UAP Gerb Live — "Current Work, Return of the PowerPoint & QnA" (with Kermit/KermDawg)

Source: UAP Gerb (YouTube channel @UAPGerb), livestream "Current Work, Return of the PowerPoint & QnA." Host Gerb with guest presenter "Kermit" / "KermDawg" walking a financial/SEC analysis deck on the legacy program's alleged off-books spending, followed by audience Q&A. ~3:21:51.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/BBqZrsS56is (aired 2026-07-21).
Captured: 2026-07-21 via agy (Antigravity CLI + Gemini Flash), speaker-diarized, on the 1080p video (--width 1280, --fps 1, --full-slides). Two speakers (Gerb, Kermit) machine-labeled. The [Slide, MM:SS] lines are agy's VERBATIM transcription of the on-screen PowerPoint — title, bullets, numbers, and classification banners — rendered on a single line with " | " separators (a formatting device, not part of the slide); the Q&A section's on-screen question cards (including each asker's YouTube handle) are likewise captured as [Slide] lines. Machine transcription — verify specific figures/claims against the video/deck.
Analysis: ../../sources/gerb-uap-open-source-researcher

---

[Visual, 0:00] GERB and Kermit
[GERB, 0:00] Okay. As soon as he pops up, we'll get him up here. Um, let's see if we're live. Hey, guys. Are, are we live? Can you let us know if, if you can hear us loud and clear in the chat? We're sorry for the late start.
[GERB, 0:15] Let's see. Usually takes a second to roll in.
[Kermit, 0:17] Mhm. I think stream's just getting set up.
[GERB, 0:20] So let's see. Hey, guys. Can- Okay. Gotcha. Okay, Dan's in there. Hey, Dan. Uh, hey, we're just waiting a second on Rob. He's just having some, uh, computer power supply issues, so, uh, he should be ready any minute. Sorry for the the late, uh, startup on that. Uh, before he gets here in here, how are you doing, Kerm?
[Kermit, 0:37] I'm doing great, man. It's been a- it's been a great Monday. Uh, we haven't seen each other since the 4th of July break and all that, so it's been- it's been good enjoying the summertime. So, can't complain. How are you doing?
[GERB, 0:49] Doing all right. We got- we got quite a bit to talk about, so, um, just for kind of a, a brief outline of what we're going to discuss today. Uh, we left off the last live with, uh, some pretty, pretty good news. But what we're going to do for this live, uh, Kerm has an excellent PowerPoint, a lot of discussion of, uh, financial auditing. That's Kerm's specialty. He's a brilliant finance guy. So, uh, we are going to launch into that. Uh, before we get into that once Rob joins, we're just going to talk about some concurrent events. Uh, we're going to talk about Vice President, uh, Vance's comments on the topic. Um, if we want, we can also talk about, sort of, the, the Hal Puthoff interview and, uh, on Fresh Freedom with Burlison. Oh, there's always quite a bit going on in this topic. Uh, Danny Sheehan just had a, a, an interview that's kind of been blowing up, uh, quite a bit where he said some comments about Mr. Elizondo and also, technology that was recovered and exploited from Roswell and other 1940s crash retrievals, I think. So, uh, and then, of course, we will get right into, uh, some Q&A after that. And I already see some, some comments in the chat by, uh, channel called, uh, Miscellaneous Gab. Let me just answer this before we, we get in. Did I enjoy The Odyssey? Yes, The Odyssey was a absolutely fantastic film. I, I absolutely loved it. So
[Slide, 1:54] @miscellaneousgab | Did you enjoy The Odyssey
[Visual, 2:00] GERB and Kermit
[Kermit, 2:02] I have yet to see it, but I'm looking forward to seeing it soon.
[GERB, 2:06] If you enjoy Christopher Nolan films, you will love The Odyssey, and um, I'm quite partial to, of course, Oppenheimer and Interstellar for, for the, uh, Manhattan Project 2.0 video. I watched Oppenheimer, I think, three, three and a half times. So, uh, I have a huge special place in my heart for, for Oppenheimer, and, uh, Odyssey is truly epic. That word gets thrown around quite a bit, but The Odyssey is epic.
[Kermit, 2:31] Yeah, well, I'm also, and speaking of Oppenheimer, I was at least glad I got to see that in theaters, cuz like, the bomb sequences, when you're sitting in the IMAX theater, [sighs] that was, that was like a semi-religious experience. That was fun.
[GERB, 2:44] Yeah, so, one of my favorite parts of Oppenheimer is when Oppenheimer is basically having to come to terms with, with what he's built, the atomic bomb. Whether it's the theater scene in Los Alamos, or, uh, when Oppenheimer is standing outside of Princeton by the lake talking to Albert Einstein, and he's having flashbacks in the theater of people's skin melting off from the result of his- the weapon he built, or, you know, visions of ICBMs being launched and just how tortured he is, I think that's so, so brilliant.
[Kermit, 3:13] For sure. Yeah. And then also, like, the cameos as well. Like, with you see a lot of, like, familiar names, and especially, like, for looking into, like, US legacy program stuff and the early Atomic Energy Act, like, you do see a lot of familiar names. Not to mention, and including Edward Teller, who does have, like, speaking roles in the movie, and in UFO lore, he is the one that supposedly gave Bob Lazar his job. So, that was, uh, that was something to, to think about when I watched it.
[GERB, 3:38] The actor who plays Edward Teller also plays Agamemnon in The Odyssey, and that's probably the most aura-packed role I've, I've ever seen. Uh, and, and, of course, there's, there's tons of cameos in, in Oppenheimer. One of my favorite is Gordon Gray. You know, the National Security Advisor to Eisenhower, who was supposedly, uh, in, in the first, I think it's the Eisenhower briefing document, he's mentioned as a, uh, Majestic 12 member. Um, he's one of the individuals who's actually doing the closed hearing with Oppenheimer to revoke his Atomic Energy Commission clearance. He's the one spearheading the questions. So, there's a lot of really cool roles in there. And then, uh, Colonel Boris Pash, he's played by Casey Affleck, or, uh, I think Casey Affleck. And he's of course the colonel that was in charge of the Alsos Missions, um, to kind of gauge Nazi atomic progress. And the funny thing about that is, Alsos in Greek means groves. So Leslie Groves was, was pissed about that because essentially, the Alsos Missions, a, a super, super, super covert program to find out the progress of Nazi atomic weapons, was called the Groves Mission.
[Kermit, 4:40] Yeah. And if I, I, I can't remember, like, if this was actually the, the bit, but if I do remember correctly, it was named initially partially because they thought it would be funny to name it that. Like, they thought it was kind of some, like, cute little gimmick of, oh yeah, let's call it Project Alsos. But then when Groves realized this, or when the team kind of realized, it was like, hey, uh, no, no, no, not a good idea. But [laughs]
[GERB, 5:03] Yeah, I mean, one of the, one of the things I, I really like about the Alsos Missions is, we can, I guess, just talk about this a little bit till Rob gets here, it seems like the Alsos Missions were an early blueprint for some of the legacy program operations. I mean, the Alsos Missions was completely separate from the standard chain of military intelligence at the time. Um, there were quite a few people, I think the, the, uh, there were only a, a handful of individuals, including Vannevar Bush, who were actually fully briefed into the Alsos Missions. And what the Alsos Missions did to actually secure, uh, Nazi kind of atomic factories, and deuterium plants, and, and, you know, Heisenberg and other individuals, uh, they would harness, uh, American and British T-Force units, which were lightly armored, uh, mobile infantry that would actually be the kind of direct action units that would secure these facilities. So, the T-Force, uh, directly, once they secured a, Nazi atomic kind of science, science lab in Soviet control territory. So, really interesting to see that kind of blueprint for the rapid reaction teams there. They were very fast-deployed, and the Alsos Missions had, I think, three different stages in France, in Soviet control territory, and as well as, um, some other stuff. But, uh, yeah, the Alsos Missions are extremely interesting.
[Kermit, 6:19] Yeah, it's, it's fascinating stuff, and it's like, you, you don't really, like, get to know those things until you really get to, like, dig into it. Like, this wasn't really stuff I learned really in high school or in college, as well. Like, uh, but it's, it's fascinating stuff.
[GERB, 6:33] Yeah, so, so we'll, we'll move on from, um, we'll move on from Oppenheimer and actually start talking about some, some current events. Um, just waiting for Rob to join. So, obviously one of the, one of the kind of big things that I'd, I'd love to talk about a little bit to see if you had questions about it, or just wanted to toss around some ideas, was the Fresh Freedom podcast with, with Avi Loeb, uh, and Hal Puthoff. We talked about it a little bit before, before it was released in the last live. But, you know, if you watched it, I'd love to talk about some concepts, maybe some interesting, um, things that Hal Puthoff and, uh, and, uh, Avi Loeb said.
[Kermit, 7:07] Yeah, for sure. Well, I guess like, first, just for anyone who has not yet seen this, could you give a little bit of background on like, how this came to be? Cuz I think some people were like, oh my gosh, GERB with Avi and with Hal, like, how did this happen? Could you tell a little bit of like, how that all came to be? Just briefly summarize it.
[GERB, 7:24] Yeah, so, it was at the UAPDF event. Uh, I was doing an interview with Burlison. It was just going to be, uh, one of his staffers, who's a great guy, the one kind of spearheading the, the discussion points, a gentleman by the name of Nate. You've met him, he's a great guy. Uh, Burlison and myself. And halfway through the UAPDF event, Burlison said, "Hey, you know, Hal Puthoff, Avi Loeb, they're going to do an interview. Would you like to sit in on it?" Uh, of course. I wouldn't miss that for the world. So, I was the first one to arrive to this really weird building where Burlison does his, his podcast out of. There's a full media setup. There's really great microphones. There's really great cameras. It, it's, it's a full professional, uh, studio. And nobody else was there. So, initially Hal Puthoff and his wife walked in. His, his wife is truly lovely, by the way. She's a, a sweetheart. And we immediately started talking. And I think behind, behind the scenes is where some of the more interesting stuff happened because I did notice a shift in how Hal Puthoff talked on air versus off air. Uh, on air, we talked a lot about AATIP, Gatekeepers, the DHS, and so on. But off air, he said some really interesting things. Um, I kind of, I brought up how the Age of Disclosure documentary listed Hal Puthoff, Eric Davis, Garry Nolan, and others as, as AATIP scientists when they were obviously AATIP, or AAWSAP scientists. And he did raise concerns. And apparently, he had raised concerns during the filming of that documentary to Mr. Elizondo and Mr. Farra about being labeled an AATIP scientist, but those concerns weren't heeded, uh, listened to. We also talk about the Aztec crash retrieval case, and the Kingman case. And Hal Puthoff essentially kind of gave me a cheeky wink and, uh, a nod that the, uh, Kona Blue materials that were supposed to be transferred through the Kona Blue PSAP from Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company to see Dr. Jim Rhyder to the AAWSAP was indeed bits and pieces from one of likely several 1953 Kingman, Arizona crashes.
[Kermit, 9:25] Mhm. Yeah, that was all, that was all very interesting. And also, I will say like, my general kind of observation of Hal and Avi's comments on that podcast was more so like they wanted to move away from the past, and they wanted to focus disclosure efforts on new data, new equipment, investigations, like looking out, kind of moving on from the past and looking out to the future and now. How does that, I guess, sit with you? Like, does that sound like a good version of disclosure or a good version of disclosure? I'm curious what you kind of thought about there.
[Kermit, 10:00] ...er framing or if you kind of agree with their initiative just in general.
[GERB, 10:03] Oh, absolutely not. Uh, I think Avi Loeb has kind of walked back or kind of reassessed that statement since the the podcast, but he, I think, rightfully got a lot of questions leveraged at him and and Dr. Puthoff as well, of basically forgetting the past, let's only move forward. I think a lot of people are especially burned by that with Puthoff in the Age of Disclosure documentary, where there's basically a mass amnesty plea for folks even like James Clapper. So, I think forgetting the the the decades of historical data is a massive travesty. Whether or not you're looking at the legacy programs, even if you're just looking at sightings, there are still numerous, numerous, numerous unresolved Blue Book cases. Oh, there's a great PDF, I can't remember who wrote it, um, it's essentially Blue Book Unknowns, and maybe I'll post it in the Discord for people to look. But it's some of the best unresolved cases from Blue Book, uh, from the early '50s to 1969. Some of these cases are absolutely incredible. A few of them that come to mind are are sailors, I think, in the Navy in the 1950s seen what they described as flying butane tanks over the Atlantic Ocean. And now, that sounds remarkably similar to Commander David Fravor...
[Kermit, 11:08] Sounds like Tic Tac, yeah. Mm-hmm.
[GERB, 11:10] And this was in the early 1950s, I believe 1951 or 1952. Uh, you also have guys like Danny Sheehan who have stated one of his, uh, one of his big pursuits back in the days of Project Blue Book and following during the Carter administration, I think, was to crack into the classified Project Blue Book annex. And in that, that, that podcast that, that Danny Sheehan just did, he spoke that he had seen crash retrieval photos that were omitted from the standard Project Blue Book reports. You know, there's also Project Stork that Battelle Memorial Institute conducted, completely parallel but separate to Blue Book. There's also, um, more analysis needs to be done at Project Twinkle and in New Mexico or the Southwest of the United States. Uh, in the tranches of documents, that's been getting so much attention. You know, the green fireballs over Los Alamos, uh, in New Mexico, that seem to be intelligently controlled. There needs to be more studies there. There needs to be reevaluations of the Robertson Panel, the Condon Committee. I, I just think it is a, in, indeed, a travesty if you're looking at the topic from just a, just a sightings perspective, and and U.S. investigation into the subject of UFOs, that that is a massive tragedy as well. But I, I think Avi has reevaluated that statement, and I truly hope he does. How Puthoff, I don't know why he would say that statement as well. One of the things that's interested me the most, uh, that I didn't really get a chance to talk to during the interview is, you know, how Puthoff, uh, spearheaded a lot of the remote viewing and and psi programs for the U.S. with Star Gate, eventually got bought by SAIC. Uh, who knows how that sort of stuff got black holed. Uh, but remember on Joe Rogan when David Grusch was on there, uh, Rogan asked Grusch sort of about the psi programs and how odd they were, whether it was Star Gate, Grill Flame, or any of the other names. And, uh, Dave said, "Well, what if some of those programs were spun up and started as a way to unlock some of the technology we'd recovered that had been sitting out in a warehouse?" So, I would like to explore, if I get another chance with Hal Puthoff, to see if some of those psi programs crossed over into some of these, uh, some of these attempt to unlock some of these vehicles we might have in a warehouse.
[Kermit, 13:14] Yeah, and I guess it's like what what does it mean by unlocking? Like, is it like a psionic kind of thing? Or is it kind of, I think, at least when when that's kind of said, I my mind goes to kind of the mind craft kind of connection that you hear a lot. Like, it's like one pilot, one craft, if you will. So, I I don't know, it's just it's such an interesting statement, I want to know more. Um, but I I will say like, just from my my observations, is like it is, it does seem kind of like an unforced error to kind of like ignore the past, especially when there's been a lot of talk about like crimes and, you know, amnesty protections needed. It's like, this is this is being done, like the amnesty provisions are being done because there is a dirty past. Like, we can't just like ignore it. I think that would be convenient for certain parties, but I think disclosure to a lot of people is an admission or an acknowledgment of what has happened, and simply just moving on from that is just that that is not at all what anyone's asking for. Um, so, and also like what you, um, you even had a little bit of a post yourself with Chris Mellon kind of on this kind of similar subject, where he had that post talking about, "Oh, here's some new types of UAP imagery and data that I want to get my my arms around" or, "I want to get the U.S. government to to start looking at." And you rightfully pointed out, I'm like, "Hold on, you want to talk about new data, but you yourself had Signal messages with staffers about a memo from the Air Force from the '50s about Kingman?" That's like, this is how we keep all this sub-secrecy. This is how we keep it all secret. This is our classification order. So, it's just it's so ironic and kind of funny that a lot of these people advocate for that kind of position of like, "Hey, let's just move on, and let's just look out, and let's start new stuff," and they're completely just looking away from the past and even some of the stuff that they've even brought up from the past as well. It's just it's it's interesting how that works.
[GERB, 15:09] I'd, I would love to, when Rob joins, also talk a little bit more about that Chris Mellon situation because I had an unfortunate, uh, face-to-face with both him and Lou at the UAPDF, uh, about sort of that stuff and some others, and that's where I asked Lou to his face if he was part of the legacy program. So, once Rob joins, little cliffhanger, I'd love to talk about that. But no, I agree with what you're saying. And even outside of amnesty and the legacy stuff, there have been barricades on, uh, UFO reporting throughout the armed forces before. I can think of, uh, Air Force regulation AFR 200.2 and JANAP 146 and OpNav 3820 that has restricted reporting, uh, for UFO sightings in the past, sometimes in instances, uh, leveraging up to a $10,000 fine for sightings. So, there has been an attempt to kind of put the lid on some of these sightings before, and I just think that, uh, forgetting history, whether it's sightings or legacy stuff, is an absolute tragedy. Especially for the legacy stuff, if you're gonna understand how the programs work today, you need a very, very, very full understanding of how the programs were started, how they evolved, what sort of crash retrievals we've had in the past, uh, what sort of information might have been leveraged from those and so forth.
[Kermit, 16:18] Yeah, I think a lot about the like civilian airline kind of industry and that kind of history because in in that community as well, it was it was kind of stigmatized of like not to report this. Up until the point of like there could be financial penalties, jail time, you could lose your job for reporting a UFO. And what's been kind of going on in the background while this disclosure stuff has been going on, and I've been very like I've been very happy of these efforts, is what Ryan Graves is doing with ASA, and trying to streamline reporting within the civilian pilot community, but also, of course, the military pilot community as well. Um, just very important, not just like in getting down the stigma and telling people it's okay to come forward, but also getting data, like actually being able to like aggregate the data and be able to look at it as well.
[GERB, 17:06] And more historical data exists, doesn't it? I forget the specific Japan Airlines flight. Is it 1628?
[Kermit, 17:13] Is that the one that saw the giant like big circle thing over Alaska? Yeah. I I I'm a numbers guy, but I cannot remember the flight number.
[GERB, 17:21] And based upon, yeah, based upon the radar data, Kevin Knuth in his paper estimating flight characteristics of unidentified anomalous phenomena actually calculated the G-force and how that very large craft moved, and and that's the sort of rigorous pursuits that need to be done. I I sure hope, uh, Avi and the governance board, uh, kind of approach, uh, Mr. Knuth and ask him to evaluate some of the historical data they get their paws on.
[Kermit, 17:44] Well, speaking of napkin math, I do cover a lot of napkin math of legacy program finance from a high level in my PowerPoint, and I'm very excited to to show that later on.
[GERB, 17:55] Yeah, we just need we need Rob to get in.
[Kermit, 17:57] Where is Rob? Did he get kidnapped by the secret police? Like, what happened?
[GERB, 18:00] We'll, let me shoot him a text. I'm so sorry, guys. I'm sorry about the technical difficulties. We wanted to go live. Uh, it was already five minutes after, so we just didn't want to keep everybody hanging. Uh, let me text Rob, and and we'll get everything set up. I'm sorry he's just having some technical difficulties.
[Kermit, 18:14] Chat, is Washington, D.C. under attack? Can anyone look that up for me? Is anyone on the ground right now? I'm not worried. I just, you know, concerned.
[GERB, 18:28] You know what? We'll, we'll, we'll keep chatting about current events. We'll give him 10 minutes. If he's not in in 10 minutes, we'll start the PowerPoint, and he'll he'll join in at any time. I It's not the lettuce parasite. It's none of that. He's just having some computer technical difficulties. He, uh, he texted, so he he should be in in any minute, and and we'll be good to go. Uh, I guess we should also kind of bridge into the comments by JD Vance, you know. He went on Joe Rogan...
[Kermit, 18:49] Yeah, J.D. Vance.
[GERB, 18:50] ...and, and let me get your initial thoughts because, of course, I already, I've already talked about that, and we can kind of break it down.
[Kermit, 18:56] For sure. So, first off, it's crazy in the big 2026, we have a sitting vice president talking about UFOs, non-human intelligence, for a half an hour on one of the largest podcasts in the world, full stop. Like, this topic, like if, "Oh, this isn't mainstream," like, okay, you can say it's relegated to Joe Rogan, that's another discussion, but Joe Rogan's a pretty big podcast, and he had the vice president on, and he talked about aliens. Now, as to his comments, as to what J.D. kind of articulates, he said everything he said last year. When he talked to that Australian journalist, he was asked about UFOs and aliens, and he said, "I'm the vice president, I'm gonna get to the bottom of this." 11 months later, he's in Austin, Texas, talking to Joe Rogan, "Hey, J.D., where are those aliens?" "I'm the vice president, I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. I haven't looked just yet. It's been very busy for me." Okay. That's understandable, the vice president's a very busy person. I do not loathe or envy his position whatsoever. Guy's...
[Kermit, 20:00] ...in meetings all day. Aliens, like he can't just like sit down, clear his schedule, and look just at the alien problem. Like when he ultimately does, he's going to be dealing with a lot of other issues as well, cause it's a pretty - it's a pretty tough job being like in President of the United States. So, understandable, but same time, um, he has talked to David Grusch, and I did kind of want to ask you about those particular comments and maybe what kind of effect Grusch has had on the executive. Cause he does mention he did get to talk with David, and he did have some interesting comments there, particularly because he's like, okay, David, so you've talked to people within this legacy program, but me as the Vice President, why hasn't this leaked out of any of these programs? Like, it's the same kind of uh skeptic kind of argument that's been used forever. I mean, uh what's his name? Garrett Graff, when he wrote the UFOs book, comes up with the same thing. He's like, the government's too stupid, someone's just going to leak it out of one of these programs, it's... Obama had the same comment too. So, it's like, at a certain point, this is, I guess, my conclusion and my comment, and I apologize for rambling. But...
[GERB, 21:05] No, that's - that's why we're here, man.
[Kermit, 21:07] It is - it's frustrating to me that we've been this far. We now have a documentary out featuring a person that is on the cabinet of the White House. Marco Rubio is the Secretary of State and he was the interim National Security Advisor. He is in the Age of Disclosure documentary, and his comments to Fox News, that's another story. I'm not going to ramble that long. But it's just - it's frustrating, and also like, you know, I'm - I'm appreciative that JD elaborates more to why he understands this stuff as demons, but it's - it's nuanced in the sense that like he's - that's his perspective, but it's not to say that like he ultimately thinks that that's what this stuff is. So like the way he kind of couches his arguments, I - I find interesting. I don't agree with him necessarily. I agree with him on some things, but again, if - if you want to know more, or if we want to get to the bottom of like what's the intersection of UFOs and religion, that's going to be another livestream, and I don't have another PowerPoint prepared on that, so that's going - that's going to take a while. Um, but yeah, a lot of different thoughts. I will say ultimately like, frustration, um, it's your job, bro. You got to know, you got to look into this. He also talked to Grusch, and Grusch is now working for Rep Burlison, so it's like, hey man, you have all the tools you need to do the job if you need to go talk. But I will say like, he did make one comment that I think is very telling of the sense of like, you know, as a Vice President, he's not going to figure something out until he needs to figure something out. And I thought that that said everything in the sense of like, okay, he has enormous interest to figure this thing out, and he's immensely interested in the topic. But the thing is of like how anything works in this country, I guess, is like it has to become a problem for something to be get - to get done. And especially as the Vice President when your attention is so limited, it's like, okay, I can't just like, like I said, clear your schedule and just, you know, hammer the UFO thing for two weeks and go down some crazy rabbit hole on Gerb's YouTube, which JD, please watch Gerb's videos. But, you know, you can't just do that. So, it's - it's very difficult how ultimately like the President's going to be able to do something. I think that opens up another discussion of like what that would look like, but um, yeah, just really just like frustrated and just kind of a doomer, honestly. But, uh, what did you think, Gerb?
[GERB, 23:28] Yeah, I think - I think you said it very well. One of the most inappropriate things Vance stated was that he only needed a few weeks to get to the bottom of the UFO topic, and that he'd promised to himself over and over again that he'd...
[Kermit, 23:41] Do you think that's accurate, though? Do you think he only needs a couple of weeks...
[GERB, 23:44] No, no.
[Kermit, 23:45] ...or two weeks?
[GERB, 23:46] No, absolutely not. And uh and he opened up a big can of worms, in my opinion, by stating that he had spoken to David Grusch.
[Kermit, 23:56] Really?
[GERB, 23:57] Yeah, because for one, forget UFOs, forget crash retrievals, forget legacy programs, forget non-human biologics for a second. David Grusch has stated he's particularly aware of misappropriation of funds, skimming funds off of separate programs, and criminal enterprises that fund covert operations that aren't inherent to a to traditional oversight channels or a chosen government customer. Even outside of UFOs, non-human intelligence, crash retrievals, JD Vance would have an obligation to this country to pursue and investigate those claims, and that would directly lead to the legacy programs. Do you remember in the - in the June 9th event, David Grusch said he was aware of criminal enterprise that had been used to fund these operations?
[Kermit, 24:41] Yes.
[GERB, 24:42] So, if JD Vance has spoken to David Grusch, and David Grusch has stated that he has direct knowledge of these criminal enterprises, he now has, in my opinion, an obligation to investigate these financial crimes.
[Kermit, 24:54] Mm.
[GERB, 24:55] And he doesn't even need to step a toe into the topic of UFOs to start, but actually start to investigate these fraud and funding schemes.
[Kermit, 25:02] Mhm.
[Kermit, 25:03] So, I guess it's more of a question of like what really was the substance of that conversation because at least based on Vance's comments, it seemed fairly high-level. Like, I imagine this was probably not a conversation that they had in a SCIF or in some type of secure environment. So, it only, like I can only wonder how much they were able to really talk about, and then Vance is able to push back like how anyone else is able to push back of like, oh yeah, well of course the government's a big place, and, you know, people want to impress other people. So, of course, you know, it's not unreasonable to think someone could go into one of these facilities and just take a picture of the alien. Like, why has that not been done, you know? But it's just - it's just so pedestrian, it's elementary, you know?
[GERB, 25:38] Yeah, that's - that's one of the most inappropriate things that both Vance and Obama said in my opinion. Obama first of all, you know, there's some - there's a - some, in my opinion, some real credence to Obama having a post-presidents presidency retroactive briefing on some of these topics by - uh whether it be Podesta or some of the cohort that he had under him that were actively pushing for disclosure under Hillary Clinton. So I'd be - I'd be real careful with what Obama had to say. But the comment that uh a security guard would take a selfie with an alien and send it to his girlfriend, first of all, it is well understood from David Grusch, from others, from any open source intelligence, from my work, that these programs are conducted out of the special access program ecosystem. And the governance and oversight structure of SAPs, you don't con- you don't conduct SAP operations, whether it's an acquisition SAP, an intelligence SAP, uh an operations and support SAP, just randomly out in the open. You do these in extremely secure and moderated environments. So, a security standards equivalent to a SCIF, secure compartmented information facility. Everybody knows that. There are stuffs like SAPFs, uh accredited SAPFs, special access program facilities, temporary SAPFs, and so forth. So, the work is done on these programs in extremely controlled and strict environments. So, to even think that just a random security guard can bring in a - a telephone where he would be able to get right up - up close to a non-human biologic and - and take a photo with it is - is insanity in itself. I - I think I think I gave an example of, you know, good luck - good luck envisioning a scenario in which an industrial security guard, uh INDUSEC personnel at Dugway Proving Ground, is able to take a photo with a sensitive nerve agent and get that to leak. Watch what would happen to that guy and how he would be - prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I - I just - I think that that sort of comment was done for comedic effect, and that really shows the stigma that still exists around this topic.
