Matthew Brown Exposes How Whistleblowers Are Being Set Up

And I raised my concerns about the October 7th attack on Israel and intelligence. I was very familiar with uh from the region. It is a a very telling sign uh what they did afterwards with my concerns about the actions of Israel and our government. We found uh one of the one of the key players in the legacy security architecture uh lately or currently at North of Breman. There have been coordinated online uh attacks against myself, Towen Borland, David Grush, Lu Alzando, Jeff Satelli. The point is is it's systematic and it's ongoing to this day. Uh we have identified the main players and found that they are active duty service members or reserve service members with active clearances doing this on their work time from work computers. This is weaponized.

Due to the sensitive nature of some of the material discussed in this interview, several names have been redacted to protect the safety of all parties involved. So, Matt Brown, um, Immaculate Constellation, those two words, that name is now out in the world and has received a lot of attention. And I I went and looked online to see what the current evaluation of it is. And it's got, you know, it's got uh legs. It's kind of story that's got legs. It was introduced to Congress in uh 2024 and we talked to you for weaponized in three episodes and got a huge reaction from people. We're curious about how it has changed your life, how the subject matter has changed itself. So, wanted to catch up with you.

>> Yeah. Thank you, George. Thank you, Jeremy. It's uh it's been a long uh nine months. I think we're not quite at the anniversary yet, but um that's good to be here. catch up on that and uh see where things go next.

>> So uh you've called the immaculate constellation the two-faced god. Maybe that's a good place to start for those who didn't see the earlier episodes that we did with you. Why do you call it that? What was it? What is it, Janice?

>> Uh so I mean that analogy was used uh related to how it processes data, right? And sequesters that data from people who aren't cleared to view it. um MAC constellation as a program, you know, since I was never formally read into it. I cannot authoritarily state what that was. Uh but it certainly involved, you know, the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance of UAP uh and RV around the world. Uh especially, you know, in relation to our adversaries and and their interactions with the phenomena.

>> Um, one thing that, you know, kind of took off was identifying Immaculate Constellation with a specific platform or, you know, a specific like cyber capability, right? Um, and one thing I want to point out that I tried to in our first interview as well, which is the key here is, you know, who is being briefed on this, and that's OSD policy. um who uh is in charge of the oversight for a specific category of saps and those are operations and logistics. So people who are saying Immaculate Constellation is an AI or is the sentient program from NRO or is XYZ the reverse engineering program um the speculation uh what is certain is uh that where I found it and its mission described fits with uh it being a operational SAP.

>> USAP is that what it fits into that an unacknowledged special access program.

>> Correct. Is like the security structure and when I'm referring to oversight of SAPS like there's three bins for oversight generally and control. Um so you will have like intelligence, you'll have your acquisition and sustainment and then you will have you know policy uh overseeing the operations and logistics. So you know your your key here is to look at um the office. The office isn't building stealth bombers. It isn't uh managing surveillance and reconnaissance networks. It's setting the objectives for the Pentagon, setting the objectives for what we are doing on a day-to-day basis. Um, and what we do on a day-to-day basis are operations that are very often when they're classified, controlled, and special programs. And this is one of those to the best of my knowledge.

The way you described it to us and then the description given to Congress is this is an AI program that basically scour all the databases and archives and and uh platforms and military intelligence agencies and scoops up really good UFO UAP USO video images things like that and puts it somewhere else right.

>> As if it never existed on on those platforms. Mhm. Uh that certainly appears to be the one of the main functions or or a capability that is part of Immaculate Constellation, right? Um since it's an operation, again, it's not just one platform, not just one capability. One of the things that is involved is what you just said, rec identifying collection events of anomalous phenomena, sequestering them outside of, you know, the the general uh population or the general in in uh incoming stream of intelligence and make sure that it goes to where it's supposed to go within uh the legacy program, I would assume, or more broadly just the defense and intelligence uh community as a whole. So you know a is AI used clearly right that is a massive amount of data is is is are clandestine surveillance platforms used yes they're collecting the data they are all part of an operation right so one way that saps are structured is like nests so you'll you'll have a parent sap above them and it oversees many smaller programs right each of those programs might have a very specific mission like specifically uh you know managing the classification uh standards, right? Um ones will actually be tasked with you know identifying where and when to collect in the first place to task things and then the operation itself. These are all you know distinct roles and responsibilities. But since you're at the Pentagon, you're at headquarters, these all filter up into one comprehensive strategic view where you see everything and uh you know that's what's incorporated here in the immaculate constellation report. So what is on display are are many capabilities, many programs um overseen by Immaculate Constellation. Um that's a pretty good summary.

You know, you know what people have said is that you saw one document about some war games in 2018. You misinterpreted it and it it means way less than you're suggesting. Um, and you've you've read all the other kind of criticisms that have popped up since you introduced this, or rather Michael Shelonburgger, the journalist who wrote a this 12-page report, or was it 11 page, Jeremy?

>> I'm kidding with you.

>> I am so pissed right now. I got two questions. Not about that. Um I'm angry today and I gotta be honest because you're going to see it. So two questions. One is um today are you able to tell us more. So everybody should go look at your first interview and they'll understand who you are. They'll understand what your career was like and then they can catch up to being here now with us. Okay. But that everybody should do that.

>> Two questions for you. One is, are you able to to say and talk more today than you were more freely today than you were the first time we interviewed you uh publicly on camera? Are you able to say more today than you were before?

>> No.

>> In general,

>> in general, yes. in as it relates to uh Immaculate Constellation and the many uh many many many documents and bodies of evidence that I consulted, you know, that were all uh non-public. I'm not able to speak anymore about those. I'm only able to speak about what I uh received clearance for from the State Department to speak about.

>> Okay.

>> But I am able to speak about, you know, uh what has happened in my life since I'm no longer a government employee.

>> pause that. We're get going to get there. So, George, um, you're making a joke and it's funny, but, um, we should dissect that for people later. I think what's real important right now is fundamentally, people need to go back and look at what Matt said, who he is. You asked him, did you make it up? That's basically what you're saying. Did you make it up? And that's a loaded question because we know the answer, but now we're just, you know, going to go for this. And and the answer is, he did not. But there's a reason George is asking that. But before we go there, second and last question until we move on. You keep saying Immaculate Constellation was an operation. Will you educate our viewership why you're saying the word operation rather than saying program or would you like me to do it?

>> I mean uh you know a program is is more generic, right? A program can be an operation. Uh it it can also be a scientific research you know agenda. It can also be you know uh buying things from Loheed Martin, right? Those are all programs. Uh operation is is in the field. You are you are out in the real world uh using military intelligence assets to to carry out change to advance the national interest to defend our country. So a program can be sitting in Idaho, you know, researching some cool nuclear fuel. Uh but an operation is going to be out there, especially military operation in the Pentagon when this is happening. It's going to be out there in the world, real world risks. Lives are on the line.

So the other thing I would say about that is that um a program even if they put out a false name or they change the name and all this stuff, an operation, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in the in the way that we're using it is that it is functional, right? But you're not going to necessarily go find an operation name the way you would find an official program name. So if in the in the White House, am I wrong in that?

>> That's okay.

>> I think you are correct.

>> Um

>> people above me.

>> Yeah.

>> I have access had access to tools and visibility that I don't. So, I cannot say, you know, what they were or were not able to, you know, look up.

>> Oh, we know for sure that that So, so here's the thing. If somebody said Matt Brown made up a a a document that he was exposed to on a server that he reported shouldn't be on that server. And then Matt wrote a report because he's a perfect what is it? Didactic memory? What's the word? We got like perfect audio or perfect visual memory. Mother

>> photogenic

>> photo photogen. Not photogenic. That's so good. You're photographic. Photographing my Yeah. But anyway, so it's just funny like um

>> what people need to what I think the audience needs to understand is there was a report that you were exposed to. Then you wrote something.

>> There was a briefing.

>> So I'm sorry. A briefing you were exposed to and then you wrote a report and you notified Congress, Senate, I don't know how you separate them all. you you notified people, you got stuff through uh freedom uh you got stuff through uh clearance through state department. So I just wanted to clarify for audience what an operation is compared to like if they go look up OAP. OAP was a program. It's different than an operation, right?

>> Uh so this AI system somewhere in the federal government in the in the executive branch it reaches out and scoops up interesting uh images and information and takes it somewhere and then what's done with it? What do they do? What do they do with that?

