They Told UAP Whistleblowers To Come Forward. The Last Man Who Did Says It's A Trap.

Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors.

An open door, a protection program that was never offered, and the UFO whistleblower who revealed a macular constellation. "I was there primarily to hear about an ODNI-sponsored whistleblower protection program. That was never offered. Instead they said, "Hey, do you want to go to the ICIG?" Which was already well established to be sort of a fruitless endeavor, if not a trap itself. The officer who ran that interview had problems of his own. I learned both during and after that this individual's conduct was compromising. He himself mapped to three of the five indicators in cybertrats and appeared to be unstable on multiple occasions.

So where did they put him? This individual is currently now at the ICIG overseeing the whistleblower intake process. No whistleblower should ever approach that organization, being the victim of an intelligence operation against US citizens through ODNI, having as its end goal in presenting myself for treason and espionage. So why is that door open again? Let's find out. Hey everybody, welcome to the good Trouble Show. I'm Matt Ford. The principal deputy director of national intelligence just told UAP whistleblowers they can come forward now through cleared channels.

They want you to go to the Pentagon's UFO program arrow or ODNI, the office of the director of national intelligence. My guest today did just that. He is the man who revealed the Pentagon UFO black program, Immaculate Constellation. He went into here about a protection program. Instead they spent that meeting finding out what he knew and what he was prepared to say. The government says the door is open again. He has a warning for anyone thinking about walking through it. Please welcome Matthew Brown. Matthew, thanks for joining us.

How are you? Thanks for having me, Matt. Pleasure to be here. Great. Glad we finally connected. Thank you for everything that you've done on this topic. For people that have no idea who you are, give folks at home just kind of a brief background on what you have done in service to this country. Yeah. Prior to becoming a UAP whistleblower to Congress in 2023, I was a national security contractor. First at the Department of Defense, now Department of War, where I worked in the Pentagon. Then later at the Department of State in all those roles I was working on the WebAsA Mass Destruction mission and countering those threats.

What kind of security clearance did you have when you were working these things? So I had top secret SCI. You know, we're not really supposed to say too much more, but yeah. You had the top secret clearance with SCI eligibility. Correct. And definitely made use of that. Okay. Cool. Okay. Great. I just kind of established to people that are not familiar with you that, you know, that when you speak about these things, you had access to things that the public definitely does not have access to.

So on your sub-stack, you put out this really incredible article and I want to talk about that for a second. So, the thing was about catch and kill. The NDA waiver routes whistleblowers into Aero, OD and I, Aero being the Pentagon's UAP office, OD and I, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Pursue. You say none of them can be trusted and I would happen to agree with you on all of that. Now Monday, the principal deputy director of national intelligence posted that people can now come forward through cleared channels and you called all of this three days early.

What is wrong with, quote unquote, cleared channels? Well, I mean, first I would just say that aside from adding the Pursue team as an organization that can receive whistleblower disclosures, there's really nothing new, at least in what's been announced so far. Aero already had the authority to accept protected disclosures. So did OD and I through its SEIG process and unfortunately through its dig director's initiative group as well. So the problem though, just in general, is that none of this is going to reach the public. This is not a waiver of non-disclosure agreements to talk to the public about what whistleblowers know.

It's for whistleblowers to go talk to the government itself at these bodies, two of which have a very poor track record when it comes to dealing with UAP whistleblowers. And essentially it's just more of the same. I want you to expand a bit. I take it that one of the organizations that you're talking about is Aero. Am I right about that? Oh, yeah, most certainly. And what would be some of the things that you would say gives Aero a bad track record? Well, I think most recently we can look at their treatment of congressional witnesses on the UAP subject.

Recently discussed contact in the desert with Jeremy Corbyl and George NAP was the sort of harassment, bordering on open retaliation that senior chief Alexander O. Wiggins of the Navy experienced after testifying the Congress, you know, being sat down by Aero investigators and interrogated essentially on what he saw, how he saw it, was he leaking videos, very uncomfortable situation, and then being threatened that if he didn't come meet with them, that they would go to the secretary of defense and make him talk with them. It's really a very collegial or comfortable process to say the least.

You call Aero a catching kill operation. And this is something that I've said on this show before. I submitted a letter to Congress that is now part of the congressional record that had the former directorate of science and technology, Glenn Gaffney. I named him as one of the people on Sean Kirkpatrick's secret advisory board back when he was the director of Aero. And the point I made in this article is here you have this office within the Pentagon that is supposed to be a place for people to make protected disclosures to.