[Kermit, 27:28] Mhm. Yeah, well, not to sound like uh sophomoric or elementary, but they do take uh students' phones away at high school. So, it's like come on. You don't like walk into the super secret facility and then you have to turn your phone in before you go into work? This is why I can never work on the legacy program because every five minutes I need to check my phone and scroll for Reels. So, like the second you take my phone away, it's - I'm sorry, I can't - I can't work productively.
[GERB, 27:53] Yeah, additionally, so maybe we can go through a couple of examples of - of long-standing secrets the US government has held, and some that have leaked out. One that comes to mind is anomalous health incidents and directed energy weapons. You know, it's - it's kind of an open secret now that directed energy weapons past just drone warfare, you know, anti-drone systems, have been utilized and are relatively mature technologies now. Uh I'd love to talk about this too, but Michael Shermer on Jesse Michels was still - sort of skeptical of Havana syndrome and anomalous health incidents - due to directed energy weapons, but I think that's a very - acknowledged and very concrete thing that - those sorts of special access programs and the kind of technology behind some of the human-targeted stuff, like the discombobulator in Nicaragua, have - maintained their sort of secrecy and privacy up to this point.
[Kermit, 28:41] Yeah, well, it's hard to - it's hard to say whether or not the discombobulator was just like Trump talking, and him just kind of making things up and saying words, but I do remember, if I'm not mistaken, Catherine Herridge's reporting about anomalous health incidents and DEW, and specifically about how, I think it was the Department of Homeland Security had bought a foreign, um, had Havana syndrome-affecting device. It was like a backpack or a box system, but it was believed that this was one of the causers of AHI cases, which I found interesting. But it does presume that it's a physical, real phenomenon. It's caused by something that is attributed to a physical, real object, and it's in the possession of the US government, allegedly. I believe...
[GERB, 29:24] Yeah, uh, Local H in the chat said '60 Minutes did an excellent piece about this'. They absolutely did. Um, another example that comes to mind is, I talk about it all the time ad nauseam, is the Yellow Fruit unacknowledged special access program. And I'll give my spiel - one more time because I do it all the time. Everybody's familiar with the Iran-Contra in 1986, that was a massive scandal of - of funding the Nicaraguan Contras, of trading arms with the Iranians, but predating that was the Yellow Fruit's unacknowledged special access program out of the Army's SOD, Special Operations Division, which was actually disbanded due to this scandal. The Army...
[Visual, 30:00] GERB, Kermit
[GERB, 30:00] ...sod has spun up this USAP to conduct all sorts of clandestine and covert operations out in South America as well as other classified operations. To conduct this Special Access Program, Lieutenant Colonel Duncan out of the Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence, I believe, he had a staged retirement where he established a company called BSIR, BSEC, where he was basically funding, money was filtering through this program and being conducted. And the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "Hey, we have no idea what's going on on our Army, we weren't briefed to this." So that's a really interesting example of a multi-year Special Access Program that would not have been revealed if it wasn't for normal audits. Because it was normal audits that found discrepancies with what Lieutenant Colonel Duncan was doing that essentially revealed the Yellow Fruit USAP, and thus led to some of the scandal behind Iran-Contra.
[Kermit, 30:50] The main finding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that they had an offshore like Swiss bank account that they like on paper they had this acknowledged funding but they were actually siphoning it off and they had a covert bank account that they had set up through this Yellow Fruit program that was like a Swiss bank account. Is that...
[GERB, 31:08] I think so. I believe so. My primary knowledge is just through Duncan and sort of his non-official cover through the company he set up.
[Kermit, 31:17] Okay.
[GERB, 31:18] But, you know, another open secret is the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office, NURO, an unacknowledged intelligence agency. We have the Big Five intelligence agency, but there's the Big Six. You know, the NRO was started in 1960 to coordinate intelligence between the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology and the Air Force. In 1969, an additional office was set up to coordinate intelligence activities between the CIA DS&T and the Navy. And this was the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office. Up until 1974, so from 1969 to 1972 or 1974, there was a tug-of-war for control of this office between the Navy and CIA DS&T. One of the first directors of this agency was John Warner. And now we've seen John Warner the Fourth kind of start to pop up on podcasts. He's a distant cousin of Christopher Mellon, and he's been quite critical of the Mellon family and so forth. You know, you can go through old National Security Council, or, I'm sorry, I think SSCI, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence documents, and National Security Decision Memorandums, and see mention of the National Reconnaissance Program and the NURO. But this overall is an unacknowledged intelligence agency that even Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet has stated he was not briefed into. Now he said that he wants the Governance Board to start to pull records on NURO. I do think there's probably better things to do for the Governance Board, but I think the US Intelligence Community, it's a book by Jeffrey T. Richelson, I strongly recommend reading that. It details some of NURO's operations, including the retrieval of Soviet submarine K-129, the Ivy Bells program to basically put sound reconnaissance devices on the ocean floor to track Soviet submarines, and other covert operations. If Admiral Gallaudet wants to kind of see where NURO may have crossed its paths into USO crash retrievals, I would look into NURO operations with Sub Dev Group, the Supervisor of Salvage and Diving of the US Navy.
[Kermit, 33:09] It's all so fascinating, and it's like, it's unacknowledged, I think, for a couple of different reasons. I think, number one, it's it's like such a niche role within the intelligence like apparatus that I think it goes kind of, I don't want to say ignored, but I think like underrated or underappreciated. But you can certainly appreciate like the the national security imperative to like track enemy submarines underwater. And I will say the United States has very good intelligence monitoring equipment, very good, we're very good at figuring out where the Russian submarines are, to the point where our own submarines are deployed largely to stalk the Russian submarines that do not know at all that we're behind them, in some cases. And then there was also a case, famously, I think, two years ago, that there was a Russian submarine caught off Florida, and some guy's like boat radar had caught it on his on his monitors, and it's like, "Yep, that's definitely a Russian sub." So, they they like to think they're being stealthy, but we know where they are. Shout out NURO.
[GERB, 34:11] So, the anti-submarine monitoring, for adversarial submarine capabilities, I actually think ties directly into some early legacy efforts, and kind of ties into the Aztec case. And this is super interesting to me. So, Vannevar Bush set up a lot of the precursor relationship between the US government and the scientists. Essentially, he's the godfather of FFRDCs, then known as FCRCs, Federal Contract Research Centers, and UARCs, you know. Vannevar Bush set up MIT's Radiation Lab, which closed, reopened as MIT Lincoln Lab, which then spun off MITRE, etc. But through the OSRD, the Office of Scientific Research and Development under Bush during World War II, one of the biggest directives of the OSRD was to figure out different systems to monitor Nazi submarines. You know, Nazi U-boats were devastating. Also, Nazi maritime warfare dating back to World War I with the sinking of the Lusitania and then their patrolling waters. The Nazi submarine apparatus was absolutely devastating. So there was a massive effort to kind of detect foreign submarines, and if you look at the Aztec case, you know, Silas Newton and Leo GeBauer are just called con men, convicted con men, even though that case is a little bit of a gray area with William Steinman going to actual Colorado court records to find out the witnesses that testified against GeBauer and Newton and so forth. I highly recommend, there are PDFs of "UFO Crash at Aztec: A Well-Kept Secret". It's a $300 book, and I got mine behind me just because I had to have it, but there are PDFs out there, and I really recommend reading it. It's really interesting to see the court documents that William Steinman went through. But essentially, what was colloquially, sometimes I can't say that word, what was commonly referred to...
[Kermit, 35:51] Colloquially. I have trouble too. Colloquially.
[GERB, 35:56] ...referred to as, yeah, the doodlebug, which was essentially a device that Leo GeBauer and Silas Newton promised could find oil, which seemed to actually have mixed success. The origin for this device could be traced back, according to Steinman and some really great work he presented, as well as the Ramsays, Scott and Suzanne Ramsay, this sort of technology could be traced back to actual technologies utilized in World War II on naval aircraft to detect Nazi submarines.
[Kermit, 36:26] Oh.
[GERB, 36:27] So, there's an argument to be made that this amalgamation of Mr. Gs that were falsely labeled as Mr. Leo GeBauer, were a lot of scientists under Vannevar Bush who actually had experience within this ecosystem of building technologies and sonar equipment to detect Nazi submarines. I also think that directly translates into the MITRE program, because MITRE's two legacy programs I'm aware of deal directly with the US Navy.
[Kermit, 36:50] Interesting, and, huh, that's it's just, yeah, that's all fascinating. I think I was aware, in a past life, of like the naval connections to the Aztec case, but I just hadn't remembered that it was like part of the submarine kind of group. Um, yeah, no, it's just it's all it's all very fascinating. I will say, with, with MITRE, would you say that like both of those programs that they have, are they more historical in nature? Are these things that they've kind of like inherited previously, or they've been going on for a while, or are these kind of like new in-house efforts, if you will?
[GERB, 37:31] One of the MITRE programs, I understand, I don't know exactly when it was spun up, but has existed for a couple of decades. Another MITRE program, and I'm being vague here because you know I'm going to do a MITRE project at some point and that is something I am so excited for, that I don't want to spoil my own secrets, and it's not like you got to pay a pay-per-view for the video, you might just have to wait a little bit to see the video. So I'm I'm gatekeeping my own content until I release it for free. But the other MITRE legacy program I'm aware of, again, both of these are with the US Navy. And then let's move on to the PowerPoint. I see a lot of people talking about the PowerPoint, either Rob will drop in or he won't. But the other MITRE program I'm aware of is actually existed all the way back to 1958, when MITRE was founded. So, MITRE was spun off from MIT Lincoln Labs to spearhead systems engineering for the SAGE, the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment radar system, which was the first national air defense, NORAD back in the day. A mixed success.
[Kermit, 38:26] A mixed success.
[GERB, 38:27] Yeah, huge mixed success because there was some lagging technology. Basically, this SAGE project was to produce a full unified picture of US airspace. Now, the MITRE Corporation was established by the Air Force, very similar to the RAND Corporation. It was actually modeled after the RAND Corporation. And if you know Rob from my channel, you will recognize the ARDC, Air Research and Development Center, and how ARDC took R&D responsibilities from Air Materiel Command in 1951. Air Materiel Command, famously headquartered at Wright-Patterson, had kind of custody of the Roswell materials and other early crash retrieval materials, until ARDC got involved. Both of those kind of transitioned into their own Air Force Major Commands, Air Force AFLC, and Air Force Systems Command, both of whom are now under Air Force Materiel Command, AFMC. But even though MITRE was founded out of the Air Force and MIT Lincoln Labs, quite a few of MITRE's earliest founders had their sort of background and specialty in naval special projects.
[Kermit, 39:27] Hmm.
[GERB, 39:28] So, we also know that the Office of Naval Intelligence is the oldest intelligence system within our country and that the Navy has a lot of deep ties to some pretty interesting intelligence. So, yeah, I can't wait to talk about the MITRE Corporation. I really like MITRE.
[Kermit, 39:45] Interesting, and were those Navy special programs people that maybe were doing their jobs on or before World War II, per chance, or this is like 1950s?
[GERB, 39:55] Continuing on. So, a lot of these people came from MIT Lincoln Lab's research and engineering department...
[Visual, 40:00] GERB and Kermit split screen
[GERB, 40:00] So, MIT Lincoln Labs, remember, that would have a direct ancestry from anti-submarine warfare suites and Vannevar Bush. The MIT Radiation Lab closed in, I think it was 1950, or 1945. Yes, I'm sorry, 1945. Closed its doors, reopened in 1951 as MIT Lincoln Labs.
[Kermit, 40:17] Okay.
[GERB, 40:17] And then Lincoln Labs spun off MITRE. So essentially Vannevar Bush is the godfather of MITRE.
[Kermit, 40:23] Yeah. MITRE MITRE would not exist without Vannevar Bush.
[Kermit, 40:26] He's also the god- the father of the legacy program, allegedly.
[GERB, 40:30] I I believe very strongly that he was. There's that 1960, early 1960 interview with Vannevar Bush talking about during World War II not fearing Soviet scientists and Soviet R&D, but following World War II getting great fear of basically Soviet capabilities to rapid prototype and kind of innovate in the realms of science and technology. I think that directly parallels to some of the UFO legacy program efforts and very quick efforts to kind of lock down these programs and and so forth.
[Kermit, 41:03] Yeah. Well, it's certainly like you can totally appreciate like how the same secrecy architecture was overlaid on this program and potentially others that we don't know about. But I will I I can only think that this is probably one of the more secret and, I would say, higher risk, higher tier activities that is done by our shadow government. Do we want to get into the PowerPoint, by chance, or...
[GERB, 41:26] Yes. Let's We'll get in, and I hope Rob joins. If he doesn't, we'll get through the PowerPoint. But this is a We talked about this last live. This is some Kerm original work. This is all Kerm here. This is This is his project, so I'm going to let him spearhead, and I'll butt in if I have questions or something like that.
[Kermit, 41:45] Yeah, for sure. So, one second. Let me just try to get set up real quick. Um, and just for the chat real quick, uh, we don't mean Baal like the no-no mean entity, Baal knowledge like "do you know ball?" It's a meme reference, b-a-l-l, not b-a-a-l. Get your head out of the gutter.
[Kermit, 42:05] Thought we had- I thought we had ball players in here, but everyone's thinking about the other things. Um, I'm trying to present, but it like every time I try to do the presentation, it like pulls up on both. So, you know what, I'm just going to... Gosh, I feel like a boomer right now.
[GERB, 42:26] That's we're just We're having a lot of technical difficulties today, so it's no problem, Kerm.
[Kermit, 42:31] Have we figured out where Rob is? Did he get abducted by aliens? I was saying- seeing some speculation about that.
[GERB, 42:36] I think he's having power supply issues with his computer. So if he if he gets that sorted out, he'll join there. Or I said, hey, just join on your phone if you can. So if he can, we'll get Rob in.
[Kermit, 42:47] Okay. Shoot. There we go. Okay, alright, hold on, I think I'm I think I'm cooking with grease here. I think I got it. I think I got it. Fish in the water. Okay, we're good. Apologies everyone, I...
[GERB, 43:03] That's okay, Kerm.
[Kermit, 43:04] I usually don't present PowerPoint decks in my job, I'm more of a consultant kind of thing to do. Can everyone see my screen? Is my screen visible?
[Visual, 43:10] Screen share transitions to a loading globe icon
[Slide, 43:11] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY // NOFORN | DOCUMENT 001 OF 001 | AUDIT OF THE | US LEGACY | PROGRAM | PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS // JUNE 2026 | PREPARED BY KERMDAWG_ENT // @KERMDAWGENT | CLASSIFIED | AUDIT FILES | REQ. : //LEGACY/AUDIT/26
[GERB, 43:14] Mhm.
[Kermit, 43:14] Okay. Alright.
[GERB, 43:17] If you want to go full screen with this, Kerm, I think you have controls on your side. Otherwise you just...
[Kermit, 43:21] It's full screen, it's full screen on here. We're good to go. Okay.
[Kermit, 43:24] So, real quick before we get into the slide deck, so this is going to cover a couple interesting concepts, but I think the goal of this is really just to try to figure out like how if you could assign a dollar value to like total legacy program activity, how could you go about doing that? So...
[GERB, 43:43] Kerm, could we have, for anybody watching who's new, could we just hear about your background, and why we have audit of the legacy program here, because I think you're the best person to present a concept like this.
[Kermit, 43:53] For sure. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to clarify. So real quick, so my background is I'm in the financial world. I'm a CPA, I'm an accountant. So studied accounting but more so like like how organizations run, but then also how things like complex frauds are perpetrated. That was something that I studied in graduate school. I find the concepts around like fraud fraud cases like Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth, Waste Management, the recent ones Theranos, FTX, these are all very interesting to me. I'm one of those nerds that looks on like the SEC and the DOJ's websites and I read the official reports of these financial fraud cases just because it's like this is this is like this is my Love Island, truly. My Love Island is on the Department of Justice's website. Um, so I'm also interested in aliens, obviously, Gerb and I have been friends for a while. Um, so my niche special interest with this UFO thing has been trying to figure out what is the audit trail of this legacy program activity. Cuz the claim on the table is that there are a set of unacknowledged programs, and we'll talk about this later on in this slide deck. But the claims on the table is that there's secret work going on that are, you know, exploiting craft, that they are exploiting biologics that are not human. They're also trying to communicate with those entities. They have expensive facilities pervasive across the country, across the world, and then they're also engaging in a disinformation campaign against the American people. Now, what I present as like my napkin math, do not like this is not financial advice, this is a very very rough estimate. I hope some of the assumptions and judgment calls I make are reasonable. I'm curious if there are any other financial or government contract people in this chat that have any opinions. I am open to other people's comments on this.
[GERB, 45:51] Kerm, I think that's a- Oh, sorry, I sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you.
[Kermit, 45:55] Well, I was just going to reiterate, you know, my background is I was in corporate audit. I work mostly in the corporate environment. I'm a corporate accountant. I know debits and credits. Uh, I know government accounting, I'm not great at it, I studied it for the CPA exam, but that's as far as I'll go. Um, but I will say a lot of what I have learned as I have gone down this UFO rabbit hole has been a lot of the similar stuff that Gerb has learned about like how the government's work, how the agencies function, who reports to what, what's the US title code, um, who funds what, who has appropriations authority and how is that figured out. So um a lot of what Gerb has asked questions on and has investigated, I have also asked questions on and I have investigated, so you can appreciate how our kind of our our our powers combine here in certain respects. But what were you going to say, Gerb? Sorry to...
[GERB, 46:42] So, I was going to say, cuz I saw in the chat a couple folks, maybe just one folks saying, will there be stock advice at the end? And I'm saying that this is not financial advice. This is you tackling This is you tackling the topic from a financial perspective, which I think is very valuable like we talked about with Vance earlier, and maybe getting another critical lens at the topic from more than just the stuff I do, which is specific program, specific elements, but actually looking at this topic from a monetary and finance perspective.
[Kermit, 47:09] Well, I will say, this question from the chat gives me space to talk about one certain thing that I think this commenter might be getting at too, which is this Tuttle UFO ETF. And you might be coming here onto the live stream and you're asking for my financial advice on whether or not it's worth buying into. Um, I'm not again, not financial advice, you can buy it if you want to, but I will say it is a UF- it is an ETF that is structured like how a lot of other defense ETFs are structured, and it is done so in a way that does not like just because it exists does not suppose that disclosure is like a sure fire bet, like you can take it to the bank. And also, you know, funding the ETF is not going to like signal to the president or other bodies like, "Hey, like, you know, let's disclose." It's not how this works. Um, also, I have asked the question every single day of like, "Okay, Lockheed Martin, if some bad or good news came out about them working on this stuff, what happens to the stock price?" It's really an interesting question, like do you think the stock price goes up or down if like ontologically shocking information comes out about, say, their off-books private program, or a recovery that they had in the '50s, or their vice president that was in their space sector division, you know, like if any of that stuff And then trying to articulate that into the market, like the thing is the market prices, it's it's psychological. The market's not real. Like stocks, all of it, it's a fugazi, it's a fugazi, it's a whoozy-whatsy. There's a scene in um what's that movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, with Matthew McConaughey, it's like a fugazi, fugazi, it's a whoozy-whatsy. Because it's all psychological. It's all decided by, you know, demand buyers, people in the market buying stocks, and people selling the stocks, and they're just selling it for whatever is most convenient to them, and that price is not always the same day to day. And then what you're seeing in the stock price is just tracking when that last trade was. For any of my gamers in the chat, if you've ever like traded Steam items and you know like the Steam marketplace where the thing goes up and down, kind of similar mechanics actually. So if you have traded in the Steam marketplace, you could be a certified financial analyst. But um that's that's my two cents on all that, I just wanted to Yap real quick about the Tuttle ETF and just how I'm not trying to give you guys financial advice. But um I'll stop there. But PowerPoint?
[GERB, 49:26] Mhm. Let's do it, Kerm. That's a great introduction.
[Kermit, 49:29] Alright. Excuse me as I take a sip of my comically huge water bottle.
[Slide, 49:34] [ INDEX ] | UNCLASSIFIED | Table of Contents | 01 | Audit 101 | Need to Know | SLIDES 03 - 08 | 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | SLIDES 09 - 15 | 03 | Historical Audits | Precedent & Context | SLIDES 16 - 21 | 04 | Napkin Math | KermDawg's Estimates | SLIDES 22 - 26 | 05 | Initial Thoughts | Questions & Outlook | SLIDES 27 - 32 | 06 | Thank You | Closing | SLIDE 33
[Kermit, 49:34] So, like I said, we're just going to I'm going to try to show you guys my napkin math, and if you guys agree or disagree with me in the comments, sound off. You you know who I am on on X, so you know where to find me. But we'll start off, we'll cover some stuff in audit that I think you guys need to know, um boiling down years of of audit ball knowledge into a couple of slides for non-auditors. It'll be okay, I'll hold your hand through it. And then we'll talk about the legacy program...
[Slide, 50:00] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ INDEX ] | Table of Contents | 01 | Audit 101 | Need to Know | SLIDES 03 - 08 | 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | SLIDES 09 - 15 | 03 | Historical Audits | Precedent & Context | SLIDES 16 - 21 | 04 | Napkin Math | KermDawg's Estimates | SLIDES 22 - 26 | 05 | Initial Thoughts | Questions & Outlook | SLIDES 27 - 32 | 06 | Thank You | Closing | SLIDE 33 | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 02 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[Kermit, 50:00] y more interesting stuff for our group. We'll talk about historical audits, which we'll talk about private audits, and government audits as well. So, publicly traded companies, agencies, you name it, the DOD, stuff that's going on currently. Then we'll get into the napkin math, that's where I try to estimate how much this all costs, then we'll wrap up with some kind of questions and kind of where do we go from here.
[Slide, 50:22] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | SECTION 01 | Audit 101 | Need to Know | Foundational concepts before we get into it. | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 03 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[Kermit, 50:23] Okay, so, what do we need to know? So, audit, what is audit? You've probably asked this multiple times if you've read my X posts and I start yapping about audit stuff. Audit's a very general term, basically just means like a examination or review of something, but there's different types of audits. So the context that I'm talking about is the financial context, which again, it's just a, you know, it's an examination, it's a review, but it's typically over more specific financial information, duh. So that can include things like banks, bank, you know, bank accounts, investment accounts, accounting records, corporate records, I deal with a lot of this stuff day-to-day, tax filings, too. Um, there's also tax audits, which I cover here. So you may have heard about these types of audits. Um, so real quick on the tax audits, we are not talking about that. If you've ever dealt with the IRS before, I am so sorry for you. Actually, funny enough, some folks that we have talked to, Gerb and I have talked to, like, some of the tactics that they use is to get the IRS to come out and intimidate you. Happens, it's a very unfortunate thing, but, they are not nice people.
[Slide, 50:25] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ DEFINITION ] | What is an audit? | NOUN | A methodical examination and review. | Plain English. Can still mean many different things. | FINANCIAL CONTEXT | An official inspection of an individual's or organization's accounts, typically by an independent body. | ACCOUNTS INCLUDE | Banking | Investments | Accounting records | Tax filings, etc. | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 04 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[Slide, 51:03] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ TAXONOMY ] | General Types of Audits IRL | TYPE 01 | Corporate Audits | Financials reviewed by independent accounting firm | Firm issues legal opinion - the "audit report" | Standard practice for public companies | TYPE 02 | IRS / Tax Audits | Scrutinizes individual or corporate tax returns | Backed by enforcement authority (the IRS) | Financial penalties - and jail time | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 05 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[GERB, 51:29] So, you breathe heavy there.
[Kermit, 51:31] Yeah, because that happened to Mark McCandlish, he spoke about that before his passing. That also happened to Jonathan Weygandt early in the 2000s, and he doesn't, he doesn't like to talk about that too much just because that was a terrible time for him, but he, there were IRS elements that, that went after Jonathan Weygandt in the early 2000s. Yeah, it's never, it's never fun and like the IRS people are like, they are, how do I say this politely? They are some of the most gumshoe accountant folk I think I've ever met, like types of people that bring like smelly fish into, into lunch and then they microwave it and then it smells the whole office. Yeah, that's their whole office in Virginia. Um, but we're not talking about them, we're not talking about tax audits. Um, we'll be talking about corporate audits, which is a little bit more interesting and, dare I say, it's sexier, but nothing sexy about audit. Um, typically these are done by independent accounting firms, so these are like Deloitte, PwC, KPMG, Ernst & Young. Um, these are large companies where all they basically do is audit the books of other large companies and they make money off of it. And at the end of it, they audit the books and at the end of the year, when the company submits their financials, typically they'll have to get audited every year if they want to be traded on a stock exchange, like that's, that's a requirement in the laws of this country. Um, so in order to do that, they need to have something called an audit report or an audit opinion as part of those financials. And those are all publicly available. If it's a publicly traded company, the, the financials are publicly available.
[Slide, 52:55] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ OBJECTIVES ] | Purpose of a corporate audit | Provide "reasonable assurance" over something. | 01 | ASSURANCE | Financial statements | 02 | REVIEW | Management's representations (claims) | 03 | ATTESTATION | Specific information | CHALLENGES IN REVIEWING ALL DATA (LARGE ORGS) | Materiality — $ threshold dictates audit procedures and judgment. | Risk-based approach — assessed likelihoods (fraud, error) | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 06 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[Kermit, 52:57] All right, real quick. With audits, just understand this concept, it doesn't... an audit does not look at everything. All it does is it looks at enough of the things so that a smart person or a reasonable second party can say, "I agree with this, I agree with their basis and I'm comfortable with it, too." Because here's the thing, if you think about auditing like Lockheed Martin, for example, Lockheed Martin is a multi-billion dollar company, it's impossible to audit every single thing or look at every single transaction that comes in and out of that company, right? For example, like the legacy program, right? Like, they have some off-books activities, but the thing is, Lockheed Martin is audited by Ernst & Young, and Ernst & Young has only so many people on their team and only so much time. Also, auditing the legacy program activity isn't really going to help their financials because the legacy program activity isn't even on the financials. So like, the investors don't care about that stuff. So instead, what EY focuses all their time and attention during the year is on the stuff that's being reported to investors, and it's only the stuff that's like basically like, if it's a higher dollar amount or if it's a bigger part of the business, EY cares more about it. Vice versa, if it's something that's like smaller dollar or we don't really care, then they're not going to look at it. But the goal of it is like, okay, Lockheed Martin's a giant company, how do we get comfort over the fact that they're not making stuff up? So they kind of divide and conquer, if you will. Like, they kind of divide and conquer their attention on certain things, and they focus things on what they think is the highest risk. That's what this slide is kind of all about.
[Slide, 54:35] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ DEEPER CUTS ] | Ball Knowledge | AUDITS & FRAUD | Audits are NOT designed to catch all fraud — but they are designed with fraud risks in mind. | Risk assessment | Incentives, pressures, opportunities. | Mitigated by internal controls | Business processes that catch or prevent problems before they grow. | MISSTATEMENT | Amount differs from other evidence. | Immaterial = it might be a problem | Immaterial + Immaterial = Material | Example: SAIC 2018 | Immaterial restatement required after re-evaluation. | Unless it's Fraud | Then yes, even immaterial | KERNELDAWG // STUDY OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 07 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | GERB | Kermit | kermitdawg1
[Kermit, 54:36] All right, hopefully that is, um, crazy enough for you, because this is even crazier. So when you think about audits, you might think, "Oh, well, this is like, this is about catching fraud, right?" Wrong. So audits, here's a funny story, most frauds are not identified through audits. Actually, most, most frauds are identified through internal whistleblowers, which is a great plug for me to say we need to have more whistleblower protections, we need to care and advocate for whistleblowers more, because even in corporate fraud cases, they are a huge reason why stuff like Enron gets found out, or stuff like WorldCom, etc., is because people use the hotline because they are trying to do the right thing. Um, but with that said, when you're designing an audit every year, you basically think about where it is possible that fraud can be perpetrated, and then you design the tests for that. But it's impossible to know all possible fraud schemes, because for example, if you've been at a company for 40 years, you probably know better how to hide certain things or how to cover up things better than maybe your boss does, better than maybe your accountants or your auditors do either, and that does potentially happen. And if you're the auditor, you wouldn't be aware of that stuff. So you just design for what you can design for, and then ultimately like, the audit will get reviewed, and if someone higher up doesn't agree with it, then you'll get in trouble, but hey, that's, that's why this industry is super fun. Um, also last thing, I wanted to talk about misstatement real quick. Um, if we ever get to like, a legacy program audit, if we ever start like, looking at companies for, uh, this type of work, you may hopefully hear this term. Uh, misstatement basically means like, the number is different from another amount of evidence. So if I tell Gerb I have $800, but Gerb checks my Venmo and I only have $100 because I'm broke, then that would be a misstatement of $700 because what I told him is $700 different than what he's seeing. Um, now, I'm not really going to cover materiality because it's not like, it's not really important to our discussion, but, quick call out to SAIC's 2018 financials. If you're looking for very niche accounting like, audit scenarios, look at this public filing. What had happened was, there was a, the sum of all the immaterial misstatements on SAIC's financials equaled a material misstatement, and so then they had to correct the financials with an immaterial restatement on their financials. You follow me here? Does your brain hurt? It's okay because SAIC fired their auditors after this audit, so it's all good.