>> Yeah. So I mean people have connected the dots between NRO's sentient program as being one of the artificial intelligence capabilities that our intelligence and military community has has had access to for about a decade now at least. Um so what does it do with it? I mean uh again I was never formally part of this operation. I was never really formally read in. I am deducing things from the briefing that was given which was explicit about certain things but it's again a PowerPoint.

>> So I mean it classifies data and sends that data to to to wherever there is the mission need and there's the clearance for it. So when we're talking about the UAP problem set, you know, things like this are going to be since we're talking photographic or visual uh geospatial intelligence, right? It's going to be going through NGA.

>> Um, and then from there, you know, they will have a roster of of the different units and and offices that will that are cleared for intelligence and will receive it uh to use it either in their analysis or in their, you know, live day-to-day operations because again, UAP are real. They are in contact with our forces on a near daily basis, whether those forces happen to recognize it or not.

>> Um, there's a distinct operational need for that intelligence.

>> Um, and theoretically this this system is what fulfills that need while while uh keeping people who are not cleared uh in the dark about the entirety of this. So the big question that I think was kind of missed by a lot of people that watch this, you know, they're trying to assume because of mass words and his articulation is so specific.

>> Um, yes, there is an operation, a technological operation to siphon off the NHI contact um, promised known, unknown, unsuspected, suspected, planned. And the it does use an artificial intelligence to keep everybody in the dark within the intelligence and military-industrial complex that doesn't have a need to know. correct or incorrect.

>> Correct. And that's a big thing that people kind of missed and you're highlighting.

>> Um, and somebody like Susan Go at the Department of War can say, "Gosh, that Matt Brown comes out with this stuff. We sort of high and low through our records and we can't find anything that shows that Immaculate Constellation was ever within the Department of Defense or Pentagon or DO." And she'd be right.

>> Uh,

>> apparently, uh, you know, I question anything coming from Miss Gooff.

>> public affairs aka perception management out of DoD. So technically it's not in within the DoD

>> or she's lying

>> or she's lying or doesn't know.

>> But I think you're right. Technically it's under White House authority. It's under

>> Yeah. And to jump out of the context of the time which I try to stay in in this conversation, right? I try not to introduce information I've learned since

>> into my testimony or whatever. But I think what you're getting at is

>> is true. It's been learned through multiple sources that Mammaca constellation is housed or ran out of the National Security Council.

>> Yes.

>> Which makes perfect sense uh given the classification structure that's been, you know, kind of revealed by some very diligent researchers out there.

>> Independently verified by me and George separately multiple times. Independently verified by you. Independently verified by people that do verification for me and George. I mean, it's like I'm I'm high confidence, as they'd say, that absolutely that uh she might not be lying in her press statement directly because the authorities of Immaculate Constellation. Are you looking at that? My niece painted my nail.

>> Oh, yeah. My niece painted my nail. Sorry.

>> Go ahead.

>> Your niece.

>> My freaking niece, man. She's Yeah, my brother's daughter. Well,

>> so uh it existed somewhere. I guess the the most obvious question I have is did it change as a result of you coming forward and sharing this information? Do you I mean I'm just asking to guess. You're not there anymore, but what do you think happened? Did they circle the wagons, give it a new name? What what what would have happened?

>> Because he was an active federal employee when he interviewed with us. Correct. Wow. Can you answer his question?

>> No.

>> Uh what happened with it? I mean, maybe they changed the name.

>> Um, if I had to guess, maybe my face is on a PowerPoint briefing as the next person to expose immaculate constellation. Although apparently that honor goes to Mr. Lou Alzando. Thank you, Lou for exposing immaculate constellation.

>> Did he do so in um accidentally in inside the intelligence community or purpose?

>> Well,

>> you know, the briefing itself listed him through his exposure of ATIP OAP as responsible for exposing immaculate constellation. So once it's exposed, maybe they changed the name or maybe they didn't. Maybe they're just cocky about that and just left the

>> I heard they changed the name immediately. Yeah, like Well, I wouldn't be surprised. But if again asking you a guess, there's no way they made it go away.

>> Oh, absolutely not. It's an operation. It is a mission.

>> Um, the mission doesn't go away just because of public exposure.

>> Uh how's it been for you? How's your life gone since then? uh and and take your time on this because there's a lot of angles I'd like to pursue, but you know, Jeremy took you to Congress. He introduced you to a number of people who were involved in these hearings and uh you know, and then the information was introduced onto the record by uh journalists and there have been continued uh inquiries and and uh questions about it from members of Congress and media. But um I I don't think a lot of people think about you and and what this means. I know we hear almost every day uh from somebody who will say, "Come on, whistleblower, step forward. Spill the beans. There's no way they'd ever think of prosecuting you uh for telling the truth. You have nothing to worry about and give it to us because I've been sitting here on on X for 3, four months now, and I'm really impatient and I need it now."

>> Um, the reality for whistleblowers, people like yourself who step forward uh to share information do so at considerable risk uh to your personal reputation, your personal lives, your future future employment and other aspects of your life that no one seems to care about. This [ __ ] is scary.

>> Yeah. You say it, you make the sacrifice, put yourself at risk, and then okay, get out of the way. Who's next? That's the public view. Unfortunately, that's basically true.

>> Um, you know, one thing that hasn't changed is the treatment of this subject as entertainment.

>> Um, it's not entertainment. This is gravely serious and it affects every single person in a way that every single person should be aware and thinking themselves about how to adapt to this this current environment that has been hidden. the emerging reality, the the emerging consensus reality.

>> Correct. Yeah.

>> Um, how has my life been? It's been pretty terrible.

>> Um, I will start with some positives though. It has been very positive to see the people who who did listen and who did take that interview to go start do their own research and then find their own conclusions. That's uh for someone like me very gratifying to see.

>> um the kind words from people who are warriors in this space longer than me uh matters a lot and the the friends behind the scenes who have who were helping me then or who have come my way since um very grateful for all those things. So those are positives.

>> Um negatives I mean I lost my job.

>> Uh I wasn't really in a good position to to experience.

>> Did you lose your job or did you quit?

>> I lost my job.

>> You did?

>> Yes. I did not quit.

>> Um uh technically we were doed uh at the time.

>> By Elon.

>> By Elon is a verb.

>> It is. It was a verb. It is a verb.

>> Uh I was a Doge casualty along with other people in my office.

>> Um, it was a very uh convenient way to in ensure my exit.

>> Right. That means you'll never I'm sorry.

>> No, go ahead.

>> You'll never enter again. You'll never get another government job. Certainly nothing involving a clearance.

>> Well, funny you mentioned that. I was recently told by someone from ODNI that all of my clearances and tickets are good to go.

>> So, you were told by ODNI recently that your clearances are good to go and then theoretically there's no nothing blocking you from getting another government job in even in the intelligence realm. ODNI told you that ODNI means for our viewers

>> the office of the director of national intelligence

>> is run by Tulsi Gabber and she created something called the dig.

>> Well, we'll come back with that but I mean is there a way for you to check independent of what you were told there are my clearances still good?

>> Not that I am familiar with. I'm sure there is a way to formally request your records and see when it was and wasn't uh uh in access, but you know, in a practical sense, no. The easiest way to find out is to apply for a job and have someone on the inside verify that you know your your tickets are in order.

>> So weird that OD and I would tell you that because man, I heard the absolute opposite about you from ODNI. It's weird.

>> Bad stuff.

>> Oh yeah. I know. I heard we we'll talk later in this episode or whatever the [ __ ] we're doing right now, but I just like I think that's ironic.

>> You know, I don't know how people are out there living a life, especially life, you know, where they support a family um after being a whistleblower.

>> Uh because in my experience, this is the very opposite of lucrative.

>> Um, I'm just to talk money.

>> Uh, I'm very grateful for all the support I get, but it amounts to less than $1,000 a month.

>> Um, you know, that's not a career. That's not a I uh became a whistleblower and made it big and uh you know, Matt Brown is set.

>> No, it has been it's quite the opposite. There is, it's my experience, no money in uology and I'm not interested in a career in euphology. It is my experience that anything people can do to not confront what you're telling people they'll do. So one because it's like an onlogical shock. It's like um if you have to confront extraterrestrial life, if we're going to call it that or whatever we call it non-human intelligence, then we have to confront what it means to be a human being. And that's [ __ ] hard, dude. You know, you're worried about like making dinner and stuff, you know? So let th those things will fall away like the shadows fall away naturally when you just keep telling it like it is.

