What's up everyone, Welcome back to Later Files.

I just finished reanalyzing the latest Congressional UAP hearing, and I need to break this down for you guys, because there it is a lot to unpack here.

We had some genuinely compelling testimony alongside some what I would call questionable decisions that I think actually hurt the credibility of this entire process.

So I'm going to analyze this through what I call the good, the bad, and the ugly framework.

The good is we got some of the strongest UAP evidence I've ever seen presented directly to Congress.

The bad we also got some easily debunkable material that's now just dominating headlines I'm referring to the new UAP video.

And the ugly we saw that there is some serious systematic issues that this hearing exposed, so welcome to the channel.

Either way, it was a very exciting UAP hearing.

I'm excited to break it down for you guys.

I get documents and tips from sources worldwide, and I need to protect their privacy and mine also, So that's where private Internet access comes in, and they're sponsoring today's video.

PIA masks your real location and encrypts your traffic through their network of next gen servers.

What I appreciate about PIA is their track record, so they've been operating for over ten years without a single data breach.

Their no logs policy isn't just marketing.

It's been tested in courtrooms when authorities demanded user data, so PIA had nothing to give them.

The service works seamlessly across all my devices laptop, phone, and tablet all covered under one account, and their split tunneling feature lets me choose which apps go through the VPN and which don't so I can optimize for both security and speed.

Get PA for two dollars and three cents a month at my linkpiavpn dot com forward slash lata files.

That's eighty three percent off with four months bonus.

Your sport keeps this channel going, so thank you so much.

Now back to the show.

Okay, let's start with the good, and there was a lot of good.

Honestly, Chief wiggins testimony should be the headline of this entire hearing.

That's what we should be talking about is Chief Wiggins and his amazing tiktac video from twenty twenty three, instead of talking about some other video just off the cuff, which I think can arguably be just a balloon.

There's no way to prove it's not a balloon.

I'll talk about it later and analyze it for you guys later.

So Chief Wiggins is on the USS Jackson encounter.

This was on February fifteenth, twenty twenty three, out in Whiskey two nine to one.

That's the same warning area that was the original tiktak David Fravor's tiktac back in two thousand and four.

And this time we have eyewitness, very credible.

He's the first active dude witness to actually testify about UAPs, and we got the whole shebang, all the multi sensors, so they saw visual they saw lights outside right, so they saw that something was actually there.

They saw it on the radar, that's what cued them off in the first place.

And then we had this amazing flear video where it looks just like a tic tac and I was so happy.

Congressman asked what was the range, and that's what we didn't know was the range, and he said it's six or seven nautical miles, so that's well within the range of identifying this so Mick West cannot make an argument that it's some distant aircraft.

It can't be a planet, can't be something like that.

So this was within seven nautical miles based on the radar.

There were multiple contacts, and we had this amazing flear video and we had an amazing witness testimony, and this should be the headlines.

This is what should be in the headlines.

It should not be some other off the cuff video from Yemen and we don't really know anything about it earlier.

This case, the twenty twenty three case, is amazing.

They said it's trans medium or he suspen access trans medium because it's hard to tell if it's coming out of the ocean at that range, out at six nautical miles.

But then he says that there was multiple contacts and they just disappeared, so accelerated extremely fast, just disappeared off the radar and left.

You also had multiple witnesses, so there were multiple crew members in the Combat Information Center and the full resolution was provided to Congress.

And the biggest takeaway I had is why didn't Arrow investigate this?

And they should have all the data, right, they have the witness testimony.

He's still active duty.

They have the fleer obviously it was posted, and if they go and actually do an investigation, they will find the radar data.

So this case has everything we need and it's from twenty twenty three, you know, just over two years ago.

So this is an amazing case.

Why didn't Arrow investigate it?

We have everything we should be focusing on this.

So this is the gold standard.

This is what compelling UAP evidence looks like.

Thanks so much to George Knapp and Jeremy Corbel for bringing this case and getting it in front of Congress.

That is amazing.

This is what we should be talking about.

