What Happens When THEY Want You Silenced ?

These people actually, whenever I talk to them, really fear being murdered. It's not just, you know, what they're saying for attention, That is a cybersecurity researcher and it doesn't make sense to me. who has spent four years working directly with UAP whistleblowers describing what they tell him in private. We hear whistleblowers testify and we rarely hear what it costs them afterwards. The researcher protects their computers and phones so he has seen the threats firsthand including a break-in at a source's home and he is now warning that the The people who hold the evidence are being frightened into silence. And that raises. This is a possibility. Disclosure may not fail because the evidence is missing. It may fail because the witnesses just stopped talking. Hey Ufologists, I'm Christina Gomez and this is your UFO News Update. The researcher is David Burkett, and he gave his account on Reality Check with Ross Coldart. His day job is building systems that detect deception in data. Early in his UAP research, one of his sources was drafting an opinion piece for publication when something happened inside their home. Basically, someone snuck into one of my sources' houses. Cut the power cable to their Internet modem and then snuck back out. And if you think for a second where your Internet modem is in your house, maybe you're in another room, someone coming into your house, cutting that and then sneaking out without you knowing about it. They took that as a threat. They were actually writing an op ed that never got written. And that wasn't Grush's op ed. Nothing was stolen, and David met the source examining the evidence and has a photo of the cut cable. The source took it as a warning, and the opinion piece, obviously, was never published. David admits he couldn't make sense of it at first, but since then he has done security work for UAP whistleblowers and non-profits, and he wants to publish an analysis of the malware used against them. What he has seen has led him to state that the whistleblowers are telling the truth about retaliation. It's not just another way to sell a book, but it is a true threat. But consider what a whistleblower faces. They are coming forward about something most people do not even believe exists. They often can't tell whether the program they saw is legal, illegal, or deliberate disinformation. And they are bound by security oaths that can be turned against them at any time. David gave an example from outside the UFO subject. According to him, CIA employees who reported being assaulted were told that going to the police would violate their national security oaths. Congress later passed reforms, and by his account, some employees still didn't feel safe reporting. He also described what one UAP whistleblower went through, with CIA personnel flashing images at him and screaming when he gave a wrong answer. David can't imagine that being a properly run program. It sounds a bit more like torture practice. Then he pointed to a line in a recent UAP document that he believes the press, the media, the public really missed. We had a high level national security official basically said that we could make people disappear without due process. And that raised no. That is why David takes the fear seriously. A senior official described that power on camera, and almost no reporter followed up. The silence reaches upward as well. David's research suggests where the block might actually be here. The gatekeepers he keeps finding are not political appointees. They are mid-level career officials who stay in place while administrations change. And he also cited a former Air Force official who reported a program that filters unknown objects out of the data before other agencies even see it. And if that is accurate, which we have heard before, senior leaders may be answering honestly from a record that was cleaned before it even reached them. The same secrecy shows up over military bases because just several weeks ago, the French French Navy confirmed that unauthorized drones flew over its large Navy base at night during an exercise built to defend that base. No drone was caught but really we are seeing a pattern here. The advanced drones are never brought down and their launch points are never found and they fly with lights on which no spy would actually do. He has studied the unclassified sensors the U.S. has had in a service up to 20 years, and he doesn't accept that the military can't trace a drone to its source. He recalls President Trump claiming our sensors could identify the garage a drone came from. And the fact that we can't tell is a problem to me. That to me shows that I think we're hiding. Now on to the missing sensor data from the 2004 Nimitz encounter. According to David, former Aero acting director Tim Phillips described a rear admiral aboard ship who realized the crew was tracking something unusual and ordered them to record it. That data went to a Navy research center in Virginia for analysis, and then it moved again. I believe Tim Phillips mentioned that someone at Arrow found that that data ended up making it to DARPA before disappearing. I'll note that that DARPA program didn't show up in the AARO annual report, nor did the James Clapper program mentioned in the Age of Disclosure. DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon's advanced technology arm. David checked Arrow's annual report and found no mention of that DARPA program. Really, if he's right here, the best sensor record of the best-known UAP case entered an agency that is absent from the official accounting. Wow, what a surprise. He applied the same logic to the videos the government has released. Nearly all show fuzzy shapes, yet at least one released image Proves that high resolution collection actually exists, and he doesn't believe that the sharpest footage in government hands shows up only birds and balloons, and seriously, who does believe that? While witnesses are pressured, David argues the official explanations are rewarded. This summer, a National Journalism Award went to the Wall Street Journal article that tied the 1967 Maelstrom missile shutdown to a secret electromagnetic pulse test, or EMP test. A former AARO director was a main source. And obviously, you know the case, I'm not going to go into too much detail on it, but here is what David adds. The test experiment needed tons of concrete tall towers and days of assembly, but then he checked the dates on that. The temp system that they attributed it to, the RFP didn't even go out for it for four years after the incident. An RFP is a request for proposal and the notice the military sends when it wants contractors to bid on building something. By his understanding, the machine blamed for the shutdown had not been ordered when the missiles went down. David is not claiming to know what the objects are, but he points that the answers do not change the problem. If the craft are ours, a program is running without civilian oversight. If they are not, the fact is being kept from Congress and the president. That there is seemingly a lot of data that seems to be behind a classification barrier and that not having access to the data is not the same as the data not existing. And that there really does seem to be something crazy out there that. If it's ours, to me, just it needs civilian oversight that it doesn't have. And if it's not, I think that's just even more incredible. He doesn't expect a mass leak because too many eyes watch who touch the sensitive files. He also defends the whistleblowers against the demand that they release proof themselves. They use the legal process, and he argues the next step belongs to Congress, including stronger protection for the people who come forward. What would it take to make whistleblowers safe enough to tell Everyone what they know. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. And for the background on how whistleblowers are targeted, watch this video next. I'm Christina Gomez, that's it for today. I will see you again next time for another UFO news update. Be safe and remember, keep your eyes on the skies.