague nonsense reference to something he saw with his wife that has no detail whatsoever. Mr. Burleson, I think is his name, sees the maybe what is BS. And you can see that smile on the space when he does. And then he asks, have you seen the spacecraft? It's a yes or no question. I wouldn't even get into dissecting this one. Just compare his answer to a yes or no question. The answers are the other guys at this table. And if this doesn't feel like bizarre misinformation to you, I don't know what to tell you. That's all I got. And so I want to get down to, if we can, some specifics, right? So at one point, you said that there has been harmful activity or aggressive activity. Has any of the activity been aggressive, been hostile in your reports? I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured and the activity by UAPs or by people within the federal government. Okay. So there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and or beings that has caused harm to humans. I can't get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed and not to be very careful here, because you don't, you know, I tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed myself and my wife was very disturbing. Okay. One of my constituents actually sent this next question and I figured I'd ask it since I had the same thought. You've said that U.S. has intact spacecraft. You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen, have you seen the spacecraft? I have to be careful to describe what I've seen firsthand and not in this environment, but I could answer that question behind closed doors. Have you seen any of the bodies? That's something I've not witnessed myself. Mr. Grush, a couple of questions for you too, sir, this morning. What percentage of UAPs do you feel are adequately investigated by the U.S. government of the 5% that are reported? I can only speak for my personal leadership over at NGA. I tried to look at every report that came through that I could triage. So. Do you believe that officials at the highest levels of our national security apparatus have unlawfully withheld information from Congress and subverted our oversight authority? There are certain elected leaders that had more information that I'm not sure what they've shared with certain gang of 8 members or etc., but certainly I would not be surprised. Okay. You've stated that the government is in possession of potentially non-human spacecraft. Based on your experience and extensive conversations with experts, do you believe our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials? Something I can't discuss in public setting. Okay. I can't ask when you think this occurred. If you believe we have crashed craft stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft? As I've stated publicly already in my news nation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries. Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics? Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program. And was this documentary evidence, this video, photos, eyewitness? Like how would that be determined? The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a skiff about. Okay. So, and you may or may not be able to answer my last question, and maybe we get into a skiff at the next hearing that we have, but who in the government either, what agency, sub-agency, what contractors, who should be called into the next hearing about UAPs, either in a public setting or even in a private setting, and you probably can't name names, but what agencies or organizations, contractors, et cetera, do we need to call in to get these questions answered, whether it's about funding, what programs are happening, and what's out there? I can give you a specific cooperative and hostile witness list of specific individuals that were in those. And how soon can we get that list? I'm happy to provide that to you after the hearing. Super. Thank you. And I yield back. All right. Mark, where do you got? Yeah. So, what have we got on this? Officials at the highest level of national security, that would be people like John Clapper behind them, former director of national intelligence, have unlawfully withheld and subverted. And Clapper, what's his hands? There's, as Chase would call it, there's some digital flexion on his hands when that's talked about. So, I don't know whether Clapper thinks that he's being talked about there, but it does, the mantle does seem somewhat to fit him on that. Then there's talk of a witness list, like, you know, yeah. And he says, look, I'm happy to provide that to you after the hearing. So, Corbell, in the background there who makes shows about UFOs and strange phenomenon, he's like, yeah, the list, that's, he's in full agreement with the list. McCulloch, who's his lawyer behind, we see a beautifully kind of delicate action on his finger on this. Now, I don't know what the finger, there's two options on that finger. That's either the finger of like, yeah, I must get that list together in order to provide that. Well, that's the raised finger of like, yeah, I don't think we'll be doing that actually. I don't think there will be. So, let's see, let's see whether there's a list or not. Now, why is Corbell in agreement with that? I think Corbell would be on that list. I think Corbell would be top of that. Like, I know a guy, I met him at a Star Trek convention and he's seen, or he knows people who's seen all kinds. In fact, he's got a whole show about this stuff with his mate, who's just sitting next to your lawyer there. They've got a whole history channel thing going and done on a ranch, owned by a guy who, well, I mean, investigate that for yourselves. That's an interesting, that's