Only well not only we have more good, but this should should definitely be the headlines.

This is all the evidence we need, and there's more good.

So we have Dylan Borlin's encounter at Langley, and this was surprising for me.

He was a satellite analyst and so I assumed it would have been he saw footage of these orbs that John Ramirez talks about, etc.

But no, he had a first hand account.

So this isn't some distant sighting or he didn't watch a film.

He literally saw it in person.

He was one hundred feet away from a triangular craft for several minutes and he gave your classic TR three B description.

His phone overheated from electromagnetic interference, and he described the craft in technical detail.

And he's a trained geospatial intelligence analyst, so he knows what conventional aircraft should look like.

He said it was one hundred foot equilateral triangle one to two stories thick, and there were white lights at each of the corners and then a larger sphere light in the center and this is exactly what we hear of the TR three B.

And then he says the craft just accelerated upwards and he felt the energy and his phone was destroyed and amazing.

I'll cover this in the ugly section, but his career was destroyed for coming forward, and that really tells you how seriously the government takes these encounters, and that really is part of the ugly.

Okay, we have more good.

I thought George Napp just killed it, so he had Russian documentation.

A lot of people were afraid he was going to bring up Bob Bazar because George Knapp obviously made his name in the space by promoting Bob Azar and breaking that story.

But in this case he had tons and paid and pages of Russian documentation.

So George knaps Russia files.

So the source is from the Soviet Ministry of Defense documents.

It's the USSR's largest UFO investigation.

He had nuclear incidents from October nineteen eighty two ICBM bases.

They also document launch codes were activated by the UFO presence, and there was also fighters involved, so forty intercept attempts, three crashes, and two pilot deaths.

They said to leave UFOs alone.

That was the order that was issued.

So these Russian files showed that the Soviets had their own massive UAP investigation program, and also that UFOs nearly triggered World War three in nineteen eighty two when they allegedly activated the Soviet missile launch codes.

And then finally from the good was really the quality of congressional engagement.

So you had Moskovitz asking technical questions and he is a Democrat, so we had bipartisan, like knowledgeable congress people.

Luna was pushing for transparency.

I love the fact that she led with the tic TAC video.

That was amazing, and she called out specifically and said Kirkpatrick is a known liar that was the previous director of the era, right, the office in charge of allegedly investigating all these events, right, But where were they for the twenty twenty three Tiktac event.

You had Burchett's long term commitment, thought he was amazing, and so I think what we're saying here is rare bipartisan cooperation on a subject that I think, do we have any other subjects with bipartisan cooperation?

There was one section I'll cover in the Ugly, but for now, I think overall, Moskovitz was amazing, and you did have Democrats there asking knowledgeable questions.

Okay, but now let's get to the and so this is where I have to be critical of our side.

The pro disclosure side is representative.

Burlison presented this video of what he claimed was UEP deflecting a hellfire missile.

So let's check out the video that Burlison actually played at the hearing.

David Grush was seated right behind him.

You'll see him in the cut that happens.

But Burlison described this video as an m Q nine drone tracking an orb or this object, he said, off the coast of Yemen.

And he mentioned that another MQ nine launched a helfire missile.

So let's check it out.

I'll play it through normal and then we'll slow it down.

Okay, here's the object obviously tracked, so there's a lock on it, and you'll see the missile come in from the upper left.

There it is, it's the object.

And now he basically loses the lock, goes to wide field of view and now manually tracks the object.

So the predator or reaper operator now manually checking this object in wide field of view.

And you do that if you have trouble tracking an object, you're going to go to wide field of view.

So that is the video, and you can see right behind him is David Grush.

So I'm so happy David Grush is there and supporting Congress.

But I do think he made a miscalculation on this video.

So I understand why this This looks really compelling at first glance.

I was excited when I saw it.

Write new videos are always exciting.

But once we analyze this tech technically, we can see that the object is wavering just like a balloon, so consistent with a balloon, the apparent movement is likely parallax.

So really the drone is moving, the camera is taking the video and so what you're going to see from any object it's tracking is in the distance.

