A former intelligence officer by the name of David Grush, caused quite a stir last week when he gave evidence at a congressional hearing about UFO sightings. He claimed that the US government has, away from the public glare, intact and partially intact alien vehicles. And you'll hear him repeat that claim in a moment, because he's been speaking to this program. A recent Ipsos poll found that about 42% of Americans believe in otherworldly UFOs or you UAPS unexplained anomalous phenomena, and one in 10 Americans reported they'd actually seen one. What here's what Republican Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett said in opening last week's remarkable hearing into alien existence.
I think it's time for this country to take back our country. We need to tell the folks at the Pentagon, they work for us dagummit, we don 't work for them. We're not bringing little green man or flying saucers into the hearing. Sorry to disappoint. We're just going to get to the facts. We're going to uncover the cover up. And I hope this is just the beginning of many more hearings and more people coming forward about this.
Well, I've been speaking to David gross and his lawyer, Chuck McCulloch. First, David, why did he decided to come forward and speak at the hearing?
It boils down to a sense of duty, you know, and an act of, you know, truth to power. And it seemed like me going public was the appropriate lever to pull when it comes to public accountability. And emphasizing the seriousness to, you know, different branches of US government.
The most eyecatching claim that you made during your evidence, and and the one that made the most headlines, was the claim that the US government has, quote, "intact and partially intact, alien vehicles in its possession". In other words, it has them, but it isn't telling people about them. Why do you go public with that specifically,
I found that to be very important for the public at large to understand, you know, their place in the cosmos, their place in the universe. And that's something you know, I believe the US government should be held accountable for potentially over classifying or misclassifying basic science.
But how do you know they have these items? Because you've not seen them yourself? Have you?
There's certain things that I have firsthand access to that I can't publicly discuss at this time. However, myself and other colleagues interviewed, you know, 40 individuals, both our current and former highly distinguished intelligence and military personnel that were specifically on these programs. And those that were willing, I direct it to the intelligence community inspector general. So the Inspector General was able to interview these people that do have direct firsthand information.
Right. So they have that information directly. Have they actually seen these, these vehicles?
The individuals I interviewed that I directed to the inspector general, yes, they have the firsthand experiences. Yes.
Right. Which is an extraordinary claim, as you would readily acknowledge, why, if it's true, has the government not acknowledged it?
Yeah. I mean, that's a multifaceted question. You know, it goes back, you know, 80, 90 years ago when this was first created, and they, you know, translated some of the secrecy from the Manhattan project onto this subject, because, you know, they weren't sure how ontologically shocking it was going to be to the world populace. And then, two, as you can imagine, it's a Pandora's box for potential military and weapons development type, reverse engineering activities, so they decided to keep it under wraps for many years.
We're talking here just about the US government, if they've got these things hidden away. Surely other governments around the world might have had a similar experience. So the idea that it's a solely American thing is surely fanciful.
It does cross into other countries and other other allies to include the Five Eyes Alliance, which is something I've already stated publicly. The you know, the media reporting bias and societal transparency is a little different in the US. That's the crux what most people hear, but it is certainly not an American issue.
I wanted to put some of the doubting voices to you in a moment, but I want to bring Chuck in first. I mean, Chuck, as a lawyer, working alongside David, what are the legal implications of what he is saying and what the government is denying.
Our government relies on congressional oversight the checks and balances of congressional oversight? David's allegation at its at its base is essentially the Congress does not have access to the information it needs to properly oversee things going on in the executive branch. That was his main concern. So he's he's briefed both of the Intel committees and he's had a two hour hearing two hours of testimony last week.
Um, David, kind of go back to you with some of the the responses that have been aired to what you said. The head of the Pentagon's office in this area. Sean Kirkpatrick issued a statement last week you'll be aware of it, calling your testimony insulting and saying that you were never a representative to his unit.
Dr. Kirkpatrick oversaw our activities and what we were doing and the money we were spending. I never said I was a part of the core team, so I believe it was just lost in translation, or misconstrued