And yet you've got the guy that's one of the primary gatekeepers for the UAP legacy program on this panel. I mean, that's certainly a conflict of interest. And the point I'm making is that this was likely a back door to get whistleblowers who walk into Aero to get their information in a pipeline straight to the legacy program in the CIA. Would you say that that's a fair statement? Oh, absolutely. And the conduct of at least the previous two directors of Aero itself has been nothing sort of disreputable and very disparaging towards the UAP whistleblowers that are out there, the people who are taking the risks to bring this information forward.

And Aero itself, frankly, has too many missions. It's focusing on data integration, collecting reports from Aeroman, CNN, and also ingesting whistleblower testimony from inside and outside the government and supposedly conducting a historical review all in one shop that also issues contracts for sensors to detect UAP sensors that we already have. So what exactly Aero is, is kind of difficult to say at this point, but when it comes to whistleblowers, it certainly is no friend, it is no ally, and it is not to be trusted. It is.

I would definitely agree with that. It is certainly not to be trusted. Now, you had this just absolutely amazing interview on Weapon Eyes with Jeremy Corbell and George NAP. And if folks, if you haven't seen it, I highly suggest watching it. It's an extensive three-part series. One of the things that you spoke about in that interview was a, if I remember correctly, it was maybe a transcript or a report that you saw that was a conversation between the former director of Aero, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick and Senator Marco Rubio, who at the time, I believe, was the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

And you tell us what were the contents of that conversation, or if you can't directly give specifics sort of like an overview. Yeah, I can't give too many specifics there, other than what was sort of related in that interview and in the, I believe in the MAC, the Constellation Report as well. But the gist of it comes down to that Patrick was in these meetings as the director of Aero meeting with not just Rubio, but Gillibrand, Warner, and their staff. And basically saying to them that the US government had no knowledge about any sort of legacy UAP program, no knowledge about any sort of reverse engineering or crash retrieval program, and no knowledge or no definitive knowledge about what they were seeing in the skies.

And then, the Donald Face Lie, certainly at that point, Mr. Kirkpatrick was well aware of all those subjects and the facts behind them. And I think we can look to his job history later on to see what might have happened there, receiving a contract to work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a place where reverse engineering efforts are widely reported to be occurring. And I think that's the point towards the deal that was probably struck there. Yeah, I completely agree. And actually before Kirkpatrick left, he was not, I wouldn't say funneling money, but Aero was giving contracts to Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

So him immediately going over to Oak Ridge is actually violation as I understand it of the emoluments clause. So I don't know how that happened, but it is certainly suspect. Now I'm curious, Matthew, do you think that any of kind of the bad things that were going on under Aero under Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, can talk this morning, do you think that it's any different at Aero under the leadership of Dr. John Kisloski? Unfortunately, no. The incident with senior chief Wiggins was well past Kirkpatrick's departure and well into Kisloski's administration of Aero.

So either he is approving those actions or turning a blind eye towards them. Aside from that incident, I've heard from other people that to this day, the stigma for reporting a UAP siding as a service number has not gone away. The interviews on this subject are grueling. There's threats of psycho valuations and hints that if you want to go forward with this information, this picture career in the long run, it's right back to the days of Blue Book. Little change. So you're saying Aero is telling people that are coming in the door that, oh, by the way, if you give us this protected disclosure, this could harm your career or flag your security clearance, etc.

Correct. I would just offer the nuance that there's been an effort to get service members who have sightings of these things in the field to report them as part of their official duties, so not as a whistleblower, but just as part of their service in the military. And that's kind of what I'm getting at. That level of saying, hey, I saw something. Here's what I saw. I'm not blowing whistle, and any wrongdoing, just reporting what I see and encountered in the field. That alone is enough to kind of bring the hammer down and bring a chilling effect, which if you look in the mission statement of Aero is exactly what they claim to put a stop to in reverse.

It is. It's really pretty crazy. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the Aero's contractor are low solutions. They're a prime contractor before it was Sandcorp. They actually reached out to me in a direct message on LinkedIn, asking me to apply for a job at Aero. At first, I truly thought that this was some kind of joke because I've been so critical of Aero. But when I looked in the job description, of course, first thing it said was T.S. clearance with S.C.I. eligibility. I don't hold any sort of clearance.

But as I'm scrolling down under desired job qualifications, and again, this is under the leadership of Dr. John Kisloski, under desired qualifications for what they wanted me to apply for at Aero was information operations, information activity, activities, and deception activities. In other words, they wanted me to have a background in psychological operations, and it was just absolutely insane. The other thing that I would point out about Aero is their prime contractors that they have had. Arlo and Arlo Solutions, which is the current one, and Sandcorp, they are primarily known as contractors that do information and perception management, sorry, IPMO, information and perception management.