You will see the opposite motion from the drone.

And as far as the Hellfire missile, Dean Aliodo noticed in our reaction check out the live reaction video from the livestream.

He actually noticed that it didn't explode, so it didn't detonate.

And afterwards I also received an email from an experienced Apache pilot because I did not know that that much detail about hell fires, I didn't shoot them from of sixteens, but he basically explained that it also didn't detonate, and I asked what kind of fuses do they use, and he believes they use impact fuses, So that means the actual missile has to impact something hard enough to explode, And you don't want your missiles just exploding off nothing, right if it goes through like a cloud or there's a little bit of ice something like that, or just from the air pressure, So you want your missile definitely to detonate, but there are safety percussions in place, so you don't want it to detonate all the time.

And as we'll watch here in the video, I think the missile actually did not detonate because it was hitting just a balloon and deflected off of it basically did not crush the impact fuse and did not detonate the missile.

Actually, we have a lot of problems with this.

Ten percent of bombs in Iraq Jadams, at least from certain tranches of the bombs did not explode, right, Those were duds, which is really dangerous.

Now you have these heavy explosives out there just not exploded, not detonated, but duds happen more often than you would think.

Actually, the other major point of this is it's just a video from you reaper feed off the coast of Yemen.

There's no witness testimony, there's no radar data, there's no other information at all.

And so I would be shocked if anyone could provide any sort of compelling evidence why or how this is not a balloon.

And so I think what we're going to see is another similar issue when Lou Alzano when he showed that off the cuff photo right ended up being a crop circle.

At the last UAP briefing or discussion, is I just don't think these are good ideas.

You know, we have an army of people out there you have the debunkers who will tell you whatever counter information you want or counter arguments.

You have people like me that are willing to analyze with discretion.

Right, if David Grush or Burliston wants one of these videos analyzed before publishing in an important hearing like this, just email me.

I am glad to help.

I will be totally discreet, not tell anyone, but I would say, definitely, just after a few short minutes looking at this video and actually watching it in real time, is you should not at all post this at the hearing, Okay, because now that's all people are talking about, and it's taken over when there was some really compelling evidence again put in a congressional record, breakthrough stuff.

But now because again we want to show and I get it, you want to show new information.

It's exciting, it does make headlines.

But the problem is you're just throwing a softball to the skeptics and the debunkers to just knock this out of the park when we should be focusing on really the compelling evidence.

Right as we know, ninety five percent of compelling videos are going to turn out to be mundane.

This is just the fact.

It's difficult right, there are five percent, so one out of twenty are really exciting.

And we had all of the information.

We have it all, it's posted there.

Wigans amazing compelling radar data, witness testimony, visual flear video.

We have everything, right, There's no need to go off the cuff and throw out some video that hasn't been vetted through anyone.

Right.

And I get it that the community would rather hear we'd rather watch stuff from magicians and journalists rather than analysts like me.

Right, I get put off to the side, much fewer views.

But maybe you guys should be more discerning in where you're taking your information from.

And so I would ask them to consider, please stop doing this, just focus on the compelling cases which we have.

We have, and I know it sucks to hear this.

I'm sure you guys are excited about the video.

I was excited as well.

But let's go through it at zero point twenty five speed and you can see what I mean.

Okay, So again tracking the object and if you look closely at the object, you'll see it's kind of moving.

I mean, it looks like a balloon.

It's in white hot I believe because the missile is white and I'm sure that the tail end of that missile, even if the rocket's not firing.

The apatche pilot told me it fires for about four to five seconds.

It's going to be sub supersonic.

It is white as well, so you will see the exhaust from the missile will be white.

So I think we're actually in a white hot form.

And again, like any fighter pilot, worth Assault is going to go black hot, white hot and go to TV mode, especially for battle damage assessment to see what actually happened or to identify this thing.

You're not just going to stick in one mode unless you're targeting it right and you're worried about losing the lock.

But this guy is not targeting it with the missile.