[GERB, 57:10] Kerm, let me ask you this as well. So, there are, are some specific US government services and agencies that do a voluntary self-audit. Uh, the National Reconnaissance Office is one of these agencies. The NRO every year, they don't undergo mandatory audits because they audit themselves. So, they, if you look up NRO audit, you'll see hilarious, like, pats on the back, self-congratulations from the NRO. So, could self-auditing be used by a service or agency like the NRO to really kind of get crafty with hiding financials? It's basically a situation, "Hey, we investigated ourselves and found out we did nothing wrong." How can that benefit sort of, uh, hiding legacy program funding? Because the NRO specifically has quite a, a big pot of legacy funds.
[Kermit, 57:58] Yeah, I mean, it could certainly, it could open up the opportunity, right? So when we think, when like, if you're a financial, if you're like, a forensic accountant, you think about fraud risks as like three kind of areas, like a triangle: incentives, pressures, opportunity. That, in of itself, like with the self-audits, it opens up the opportunity for NRO to run those activities and ensure that groups above and below them are none the wiser. It would create that opportunity. Now, is that like, is it actually happening though? I guess that's kind of back to like, the whole like, question of the program's existence and like, program protection, how well they've been able to like, hide this stuff and just the, the mere fact of its existence, but, I mean, if those things do exist, and I would imagine that I think those self-audits exist largely because their contracts are so sensitive that they can't have external auditors like, touching their stuff at all. Especially with like, how like, they contract, because it's a lot of like, very sensitive, you know, satellite contracting, very sensitive technical work, so typically like, on, and I'll cover this later on in the slides, but when you're auditing a company that has classified information or classified contracts, you basically need to treat that classified, classified information or that component as a separate part of the audit, and then you outsource the work done on that audit to auditors that have clearance. But the auditors that have clearance aren't trading back that information, they're only reporting like, the top-line figures, because like, that's really what you need for the audit is like, okay, well this number's right, it agrees to their balance sheet, so we're good, financials are good to send to the, um, to the partners. So, yeah.
[GERB, 59:36] Yeah, uh, Lockheed, before it became Lockheed Martin in 1986, got pretty heavily busted on, on the audit front for having extremely poor document control over classified documents at their, classified documents, uh, control stations throughout Burbank, California. They got in huge trouble for having, I think it was two to 300 misreported documents out of a suite of about a thousand, where numerous documents had been destroyed. So, there...
[Slide, 1:00:00] UNCLASSIFIED | [ DEEPER CUTS ] | UAP GERB | Ball Knowledge | AUDITS & FRAUD | Audits are NOT designed to catch all fraud — but they are designed with fraud risks in mind. | Risk assessment | Incentives, pressures, opportunities. | Mitigated by internal controls | Business processes that catch or prevent problems before they grow. | MISSTATEMENT | Amount differs from other evidence. | Immaterial = it might be a problem | Immaterial + Immaterial = Material | Example: SAIC 2018 | Immaterial restatement required after re-evaluation. | Unless it's fraud | Then yes, even immaterial | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 07 / 22 | UNCLASSIFIED
[GERB, 1:00:00] was huge scandal that befell Lockheed there, before it became Lockheed Martin.
[Kermit, 1:00:04] And just to clarify real quick on that specific audit. So, so, that was done by the, the Government Accountability Office, if I'm not mistaken.
[GERB, 1:00:10] Yep. That was GAO.
[Kermit, 1:00:11] And they can do what are called like ad hoc, agreed-upon procedures, like attestation audits, where they'll do stuff like that. Now, it's not like they're checking like financial information. They're looking at document controls. They're checking physical security controls. It's a different type of audit, it's not so much looking at like, oh, we spent 900 billion dollars on this program, but it's like making sure that they're doing their jobs appropriately and like, in line with, you know, regulation. But, just to clarify.
[Kermit, 1:00:37] All right, shall we move on to the next slide, per chance?
[GERB, 1:00:39] Yes.
[Kermit, 1:00:40] All right.
[Slide, 1:00:41] UNCLASSIFIED | [ EVIDENCE ] | UAP GERB | "Trust But Verify" | SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE | Provides a point of fact for an assertion — a claim like "Cash is fairly stated." | BANK EVIDENCE - STRENGTH GRADIENT | Bank confirmation | STRONGEST | Bank reconciliation | MEDIUM | Bank statement | WEAKEST | TYPES OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE | 01 Reperformance | 02 Inspection / Observation | 03 Inquiry | 04 Confirmations | 05 Analytical Procedures | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 08 / 22 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Kermit, 1:00:41] So, that's, uh, all we should talk about there. All right.
[Kermit, 1:00:45] End of the day, show me evidence. So, with, uh, with audits, the whole point of like proving stuff in an audit is by providing substantive evidence, and it provides a point of fact of an assertion — or a claim. That's what assertion is. Um, so, for example, "Cash is fairly stated." Um, there's a couple of different ways you can verify how much cash is in, you know, a company's possession. Uh, this is kind of not perfect, but like the weakest being the bank statement, the strongest being the bank confirmation, purely because the confirmation comes from an outside party, it comes from the bank itself. So, anytime that information comes from like a third party, or an outside party, it's considered more trustworthy. Uh, and then types of substantive evidence, um, inspection is just like looking at documents. Uh, inquiry, real quick, inquiry alone is not sufficient evidence. So, inquiry alone, like if you're trying to say like, okay, it's a thousand dollars, you can't just ask the CFO, and the CFO says it's a thousand dollars, and then you can give them a thumbs up. That is not at all what the audit guidance allows you to do whatsoever, legally speaking. You have to take it back to either some type of document, some type of confirmation, or an additional procedure that is different than the inquiry itself. Um, which, I think that's important just to say, especially in this community where a lot of I think the drama and the news just comes from, "I heard from someone," or "he said she said," and it's like, look, bro, inquiry alone is not sufficient audit evidence. Like, show me a document, show me a Signal message, show me fucking something, cuz I'm not just going to take your word for it. And pardon my French. Um, it's been a fun Monday.
[Kermit, 1:02:28] All right. I think that's all I have on this slide. Do we have any questions from the chat, or, Gerb, do you have anything you want to talk about?
[GERB, 1:02:32] Nope.
[Kermit, 1:02:34] Cool.
[Kermit, 1:02:35] Gerb, in terms of evidence that you have seen in your, uh, journey down, or up, this marvelous, marvelous train, um, what would you say is like the best substantive evidence that you have seen to date?
[Kermit, 1:02:48] Of...
[GERB, 1:02:49] Public or, public or private?
[Kermit, 1:02:52] In general, and if it's private and you don't want to reveal specifics, you can talk in generalities, and I think that's okay.
[GERB, 1:02:58] It's private stuff but I have, uh, been privy to, you know, documents and, and imagery that I, has bolstered what extremely high confidence I already had in, in what I talk about.
[Kermit, 1:03:14] With the, was it imagery?
[GERB, 1:03:18] The imagery with some of it.
[Kermit, 1:03:20] With the imagery, were you aware of what like the image showed before you saw it, or was it the first time you seeing it when you were shown it?
[GERB, 1:03:29] First time seeing it.
[Kermit, 1:03:31] Okay, interesting. I just, I don't know, I, I had no reason for asking, I just...
[GERB, 1:03:35] But, but also just, you know, th- this is a, a story for someday, but also some of the lengths I've gone to to speak with, um, individuals who have brushed in or, or been involved in the legacy apparatus at some point. So, that's a story for another day when I can tell that, the lengths I've had to go through, but it's, it's incredible. I'm, I've done some really fun stuff in my opinion to, to all, to, to, to, uh, kind of speak to people.
[GERB, 1:04:03] Publicly, in terms of publicly accessible evidence, I, I, again, I talk about this all the time, a lot of my work is, is open source. So, I would, I, what I really strongly recommend doing is listening back to a lot of David Grusch's old interviews. Um, to this day, I think new information can be parsed from his Joe Rogan Experience episode, his Megyn Kelly interview. I think a lot of what he said is almost prophetic in the point where he'll say something and then, uh, months or years down the line it becomes extremely pertinent. You know, on Megyn Kelly, for example, he was talking about, uh, James Clapper and so forth. Fast forward a little bit, the conversation has been around Clapper, Stephanie O'Sullivan, and so forth. So, in terms of putting together kind of your own, uh, narrative and understanding this topic, really recommend, uh, just kind of listening back to some of that old stuff.
[Kermit, 1:04:50] Yeah. I at least have watched, uh, his Judicial Watch podcast like, I think, four times at this point.
[Kermit, 1:04:54] Cuz he's, I mean he's, he even said stuff about like, like Catholicism too, like we even talked about it on the last livestream. Like, I thought the way that he actually said it, and even in talking to some people, you know, within the church that I know as well, it's like, dude, he's like speaking facts. Like he, he knows ball. But, hey, that's evidence, in Grusch we trust, right? Hey, shout out in Grusch we trust in the chat, I saw it.
[Slide, 1:04:55] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | SECTION 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | The thing nobody can officially talk about. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[GERB, 1:05:16] Oh, his memes are fantastic. There's a, there's a reason why, uh, Dave Grusch was such a highly respected and accomplished senior intelligence official for the NGA, uh, major in the Air Force. There's a reason why this guy was held in such high regard with what he did, um...
[Slide, 1:05:19] UNCLASSIFIED | [ EVIDENCE ] | UAP GERB | "Trust But Verify" | SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE | Provides a point of fact for an assertion — a claim like "Cash is fairly stated." | BANK EVIDENCE - STRENGTH GRADIENT | Bank confirmation | STRONGEST | Bank reconciliation | MEDIUM | Bank statement | WEAKEST | TYPES OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE | 01 Reperformance | 02 Inspection / Observation | 03 Inquiry | 04 Confirmations | 05 Analytical Procedures | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 08 / 22 | UNCLASSIFIED
[GERB, 1:05:33] He's extremely respected by anybody that's ever worked with him or, or brushed up against him.
[Kermit, 1:05:39] In Grusch we trust, I say again.
[Slide, 1:05:41] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | SECTION 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | The thing nobody can officially talk about. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Kermit, 1:05:42] All right, now we are done with audit.
[GERB, 1:05:45] Okay, legacy program section. I'm, I'm excited to see what you have here.
[Kermit, 1:05:48] Ladies and gentlemen, y'all have gotten through like three years of accounting coursework in four slides. Isn't that impressive? All right.
[GERB, 1:05:54] Well, before you get into that, BushBato says, "I hope I do a Wilson-Davis Memo redux or expansion." You know, one of the, I'm sorry to, to take this, Kerm, I just want to say this for one second. Recently Chris Ramsey did a, a foray into the, the Zodiac documents. You'll see behind me the UFO Magazine issue with, with the Zodiac story in it. I floated the idea to Chris, maybe we'll do it one day, but where Chris and I sit down and actually talk about the Wilson Davis notes, and, and converse about that, because that'd be really fun. I, I know the Wilson Davis notes like the back of my hand, probably better than some of my own family members, so I would love to do that. But, back to the PowerPoint, Kerm.
[Kermit, 1:06:32] Yeah. And just real quick on the Wilson Davis notes, shameless plug, Strange Lights Studios did a reenactment of the Wilson Davis notes, and it's good. Go check it out, it's on YouTube. They did a very good job acting it. I thought the scene where like Thomas Wilson goes in and he's sitting with all the corporate gatekeepers. Yeah. And I actually met them in the line in DC when we went to the first hearing. Remember that?
[GERB, 1:06:53] Yes, yes, and, uh, one of the most important things about the Wilson Davis notes, of course, is, uh, that Admiral Thomas Wilson told Eric Davis, allegedly according to the notes, that the
[Slide, 1:06:54] TOP SECRET // SAR-JOHN FORK // NOFORN | UAP GERB | Thank You | Questions? Yelling? Leave it in the comments. | CONTACT | KermDawg ENT | @KermDawgENT | Audit of US Legacy Program | June 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:06:55] UNCLASSIFIED | [ PROGRESS ] | UAP GERB | Bright Side | "We've never been here before." | STAFF | ACTIVE | Grusch -> Rep. Burlison | Assisting Federal Secrets Task Force. | HEARINGS | 2022 -> | Sustained UAP hearings on the Hill. | RELEASE | 2026 | PURSUE — DoD UAP Files | Active document releases. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:06:56] TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // NOFORN | [ ASSUMPTIONS ] | UAP GERB | Key Assumptions | STEP 1 | STARTING POINT | $102T | LTD "misstatement" — even | STEP 2 | MINUS WASTE | $51T | Half written off as ordinary waste | STEP 3 | AFTER COG RETENTION | $30.6T | Gov't capital-retained LTD | STEP 4 | PRIVATE MARKET ADD | +$15T | Public co. IR&D ($250B/yr * LTD) | NOTE | Not all of it is fraud / legacy / aliens. Remaining capital approached as money-laundering equivalent (cover programs, leftover funds, kickbacks, etc.). Private individual research — "random billionaires" — hard to quantify, excluded. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:06:57] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | [ PRIVATE SECTOR ] | UAP GERB | Corporate / Private Audits | PUBLIC | Large, Publicly-Traded | Defense companies that trade on public exchanges. | - Required to perform annual independent audits | - Financial statements are made public | - Stricter disclosure regime | PRIVATE | Smaller, Privately-Held | Privately-owned defense contractors and subs. | - Audits for fiduciary requirements (loans, equity, etc.) | - Financial statements made public at company's discretion | - Less external visibility into operations | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:06:58] UNCLASSIFIED | SECTION 03 | Historical Audits | What we already know about auditing the defense apparatus. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:06:59] UNCLASSIFIED | SECTION 01 | Audit 101 | Need to Know | Foundational concepts before we get into it. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:07:00] UNCLASSIFIED | [ DEEPER CUTS ] | UAP GERB | Ball Knowledge | AUDITS & FRAUD | Audits are NOT designed to catch all fraud — but they are designed with fraud risks in mind. | Risk assessment | Incentives, pressures, opportunities. | Mitigated by internal controls | Business processes that catch or prevent problems before they grow. | MISSTATEMENT | Amount differs from other evidence. | Immaterial = it might be a problem | Immaterial + Immaterial = Material | Example: SAIC 2018 | Immaterial restatement required after re-evaluation. | Unless it's fraud | Then yes, even immaterial | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | PG 07 / 22 | UNCLASSIFIED
[Slide, 1:07:01] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | SECTION 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | The thing nobody can officially talk about. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 | UNCLASSIFIED
[GERB, 1:07:01] UAP legacy program records within the OUSAT, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, now known as Acquisition and Sustainment at the time, had zero budget information. I talked about it in my last video.
[GERB, 1:07:15] Kerm, that is one of the most important parts of that entire document package that speaks to the validity of the documents in my opinion, because, for most decades, the legacy program apparatus, and, I know you have it in here, so, I'm sorry, I'll shut up about this after two sentences, but, has been held within the National Security Council umbrella, on oversight umbrella on covert activities. This goes all the way back to 1948 with NSC 10/2 under Truman, where, you know, you might think the Majestic 12 was founded at the time.
[GERB, 1:07:45] But over the time, as, as special access programs have been reformed, oversight has been expanded or contracted, there has been a budgetary tier slash administrative designation called content-only that has been slapped onto a lot of the National Security Council White House SAPs of, of legacy programs. These are used pretty heavily in continuity of government COG SAPs, but content-only SAPs again is a budgetary tier, administrative designation, where the SAP contains critical program information, CPI, only and does not have any associated budget, or the budget is rolled under standard DoD or IC budgets.
[GERB, 1:08:22] And that's just part of the SAP umbrella. SAPs exist in umbrella like tiered hierarchy, so you could have a content-only SAP with actual actionable acquisition, intelligence operation, and support SAPs under it, but the actual content-only SAP, because it has no budgetary requirements, it has no budgetary information, and contains only critical program information, all reporting requirements are waived for that SAP. Not even Gang of Four, Gang of Eight. There are just zero budgetary requirements for a content-only SAP. That's a little piece of, uh, extremely niche knowledge of how these specific SAP ecosystem is used for kind of some high level National Security Council stuff.
[GERB, 1:09:01] And, and, and that sort of creates a, a mix between SAP that exist between covert action programs, uh, 50 U.S. Code 3093, and 10 U.S. Code 119 for DoD special access programs. It exists in a gray area between Title 10 and Title 50. I'm sorry, Kerm, let's, let's get back to the PowerPoint.
[Kermit, 1:09:17] No. I, yeah, well, I, I rewatched, uh, Special Access Required today a little bit during work, and the content-only SAP, like, that, that is such an interesting concept. And then, like, to the way you describe it, it's like, having it structured at the highest level as a content-only SAP, it's like it returns it as like a null in the system. Of like whoever is like looking up all the SAPs and they're looking up the covert codes, and it's like, "Oh, well, there's nothing in this one, so I guess there's nothing here." But if they, you know, hadn't clicked on it, or if they were even able to click into it, it's like, "Oh, shit. That's the program." So, even with the SAPs, there's no central repository for historical SAP records, and that's true outside of legacy stuff. So, there's no like data bank, like a Fort Knox, with all SAP records.
[Slide, 1:10:00] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP | GERB | GERB | Kermit | handsomewilson | SECTION 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | The thing nobody can officially talk about. | STANDARD SOP // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // pg 09 / 77
[GERB, 1:10:00] A lot of the old special access programs, you know, before the term SAP was officially used back in the days of Nixon, back in the days of Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter, when kind of ad hoc security practices were used, the Wild Wild West days. There's no centralized repository for SAPs. And that's really concerning. And, you know, SAPs come in three protection levels: acknowledged, unacknowledged, and waived. Once you get to the waived tier, or even when you get to the unacknowledged tier, the actual budget for the SAP is, is hidden or classified, and only relevant congressional committees or the Gang of Eight is actually privy to the, the SAP, the read-on to the SAP and the SAP's budget. So, you can hide SAPs really well with just waived unacknowledged SAPs, but you can also then put on some additional flavoring to it by making the SAP content only, by making the SAP a co- a non-covert action White House SAP, even by adding like NOFORN, not really spillable for foreign national, kind of the security monikers to it. So, it's, it's the same as having Top Secret clearance but adding SCI, Secure Compartmented Information, onto it, basically going above Top Secret. You can have SAPs, you can have your secret serious SAPs, but go even above and beyond those.
[Kermit, 1:11:07] Yeah, dang. Well, it's like... uh, it's like there's like eight different ways to Sunday that they figured out like how to hide and obfuscate this. And then I also saw a question in the chat, it's like, okay, well, yeah, if they're structuring this as like content-only White House SAPs, like, how is it even, how does it even audit apply to this? Like does this even apply? And it's, that's a, that's a good question. I, I talk about it later in the slide deck, but I think that there is a way of like kind of working backwards and kind of working with witnesses and whistleblowers. Cuz that is part of the like substantive evidence, like in, as I said, inquiry alone is not sufficient, but they know best of like kind of where the bodies are buried and how the octopus is structured, so to speak. So they should be able to work with like a, you know, duly appointed investigative body that is like, okay, well it's here, go here, I have the clearances, here's the document you're looking for, and then that helps kind of build out the file. But anyways. All right. Shall we get into the legacy program? We've been yapping so much...
[GERB, 1:12:05] Yes, we have. We have been yapping.
[Kermit, 1:12:06] We might as well just skip through this section because we've...
[GERB, 1:12:08] No, no, no, please, please, please, please. Okay, keep going.
[Kermit, 1:12:10] Okay.
[Slide, 1:12:11] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP | GERB | GERB | Kermit | handsomewilson | [ DEFINITION ] | What is the "Legacy Program"? | A series of waived & unacknowledged Special Access Programs addressing non-human technology and biologics. | Government cannot officially acknowledge their existence // Crystallized 1954 under the Atomic Energy Act | DOCUMENTED CORE | FACILITIES | Facilities | Underground, undersea, off-world. | PROTECT | Program Protection | Counterintel ops. Witness intimidation. | RE | Reverse Engineering | USG facilities & FFRDC-led work. | RECOVERY | Recovery Teams | International presence. Crash retrieval. | STANDARD SOP // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // pg 10 / 77
[Kermit, 1:12:12] Okay. All right. First off, I think this is a good slide to have because I do see this question a lot about like, what is the legacy program? What are we talking about? And here's my working definition. Actually, shout out Red Panda Koala on X because he kind of asked this question, and I leaked him my slide deck just to answer his question. Kind of reminds me of that 19-year-old kid that leaked Top Secret information onto a Discord to prove he was right in a Discord argument. Shout out Jake Teixeira. Ruining it for everyone else. Anyways, but with the legacy program, uh, we're talking about a series of waived & unacknowledged Special Access Programs addressing non-human technology and biologics. Non-human technologies plural, non-human biologics plural. I talked about this a little bit last last livestream where I kind of see this as like different silos where you have like known intelligences all kind of working in a vertically integrated structure where you have like retrieval, communications, exploitation, the, you know, T&E, all the other management, disinfo stuff. But those are all siloed based on like the different, you know, beings, biologics, whatever you want to call it. In terms of...
[GERB, 1:13:17] It's, it's more so what element of the Armed Forces or intelligence community actually has purview over those materials. A, a really good example of that is actually the founding of MITRE. When MITRE was founded in 1958, it was kind of a huge tug of war between the Army, Air Force, and Navy, all terrified to lose control over their air, sea defense systems. So, even back to 1958, there's this sort of us versus them tribalist mentality of, we want to keep our stuff and, you know, initially the, the legacy program is a, a unified national effort under National Security Council oversight on, on covert activities, but sort of that tribalism, and as we saw special access program reforms continue on during the Cold War, that really broke apart. I'm sorry, I, I just, I had to say that because I just find that it's so interesting.
[Kermit, 1:14:03] Yeah. Well, um, I guess real quick on the documented core. So, these kind of four sections, I would say, of all the different kind of areas of like legacy that I think are the most uh, they, they are the most substantiated by the evidence as it stands right now. I would say, facilities is one of them. We know about certain locations, we've even covered some locations here on this channel that have not been talked about before. NSWC Crane, fun times. Um, so yeah, that's facilities. Uh, we also got program protection. Uh, that's been talked about quite a little bit. I'm not going to expand on that, uh, but interesting stuff. There's a paper trail there. Uh, also reverse engineering, uh, this isn't really a call out to Bob Lazar, but there are other kind of witnesses. We've even talked about Edgar Fouche and that whole TR-3B lore, which I'm a huge uh, nerd for. Uh, I have the TR-3B behind me on the counter. Uh, and then last but not least, recovery teams, which I know, GERB, this is your bread and butter looking at crash retrievals, um, but looking at kind of the international presence and all the different groups on the ground, there is a paper trail, there are documented cases, there are things we can kind of go back to and look at for that.
[GERB, 1:15:15] On that point of recovery teams, I see a lot of people in the modern day talking about, hey, these rapid reaction units, if a UFO crashes somewhere else outside the continental United States, how does the US get there before anyone else does? You have to remember the United States has over 1,000 military bases worldwide, uh, and rapid recovery units in, in, in terms of prosaic stuff is, is extremely common. I talk about this a lot, but the Deep Submergence Systems Project and its DRV, DSRV, Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle, Mystic and Avalon, made by Lockheed Martin, these were essentially submersibles to rescue stranded submarines, and these were could report anywhere on the planet in under 72 hours. So, rapid reaction units, even from station within the United States, is a very feasible and very tangible thing. Sorry, I just wanted to interject with that, Kerm.
[Kermit, 1:16:02] Yeah. Well, I'm also sure that that specific effort, like the submergence recovery vessel, that was probably uh, encouraged by what happened in Russia, cuz they lost a nuclear submarine. I think it was Kursk. And they lost it during an exercise, and it was very embarrassing cuz it was like, it's their flagship nuclear vessel, and loses power. It's a bunch of sailors trapped in the ocean. And they then tried to send out a uh, rescue vessel. And even Western, I think it was like the UK and Norway, they actually offered their own rescue vessel cuz they're like, hey, time's running out, their oxygen's limited. And the Russians were like, no, we got it. We'll, we're good. We'll handle it. We got our own stuff. And it failed, and all the Russian soldiers died. So I'm sure like after seeing the Russians like embarrass themselves like that and then losing their flagship vessel, it's like, you bet your ass America's going to have boots on the ground in 72 hours after we lose any of our submarines, God forbid, cuz like, we don't want, we don't want that thing on MSNBC. That would be awful.
[GERB, 1:16:56] And the funny thing about that, Kerm, is that was an afterthought. The DSRV and DSSV, Deep Submergence Search Vehicle, under the Deep Submergence Systems Project, DSSP, the DSSP was uh, initially and primarily founded to satisfy the whims of Sand Dollar. John Craven talks about this, but Sand Dollar was a compartmented covert program hidden under the Polaris program that was basically an itemized list of items on the sea floor across the globe that were of national security concerns. And so John Craven, who was the chief scientist for Navy Special Projects, outright said, hey, the DSSP to create these submersibles, DSRV and DSSV, was created to satisfy Sand Dollar. But, oh, we might as well create a DSRV which can mate with a stranded submarine and rescue uh, submariners as well. So I find that really interesting how Sand Dollar was almost the primary objective for DSSP.
[Kermit, 1:17:47] Interesting. Yeah. Well, Sand Dollar, like, when, whenever I think about Sand Dollar, I think about like all the, there's, there's a couple of like dirty nukes that are in the marshlands in like Georgia and South Carolina. And I have some friends and family that live not too far from there, and I'm like, yeah, we're just chilling at the beach and like, there's a, there's a dirty nuke from the '50s just chilling in the water. Nice. Fun conversation to, to have with family members, right? You, you can imagine I'm probably really fun with, with friends.
[Slide, 1:18:14] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP | GERB | GERB | Kermit | handsomewilson | [ ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS ] | Parts Unknown | Beyond the documented core — frontier/speculative areas. | SSP | Secret Space Program | Active ARVs fleet reported. Football-field-sized vehicles. | ENERGY | Energy Systems | Immense, potentially unlimited outputs. Craft & grid integration. | GATE | Gate / Psionics | Early-childhood ID programs. Psychic-trained operators. | ENGAGE | Engaging UAP | Communication protocols. Active efforts. | CLARIFICATION // IMCON | Not infrastructure — a tool. | A 2017 mechanism to cohort/index INTEL/JOINT data on craft. Not an all-source data repository for tracking & monitoring. | WHERE THE DATA ACTUALLY LIVES | FFRDCs hold the all-source records. | A FFRDC's archiving & monitoring is done physically inside FFRDCs, with the bulk of records kept with the USG sponsor. | STANDARD SOP // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // pg 11 / 77
[Kermit, 1:18:15] All right, so outside of the documented core, we have here Parts Unknown. These are sections that I think inquiry has kind of elaborated on. Um, I will say, at least in the case of Gate and Psionics, you can make the case that like, well, Stargate is acknowledged and there's a paper trail around that. Okay, sure. Um, I'm more so talking about like the current programs and stuff, but, um, this is some stuff. These are areas that like we've heard about, I think there is a paper trail for, but for complicated reasons I'm not really comfortable getting into, I just don't think that they are as substantive as like the documented core that I talked about previously.