an interesting money maker. But, yeah, I love that little, I love that little finger there. It's all I got on that one. Chase, what do you see here? Didn't I go already? No. Are you? No, not this time. Not this time. Number nine. Sorry. Right. You want to do that again? Yeah. Chase, what are you on this one? What are you saying? I can only speak for my personal leadership over an NGA. Not in his experience. He says leadership and he wants you to hear that word. And I'm just going to let that remark sit with you for a minute. And he's saying, I tried to look at every report that came through that I could triage. This has two qualifications just to remove all specificity. Nothing specific, empty, void, hollow, empty. His behavior is just avoidant and vague and deliberately misdirecting. And I think unable to even just say something that he thinks is true. And it was a simple question that didn't involve national security details. And he couldn't even answer that. This is one that says so many weird qualities of what I would call a campaign. And something is being sold here and it's odd that the only or just one person at this table is kind of selling this vague idea and two people are answering questions. There's only two people at this table answering questions. Do you know what document he couldn't could produce, which he hasn't? It's the list of what he can't talk about. There should be a list that should be public of what he can't talk about because he's comfortable saying what he can't talk about.  And I would bet that she didn't get a list after this. And if you did get a list, I bet it's a crappy one. That's all I'll say, Greg. Now, I think he's got a list. I think that list may be meaningless, but he's got a list of hostile and cooperative witnesses. People he's talked to. I think this is the crux of everything. I think, remember I said in the other one, I thought he had kind of an axe to grind somewhere. I think he's got a list of people who blocked him and people who helped him. And I think that's what he would give them and people who fit his narrative, whatever his narrative is. I don't know what the guy knows, none of us can tell. The one thing that's interesting is Chase, you talk about that rambling, rattling, empty language. I think it's his baseline. I just do. I think he is a guy who thinks words are a premium, prosaic. He plugs in these words that we would all say, okay, I understand the word. I would never use it. That's just his pattern, I think. And I think if we agree with that, then we would say his baseline then, when he goes to this specific hostile and cooperative, is identical to that useless information he rambles in the first question. When they ask him about whatever it was, when she asked him a question about being reviewed and he goes back to his own reference, you're right. He rambles and rambles and rambles. And I think he's a non-specific speaker. That makes sense to you. He gets his message across with a lot of words and doesn't really drive home a point. Then when he gets to this biologics thing, it's more of that. Well, what are biologics?  Is he talking to a core audience somewhere? He's trying to use their language. That's probably what it is. It's jargon. But otherwise, Mark, I agree with you. Sugar is a biologic. Termites are a biologic. Anything can be a biologic. Oh, are you having biologics for lunch? Biologics. But he does a lot of lip compression we associate with holding facts. He does a thumbs up. He does a verbal. I'm just going to leave it. The only thing that he is doing here is more of the same. And I think it's just his baseline for rambling without delivering information and using jargon. Probably the best two points I've seen from him, though, are this one because he says, I tried to review everything that I had the opportunity to. And then the last one where he's navigating that thing. The rest of it, it's all jargon with no content, which I associate with this information because of my background. Scott, what do you got? All right. They're talking about non-human biologics. So think about it. Those are non-human biologics. Yeah. He's not even human. That's what I'm saying. Anything that's not human is a non-human biologic. It could be a mouse. It could be a dog. It could be anything that is biologic that is not human. It's just, I don't know. This stinks. This whole thing smells. And if you played that game, one of these things is not like the other human little kids game. Grush wouldn't fit in here. He's the one that doesn't fit. I don't think these guys on the outside would even hang out with this cat bed. I think he would get on their nerves so fast. I think they'd say, no, don't do it. Don't let him in. Who is it? You know, knock on the door. Who is it? It's Grush. I don't think they'd let him in. I think they'd be so over it. And over him. I'm whaling this gal. Stop doing that. He's adapting in almost every way you possibly can. He's using his head. He's using his eyebrows. He's using his chin. He's using his hands. He's using his arms, his torso. Everything is adapting here. Everything is illustrating here. He's kind of going off on this section here. I don't think he's coming apart or anything, but I think he's saying the same thing over and over so many times. It's starting to even bother him. There's only so many ways you can pretend you know something that you don't. And I think that's what we're seeing him experience right now. And when he talks about a skiff, I'll lick this up. That's a sensitive compartmented information facility. In other words, it's like the cone of silence comes out. Apparently, it's just really good. It's usually like the size of a closet. Yeah, it