The other MQ nine shot the hell fire and is a targeting it either with a laser or with the radar.

We don't know.

So we'll see here LRD lays designator.

I don't believe he's lasing.

Normally you get some laser indicator firing.

Plus you don't want to shoot.

You don't want to laze from this side.

You'd obviously lays from the other side where the missile is shooting from.

Okay, I mentioned the parallax before.

So the MQ nine that we're viewing this from is flying through the air.

Okay, So if you're tracking an object in the middle, the object could just be going with the wind being basically stationary, although there will surely be some wind, and so that's what we're seeing in the background is just the waves going by.

So here comes the missile.

It's white hot, like I said, okay, and it just deflex.

You see the missile going through, so it did not detonate.

The missile goes there, and now watch this the object.

Okay, to me, it literally just looks like a balloon.

It didn't pop, right, it's lower altitude balloon, but is literally just wavering.

I mean, if it's not under that much of pressure, then to me, that's what a balloon would look like if you hit it with the missile.

I don't burlisin with crushed behind him.

Now they got wide field view and people say, well, you can see the main object and then the three other objects traveling in the same line, and again that this could be falling if you notice it is having trouble tracking and it does look lower than the original cursor placement.

So I think it is falling, and that's what we're seeing is the balloon and up parts of the balloon or object which to me looks like a balloon in separate parts now falling.

It's descending, and then we're seeing the motion.

It's apparent motion from parallax.

So I think this is easily debunkable.

It didn't do anything anomalous.

I think if you shot on hell fire at ten balloons and video them and just only white hawk because you cannot change the black cot or TV.

Like.

Another point for any of our operators out there using these drones is used the other modes of your sensors, like please, especially if you don't know what you're shooting at.

If you can't identify it, look at it in other sensor modes.

Which makes me think that this could be at night if they're not going to use the TV mode, So maybe it is at night and we're about it.

Says five point four to nine nautical miles here that could be to the ground, okay, because that's really they don't have a lock on this thing.

And three point eighty two nautical miles so this could actually be too a navwaypoint or something.

So again we don't have range.

We don't know how high this object is, how far away it is.

We have limited information, so we didn't have range, we don't have witness, we don't have any information.

And just you know, put that against this video, the twenty twenty three tic Tac video, where we have range, witnesses, radar data.

And by the way, it looks like a ticktac, it does not look like a balloon.

At least you can size this thing.

I sized it out to around thirty feet I believe.

So you're looking at a thirty foot long tictac object.

There's multiple of them.

We have radar information, and we have a full witness.

So this is the case.

This is what we should be talking about.

We shouldn't be talking about this other random video.

So this is just a pattern.

Alexander did a similar thing.

I mean, I get it.

You get new footage or an image and it looks really interesting, and you want to make a point, and you want to make a splash, you want to make headlines.

But I just advise these guys to please be cautious.

Ninety five percent of these videos will turn out to be just conventional objects.

And when you present weak evidence at important venues like congressional hearings.

You're just handing skeptics an easy win.

So the twenty twenty three Tiktac case should have been the centerpiece of this hearing.

Dead we are talking about balloons essentially.

But I'm a huge supporter of Berlason and David Grush, Loue al Asando abasing work I which just ask to take this into consideration.

So now let's move on to the ugly and the ugly section is where this really gets disturbing.

So we heard two cases of systematic retaliation against UEP witnesses.

Borland is now unemployed and blacklisted, Grush had is medical records leaked, and Newsatelli also said that he witnessed personally witness intimidation to keep quiet.

We also saw that ERO, sorry, that should be a ro O Ultimate Anominate Resolution Office ARRO looked terrible in this hearing.

So basically it sounds like ERO, as we suspected from lying Kirkpatrick pants is that ARROW was actually a counter intelligence operation and is not interested at all in actually investigating these claims.

Obviously they would have investigated the twenty twenty three and poor Lynn and all of them.

It just sounds like ERRO just looked terrible and honestly should just probably be shut down.

I don't think it can be saved at this point.

So that leads into the next ugly point is the political grand standing.