Then the other thing that they are also known for is insider threat. You have these two contractors that are really doing the lion's share of the work who are really set up just in this, I mean, even in this analysis here that I'm holding. I'm just saying in the contracts, in the two primary contracts, both of which are around $4 million per fiscal year that they are paying, both of these contractors are set up for catch and kill. So right away, that tells you exactly what's going on.

But I want to move on to what happened when you went to ODNI. For folks that, let's say, just haven't watched the weaponized podcast, walk us through what occurred, why you were called, tell us a bit about when you went there, and if you don't mind, maybe who interviewed you, those sorts of things, whatever details you can share. Because I think all of that is important, especially with what is currently happening with ODNI. Sure, that whole saga is probably an hour's long conversation, so I'll try to be brief.

The genesis of this was having an ODNI agent reach out to various people in the disclosure movement, especially with the national security background and their allies, insert himself as a friendly person who just wanted to get to the bottom of this and help expose bad guys when people's trust. And from there, get contact to people like myself and invite us in so that we can help them figure us out from the inside and bring it back under proper oversight and control. That whole process, I personally have an immense amount of skepticism around it and regretfully did indeed make the choice to go in.

There's kind of a catch-22 situation where the government's saying that they're coming to whistleblowers in good faith. Well, as a whistleblower, you're supposed to consider doing so to help people. And that experience, once we got into the room, nothing lined up with what was discussed primarily. I was there primarily to hear about an ODNI-sponsored whistleblower protection program, specifically for the UAP issue. That was never offered. Instead, they said, "Hey, do you want to go to the ICIG?" Which was already well established to be sort of a fruitless endeavor, if not a trap itself.

The questioning that they had veered off into areas separate from UAP, including things like, well, probably can't say here, but they only say tied to WMD concerns. And the conduct in the Middle East, it definitely became clear that they were pumping me to see what I knew, how I knew it, and what I was prepared to say. Left that interview, saying, "Hey, sure, I'll give you my documentation and evidence," provided some of that, and was just ghosted. Next thing I heard was some months later, or maybe just actually a month later, and that was the news from the weaponized team that the ODNI officer who was working under James Erdman III, and in fact was the only officer working the UAP issue for James Erdman III, was saying that I had fabricated all my evidence, that I had made up the MACD Constellation Program and the documentation and the report, which was separate from the MACD Constellation Program, and that I was an anti-Semite.

And of course, as you come famous now, I received that news ironically enough at my friend's Jewish wedding. They did not do their background. Yeah, clearly. I have the chance to debrief a couple people that went and testified to Arrow, and then I provided a sort of executive summary of their experience with Arrow to one particular United States Senator. And I can tell you that what I was told, it was literally keystone cops there. It's really bad. So was James Erdman III one of the people who interviewed you in the skiff?

No, I had no contact with him. In fact, did not know that he was the individual leading the UAP investigation until his testimony to the Senate. I forget which committee, but it was his public testimony where he revealed that information and proceeded to discuss his findings on COVID origins and an almost health incidence. At the time, the oversight of his findings related to UAP was definitely noted, but since the hearing wasn't on that subject, I did the time to call out that sort of suspicions so mission, his recent interview with Catherine Harrage, regrettably revealed sort of his true intentions there, which I believe are to mislead the American public and continue the original effort of discrediting UAP whistleblowers and trying to put this entire topic back in the tube, as they say.

I would agree with that. Can you tell us, because I believe that at this juncture, it is important to begin naming names. To start doing that with congressional staffers that have been blocking all of this, can you tell us exactly who at ODNI interviewed you in the skiff? Not at this time, not publicly. I will say that it is time to start naming names, and that will be done through sort of official channels first, and there is some complications here because that individual is an active intelligence officer, and as I understand it, there are laws preventing U.S. citizens from I'm asking active intelligence officers.

I think it applies to people like yourself that have held clearances. I don't know that it applies to regular Americans, but I certainly don't want to step into that if that is the case. So you've got this guy who ran the or runs the ODNI's investigation into UAP. It seems to me, and this is something that I pointed out almost a year ago, that really sort of first signs of this were with the Wall Street Journal article, and also some podcast appearances with Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the former director of Arrow, in addition to Tim Phillips of Arrow, or he's no longer at Arrow.