depends. I've worked. I've worked. Look, we've had buildings that giant buildings that are skiffs. It depends on where you're at. It's a contained area. And just give you an example. In my past life, we'd have collateral on the side, skiff on that side when you walk in the door. If you're cleared, your badge lets you in this side. If you're not cleared, your badge might let you into a Sally port, but you didn't get out of there. And the Sally person. A Sally port is two doors that lock. And so you get in, you don't get out. And so it's a control mechanism. But if you were unclear in a building like this, for example, you have a guy coming in to work on the air conditioning, we flip a switch, lights go red. Everybody puts their stuff away. It's contained. And then to chase this point, even within that area, there will be other areas that are even more confined and more protected. So there's access once you get in there. And so, yeah, it's a it's a building. It's a contained area. And they have them, I'm sure in Congress. But anyway, yeah, on boats, they're all over the place. And you have a business as well. So some people will work in some businesses where you have. That's right. That's right. Do the same. OK, so anyway, I got to say it. It's like I'm sorry. It's my fault. No, I totally get it, dude. I don't I had to look it up. I don't know what skiff is. Yeah. How am I going to know? You know, anyway. All right, you guys covered it all. So thank her. Good to go there. Mr. Grush, a couple of questions for you too. Sir, this morning, what percentage of UAPs do you feel are adequately investigated by the US government of the 5% of that are reported? I can only speak for my personal leadership over at NGA. I tried to look at every report that came through that I could triage. So do you believe that officials at the highest levels of our national security apparatus have unlawfully withheld information from Congress and subverted our oversight authority? There are certain elected leaders that had more information that I'm not sure what they've shared with certain gang of eight members or etc. But certainly I would not be surprised. OK, you say that the government is in possession of potentially nonhuman spacecraft based on your experience and extensive conversations with experts. Do you believe our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials? It's something I can't discuss in public setting. OK, I can't ask when you think this occurred. If you believe we have crashed craft stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft? As I've stated publicly already in my news nation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries. Were they, I guess, human or nonhuman biologics? Nonhuman, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program. And was this documentary evidence, this video, photos, eyewitness, like how would that be determined? The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a skiff about. OK, so and you may or may not be able to answer my last question and maybe we get into a skiff at the next hearing that we have, but who in the government, either what agency, sub agency, what contractors, who should be called into the next hearing about UAPs, either in a public setting or even in a private setting. And you probably can't name names, but what agencies or organizations, contractors, et cetera, do we need to call in to get these questions answered, whether it's about funding, what programs are happening, and what's out there? I can give you a specific cooperative and hostile witness list of specific individuals that were in those. And how soon can we get that list? I'm happy to provide that to you after the hearing. Super, thank you. And I yield back. Is it true that you saw in your words a 40 foot flying tic-tac shaped object? That's correct.  Fair enough. Did this object come up on radar or interfere with your radar or the USS Princeton? The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E2 tracked it. We'd never saw it on our radars.  The other airplane that took the video did get it on a radar as soon as it tried to lock it, jam the radar, spit the lock, and he rapidly switched over to the targeting pod, which he can do in the F-18. From what you saw that day and what you've seen on video, did you see any source of propulsion from the flying object, including on any potential thermal scans from your aircraft? No, there's none. There's no IR plume coming out, and Chad, who took the video, went through all the EO, which is black and white TV and the IR modes, and there's no visible signs of propulsion. It's just sitting in space at 20,000 feet. In your career, have you ever seen a propulsion system that creates no thermal exhaust? No. Can you describe how the aircraft maneuvered? Abruptly, very determinant. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was aware of our presence, and it had acceleration rates. That means it went from zero to matching our speed in no time at all. Now, if the fastest plane on Earth was trying to do these maneuvers that you saw, would it be capable of doing that? No, not even close. And just to confirm, this object had no wings, correct? No wings. Now, was the aircraft that you were flying, was it armed? No, never felt threatened at all. If the aircraft was armed, you believe that your aircraft, or any aircraft in possession of the United States, could have shot the tic-tac down? I'd say no, just on the performance it would just left in a split second. It looks like we have a problem here that needs further investigation. Yes. In your belief, is this flying tic-tac, I mean, is it capable of being the product of any other nation on the Earth? No, I actually said, like I said earlier, I think it defies current material science and the ability to develop that much propulsion. And I know there's been some physicists of them calculations which is beyond anything that we have. Well, either the United States has an adversary here in this world that we don't know, or we really have some serious investigations to do. I really appreciate you being here. Is there anything else about the November 14th, 2004 incident that you think is important for this committee to know that you haven't been asked here today? No, it's been said it's probably the most credible UFO sighting in history based on all the sensors that we're tracking it. And then for us to get visual and to go against the naysayers, it's something on the screen or whatever.  