So in the good we had fantastic bipartisan, amazing questions from Democrats and Republicans, but in this we just have counterproductive partisanship.

Representative Lee just attacked and blamed the current administration for previous administration failures.

I mean, all of the arrow issues predate the current administration.

All of these events predate the current administration, So why bring in political attacks instead of just focusing on the evidence.

It was way worse actually in the first JFK hearing that was brutal, and this we only had Representative Lee.

But you still risk turning clearly one of the sole bipartisan issues into some sort of partisan grandstanding weapon.

And I think it just undermines any sort of cross party cooperation and it just damages your credibility.

So Representative Lee just looked terrible to me in this, and I hope we can stop this sort of ridiculous partisan grandstanding and blaming.

I mean, you can have all your complaints about the current administration, but Aro was from the previous administration.

Yeah, so I just don't think it helps.

But really, I mean, the most obvious, disturbing revelation is how the system is just designed to suppress information, suppress and destroy whistleblowers.

The Air Force destroys police records every three years, so we can't even foia historical incidents.

Private contractors are holding materials with no congressional oversight, and we had multiple witnesses describe ARROW as functioning more like a counterintelligence operation than an investigation unit.

Arrow does not care to actually investigate these cases.

They would have looked into the amazing twenty twenty three tic Tec case, what about FLEAR one, you know, what about the nimits?

I mean, they should be shut down.

At this point, I think Arrow's lost all credibility.

I mean, witnesses describe it as a disinformation operation.

That's the witnesses, and then you have access denial, so even cleared Congress people, these are members were blocked from information.

So the system is obviously designed to prevent accountability, designed to shut down any sort of whistleblowers.

And yeah, I think that was probably the ugliest thing that we learned from this, So I think all this was the best hearing that we had.

I mean, it was an amazing hearing, and I think it did accomplish some really important things.

So first, we finally got some mention of nuclear sites.

Right, all of us in the community know that UAPs have been deeply involved with nuclear cases, you know, Bob Salah Jacobs.

We've had so many instances across nuclear sites, and yet it seems like they're just scared to mention it in any sort of the hearings.

It hasn't come up.

So it did come up here.

So we had nuclear facilities right Vandenburg, ICBM bases, weapon sites.

You add all the Russia event where they specifically mentioned turning on the ICBMs, which is pretty crazy.

We also got electromagnetic effects right direct witness saying his phone malfunctioned, he felt the interference, and he literally gave a description of a TR three B.

I thought that was amazing.

We also had multi witness events, so Nucatelli said, for sure, there was many many people security forces that saw these objects.

This isn't isolated individual sighting, so there are a lot of people out there, primary security forces, right, That's what Bob Solaz said as well is that security forces are out there to defend all these critical sites, and so I think you're going to find a lot of witnesses in the security forces.

We've also seen just how bad Arrow is, where it really does look like it is a counterintelligence operation.

I think that is the sy OP.

The sy OP is Arrow is the sy OP people I keep hearing that, you know Elizondo is a SYOP, or David Grush or you know these other whistleblowers of SYOUP.

No, the sy OP is obviously Arrow.

So we're seeing no investigations or after action reports.

And the primary example was this one, the twenty twenty three tic TAC event was amazing.

All the data should be there.

They should still have the data, I believe for sure, So they should go and investigate this and if there was any transparency at all, they would tell the public, which I doubt there is.

And we also saw a clear pattern of retaliation, so there's career consequences for disclosure.

Borland was very clear about that.

We also heard in the reaction interview with Martin Willis he heard directly from Mike Herrera saying that he would have testified but they wanted to bring in new people, and Mike Herrera has said there's also serious consequences for coming out as a whistleblower.

So there is These are the consistent patterns that suggest that there is a there there, and I think it's becoming more and more obvious, and I think this hearing really just laid it out in a great way.

So overall, I think it was fantastic, and I think we should just focus on the solid evidence, the best evidence we have, the twenty twenty three tic TAC events, the direct witness testimony, the Russian files, and then the clear issues that our whistleblowers are having.