What I recognized is that there seemed to be a communication comms plan with these goals in mind. Number one, derail the UAP Disclosure Act. Number two, really the prime thing was to message to members of Congress that all of this is a bunch of BS, that they're wasting taxpayer money, and that their constituents are going to vote them out because they think they're wasting taxpayer money. But the primary goal that I recognized in this communications plan was to label whistleblowers as grifters. Because if you can blanket a sign, sort of blanket label, all of these whistleblowers coming in as grifters, then basically kind of defangs people that have gone and testified in front of Congress.

So then if you're like, "Oh, well, the people that have showed up in front of Congress are just doing it to make a bunch of money," what are your thoughts on that? Do you think that that is what I'm alleging? Do you think that that makes sense to you? I mean, unfortunately, it continues a long trend of elements of the U.S. government and it tells us community smearing people who have legitimate information about this topic and are willing to go to the public with it. In my opinion, you know, Aero's true mission includes both internal information control and external perception management.

So making sure that the raken file of the U.S. military believes the right things and doesn't talk about the wrong things and then making sure that the public on the outside doesn't come to recognize the wrongdoing that has occurred and the length of the cover-up that has existed over this whole topic. Real quick folks, I want to stop right here for one second. If you're not subscribed, hit that button, ring the bell, leave a comment. Give us a thumbs up. I know it sounds like a lot, but here's why it matters.

YouTube sees all of that and basically says to itself, "Hey, maybe we should recommend the good trouble show to people who don't know. It exists yet." That's how that works. As a matter of fact, YouTube is no longer organically recommending our show to new people. So please, doing all of that will hopefully change YouTube's mind. Also, we are on all the major podcast platforms if you like to listen on the go. Last thing and I promise, we have no sponsors on this show, zero. We are kept alive entirely by people like you.

If you want to help pay the studio rent here in Hollywood, we are on Patreon at www.patreon.com/thegoodtroubleshow. You can also support us right here on YouTube through memberships or super things. All of that stuff means the world to us and allows us to keep bringing you this show. All right, back to the interview. One of the things I pointed out on this show is the Smithmont Modernization Act and that that is being used as a loophole for the Pentagon and the intelligence community to bypass executive order.

I think it's 1, 2, 3, 3, 3 that presidential executive order that prohibits the use of disinformation upon American citizens. And the weaponized interview, you mentioned something that you had identified a group of people and that were engaging in this. And I took that to mean perhaps debunkers or people like Stephen Green Street or McWest or others that I have suspected are part of that network. Is that who you were referring to? I can't comment on specific names. I'm trying to avoid lawsuits here. That was one category of information I did bring forward to ODINI.

The behavior itself is pretty clearly organized and directed. And that act that you referenced is a very important one for the American public to understand. Because what that does is let our intelligence community use third party countries and clandestine information warfare assets in those countries to recirculate propaganda back to the United States and the United States citizens to affect political change. It's completely unethical. The fact that that act passed under Obama, I believe, is something that urgently needs to be repealed. Everyone, you said everyone, I believe it was in the weaponized interview.

Everyone in this debate says amnesty. You're the only person asking what exactly the American people are being asked to forgive. And then you answer it, kidnappings, forced disappearances, murders, human experimentation, directed energy weapons used on American citizens, intelligence trade craft used to destroy marriages, families, businesses, home invasions. Walk me through a few of those things that are in that list. What of those have you experienced? And yeah, it's really just sad. So, I mean, it is 13 crimes as it were, or categories of crimes that have been committed by the cover-up and are the authorities that govern the legacy programs.

You know, I personally experienced and provably have experienced, you know, the intimidation that comes from home invasions, the intimidation that comes from being the victim of an intelligence operation against US citizens through ODNI that was having as its end goal in presenting myself for treason and espionage charges that also carry the threat of execution. So if that's not a chilling effect, I don't know what is, there's other categories of crime there that I myself have not experienced, but am aware of being committed either through other individuals or through non-public information.

It is quite frankly a list of crimes that need to be brought forward to the public and needs to be taken into our judiciary system, whether through some sort of class action lawsuit or many lawsuits pursuing just for each of those crimes. I would completely agree with that. You know, you were talking about in one of these things here and one of the list directed energy weapons. I have two friends that were both hit with that, with anomalous health injuries. Then the other thing is the targeting of not only the whistleblower, but their spouses.