We're all very credible of the six of us that were involved in the thing, including the video. Every one of us is going to do 20-plus years in the military in very responsible positions. So I'd say the world needs to know that. It's not a joke. Oh, thank you. All right, Chase, what do you got? Let me just give you a little background on EO, what all this means from a military perspective. I used EO and IR for decades. So EO is electro-optical and IR is infrared, which means thermal. And even with all the like the bazillion dollar technology that goes into those things, there's still like a weird black and white camera. I don't know if they need to team up with GoPro or something like that and maybe together. And this is using this thing called a FLIR, which stands for forward-looking infrared. And to use this FLIR on most aircraft that I've seen and on the boat that I was a captain of, you have to hold this little remote in your hand and we call it the potato. And it's got a giant grip and you have to kind of lock onto these targets and work this camera. And the way that they capture these tic-tacs is masterful, like the person working that potato. Sounds ridiculous. Did a really good job. So we use the potato to capture the tic-tac. So we've got that going for us. Everything in the video here lines up, you might have seen stress. So keep in mind that social pressure and public speaking stress looks a lot different than deception stress. So deception stress occurs at these specific points and spikes when somebody's speaking or listening, typically in response to the mention of a topic of something that's stressing them out. Or when somebody experiences social stress, it occurs throughout their speaking and doesn't really spike in these specific moments of dialogue. So even if you saw a spike or two, what we would also be looking for are the linguistic signals and indicators for deception. We have this list of 30-something signals that we look for when we're analyzing. And we look for deceptive behaviors. And I don't mean just lying. This includes deception or deceptive intent, like misdirection, disinformation, avoidance, concealment, and suppression. Those are all kind of what we're really looking for. So when we say there's some deception here, it doesn't always mean someone's directly lying. It could be one of those other things there. Scott, what do you think? All right. He is so excited to be talking about this. He can hardly stand it. One time, my brother, one time my brother's son, my nephew, Stromer, that's his name, Stromer, he got something for Christmas and he was so excited about it, he could hardly stand it. And that's what he looked and sounded like when he was explaining it to my dad. When he ran and took it to him and said, oh, before he got to see, he said, you're not going to believe this. Here's what happened. He could hardly stand it. He was so excited. That's what Fravor looks like. He's so excited about this, he can't hardly stand it. You don't see that kind of excitement when somebody's being deceptive. I think this guy's full on telling exactly what he saw and he's excited about it. He literally lights up as he's talking about this. Now, for the second question, he illustrates by counting on his fingers and that stuff. He's going like we talked about earlier, right down the road of everything looking the way it should look when you're being honest. His illustrators are on point. When he talks, the words hit on the illustrator. Nothing showing no little weird movements, no fading facts, nothing like that. We're not seeing a lot of the classics we use if you're playing bingo during this or if you're playing the behavior panel bingo, you're not going to have squad on here because we're not seeing anything that shows deception. Come back next week. Maybe I'll have more deception to show you. But this guy is being, I think he's being completely honest. Now, our third question uses his thumbs and I think that's to help quell his excitement when he's rubbing them together. He's got to get rid of, that's an adapter. He's trying to get rid of some of that built up stress and tension. But in this case, it's not stress and tension. It's just excitement from what's going on because he's trying to stay cool about what he's seeing because we're hearing a first hand account of what happened and he knows it. And there's nobody else that's out talking about this and he's getting to tell everybody about it. He was on Joe Rogan. And so he got to tell a whole lot of people about it, probably more than much of this.  So he's really excited about that, which is I can understand that that's awesome. And Grush, our favorite, this is the first time this is the most animated he's been. He's making all the moves. He's doing everything we see when someone is excited about something they really saw or really experienced. Like when they wrote a roller coaster that was really exciting or something almost happened, but they got away with it. That's the excitement you see. You won't believe what happened. That's the vibe he's given off. So I'm totally in with this guy. I totally believe. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, these two guys on the outside of this jamboree that's going on, they brand themselves as credible and they deliver as credible every time. So a lot of credibility on the outside of this. Yeah, exciting story, long worthy. I think his name is who's questioning on this. I would call him confounded by this story. He's stumped. He doesn't know what to do. I think with this information coming, which is very credible, well told, accurate information. What does he do with that? He says we have a problem here that needs further investigation. This has piqued his curiosity. There's a mystery. He's engaged. He says it needs serious investigation. And from my understanding, serious investigation always requires budget, always requires money.  So, you know, I think if there's money going, I know somebody who's taken $22 million on one of those before and maybe they'll do it again. I don't know. I'm just me sitting here, but call it as I see it. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, for $22 million, I'll find UFO on my ranch. You guys just bring it. Bring it. I'll find something, I promise you. For $22 million, I'll build it and drive it to your house. Yeah. Well, we probably know somebody who's got the technology. Hey, a couple of things. As we walk through this, you've all said it, but let's talk about congruency. It's really hard to fake something and to get the timing of amusement and humor and everything else right. Pay attention to that because there's consistency and he's congruent and his illustrators, his hands are moving, his tone, his word choice. They all work together. He's amused.  That's amusement. That's a good thing, a good indicator. He's counting down, illustrating exactly what he's thinking and his words are hitting, his tones hitting, his cadence is hitting as he touches those fingers, not out of line, not chase or Scott. You always talk about illustrators that are out of sequence. His forehead is up, request for approval, but that's his baseline. If you watch him on everything he does, when he's talking about how long he was in the Navy, he still does that. And then when he goes to listing the tech, he does the same exact thing. His thumbs come up in confidence. He's got a playful yes in response to we have a problem. How do you do that? You have to be in the moment, not thinking about what you need to say next. Makes it much better. Then you get a great what else question. The thumbs come up, he starts to illustrate. And then after he says it's no joke, his lips compress in withheld information. Now that can be a motion, that can be how he feels about the whole thing and all that. It's really interesting to me to watch the difference. Guys, if you want to see a fundamental difference in what we're talking about, this is it. This is look backward. Look at a real, true story. Look at a person who is telling you a lot without telling you anything. This guy has very few details because that's what he saw. The other guy's got a ton of words and no details. So, short and to the point. Is it true that you saw in your words a 40-foot flying TikTok shaped object? That's correct.  Fair enough. Did this object come up on radar or interfere with your radar or the USS Princeton? The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E2 tracked it. We'd never saw it on our radars.  The other airplane that took the video did get it on a radar. As soon as it tried to lock it, it jammed the radar, spit the lock, and he rapidly switched over to the targeting pod, which he can do in the F-18. From what you saw that day and what you've seen on video, did you see any source of propulsion from the flying object, including on any potential thermal scans from your aircraft? No, there's no IR plume coming out, and Chad, who took the video, went through all the EO, which is black and white TV and the IR modes, and there's no visible signs of propulsion. It's just sitting in space at 20,000 feet. In your career, have you ever seen a propulsion system that creates no thermal exhaust? No. Can you describe how the aircraft maneuvered? Abruptly, very determinant. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was aware of our presence, and it had acceleration rates. That mean it went from zero to matching our speed in no time at all. Now, if the fastest plane on Earth was trying to do these maneuvers that you saw, would it be capable of doing that? No, not even close. And just to confirm, this object had no wings, correct? No wings. Now, was the aircraft that you were flying, was it armed? No, never felt threatened at all. If the aircraft was armed, you believe that your aircraft, or any aircraft in possession of the United States, could have shot the Tic Tac down? I'd say no, just on the performance, it would just left in a split second. It looks like we have a problem here that needs further investigation. Yes. In your belief, is this flying Tic Tac, I mean, is it capable of being the product of any other nation on the Earth? No, I actually said, like I said earlier, I think it defies current material science and the ability to develop that much propulsion. And I know there's been some physicists of them calculations, which is beyond anything that we have. Well, either the United States has an adversary here in this world that we don't know, or we really have some serious investigations to do. I really appreciate you being here. Is there anything else about