So I know because we talk all the time what you went through to get your words. You didn't even take the opportunity to be public. I walked you into offices. I put you in front of three individuals in private meetings. hid you as a camera person and they trusted me enough to hear you out and you chose not to to try to go out there with your face and I I think that that's so bold of you to to do this now. But it it has had a toll on you and I think people should know like people should know how it's affected you negatively and and if I'm going to somewhere we don't need to go well let's ask and see see where it ends up in a personal extremely personal uh sense I think is where he was asking about.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> Um I want people to see even so I think uh it's important to note that you know when I went to those meetings I was still a state department employee.

>> Took some time off work to do that.

>> Uh, and I was a state department employee all the times before that too.

>> Uh >> you were nervous that day the that day when I would do that triple set.

>> Well absolutely it was it was a tough day.

>> Um, Series of Days.

>> Yeah. Series of Days.

>> Uh, so I don't really know what to say. It's

>> Well, you're married, right?

>> Yeah.

>> Uh, this has got to land on on your wife like a a giant anvil, I would think.

>> She didn't opt in. That was not her choice, right? She didn't opt in.

>> Yeah. I feel terrible. Uh, she has suffered immensely because of what I'm doing. Uh she's an amazing woman. She is

>> strong and courageous.

>> Um, you know she has lifelong health issues genetic. Know it's hard it's very hard on her and she's also very you know artistic and careerdriven woman. And so having to manage my inability to provide and my uh psychological turmoil is is a very unfair burden to her. So it's um you know [ __ ] rolls downhill and ain't that the truth

>> people psychological turmoil meaning uh you know emotional uh effects of coming forward and and the consequences that you're facing I mean it it weighs on you all the time right

>> those but I think no I I cry basically every morning um and it's mainly because

>> men cry dude

>> yep it's mainly because humanity is failing to meet the challenge of our time we are not doing the right thing collectively and you know the vast majority of that responsibility rests on our leadership and has rested on our leadership but that fact does not abregate people's responsibility to change their conditions and it is not going to come from above it has to come from below the sooner people get off their phones and start thinking about how they can adapt to this reality which includes a government that does not honor them, does not respect the constitutional rule of law, and is subverted by foreign interests.

>> Um, talking about it on Twitter isn't going to change that. Going to a protest isn't going to change that. At one point, we were a people who could organize and achieve political ends. We need to be that again. And that starts with a very correct understanding of our reality and our place in it.

So on a personal level, it affects you financially. You don't have that job anymore. Um it affects uh your marriage and whether it was a good idea or a bad idea has to come up as a conversation, I would think often.

>> Um uh, you know, financial and emotional turmoil. She has health issues.

>> Uh, you're not able to really help. You don't you don't have coverage anymore, do you?

>> You have no uh I do not. And I was a contractor, so I never really had insurance into worth speaking of.

>> Again, the idea of a whistleblower. Yeah, right. Come on. Go, go forward. Go whistleblowers. We got your back.

>> Oh, Twitter. Twitter got his back. Twitter.

>> Other social media platforms, but

>> other organizations.

>> The reality is nobody has your back. Uh outside of my friends and family.

>> Uh no, there is Yeah, friends and family are the only support I have found institutionally.

>> Um, it's not even worth mentioning.

>> Um, in the

>> We got your back.

>> Yes, of course.

>> Yeah,

>> of course you do.

>> Um, but to your point, George, like the broader public and the government, absolutely not.

>> You do have some new friends you didn't have before. So, you know, November 2024, this comes out.

>> Um, and then at September of 2025, there's another hearing and there's a group of people that Jeremy arranged to be there in in the room. And you've got to know some of those guys. some of the people who testified, is there support there?

>> Uh, and you can you talk about those relationships that have developed.

>> Um, I mean, in general, I can talk in generalities.

>> Uh, people I don't want to betray confidence or put their names out there, but yeah, behind the scenes, there's some very welcome support, uh, including from other whistleblowers that, you know, testified that day under oath.

>> Everybody testify. Yeah. I'm gonna Everybody testify. Got your back, Matt Brown.

>> Yeah. So without that support, I don't think well number one, I wouldn't have gotten to being in a position to to do anything I did. But certainly since then, it's been the only thing that I've really had to lean on. You talk to them, hey, we've been there. We've done that. The the the guys who have testified and and have come forward and have done some of what you have done, um there is a level of of support, emotional at least.

>> Yeah. Jeff, Alex, uh Dylan, uh yourself, uh all fantastic individuals I can count on. Of course, Jeremy, you know, miracle worker, uh and then just just uh people that that the public doesn't know, I talk to every day

>> and a lot of people,

>> a lot of people you don't know

>> that that talk to me. So, there we go.

>> Um, after that hearing in September of 2025, Jeremy and I went and met with some people that um shared information that was amazingly uh candid and seemingly supportive of what we we've been doing. Is it a federal organization? Was it an intelligence agency?

>> It is.

>> Do they run all the intelligence agencies in America?

>> They do. They are umbrella organizations.

>> Would it be ODNI? It is. That's it. almost like you were there for this.

>> Um, so they asked, they told us, "We're we're going to get to the bottom of this. We're really digging in. We're authorized by um the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who is interested in this issue to go out and find credible information, credible sources of information, and um they asked us if we would share names of people that we would recommend. Yours was one of them."

>> So, can you confirm on the record that you met with those folks?

>> I did. I met with the uh the dig um the dig that was tasked to the UAP portion of the

>> Yeah. the dig the director's initiative under Tulsi Gabber who Tulsi set she she she set it up with multiple parts and one of those parts was the deep dive investigation on a federal level into UAP. That's what you're talking about for our audience.

>> Absolutely.

>> Um, there's been a little news of the dig publicly now since the uh uh some publication about work that she's done on election fraud. I believe

>> she's a gangster. I just want to be really clear. Tulsi Gabbard is a gangster. She is 100% on the level and she knows [ __ ] when she hears it and uh she stood up a an operation. Okay. So that's all I'm going to say. Continue.

>> Oh, I just acknowledging the fact that yes, I uh was reached out to by those people.

>> Um, and on the recommendation of friends and other whistleblowers who went and talked with them, um I I I went and spoke with them as well.

>> How deep did they dig? I mean, they ask you to tell the whole story all over again. How how deep did Dig dig?

>> Yeah, I guess

>> not very. Uh in fact, it was kind of surprising the questions they didn't ask and the ones they did.

>> Um, we can go into that, but maybe we we set the scene a little bit for that day, buddy.

>> Yeah. Okay. Well, go ahead. Set it.

>> Okay. Uh, so um so this the time frame is important. It's shortly after the September 9th hearing.

>> You know, a moment of some triumph, I think, for us. We got uh some very credible people to the stand.

>> Um, and on a personal level, it was very meaningful to see uh Dylan Borland uh on the stand under oath.

>> Um, him I him and I talked about that moment for for years and uh worked very hard to to help to help to make that happen. So after that hearing, you know, the word comes into the network that this dig is started up and a man named

>> name redacted

>> is running it and he's uh interviewing the the big names, the UAP whistleblowers who spoke to

>> name redacted.

>> Um, and so this man reaches out to me uh through through uh others.

>> It's okay. You can talk freely. And it basically just gets down to, hey, we want to meet saw your work.

>> Uh, we know UAP are real. We want to get to the bottom of it. Come in and meet with us and and tell us your story. And oh, by the way, we've stood up this UAP whistleblower protection program. We want to tell you about it and have you come sign on the dotted line and learning from their behaviors of what's their agenda and what's going on. And you know that's that's not the mindset going in.

>> Um, but there was certainly a large amount of caution and weariness of betrayal.

>> In fact, we talked extensively prior to your going in because we had a good friend one that I'm speaking of right now that we had uh go in and kind of like full monty open kimono show the cards. Now that operation I'm going to call it, they have talked with everybody that we have sent them. Everybody. But Matt was early on. He was low hanging fruit in the sense that we didn't know what we know about them now. So it was So Matt, my point is we were cautiously optimistic. Is that fair to say when you went in?

>> Yeah. and people that I had talked to who had been in relay a positive experience

>> um and were led to believe that you know there would be further meetings and were led to believe that there would be a cooperative investigation that they would be a part of

>> like Dylan as an example maybe

>> that's a good example

>> a good example okay

>> have you talked to Dylan about your mutual experiences then in front of with these people

>> absolutely we talk we talk every day

>> like we video call yeah is there a is there a conclusion or are have you had a an agreement in terms of assessing how it went?

>> I think so. I think we've arrived at that and the conclusion is in the negative.