I know of at least two people where the Air Force Office of Special Investigation has targeted the spouse of a particular person, just giving you one case, of a particular person who isn't even a whistleblower, but was related tangentially to a whistleblower. This Air Force, this AFOSI agent, and if you're watching, I know exactly who you are. This lady befriended the wife of this person who has served this country with distinction in the intelligence community and literally broke up their marriage. This person actually, just makes my blood boil, talked one of the daughters of this individual into leaving her dad.

These are the kinds of things that AFOSI and the legacy program they do. So you have heard of the exact same sort of things. That is correct. It's very sick stuff and conduct on becoming an intelligence officer, especially when carried out against a citizen of the United States. One of the things that you spoke about as well is that this is being directed out of North work Grumman. Are you talking about ****? Well I don't think there's only one source of this sort of behavior as you yourself pointed out AFOSI participated in that case.

At this point, again, not willing to name names while we seek official channels to pursue justice. But you are not. I'm going to bleep the name out by the way. But I take it you're talking about ****. No comment. Okay. And what does that say to you that you have two people within Northrop Grumman who are directing these security contractors in particular. And I forget they've changed names, but it's essentially Wacken Hut and Pinkerton who are running a group of former Tier 1 operators to go in and break into homes, try to kill people.

And I would allege that they probably have. Why isn't Congress hauling the sea suite of Northrop Grumman in front of him in a hearing? Because I mean, it's just the fact that you've got these two individuals at least in North rop Grumman that are running this kind of dual hat operation in support of the legacy program and the CIA. What would you say to a member of Congress about what needs to be done about that? It's a tough question. I think on the one hand, we definitely have motivated members of Congress, especially in the House to go after this.

But I don't think that there is currently the authority or political will to bring people like that in front of Congress and to force them to answer questions. The defense industry is one of the major donors to pretty much every political party and every member of Congress. People like you described are very scary and they are willing to apply violence or means just short of violence to intimidate and force people to back off. And indeed that has happened to members of Congress and their staff. I think fear is also involved as well as the self interest of not wanting to rock the boat with their donors.

I was actually going to out this particular person at Northrop Grumman and I was warned by someone in the intelligence community that for me to do that would risk my life. And that is why that name is going to be bleeped. Now, your name is first. Go ahead. I think that's a very important point. You American citizen, reporter, journalist are being told by our intelligence community that you cannot report on wrongdoing in our country. Otherwise you will forfeit your life. What kind of country are we living in where you are saying that statement with no incredulity and we are not reacting with outrage and demanding a change in our system.

That is stossy level oppression. That is KGB Soviet level oppression. That is the worst of the worst. In our history we are told America is not like that. Thank God we have our first amendment rights. It's really disgusting. And the other thing too is that the person that is a supervisor is AFOSI, a person from Air Force Office of Special Investigation. So here you have the United States Air Force supervising at Northrop Grumman who is running operations, directing the two security contractors and others to go and really do things to American citizens that would land anyone else in federal prison for life.

And the fact that they are targeting American journalists, they are targeting whistleblowers and really threatening their lives is truly obscene. It is probably the best way to put it. And again the C-suite of Northrop Grumman, I'm quite sure that there are some people because I know some of the people in the C-suite are actually on the Council of 27 that manage the legacy program. These people need to be held to account by the justice department. And it seems like the justice department, that is the one thing that you are not hearing much about.

And it seems like you have got the executive branch that clearly in the National Security Council is ripe with corruption. You have the United States Congress who some members of Congress are trying to do the right thing, but you have a lot of staffers that are compromised. Really in my view it seems like the justice department is really the last hope of turning this sort of mafia state into the democracy that the Constitution demands. That's the hope. You know I think we will find out when we force the justice department to respond through lawsuits, through bringing criminal prosecutions or advocating for those criminal prosecutions to take place.

I've heard before from the FBI that they don't want to compromise national security or American capabilities because of the threats that are out there in the world. And to that I say our most pressing threats are domestic. They are internal. The subversion of American democracy, the erosion of constitutional rule, isn't coming from China or Russia. It's coming from our own intelligence community, from our defense industry, and their enablers. As you mentioned, they steered you toward an ICIG whistleblower status as far as going under their protection.

Explain in particular what would be that trap? What would be the risk of you signing on that dotted line with what they were presenting? And also too, did they explain exactly what kind of protection this would give you and during your interview? Did they ever ask you? Hey Matthew, is your life being threatened or do you have any concerns for your physical safety? No. Even the offer of the ICIG was clearly just an offer that they did not expect me to take and almost felt like they could just say that they had offered protection in the interview.

