The Premise

Expectations were high in the UFO-believers’ community regarding the July 26 U.S. Congress hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency“.

But, just like every other event that was supposed to bring about the much-awaited “we’ve made contact with the aliens” disclosure, the hearing failed to produce any new relevant information or evidence on the topic. 

However, that didn’t stop media, believers, and skeptics alike – myself included – from reopening the decades-old debate on whether the U.S. government is hiding data about retrieved extraterrestrial crafts and even bodies not only from the American public but also from the world.

I jumped on that train as well, watched the entire hearing, tweeted – or X’ed? – about it, and now I finally found the time to put all my thoughts about it together in a SKEPTIC’s REVIEW article.

About the U.S. Congress Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – July 26, 2023

A memorandum dated July 21, 2023, announced that the hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications of National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency” will be hosted by the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs, a branch of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, which is part of the lower chamber of the United States Congress, called the House of Representatives (the Senate being the upper chamber). 

The document also stated the background and purpose of the event, as well as named the three witnesses who will participate.

THE STATED BACKGROUND OF THE HEARING

“Recent declassifications, the creation of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) upcoming report have spurred widespread public interest in unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).”

Unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs, are what we used to call Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs, a few years back. Call it nostalgia, but I personally prefer the term UFO, even though UAP is more accurate, when addressing the subject.

“With the Federal Government spending increasingly more taxpayer dollars investigating these instances, Congress must conduct thorough oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and to ensure the safety of the American public.”

A pretty clear and dry statement. They are mainly looking to see if money and power are being misplaced under the veil of UAP investigations.

THE STATED PURPOSE 

“This hearing will examine firsthand accounts from former pilots’ and officials’ UAP experiences, the reporting mechanisms for commercial and military pilots, and assess government transparency relating to public safety and the implications to national security.”

We’ve heard similar accounts before but this time the legitimacy of the topic is granted via its link to a congressional hearing. Hence, the high expectations of the public, especially of those who are part of the active communities dealing with UAP-related data gathering.

UAP enthusiasts were hoping for a disclosure of historical proportions, while the rest of us remained skeptical, based on previous data and events.

THE WITNESSES

Three witnesses testified in this hearing: Ryan Graves – the Executive Director of the Americans for Safe Aerospace non-profit organization, David Grusch – Former National Reconnaissance Office Representative, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, Department of Defense, and Commander David Fravor (Ret.) – Former Commanding Officer in United States Navy.

The star of the hearing was going to be David Grusch, whose recent interview with NewsNation made many think that the U.S. government is running a secret alien spacecraft retrieval and reverse-engineering program, and that they’re even in possession of alien bodies. These were bold statements from someone whose professional background offered him at least some credibility. So, people listened and were interested in the way he was going to present the same type of information in an official setting, under oath.

We took the bait. Many of us watched, Americans and non-Americans alike, skeptics and believers.

About the Analysis

This segment of the SKEPTIC’s REVIEW will address the main moments of the congressional hearing.

Although I am tempted to analyze in great detail everything that was said, for the purpose of this article, I will try to treat things in clusters and only comment on the main aspects of the testimonies and engagements between the witnesses and the subcommittee members.

THE REVIEW

I. THE OPENING STATEMENTS.

In their opening statements, members of the Subcommittee set the scene for the hearing – They mainly talked about the need for transparency when it comes to projects and spendings related to the investigation of UAPs and the impact these occurrences may have on national security.

What I found interesting though is the way the statements conveyed information about the representatives’ own beliefs and interests regarding the topic.

Chairman Glenn Grothman talked about his curiosity, as a child, regarding UFOs and how he, at that time, considered it to be a very important topic. Now though, he seems to hold a practical view on UAPs and even said that the United States is not ready to deal with them, citing the Chinese spy balloon incident that took place earlier in the year.