>> When you hear that uh ODNI has started an initiative to get to the bottom of things and a very broad kind of objectives of finding out the truth about UFOs, gather it all up and doing something with it. Are you encouraged? Is that that sounds like I know how we reacted. Great. Good. Let's get to it.

>> But did we So we we acted that way. But was that what we were thinking?

>> Well, you know what we were thinking. We're suspicious. I am.

>> But our audience doesn't know what we were thinking.

>> What were we thinking?

>> Well, I know I would be suspicious of that kind of a setup because we've seen it too many times o over a lot of decades of uh boy, it's time we get to the bottom of this. And really, they all either have ulterior motives or they fizzled. this we heard we we spoke to people face to face and what they were saying is what we wanted to hear. I just recall that when we got an invitation to go meet with these folks. We were suspicious and then we sat down and spent several hours going through this. They explained what the objectives were and we were encouraged. We leave that meeting and going well [ __ ] if this is if they're sincere this would really be a great thing.

>> If they were

>> if we you know we suspicious by nature. Did you notice that we had a choice of meeting in a cafe, meeting in the visitor center, or meeting in a skiff? And I chose for us the visitor center cuz that was a nice middle ground which was like if they were going to [ __ ] with our phones which we left

>> name redacted

>> then that would be interesting and we would have prepared for that if they if we didn't go into a skiff because then maybe that information would we we would be told you can't talk about. So we went to the visitor center and that's different than Matt. Matt went into a skiff and no one's supposed to tell me what happened in a skiff with you. Correct.

>> Okay. Is that fair, George, for me to say? Okay. So, now go ahead

>> and tell us what the [ __ ] happened.

>> Yeah. So, I was invited to come to Liberty Crossing, which is an intelligence facility in uh

>> You're been there multiple multiple multiple times in my career. So, yes, I'm quite familiar with it.

>> Um, and so I was invited there. I was told um, you know, access won't be a problem. All your clearances are up to date. So you are cleared to come into our facility and we will put you in a in a room with us. We can talk about anything in there.

>> Um

>> and it's supposed to be confidential 100%.

>> Yeah, absolutely.

>> So they couldn't tell a journalist what you talked about in there?

>> I would certainly hope not.

>> Okay.

>> Um, so the day comes, I uh go to this location. Uh, I take the metro there. I meet the contact.

>> Name redacted

>> uh in a in a car in the parking lot and I'm taken to Liberty Crossing uh check in like a normal visitors process to a intelligence facility. So, you know, it's like I'm I'm back in school, right?

>> Did you bring a phone?

>> No, I didn't bring any technology with me.

>> Uh

>> why?

>> Well, I had learned from others who had gone that people who went to Liberty Crossing and brought their phone with them uh came out of their meeting and found that their phone had been hacked, the entire content on it duplicated.

>> Um, and that when OD and I security was informed of that, they were told uh that it wasn't them who had messed with their phone.

>> Um, and that that's just very strange. Sorry. So, to me, that seems like a very uh good reason to not bring any electronic devices. Fair to say that also as a patriot that you've been warned about foreign intelligence gathering on you and you wanted to protect the United States of America by giving whistleblower statement and so you also were preparing to not allow that to happen.

>> Yeah. And and as to that, you know, I instead of taking an Uber, I took the metro. Uh, you know, I didn't, you know, make any uh sort of big deal about what was going on. It was just supposed to be another day. And then I just leave the house and I come back and nothing strange happened. Apparently the the fact that I took such measures, simple as they are, it upset some people um and made me a super spy. But no, I uh am always concerned from day one about foreign intelligence uh tracking my activities and my words.

>> It was your job you worked in like nuclear matters.

>> Yeah.

>> And so you know uh to this day I still that's part of my daily risk assessment.

>> Um, so I go there. Uh, we are taken to the basement. This is in the middle of the government shutdown. So it's kind of a ghost town.

>> Um, and I'm expecting to go to like the the formal conference rooms in the basement, but we end up going to essentially a a conference room converted into storage slash uh working office space.

>> Uh, very uh X-Files uh molder in the basement with boxes.

>> Was that set up for you, do you think, or do you think

>> they even referenced the fact that they were like uh the X-Files office in the basement of the building?

>> Uh, so again, the whole reason of me being there, uh at least for me, is to find out about a UAP whistleblower protection program.

>> Um, and you know, find out what that is and get myself into it.

>> So they're going to protect you because they recognize you as a UAP whistleblower, correct?

>> And that's why you're going in.

>> And this this program had been offered to friends who had gone in before. You know, they received a document, reviewed it, and signed it. And I'm basically expecting, you know, that's how our meeting starts, hear about this program, uh, get into it, relay the basics of my story. They already saw the interview, so what more do you need?

>> Um, and then figure out, you know, what can I do to help?

>> Um, I'm also bringing in additional information that was not from government sources, uh, and providing that to them as a gesture of goodwill and trust.

>> Um, so you know that's that's the experience I'm expecting to have. Uh, and the experience I got was a very wide-ranging reflowing conversation.

>> Definitely some specific questions built in there,

>> but in a skiff.

>> But in a skiff. Yes, we were in a skiff.

>> Uh, absolutely. And

>> are you legally allowed to say what happened in that skiff?

>> Unclear. I think I'm okay to talk about what I talked about, but not the details of why I said what I said.

>> Did

>> you sign anything?

>> No. So, that's the most concerning thing for me. The the whole reason of having that meeting never came about.

>> Um, the UAP whistleblower program by OD and I was never offered to me. I was never briefed on it.

>> Um, the only thing I was informed of was that, you know, do I want to become an ICI UAP whistleblower? Very different thing.

>> Um, and I'm like no uh uh I see no advantage in that uh based on my friends experience who have done the same thing. It is a trap.

>> I want

>> Dylan.

>> Correct. And that was the end of that conversation. And that happened maybe 15 to 30 minutes in. Certainly not how we started out.

>> Uh, and moved on from there. Very concerning, but I didn't raise my concern at the time because I'm waiting. You know, maybe we get to the end and they talk about this

>> course. Never.

>> So, they didn't um like I was told by them, they didn't offer you a piece of paper to sign to protect yourself and you didn't decline to sign it.

>> No. No.

>> So, that was a lie. I was told. Is that correct?

>> Correct. No paper was offered to me. No program was described to me.

>> Um, when I indicated my disinterest in joining the ICIG was UAP whistleblower process, uh the conversation moved on and was not revisited. Man, I was lied to a bunch. George,

>> was there further contact with the two people in the room since since you were in the skiff and had that conversation? Have you stayed in touch with them? And if so, can you share what that conversation was about?

>> Name redacted.

>> There was limited contact afterwards.

>> Um, the meeting ended with me, you know, being invited to come back the very next week and uh talk with them again. you know, uh get into some of the details about the the general issues I had raised and those general issues, you know, uh were UAP related, but I also, you know, uh was invited to talk about, you know, hey, do you have any other concerns about, you know, your time, you know, we we're a black box. You can say anything here. It's safe, you know, get out. And I think

>> Did they ask you for names of other people that that uh they should talk to?

>> I can't recall that. Um, and I don't think I would have provided them.

>> Oh, of course you wouldn't. I just want to say, George, I bet if Tulsi Gabbert knew what people were doing on her behalf that she would be [ __ ] furious because I I think she's um on the level. So, I just like I'm I hope this airs.

>> I hope so, too.

>> So, I think without uh crossing a line, I think the topics discussed can be discussed here.

>> Okay. And you know, I came in um very skeptical. And so part of that skepticism shaped my behavior. And that was to see, okay, this is a real genuine initiative. This is going to be a continuing relationship.

>> Um, you know, they are going to seek to build a rapport with me and be concerned about my safety and well-being. And if those you know, indicators are not observed, then, you know, this is, you know, not as advertised.

>> um or at least I am not perceived favorably. So I resolved to basically say as little as possible about my UAP knowledge especially anything outside of the Immaculate Constellation report itself and I took that opportunity to raise other issues to see uh how they would react. In my mind there is no greater issue to the United States government than the UAP NHI problem set. So, I chose a lesser one and raised that topic to see how they would respond if they are, you know, serious national security professionals. They will recognize what I'm talking about and um be interested in investigating that more. And so, that issue was uh uh specific to Israel. and I raised my concerns about the October 7th attack on Israel and intelligence I was very familiar with uh from the region. Very serious subject but it still ranks below UAP. If they are not willing to engage in good faith on managing the apparent misdeeds by our closest ally, how can I trust them to handle our nation's most closely guarded secret? Because the dig is supposed to be looking at corruption. That's what Tulsi wanted, right? So, is that what am I reading that right?