[GERB, 1:18:54] Yeah, I, I, I think you make a good point, um, especially with like the secret space program stuff. You know, I, I have yet to see evidence of, of that. Energy systems, power and propulsion, a lot of that stuff's locked up deep within the Department of Energy, so that's going to be even more exceedingly difficult to crack than some of the National Security Council activities. Uh, I still think there's a lot of fog of war around the Gate/Psionics stuff like you've said, as well as uh, engaging UAP. So, I, I think there's definitely a, a kind of a difficulty accessing those sorts of subjects.
[Kermit, 1:19:27] Yeah. And I, and I will say like engaging UAP, you kind of hear that in the same vein as like the Gate and Psionics program cuz it's like, it seems like the implied motivation for these programs is to set up communication protocols. I mean, see Dan Sherman. Um, but I think there, I think there's a way of making sense of it of like, probably the engagement side is different than like maybe the recruitment side for the engagement. Like, thinking of Gate and the Psionics kind of silo as like the way that they can identify gifted and talented kids and then like work their way up through the military or through whatever jobs that they want them to have, until...
[Slide, 1:20:00] TOP SECRET // SAR - LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS ] | Parts Unknown | Beyond the documented core — frontier/speculative areas. | SSP | Secret Space Program | Active AFFs fleet reported. Football field-sized vehicles. | ENERGY | Energy Systems | Immense, potentially unlimited outputs. Craft & grid integration. | GATE | Gate / Psionics | Early-childhood ID programs. Psychic-trained operators. | ENGAGE | Engaging UAP | Communication protocols. Active contact frameworks. | CLARIFICATION // IMCON | Not infrastructure — a tool. | A 2017 mechanism to syphon NGA IMINT/SIGINT data on craft. Not an all-source data repository for tracking & monitoring. | WHERE THE DATA ACTUALLY LIVES | FFRDCs hold all-source records. | All-source tracking & monitoring is done physically inside FFRDCs, with the bulk of records kept with the USG sponsor. | SEMINAR ONE // AUDIT OF US SAFETY PROGRAMS // PAGE 10 / 12
[GERB, 1:20:00] ...to get to the point where they then can engage in the UAP on a separate program. Whatever, it's a weird kind of niche nerdy nuance, but I, I wanted to clarify that.
[Kermit, 1:20:08] I, I think you're spot on, and I thank you a lot for, uh, separating those, because I certainly have a strong ear for Dan Sherman and Above Top Secret. I have a very, very strong ear for...
[GERB, 1:20:16] Above Top Secret, that was a weekend I can never get back, but like, man, that was so fascinating. Someone sent me a free read of that and I was like, oh man, I need to read all of this. Um, fascinating stuff.
[Kermit, 1:20:28] Okay, keep going.
[GERB, 1:20:29] Okay. And then just real quick, so I just wanted to clarify real quick. So, IMCON, you can say, well hold on, why isn't like Immaculate Constellation part of the documented core or just on here in general? Uh, IMCON's more of a tool. Um, this is something that, you know, the paper trail suggests it was created in like late 2017, post Lue Elizondo and the New York Times, uh, but it is a mechanism, it's a data-siphoning mechanism, it's an AI tool that allows for these other programs to exist in plain sight, essentially, hidden in plain sight.
[Kermit, 1:21:02] I would, I would argue that IMCON was probably likely, uh, fleshed out and carved out in parallel, uh, to Lue Elizondo and his efforts at the time.
[GERB, 1:21:12] Interesting.
[Kermit, 1:21:13] I, I think it's clear that IMCON was likely a product of, of James Clapper, because this was a National Security Council USAP, so, uh, I do think there are, are parallels between the two. You know, I, I theorized before, I've, I've hypothesized, and actually, as, as a plug for the, dang, News Nation interview I did with Ross Coulthart, that's like...
[GERB, 1:21:34] Can't wait for that by the way.
[Kermit, 1:21:35] I really hope that's released soon, because it's two hours of, of pretty epic conversation, at least in my opinion, but I once again kind of explore the theory that, uh, Lue Elizondo might have been—I need to say allegedly because I don't want to get threatened with legal action again—but allegedly may have been read into, formally read into the Immaculate Constellation activity and then took some of that information to Tom DeLonge, who when he went on Joe Rogan in October of 2017, said that his best NRO advisor had told him about periodic visits. Uh, and of course, uh, Lue Elizondo was the liaison to the NRO for TTSA. And the Immaculate Constellation activity talks about sightings of foreknowledge of specifically Tic Tac craft.
[GERB, 1:22:16] Oh, int—that's so cre—that's so crazy how it all comes together, interesting. Huh.
[Kermit, 1:22:23] But I sure hope Ross...
[GERB, 1:22:24] Allegedly, yeah.
[Kermit, 1:22:25] ...and News Nation drop that interview soon. I know, I know Rob's been a saint and he's really been trying to, uh, get that out.
[GERB, 1:22:31] Well, he's probably working super hard on the supercut right now, which is why he's not on this livestream. But he was, he was hanging out in the green room with us, so I don't know what's going on.
[Kermit, 1:22:39] I know. Just, just to be candid, I did film that interview about three minutes after Ross filmed with Mike Gold. And that project with Mike Gold went out about a week and a half ago. So, I, I do hope that, that comes out soon. I, I really sure hope so. Uh, especially because there's some prescient, uh, discussion on that and I, I really don't want to lose track of the conversation about, uh, sort of Lue Elizondo getting thrust in a UAP Czar-esque role. Ross and I talked quite a bit about that, and I do, I, I do think that's time-sensitive, uh, discussion, I, I hope that...
[GERB, 1:23:10] Well, I think I speak for chat when I say that we are all dying to see when this comes out. So, and, and glad that it's a two-part special, too. We, we can't get enough of, uh, Gerb and Ross.
[Kermit, 1:23:20] Um, that's right, yeah. We, we heard from...
[GERB, 1:23:22] ...put it all together, it's like it's going to melt everyone's minds.
[Kermit, 1:23:24] ...Rob told me today that, uh, that the two-hour interview was getting broken up into two separate parts, so...
[Kermit, 1:23:31] ...I, I can't wait for that. But let's get to your last point on this slide, because I see my favorite, favorite word in the world.
[GERB, 1:23:37] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[GERB, 1:23:39] So, this is something that actually you put me on to, because in trying to understand this hierarchy, which I cover in another slide, I'm trying to understand like where all these different groups kind of fall into place. And when we're thinking about data, kind of on the same subject as IMCON as a tool for data segregation, all-source records, like if we're actually, if you're Congress, if you're looking to find like the secret sauce data, like where is, like where's all the good shit? The FFRDCs hold the all-source records. Um, so all the monitoring, the tracking, it's all done physically inside these FFRDCs, inside these different development activities. And then that is also how the records are kept basically outside of the US government, but because it's sponsored by the US government, they still technically have custodianship. But if you were to send a FOIA request to them, the Air Force can be like, 'Huh, I don't know what you're talking about, that's not our program.' But in reality, they're, you know, they're the key sponsor for an FFRDC and they're just not going to tell you because it, you know, it's not in their hands. So, interesting stuff. Do you have any comments on that, Kerm?
[Kermit, 1:24:44] No, I'm just, I'm so proud of the acronym. I, I love, I love hearing that.
[GERB, 1:24:47] I take notes, man. I try my best, I try.
[Kermit, 1:24:50] FFRDCs are really the missing link and the golden goose here, kind of what...
[GERB, 1:24:55] That's why we're on the Parts Unknown slide.
[Kermit, 1:24:57] Well, you got to think about why FFRDCs were created. The, the actual concept for FFRDCs, even though some of these had, uh, existed before World War II, such as the Ernest, uh, Livermore, or Ernest Lawrence, yeah, the Lawrence Ernest Lawrence Lab for, for Radiation. But, but the, the actual idea for what became FCRCs, as the precursor to FFRDCs, was the government need to have a trusted, uh, R&D partner for projects that the US government, federal government could not accomplish in-house, and needed a high-trust partner and specialized scientific think tanks, uh, to vest trust to accomplish some of the most, uh, national security imperative, national programs for the United States. Uh, thus we see the RAND Corporation established, MIT Lincoln Labs is established, the DOE NNSA National Labs established, the Center for Naval Analyses, the IDA, uh, and so forth. Of course, the most consequential, in my opinion, would of course be the National Labs: uh, Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore, and the Aerospace Corporation and Mitre.
[GERB, 1:25:59] Especially Mitre.
[Kermit, 1:26:00] Especially Mitre.
[GERB, 1:26:02] Yeah, well, um, I'm, you, you've harped on Mitre quite a bit in your, in your previous, uh, videos and also our interactions as well. So, I can, I can appreciate that they're a big dog.
[Kermit, 1:26:13] Yeah, and, and even out—some of the concept behind FFRDCs, even extends outside of them: GOCOs, Government-Owned Contractor-Operated. Uh, an example of this is one of the most infamous things in all of UFO lore: Air Force Plant 42. Air Force Plant 42 is a super, super, super specialized RDT&E facility that access is granted by three contractors into Air Force Plant 42: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. And the site is, the site is overseen by Edwards 412th Test Wing, um, an Air Force major range and test facility base. Only these three specific contractors get access to Air Force Plant 42, and I do have knowledge of specific, uh, exploited or derivative vehicle airframes being driven up, being driven up from Air Force Plant 42 up to Edwards 412th Test Range into specialized hangars for EM testing and other test and evaluation protocols. So, physically driven up on, on lowboy trailers.
[GERB, 1:27:12] On lowboy trailers. Are they doing this in the dead of the night or like in the middle of the day? Also, are they moving like traffic lights? Because like, how does a flying saucer clear the 12-foot, like, standard state regulation for the traffic lights?
[Kermit, 1:27:24] Well, this may not just be for a flying saucer, this might be, um, small unmanned orbs that can do, i—extremely intricate, uh, almost physics-defying acceleration and deceleration, or Tic Tac-esque vehicles, or other stuff. Um, but there's also a whole underground, uh, infrastructure network within that region, and you don't just have to take that from me. In 1963, the US Army Corps of Engineers did an investigation into deep basing sites across the US to build hardened military facilities underground. One of the biggest installations of 12 across the continental United States was in Inyo County, California. Guess what, uh, guess what resides above that county, uh, above that giant cavern? Well, that's China Lake. Guess where China Lake is. Extremely close to, in proximity, Edwards 412th Test Wing and that whole sort of, uh, Antelope Valley ecosystem.
[Kermit, 1:28:14] Anyways, let's get to the next slide, Gerb. I, I'm sorry, you say FFRDCs we're going to keep going about it.
[GERB, 1:28:19] It's like, it's like, it's like your Manchurian Candidate signal word, you just say it and you just like, you activate.
[Slide, 1:28:24] TOP SECRET // SAR - LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ STRUCTURE ] | Org Structure | Modern flat hierarchy — no single top. Remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, type beat | Watch Committee | LOOSE COUNCIL & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE // NOT "MJ-12" OR "MAJ-12" | PEER-LEVEL ELEMENTS // NO SINGLE TOP | NSC | Just one element in the flat hierarchy. | DoD SPONSORS | Rotating administrative program leads. | IC SPONSORS | Rotating administrative program leads. | PROXIMITY TO THE ACTUAL WORK // CORE — EXCLUDED | CORE | FFRDCs | PRIMARY CUSTODIANS | Where the actual work happens: Aerospace Corp, MITRE, etc. | SECONDARY | DIB Primes | Less involved than FFRDCs — sponsor their own private "breakaway" projects. | PERIPHERAL | Access Points | PASSES ONLY | Staffers & politicians read-in to limited extent. | SEMINAR ONE // AUDIT OF US SAFETY PROGRAMS // PAGE 11 / 12
[GERB, 1:28:25] All right. Yeah, hopefully, hopefully this, may, this Manchurian Candidate activate you as well. Um, let's look at the org structure of the legacy program. Um, so, remnants of the Holy Roman Empire type beat. Gerb talks about this in Special Access Required. Basically what had happened was, um, the last like mob boss, if you will, in the programs was Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney, when he left office in 2009, for whatever reason decided not to read in the incoming Obama administration, and at that point in time, the legacy program lost kind of the head of the horse. It lost the, the, the mob boss, if you will, and what has existed since then is kind of a flat hierarchy structure, where you have kind of a rule by committee. No one has any sort of like ultimate authority. No one knows anything more than the other person. It's very siloed, and it's organized kind of as a committee. Not to continue harping on that. But top of it of course you have the committee, not to say that word six times, uh, but you have the watch committee. This is the, uh, this is the 5412 level, right? This is like the national security kind of level, executive...
[Kermit, 1:29:32] ...five people kind of, sort of.
[GERB, 1:29:34] Kind of, sort of.
[Kermit, 1:29:35] Kind of. So, 1948 with NSC 10/2, that designated, uh, the UFO control group, what you could call MJ-12 at the time, under National Security Council committee on covert actions. That continued on, continued on into the 5412 committee, 303 committee under Nixon, kind of, morphed and broke apart over the Special Access Program changes and reforms, especially during the, uh, Yellow Fruit and Iran-Contra.
[Slide, 1:30:00] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | [ STRUCTURE ] | Org Structure | Modern flat hierarchy — no single top. Remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, type beat | Watch Committee | LOOSE COUNCIL & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE // NOT 'MJ-12' OR 'MAJ-12' | PEER-LEVEL ELEMENTS // NO SINGLE TOP | NSC | Just one element in the flat hierarchy. | DoD SPONSORS | Rotating administrative program leads. | IC SPONSORS | Rotating administrative program leads. | PROXIMITY TO THE ACTUAL WORK // CORE — EXCLUDED | CORE | FFRDCs | PRIMARY SEEDBEDS | Where the actual work happens. Aerospace Corp, MITRE, etc. | SECONDARY | DIB Primes | DEFENSIVELY INVOLVED | Too-isolated from FFRDCs — sponsor their own private "breakaway" projects. | PERIPHERAL | Access Points | PROXIES ONLY | Staffers & politicians read-in to limited extent. | TERMINAL_ONE // ROUTE OF 27 LEGACY PROGRAMS | pg 20 / 33 | GERB | Kermit | non-compliant | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 1:30:00] and NSDD 159 and Executive Order 12356. In 1994 is what you could consider this watch committee was really started where permanent control of the legacy programs was, was taken outside of specifically the US federal government into a quasi-industry government control group of 27. Not the Majestic 27, but just a, like you were saying, a flat hierarchy of 27. And that's what you could consider the Watch Committee. Um, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if folks like Terry Phillips are part of this 27.
[GERB, 1:30:33] Allegedly.
[Kermit, 1:30:34] Okay. Well, that's interesting. Um, yeah, and it's like, I will say like, it just in tracing kind of the history of it, it's interesting how the organization of it's changed over time. Like, the number of members, like, seems to change a lot. Uh, obviously they are changing code names, like, monthly, it seems, uh, down at more the program level. But, I can appreciate that they're probably doing the same kind of continual changes and schemes to kind of make sure, both to like make sure that this is all kept kind of secret, but then also like it normalcy kind of breeds, uh, what's, what's the word, complacency? Normalcy breeds complacency. And so like, if, especially when you have this program and you want people to continue working, working on it, maybe in a fear-based environment, you kind of need to keep changing things up on them to kind of continue that, that culture of fear. Seen it before, not going to elaborate, but, um, anyways, that's the top level org structure. Below the Watch Committee, you have the National Security Council, uh, that's White House kind of side. Then you have DoD sponsors, that's groups like, uh, Rapid Capabilities Office, DS&T, uh, Acquisition and Sustainment, other groups. Um, then you also have IC sponsors, uh, groups like, you know, CIA, NSA, NRO, NRO... Then below that, those are more like the middle management, kind of like program managers, if you will. And then, the actual work is down, is done down here at the bottom, with FFRDCs kind of being the main holding body within the government. Uh, it's facilitated by the Defense Industrial Base primes, that's just the, you know, Lockheed Martins, Northrups, uh, those companies. They work within the FFRDCs, and they also have their own breakaway programs as well. According, some do, and per the paper trail, according to some sources, post-global war on terror, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman decided, hey, we can just do all this stuff ourselves, and they basically just ran with their own programs. So, not only are they doing secret government work in the secret government work program for the aliens, they also have their own private secret corporate program doing that exact same thing as well. Can you imagine trying to get Lockheed trying to, like, acknowledge that when they're, anytime you ask them like, hey, like do you guys do alien work and they always point back to the government? Yeah, everybody gangsta till you talk about like their own off-books activity. But GERB, you have anything to say there?
[GERB, 1:33:05] Especially if you've you've had kinetic action against US federal government elements.
[Kermit, 1:33:10] Oh. Are are we talking about the JSOC incident or...
[GERB, 1:33:14] Maybe incidents.
[Kermit, 1:33:16] Okay.
[GERB, 1:33:17] the way I look at the National Security Council is almost like the Monarch of England. A once extremely powerful position that's almost like a celebrity figurehead at this point. Um, and I think a lot of that was, you know, a lot of the the power shifted over time. I've I've said the dates: 1981 through 1987, 1977 before, uh, 1994, uh, 2005. But it it it the National Security Council, there's individuals within that, but the National Security Council isn't the big bad monarch anymore. Uh, it's it's a rule by committee, and I think Dave Grusch said that the best: it's a flat hierarchy rotating program leads. You know, one of my biggest issues with the AJ's disclosure documentary is the fact that the CIA DS&T is labeled as the the big bad administrator for the crash retrieval portfolio. That's nonsense. Uh, and that the Air Force, Department of Energy, and DIB primes work in tandem directly below this. This is absolutely nonsense. You also have to think conceptually about the DoD and IC sponsors here. You know, if you have FFRDCs which are kind of R&D experts and program managers for classified national programs under which contractors work for them, you know, as an example here, MITRE out at Patuxent River or where like Raytheon works under them on MITRE programs, but MITRE itself is working for NAVAIR, Naval Air Systems Command, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, uh, what sort of elements of the US armed forces and intelligence community could actually field, uh, exploit, exploit derivative or reverse-engineered technologies, and actually use those technologies in a different SAP? An acquisition SAP using the technology, an intelligence SAP, how the sources and methods for how that technology was leveraged, intelligence SAPs, and operation support SAPs, actual deployment of those technologies. Like you said, that would be Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, Air Force acquisition, uh, the NRO, National Reconnaissance Office, Office of Naval Intelligence, kind of NAVAIR, uh, and so forth. So, I say this a lot: the US government isn't that smart. A lot of the time the infrastructure that you might think to look is, uh, the infrastructure that you might think to look to where a lot of these programs would be housed in different program executive offices, PEOs, or so forth, a lot of the time is.
[Kermit, 1:35:33] Mhm. Yeah.
[GERB, 1:35:35] And you got to think about why the FFRDC is used. No, you have the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, an extremely, extremely intimate partner in the legacy program effort. The RCO doesn't have the manpower, the brainpower, or the resources to do UFO reverse engineering. So, the RCO wants to do the UFO reverse engineering but doesn't have the manpower or capabilities to do so. Do you go to Lockheed Martin? Where, even though the Defense Industrial Base prime contractor is still subject to carve-out contracts, and, you know, they have their own CPSO, corporate program security officer, and other PSOs, program security officers, and even assistant corporate program security officer, um, or do you go to the FFRDCs, which are just an R&D extension arm of the US federal government? And that's kind of part of the argument why you have the FFRDCs.
[Kermit, 1:36:23] Yeah. Well, I, I, I, FFRDCs were created for a lot of different reasons, but I think one of them was to cut through like the bureaucratic red tape of just doing research and development. Because like under normal rules, it's like you have to set up a contract and then like you have to keep all your receipts and then like, okay, well then what if you work on something that ends up being bullshit and it's like it cost the government a ton of money then everything gets audited? It's just, it's a lot of hassle. It's a lot of just like paperwork and no one really wants to deal with it. So, having these like set up institutions where it's like, okay, you can do research and development on these specific areas and we'll fund it a fixed, you know, amount every year because it's like FFRDCs get a guaranteed budget for their own R&D. So, that's I think a lot easier to work with, at least from a bureaucratic standpoint, than it is to like contract each of these research and development opportunities as like each individual contracts, right? And then also, obviously for the secrecy too, like being able to consolidate stuff outside of government so that you can't FOIA it and then it's also not reported and congress people don't know about it, like, hey, it, it, it serves multiple purposes, but I can appreciate what, what it does.
[GERB, 1:37:31] Yeah, and and one of the important things there is FFRDCs are inherently constructed to satisfy long-term needs of their government sponsor.
[Kermit, 1:37:39] And this absolutely would be a long-term need.
[GERB, 1:37:41] Yes. Not one, two, three-year contracts. Long-term as in indefinite.
[Kermit, 1:37:47] Yeah. Well, it makes...
[GERB, 1:37:48] An indefinite period of time for their sponsor.
[Kermit, 1:37:50] Yeah. Well, makes perfect sense, and it is also like, it's, it is the logical answer to the whole concept of like we're not going to brief the president because he's a temporary employee. Well, it just begs the question that there's this work going on and that there is long-term planning that they have made the decision at some point in time in the past of like, no president in the future is allowed to even know or like steer the ship whatsoever. Like, they've created this like perfect little black box. So, yeah, I, I get it. It's, uh, it's, it's interesting. But it's like, it's almost like it was designed in such a way that it's like, it's, it's so secret that it becomes like ineffectual. Like, it's just, it's just not able to like, to do a lot or manipulate as much as I think the people think that they have the power to do. So it like, I think it leads to a lot of these like weird issues that like behind the scenes, like, unless you know what you're looking at, it's like, oh, well, you know, why, why are these people speaking about these contracts and about, you know, lack of oversight here? But in, you know, I don't know.
[GERB, 1:38:52] Yeah. You can bypass administration interest through FFRDCs, with the long-term interest. You could have, because it has happened and it's, my knowledge cutoff date is 2019, but I imagine this program is still in effect, a MITRE legacy program that has existed since 1958. Through several administrations, and the long-term interest of the partner, it go, it, it continues on through administrations, and, also look at the revolving door of who serves on the board of trustees for different FFRDCs, or, or, or chairs them. One example here would be Donald, or Ronald Moultrie, former USD(I&S) that helped set up AARO and appointed his good buddy Sean Kirkpatrick as the head of AARO. Uh, again, why did Ronald Moultrie take his position in the MITRE Corporation off of his public CV? Uh, why is Stephanie O'Sullivan going to the Aerospace Corporation? Why is, why are folks like, uh, I'm blanking on names right now because I'm thinking of so many people, unfortunately he's passed now, but Donald Kerr, who was president of...
[Slide, 1:40:00] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ STRUCTURE ] | Org Structure | Modern flat hierarchy -- no single top. Remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, type beat | Watch Committee | LOOSE COUNCIL & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE // NOT "MJ-12" OR "MAJ-12" | PEER-LEVEL ELEMENTS // NO SINGLE TOP | NSC | Just one element in the flat hierarchy. | DOD SPONSORS | Rotating administrator program leads. | IC SPONSORS | Rotating administrative program leads. | PROXIMITY TO THE ACTUAL WORK // CORE -- EXCLUDED | CORE | FFRDCs | PRIMARY CONDUCTOR | Where the actual work happens. Aerospace Corp, MITRE, etc. | SECONDARY | DIB Primes | PRIVATELY INVOLVED | Less involved than FFRDCs -- sponsor their own private "breakaway" projects. | PERIPHERAL | Access Points | PASSES ONLY | Staffers & politicians read in to limited extent. | FORWARD ONE // AGENT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | PG 10 / 12
[Kermit, 1:40:00] ...president of EG&G, director of Los Alamos, director of the NRO, deputy director of DS&T. He was on the MITRE, MITRE board from 2006 to 2021. Hey, what about Don Myerick, who has been directly implicated in UFO legacy programs, director of the DS&T, who's now on the, uh, who's now a chair of MITRE? Um, The Aerospace Corporation, MITRE Corporation, it's a revolving door, uh, of a lot of these individuals.
[GERB, 1:40:25] Yeah. Well, I'm, I'm sure that happens a lot in the, in the wider industry. But...
[Kermit, 1:40:30] Okay, Gerb, your, your PowerPoint...
[Slide, 1:40:31] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ REPORTED ENTITIES ] | What are these "aliens"? | Terrestrial, multi-species presence -- by report. | 01 | Greys | Most reported | 02 | Nordics | Human-presenting | 03 | Mantids | Insectoid | 04 | Reptilians | Allegedly attractive | 05 | Blue Beings | Experiencers | 06 | Sasquatches | Terrestrial? | 07 | Orbs | Foo fighters, spheres | 08 | Plasmoids | Energy-based (?!) | 09 | Underwater | USOs reported | 10 | Other | Unclassified/other | FORWARD ONE // AGENT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | PG 11 / 12
[GERB, 1:40:32] So we go on. We've been, we've been getting, we've been getting... This is a fun slide. This is, this is a little bit outside of our usual wheelhouse, Kermit, but real quick, I just wanted to yap about what are the aliens and what has been reported, here, heard from an accountant. You ready?
[Kermit, 1:40:46] Mhm.
[GERB, 1:40:46] So, we've heard about Greys, most reported. It's kind of boring, we know about this. Nordics, the human presenting ones. Interesting, blonde hair, blue eyes, I think. Uh, Mantids, interesting, insectoids. That, that's, I think, one of the craziest ones on this list. Reptilians, allegedly attractive according to Danny Sheehan. I want to know more, show me the data. What's up, Kermit?
[Kermit, 1:41:10] Attractive?
[GERB, 1:41:11] Allegedly. So, I think either... I don't know if I'm getting Sheehan and Coulthart's comments confused or maybe they both said the same thing.
[Kermit, 1:41:19] Sounds like something Ross would say.
[GERB, 1:41:21] Allegedly, these Reptilians can shape-shift, and when they appear in human form, they're actually quite attractive. But maybe that's just their technology and they know how to looksmax.
[Kermit, 1:41:30] Okay. Folks in the chat are saying Sheehan said that.
[GERB, 1:41:33] Sheehan said that? Okay. I trust chat on this one. I, I, I think, and I could have remembered, his, his white hair, it lives in my brain. Okay, so that's Reptilians. Uh, Blue Beings. This one's a deep cut. Uh, if you've listened to Ross's reporting in 2024, he talked about a group of experiencers that actually went to him specifically and said that they were contacted by a Blue Being and said that they needed to get in touch with Ross. Found that interesting. Haven't really heard much about that since. Um, Sasquatches, don't laugh at me, please do not laugh at me. But, I actually met some people at Contact that like, they are Bigfoot hunters. And some of their stuff is pretty gangster. Like they got off-road vehicles, they go out in the woods in Appalachia, like kind of want to hit these boys up. Pretty interesting guys. Shout out Greg. Um, Orbs, moving on, we have Orbs. This is interesting. Uh, Sphere Network. Foo fighters. Uh, shout out Wagboss. Uh, one of our mutual friends, Wagboss, is a big proponent that the Foo fighters present as a specific type of non-human intelligence, and that it's kind of like a like monitoring kind of intelligence network. I think someone else talks about this concept. Uh, what's his name?
[Kermit, 1:42:38] I believe that's Patrick Jackson.
[GERB, 1:42:39] Patrick Jackson.
[Kermit, 1:42:40] The Sphere Network idea.