That the trap with ICIG is twofold as I understand it. One, what you go in and say basically becomes part of an investigation and therefore you're not able to talk about it much like talking about information and a skiff can then be retroactively classified regardless of whether it's actually originating from a classified source. And then the other part is that the ICIG has taken no action. I know multiple people who have gone there with their whistleblower testimony or complaints. They've been found credible, not urgent and have been waiting for years for any sort of restitution.

Were you ever shown any kind of like documentation in terms of what whistleblower protection would entail? No. And I was explicitly told before going to this ODNI meeting that I would be handed sort of a briefing on what this ODNI sponsored to UAP whistleblower protection program would be that never occurred in fact the conversation which was supposed to start there. We never got to that topic till maybe 20 minutes into it. During your ODNI interview did the name Aaron Lucas ever come up? No. Apparently he watches this show and watches what Chris Sharp writes and was one of my people in my network said that Lucas was "but hurt" about the things I had said about him in that, in the Liberation Times.

The thing that's crazy is that you have somebody from ODNI calling up Jeremy Corbell to basically trash talk you to talk shit, actually tell Jeremy Corbell lies about you. Do you have any idea who it was that called Jeremy? Yeah, it was the very same ODNI officer I interviewed with and had been interacting with previously. Did he, during that interview, did was there anything question wise that he asked you that looking back in 2020 hindsight you realize oh he was trying to dig stuff up to tell Jeremy to try and discredit you?

No, to be frank it became very clear in fact he whispered a comment to me as we walked into the room that immediately put me in a guarded position that this was not going to be a good faith interview. Like I said the questions were more around what my access was, what I knew, including about specific subjects not related to UAP. I don't know what is going on over in ODNI or CIA but they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with these guys. Frankly I expected better.

And when you say he whispered in your ear is that what he told you that oh by the way this interview is going to be a bunch of fluff? No it was just a very sharp strange comment that he had read all the reports that I was familiar with and in a tone of voice that indicated that oh I know the sources you're using so don't lie to me. Not something that encourages someone to be forthcoming and a complete 180 from his demeanor in our conversations including in that building.

Yeah, that's just absolutely. Yeah I don't know what to think about it. I would be hesitant to guess that there would be the only thing I would push back against that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel. I would argue that probably the people they are using are at the top of their game certainly in the top of their game in terms of counterintelligence because really what it sounds to me what you're describing is that what they're really trying to do is network map and try to understand what people's relationships are and where people might be getting information regarding special access programs and control access programs.

Any thoughts on that? I would just say that I learned both during and after that this individual's conduct was compromising he himself mapped to three of the five indicators of insider threats and appeared to be unstable on multiple occasions. So exactly the kind of person that if I wanted somebody to do my dirty tricks for me would be someone I'd approach and say hey we know these things about you you're going to perform this task and we won't put you under review. One of the things that I've said on this show is that part of the way the legacy program works is they get people that they know that they can compromise as a way to really control them.

That kind of thing could have been applicable in this ODNI situation. Oh most certainly and then you combine the stick with the carrots of a promotion or a role of increased responsibility and indeed that is what happened. This individual is currently now at the ICIG overseeing the whistleblower intake process therefore for you AP whistleblowers, AHI and other subjects. So complete betrayal of myself and others and a complete disgrace to the ODNI and the ICIG for continuing to employ this person and putting a minute risk of such responsibility and sensitivity.

And really having somebody in that position that is intaking again a place where they are saying hey you can come and make a protected disclosure of whatever SAP or CAP you're involved with. It seems like that's a pretty dangerous to the person that is going into whistleblower if you've got this kind of character running the whole show. Absolutely and it's the major reason why I said in my article that ODNI is not to be trusted. People make policy. Policy is people. The fact that you have provable hostile staff there to UAP whistleblowers running UAP whistleblower intake means that on those grounds alone forget the prior behavior no whistleblower should ever approach that organization.

And is this guy also doing the same thing for Arrow or is that like a totally different pipeline? Separate but Arrow is involved in these matters. This individual went to Arrow for information from another person's case and in fact received incorrect information from Arrow or at least doctored information from Arrow that completely undermined and in fact false tried to entrap this other whistleblower. So Arrow is involved in a supporting role at the very least with ODNI. What does the term D-Rog mean to you? Term of art derogatory information.

So just any information about an individual that is damaging to their credibility and conduct whether it's about their personal life or professional life or even just the people that they associate with. It's commonly used to force people in the field to comply. Would you say that probably Northrop Grumman and these other people have access to people's D-Rog files in these folks that have served the government and that is probably used in a way against American citizens that are whistleblowing? Our intelligence community is very good at collection and there is no privacy for American citizens and any of their communications thanks to the very poorly named Patriot Act.