>> Uh, you know, I'm not familiar with what Tulsi's objectives were, but she seems like a, you know, dedicated individual.

>> Uh,

>> it's not her fault. Her staff did not fulfill her, you know, intent.

>> They did the opposite with the UAP thing. And you're providing intelligence from your professional career on something of national security. And what

Did they wave you off? No, they actually wanted to know, uh, not so much about the specifics of that, but what information I had access to that led me to that conclusion. What compartments and sub-compartments I was reading. Uh, basically, by their questions, they wanted to know how I knew what I knew in order to go correct to that in the future and ensure that, ensure that information was sequestered, predictable. I don't know if that's the course taken, but that's what I expect was, um, so I won't go into the details about why I think those things because I am no longer a government employee. I was not a government employee when I went into ODNI. I was told by them that I could speak freely in there, but I was offered no paperwork to confirm that. So, I'm being cautious here.

But also, you know, uh, it is a, a very telling sign, uh, what they did afterwards with my concerns about the actions of Israel and our government's. And really, what did they do afterwards? Um, I think just briefly here can state that they took my concerns about what happened that day and spun it as me having an anti-chew agenda.

"Anti- what?"

"Jew. Okay. Like you hate the Jewish people."

"I hate Jewish people. That I'm an anti-Semite."

"Okay."

"Um, and that I, uh, you know, have hatred in my heart, uh, because of October 7th, uh, about Israel and, and the, the Jewish people."

"When I told him that, he was at a Jewish wedding."

"Had just gone to one. Yeah."

"No, I was literally at, uh, my one of my very dear friends' weddings, and it was a Jewish wedding. So, you know, uh,"

"Masletov."

"Masletov. They were trying to paint him. I'm going to really infuriate him, and I see him like twitching, and I want to be careful because it's really painful, but I'm going to tell him the three things I was told about him that are untrue, the lies. But continue. I don't want to interrupt. And George has a pressing question."

"Yeah. And I think, I think, um,"

"The key thing is, you know, I didn't say what I was upset about. I said I told them because of who I am and what I had access to, you know, I saw October 7th in a way the vast majority of people didn't, and it, it greatly affected me. And I didn't say in which way, right? I didn't say it had swayed my beliefs to support the Israeli cause or swayed my belief to support the Palestinian cause. Um, the truth of it is, it hardened my heart against the Palestinians. It made me hate them. Uh, seeing what they did to women, especially, and babies and children, uh, hardened my heart to them, and I'm ashamed to admit it. But I did not tell ODNI that. So, if anything, based on the reality of my reaction to that day, I would be very pro-Semitic, very pro-Israel in my actions. And they tried to spit it. So, so be, because I'm not a political, George could maybe translate for me. I'm, um, stunted politically. But let me just tell you the brush with which you were painted directly after you were in the skiff. It takes about three weeks to, for them to flip their ID on me. ODNI contacted me, and they told me, and, and just take this on the chin. This is what they said. Said, 'I want your response.' They told me three things. They said, 'Matthew Brown is a racist Jew hater.' They said, not they, one individual from ODNI told me that in the skiff, Matthew Brown is a racist Jew hater. I believe those were the exact words. I need to look it, you know, back in my brain to try to figure it out. Um, the other thing that was told to me was that Matthew Brown admitted to completely making up and fabricating that he saw an immaculate constellation, um, document in the files."

"Right?"

"And that he admitted to me that Matthew Brown made that up. He came up with the name that he made it up. And the third big lie that was told to me, if I recall, was that, um, I, I think the, the third point of the brush that they painted with was that the words counter-espionage and treason, I believe it was treason or a word like that."

"Okay. That's what was said to me by an official in ODNI who told me gossiping, spilling the tea about what you said in a private skiff, meaning where you were supposed to go in to be protected as a whistleblower. Will you address those three things right now?"

"Yeah. Uh, so obviously, I am not an anti-Semite. I'm not a Jew hater. Um, I grew up in elementary school with a large Jewish cohort in it. Uh, we, I don't remember it anymore, but we had to learn Hebrew at the time. Uh, celebrated Hanukkah. Um, since then, you know, this is just so ridiculous."

"So, the guy lied to me."

"Absolutely. Um, and I mean, yes, I, the day that I heard the news, you just can't, you can't beat fate or, um, yeah, I'm at my dear friend's wedding, and it's a Jewish wedding. Uh,"

"The day I told you."

"Yes. The day you told me. I'm there celebrating. It's Jewish families. Uh,"

"I was never told that. I can't tell you what you supposedly said in a skiff to ODNI. So, I feel fine that I, George, I was never told. I can't tell him that. And then the last thing that just makes it really ridiculous is my family has Jewish blood in it. We've confirmed it through DNA testing. Um,"

"So you're a self-hating Jew."

"The, the very definition, right? Yeah. So it's, um, I was actually shocked that was the tack they took. Uh, I thought they would try to discredit just the information about that about October 7th, but no, they tried to discredit me."

"I need a beer. I'm sorry. Because you know the next, Can I give you guys a beer?"

"I'll take one."

"Okay. That's, it's called a bad ombre. This is mine and George's. Um, I just, I hate the beer. I love the can. Um, bad ombre. Um, not a sponsor of Weaponize. Okay. Check it out. That's crazy, man. Because what I'm thinking is, if that doesn't work, what's the opposite of that? And that's what ODNI will try to do. Because, but let me just, I'm going to just say it. So, I know what the agenda of the UFO arm of the dig was to do underneath Tulsi Gabbard's nose, directed by, directed by, um, the CIA indirectly."

"Sure. But I know for sure, and I know as a fact, what they were to, to do was to discredit you, Dylan, Lou, Alzando, David Grush. Huge target. Didn't fall for it."

"Us."

"Oh, no. I'm not sure it was to discredit us. It was for us to do the dirty work for them to mistrust the words told to us by the people I've listed, including now Jay Stratton, Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff. Can I go on?"

"Jim Lacat."

"Jim Lacat, James Lacat, Dr. James Lassky, Dr. Tom Keller, like, like, it just, that was the agenda. But let me just, one level deeper. The true intent of the UFO dig project under Tulsi, which is not Tulsi's fault, and she's wise as [ __ ], is that, um, they wanted to stand up an operation to influence Congress to put down the bone on UFOs by saying everybody that's ever stood up there, including Commander David Fravor, Senior Chief Wiggins, everybody, that that was, that they want them to drop the bone. And not, and they were, they had an influence campaign set."

"That is an intelligence operation being run by the US intelligence community against the US Congress."

"I can't think of anything more illegal."

"So that is right, and I can prove it. Okay. So I get it. Um, that their attack was going to be, you're an anti-Semite or something stupid. Okay. So low-level [ __ ]. So, so now."

"And they're not really reading the room very well."

"They're not reading the room. They didn't look at your DNA. They didn't look at when I called you. They didn't look at you. You bring in, you're [ __ ] idiots. Okay. So now, so here's the next thing that you completely made up the immaculate constellation original, uh, briefing, you call it that, that you saw, that it was never there. And in fact, oh, when Matt Brown found out that we have a perfect digital memory of what survives on servers, oh, that Matt, like, deflated. Is that what happened, Matt?"

"No, not at all. Uh, so I was asked specifically to walk through step by step my discovery of the Immaculate Constellation briefing, uh, which occurred when I was a contractor for OSD Policy. Um, and I did so, just like I recited on Weaponized. Um, because it's a boring story at this point, and so I will just say it in three sentences. Uh, I was doing volunteer duty to clean a top-secret SCI, uh, share drive. And by clean, means to organize the files that through the course of business just get left and scattered everywhere. Um, the 2018 Shrivever Warame file stood out in no way. I just opened it to figure out where it should be categorized. Um, and that file is the Immaculate Constellation briefing document. Um, and then, yeah, I described the process of reporting or attempting to report it, just like I laid out on the show. You can go watch the episode."

"Yeah. Watch the first episode of Web."

"Yeah. So, I mean, nothing changed in that room, uh, at all, except that in from them, they said, 'Okay, that makes sense.' And then to you, they're saying that I made it up and that I am cringing when they're talking about a digital record."

"Deflating. So, did you make up that you saw the?"

"Not at all. Right."

"You saw the report. It is a briefing. It is a briefing."