[GERB, 1:42:41] Interesting stuff. Um, very like mutually inclusive, very, uh, synonymous kind of ideas. They're on the list. I don't think Orbs are Reptilians, so they get their own category. Uh, Plasmoids, this is a new one. Your boy Grusch put us onto this one. Uh, when he was asked about the different morphologies of these things, and he kind of dropped the mic drop moment of like, "Yeah, some of it's like normal bipedal stuff, meaning two-legged. Uh, other stuff is like, uh, what I would consider sentient plasmoids."
[GERB, 1:43:10] Crazy.
[Kermit, 1:43:11] As Caleb said in chat, perhaps the Foo fighters and and that sort of plasmoid intelligence are one and the same.
[GERB, 1:43:17] And also, I will say, there were some folks online that pointed out some research, I think some historical research on plasmoids, of it being like basically these giant like non... like, you can't see them physically, but they show up on very specific sensors and they have these like giant masses, and it's like you can see like a nucleus inside of it and it's like a it's like an entity. You can, it, it, it looks like a giant cell and it's like over a desert mountain or whatnot. But...
[Kermit, 1:43:43] That's an idea in physics as well, called the Boltzmann brain. Where I, I, I'll probably butcher this because I haven't studied the Boltzmann brain in a while, but it basically begs the question, what if your sentience is just basically a, an amalgamation of different electrical impulses that forms the shape of a brain floating through a, a microgravity situation? And perhaps that is a similar parallel to the... I know somebody's going to know a lot more about the Boltzmann brain idea and concept more than me and they're going to roast me in the chat. But that is, uh, that's an interesting topic.
[GERB, 1:44:16] Well, if you guys know about the Boltzmann brain concept, just sound off on Twitter and say you're right. Happens a lot. Um, okay, moving on from plasmoids, uh, so I didn't really, uh, so with underwater, I'm thinking a lot about the 4chan guy, obviously, because like that story's crazy and I still think about that. Um, he, the 4chan guy does mention that like sometimes there were biologics associated with the craft like early on and that they looked kind of like Greys or like typical Greys. Um, so you maybe could make the case that like the underwater stuff is like part of these aforementioned categories, but I don't know, show me the evidence, I want to see it. Uh, and then other types is we don't really know, um, holding the door open for other stuff. Angels and demons I think are in this category, but that's like a larger conversation and that comes from my beliefs as a Catholic. Let's not get too in the weeds here.
[Slide, 1:45:00] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ FINANCIAL EVIDENCE ] | Legacy Program Budget Evidence | WITNESS 01 | David Grusch | Billions identified in covert "slush funds" | Misappropriation of IRAD | Independent R&D -- paid by government | internal R&D -- paid "at contractor's expense" | Overcharging cost-plus-fixed contracts | WITNESS 02 | Fitts & Dolan | "Missing money" | Trillions missing from gov't balance sheets. | FBWT -- Fund Balance With Treasury | Cash disbursed != cash appropriated, by a lot. | Total LTD (1933) program spending est. | $1 - $5 Trillion | FORWARD ONE // AGENT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | PG 12 / 12
[GERB, 1:45:01] All right. In terms of legacy program budget evidence, I have summarized, I would say the two key witnesses to this conversation, which is basically like, okay, series of waved non-human intelligence programs. How is this funded? How is this all... Okay, so they have these content-only SAPs, but they have acquisitions and all these other activities laid into it. This stuff costs money. Where is it coming from? So, first off, David Grusch said actually a few weeks ago in front of Capitol Hill, uh, talking about him identifying billions in covert slush funds on DoD's accounting ledgers. And it's implied that these slush funds were used, presumably, to fund, uh, the legacy program, these non-human intelligence activities, and presumably, others. Um, he has also testified previously about how these schemes play out specifically, uh, talking about misappropriation of what's called IRAD. Now, I will say, there's two different types of IRAD from a purely like definitional legalise perspective. So, IRAD can either mean independent research and development, or it can mean internal research and development. And the difference is really this: independent is, it's contracted. So, think of it like my example previously of like why FFRDCs are so goated, is because in the olden days pre-FFRDCs, you basically had to create a research and development contract, bill the government for that work. They then had to award you that work, agree to do it, and then every year you had to send them status reports and expense reports and then they would fund that based on the contract. Um, creates a lot of different work, but that is what's called independent research and development. When you operate it as basically as a contract and it's billed and charged at the government's expense. Then you have what's called internal research and development, and that is paid at the contractor's expense. So, for example, Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin might have $500 million of cash lying around. They had a pretty good year, and they have some cash left over from their stock buybacks. They can then use that money to then fund their internal research and development. They can also potentially, and other companies have done this, they can basically, they can request stock in the open market, they can request capital from the open market, and then they can use that to fund their internal research, research and development. A version of this is happening right now with AI. It's just that they're not really like funding directly into the company that's actually doing the AI R&D because of this giant circle that's set up where it's like, the money we give to Microsoft then goes to OpenAI then goes to Amazon then goes to Oracle then goes back to Microsoft to the point where our economy is like eight companies in a trench coat all passing the same three trillion dollar bill around to each other. But let's not get on to a tangent about that. That's just about IRAD. Uh, and he's also talked about, uh, overcharging of cost-plus-fixed contracts as well, just very quick point on, on Grusch here.
[Kermit, 1:47:51] We've talked, and I know, Gerb, you've talked about this before about how like conventional contracts like the F-35 contract, that there are instances where they have overbilled or overcharged the government for work on those legitimate contracts, and then they've siphoned that money off into those legacy program activities. Do you have anything to say kind of on that bit?
[GERB, 1:48:09] Yeah, haircuts across programs is one, and, and non-descript agencies and services where you wouldn't necessarily expect. The Forestry Service being one, maybe Bureau of Land Management or, or Department of the Interior. Also, a couple tangible examples of just how to understand this conceptually is back in the '80s Grumman Aircraft was charging like four, five hundred dollars for ashtrays in the Hawkeye, or like five, six hundred dollars for socket wrenches. And there was a big scandal into huge profits on the contractor side, like disproportionately large profits on the contractor side for different submarine technologies and submarines. So, I think it's in my Northrop one video, but there's some like really astonishing examples of Northrop Corporation... Grumman Corporation overcharging egregiously for, uh, very small items.
[Kermit, 1:48:59] Yeah. Well, if, if you're in oversight and you're watching this livestream, go back and watch, uh, Gerb's Northrop Grumman videos because there's some nuggets in there that's actionable intel, I think.
[GERB, 1:49:09] I, I think if you're in oversight, get JD Vance on the phone with David Grusch to talk specifically about funding schemes.
[Kermit, 1:49:16] JD Vance, I got something to show you. Get him on the FFRDCs. Get him on...
[GERB, 1:49:20] Well, because, because remember, I mean this is relatively new, but adding to Witness 1 with Dave Grusch here is, he said he has direct knowledge of criminal enterprise. Uh, that could be drug, arms, human trafficking, severe fraud. It could be a litany of, of disturbing things, and if there are US government agencies and services conducting criminal enterprise like we have done before, with the, CIA has a long history of, of illegal covert activities, I would hope JD Vance and others will take this seriously and investigate Grusch's claims.
[Kermit, 1:49:54] Yeah. Well, someone's, someone's got to get a hold of JD, man. And someone's got to show him the...
[Slide, 1:50:00] TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN | UAP GERB | [ FINANCIAL EVIDENCE ] | Legacy Program Budget Evidence | WITNESS 01 | David Grusch | Billions identified in covert "slush funds" | Misappropriation of IRAD | Independent R&D - paid by government | internal R&D - paid "at contractor's expense" | Overcharging cost-plus-fixed contracts | WITNESS 02 | Fitts & Dolan | "Missing money" | Trillions missing from gov't balance sheets. | FBWT - Fund Balance With Treasury | Cash disbursed != cash appropriated... by a lot. | Total LTD (1947) program spending est. | $1 - 5 TRILLION | FEBRUARY 2024 | AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM | DD 18 / 22 | TOP SECRET // SAR-LEGACY PROGRAM // NOFORN
[Kermit, 1:50:00] milestones. He's, someone's got to do his job for him at this point.
[Kermit, 1:50:04] All right, so I think we've covered Grusch. I think we've we've covered him. Real quick, um, the best hard numbers that I've found on this subject of like how much money's been spent on the UFO program, uh, Richard Dolan and Catherine Austin Fitts did a number of interviews and they actually have their own books that they publish together where they basically lay this stuff out. I do reference some of their analysis in here kind of in bits and pieces because it's good. I do disagree with their top-line figure, but that's because my mental model...
[GERB, 1:50:34] Oh, interesting. Yeah. Please say more.
[Kermit, 1:50:37] Uh, it's just like, their estimate I think is very like conservative, very high level. Uh, mine I try to use like a formula or like a set of assumptions to arrive at the number. Theirs is kind of more like kind of armchair quarterback, shoot from the hip, like, okay, well, basically what Catherine Austin Fitts, how they approach that number is they started really with her work around the missing money. So I think this is a good, uh, transition for me to talk about her work real quick because I know there's been a lot of reporting of like, oh, she uncovered 21 trillion dollars of of missing money. So, real quick, so Catherine Austin Fitts was an under assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development from like 1991 to 1992 during George H. W. Bush's administration. She then leaves, uh, the administration, she then goes into private industry, and she also becomes a character witness to egregious fraud and mismanagement within the US government. The main thing that she found and that she also wrote in subsequent academic reports, all the stuff that she's gotten very famous for, is looking at this so-called missing money. And the missing money, base like, to boil it down, like to boil down as much of her publications as I've read, the missing money is comparing back total funds and cash that was appropriated or authorized to be spent by the government, then also looking at the total cash that the government is reporting, like, any given year or any given quarter, and then also looking at a third thing called the fund balance with Treasury, which is, it's a, it's a cash account, but the way it works is like, these government agencies, all the cash that they have, it's held with the Treasury. So that's what it means by fund balance with Treasury is that that's the money that they have on hand. And basically her work is in looking at the total amount that was authorized, the total amount of cash that they're reporting, and then also this balance with Treasury, there are some egregious mismatches between what they've appropriated to spend and then what they're actually spending, and then what they're reporting to spend is something completely different and I think it's half the reason why they're failing their audits. So, high level, what she's figured out is that we've, for example, we authorize a trillion dollars in spending, and then the next year we'll see 2.1 trillion dollars clear the fund balance with Treasury account. How does that make any sense? We only authorized a trillion dollars of spending, but they moved 2 trillion dollars of money. That's the windfall. That's largely where that number and that figure that she gets to is. So it's a mismatch between numbers. It's very high level, but it's important that we understand like how, how we got to here, okay? But it's looking at the fund balance with Treasury. And, uh, the top-line figure that I could find that they worked on was a life-to-date estimate of this total program spend, anywhere from 1 to 5 trillion dollars. Now, before, before I open it up, before I get off this point, that number, that figure, is actually pretty reasonable for a program that's been running on for 80 years and has maybe 5 to 10,000 people working in it. Totally reasonable. However, if we're talking about like, Secret Space Program's real and we have an off-books fleet and it's way bigger than you think, then this is a understatement. This is, this is a lot lower than probably what's actually going on. But at the end of the day, let me just say this. Like, if the government wants to keep something secret, they absolutely can. And if they need to spend a cartoonish amount of money in order to get it done, they will do it and I will not be wise to it, not any auditor, not anyone. Like, if the government, the government's going to do what they're going to do, and so you might think that this is kind of silly that we're sitting here and speculating about stuff that could just be completely not real, but what I hope is that this conversation and that these slides helps people kind of think about like, okay, if we are to investigate it and we are to get disclosure or answers or a truth or a response, like, can we think like an auditor for a second? Can we think about what is true and good substantive evidence? But then also, can we advocate for an investigation that actually produces real substantive answers? And one of the things the congresspeople always ask about is like, how much taxpayer funds has been spent on this UFO work? Okay, well, let's, let's find out through an audit. Because the only way we're getting any sort of information is from Catherine Austin Fitts' publications and those unfortunately are not audits. Um, so I'll stop right there. I feel like I kind of went on a crazy ramble, but curious if you have any comments on that, Gerb.
[GERB, 1:55:05] So do these figures also account for the possibility of self fund?
[Kermit, 1:55:09] Uh, yeah, I think this is, this is an inclusive figure. Yeah.
[GERB, 1:55:12] Okay, okay, understood. Let's keep going.
[Kermit, 1:55:15] Yeah, I cover that a little bit later on in the slides, there's some nuances to like private financing, international, again, the number could be so crazy and the relationships are so like awe-striking that it's like it boggles the mind but I'm trying to work with like known concepts and also like known financial fraud schemes and kind of concepts to try to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. So, again, you guys can disagree with me if you if you guys want to sound off, you can do so on X, you know where to find me, I'm KermdogINT. Okay. Um, so I think that's, that's everything on David Grusch and on Fitts.
[Slide, 1:55:49] [ COUNTERPOINTS ] | UAP GERB | Professional Skepticism | Required by professional audit statutes. The other side of the table. | SKEPTIC 01 | "Show me the spacecraft" | Unfalsifiable paradox; demanding disclosure of denied programs. | SKEPTIC 02 | Contradictory narratives | Bad-faith actors, disinformation agents, conflicting claims across sources. | SKEPTIC 03 | Government incentives to deceive | Cover for actual classified test vehicles. Saber-rattling for adversary deterrence. | SKEPTIC 04 | Convenient distractions | Diverts from systemic societal issues – AI, Iran, economic policy, etc. | FEBRUARY 2024 | AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM | DD 19 / 22
[Kermit, 1:55:51] Uh, real quick on professional skepticism, uh, please don't throw tomatoes at me, but actually professional skepticism is required by professional audit statutes. Um, look it up, it's in there, uh, audit standards. I think it's 1201, I want to say. Don't quote me on it, if I got the quote wrong, don't come after me. Uh, but it's in there, and basically professional skepticism is basically that you have to keep a, uh, rationally skeptical mind at any and all times, particularly when you come in light of certain evidence, you don't want it to affect your bias any sort of way. Um, professional skepticism in an audit is very important, especially in a case like Enron, where you had a case where auditors, um, basically trusted everything that management was saying, and they allowed management to commit one of the craziest frauds that was ever perpetrated by a public company. And a lot of that was perpetrated because the auditors kind of just took them at their word and were like, okay, this is good, and they were also getting paid a ton of money so it didn't matter. But, again, it's a huge reason why you have to be professionally skeptical any time and all ways in life, but also particularly in audit, you want to ask the, you want to ask the questions. So, very quickly, I think we've heard all of these before if you follow Michael Shermer's account. Um, show me the spacecraft. We're talking about an unfalsifiable paradox of like a denied program. Um, how's that even possible? I don't know, but let's try. Uh, contradictory narratives. Uh, we've seen this before. This, there's actually an audit trail on this of, um, in the past there being bad-faith actors, disinformation agents, conflicting claims across sources. This has happened so many different times, and not acknowledging those things, you're just, you're not going to make it, I'm sorry. Um, also you can understand or appreciate that the government may have an incentive to deceive or at least convince the public or adversaries that, uh, we have alien technology. This might sound crazy, but a couple like, more than a decade ago, uh, the Fars News Agency put out a publication saying that the U.S. was being secretly controlled by Tall Whites at Area 51. So at the very least, if this whole conversation, if this whole UFO subject has been allowed to exist to convince Iran that we're being controlled by aliens, mission success, good job, job good show, but like what's up with David Grusch? That doesn't explain anything. Um, so, interesting stuff. Um, we also have seen this before as like, UFOs as like a way to cover up for classified test vehicles. That's been done for the SR-71, for the Nighthawk, uh, for the U-2, happened before, they'll they'll probably continue doing it, but that's not to say that the stuff is all BS because we've talked about a lot of the reasons why it isn't. Um, and then last but not least, convenient distraction, like, oh this is all distraction from the Epstein files. I'm not here to talk about that, let's just move on uh because that's just, it's it's such a tired thing to say. It's like of course. Like, the thing that you care about is a distraction. So sorry, hold on. The thing that, the UFO thing is a distraction from the thing that you care about, of course. Anything is a distraction from the thing that you care about. Like if you want to focus or do anything in this life, you have to block out things that are distracting you. So, I'm sorry, but like, it's all everything's a distraction from everything. We could talk about this all day. Anyways...
[Slide, 1:59:04] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB | SECTION 03 | Historical Audits | What we already know about auditing the defense apparatus. | FEBRUARY 2024 | AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM | DD 20 / 22
[Kermit, 1:59:05] Historical audits, let's get into some more interesting stuff. Um, we're going to talk about...
[Slide, 1:59:09] [ TIMELINE ] | UAP GERB | DoD — A Brief History | 1940s – 1980s | GAO AUDITS | Specific GAO audits across multiple decades. | 1990s | CONGRESS | Growing appetite for DoD audit – superseded by GWOT. | 2017 | NDAA | Mandates DoD submit to independent audits. | 2025 | DOGE | DOGE team specifically blocked from DoD classified accounts. | 2027 | TARGET | Expected milestone: DoD passes audits for all branches. | FEBRUARY 2024 | AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM | DD 21 / 22
[Kermit, 1:59:10] first, DoD history stuff, and I try to keep it very high level. So, Gerb's talked about this, we've talked about this on other lives, but there were specific audits done by the Government Accountability Office, um, through the end of the Second World War and into the 1980s. Towards the 1980s, towards the back half, there were a lot of issues that were exposed, particularly at defense primes, like Lockheed Martin in 1986. Um, and it exposed a lot of issues, not just with like how these contractors were handling like the books of their business, but also like how they were handling security controls, how they were handling special access clearance. And that encouraged the need for defense reform, wider defense reform. And one of those, uh, action items was the need for the Department of Defense to undergo a full independent audit.
[Slide, 2:00:00] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB | [ TIMELINE ] | DoD — A Brief History | 1940s - 1980s | GAO AUDITS | Specific GAO audits across multiple decades. | 1990s | CONGRESS | Growing appetite for DoD audit — superseded by GWOT. | 2017 | NDAA | Mandates DoD submit to independent audits. | 2025 | DOGE | DOGE team specifically blocked from DoD classified accounts. | 2027 | TARGET | Expected milestone: DoD passes audits for all branches. | PERSONAL USE // SCOPE OF US GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS // AS 19 / 23 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE
[Kermit, 2:00:00] which, by the way,
[Kermit, 2:00:01] up until -- up until 2017, the Department of Defense had never been subjected to a full independent audit.
[Kermit, 2:00:10] Largest office in the world --
[Kermit, 2:00:14] not audited. Up until 2017. I think that's just crazy, but
[Kermit, 2:00:18] but, to be frank and just to kind of speak on DoD's behalf, it's such a large organization that it is a completely different elephant to audit. Like how I was saying previously, like, where there's some challenges in auditing Lockheed Martin that does 60 billion dollars.
[Kermit, 2:00:35] Well, Lockheed Martin is a customer for the United States -- sorry, they are the, they are the supplier for the United States military. The US military is their customer. The US military is a giant entity, there's so many different things going on, so many different offices, different people doing different jobs. So, it's just -- it's a lot of bureaucratic stuff to get through in an audit. So, I can appreciate how challenging it is. But,
[Kermit, 2:00:59] those first calls for audits began, actually, late 1990s under the Bush administration, but those calls were conveniently superseded by the Global War on Terror.
[Kermit, 2:01:11] Now, here's a fun little history fact. The day before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld during an acquisitions conference tells the C-SPAN crowd -- or it was, it was being filmed on C-SPAN -- but he said, "By some estimates, we cannot account for 2.1 trillion dollars in defense spending."
[Kermit, 2:01:30] And it was actually, by itself, that was a huge headline, like, admission by the defense secretary that we cannot account for two trillion dollars. And
[Kermit, 2:01:37] his statements were probably inspired or, at least, encouraged by Catherine Austin Fitts's reporting, which was set to come out that same week. She worked with a journalist on the original missing money piece and they were going to talk about the missing 2.4, 2.6 trillion dollars at DoD.
[Kermit, 2:01:57] Now, that story was supposed to come out. They were set to publish Sunday night. They then decided not to publish. They were going to wait for final, for final publication or something. Monday, the next day, Donald Rumsfeld comes out and he acknowledges the main points of Catherine Fitts's paper, and then the next day 9/11 happens and the whole story just kind of disappears because it was the, you know, largest tragedy on American soil, um, in a while, in a long, long while.
[Kermit, 2:02:24] So, that's the whole history of like, pre-20th century or pre-21st century audits. They were going to -- they were going to start doing it, Global War on Terror superseded it.
[Kermit, 2:02:33] Then finally, 2017, dust kind of settles, Global War on Terror kind of subsides, and in the NDAA that year, they finally, uh, created the requirement for the DoD to start independent audits. But, those independent audits, um, did not start that fiscal year, I think they started the next fiscal year.
[Kermit, 2:02:54] And, since then, if you've ever noticed the headlines on DoD audits, they have yet to pass any of their audits. They have failed every single one of their audits, and if you read the articles, their misstatements are anywhere from 50 to 60 percent of their assets, which is roughly about a trillion to two trillion dollars. That's the same exact figure that Catherine Austin Fitts talked about the day before 9/11. Crazy.
[Kermit, 2:03:18] So, that mismatch still exists, and the number that I work with -- which is relevant to know as we go on -- basically, if you can think about that mismatch that I talk about in the audit as a per-year misstatement, that's like the number that we kind of get to work with every year. So, multiplied over, say, 80 years, that's like a life-to-date population. Just for the nerds in the chat that just want the numbers or doing the calculations themselves, that's how I get to the math.
[Kermit, 2:03:44] Now, really quick, I just wanted to call out two things. Number one, um, with the NDAA requirement for DoD audits, it set up the expected milestone for DoD to pass these independent audits by fiscal year 2027 -- so, in 10 years' time.
[Kermit, 2:04:02] Now, that's interesting for me for two reasons. Number one, based on how DoD's doing right now, probably not going to fucking happen. The only branch that has actually passed an audit in full is the Marine Corps, and I think the reason why they passed is because the Marine Corps isn't given anything. It's kind of a meme within the Marine Corps that they're under-supplied and they still get the mission done. So, they have less assets on their books than the other branches, than, say, the Air Force, which has a, you know, two-billion-dollar bomber on its -- on its books, right?
[Kermit, 2:04:31] The two-billion-dollar bomber book balance sheet is going to be a lot harder to scrutinize than something like, you know, the Marines' balance sheet that just has some like M4s, some crayons, and maybe a Humvee on there. Um, so, hopefully the other branches can pass by 2027, but right now it's not looking good, and I -- I haven't really read into like what are the ramifications if they don't pass. I don't think there are. I think it's just probably like going to be a slap on the wrist or whatever, and they'll just move on. Or maybe they'll just move the goalpost. Happens a lot in DC.
[Kermit, 2:05:02] And, the second thing I wanted to talk about real quick is DOGE. This is a recent phenomenon. This is the Department of Government Efficiency. I know we like our acronyms, and I just wanted to define that one real quick in case you were living under a rock.
[Kermit, 2:05:15] Department of Government Efficiency was started by, um, SpaceX tycoon, AI venture capitalist, and schizo-posting trillionaire Elon Musk. Um, Elon Musk was brought into the administration when President joined in 2025. DOGE, the mission of it, was to cut waste, fraud, and abuse across the government.
[Kermit, 2:05:35] Now, for any of us here that are UFO enjoyers, we know the answer to this question. Biggest waste, fraud, and abuse is in the Defense Department. It is. They have the highest misstatement. They have the, you know, largest per -- per annum, uh, expenditure by the government. It's almost a trillion dollars, this year it's going to be 1.5 trillion.
[Kermit, 2:05:53] But, you might be, um, you might be tickled to know that DOGE, even though their mission was to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, they were not allowed to touch the biggest pot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government -- that being the classified contracts. They were expressly denied from even accessing or looking at those files. And, I'm sure there's a lot of reasons for it, but, again, anytime you talk about transparency and accountability, and you get more specifics with like, hey, we need to look at these particular funds and these particular things, that's when the -- the generals start wringing their necks, and then the -- the person from the New York Times hits you with the DM of like, hey, I heard you're, you know, whatever.
[Kermit, 2:06:34] So, um, that's a lot. Do we have any kind of questions on this, or on any parts of the timeline -- did I cover anything, or did I miss anything here?
[GERB, 2:06:44] I don't think so. As the -- as the chat says, I think you're cooking, Kerm.
[Kermit, 2:06:47] Okay, I don't know where I was going with the New York Times bit. That was a joke that I decided not to launch. Um, I don't -- well, actually, I do have a friend at the New York Times, but we're not close. It's not a flex, I just want to be transparent. Um, okay, real quick on DoD finance audits. So,
[Slide, 2:06:52] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB | [ APPARATUS ] | DoD Finance Audits | PRIMARY | OIG | Office of Inspector General | Oversees independent audits & issues audit reports. | Independent auditor: Ernst & Young (EY) | Annual & ad hoc reports published on OIG website. | OTHER AUDITORS | 01 | Deloitte | Big Four auditor | 02 | Kearney & Co. | DARPA, others | 03 | DCAA | Defense Contract Audit Agency — contract compliance | PERSONAL USE // SCOPE OF US GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS // AS 20 / 23 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE
[Kermit, 2:07:03] the main oversight authority for audits within the DoD is done by the Office of the Inspector General. If you go on the Office of the Inspector General's website, they publish public reports where they also publish the audit reports. So, if you ever want to look at a DoD audit report for whatever godforsaken reason, you know where to look. Go on DoD OIG's website. They are the ones that oversee the audit. However, they are not the ones that actually carry it out. They basically just sign and rubber stamp it because the Inspector General is considered independent and separate from the agency that he oversees. It's one of those like legal things that's part of his oversight role. But
[Kermit, 2:07:41] the independent auditor, the actual group that's actually doing the audit is an accounting firm, and this accounting firm happens to be Ernst & Young, which happens to be a giant, uh, Big Four accounting firm that does a lot of government work. And, so, Ernst & Young, they'll do the audit every year for DoD, even though DoD will always fail, and those'll get posted on the website. Sometimes, they'll be asked to do like more ad hoc audits, and sometimes you might see different auditors used. Or, for some departments, like, for example, DARPA, they have different auditors look at those books. So, instead of it being Ernst & Young that does the books for like all the other, um, defense departments, for DARPA specifically, their books are done by this company called Kearney & Co.
[Kermit, 2:08:28] Um, another auditor that's used sometimes in these like ad hoc audits or sometimes in the department-wide audits, is Deloitte. Um, if I'm not mistaken, they were involved in the audit of UT-Battelle, which was like a specific contract audit with -- no, that was just -- that was just GAO-specific. I'm sorry, I'm getting confused.
[Kermit, 2:08:46] But Deloitte, they -- they -- they do some government audits. Uh, they held a position similar to Ernst & Young, but Ernst & Young, you can kind of think of them as like the quarterback for DoD's audit.
[Kermit, 2:08:57] And then last but not least, I wanted to touch on the Defense Contract Audit Agency, because this does come up. They are a specific group. They are more of like a internal audit function, so, they are more focused on like the contract level of these, you know, like government, you know, awards a contract for 100 billion dollars to Lockheed, Defense Contract Audit Agency is the one that like monitors, over the life of the contract, that like, things are in compliance, that they aren't overcharging, things of that nature.
[Kermit, 2:09:25] That's what it's supposed to be on paper, but, um, evidently, uh, some things do slip behind the cracks. And I'm curious, Gerb, have you heard anything about Defense Contract Audit Agency people aware of like legacy program activities or have requisite authorities?
[GERB, 2:09:40] Mm-mm.
[Kermit, 2:09:41] Interesting.
[GERB, 2:09:42] None.
[Kermit, 2:09:43] Okay.
[Kermit, 2:09:44] Well, obviously they're not doing, uh, TR-3B contracts, so, otherwise I would have found this two years ago. Um, okay, so, that's all on DoD finance. Do we have anything on this, or do we want to keep moving?