So they can essentially get anything they want and more importantly they can lie, spin and doctorate anyway they want and then release that information in internal channels to smear people beforehand and just to discourage any witnesses on the inside from coming forward knowing that the same could be done to them. You said during your interview on weaponized, you said quote, "The objective is to push people toward suicide or toward being cut off from everyone they have. That is a hell of a thing for anybody to say out loud that that sort of thing is going on.

What made you land on that? What can you tell us about that? And do you think that that sort of technique could possibly be used against perhaps some of these scientists that have disappeared, etc. How common of a tactic do you think that is?" I mean that is one of the oldest tools in the intelligence trade craft book going all the way back to the origin of the term gaslighting which comes from East Germany where they would break into people's homes, rearrange their furniture, leave messages or approach them out streets and make rude remarks or reveal information about them and then pretend no knowledge of it.

It is to drive people insane, make them question reality and then when they go to their friends and family saying, "Hey I am experiencing these things but I can't prove it because this person I know have no idea where they are, where they came from, they came out of my life. It is quite literally to isolate you because you can't prove the crimes being done against you and meanwhile you are being traumatized and brought to a psychological state where you appear to be essentially crazy." You know that, so you and your wife and this is as I understand it before you whistle blue, you were upstairs at one night and your house was actually broken into.

Tell us exactly what happened there. Yeah, I have told it before. We went to bed as a weeknight just a normal evening, woke up and was getting ready to go to work and slowly discovered that things were amiss in the house. The first thing was seeing my wife's identification documents lined up on a couch and seeing that those were clearly arranged in a way that both they would be noticed and that someone would take photos of. Immediately looking around the house for any signs of a break in, finding a basement window, forced open which was too small for any individual to go through and so was in my mind a message like, "Hey you were broken into but you probably just came through your front door."

And then of course discovering that the only item missing in my house was my grandfather's ashes and actually my grandfather's ashes and my civilian passport never found that passport but those ashes were found by the garbage. And then calling the police and noting that, "Hey there's laptops, television, phones, all sorts of valuable items all around the house. Actually none of that is taken and the police being just as confused as I was as what had occurred. At the time I didn't connect the dots between that incident and my involvement with the UAP topic.

It was only over time that it became clear that was a message to me. And to this day it's a little spooky to talk about because there's no reason that couldn't happen again or it could indeed have happened again and I would never know." They can definitely touch you anywhere. This is before you whistle blue but during this phase of time, because if I recall correctly from the interview, you just looked at this document a long time ago and you kind of forgot about it. Was there anything in particular that you think triggered this break-in?

It wasn't a document you forget easily. It was more of that, well, there was nothing to be done about that document. It certainly increased my interest in UAP. And the proximal cause I believe that that break-in was just associating with people on the inside of the military and the television community who were investigating the UAP topic. I don't want to say who they were, but it was shortly following a meeting of minds as it were in mere months before I eventually did come forward to the little whistle of Congress.

So, the timeline there kind of tells its own story. Okay. One of the things that I've been told is, for instance, how the government, the CIA, the legacy program retaliates against people is when you have a significant whistleblower as an example, maybe David Grush, they not only target the whistleblower, but they target the entire circle around them to sort of inflict collateral damage on these people that may not even be involved with that. Have you heard of that same sort of thing? Unfortunately, yes. But both family members and friends completely unconnected to sort of the national security world and those who are.

And do you think this kind of stuff that's happening? Do you think that the sort of purpose of that is for, let's say, but all whistleblowers, just making an assumption here, most whistleblowers probably communicate it with one another. And word spreads quick. This happened to me, my home was broken into. Do you think it is a technique to message to potential whistleblowers that if you come and you whistleblow, that your life is going to become a living hell? Do you think that that's sort of the motivation behind it?

Yes, certainly one of them. Just intimidation has its own sort of ripple from the individual that goes outwards. It's really, frankly, pretty disgusting. I sat in front of a person, I can't say where, but this person is, you know, just saying the intelligence world, but they were targeted as well. And that person's spouse was targeted. And yeah, it's really pretty sad. Now one of the things that you will often hear from the debunkers, but really now you're hearing it from people like Sean Kirkpatrick, ODNI, Sean Kirkpatrick, being the former director of Arrow and Tim Phillips and others, is that whistleblowers are grifters.