"All right. My word. You saw the briefing. Okay. Yes. Cool. Good. It's on the record now. What was the third thing that they told me that we're going to tell you that you were running a counter-intelligence operation? It was basically espionage from the American government. Why would they tell me that? And tell me the truth."

"Yeah. So, that comes from the very end of our conversation. Um, we're getting up to leave the room. Um, cutting it short. Actually, I was told it'd be a four to six-hour day. We're there less than that. Um, yeah. So, I get up from the room and I say, you know, I don't know why I'm telling you this, but that Immaculate Constellation report, you know, that, that was an op, that was an operation. Um, and that operation is why I have so much confidence that what I wrote down is true. Uh, because I vetted that information against, you know, people who would know. And, you know, um, maybe next time when we're talking, we can talk about, you know, some of the people who I found out were lying, uh, by, uh, coordinating my report."

"Who is lying? Say their names or, or don't."

"I don't want to say that here."

"Okay."

"Yeah. Um, there also won't be names that people would know."

"Uh."

"Interesting. Okay. So, because the world's going to go crazy, who was he about to say? There'd be names that people wouldn't know. Correct. Okay. So, good. Don't tell me. Go. Um, so, you know, a spicy thing to say, but it's, you know, it's a key part and it's part of the process of that report. Um, so I'll lay it out for you exactly what that is if they didn't come back and ask. Yeah. So, what it is is, uh, you know, to go back in time, I became a whistleblower, not with a report. I went into [ __ ] uh, entirely verbal testimony. Um, and, you know, people can look back at the history of, you know, the outcomes from that. And then the genesis of, okay, you know, you're saying that you didn't write down what I told you, that you didn't take notes, that you didn't share your information with SAS Haskipsy. I'm going to write a report. I'm going to give it to you. It's going to be your problem. Um, so that is when the field report first starts getting drafted. Um, what am I writing that field report about? Well, what are the questions of the day? Uh, it's the fact of UAP. It's the credibility of Mr. Alzando, uh, and it's just the general denial, blanket denial inside the national security enterprise of this, uh, of the UAP issue as is being real. So the report addresses all those points. Um, it doesn't address everything I know or everything I talked about with [ __ ] or Sask. Um, and I'm a very conscientious person about my sourcing. Uh, as you are."

"With that, and so, you know, I'm putting something forward not just from me, but it's theoretically going to Congress to drive an investigation and action bill."

"That's what you wanted. You wanted action on what you found? Corruption, deception, lies, malfeasance. Is that a word?"

"Malfeasance. Harms. Armed unto people."

"Harmed unto people. Okay. And so you, so there's seven categories of evidence in the report. The first one is the briefing. Uh, and then when we get to the end, you know, that says sensitive sources, from mouth to ear. What the [ __ ] did that mean?"

"That is an indication of the level of secrecy. Those are, that is, those are, those are humans behind that information."

"Human intelligence. Humans."

"Yes."

"Have you published that information publicly?"

"No. And I didn't even write it down. I compiled what I had learned into bullet points. That way the information was aggregated and not being sourced to in a single individual."

"Can we publish that now for the world to see in some way?"

"No."

"Okay."

"Ah."

"I had to try."

"No. Um, it's human lives."

"Okay. Uh, and end of the day, it is supporting evidence, right? That is a document, seven bodies of evidence supporting one conclusion: UAP are real. Uh, I'm not going to burn people's names that are good people, uh, just to satisfy curiosity."

"You did say, though, that you had access to a conversation between Shan Kurpatre and Rubio. Now, the question online has been, how did you get access to a document, a written document about Rubio's private? Who's now Rubio's like a big boss. So how did you get access when he was a senator to the information? 'Cause you're not in a position to have that, bro. So how did you get, um, the access to the information if it's true, and you're saying it is true that Rubio and Kpatra in a room, and it, you said it, it ran my blood cold. I think at the last episode, you said that I'm not going to ask you how you got access. How can you let me know and George know and the world know that that is accurate information? What is the way you can do that?"

"You can foyer the records of Ronald Moltry from ODNI, Intelligence and Security."

"Thank you. It was the guy at the first hearing."

"Correct."

"Who didn't know anything."

"Correct."

"Maybe Ice Dick could do that for us. Um, but to, to, to finish the immaculate con is a con. Okay. Uh, line of reasoning. So that document was circulated, uh, to very trusted people. Um, some of them turned out to not be trustworthy, and, you know, that is a vetting process of the information and ensuring that the conclusions that I'm putting forward to Congress, uh, on record, on the pain of my freedom and death, that it's true."

"You did it right, and you should cause."

"It is an operation. It is an operation to verify truth and bring truth to Congress. I would have explained all of that gladly, uh, but, you know, I said, I don't know why I'm telling you this."

"Name redacted."

"I'm telling him this as we leave a room that is most likely recorded. I'm telling him this in hallways."

"Oh, it was recorded. Your, your skiff meeting with."

"Name redacted."

"I'm sure of it."

"The point that I'm getting at is this, uh, tibbit of information, the Israel information, uh, and a third thing we'll get to, uh, all were given to [ __ ] to see what he would do. If this is a good faith effort, this information will be treated, uh, respectfully, and it will be used to conduct a lawful investigation. If it is not a good faith effort, well, this information is very damning to me personally, uh, but it's not to the country."

"So you're testing, uh, ODNI's, um, not their fortitude, their agenda."

"Their loyalty."

"Their loyalty to America."

"Yes. To the Constitution."

"To the Constitution."

"Right."

"The third thing that we talked about that I brought there of my concerns was, uh, whistleblowers and their treatment, um, since coming forward in public. Specifically, how there have been coordinated online, uh, attacks against myself, Dylan Borland, David Grush, Lou Alzando, Jeff M. I think Alex escaped, but, you know."

"The point is, is it's systematic, and it's ongoing to this day. Uh, we have identified the main players and found that they are active duty service members or reserve service members with active clearances doing this on their work time from work computers. That's right. Um, and that this network of [ __ ] talkers is directly traced back to legacy program security, and that legacy program security is actively running, uh, disinformation operations and psychological operations against UAP whistleblowers, their friends, and their family. Worse than that, they are taking, uh, human intelligence methods and applying them to us in order to disrupt our lives and in basically to drive us to either commit suicide or become so ostracized from our friends and family that we are no longer a threat. Specifically, they are sending Office of Special Investigations agents to people's families to break apart their families, to break apart marriages, to this day, to pull children away from their parents. And these are not the parents, uh, these are not parents who are whistleblowers. They are people who have helped us. Um, it's completely unacceptable. I took some of that evidence, uh, there and brought it up. And in fact, I took more than, uh, just screenshots and posts and information about low-level players. We found, uh, one of the, one of the key players in the legacy security architecture, uh, lately or currently at Northrup Grumman. And his name is."

"Name redacted."

"Show us a photo of that."

"I have it right here."

"I know you do. Before we look at this photo, not only that, you could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law. And if anything were to happen to you or anybody, then it'll all be put out anyway."

"Yes. And it's not just me."

"Yes."

"You know, in my last interview, I said that it's been a long hard road to find allies. Have them now. And I do."

"And we are done taking punches and not punching back."

"Name redacted."

"Is responsible."

"Okay. So, has been responsible for a lot of what you're talking about, current day, current day as it relates to the UAP problem. He is a nexus point for legacy security. He is part of the dirty tricks department. People bring names that need to be handled to this individual. This person looks at those names, matches it to the capabilities to go achieve XYZ objectives, and then the result is an ecosystem flooded with disinformation and psychological operations and targeted attacks against whistleblowers and their allies."

"How do you know?"

"So, I cannot reveal everything about this because I am communicating it for others."

"And where, um, what is his current role in government, if any?"

"No role in government, but in the military-industrial complex. He is most recently at Northrup Grumman. And the little title he has here that people might find interesting is, uh, Deputy SAPCO for DARPA."

"Wait, what does SAPCO mean? And, um, are you sure this is a photo of him?"

"I'm 100% sure. And, you know, we have a career history outside of this one appointment in 2009."

"What does that mean?"

"That means that [ __ ] has been exposed. We have mapped him, his history, and his network, and the people that he knows. He is done. He is off the board."

"Off the chessboard."

"Correct."

"You mean right now because we're showing his face."

"Now publicly. But I brought that information to ODNI specifically to let them know that I knew who he was. Showed ODNI this photo."

"Yes. I, well, sorry, I sent them this photo."