[GERB, 2:09:55] We'll keep going.
[Slide, 2:09:56] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB | [ PRIVATE SECTOR ] | Corporate / Private Audits | PUBLIC | Large, Publicly-Traded | Defense companies that trade on public exchanges. | Required to perform annual independent audits | Financial statements are made public | Stricter disclosure regime | PRIVATE | Smaller, Privately-Held | Privately-owned defense contractors and subs. | Audits for fiduciary requirements (loans, equity, etc.) | Financial statements made public at company's discretion | Less external visibility into operations | PERSONAL USE // SCOPE OF US GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS // AS 21 / 23 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE
[Kermit, 2:09:56] All right. Cool. All right, so now we get to talk about something I know
[Slide, 2:10:00] [ PRIVATE SECTOR ] | Corporate / Private Audits | PUBLIC | Large, Publicly-Traded | Defense companies that trade on public exchanges. | Required to perform annual independent audits | Financial statements are made public | Stricter disclosure regime | PRIVATE | Smaller, Privately-Held | Privately-owned defense contractors and subs. | Audits for fiduciary requirements (loans, equity, etc.) | Financial statements made public at company's discretion | Less external visibility into operations | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | PG 10 / 33 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:10:00] know a lot more about these are private audits. Um, so real quick, if you are a publicly-traded company, that means that you are like, you can buy stock of this company, um, on the New York Stock Exchange or what have you. The US rules state that if you are publicly-traded, you have to get audited once a year. So, this is a very routine thing to do. Um, as part of this process, you also make your financial statements, excuse me, public. And in terms of like, what you actually put in the financial statements, there are very specific rules, laws on the books, whatever you want to call it, it's how I made my money, uh, as a young buck auditor, um, but you basically, uh, work around those disclosure rules to determine like, what types of financial and non-financial information is disclosed. Um, so, it's dictate by guidance. Oh, goodness! Goodness, I, hold on, I swapped it. I'm so bad, I accidentally fat-fingered my slide. Can you see it okay?
[Slide, 2:10:49] [ INDEX ] | Table of Contents | 01 | Audit 101 | Overview | SLIDES: 03 - 07 | 02 | Legacy Program | Overview | SLIDES: 08 - 13 | 03 | Historical Audits | Placement & Context | SLIDES: 14 - 23 | 04 | Napkin Math | Kermitology's Estimations | SLIDES: 24 - 26 | 05 | Initial Thoughts | Questions & Debate | SLIDES: 27 - 32 | 06 | Thank You | Closing | SLIDES: 33 | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | PG 02 / 33 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB
[Slide, 2:10:50] [ PRIVATE SECTOR ] | Corporate / Private Audits | PUBLIC | Large, Publicly-Traded | Defense companies that trade on public exchanges. | Required to perform annual independent audits | Financial statements are made public | Stricter disclosure regime | PRIVATE | Smaller, Privately-Held | Privately-owned defense contractors and subs. | Audits for fiduciary requirements (loans, equity, etc.) | Financial statements made public at company's discretion | Less external visibility into operations | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | PG 10 / 33 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB
[GERB, 2:11:00] Yep.
[Kermit, 2:11:01] Okay. All right, so that's with publicly-traded stuff, you're required to do it. Um, it's typically done by big companies. Uh, with smaller privately-held companies, those might get audited, uh, like if you have let's say like a loan with the bank, the bank might require that you get audited every year, so then you'll have to do it. But, in terms of like having to post your financials, you don't really have to. The rules don't, like, you're not really required to. Sometimes if you're like an asset manager, if you're like, you're like a wealth manager, it looks good that you post those financials so that people can see like the operating performance of your funds, so you will post that stuff, but that's not always done all the time. Anyways, that's just some more kind of legalese on private audits. Um, and let's see, the auditor for Lockheed is EY, auditor for Raytheon PwC, auditor for Northrop Grumman is EY as well allegedly, Boeing EY, General Dynamics EY. EY's got a lot of them. EY covers a lot of them. Okay. But anyways, that's pop quiz for you on who audits the Big Five. Um, all right.
[Slide, 2:12:11] [ LEGAL FRAMEWORK ] | "Off-Books" | Private companies involved in the Legacy Program have legal protections. | LEGAL PROTECTIONS | Classification order / MOU filed with SEC | Quarterly and annual filing requirements | SEC Act of 1934 | Omission of financial records for national defense. | 17 CFR 240.0-6 | Disclosure detrimental to the national defense. | INFORMATION FLOW | Classified info requires cleared auditors. | Cleared auditors -> uncleared team | Sharing is limited & compartmentalized. | "Need to know" financials | Typically only the high-level numbers reach the rest of the audit team. | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | PG 12 / 33 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:12:11] Um, now, just in terms of the legal framework, this is more relevant for the Legacy Program itself. Like, how does this stuff get managed? Um, I actually wrote a pretty good Reddit article way back in the day that covers like the laws on the books that allows this stuff to exist, like, how does a company like Lockheed Martin get to work on an alien program and then not disclose it to their investors? Um, there's two main laws that drive this. So, you have the SEC Act of 1934, um, which allows for the specific omission of financial records in the interest of national defense. It allows for the omission of records down to the transaction level. So, let me just, let me just translate this real quick, okay? So, I have one, so, I, my business does like one trillion dollars in business with the US government. One hundred billion dollars of that work is Legacy Program activity that I am expressly not allowed to disclose to my investors or the wider public. I don't even, like, I'm such a good person when I manage this program that I don't even ask my investors for money for this program. Okay. So, with this one hundred billion dollars, okay? I have all these different transactions, I'm Venmoing people for their payroll and stuff, okay? When I tell my investors how much money I made that year, do I tell them that I've made a trillion dollars, nine hundred billion dollars, or one hundred billion dollars? Nine hundred billion. I'm taking out the UFO stuff. I'm taking it out. It's omission. So, this is a lot different cuz in, in accounting world typically what happens is like, other work either gets consolidated, so, it will ultimately appear but it gets lumped in somewhere else. This is like, it straight up gets omitted. It does not appear anywhere. It's not in any sort of sub-line, anything like that. It's not in public records. Um, so, that's really the SEC Act of 1934. Um, that law is further bolstered by 17 CFR 240.0-6. This is the Code of Federal Regulations. It was entered into in like the late 1960s, and it further clarified like public companies and how they are allowed to like not disclose this stuff, and it set up this like working practice where a classification order needs to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission so that it's considered duly classified and then they can omit records pursuant to the SEC Act of 1934. Now, word on the street that doesn't always happen. So, if you are a whistleblower to these programs and you can prove that there is no classification order with the SEC on file, then you may have a legal precedent to file charges that it's like an improper program, etc., um, with the SEC whistleblower statute. I made this, um, comment a couple weeks ago on my X, but I just wanted to pimp that on the live. You have any comments on that, Gerb?
[GERB, 2:14:50] M-mm.
[Kermit, 2:14:51] No? Okay. All right, so that's really the laws on the books, and I will also link my Reddit post as well if anyone's interested in reading more about this. It's a little bit more kind of legal nerd nuance, but if anyone's interested in that, I will let you know. And...
[GERB, 2:15:05] And Kermit, will you post the slide deck as well? I've seen some people ask questions about that. Okay. Where, where will you post that? Twitter, the Discord, or wherever you want.
[Kermit, 2:15:08] Oh, for sure. Yes, I will. I can post it in both places. I can post it on the Discord, I can post it on X, I can, I can send it to my guy on Signal, you know? Um, all right. So, that's legal protections. And then, information flow, I touched on this previously, but when you have classified components of the audit, you have to treat those classified areas as like a separate part of the audit, and then you contract that work out to someone that actually has the security clearance. That's just how it works. I actually spoke to some people that have worked on like defense audits, and I'm like, 'Hey, how does this stuff work from a high level? Don't tell me that they got aliens, I just want to know how this stuff works.' And, um, I will say the accounting network, my, my professional network has been very, very friendly and very helpful in kind of painting the picture for me. So, um, that's how it works. And then also with, uh, financials, just in general, um, typically like within audits, like with that component, for the classified component, the classified auditors aren't telling all the dirty laundry to the non-cleared auditors. They're just telling the non-cleared auditors, 'Hey, we tested X amount of transactions, and we are good with, uh, you know, Z amount of transactions.' And then those numbers then go over to the uncleared team, and then they write that up in their big file, but there is no mention whatsoever that the auditors may have uncovered a secret program and that the actual remainder amount was this uncleared activity, what-have-you. That dirty laundry does not get aired out to the wider audit team. Typically on audits, it's just very high-level, need-to-know, top-line figures. Um, just wanted to clarify that cuz I think it's important. All right. So, that's off-books. Anything here?
[GERB, 2:16:50] M-mm.
[Kermit, 2:16:51] No? Okay.
[Slide, 2:16:52] [ HEADLINE NUMBERS ] | Estimated Misstatement | ANNUAL MISSTATEMENT | $1 - 2.6T | PER YEAR | LIFE-TO-DATE MISSTATEMENT | ~$102T | CUMULATIVE | CLAIMED CAUSES | 01 | Redundancy | Overlapping processes & responsibilities | 02 | Recordkeeping | Limited or sporadic record-keeping | 03 | Integration | Lack of integration across departments | 04 | Consolidation | Multi-system reporting challenges | 05 | WFA | Waste, fraud, and abuse | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF THE LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | PG 24 / 33 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:16:53] All right. Now we have, now we have hard numbers. Now we have something more interesting. So, remember when I was saying earlier about, like, how Catherine Austin Fitts arrives at the number of, like, basically the mismatch between appropriations versus like actual spending. So, per year, that's what that number looks like. And this is largely from the headlines of news articles of, like, 'DoD can't pass audit because they can't account for 60% of their assets.' This is 60% of their assets right here. Now, if you extrapolate that out to what's called life-to-date, and life-to-date basically is, like, 80 years because this is an 80-year cover-up presumably. So, left number multiplied by 80 equals a cumulative life-to-date misstatement of 102 trillion dollars. Okay. Now, very important to point out real quick, 102 trillion dollars is not all on UFO legacy program work, do not come after me, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the total misstatement, the total mismatch, the total problem at the Department of Defense, all-inclusive of all the other bullshit games that they're playing, other schemes, fraud, and other claimed causes down below, it's this figure. It's a giant number. It's, it's, it's almost as large as the US economy is, just, just full stop. Um, but if you read DoD's accounting reports, if you actually read their audit reports, their claimed causes for these misstatements year-over-year, year-over-year, are pretty prosaic explanations. So, we have redundancy. So, office A and office B, they have two similar jobs, they're trading information with each other, and stuff is just overlapping and responsibilities are getting double-counted. That's a possibility, things are getting double-counted because there's so many people doing so many different processes. Okay. Then you also have records keeping. Sometimes you have a program that is, like, it's all on paper, and they haven't digitized anything, and they still fax their invoices and their receipts off to the fucking office in McLean, Virginia. Sorry for cursing. Um, other programs, they might have it all managed by a super-brain at Oracle, and it's all managed by a cloud agent, and the cloud agent actually interacts with a human operator in McLean and that's how they get their money. There's all these different processes for how they keep their records, right? Integrating all this stuff together, that has turned, that has, that has been a huge challenge to the Department of Defense. It's actually a huge impediment, I think, to why they can't, like, pass their audits, or they can't even provide all the information to pass their audits. Something that happens a lot in DoD audits is that they'll find stuff that wasn't on their books before. Sit, like, marinate on that for a second. Like, there were actual specific cases in the recent DoD audit report where auditors, like, pulled up to a base, and they were, they asked to get shown a bunker, and the Navy finds two or three billion dollars of inventory they didn't even know that they had. That's the Department of Defense for y'all. We're cooked. Uh, but no, shout out to DoD, love y'all, support our troops, but like, the financial accountability stuff, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a different beast entirely. And I hope that this slide deck y'all can
[Slide, 2:20:00] CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE | UAP GERB | [ HEADLINE NUMBERS ] | Estimated Misstatement | ANNUAL MISSTATEMENT | $1 - 2.6T | PER YEAR | LIFE-TO-DATE MISSTATEMENT | $102T | CUMULATIVE | CLAIMED CAUSES | 01 | Redundancy | Overlapping processes & responsibilities | 02 | Recordkeeping | Limited or sporadic record keeping | 03 | Integration | Lack of integration across departments. | 04 | Consolidation | Multi-system reporting challenges | 05 | WFA | Waste, fraud, and abuse | FEBRUARY 2026 // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM | PG 03 // 03 | CONFIDENTIAL // UNCONTROLLED // FINANCE
[GERB, 2:20:00] ...appreciate that. That is an astounding number, Kerm.
[Kermit, 2:20:03] Yeah, yeah.
[GERB, 2:20:04] Astounding number.
[Kermit, 2:20:05] Just one bunker, one observe, one audit observation, three billion dollars. Three billion. Like, oh my gosh. Imagine being the, you know, 26-year-old DCAA associate just like, 'I'm going to Crane and I want to look at bunker 784.' And instead of it being the orbs, it's like three billion dollars in shells. And you're like, 'Hey, uh, commander, did we talk about this? And like, I... my bosses didn't even know that this was... whatever.' It's got to be crazy like Looney Tunes type, uh, scenarios. But, uh, moving on. We talked about integration a little bit with the recordkeeping. Uh, consolidation kind of plays into the same concept. Goes back to integration, like being able to, um, you know, get one computer system or one financial reporting software used by one department to work up with the other one, and then it all gets consolidated together. Again, this is like the world's largest office, world's largest, um, world's largest company if you will, I don't want to call them a company because that's very disingenuous, but, um, you know, organization of people, it's the largest one on Earth, and there's some challenges with that. And then last but not least, they do acknowledge this. It's a very small like 'and waste, fraud, and abuse. And, and that.' But they do acknowledge it. It's part of this. I do think it's a larger piece of the pie than I think some people would admit. Um, but again, speculating here. So, anyways, that is the total misstatement.
[Slide, 2:21:27] TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED | UAP GERB | SECTION 04 | KermDawg's Napkin Math | Back-of-envelope estimates. Show your work. | FEBRUARY 2026 // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM | PG 04 // 03 | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED
[Kermit, 2:21:27] So, now let's get into some real napkin math. Are you guys ready? Now, I'm about to tell you what my number is for the program, okay? Now, don't come after me. This is... this is like... this is... this is like two steps above the shoot-from-the-hip kind of accounting napkin math that's been done previously, but I hope... I hope you guys find this interesting.
[GERB, 2:21:50] Yeah, it's napkin math. You're just trying to come up with a figure, an estimate. You're just trying to actual- actually put up some figures. You're not saying these are concrete, you're just trying to work with what you have available.
[Kermit, 2:22:02] I- I am vibe coding my math. Yes.
[GERB, 2:22:04] Vibe coding!
[Kermit, 2:22:05] There are no wrong answers in this. Until we get like audited financials from like the legacy program or whatever off-books activities, like a lot of this stuff, giant asterisk by it, obviously.
[GERB, 2:22:14] Yeah, let's see it.
[Slide, 2:22:15] TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED | UAP GERB | [ ASSUMPTIONS ] | Key Assumptions | STEP 1 | STARTING POINT | $102T | LTD "misstatement" — even | STEP 2 | MINUS WASTE | -$51T | Half written off as ordinary waste | STEP 3 | AFTER 60% RETENTION | $30.6T | Gov't capital retained LTD | STEP 4 | PRIVATE MARKET ADD | +$15T | Public co. IRAD ($250B/yr LTD) | NOTE | Not all of it is fraud / legacy / aliens. Remaining capital approached as money-laundering equivalent (cover programs, leftover funds, kickbacks, etc.). Private individual research — "random billionaires" — hard to quantify, excluded. | FEBRUARY 2026 // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM | PG 05 // 03 | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED
[Kermit, 2:22:16] Okay, so, key assumptions. We've already talked about the life-to-date misstatement, we don't need to rehash that. So, the first step in this is we'll take that number and we'll just lob half off of that number as ordinary waste. So, ordinary waste, we'll just go ahead and account for this as like, you know, redundant systems, double counting, inventory we didn't know about, totally prosaic normal stuff. Just 50 trillion dollars over the life of the past 80 years that's just like money burned, basically. So now we have 51 trillion. We'll play with this money. This is our remaining capital. Then, we will assume a 60% retention. So, a way of thinking about it is this: okay, so we've lobbed off half of this as like fraud, waste... as just normal, sorry, as normal waste. The F-word is a very dirty word. We're not talking about that. Half of it's been lobbed off for waste. The remaining amount, the key assumption here is that this is money that is being used for activities that the government doesn't really want to acknowledge. This is covert activity... this is covert, covert activity money. Because there is a covert budget. There is technically a classified, you know, SAP budget. This is a level above that. This is... this is the skim, if you will. This is the grift, if you will, for these like super covert activities. Now, the 60% retention, that estimate comes from a kind of like money laundering assumption. So, in a money laundering scheme, right? Where it's like, say, a dirty, you know, from Ozarks. I think Ozarks is a great illustration of this, of like, you know, a cartel wants to wash its money, and so it'll park a billion dollars in this random place, and then they'll buy a bunch of laundromats, and then the profit from those laundromats is clean, and then that becomes the capital outlay for the initial one billion dollars. But the one billion dollars went into like buying the laundry places, and like all this other stuff, like it gets washed away. The thing is, is with that whole process, it's not a perfect one-to-one, like you're not getting a billion dollars out for the billion dollars that you invest. You're getting a percentage of that. And roughly, with money laundering schemes, particularly for stuff of this like high level, I think 60% as the number is something that has historical precedent. I don't really want to get into it because it's kind of nerdy. But when you look at organizational-level money laundering schemes, 60% is usually like what is like the average retention rate. So if we want to structure this as like a money laundering scheme, because like money laundering makes sense of like, you have to, you have to hide the paper trail from autists like myself. So, inevitably, you do have to like wash the money and you do have to engage in certain schemes, and I think money laundering would be a... a good way to do it. There's probably another way of doing it, I'm sure the actual scheme that they employ is far more wizardry than I could have even comprehended before. Um, but, that's at least how I'm processing it right now, and that's how we get to the 30.6 trillion dollar life-to-date figure. Does that make sense?
[GERB, 2:25:26] Mhm.
[Kermit, 2:25:28] Okay. And then on top of that, I... this is kind of a plug number in step four. This is for private allocation. So, like to you pointed out, like does Katherine Austin Fitts's number, does it include private IRAD? Um, it does. It's inclusive, but here, I've broken it out separate. And this is at roughly half of what the government capital is able to generate because my assumption here is that the private market stuff is more of a recent phenomenon, since at least like, at least started in the late 1960s, and probably didn't become well funded or at least institutionalized until probably the early- early 20th century. So, 15 is more of like a guess figure, I don't really use it for like later on in the analysis, not really. Um, but that's a number that I felt comfortable with. I don't really have any napkin math to go along with it, largely because like when we're talking about private entities and like international sources, like trying to guesstimate that is like, it gets so much tougher to work with than like what I'm kind of working with right here with like the government misstatement stuff. Um, but, hey, if we can get some legacy program balance sheets, if you could email them to kermdawgENT um, or to Gerb, uh, that'd be great, and I'd be happy to include that in future slide decks if it's uh, allowed to be disclosed. But anyways, so that gets us to 45 trillion life to date. And it's also important to note, not all of this money is on fraud/legacy/aliens. What I mean by that is that this is like after after schemes, private capital available for all covert activities. Covert, like super covert activities. Not just aliens, there's other activities going along with it. I'm of the belief or impression that like if UFO activities are going on, it's super capital intensive, so it's a huge chunk of this number here, if that makes sense. Um, yeah. And then yeah, like with the private side, like random billionaires, like that's hard to quantify, so I'm just, we're just going to throw a figure there.
[Slide, 2:27:34] TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED | UAP GERB | [ ALLOCATION ] | The "Rice Bowls" | Not all potential capital goes to the legacy Program. | SPEND OPS | IRAD | ACCOUNTING | Other Covert Activities | Hard to estimate without insight into other parts. Tech/craft production is capital intensive. | International Sources | Added security considerations. Distributed funding across allies and proxies. | Complex Schemes | Covert programs require complex accounting. Different from fraud, but similar mechanics to money laundering. | IF 1/3 OF THESE FUNDS WENT TO LEGACY PROGRAM | $15T LTD spending ($180B/yr generated capital) | At 60% retention: $9T LTD actual spending ($110B/yr available for use) | FEBRUARY 2026 // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM | PG 06 // 03 | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // REPORT-CONTROLLED
[Kermit, 2:27:35] Okay, so, like I said, not all the potential capital goes to the legacy program. We talked about how there's other covert activities. Um, also, this analysis doesn't really talk about like international sources, and I think that that complicates things quite a bit. If there are international sources with this, then this number is underestimated, so the figure goes up. Um, but again, I would like to see some paper trail around that, or at least more data to work with. Um, then also real quick, like we just talked about this like with the money laundering scheme. Like a lot of this stuff is orchestrated through what's probably like very complex accounting schemes, that I would go so far as to say, like I think the actual accounting schemes are about as sensitive as like program information. Like the actual sauce of like how this stuff is hidden from regulators, lawmakers, auditors, everyone else. I'm sure the actual sauce of how that's done is about as closely held as like, you know, specific knowledge of the programs and stuff like that. But I'm curious what you think about that statement, Gerb.
[GERB, 2:28:38] I'm just following your napkin math, man. I- I- I'm trying to... I'm putting on my thinking cap because this is outside of my realm of expertise, so I- I'm trying to filter in everything you're saying.
[Kermit, 2:28:49] Okay. So, I guess now I can talk a little bit more about like how much is being spent in the actual UFO rice bowl. So, as I said on the last slide, if the legacy program is going on, it's pretty capital intensive. What I mean by that is, it costs a lot of money to have facilities deep underground, facilities across the country. It costs a lot of money to have personnel in those facilities. It costs a lot of money to have crash retrieval teams on beck and call at a moment's notice, able to go anywhere around the world and recover whatever. All the money for all that infrastructure, that whole program, it's expensive. It's very capital intensive. So, of the previous figure that we were working with, the roughly 45 trillion dollar between government and private uh, capital, a third of that, just assume a third of that is all for the legacy program. However, it's hard to know what the actual cut is without knowing what the other activities are. And again, we're talking about state secrets, so we probably never know, so I don't know. Um, but I think a third is a pretty good number to get at, because it gets us to a top-line figure, life-to-date total, that's actually...
[Slide, 2:30:00] [ ALLOCATION ] | The "Rice Bowls" | Not all potential capital goes to the Legacy Program. | OPER/OPS | Other Covert Activities | Hard to estimate without insight into other parts. Tech/U/craft production is capital intensive. | IR&D | International Sources | Added security considerations. Distributed funding across allies and proxies. | ACCOUNTING | Complex Schemes | Covert programs require complex accounting. Different from fraud, but similar mechanics to money laundering. | IF 1/3 OF THESE FUNDS WENT TO LEGACY PROGRAM | $15T LTD spending ($180B/yr generated capital) | At 60% retention: $9T LTD actual spending ($110B/yr available for use) | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 09 // 11
[Kermit, 2:30:00] three times higher than Catherine Austin Fitts's initial estimate. However, hold on. I have to I have to add one more nuance to this. Okay? So, with this rice bowl, a way of thinking about it is like the starting amount of the $102 trillion, that comes out of the unclassified DoD bank account. And then all of a sudden, the money then goes through, it gets cut off for fraud and waste, then it goes through this slush fund for money laundering. When it's in the money laundering, it's in a classified bank account. Okay? But this is just the classified bank account for all the other super secret classified bank accounts. There is a third bank account, Mr. President, there is a third bank account and that bank account is held by none other than the legacy program. But that money needs to go from the classified account to the legacy program. Here's the problem: you have autists like myself that look over all the transactions, so you need to engage in yet another accounting scheme to move the money. So you basically need to do another money laundering bit to move the money from this covert slush fund in case anyone asks questions, no one's going to be the wiser and no one's going to know about the program. So you have to engage in this. So there is another step of money laundering in my napkin math. That is how we arrive at the final orange figure of 9 trillion dollars life-to-date. Taking another 60% retention haircut, assuming another money money laundering scheme, we are then left with 9 trillion dollars life-to-date, which equates to 110 billion dollars per year. Okay? How much can that buy?
[Slide, 2:31:34] [ CONTEXT ] | What Can $110B/Year Buy? | $110B / YEAR comparable to: | CORPORATE | $97B | Tesla revenue | CORPORATE | $95B | Disney revenue | GOVERNMENT | $115B | Intelligence Community budget | DEFENSE | $112B | Lockheed + Northrop combined | HARDWARE | 8x | Gerald Ford-class carriers ($13.3B each) | HARDWARE | 158x | B-21 Raiders ($692M each) | FOREIGN | $125B | Ukraine commitments through 2025 | EDUCATION | 392,857 | Private uni students ($70k/yr each) | equivalent to ~2.1% of total US college enrollment in any given year. | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 10 // 11
[Kermit, 2:31:34] 110 billion dollars is roughly comparable to Tesla's annual revenue, Disney's annual revenue. Actually beats it by like 110 and - sorry, what's that? 15, roughly, billion dollars. Math is hard. Um, it's comparable to the annual budget for the intelligence community. By the way, again, we're talking about just legacy program's budget based on my napkin math is comparable to the entire intelligence community budget. That's a crazy figure. Um, it's also equal to the uh combined annual revenue of Northrop and Lockheed Martin at 112 billion dollars. Um, it is also enough money to buy eight Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers. These are the new ones at 13.3 billion dollars a piece. It could also buy a fleet of 150 - 158 B-21 Raiders. Um, it could also pay our forward commitments to Ukraine, annual uh adding last year to 125 billion dollars. Or, this is my favorite one, it could send roughly 3% of all college kids in America going to college next year to a private four-year institution at 70,000 dollars a year in tuition. You could send more kids to college if you sent them to state school or community school, but um hey, private private education, it's lucrative, it's also expensive. And hey, we could have a crazy scholarship if we weren't uh exploiting aliens secretly with our tax dollars. But um yeah, just kind of 110 billion dollars in perspective. There's some other ones that I could have added on here, but I think these were the more interesting ones. And then
[Slide, 2:33:09] [ CONTEXT ] | Where Does It Go? | ALLOCATION 01 | Security | $44 - 60B | 40% of total budget (Wilson-Davis memo) | Physical infrastructure & site security | Salaries (security personnel) | Program protection (counterintel) | ALLOCATION 02 | Actual T&E | $50 - 76B | Test & Evaluation - the actual work | Salaries - scientists, engineers | Equipment, tools, technologies | Note: "You can't buy a flying saucer" | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 11 // 11
[Kermit, 2:33:09] Now, we have to ask like kind of where does it go? Um, so I'd say there's really two main parts. Um, so I would say roughly half of the security of - roughly roughly half of the budget goes to security. I think that goes without saying, especially because like, well, none of this stuff is like acknowledged or we don't know about this stuff, so they have to be keeping the security pretty tight. Um, that's inclusive of like, you know, program protection as I've been talking about, but also, of course, physical infrastructure, site security, salaries, things like that. Um, the Wilson Davis memo throws out a top-line figure of like they were going roughly seven to eight times over their security budget on specific programs that they were looking into. Um, so that number is probably subject to change. It probably changes every year based on security requirements. Um, it's a big big chunk of change. And then, the remainder of that money is then spent on actual um tech and exploitation, time and engineering, test and evaluation, the actual work. Um, that goes to pay the salaries for scientists personnel, um equipment, tools, technology, things like that. And uh just a fun little quip here, um I have yet to find a fair market value for non-human spacecraft. I find it I've yet to find a fair market value for the TR-3B, for the Flux Liner. It's almost like you can't buy these things. You can't buy a flying saucer. I don't think the Kingman craft had a price tag on it. It would be surprising if it did, but I don't think it did. Um, but thankfully though, at least when you're thinking about the financing of this program, you don't have to buy UFOs. You just send out people, you just send out guys to go get them, and then you just pay for that whole recovery. So, in terms of capital-intensive, what I mean by that is not like we're buying flying saucers and that's the expensive thing, like all the money went into the TR-3B. No, no. All the money went into all the physical site infrastructure and security: the deep underground military bases, the stuff in the United States across the country, underwater, too. Um, and Catherine Austin Fitts agrees with this interpretation, too, that a lot of this missing money presumably went to a lot of this architecture and this infrastructure. Okay. These numbers subject to change, I'm not really a fan of these like 50/50 figures. It's a lot of napkin math at the end of the day. We're speculating, but aren't we having fun? Are you having fun, Gerb?