“The Biden administration’s handling of the Chinese Spy Balloon that violated U.S. airspace earlier this year is just one example of how the government is not prepared to tackle threats that UAPs may present.”

He then continues to make his statements political.

“The Biden administration’s description of the events has shown that the government continues to not be forthright with the American people.

Between the Chinese spy balloon being shot down, and the two UAPs subsequently shot down following that event earlier this year, the U.S. government spent approximately $1.5 million in American taxpayer dollars on missiles alone.

Yet, we still have little clarity from the Biden administration on those events.”

It’s more about the Biden administration than about UAPs. He used this moment to make a political statement, even though the phenomena and the theories – or even conspiracies – regarding the US government’s secrecy existed from way before Biden’s election.

Anyway, Grothman seems to need evidence before he goes back to his previous beliefs and hopes about aliens.

Representatives Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and Jared Moskowitz on the other hand, not only seem believers but also fuel the existing speculations by talking about their previous efforts to gain information on the topic and making statements such as this one by Moskowitz: “We should have disclosure today, we should have disclosure tomorrow. The time has come.“

I appreciate the sentiment but the hearing should be more about facts and less about hopes, feelings, and personal interests.

Moskowitz also said, “It shouldn’t take the potential of non-human origin to bring us together“, and he is right. It’s not just about bringing together Republicans and Democrats in the US, it’s also true for people, in general. We don’t necessarily need an external threat to come together but many times, those are the only contexts when we choose to focus on what we have in common than on the differences that may divide us.

Robert Garcia’s opening statement was the most balanced one out of the five. He stated the significance of the issue and why it has to be addressed but also referenced the testimony offered in front of the Senate by Sean Kirkpatrick –  director of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, the component of the Department of Defense office that investigates UAP data -, when he said that “his unit has found no evidence of alien activity.”  Garcia continued to say that “NASA also has stated that they don’t have evidence of extraterrestrial life, either“.

The opening statements of the representatives are followed by a common oath from the witnesses. I found this to be less valuable than if the oaths would’ve been given separately. It seemed diluted and lacked sobriety. From a legal perspective, I understand there is no difference, these are sworn testimonies either way, but from a psychological perspective, I think it would’ve made things more solemn for each of the three witnesses if their “I do”s would’ve been heard individually.

Ryan Graves – Opening Statement

Graves, a former F-18 pilot with over a decade of service in the U.S. Navy, confidently presented his firsthand experiences involving UAPs and conveyed the collective concerns and interests of 30 more commercial and military pilots who, he claims, witnessed similar occurrences but were discouraged to share them publicly or even in a professional setting.

In a highly structured statement, he identifies what he calls “three critical issues that demand our immediate attention and concerted action“. According to Graves, these issues are:

1. “[..] UAP are in our airspace, but they are grossly underreported”.
2. “The stigma attached to UAP is real and powerful and challenges national security”.
3. “The government knows more about UAP than shared publicly, and excessive classification practices keep crucial information hidden”.

He then continued by recounting a personal experience involving UAPs, described why he thinks these phenomena defy conventional explanations, provided cumulative information gathered by his non-profit organization from commercial and military pilots, and suggested steps that can be taken to improve the reporting system regarding UAPs.

Out of the three witnesses, I found Ryan Graves to be the most credible and composed. 

He stopped after voicing key points from his statement to make eye contact with the members of the subcommittee and the representatives. He seemed interested in both conveying authority and trust, as well as getting confirmation from the audience, that he is being heard this time.

The statement was well-written, well-structured, and well-delivered. 

I believe that the panel of witnesses would’ve been perceived as weaker and less reliable had he not been a part of it.

David Grusch – Opening Statement

David Grusch is a former intelligence officer, former National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena and trans-medium object analysis. He was also reporting to the UAP Task Force and the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office.