"How did they respond? And when you're saying you sent ODNI, you said you're primarily."

"Name redacted."

"With other documents on Signal."

"Yeah. Um, that document and other documents."

"How did he respond?"

"No response."

"Zero."

"To anything that I gave them."

"It's funny. There's no response to Dylan about, um, you know, wanting to check what Dylan told him in that skiff to double-check that it wasn't tampered with. And, and there's no, there's been no response. There's been a government shutdown was a reason that was told to Dylan that he couldn't come back in to verify and, and, and, you know, what he said. But you went in during the government shutdown. So that doesn't make sense to me."

"It's a [ __ ] excuse."

"It is. Mhm."

"Both pre-submitting the statement to Congress and after, has there been surveillance of you, your house, your wife, your home, your phones, anything like that that you picked up on?"

"So, I, I said as much before, yes. Nothing I can ever prove, and that hasn't changed. Um, I still have, uh, you know, inboxes that people shouldn't be aware of, receiving messages with attachments from junk emails. Um, I still have, you know, strange occurrences in terms of people walking by my house multiple times and just doing nothing and looking around."

"Somebody broke into your house and laid your wife's IDs out as if they're filming them, and they took your grandfather's ashes and smashed them as a trash can. Sorry, I was, I was talking about since, uh, the Weaponized."

"No, but did we talk about that in the last episode? Did we reveal that?"

"I think we did."

"Okay. So, doesn't, doesn't hurt to tell it again."

"Yeah."

"Right. So, I'm just saying I know because I have been the recipient of photographs of both you and other people where X's were painted on your sidewalk. Correct. And so that seems like a crazy thing to say except for the fact that it happened to multiple whistleblowers that we were preparing, George and I were preparing to be able to talk in front of Congress. So it, it's really a [ __ ] up game."

"I did not know that the X thing had happened to others."

"We'll talk about that later. But, um, yeah, it is a [ __ ] up game. We are Americans doing what is best for our country."

"And are we?"

"We, yes. You and I and George, everyone here is doing what is best for our country, 100%."

"Um, you know, just to get to the end of it, of this very unfortunate man and meeting, [ __ ]. He asked me at the end of the meeting, you know, we're wrapping up here, is there anything you want to say to Tulsi Gabbard? You know, is there anything you want to tell her? And I thought about it and I said, you know, yes, there is. And that is that there are traitors in your midst. We have been infiltrated and subverted from the inside by treasonous people who do not serve the interests of the United States government. They do not respect the constitutional rule of law, and they do not respect human life. They only respect power and gain. I told them that I stand by it today. Traitors are in our midst. They are in the highest echelons of our intelligence community, our military. They are working right now against the interests of this country and its citizens."

"[ __ ] counts as one of them."

"So, one thing I have to add is that while I can't confirm or share, you know, the means by which we identified [ __ ] and verified his information, I can share that I personally, uh, went and vetted that information, uh, with people who would know his position, and also people who wouldn't know. And the people who wouldn't know confirm that I have no idea who that is. So that's very good for me to know that they're not going to pretend that they know someone just to be of value to me. And then the people who should have known did admit that they knew who it was, confirming to me that they are still trustworthy to me. So I'm very certain [ __ ] is a nexus point for the dirty tricks department of legacy, most recently in Northrup Grumman, uh, and that he is personally responsible for leading the, uh, the activities against UAP whistleblowers. A couple of days ago, at the time we're recording this, uh, President Trump, in responding to comments made by the former President Barack Obama, did some sort of one-upsmanship in which he said, 'Look, I'm going to get to the bottom of this. I want every,' he issues this directive. I want every federal agency to look through their files, anything related to UFOs, UAP, USOS, aliens, ETs, find those files, and come forward with it. Um, are you encouraged by that at all? Do you think it will result in any kind of meaningful information that comes forward that hasn't been made public before?"

"So, I am grateful that people in positions of power or who held positions of power are acknowledging some degree of the reality of this, even if they are using terminology that lets them weasel their way out of being a specific."

"Weasel words, as George says."

"Uh, but will this initiative result in disclosure and justice? I have very little confidence in that, and that is not because of any specific things I've heard about the Trump White House attitude towards, towards disclosure or UAP. It is informed directly by their handling of the Epstein file release, the ongoing, uh, dog's dinner they have made of it, and the disinformation that they are spreading to obscure the wrongdoings that are contained in there. And let's be very clear, the lawfully demanded files that are supposed to be released are not. This is a constitutional crisis. The executive is directly contravening the will of the legislative branch. Are we just going to lie down and let this injustice be swept under the rug? Or will we say enough is enough? If we will not say enough is enough to the enslavement and rape of our children, how can we hope to do the same for UAP? So far, we are not meeting the challenge that has been put before our country by the Epstein files. I think, uh, that is a bad sign of what is to come if disclosure is pursued in this administration. Are there some practical considerations here too? I mean, a directive as opposed to an executive order. What, what authority does it have?"

"The records we're talking about would need to be declassified before they can be made."

"It is nonsense, completely. According to President Trump, he can declassify anything just by thinking about it. There is nothing stopping him from going today on in front of a camera and sharing everything he has been officially informed in his two terms as president of the United States of America. There is no procedure that needs to be followed other than what we decide is appropriate. Um, got, I got an admission to make. I don't know if we can air this [ __ ], but, um, so why I have a little bit of hope that people are so scared about what Trump might do that we're moving in a cool direction is, um, I had a scheduled conversation with, um, I'll say a comms, a, a heavyweight from a from a comms department of department of war underneath the department of war, uh, from the Pentagon. And, uh, that was like for, like the day before the presidential address, State of the Union. And I got a call the day prior to that scheduled meeting, and it said, um, emergency. And I go, 'Well, me and George can't hop on the phone, so you better FaceTime me right now.' Got a FaceTime in my car, right? Like, waiting to go into a thing for my mom's birthday. And, um, there was a, me, here's what I can say. There was a meeting that occurred at 9:00 AM DC time, the day before, I believe the day before the State of the Union, and they wanted to know my and George's opinion from a comms perspective if there was going to be, say, about seven different agencies, including AARO, including ODNI, including other alphabet soup agencies and, and groups. And they wanted to get, so let's say somebody wanted to be the most informed person in the room. So, I was like, 'Okay, cool. Here's what George and I would say.' Because, weirdly enough, I wrote down these four steps that need to occur for disclosure. And I identified what the first step might be. And I, I think George might agree with me. He's probably got a smarter version, but this is what I got. But here's the deal. You have a problem. And they go, 'What's the problem?' And I go, 'While you're in that meeting, I'm going on international news with a, someone from Britain, Piers Morgan, and at the end, I'm going to verbatim say these four things, and then the one thing you should do first.' And I was like, 'So, if you use my words, my exact words, then you better admit, you know, George [ __ ] napping me, because it's going to look weird when you get out of that meeting.' Now, we probably can't air this, but I, I just want you to know why I'm optimistic is because they had seven agencies and organizations, all their comms people met at 9:00 AM in DC, I believe, the day before the State of the Union, because they didn't know if, I think I'm reading into this, but they didn't know if Trump was going to say the word UFO, alien, or NHI. Now, I hear he didn't, but I, um, rejected the news for over a week. So, am I wrong for having, I'm going to ask you, am I wrong for having, um, enthusiasm that the fact they're scrambling and coming to you and me for words? Am I wrong to be enthusiastic?"

"I don't think you're wrong for having at least some optimism about it."

"Yeah. As a news guy, I think it is a, a big story just for the president and the former president to be mentioning the words UFOs and aliens. Just saying it gives a certain amount of credibility to people who've brushed this off, you know, just by itself. Even if nothing ever comes of Trump's directive, I think that was a positive thing. I think it would be overly optimistic to assume that it's going to amount to anything. I think because Trump has issued this directive, they're going to have to come up with something. These federal agencies have got to come up with."

"Like more shredding machines."

"I, I'm thinking about some kind of document that has not been made public before, just to save face, just to throw a bone to their president."

"Because Luna and Burchett and Burlace are saying, 'Oh, Luna did this gangster tweet. I don't know if you guys saw it on X. She's like, can't wait to see the videos and all the documents and review them.' Was she pressing when she said that?"

"Maybe she's establishing a baseline. Hey, we expect to get at least this."

"I [ __ ] love her."

"Yeah, I know. Me. I, I thought the same thing. She took up, she took advantage of the opportunity of the moment and said, 'Hey, I look forward to seeing this.' Meaning, you got to at least give us something, which is positive. I think the chances of them giving the really good stuff are, it's infinitesimal. You always say that."