[GERB, 2:35:30] Absolutely.
[Slide, 2:35:31] SECTION 05 | Initial Thoughts | & Questions | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 12 // 11
[Kermit, 2:35:32] Okay, cool. We're almost done. We're now at initial thoughts and conclusions here. So, let's just wrap it up here.
[Slide, 2:35:36] [ QUESTION 01 ] | Where are all the (financial) records? | DISTRIBUTION | Spread across defense, intel & private orgs. | No specific "line item" | (ARV contracts, etc.) in open records. | Classified records - unclear | If this activity even appears in those. | Private side - off balance sheet? | Assumes financial mgmt despite non-disclosure. | DESTRUCTION | And what isn't lost has been destroyed. | Burn bags | Standard practice across classified offices. | "Shredding parties" | Reported at various sites. | Standing destruction policies | Offices have document destruction built into routine. | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 13 // 11
[Kermit, 2:35:37] So, where are the records? Where are the records for the program? That's a question I ask myself every morning when I wake up. Um, in terms of distribution, uh these records are spread across defense, intelligence, and private orgs. There is no specific line item, there's no ARV contracts, unfortunately, in the open records. If there was, we would have had disclosure two weeks ago. Um, in classified records, it's unclear if this activity even appears in those, but I think with this whole mental exercise of the napkin math, I think you can understand that like while they can while they can say that like hey these are our classified records, here's our classified programs, in reality, they can fund things outside of that mechanism and they absolutely have a money purse to do that. Like they have a huge money purse to do that. It's actually as large as the intelligence community's budget. This like the napkin math that I walked through is completely separate from these classified contracts and these budgets. And uh, I don't have a clearance, so I don't know, so I I can't answer that question. Private side, this is a question I ask myself a lot, especially when you uh hear that like Lockheed Martin and others are managing like off-books UFO activities. How are they keeping the records for these things? Do they have off-balance sheet activities? Like do they have off-balance sheet This is a very specific accounting thing where the records are not like consolidated for financial reporting, but they are still tracked for like, you know, good corporate like they are doing their job as a corporation making sure that they keep track of the money. So, they have it off-balance sheet. So it's off their balance sheet that they report to investors, but it's still being tracked. This would assume or imply that the corporations are keeping like legacy program records. And if so, hit my line. You can you can you can speak to me in confidence. Uh, I'd like to know more. Just, I'm curious. Very curious. Definitely curious. Um, so yeah. So, wide distribution. I'm also still trying to get my my head around kind of where all this stuff is at, and also, I'm hoping that Congress can kind of investigate this more in detail so that it can bear fruit and we can get more answers on where that stuff is. And, that's on the distribution side. We've also heard about the destruction side. Uh, something that keeps me up at night at times is that all the financial records have been burned. That the second that they found out that Kermit was on the UAP game, they had a burn bag and shredding party in the financial records office and they got rid of everything. Um, this has been reported, um actually not to joke but Grusch actually did talk about specific burn bag and shredding parties that happened in specific offices. So, it's probably not outside of the question that a lot of the records that I'm looking for specifically may have been lost to time or burned in a bag long, long ago.
[GERB, 2:38:14] A lot of the time if a SAP closes up in the legacy apparatus, the records are burned, buried, or shredded.
[Kermit, 2:38:21] Ah, I see. And I will say just like a quick little anecdote. So, I so I had a grandfather who was actually in the foreign technology division at CIA, very briefly before he became an airline pilot. And, the story goes, in this office that he worked in, they had a standing order that at the end of every day they had to shred all their documents. And they also worked in a building at Wright-Patterson with no windows. Interesting. Uh, I don't think he was on the legacy program, I think he was working on Soviet bombers, but hey, that's grandpa, got to love him. Uh, but I just wanted to bring that up because some offices do have like standing destruction document destruction policies and I think that's just worth pointing out.
[Slide, 2:39:02] [ QUESTION 02 ] | Why hasn't this been audited? | POLITICAL / LEGISLATIVE | Lawmakers in-the-know | Trusted ranking members & staffers on ASC, SCI/SSCI, etc. | Reputational risk | Hard to stake your name on "conspiracy theory." | Unproven core claims | Programs, craft, bodies — substantively still unproven. | Closed-door disclosure? | Unclear what was actually presented to lawmakers. | AUDIT-LEVEL | Historical audit issues | DoD has long standing systemic audit problems. | DODIG blocked | Barred from classified records & accounts. | "Hostile pocket" rooms | Auditors reportedly shown these as intimidation tactic (FAS). | Recent audit issues | Recurring failures point to deeper structural issues. | TOP SECRET // SAR-BLUE FINANCE // EXPORT-CONTROLLED | FEBRUARY 2024 // AUDIT OF 20 LEGACY PROGRAM | UAP GERB | 14 // 11
[Kermit, 2:39:03] Okay, why hasn't this why hasn't this been audited? Uh, billion, trillion dollar question. Um, let's just look at some risk factors here. So, first off on the political kind of legislative side, um you do have lawmakers that are in the know. It's very it's an open question of like who's in the know, but they are part of like the gatekeeping structure, if you will. Um, it's not just ranking members, but it's also staffers, and I think that's been evident just in how the UAPDA has been killed every time it's gone into committee. There's some kind of unseen, unhidden hand that, you know, takes away the disclosure efforts at the last minute. And, that only presumes or implies that there are people inside that are kind of actively protecting this architecture and this this secrecy infrastructure. Um, but also just like if you're thinking from a lawmaker's perspective, you know, at least before a lot of this stuff became destigmatized and this conversation really took off, um this conversation
[Slide, 2:40:00] TOP SECRET // SAR - GRD LIVESTREAM // NIGHT SHIFT | UAP GERB | [ QUESTION 02 ] | Why hasn't this been audited? | POLITICAL / LEGISLATIVE | Lawmakers in-the-know | Trusted ranking members & staffers on ASC, SCI/PSCI, etc. | Reputational risk | Hard to stake your name on "conspiracy theory." | Unproven core claims | Programs, craft, bodies — substantively still unproven. | Closed-door evidence? | Unclear what was actually presented to lawmakers. | AUDIT-LEVEL | Historical audit issues | DoD has long standing systemic audit problems. | DODIG blocked | Barred from classified records & accounts. | "Hocus pocus" rooms | Auditors reportedly shown these as intimidation tactic (FAS). | Recent audit issues | Recurring failures point to deeper structural issues. | TOP SECRET // SAR - GRD LIVESTREAM // NIGHT SHIFT | PERSONNEL ONLY // CLASS OF LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | pg 20 / 23
[Kermit, 2:40:00] has been largely a conspiracy theory, and so if you're thinking in the shoes of like a senator or like a lawmaker, um, it's hard to stake like your professional reputation on something that has been construed for a long time as a conspiracy theory. It might not play so well in your district. Although I will say, for the representatives that are in the UAP task force and in the federal secrets group, a lot of their districts are very, very friendly for that, like towards this thing. Burchett, um, you know, with Oak Ridge, um, Burlison with Missouri, there's like a hotspot over there, uh, not too far from his district. Um, Nancy Mace, not close, not too far from Savannah River as well. There's just a, there's a lot of overlap that I see in a lot of their jurisdictions, and I also know that their constituents support their, their hobbies as well. Not hobbies, but like their actual investigations. This is a hobby for me. Excuse me, guys. Um, so, that's on reputational risk. We also have, um, unproven core claims. So, I think this is kind of the challenge in like, you know, why can't we just like audit this stuff, is because like, I think the first step in this challenge or in this puzzle is like, there does need to be an airing out of like, this is what base, you know, base reality is. There does need to be like a level of amnesty that's afforded so that people can provide evidence so that an audit and other investigations can follow. Um, the audits and investigations can only follow unless there is evidence that is presented, and at this time like, I think I've covered as much as I can in these slides, but I'm hoping that there's like more substantive evidence that's, that's presented so that an audit can kind of come on the heels of that. Um, and then last but not least, like closed door evidence. Some of the lawmakers have talked about this of like, I've gotten briefings and whatnot, and we're trying to, they're trying to get evidence that they've seen in SCIFs over into the public. I want to see it, I know everyone else wants to see it, but it's also unclear kind of what's been shared behind closed doors and that, I think, increases the level of like information risk in this topic. Then on the audit side, um, just kind of audit level issues and risks. So, um, we've talked about kind of the long standing audit problems at DoD. We've talked about GAO audits in the past, um, the global war on terror, some of the issues that they've been having currently with their own independent audits right now. Uh, we talked about DODIG getting blocked previously. Um, Hocus pocus rooms, this is an interesting little bit. So, I was reading the publications by the Federation for American Scientists, this was like back in 2023, 2024, and Steven Aftergood, the guy that ran that publication, spoke with a number of people that were familiar with, uh, Government Accountability Office audits, and like how those are being run. And there was a very interesting blurb in one of his, um, anonymous interviews, where his, uh, the interviewee is talking about how basically within these DoD classified compartments, within these, uh, programs that need to be audited, they will basically bring in like a gumshoe, bright-eyed bushy-tailed naive auditor into their what they call the hocus pocus room. And they'll give him this crazy magic briefing where they'll like wow him with all the programs and stuff, and they'll basically like intimidate him to get him to like not tell people on his team, but like, hey, you're the one that's running point on this, and like you're our guy for the audit. And after that meeting happens, then the program people can tell their bosses like, hey, we got an auditor on this, like if anyone has any questions, they'll just talk to him. But the auditor doesn't really know anything, like he's just been basically pulled out from his work, been forced into this briefing, told all this crazy stuff, and it's like, okay, now it's your responsibility now, and don't tell anyone. So, happens a lot. There's actually, I think that's a case of like audit intimidation or auditor terrorism, terror I say it. Um, it's been reported. I would not be surprised if that's going on today. Again, I've never worked on government audits or like in that kind of environment before, so I don't really know, um, but there is a paper trail on that. It's been talked about before. Shout out Steven Aftergood, Federation of American Scientists, great publications. I'll post the little snippet on my Twitter after this, uh, after this PowerPoint, because it's an interesting little anecdote. Um, and then last but not least, I think recent audit issues, I think point to deeper structural issues. We talked about some of the prosaic issues, but we've also talked about some of the more, yuckier, messy issues with that. So, that's everything on why this hasn't been audited, but I'm sure there's other reasons, and if you have any thoughts, chat, just let me know, sound, sound off on Twitter.
[Slide, 2:44:33] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ PROGRESS ] | Bright Side | "We've never been here before." | STAFF | HEARINGS | RELEASE | ACTIVE | 2022 → | 2026 | Grusch → Rep. Burlison | Public & closed-door | PURSUE — DoD UAP Files | Assisting Federal Secrets Task Force. | Sustained UAP hearings on the Hill. | Active document releases. | UNCLASSIFIED | PERSONNEL ONLY // CLASS OF LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | pg 21 / 23
[Kermit, 2:44:33] But on the bright side, we have never been here before. So, trying to think positive. Um, this is the first time to my knowledge that a whistleblower who's provided testimony to Congress has been then hired by Congress to then investigate and prosecute on the same effort that he testified to. I think it's the first time. This is truly unprecedented, truly, and I have deep admiration and respect for Grusch and his current position and what he's doing, and I wish him all the best in, um, getting to the bottom of this and investigating, uh, heartily. So, never been there before on that. We've also had hearings as well. Gerb and I have been to a couple of those. Those have been a great time. Um, and then also recently, as of a couple of months ago, Gerb, we were actually funny enough in Washington, D.C. to go attend Steven Greer's disclosure press conference, the day that the pursue tranche one files release came out. And, uh, that was a time, that was a great time. So we've never been here before where we've had the Pentagon releasing UFO videos. We've talked about this before on other live streams, um, our thoughts on that. But hey, again, never been here before. Truly unprecedented times. We have a lot of reasons to look forward to, or at least think positively. But any thoughts on that, Gerb?
[GERB, 2:45:48] That Greer event certainly was a moment, wasn't it? It was, uh, at least nice to see my boys Roger Castle, Randy Anderson, and Michael Herrera there.
[Kermit, 2:45:57] Yes. No, it was, it was great to see them in person and, um, man, I'll just, I'll tell you what. Michael Herrera just, he, he had quite a fit on. I was like, dang, he's like, put together, man.
[GERB, 2:46:06] Yeah.
[GERB, 2:46:08] Well, I think that part of the unprecedented— I think the most unprecedented thing here is, uh, two things. One, the interrogative sent by Grusch and Burlison.
[Kermit, 2:46:19] Those were huge.
[GERB, 2:46:20] And two, I do think this will more likely than not transpire, but Luna speaking about communicating with Steven Miller in the White House about the waiving of NDA— NDAs with amnesty clause. I think that's unprecedented.
[Kermit, 2:46:36] That'd be huge if they can get it. But like, I don't know. Would this be something that they would announce publicly? Or is this something...
[GERB, 2:46:44] No.
[Kermit, 2:46:45] Okay. Yeah, cuz I feel like that, like you can't announce it publicly because then antibodies would kick in and it's like, you know, they can, they can try to hide it or like they can try to keep people from coming to D.C. We've seen that before.
[GERB, 2:46:55] Exactly. Exactly.
[Kermit, 2:46:57] So, keep, keep people from going through the, the double doors.
[Slide, 2:47:01] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ RECOMMENDATIONS ] | What Needs to Happen, IMO | TRACK 01 // CRIMINAL | TRACK 02 // CIVIL | Investigation | Audit | Whistleblower protections (ongoing) | Independent review of identified activity | Church Committee-style hearings | NOT EY or Deloitte | Friendly & hostile witnesses | Independence issues — legally resolve | Field investigations | Establishes baseline facts | Identify NHI/UAP assets in possession | For congressional oversight & prosecution. | UNCLASSIFIED | PERSONNEL ONLY // CLASS OF LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | pg 22 / 23
[Kermit, 2:47:01] But at least we can think positively, right? Are we thinking positive?
[GERB, 2:47:05] Yeah, I'm, I'm in a pretty positive mindset at, at points. Of course, there was a huge lull in this and some of that still residual with, um, the appointment of, of Lue Elizondo to a very high level position. I'm still dealing with some fallout of that. That certainly put a bit of a damper on things, but in terms of overall efforts, uh, going on, I'm, I'm pretty, pretty hopeful.
[Kermit, 2:47:27] Well, I hope it wasn't a lull in my PowerPoint, because, uh...
[GERB, 2:47:30] No, no, this— Dude, if you haven't been looking at the chat, I have, um, folks here are absolutely loving this PowerPoint. I really hope you post the slides because I think people really want to see them.
[Kermit, 2:47:39] Oh, I will. Oh, I will. The slide deck, the slide deck will be coming out imminently, and not two weeks.
[Slide, 2:47:46] UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB | [ STAKES ] | Why This Matters | "Reality is not classified." | 01 | Address Waste, Fraud, Abuse | Stated priority of the current administration. Bipartisan ground. | 02 | Retaliation & Harassment | "Dirty tricks" against witnesses is criminal. Problematic if USG-managed. | 03 | Aid to Affected Individuals | Experiences and former service members deserve counsel and support. | 04 | Truth & Reconciliation | Ties into other systemic issues. Two birds, one stone. | UNCLASSIFIED | PERSONNEL ONLY // CLASS OF LEGACY PROGRAM // UNCLASSIFIED | pg 23 / 23
[Kermit, 2:47:47] All right, so I guess we can just wrap up, um, why I think this matters, um, you hear a lot in the space particularly from certain individuals that like reality is not and should not be classified. And I absolutely agree. Um, it, that is a true statement at multiple different levels. It includes even at the very like kind of legalese, kind of nerdy level, it does include how we are actually accounting for our government work, how we're actually accounting for the work that's actually going on within the government and writ large. And I think it's important if not like required that we have to figure this out if we are trying to like restore trust in institutions, but also like if we are trying to get serious about like real, honest fiscal management. Because I'll just say this, and not to s— not to get like political here real quick, but like this is what I'll say. For the first time in a couple of year— for the first time ever, a couple of years ago, the DoD and the amount of money that we sp— that we send in the military every year, that stopped becoming the largest line item on the government's balance sheet. The largest line item expenditure now in the government balance sheet is on interest payments on our debt. So, DoD spending is no longer the top dog, we're now just trying to pay off the interest. And in that kind of financial environment, just in the normal corporate world, just given that typical fact pattern, you would have to, you have to scrutinize your expenses and your transactions a lot more, because it's like you, you are now culpable to all these financial covenants, to, to this debt. So, you have to scrutinize your transactions a lot more. That includes, unfortunately and specifically, it includes large expenditures to the military for God knows what. And if we can't address the potential waste, fraud, and abuse in that environment, then in this isn't an honest country and we don't have a like honest, you know, we don't have an honest transaction environment. We might have one in the private world, but even the private world's involved in this stuff, too! So it's like, none of this is like, it's all fugazi. What are we doing? Let's figure it out. So, I again, have to emphasize, um, you know, a lot of this stuff, you can think of it as like, you know
[Slide, 2:50:00] UNCLASSIFIED | [ STAKES ] | Why This Matters | "Reality is not classified." | 01 | Address Waste, Fraud, Abuse | Stated priority of the current administration. Bipartisan ground. | 02 | Retaliation & Harassment | "Dirty tricks" against witnesses is criminal. Problematic if USG-managed. | 03 | Aid to Affected Individuals | Experiences and former service members deserve counsel and support. | 04 | Truth & Reconciliation | Ties into other systemic issues. Two birds, one stone. | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 // ## 32 / 33 | UNCLASSIFIED | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:50:00] Oh, it's gross mismanagement or fraud, and fraud is a dirty word, but something I will say just to kind of play devil's advocate to the legacy to, you know, I guess the finance monkeys on the legacy program side, they're doing their jobs. Like, you know, imagine getting groomed for this program and you get read onto something and it's like, okay, well, this is my life now and I can't talk about it.
[Kermit, 2:50:19] You know, some people are, I think, truly just doing their jobs and I don't think they're necessarily evil, but the way that this thing has been structured, like the infrastructure itself, I think, is evil. The architecture itself, the systems and the processes that have been built is evil.
[Kermit, 2:50:33] I'm not mad at the people, and I don't think we should be mad at specific people. I think we need to channel that rage and frustration towards like actually amending and fixing our systems.
[Kermit, 2:50:43] Cuz we can we can try to fix people, you can try to fix yourself and whatnot, but like systems are like laws on the books. They are a set of rules and and regulations. These are things that we can agree by consent. These are things we can have discussions about in open forums.
[Kermit, 2:50:57] Like, let's start talking about that. Let's stop like saying, "Oh my gosh, well, I heard this person said on this Twitter space that like he didn't like this person." It's like, that's not constructive. Let's talk about something like more substantive, and I think the types of things we can talk about will actually get us to disclosure instead of us fighting amongst each other.
[Kermit, 2:51:15] But I'm getting off my soapbox on that. Let's address waste, fraud, and abuse first. Um, second point on that, we also, I think, just need to have a, uh, come-to-Jesus moment about retaliation and harassment. Um, this is something that it's it's evidenced in the historical kind of evidence and documents. I I think a lot about Paul Bennewitz as like a, you know, textbook example of what I'm trying to talk about here.
[Kermit, 2:51:40] Um, but long and short, you know, dirty tricks towards anyone, whether it's a former service member in the military, a contractor, a witness, someone just like that was out in the field at the wrong place, wrong time, and their life is turned upside down because they were in the wrong place, wrong time. That's got to stop. That stuff is criminal, and those types of, you know, criminal kind of acts, like that there there needs to be truth and reconciliation over that, and if anything, I would be an advocate for charges being pressed if there is actual criminal liability.
[Kermit, 2:52:09] But if it's someone like an accountant that's managing the books for this illegal program, don't don't send my boy to Leavenworth. Please don't. I'll advocate for him in court, okay? But the dirty tricks people, the ones whacking whistleblowers, they go to Leavenworth, in my opinion.
[Kermit, 2:52:24] All right. And then, um, also like, I I want to support people. Like, I want to support people that have been retaliated against, but also, um, you know, experiencers, former service members who have either been through these programs or who have suffered tremendously, either financially, physically, psychologically, mentally.
[Kermit, 2:52:43] Um, I know that there are some efforts that are aided specifically by whistleblowers for whistleblowers. I'm speaking of Vanguard Enterprises, which I not only support wholeheartedly, but I actually helped Matthew and Dylan help get set up because I do think that this is a serious avenue, avenue that needs to happen so that we can support people that have been going through this.
[Kermit, 2:53:04] Um, it's it's kind of it's kind of frustrating that like it's taken them to start this effort so that there can be support for people like that, but hey, at least at least we now at least we now have it and we are all, I think, moving in the right direction. So, I support them 100% and, uh, yeah, support Vanguard 100%. So, uh, aid to affected individuals, and then I talked about truth and reconciliation, so we won't harp on that. But that's my soapbox here on a lot of different points. Gerb, do you have anything to kind of add on kind of why all this matters, or—
[GERB, 2:53:34] This is your soapbox.
[Kermit, 2:53:36] Okay.
[GERB, 2:53:36] I talk I talk about this stuff all the time. This is your soapbox.
[Kermit, 2:53:39] Okay. My legs are shaking.
[Slide, 2:53:40] TOP SECRET // SAR-JOHN FORK // FOGO | END OF BRIEFING | Thank You | Questions? Yelling? Leave it in the comments. | CONTACT | KermDawg ENT // @KermDawgENT // Audit of US Legacy Program // June 2026 | PERSONAL USE // AUDIT OF US LEGACY PROGRAM // JUNE 2026 // ## 33 / 33 | TOP SECRET // SAR-JOHN FORK // FOGO | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:53:41] Thank you. I'm now off my soapbox. Thank you.
[GERB, 2:53:44] That was a generational PowerPoint. I think I speak for everybody in chat. That was a generational PowerPoint.
[Kermit, 2:53:52] Thank you.
[Slide, 2:53:54] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 2:53:54] Well, it, uh, I I was kind of like I was kind of reluctant to present this at first because I'm like there's no way that like chat is going to like talking about like niche audit terms and me trying to explain like weird like audits are not all designed to catch fraud. I'm like how am I going to explain this to someone that hasn't been in business school? Like this is, but I think it went well. I think I think chat was very—
[GERB, 2:54:14] I didn't go to business school and I understood what you were saying.
[Kermit, 2:54:17] Then I did a good job.
[GERB, 2:54:19] Also the the napkin math uh for for myself and other folks just to try and even get ballpark estimates of of how much funds might be carved out for what. That is is very, very, very nice. And and look at the chat now, everybody's absolutely loving it. Fantastic.
[Kermit, 2:54:34] Something to work with. I'm I'm presenting a number that people can work with and people can talk about in podcasts. So, please give me credit if you do talk about it.
[GERB, 2:54:42] Yeah, please. The the only—
[GERB, 2:54:45] The only sad part, Kerm, is that uh Rob, we never got Rob.
[Kermit, 2:54:49] Oh, no.
[GERB, 2:54:50] So Rob didn't get to experience the PowerPoint.
[Kermit, 2:54:52] Is he like is he is he is he out in Dugway right now? Did they take his ass out?
[GERB, 2:54:56] No, his PC got bricked. Uh, his his PC got bricked, the power supply died. Uh, so he couldn't make it, he couldn't be here for the the generational PowerPoint.
[Kermit, 2:55:06] Microplastics in your blood. No, my family does not have a vote, but I appreciate the compliment.
[GERB, 2:55:12] So, here's what we'll do, Kerm. I'm I'm going to read through the couple Super Chats we have and then we're going to do a 15-20 minutes of reading through Q&A. It could be questions about the PowerPoint, it could be questions to us and then we'll we'll wrap up because the the whole point of this live was Kerm's stage to do his PowerPoint. And I I've just seen so many positive comments, man. I I'm so I'm—
[Kermit, 2:55:33] Well, that's awesome.
[GERB, 2:55:34] Let's get through these.
[Slide, 2:55:36] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @calm_3194 | €5.00 | shoutout the gerbers
[GERB, 2:55:36] We are going back to uh so I'm in Mountain Time 4:15 so a good long ago. Shout out to you, my friend. Thank you.
[Slide, 2:55:43] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @OFAMpodcast | Gifted 5 UAP Gerb memberships
[GERB, 2:55:43] Dan, thank you.
[Slide, 2:55:45] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @MR.JustinC | Gifted 5 UAP Gerb memberships
[GERB, 2:55:45] And Justin, thank you.
[Kermit, 2:55:47] Sup Justin.
[GERB, 2:55:48] I I got to make Justin a a chat mod, dude. Mr. Justin, he does work for the night shift crew. He made that flux liner over my shoulder here. Mr. Justin's a a great friend. He's been over to my house several times for for UFC cards. Wonderful guy.
[Slide, 2:55:58] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @2Wolves-mlu | CA$5.00 | Any response to the guy interviewed on Vetted about the Russia Papers? Crazy interview!
[GERB, 2:55:58] Uh "Any response to the guy interviewed on Vetted," uh Jean Sticco, "about the Russia Papers? Crazy interview!" Uh no, I've I've uh I think he spoke about it. I spoke to Jean Sticco briefly. He said I I ghosted him, and that's just, that's my bad. I I didn't have time to get back to him and no, I didn't mean anything personal about Jean. But um, I I don't have the technical knowledge or prowess to to kind of filter in in those files, so that that's definitely out of my realm. But yeah, that's that's Jean Sticco.
[Kermit, 2:56:29] Yeah.
[GERB, 2:56:30] Yeah.
[Slide, 2:56:31] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @mattdisney6237 | @mattdisney6237 became a YouTube member!
[Kermit, 2:56:34] My my my pet theory, and I'm open to being wrong, but I know his his kind of assertion is that the the Chernyaev papers that he has publicized are the Thread 3 papers that were handed off to Congress in the hearing last year. And I might I might be completely getting that wrong and I might get firebombed on Twitter for just mis mischaracterizing all that, but pet theory, I don't I don't think those two things are the same. Maybe maybe that's just a right statement. Two wrongs make a right, maybe? I don't know, don't get mad at me.
[GERB, 2:57:06] Nobody's going to be mad at you after that PowerPoint, Kerm. Matt, thank you for joining, my friend. Max, great to see you in the chat, dude. We we love Max Spar here. We absolutely love him.
[Slide, 2:57:09] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @maxpars6132 | $5.00 | Very proud of you two for how far you have come as researchers.Shoutout to the Dark Forest theory and game theory around reverse engineering, Sal Pais
[Kermit, 2:57:15] Hey Max.
[Slide, 2:57:16] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @Derek-i313g | $9.99 | Love you guys. Can we get update at end of podcast about MIT audio recordings that were supposed to be turned over. Keep up the great work! D
[GERB, 2:57:16] Derek, thank you. Uh "the MIT audio recording that's uh that's the film by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt called Flying Saucer Talk. No update, and both uh MITRE was supposed to provide an answer and MIT Lincoln Labs and they have not yet, so we'll uh" Uh guys, while I get to these last these, the the questions you got for Kerm and myself, please put in all caps and we'll do kind of what we did last time with Rob. We'll do like a rapid fire uh round if there's some questions.
