NEW UFO WHISTLEBLOWER "Ben" Goes Public For First Time

A new whistleblower, using the pseudonym Ben, has recently emerged to discuss his experiences related to unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Speaking anonymously on a podcast, he described his background in the Department of Defense and his exposure to UAP information, both through his official roles and in personal interactions. Despite maintaining his secrecy, Ben has communicated with other recognized whistleblowers and conveyed his insights to Congressional staff.

Ben emphasized the growing community of individuals coming forward to share their experiences, underlining the importance of supporting each other in addressing the ongoing challenges related to UAP transparency. While withholding certain details for security reasons, he affirmed his commitment to contributing to public understanding and encouraging open dialogue around the difficulties faced in accessing official information.

Key Takeaways

• A new whistleblower has come forward with insights on UAPs.

• The individual has communicated his experiences and concerns to Congress.

• The case highlights barriers to disclosure and the importance of supporting whistleblowers.

Whistleblower Case Summary

Identity Measures and Professional Background

The individual known as "Ben" maintains anonymity for security reasons, utilizing a pseudonym, with voice and facial features concealed. His career includes service within the Department of Defense, first on active duty and later as a contractor supporting the U.S. government for several years. Ben held a required security clearance, but chooses not to share specifics about the level, citing operational security.

• Identity Protection:

  • Pseudonym: Ben

  • Voice distorted, face blurred

  • Defense Department and contractor background

  • Security clearance granted (level not disclosed)

Ben's involvement with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) information arose both from personal experience and through interactions while in service.

Involvement of Vinnie Adams and the Interview Platform

Vinnie Adams, representing the Disclosure Team podcast, facilitated the initial disclosure by Ben. Adams issued a statement emphasizing a critical and respectful approach, explaining the precautions taken to protect Ben’s identity. The Disclosure Team prioritizes providing a secure space for sensitive testimonies and maintains transparency about the limits of what can currently be shared.

Interview Format:

Interviewer Platform Protective Steps Vinnie Adams Disclosure Team Pseudonym, altered voice, blurred face Verification Private vetting No physical evidence public yet

Vinnie highlights the importance of due diligence and the balancing act between platforming sensitive information and sustaining credibility.

Confirmation, Scrutiny, and Evidence Handling

Ben’s claims have undergone vetting by Vinnie Adams and other trusted parties through extensive discussions. Although no physical evidence is available for public release, Ben asserts that his information adds to broader efforts in the field.

• Vetting Checklist:

  • Conversations with Disclosure Team and trusted evaluators

  • No direct public evidence, but testimony considered valuable

  • Encouragement for critical analysis and open scrutiny

Ben also notes communication with other prominent whistleblowers and mentions relaying information about UAPs to Congressional staffers. Despite the absence of fully verifiable evidence, these steps form part of a continuing process aimed at advancing public understanding of government-held UAP information.

Whistleblower Ben’s Background

Professional Time in the U.S. Government

Ben has spent several years working within the United States Department of Defense. To maintain operational security and protect his identity, he has chosen not to identify his specific branch of service or provide detailed timelines.

Throughout his career, Ben interacted with numerous colleagues who possessed knowledge of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). These connections ranged from direct conversations to indirect relationships, including second- and third-hand links to individuals named in published UAP investigations.

Service as a Military Member and Civilian Adviser

• Active Duty: Ben served as an active duty member of the U.S. military before transitioning out of uniformed service.

• Post-Service Involvement: After his active service, he continued supporting the government as a contractor.

• Range of Contacts: During both periods, Ben engaged with UAP subject matter experts, military veterans, and civilian eyewitnesses.

He has expressed strong support for fellow whistleblowers and emphasizes the value of teamwork among those working toward disclosure, regardless of the length or level of their involvement.

Details on Security Vetting and Data Access

Ben has held a security clearance required for his roles within the Department of Defense and as a government contractor. While he avoids specifying the exact level of clearance for personal and operational security reasons, he confirms that his clearance was sufficient to access certain systems and data, including materials related to UAP.

• Clearance Level: Not specified for security

• Purpose: Allowed access to pertinent data and conversations

• Result: Enabled awareness of information and discussions involving UAP, both through personal experience and in connection with knowledgeable personnel

Availability of UAP-Related Details

Chance Encounters With UAP Data

Access to UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) data did not occur through a formal assignment or dedicated program. Instead, information was discovered incidentally during both active duty and subsequent contractor work with the government. The individual reported that although the clearance held was not at the highest level, it was sufficient to enter systems where UAP-related content—such as data and videos—could be accessed.

Key Points:

Access occurred during roles in both military and contractor capacities The data was encountered by chance, not by tasking Security clearance allowed entry into relevant systems, but was not “high-level”

Links to UAP Information Systems

During their government-related work, the person used their authorized status to reach systems containing UAP material. This access was possible due to the required, but modest, security clearance. The details viewed included various data forms, but always within the limits of permitted access.