"The same people have have held this stuff up, have been the keepers of the secrets for all these decades. You think they're going to cough it up?"

"But you always say that, and then you testified in Congress, and then we've had private meetings and skiffs, and then we're contacted by comms people and agencies, and then that footage ends up coming out anyway, with or without them. So why are you not optimistic?"

"I'm optimistic that we will continue to come up with information that has not been made public by anybody else. I am not optimistic that they will suddenly cough it up. We get it because we work at it. They're not offering that stuff to us."

"But we don't need them to offer it."

"Well, you just asking me, am I optimistic? This leads to something from the government, you know, from."

"Well, they have to respond to us. No, they have to respond to Matt. They have to respond to Dylan. They have to respond to Chief Senior Wiggins. They have to respond to Commander David Fravor. They have to respond to David Grush."

"Susan Go. She responded to Immaculate Constellation. Yeah, we don't see it. We can't find it."

"Bad person, guys. I, I, I feel so bad whenever I talk [ __ ] about her. Like, Susan, I'm sorry. You're probably just doing your job."

"Call her Sue."

"Sue, I'm sorry. You're probably just doing your job. Like, like that's the excuse of it. They're doing their job. Um, is she a bad person? Like, I think people are just doing their job. They're told, like, okay, for example, Jay Stratton told her be honest about what Jeremy and George released. He told me that. I think I could say that. And she did. And she said, 'Yes, those are military-filmed UAP.'"

"And it lasted that long."

"But she did it."

"Yeah. And when Jay was gone, she didn't do it again."

"Right. But is she, is that because she's a bad person, or is that because, um, she's being told?"

"Yeah. I think she's following orders."

"Right. So that's fine. That's fine. Or maybe it's not fine."

"I don't think it is fine. Okay. I think being a careerist when it comes to questions of national security is the incorrect mindset. You can resign from any job."

"You did. Yeah. Okay. I understood."

"Go ahead. Could."

"So, uh, on the question of is she a bad person or not, or people like her? Um, it may very well be part of their job, but if your job is evil, then I think you bear the moral weight of participating in that evil."

"[ __ ] is evil."

"Yes."

"Yes. That I know for sure."

"I know that from firsthand experience. Now,"

"I'm sorry, bro, but,"

"Um, on that subject, there was one other thing to relay that I also relayed to [ __ ] is, um, something I gave to [ __ ] and Sask and talked about on Weaponized, and that was, um, you know, additional information. Uh, and that additional information was a list of 42 names, um, associated with the legacy program. Um, I provided that to [ __ ]. Uh, you know, 42 names, that's, that's a lot of names. You know, most of those names are individuals, some of them are companies, some include, and most of them are companies people have never heard of. Um, there's a lot of network mapping to do with 42 names. There's a lot of information that has been generated. Uh, this doesn't stop till it is over, and the people have, we are not waiting for the government to give us documents anymore."

"What do you mean exactly by that? Is that a threat? What are you saying? What do you mean?"

"It is a legal threat. Because legally, what recourse do American citizens have to correct the actions of their government when it is no longer responsive to them? Well, we have relied on the executive branch to be the truth teller and the arbiter of what is or is not secret for far too long. Um, it is clear that whatever truth comes out of any disclosure process is going to be biased and swayed for advantage. The legislative branch is at an impasse. There's not enough political capital to move disclosure forward in a legislative way that will result in real-world outcomes. So that leaves one last branch of government that is the judicial branch to pursue. Um, you know, people like being in the shadows, and we don't need to win every court case to take this apart."

"And you're going to win. So, hold on. Are we in the shadows today, or are we in the, the sunlight today?"

"Right. Beautiful California sun."

"George, got a question for you."

"I'm seeing it."

"Got, I'm sorry. I got a question for you. Sun. Okay. Listen. We have a weird soundtrack for Weaponize. There's music all around us, but this is real life. So, you're experiencing real life. So, [ __ ] all. Check this out. George, I got a question. Can you answer me? What if Cong, what if, um, people in Congress through presidential order were given authority to go to specific, like you sent somebody to Papoose Lake back in the early '90s to go look at Papoose Lake, see if Bazar is still on the tree. What if people today got that authority, presidential authority to do it? Would you be optimistic?"

"I am optimistic that whatever is at those locations will be moved by the time that say, Congressman gets there to look around."

"Okay. But what if you could, um, defend against that by informing, by having many sources of information to defend against that? Would you be more optimistic?"

"Yeah, of course. Yeah, it would be great. I hope something comes from it. We know what we're talking about here."

"I just want you to say that you're optimistic, George."

"Uh,"

"Okay. I'll take that. I'll take that. Hopeful is more a better word than optimistic."

"Hopeful. I'm hopeful it leads to something. I am doubtful that it does. But I just, I heard the first part. You're hopeful. Little tiny bit of hopefulness. It'd be like cream in the coffee, you know?"

"You don't use cream, though."

"But it's a great big, uh, giant cup of coffee. Like, really good, like Michael, like, like Michael Lozoffski's coffee, like something like that."

"Something like that."

"Okay."

"You know, and then little spice for it, too."

"A little spice. Look, um, Matt, I, I don't know how to end this, man. Um, because, because it's, because it's not ending. So, I just want to say, um, thank you."

"And the fight is not over, but I hope that the public, not awkwardly, gets behind you with whatever you need."

"Yeah."

"To continue, because I, I want you to continue. Don't stop, no matter what it takes."

"Let me ask you this. Uh, I know then from private conversations we've had that you've been discussing sort of an initiative that you and maybe a couple of your compadres are working on. Can you talk about that now, or?"

"Yeah. Uh, so this is going on next week."

"Based on, you know, our experience, uh, Dylan Borland and I have started a nonprofit to do disclosure, uh, by the people, for the people. It is, uh, you know, using UAP whistleblowers from the national security enterprise to pursue disclosure through the, uh, justice system. Uh, we are creating an organization specifically to wage lawfare to light our system, uh, lawfare to light our system on fire with court cases related to disclosure to make a huge [ __ ] problem. Um, in addition to that, we will be looking after whistleblowers. I have experienced outside of, um, you know, personal support from friends and family, absolutely no assistance on the outside. There is no organized help for UAP whistleblowers, whether that be from Congress or from private initiatives. Um,"

"We are quite frankly being picked off, uh, to be either exploited for financial or technical gain or to be removed from being, uh, agents of influence for the cause of disclosure."

"So, are you doing this for personal gain? Not, 'cause that's what everybody on the interweb is going to say. Are you doing this for personal gain? Tell me."

"No. Why not?"

"Because this is our home. And if we do not defend it, who will?"

"We live here."

"Exactly."

"The planet Earth, or America?"

"America."

"I,"

"I'm not sure Earth is our home anymore."

"I, that's existential. I, look, brother. Let's just, cheers. I'm [ __ ]. Who am I?"

"We get more helicopters and more of whatever this is, too."

"We could orchestrate that."

"Yeah, 'cause somebody banging on a pot."

"Okay, check it out. Michael, look right at me. I was at the first time ever a Roger Waters concert. It was called Old Chella. That's what I called it. And George Knapp was there with me. And I saw, um, Roger Waters for the first time. And there was helicopter speakers going around as he played a Pink Floyd song. And that's what it's felt like today. So to our listening audience, I hope this is in [ __ ] surround sound. What?"

"There's somebody with a garbage can over there going bang, bang, bang."

"Why?"

"Well, before, did you hear it, Michael? They were saying, 'Hey, hey, call it out to us. Can we talk to you?' You do it."

"We're in public. And, and the thing is, is like, um, that's the point is that no more [ __ ] dancing around and tiptoeing like little, you know, ballerinas. No more dancing around like a, like a, like a marionette in the sun, full light. We're saying it as it is. And that's the end of it. And, and if you don't understand, you haven't been listening."

"Correct."

"Let's [ __ ] go. Daylight is the best disinfectant, our, uh, political class likes to tell us. We're going to bring a whole bunch of it to this entire rotten structure. Funny story, Bob Lazar knows that to be true, because during CO, he gave me a laser gun, and he gave George a disinfectant light. I got the cooler gift. All right, brother. Cheers. Let's cheers with a bad ombre. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. This is, this is for George [ __ ] Knapp. That is his official legal name. He'll say it's, um, a different name, his middle name. It's not. It's [ __ ]. Here we go. Cheers, you guys. Cheers."