[Kermit, 2:57:42] Yes.
[Slide, 2:57:43] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @officialdiadonacs | $20.00 | ✌️💪🤘
[GERB, 2:57:43] And Official Diadonacs, thank you, my friend. Glad to see you in the chat. Thank you.
[Kermit, 2:57:46] Wait, one, one second, Gerb. So on the MITRE bit. So this, they have not responded on the, like, nine page interrogatory Burleson sent? So like they haven't even acknowledged receipt? Cuz that was one of the things in the letter, is like they were supposed to confirm receipt of the—
[Slide, 2:57:51] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB
[GERB, 2:58:00] They're supposed to by now. Have they? That's a question for, that's a question for another time. But MIT Lincoln Labs was absolutely supposed to uh, supposed to have that film as, as a deliverable.
[Kermit, 2:58:14] Huh.
[GERB, 2:58:15] I mean, it's it's also kind of in the the world of bureaucratic red tape. People move slow a lot of the time and and miss a lot of deadlines. However, uh specifically for MITRE, I'm sure that they're not necessarily thrilled about getting such a uh, a very specific uh interrogative with a lot of nukes in it.
[Kermit, 2:58:35] Yeah. I mean, like in the working world, like when I get a, when I get a deadline from my controller, right, like, sure, yeah, like I'm I'm going to try to hit that deadline, but it's not like, not always perfect. But if it comes from like my CFO, I'm hitting that deadline. What I mean by that is like, if you're MITRE and you're getting a letter from a congressman, like take it seriously. You're supposed to respond on the date. Like stop, I I don't know. It's just that, that's just frustrating for me to hear.
[Slide, 2:59:00] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @christopherathomas | Q: THOUGHTS ON THE 1993 "THE LAST SUPPER"? I'D IMAGINE A LOT OF FINANCIAL CONSOLIDATION. ALSO SUP SALV
[GERB, 2:59:01] Here we go from, from Chris Thomas. "Thoughts on the 1993 Last Supper? Yes, I I think I talked about this in the last video, but for those who don't know, following the Cold War during a period of defense consolidation, uh 50 or so prime contractors consolidated into five. Um, so the some of the residue of these purchases was like uh Northrop Grumman and and TRW and I think a lot of program elements got merged during this time.
[Kermit, 2:59:26] This was the one that they met in the Pentagon's cafeteria, like it was kind of like an off-putting kind of setting where you have all these like multi-billion dollar corporate execs and it's like half of you guys are not going to exist by the time that this conversation is over. So, go start talking about consolidations.
[Slide, 2:59:30] GERB | Kermit | KermDawgENT | UAP GERB | @jFDCamara | QUESTION: THIS ESTIMATE OF BUDGET OF 110B/YEAR IS ONLY FROM THE DOD BUDGET MISMATCH, RIGHT? HOW MUCH SHOULD WE ADD FROM THE DOE, DHS, ETC? THEY SURELY HAVE TO ADD SOMETHING (BUT LIKELY LESS?)
[GERB, 2:59:42] That was under Bill Perry as well.
[Kermit, 2:59:44] Yes, Bill Perry.
[GERB, 2:59:45] So, this is, this is you, Kerm. Thi- this is your question right here. "The estimate of budget of 110 billion dollars a year is only from the DoD budget mismatch, right? Okay."
[Kermit, 2:59:55] Uh, it's inclusive. Um, so 110, that's inclusive of government
[Slide, 3:00:00] @JFDcamara | QUESTION: THIS ESTIMATE OF BUDGET OF 110B/YEAR IS ONLY FROM THE DOD BUDGET MISMATCH, RIGHT? HOW MUCH SHOULD WE ADD FROM THE DOE, DHS, ETC? THEY SURELY HAVE TO ADD SOMETHING (BUT LIKELY LESS?) | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 3:00:00] and private. So again, napkin math, subject to change, but it would inherently include DOE, Department of Homeland Security. I will say on DHS piece, Gerb and I are of the opinion that they are not involved in legacy activities, and that their affiliation with Kona Blue was because expressly they were not part of the legacy program. So, when they got denied for SAP approval at DOD, and then they moved it to Kona Blue, the hope was that they would approve, DHS would approve it because they didn't know about the legacy stuff that was going on at the military. That's my understanding of it, but Gerb...
[GERB, 3:00:35] Yes. Yes. Yeah, and this is why I've kind of said that a, a thought leader, a lead in the pursue docs for getting and declassifying documents should be the DHS because the DHS there's not a conflict of interest like there is for CIA, Air Force, pick your poison for the rest of them.
[Slide, 3:00:53] @J_Boone | WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON NARRATIVE CONTROL AND CURRENT GOVT EFFORTS TO DO SO RE: THE TOPIC | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 3:00:53] Right.
[GERB, 3:00:54] What are your thoughts on narrative control and current government efforts to do so re: the topic? I am not a fan of narrative control. I, I talk about it a lot. I'm incensed by narrative control and, and partial disclosure efforts, and, and those with a history of equity protection trying to be a, a foremost lead on disclosure initiatives. So, thoughts on narrative control, I think it's been nasty. I think there are key milestones. There's 1953 Robertson Panel, 1969 Condon Committee, 2022 AARO, and then the whole AATIP saga are some of those key milestones there. What do you think, Kerm?
[Kermit, 3:01:26] Well, I will say like actual specific instances of like government narrative control, like, the comment I'll make on that is that the government knows when to step in and they step in only when they have to. I think a lot of the stuff, like a lot of the narrative control that I think people see nowadays is more so, and I hate to say it this way, but like useful idiots. I think that there's a lot of people that like believe all sorts of things and just from them existing and, you know, taking up, I don't want to say taking up space, but like, you know, posting all the time or just like, um, you know, constantly badg, basically like not everything can be true and I think some people have convinced themselves of things that cannot be true or what you would consider false realities. And so, you can make the argument of like, okay, well if someone is just like convinced of things that are not real, does that make them like a bad faith actor, does that make them part of a narrative control? No, I don't think so, but it does help the narrative control of like, well, at the end of the day, no one is going to take this topic seriously because look at all these people running around talking about BS. Right? So, I think it kind of works both ways.
[GERB, 3:02:35] And we saw that with, uh, Matt or, with, with Rep Gaetz and the E-4 who went in and, and for...
[Kermit, 3:02:40] Yeah, with the, with the, with the file, with the breeding program, dear God.
[GERB, 3:02:43] Boebert, you should have not asked that question.
[Slide, 3:02:45] Ledger | @austinRwilson | RE: SOURCES/GERB - HAVE YOU SEEN AN UPTICK IN POTENTIAL WHISTLEBLOWERS REACHING OUT? OR ARE YOU CULTIVATING SOURCES PROACTIVELY (ALWAYS)? | UAP GERB
[GERB, 3:02:46] Have I seen an uptick in potential whistleblowers reaching out? Are you cultivating sources proactively (always)? Uh, that's, I might be the wrong person to ask about that. I don't just kind of take in, uh, outreach like you would think. The, I care, I care so much about, uh, the accuracy of my information and, and what I put out. I'm the one who usually tracks down, uh, sources. And I, I don't reveal, uh, the names or the person to Kermit and Rob, and a lot of the time, but a lot of the time I'll keep them updated on some of the conquests, uh, I'll do to find sources. I mean, uh, just, just for my own safety I kind of let Kermit and Rob know of, of a very, uh, covert meeting I, I recently had where I, I had to, uh, basically go into an area with, with no, uh, communication for, for a, a while. But as far as people reaching out to me, uh, not so much. But I, I don't really dance in that tune. I, I try and, I try and, um, carve out my own, I try and find and meticulously track down those who I, I would want to speak to about this topic.
[Kermit, 3:03:51] Your sources and methods are so classified, even I don't know them.
[Slide, 3:03:52] @BushiBato | hey guys WHAT ARR THE CHANCES OF THE UAPDA PASSING? CITIZENS FOR DISCLOSURE IS BEHIND IT AND I HOPE IT PASSES. PS I ALMOST SAID HELLO AT THE SEPTEMBER 9TH HEARING,HOPE ALL IS WELL. | UAP GERB
[GERB, 3:03:55] I, yeah, I won't, I won't share them.
[GERB, 3:03:58] Uh, what are the chances of the UAPDA passing? Citizens for Disclosure is behind it all, uh...
[Kermit, 3:04:02] It got shot down.
[GERB, 3:04:05] Yeah, I, I, I think right, in my opinion, uh, it's, it's the interrogatives effort. That's, that's the best course of action currently.
[Kermit, 3:04:14] I saw something where they did have it house side, it got shot down in committee, and then now Senate is going to vote and approve on it, but it does not include the UAPDA provisions. Neither Schumer's nor Burlison's, which they were kind of the same provisions, same, same, but different. But, you know, it's all about aliens at the end of the day.
[Slide, 3:04:25] @UFO-Scrums | CAN JD VANCE REQUEST THE UNREDACTED 10 HOUR GRUSCH SSCI TESTIMONY ? | UAP GERB
[GERB, 3:04:31] UFO Scrums, shout out Scrums, the thankless moderator. Thank you for being here, man. I really appreciate it.
[GERB, 3:04:38] Can, uh, JD Vance request the unredacted 10-hour Grusch SSCI testimony? I think he, he had time for a phone call for Grusch, and if he only needs a few weeks to get to the bottom of this topic, the best way to actually get to the bottom of this topic in a, a relatively fast motion would be to sit down and get a crash course from Grusch.
[Kermit, 3:04:58] Screw two weeks, he just needs a day just to watch this thing and he'll know everything.
[Slide, 3:05:03] J | @jn456-o4t | CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE SECRET FACILITY THAT IS LOCATED IN A SHOPPING MALL? Mentioned in the Manhattan Project 2.0 video | UAP GERB
[GERB, 3:05:03] Okay, can I elaborate on a secret facility that is located in a shopping mall mentioned in the Manhattan Project 2.0? Uh, what I mean by this is that there are, whether it be SAPFs, SCIFs, or just covert facilities used as, uh, staging areas, safe houses, uh, temporary working sites, permanent working sites. A lot of the time, such infrastructure is built where you would least expect it or in plain sight, whether it be, uh, I'm aware of instances of, of, of, I guess what you could call shopping malls or, or shopping centers and, uh, corporate parks where that's, there are certain access points located on these premises, um, that are separate from the actual, uh, public facing side of, of the infrastructure that, that leads to, uh, certain control, control by certain parties for weird, kind of off-books operations.
[Slide, 3:05:59] D | @DJANGO-po5us | I HEARD ROSS IS DROPPING PART 1 OF GERB INTERVIEW NEXT WEEK AND PART 2 WEEK AFTER. NN answered sub questions "WHERE GERB INTERVIEW" | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 3:05:59] A lot of those out in the greater D.C. area, a lot of nondescript corporate office buildings. Shout out the Beltway bandits.
[GERB, 3:06:07] Yeah, and I, I think I've talked about some out in Dugway, too, what seemed to be just like a potable water station. I've had information come my way that that's, uh, elevator and I can't go there or else I'll get shot. But, you know, I could point, uh, relevant investigators, uh, congressmen to these specific sites and they could go in and see what they find.
[Kermit, 3:06:27] Mmhmm.
[GERB, 3:06:28] Uh, where, we've talked about this a little bit. I recorded with Ross, hopefully he posts it soon. That's, uh, that's out of my control and, and Rob Jones is doing his, um, his best to, to get that episode out. And I hope it gets out soon. Um, okay. Uh, Tech, so this gentleman here, Kerm, he brought up Minecraft. So, if you two got a rendezvous and, and play some maps together.
[Slide, 3:06:41] @teqsuprt | THOUGHTS ON THE JOE ROGAN JD VANCE DEMON ANGELS DEBATE | UAP GERB
[Kermit, 3:06:48] Nice.
[GERB, 3:06:49] So, what I would recommend here is that last live, Kerm had about a 20-minute excellent discussion on the relevancy of the angels-demons debate, the Catholic Church. Do you remember that, Kerm?
[Kermit, 3:07:01] Brother, 20 minutes? It was like five.
[GERB, 3:07:04] It was? Okay. Maybe like five. Okay. Then, then I'm using hyperbole. What I would really recommend is going to listening to that.
[Kermit, 3:07:11] I can very briefly rehash it, just 30 seconds. Um, as a Catholic, I believe God is real, angels and demons are real. It's part of the kingdom, it's part of the hierarchy. Uh, for reasons I talked about last week, I have talked with some people in the church and, in so many words, there is a shared understanding of a non, there's something that is not human, the government's working on, people have been asked to work on this stuff, and is mutually exclusive and independent of what we would consider angels and demons. So, I, I'm not saying it's alien. That's, a, alien means it comes from outer space. I don't know what it is. That's what UFO means, it's unidentified, we don't know what it is. What I'm telling you is that like, I, I've talked to like people that are priests, and they had family members that like brushed up within this activity. So, is that to say that like their family members were working on demon stuff? I don't know, but I, my mind doesn't go there. I think that these things are separate, and also I think JD Vance attributing a lot of this stuff to like demons specifically, I think is dangerous. And I know where he's coming from when he's doing that because there is a long tradition in the Catholic Church of what are called exorcisms, which are these spiritual practices where the priest tries to, uh, get a demon out of someone's body. I think you've seen The Exorcism of Emily Rose, you ever seen that movie? Um, but there are some stories about how in like the Stargate program that they had, um, they had priests on call in case that they had to perform an exorcism right then and there on someone that was a target. Uh, that's been documented. Um, yeah, so there's stuff like that, and then also within the, within the exorcism cases itself, there is some anecdotal, like there there are cases where the demons will present themselves as gray aliens, largely to mess with the priest, because it's like it's it's trying to do the devil's greatest trick of like deceive and, um, distract, mostly to, for deception. So it'll appear as a gray alien to try to convince the priest that they're neither good nor bad, but in reality it's just a demon that's messing with them. Now, all that to say, given, given that scenario, does that mean that the aliens are demons? Well, you could, you could, you could conclude that if you don't think that the aliens are real and the demons are just using it. But, another way of looking at it potentially is that God's kingdom is vast, angels and demons exist, the angels and demons also know more things about what's going on in this planet than we do, presumably about the aliens, and so a way that they can try to trick and deceive is because, well, they know about these aliens that are hanging around, they know what they look like, so they will manifest as those things, largely to, again, to deceive, because that's what they're trying to do as a demon, but...
[Slide, 3:10:00] UAP GERB | UFO | @teqsuprt | THOUGHTS ON THE JOE ROGAN JD VANCE DEMON ANGELS DEBATE
[Kermit, 3:10:00] It's not to say that these things are like, you know, they just created them out of thin air. It's possible that they could have gotten them as an inspiration, because they know that these things are going around. There's another way of looking at it, and JD Vance doesn't look that other way, and I know a lot of other Catholics, Christians that kind of keep in that angle. And I get it. It's, you know, understandable, but I also think it's like, it it kind of reminds me of like Calvinist thinking of like, you know, some people that are Christians just believe that some people are predestined to just like end up in hell. Like there's nothing that you can do, that there's no works, there's nothing you can do to become a better person, it's just like you're born, you're going to be predestined to die in hell and that's it. Um, I just, yeah, I don't really agree with it. Again, I'm a Catholic, so I think all the Protestant stuff is, uh, funny, but that's it. Um, sorry for making it super long, but wanted to cover everything I could.
[GERB, 3:10:46] That's okay. I, I know you're passionate about this topic.
[Slide, 3:10:49] UAP GERB | UFO | @neurostreams | QUESTION: thoughts on Dan Farah promising that disclosure will take place before year end?
[GERB, 3:10:50] That's okay. Okay, thoughts on Dan Farah promising that disclosure will take place before year end? I don't know about you, Kerm, but I'm not a fan of of of I I well I think one of the things that's plagued this topic is is promises of specific dates. So,
[Kermit, 3:11:03] Yeah. Ask Skywatchers, look how that turned out.
[GERB, 3:11:06] Yeah. Do I know that disclosure will come at the end of the year? Absolutely not. Do I hope? Yeah. Is there a pathway for it? Sure. Could that pathway be squandered? Yeah. Uh, do I remain optimistic? Yeah, I hope so.
[Kermit, 3:11:21] What is that eye-catching, riveting information that he's alluding to? That's my thing. Is it, is it more of the videos that we've been seeing? Like, I want to see documents. I want to see stuff like, you know, with the with the special access required, like, tag on it, you know, legacy program no foreign, like, real stuff.
[Slide, 3:11:24] UAP GERB | UFO | @thewrathofkhanteven | $5.00 | no question! just respect for KERM for a fantastic ride! from one autist to another, this was rich!
[GERB, 3:11:38] Or NGA West overhead satellite imagery.
[Kermit, 3:11:42] That sounds niche.
[GERB, 3:11:43] Thank you, the wrath of Khant even. This is just a shout-out to Kerm for being such a baller today and giving such a fantastic presentation.
[Kermit, 3:11:50] Thank you. Nicest comment I think I've gotten, ever. Thank you.
[Slide, 3:11:55] UAP GERB | UFO | @etamble | ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND, FINANCE-WISE, THAT CONTENT-ONLY SAPS CONTAIN BUDGET INFORMATION FOR THEIR SUB-PROGRAMS, HIDING THEM, BUT DO NOT INCUR A REPORTABLE BUDGET THEMSELVES?
[GERB, 3:11:56] Are we able to understand, understand finance-wise, that content-only SAPs contain budget information for their subprograms, hiding them, but do not incur a reportable budget themselves? Uh, as far as I understand how the content-only SAPs work, there's no, the CPI-only is not relegated to budgetary information. It's just, it's just critical program information pertaining to actual acquisition, intelligence, or operation support SAPs that work in conjunction with and in the same SAP umbrella to the content-only designation. But the budget can just be completely removed, thus it's a feature of continuity of government SAPs.
[Kermit, 3:12:35] They do that with COG, COG specifically?
[GERB, 3:12:37] Mhm.
[Slide, 3:12:37] UAP GERB | UFO | @RogerEsposito-o7x | IF YOU COULD DO A TRUTH SERUM INTERVIEW (THEY CANNOT LIE) WITH ANY LIVING PERSON, WHO WOULD YOU CHOOSE?
[GERB, 3:12:38] If you could do a truth serum interview (they cannot lie) with any living person, who would you choose?
[Kermit, 3:12:49] Can I answer this one?
[GERB, 3:12:50] Yeah, please, yeah. That's, I was asking.
[Kermit, 3:12:56] Alive or dead, or do they have to be alive? They have to be alive. Alive, okay. Shoot, cause I was going to say Jeffrey Epstein. Um, uh, no, I'm playing. That wasn't, that wasn't going to be my answer. Um, Paul Kaminski. No, he's, he's dead. He passed away.
[GERB, 3:13:12] No, he's still alive. Paul's old, he just retired from Mitre, uh, earlier this year.
[Kermit, 3:13:16] I'd do, I'd do Paul. I want to talk to a Mitre guy.
[GERB, 3:13:20] I would do James Clapper. I would do James Clapper and probably wouldn't, wouldn't go easy on the questions.
[Kermit, 3:13:28] He's probably got some skeletons in the closet like Cheney did, man.
[GERB, 3:13:32] Yeah.
[Kermit, 3:13:32] That's a spook.
[Slide, 3:13:30] UAP GERB | UFO | @ohno2566 | QUESTION: WHAT ARE ARV'S USED FOR? I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THEY WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR "PINK" ASSET AQUISITION SURELY THERE IS MORE IF THEY ARE SHROUDED IN THIS MUCH SECRECY
[GERB, 3:13:34] What are ARVs used for? I find it hard to believe that they would only be used for pink asset acquisition. Surely there is more if they are shrouded in this much secrecy. Uh, I'll say I, I kind of outlined it, outlined my thesis in my NRO project. I think that ARVs, exploited derivative technologies are used almost exclusively for covert ISR missions. Um, just due to some of the capabilities that I'm familiar with that specifically the triangles have with indefinite loiter times, a full-spectrum electro-optic cloaking, so only extremely covert ISR activities in my opinion. But I would say that's a relatively informed opinion.
[Kermit, 3:14:09] Something else, I, I, in my opinion, that the ARV is at least held for use for, it's not something that's used day-to-day, but I think the highest and best use case, as it turns out, from the military-industrial complex for having flying saucers, is that you're able to bomb your enemies way faster than like a conventional missile or bomber or anything else. And if you even look at like, specifically, um, Brad Sorenson's disclosure to Aviation Weekly talking about the different airframes he saw, one of the ones he saw was this project called Aurora, which was a remote control pumpkin seed craft that used, a conventional kind of thruster, you know,
[GERB, 3:14:46] Scramjet.
[Kermit, 3:14:47] Scramjet mechanics, but it had 123 nuclear warheads in its belly. And the program managers boasted that they could carpet bomb every city in the Soviet Union with the population over a million people in less than an hour. So, it, if we do have this stuff, if we have working vehicles and also, and just a real quick side here, in your Dugway video, Gerb, you mentioned how you talked to a witness who observed a craft with kind of an opening in it and there was like an inverted cone inside, and I think I shared with you my speculation that they may have been experimenting with loading a nuclear warhead, that maybe what he saw, that cone, was like, it looks almost like a MIRV warhead, and that kind of call, calls back to my take on this of like, a lot of this stuff is probably held for a continuity of government style action plan, that it's like if we were to be attacked and overwhelmed, that we have this advanced tech that we can just completely obliterate our adversaries for, and they won't even know what's coming. And they might even think it's alien too, because we've been convincing them like, Tall Whites are running at Area 51, like Iran believes all this stuff anyway, so they see the TR-3B but they might not see the CIA logo on it type beat. So,
[GERB, 3:15:56] Yeah, full transparency, that witness, MS, I have looked into the Dugway ecosystem quite a bit and I do believe that was a real, a very real situation that that gentleman encountered. But I, I know Daniel Sheehan also has stated on several occasions that a lot of the reverse engineering pursuits have been instantaneous nuclear payload delivery. So, you know,
[Kermit, 3:16:15] Global prompt strike, uh, program in, in
[GERB, 3:16:18] From Radiance.
[Kermit, 3:16:19] Yeah, Radiance Technologies, which some UFO people were affiliated with that group. I think Travis Taylor allegedly.
[Slide, 3:16:20] UAP GERB | UFO | @calebselga7937 | QUESTION: WOULD GERB EVER MAKE AN APPEARANCE ON JOE ROGAN? WE WANT IT
[GERB, 3:16:27] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, this is a quick question: Would I ever make an appearance on Joe Rogan? We want it. Yeah, I would, I'd go in a minute. We'd probably talk about MMA the whole time.
[Kermit, 3:16:36] Yeah, there's, it's going to be no, hold on, there's going to be no UFO talk at all, there's just going to be skizzoing about MMA for four hours and you guys are going to get to the end of the podcast like, 'Well, I now know a ton about the UFC but like, what, what, he got into aliens, like, what, what, they didn't talk about that at all.'
[GERB, 3:16:53] I, I would love, I would talk to Joe in a minute.
[Slide, 3:16:55] UAP GERB | UFO | @kmack3571 | Q: IN YOUR OPINION, WHY HAS ANOTHER NATION NOT TAKEN THE LEAD ON DISCLOSURE?
[GERB, 3:16:56] And this is a great question. I think we've talked about this, uh, a bit more, a bit, uh, before, Kerm. In your opinion, why has another nation not taken the lead on disclosure? Well, we do have one very specific recent, uh, kind of psychology behind this. The former defense minister of Brazil said, 'Hey, the US takes the lead, we'll follow.' Uh, but as far as peer adversaries who have crash retrieval, Russia, China, I do think it's, um, the, the interest of the sub rosa cold war for asymmetric technological advantages and, uh, feudalistic dominance is why there's not been an incentive to disclose.
[Kermit, 3:17:31] Yeah, I don't, I, I'm of the opinion that we are probably farther ahead than peer adversaries that do have programs. I think the two main ones outside of the US is like obviously Russia and China. Um, yeah, I, I, I'm of the opinion that like they probably haven't gotten working craft. It seems like we have working craft. So that might be a major like technological advance factor of like we have this but they don't. Maybe they're ahead in some areas. And then also like you hear from certain insiders that like China's catching up, and a big reason for the disclosure push is like so that we can, you know, right the wrongs in this program and we can, you know, catch up in this race to beat China. Maybe they are catching up. I don't think they're at our level. If they were, to, to kind of quote Eric Davis during his salad bowl interview, um, like he made a comment about like Russia being able to use this stuff in Ukraine. Like, the second, presumably, like, you could think that the second that any of our adversaries have the one up on us and that they are able to like, you know, take, you know, eat our lunch or, you know, do a first strike, whatever the case may be, um, it's going to happen when they like kind of surpass our ability either to monitor them or like our own peer abilities technologically. Um, so I don't know. It's, it's hard to say without knowing what, what's going on behind closed doors, but, um, I can appreciate that the game theory is probably not too kind to China being ahead on, to the US on this one. Although, I will say China has acknowledged this topic and they, they like the news media was talking about this in 2019, and then it kind of just went quiet. Because, pet theory, I think China has a program and they accelerated it after COVID, and that's a huge reason why we're having this discussion and why, you know, NewsNation is getting so much clout for UFO coverage, because, uh, US is losing and we got to catch catch up. So,
[GERB, 3:19:29] I think there are different strengths and weaknesses with us and our peer adversaries. I, I could probably guess what China, uh, has up on us, but Russia, I'm not sure about that.
[Kermit, 3:19:39] Yeah, anyone's guess.
[GERB, 3:19:41] Like, Kerm, I think, I think now, uh, we'll wrap it up here now because we've gone about three and a half hours. Guys, if we, if we didn't get to your question, uh, I'm so sorry. Uh, we will be back soon because we got to get Rob on, on an episode. So, uh, here's what I think we'll do, Kerm. Uh, we'll, we'll revisit...
[Slide, 3:20:00] UAP GERB | @kmack3571 | Q: IN YOUR OPINION, WHY HAS ANOTHER NATION NOT TAKEN THE LEAD ON DISCLOSURE?
[GERB, 3:20:00] once the News Nation project comes out, because I definitely think um there will be some maybe controversy around that or it just some some I I do see some reaction uh channels probably making some some videos about that or talking about that or clipping on Twitter. So, we'll hop back on that with Robin. We'll do an extended Q&A session. And and that gives people a chance to look at your PowerPoint as well and come up with crafted questions for you.
[Kermit, 3:20:26] For sure. I want like serious questions with bullet points and like links to specific slides. If you don't have that, I'm not answering your quest- I'm playing. I'm kidding.
[GERB, 3:20:36] Well guys, thank you everybody so much for joining. Um this has been an honor for Kerm's generational PowerPoint.
[Kermit, 3:20:40] Thanks, everyone. Thanks for having me on, Gerb. This this has always been super fun whenever we get to do these, and uh it's just it's just fun just talking about UFOs with my homies, you know? And the slide the PowerPoint, shout out Claude, cuz I I was going to show Ger- I think I showed you the the pre-Claude version of my slides, and man oh man, this the the version I shared today was eye candy. I hope it was. I think you agreed with that.
[GERB, 3:21:04] It was. As far as what's going on in the on the channel, and uh the News Nation project, I will have a video out either this Friday or next Friday. Hopefully, this video uh full transparency uh I try I'm trying to make this project short for my standards, which is about two and a half hours, uh just because there's a lot of really important information in my opinion. So, that's going to and I hope it's going to be a generational project because it's uh uh in my opinion, a a astounding for some stuff. But thank you, guys, all so much for being here, man. I really appreciate it.
[Kermit, 3:21:39] Thanks, everyone. Thanks so much for your support on my PowerPoint, and I will see you guys in the next live stream. To be determined imminently. Stay tuned.
[GERB, 3:21:48] Bye, everybody.
[Kermit, 3:21:49] See ya.