the November 14th, 2004 incident that you think is important for this committee to know that you haven't been asked here today? No, it's been said it's probably the most credible UFO sighting in history, based on all the sensors that we're tracking it, and then for us to get visual, and to go against the naysayers, it's something on the screen or whatever. I mean, there's four sets of human eyeballs, we're all very credible. Of the six of us that were involved in the thing, including the video, every one of us is going to do 20-plus years in the military in very responsible positions. So I'd say the world needs to know that. It's not a joke. Oh, thank you. All right, Mark, what do you think we've seen up to this point? How's it looking to you? Yeah, I mean, such credible witnesses on the outside of this, on the inside of this, there seems to be a lot of narrative around this individual on the inside about a brave, patriot delivering us the truth. I just wonder because of the arena that this is in, this situation that we're seeing, the context that we're seeing, all this behavior. Who is for this idea of patriots and the truth? Who's backing the politicians that are around those kind of ideals? We've got some interesting scenery around Grouch of Clapper, Knapp, McCulloch, Corbell. I mean, specifically Knapp and Corbell, the only person we haven't got there is Robert Bigelow at the moment. And maybe he'll show up at some point. But it seems to me, as Chase, you've been saying, there is a show going on here. Definitely the delivery of an idea. And potentially an actual show we'll see on TV, at some point with some backing, all kinds of political backing behind it as we come towards election time. Chase, what do you got on that? I think this was perfect. It's like y'all were saying, it helps us to very clearly show the stark contrast between the two types of people here at this table. And we have one who's theatrical, sensational, dramatic, and I think more focused on himself than the information. And the others were focused on communication, helping the country, ensuring that Congress is informed rather than entertained. And I think that was a stark contrast. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, people ask me every time when we do these shows, you don't believe there's anything out there. You think that you know everything? And I said, no, absolutely not. We wouldn't do these shows if I thought that. I would say I'm not covering that BS. Something is happening. Two credible people who've seen something I haven't seen are giving us real details. And people of science with clear heads who are military folks that I trust are telling us something they saw. And then the middle, you got this other guy. So just because I don't believe Bob Lazar has been an aircraft mechanic for aliens, and I don't believe this guy is being forthcoming and being honest and telling facts. That doesn't mean I don't believe there's something. I know somebody who's seen something, not given to fancy, who gave me real details. I may ask her to come on here and tell us her story. But that doesn't mean that this is not disinformation. When something, if tomorrow, I were trying to make the American public respond to the fact that there are UFOs positively, I would overstate the danger so that when we did come out and show something, it would seem less dangerous. That is 101, how you affect people's personality. If you make something seem a lot worse than it is, then when it actually occurs, it feels a lot less powerful. Part of the seerschool thing is it's intense so that when you get there, you are prepared and you understand. So you're inoculating the person's brain against that ultimate uncovering of data. That's how disinformation could work. One example, I think it is just saying that's possible. Scott, what do you think? I agree with all you guys. I think this is the perfect example of seeing two people who are being completely honest up against somebody who is not being completely honest or is making things. Yeah, I don't think we're seeing the truth coming out of this guy, Grush. That's me. That's the way it looks to me. I think we're seeing honesty and then a lot of deception from Grush and a lot of dodging. Like I was saying earlier, he's alluding and making things bigger than they are that he can't talk about. It just seems, I don't know, so strange to not have seen this and thought it out beforehand before they said, okay, pull the trigger on that. Let's put those three up and put him in the middle. I don't know if he ended up in the middle of purpose or what. I'm like, Greg, if somebody asked me after watching this, they say, what do you think about the congressional hearing with the UAP thing? I'd say, well, I believe these guys on the outside here saw something they've never seen before and I believe everything they said and they never once said, I saw an alien. They never even brought up aliens. That's all this guy in the middle is talking about. Grush, he's filtering everything toward there being aliens there. Not that I don't believe that there are. There has to be something out there. We can't be the only ones. That's my take on it anyway. That's my view of it just because I'm saying, I think this guy is not being completely honest. And the same thing with the guy, what's the lasar? We were talking about earlier. It doesn't mean I don't believe there are things out there or any of us believe that. It's just I don't believe them when they're telling it, when they're talking about it. That's my take on it. Anyway, from my point of view. So, all right fellas, thanks for another good one and we'll see you next time. So what do you got?