“I became a Whistleblower”, he says, “through a PPD-19 Urgent Concern filing with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and Intelligence Community individuals that the US Government is operating with secrecy – above Congressional oversight – with regards to UAPs.“

Many words but this fluffy sentence is only built on authority bias. We are supposed to believe him because multiple “esteemed and credentialed” sources allegedly reported to him information regarding the government’s management of UAPs.

He goes on to say, “My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy and service to this country – many of whom also shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony.“

The same thing as before. Fluff, appeal to authority. Grusch says he’s been given this information by “individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy and service to this country” and only after this mention he goes on to say that his sources gave what he calls “compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony.” My view is that if the evidence was compelling enough, the source wouldn’t even matter. The evidence would speak for itself. 

“I have taken every step I can to corroborate this evidence over a period of 4 years and to do my due diligence on the individuals sharing it, and it is because of these steps that I believe strongly in the importance of bringing this information before you.”

There simply is no substance in many of the paragraphs included in his opening statement. The reference to the 4 years is likely meant to bring some numbers that look like data into the game because there’s no data. 

“I am driven by a commitment to truth and transparency, rooted in our inherent duty to uphold the United States Constitution and protect the American People.” – In case you missed the idea, he’s the good guy and he will remind you that every chance he’s got. 

“I am asking Congress to hold our Government to this standard and thoroughly investigate these claims.” – He’s moving the burden of proof and potential blame for the failure of the process, onto Congress. The word “thoroughly” seems important to me here. It’s almost like saying “If you don’t come to the same conclusion as I did and don’t confirm my claims, it’s because you didn’t investigate “thoroughly”.

“But as I stand here under oath now, I am speaking to the facts as I have been told them.” – My translation, “I may lie to you all right now, under oath, but only because I’ve been lied to as well”. This can be used in many contexts that may turn out to be unfavorable to Grusch. Witnesses don’t validate his claims? – Well, they were silenced by the bad guys but they definitely shared with him what he said in the sworn testimony. Witnesses claim different things than he did? – Same thing -“I lied but only because they’ve lied to me and I was not in a position to have the original evidence”.

“[,..] due to my extensive executive-level intelligence support duties, I was cleared to literally all relevant compartments and in a position of extreme trust in both my military and civilian capacities.” – Translation, “My clearance level says that I gained a level of trust you – the ones investigating this – may not reach. Just remember that when you won’t reach any of the evidence I claimed existed”.

“I was informed, in the course of my official duties, of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program to which I was denied access to those additional read-on’s.” – This is the main claim Grusch made regarding UAPs and he offers zero details about anything. The guy from a paragraph ago, the one “cleared to literally all relevant compartments” was denied access to information on the very topic he was officially dealing with.

“I made the decision based on the data I collected, to report this information to my superiors and multiple Inspectors General, and in effect become a whistleblower.” – There is no proof that the data he gave to his superiors is, in fact, significant in any way. He may genuinely think he stumbled onto something or maybe he simply provided bogus connections so that he wouldn’t be completely lying to Congress.

“As you know, I have suffered retaliation for my decision. But I am hopeful that my actions will ultimately lead to a positive outcome of increased transparency.” – I am not aware of him sharing publicly specific information about the retaliation he suffered but at this point, we cannot assess the nature and cause of said retaliation, if it even existed.

“Thank you. I am happy to answer your questions.” – Enter Porky Pig’s “That’s all, folks” moment. Grusch testified to nothing. He only made vague statements that the audience can interpret in any way they see fit – just like I did with my “translations”, hoping that they will somehow be disseminated in the sense he provided in the interview to NewsNation. 

During a TV interview? Sure, bold statements – retrieved crafts, and even retrieved bodies of non-human pilots. Under oath? – Not so much.

Hogwash is my one-word description for David Grush’s testimony.

I found him incredibly disagreeable, arrogant, untrustworthy, and frankly, quite narcissistic.

His testimony pales in comparison to that of Graves.

