Eric Burlison Comes Clean About UFOs (One Of The Wildest Videos I’ve Ever Made)

In plain terms, Burlison confirmed the date, outlined who’s expected to testify (without naming names), and described why his office leans so heavily on Grusch to vet sources. He also addressed questions about Luis Elizondo’s credibility, the status of Grusch’s ICIG complaint, and why some would‑be witnesses might need subpoenas. Perhaps most striking, he spoke as a self‑described skeptic who’s open to evidence but cautious about jumping straight to reverse‑engineered alien tech.

The conversation was candid, sometimes messy, and very human. Staffers giggled in early meetings, schedules collided, clearances blocked key discussions, and health scares derailed carefully laid plans. If you’ve ever wondered why disclosure feels like two steps forward and one step back, this is a rare window into the human realities behind the headlines.

Below is a clear rundown of what Burlison shared, why it matters, and what to watch next as the September 9 hearing comes into focus.

September 9 Is Official—And Fresh Military Witnesses Are Coming

Rep. Burlison confirmed the hearing date: September 9. He also sketched out the witness slate—three fresh faces rather than the familiar names we’ve seen on TV panels and in documentaries:

- A former U.S. Air Force veteran prepared to speak about five UAP incidents he witnessed and investigated during his service.

- A U.S. Navy officer who directly witnessed UAP events.

- Another U.S. Air Force officer with firsthand UAP encounters.

No names yet, by design. Burlison said the goal is to bring new perspectives to the record—people who haven’t already told their stories publicly. If you’re fatigued by the same talking heads, that’s welcome news. If you’re hoping for former program managers and scientists, he didn’t rule it out, but this round appears focused on operational witnesses with direct, recent experience.

The David Grusch Factor: Central, Complicated, and Constrained

Burlison didn’t dance around it: David Grusch is central to his team’s work. He attends weekly staff meetings. He is heavily involved in vetting who’s credible and who isn’t. And he’s the de facto gatekeeper on who should be prioritized to brief Congress—right down to which high‑profile figures are worth the committee’s time.

That reliance comes with upsides and risks. Upside: Grusch knows the community and can quickly verify whether someone likely has real access or just a good story. Risk: when one person’s instincts and network drive the intake, important voices can get de‑prioritized. Case in point: Jay Stratton—prominent in recent disclosure discussions—hasn’t been a priority according to Burlison, largely because Grusch doesn’t rate him as one. Whether you agree or not, it shows how much influence Grusch currently wields.

There’s a major constraint: clearances. Burlison explained that personal congressional staff are typically capped at Top Secret; SCI access is rare unless you’re committee staff. They tried to get Grusch a committee slot to facilitate SCI, but oversight leadership didn’t want to break precedent. Result: even though Grusch previously held SCI, in his current role he’s at TS only. That’s why there were moments when Arrow could engage with Grusch at a level Burlison himself couldn’t hear—because Grusch could discuss certain matters with the team, but not in settings that included those without SCI.

Arrow, Meetings, and a Health Scare

One of the most eye‑opening moments in Burlison’s account: a meeting with Arrow where, in his telling, Grusch was the most informed person in the room. Burlison said Arrow staff “followed his lead,” asking where to look, who to talk to, and how to proceed. Whatever your view of Arrow, that detail underscores why Grusch’s presence has become so consequential inside Congress.

Immediately after that meeting, Burlison said, Grusch experienced sudden health issues and had to leave Washington to see his doctor. He didn’t speculate, didn’t name causes, and emphasized he was being careful as an employer. The timing has fueled outside rumor mills, but Burlison kept it simple and respectful.

Trust, Verify, and the Elizondo Question

Burlison was asked directly about Luis Elizondo’s credibility amid controversies over misidentified photos and disputed claims. His answer was pragmatic: in a field rife with hearsay, if you set the bar so high you only talk to perfect sources, you’ll talk to no one. He tries to “trust but verify,” take stories at face value, and then evaluate. That won’t satisfy everyone, but it reflects the uneasy balance elected officials have to strike: keep the door open, guard against being misled, and keep the process moving.