Give me an example or give me an idea, is whistleblowing a financial gain? And if not, what are some of, can you just kind of give us some examples of the financial impact that whistleblowing, UAP whistleblowing has had on people that have worn the uniform or served this country as contractor or any kind of way in terms of official government employment? Yeah, financially there is no benefit to being a whistleblower. It's ruinous. I'm never going to work in the field I educated and train myself over a decade.

And that's true for the vast majority of other UAP whistleblowers that I'm aware of, some few exceptions, but those are mainly exceptions that prove the rule. You know, even after blowing the whistle, you are then confronted with the fact that you're training your education, your experience are very hard to transfer to the private sector. And you couple that with the reputation of being a public whistleblower about something as strange to the public as UFOs, good luck getting a job. And especially on this subject, there really is no future for us until disclosure happens.

All this intimidation that I've experienced and fully expect to experience again means to me that unless we succeed at getting this out there, there is no future for me and my family. Once the spotlight is off of us, I would expect that the trajectory there is either to resume the sort of gaslighting intimidation and harassment both around me and my social circle to render me destitute isolated and eventually on the streets. Or you know, something as dire as experiencing an anomalous health incident or a nice convenient case of cancer or a suspicious car accident.

That is the way this world works. That is on my mind every day. This is a no-fail mission on many levels, both personally and for our constitutional republic. I understand that you are part of a new organization or nonprofit that is meant to help with whistleblowers. Tell us about that. Yeah, it's the Vanguard Enterprise or Vanguard for short. It's surrounded by myself in Dylan, Portland. And we just welcomed the US Air Force after in Jeffrey Nisatelli who also testified to Congress and we are setting up a nonprofit and raising funds to be able to provide legal, financial, medical, psychological, community support to UAP whistleblowers from the national security enterprise.

Frankly, I fully expected that something like a witness protection program from Congress would be offered to people who came forward. That is not the case. We are out here alone. We see people are helping us and frankly, we are waiting for organizations or individuals to make good on their word to help you with whistleblowers and decided to do it ourselves. So it's truly grassroots. We are in early days and hope to be able to deliver on all those capabilities to people like ourselves who are currently out there or who want to come forward.

And how can people find this organization? How can they donate? We'll put the links in the YouTube description. Yeah, the easiest way is to go to our website, vanguardenterprise.org. We have a page there where people can support. We use a platform that is just for nonprofits. It's called Give Butter. So we're fully certified and your donation through that platform is tax deductible since we are a 501 C3 charity. Outstanding. I certainly hope everybody after listening to this interview will go and donate to your nonprofit. As I said earlier, all of this, and I wouldn't say lucky, but I've been privy to details of what exactly has happened to whistleblowers and their spouses, families, etc.

And as I've often said, I really don't think that the NHI thing will be a big surprise to people in many ways. But I think what will really be surprising to people is to find out that there are large portions of the government that are literally run like a crime family and like a mob. And that what everyone sort of thinks our democracy is is actually not that and that you have people in power that are really committing treason on the United States. What are your thoughts about that?

I think you described it accurately. This is a criminal enterprise that is infiltrator government and indeed has basically become a shadow arm of it. They benefit from the secrecy financially and politically. It is the source of a lot of families, generational power and wealth. It's completely undemocratic. I don't care what secret executive orders or laws are on the books. It is unconstitutional to its core. They have no standing. And these sort of measures that have been taken to protect the UAP secrecy have opened the door for measures that trickle down and affect the other sort of aspects of political life in America.

So I don't know how long people are willing to sit in their oppression and do nothing about it. I for one am done, but I'm just one man. And ultimately it's going to come to the people to decide that enough is enough and this has to change. Otherwise, frankly, we only have ourselves to blame for letting us continue. Well, Matthew, thank you very much for coming on the show. Thank you for your service to the country. And really thank you for your bravery. I know in many ways, obviously it's been a thankless job and certainly has obviously cost you tremendously, both personally, financially, etc. as it has to all whistleblowers.

But my hat is off to you for standing up for what is right. And it is sad that the people that have the balls, the bravery to put country before self are the ones that are paying the price. It shouldn't be that way. And it's just horrible. But yeah, thank you for everything that you've done. And folks, please go to that website and what is that one more time for everyone? Vanguard Enterprise.org. Vanguard Enterprise.org. Okay, Matthew, thank you for joining us and hope to have you back on the show.

Thank you for having me, Matt. Very good to be here. It was a pleasure and God bless America. Folks, Matthew Brown gave up a lot to tell you that. If you got something out of this interview, you will love this episode. Thank you for tuning in. And if you love our channel, please hit that subscribe button.