• Systems included:

  • Government databases

  • Data repositories holding UAP files

• Access type:

  • Based on standard clearance for the relevant roles

  • No direct work in UAP-focused programs

Associations With People Involved in UAP Cases

The individual maintained indirect connections to people with firsthand UAP experiences. These associations included conversations with former and current officials, experts, and other witnesses—some of whom are referenced in published works or are publicly known whistleblowers. The connections extended through professional interactions and communication with teams engaged in UAP research.

Interaction Overview:

Type of Connection Description Contact with UAP witnesses Communication with both military and civilian observers Collaboration with other experts Engaged with whistleblowers and advocacy groups Information relayed to officials Provided relevant details to legislative staff

This network enabled further exchange of information and perspectives on UAP-related matters, reinforcing the broader context of ongoing investigations.

Reflections on Notable Figures and Whistleblowers

Observations on Sean Kirkpatre and the Pentagon’s UAP Office

Ben shared perspectives on Sean Kirkpatre, the former leader of the Pentagon’s UAP research division. He suggested that Kirkpatre’s role and actions may have broader implications for understanding government approaches to UAP investigations. Although Kirkpatre is no longer in that position, Ben indicated that certain revelations, if accurate, could shift public and internal perceptions about the office's effectiveness.
Ben’s remarks in this segment maintain focus on personnel and policy changes without disclosing protected information.

Interactions With Lou Alzando and Jake Barber

Ben confirmed that he has communicated with Lou Alzando, though he did not specify the method or frequency of their contact. He also noted productive exchanges with Jake Barber and Barber’s associates.
He characterized these interactions as part of a collective effort involving individuals with various amounts of experience:

Name Nature of Contact Additional Details Lou Alzando Direct but unspecified Details withheld Jake Barber Discussion with team Productive, thorough

Ben underscored the approach of "one team, one mission," indicating cooperation across different backgrounds and roles within the community interested in UAP disclosure.

Advocacy for Peer Whistleblowers

Ben emphasized his support for other whistleblowers, including David Grush, Ryan Graves, Alex Dietrich, and others, regardless of era or public recognition. He highlighted the importance of respecting both well-known and less familiar individuals who have risked their careers to share information.
His backing extends not only to public figures but also to those who have contributed behind the scenes. Ben expressed satisfaction in relaying information to Congress and noted efforts to encourage legislative attention, despite ongoing challenges in government transparency.
He maintained that the accumulation of testimony from different sources demonstrates substantial grounds for continued inquiry and serious consideration from policymakers.

Details Provided to Lawmakers

Obstacles in Sharing with Lawmakers

Ben reported that he took the initiative to share what he learned directly with lawmakers. He believes passing this information to Congress is a matter of civic responsibility. Even so, staff members communicated to him that obtaining clarity on these matters presents ongoing challenges for Congress.

Key Points on Obstacles:

• Members of Congress encounter significant roadblocks when attempting to fully understand these issues.

• Attempts to reach the underlying facts are frequently met with resistance and limited access.

• According to Ben, these barriers have created frustration among those on Capitol Hill seeking transparency.

Problem Area Description Access to Information Lawmakers face withheld details Transparency Issues Resistance limits fact-finding Staff Frustrations Acknowledged difficulties persist

Actions Urging Additional Testimonies

Ben indicated that congressional staff have encouraged him to support efforts that bring in more firsthand accounts. While not an official part of his role, he stated he is willing to advocate for others to come forward with relevant experiences or documentation.

Efforts Include:

• Relaying requests from staff to persuade peers and colleagues to testify or share what they know.

• Attempting to convince fellow witnesses, even though recruiting others was not his core responsibility.

• Acknowledging the importance of collective participation for a broader understanding by Congress.

Summary Table:

Step Description Staff Request Asked to help find additional witnesses Willingness to Support Expressed readiness to encourage others Collective Testimony Highlighted as essential for progress

Effects on UAP Information Availability

Duties to Society and Participation

Those who step forward with insights about UAPs often feel a sense of obligation to the broader public. Coming forward can involve significant professional and personal risks, yet it is viewed as a necessary action to encourage accountability and foster public discussion. Whistleblowers emphasize supporting others who have gone public, seeing themselves as part of a joint effort toward transparency.

Contribution Impact Speaking out Advances dialogue and awareness Supporting peers Builds credibility within the community Reporting to Congress Strengthens oversight

Need for Careful Analysis

Critical thinking is encouraged in this process. The lack of physical evidence or full disclosure of identities means that information should be carefully reviewed and not accepted without question. Scrutiny, respectful debate, and verifying claims are all important steps as society navigates what is reported.

• Scrutinize sources and claims

• Maintain respectful discussion

• Acknowledge uncertainty and gaps in available data

This approach recognizes the balance between being open to new information and maintaining high standards for evidence and reliability.