Grusch’s ICIG Complaint: Still Ongoing

Remember the question that drives so much online debate: What actually happened with Grusch’s ICIG reprisal complaint? According to Burlison, it’s still an active investigation—two years on. That frustrates people who want resolution. Burlison floated a fair point: if it were empty, maybe it would have been dismissed quickly; the length could suggest there’s substance. Until there’s a formal outcome, though, it remains an open loop.

Subpoenas Are on the Table

Not everyone wants to testify voluntarily—no surprise there. Burlison said his team, with Grusch’s help, is building a list of witnesses to bring in openly or in a SCIF. For those who won’t come in, subpoenas are possible. He also mentioned he’d want to press Elizondo on specific details: the depth of his personal knowledge of any “legacy” programs, precise locations, additional witnesses, and whether he’s had direct contact with such programs. That’s exactly the kind of specificity that moves this conversation from headlines to evidence.

A Story From the Deep

One of Burlison’s most arresting stories came from a maritime whistleblower who described a structure in the deep ocean—an account Burlison said reminded him of The Abyss. He was crystal clear: he’s relaying what he was told, not certifying it as fact. He even lamented being misquoted in the past as personally asserting the existence of “giants” or a set number of alien species. Credit to him for sharing information without over‑claiming it—and for encouraging people to judge claims on evidence.

Why the April SCIF Briefing Imploded

If you watched the April drama and wondered how everything fell apart, Burlison’s blow‑by‑blow is telling:

- Oversight staff assigned to the UAP task force were brilliant at financial forensics and JFK files, but initially didn’t take UAPs seriously. Some literally giggled in meetings.

- Burlison hired Grusch to bring intelligence‑community fluency to the effort and navigated the maze to get him a renewed TS (but not SCI) clearance.

- A big week of events was planned: Grusch in town, a productive meeting with Arrow, and a scheduled briefing with Elizondo and others.

- Then the dominoes fell: Grusch’s sudden health issue, oversight staff pleading that they weren’t ready, a direct scheduling conflict with a hearing Burlison had to chair, and finally, calendar issues. The new date didn’t work for Elizondo, and on the day of the rescheduled hearing, Christopher Mellon reportedly had pneumonia.

Burlison’s stance through all this? Take people at their word, focus on facts, and don’t get distracted by reputational battles. Agree or not, it’s a sober approach in a space where personalities often eclipse substance.

A Skeptic from the Show‑Me State

Burlison describes himself as a skeptic—open‑minded, yes, but not convinced we’re looking at reverse‑engineered non‑human tech. He thinks it’s more likely (not certain, but likely) that some of what we’re seeing are natural advances in human technology moving into production. That’s not a dismissal of the UAP problem; it’s a posture: show me. Bring data, bring corroboration, bring firsthand witnesses under oath. That’s exactly what September 9 is supposed to deliver.

What to Watch Between Now and September 9

- The witness trio: Will their identities be revealed ahead of time, or will we meet them at the hearing? Either way, expect firsthand operational accounts from Air Force and Navy officers.

- Grusch’s clearance status: Unless he’s placed differently (e.g., committee staff or an executive-branch role), don’t expect SCI access to expand for him as a personal congressional staffer. That shapes what he can see and share.

- Subpoenas and priorities: If some high‑profile figures won’t come in voluntarily, does oversight pull the trigger on subpoenas? And will the current prioritization change to include other prominent names?

- Arrow’s next moves: If they took guidance from Grusch, will we see concrete follow‑ups—new taskings, interviews, or document pulls that make the hearing meatier?

The Takeaway

Beyond the headlines, this conversation humanized the process. It’s not just acronyms, clearances, and classified rooms—it’s overworked staff, imperfect calendars, conflicting priorities, and people trying to do the right thing while sorting wheat from chaff in one of the noisiest information spaces on Earth. Burlison’s candor about missteps and limits matters. So does his insistence on hearing new voices under oath.

If you care about this topic, do three things:

- Keep your expectations grounded but your curiosity high.

- Watch or listen to the full X Space when you can; context matters.

- Most of all, tune in September 9. Fresh testimony from credible, first‑hand military witnesses is exactly how this conversation moves forward.

We don’t need slogans or certainty; we need data, documents, and people with access speaking under oath. If the process holds and the witnesses deliver, September 9 could be a real step toward clarity—no matter where the evidence leads.