But we also highlighted a critical need for better evidence standards.

You know, when you present weak, unvetted evidence alongside strong evidence, the weak stuff just drowns out the strong stuff.

Every single time.

We saw that before.

So the path forward is clear.

So just focus on cases like the twenty twenty three tick TAC.

They have multisensor confirmation, there's documentation, we can see anomalous behavior.

You know, your medium evidence is going to be your single sensor with a credible witness and some documentation, right, single sensor, and then week is the video only or an image only.

There's no witness, there's no anomalous behavior, and it's very easy to make an obvious explanation for this, and yeah, it's just gonna it's going to kill the message in the mainstream.

So, like the twenty twenty three TICKTAC, very strong evidence, I think the strongest we have the Burlison balloon or whatever they're going to call it, the object, I think is very weak evidence.

The bottom line is we're definitely making progress.

This UAP hearing definitely pushed the football or ran the football however you want to say, down the field, may have even thrown it.

But we're also making unforced errors that damage credibility.

So Chief Wiggins, he gave us the gold standard UAP testimony.

You know, he's the first active duty witness, and it's being overshadowed by this balloon footage.

We had the Russian files provide context.

I believe that's going in the congressional record.

I can't wait to see that.

We've always been asking what about these other nations, and it sounds like George Knapp just killed it and brought a bunch of information.

We're seeing bipartisan momentum so really that was a big takeaway for me, is that the Congress were just so more seasoned on this, so smart and asked dedicated questions, and they really have come to the final conclusion that they are being lied to, they are being denied, and it doesn't look like they're going to give up, and I think they shouldn't.

I think trust and government is at a historic low right now, and it's for these exact reasons.

Since the Kennedy assassination, trust and government has just plummeted, and it's because the agencies are not being transparent and truthful with the people or the Congress, people who are supposed to give oversight for the people.

It also highlighted we need more witness protection, so highlighting the need for legal protections.

UAP Disclosure Act needs to be signed.

We need to again make a push to try and support that, and whistleblower protections also need to support that.

So pattern recognection, I think we are connecting similar incidents.

We're in the age of information now.

I don't think it can be suppressed much longer.

I think sooner or later the dam is going to break.

So the bottom line, I think we did make great progress.

I really enjoyed the hearing.

We had credible witnesses, we had amazing sighting with all the detail you could want, we had historical context.

George Knapp killed it.

We had bipartisan support.

I think there was some damage done again the weak evidence presentation off the cuff.

I understand why they did it.

I would ask that they please refrain in the Future's just not helping and we'll see here.

I think you saw a lot of again political theater, which is just unnecessary.

So going forward, we need to focus on just the strongest cases, focus on protecting the witnesses, and keep demanding transparency.

And the standard should be the multisensor confirmation.

I think should be the minimum bar.

We shouldn't be bringing up cases that haven't been vetted and don't have multisensors, don't have witness testimony.

I mean, we have enough information out there, so just stick to the most compelling and really maintain analytical rigor with supporting transparency, and you know, use your assets people like me.

Okay, if you don't trust me for some reason, then use another analyst, but someone that actually knows what they're talking about.

Don't just go to random journalists.

Don't use use random YouTubers.

You know there are people that are willing to help, and just email me Chris dot Laedo sixteen at gmail dot com and I will drop everything and help any of these commerce people or David Grush and his team.

I'm happy to help, and I will keep it completely discreet and at least give you just first impressions and I will not tell anyone about it that I helped.

Okay, but please use someone else before you just off the cuff throw these videos and images out there.

Otherwise, love, love the work you guys are doing.

Please keep pushing forward and thank you so much for watching.

Hit the like button and then share this video as much as you can.

I think the more inform we get out there, and the more detailed, analytical, as close to the truth information we get out there, then the better.

And please consider our sponsors.

They keep little files going and you can directly sponsor at Patreon dot com, Ford slash Chris Lado or become a YouTube member like all these fine people.

Have a great rest of your day.

Peace,