Even if the result is similar – no hard evidence regarding UAPs will come out as a direct result of this hearing, at least Graves presented his arguments in a good-enough fashion. He made the effort. I am more inclined to believe Graves himself believes his own claims, which is very different from what I think of Grusch’s potential motivations. 

On the day of the hearing, I posted this on Twitter/X:

“My theories regarding David Grusch, in the order I believe they’re valid:

1. Disinformation agent

2. Disgruntled former employee

3. The man wants his minutes of fame, the book, the interviews, the UFO tours.

No, no “He tells the truth” option. There may also be a “He’s very naive” theory but I don’t find it very likely in this context.“

After seeing him give the statement before Congress, I hold the same opinion, with the only mention that if the US government itself, or any of the agencies or structures operating in its shadow, decided to throw this hearing as part of a disinformation campaign, they would’ve made a better choice if they made Graves, or someone like him, the star witness. But then again, Grusch managed to have the official position that makes him a better whistleblower – No one challenged the claims he made about his official positions, as far as I am aware. So, we’re stuck with Grusch from the intel side.

I also noticed that he accentuates words to make them seem more significant than they are, simply because he had nothing significant to say.

There was also a simple mistake that can also be interpreted as a Freudian slip – He said that he worked for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency from 2021 to 2025, and then corrected himself  – “2023” – with weird laughter. But then again, who’s to say when his contract will actually end? Maybe he’s still in their service. As I said before, a disinformation agent seems like a good description for Grusch.

David Fravor – Opening Statement

David Fravor, a retired Commander in the U.S. Navy, went straight to the point and detailed his encounter with the now-famous Tic Tac-shaped UFO that he witnessed together with several other colleagues from the military, back in 2004. 

The abundance of technical references makes it impossible for the average individual to follow his story and all the numbers, acronyms, and jargon, make it all seem a legitimate, honest account, based on scientific observations.

Lue Elizondo’s name pops up, as expected. Elizondo, just like Grusch, is a former intelligence officer, who claims to have been the director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), a secretive Pentagon unit that studied UFOs, allegedly. I say “allegedly” because this information has been rejected by Pentagon officials, as well as journalists. Not the best connection for a UAP witness in this hearing.

What I think it’s worth noting in Fravor’s opening statement though, is this part: “In closing, I would like to say that the Tic Tac Object that we engaged in Nov 2004 was far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today, or are looking to develop in the next 10+ years.”

The Tic Tac being “far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today” needs to be followed by “as per my knowledge”, and “or are looking to develop in the next 10+ years” is pure speculation. He doesn’t know what the governments of the world are working on.

“If we in fact have programs that possess this technology, it needs to have oversight from those people that the citizens of this great country elected to office to represent what is best for the United States and in the best interest of its citizens.” – Here’s the little door that they all leave open. “Maybe I’m wrong”, basically. And there would be nothing wrong with that part, it would even show self-awareness but in this context, I see it more as being a far way from the testimony he gave just minutes before, when he was so sure about the capabilities and the “not of this world” – his words – nature of the Tic Tac. Can’t have the cake and eat it too.

“I thank you for this time to speak with you today and God Bless America!” – Yes, he wants you to know he’s a good guy as well. He’s doing this out of patriotism. Okay. Noted.

Fravor does strike me as someone who would serve his country, no matter what that meant. Even if the officials of the country would ask him to be a pawn in a disinformation game, that is. 

I didn’t like the smirks, just like I didn’t like Grusch’s laughter. It’s like they’re trying too hard to be perceived as good, honest, average guys.

II. Questions from the Subcommittee Members and Representatives

Now, to the fun part. This is where all the magic happened. The segment where the members of the subcommittee and the representatives asked the three witnesses a variety of questions provided the most relevant information that anyone can use to build a more definite opinion about the significance of this hearing.

Some of the questions were to the point and sharp, while others were almost feeding the desired answers to the witnesses.

Glenn Grothman mainly inquired about the implications of UAP regarding national security and the kind of information that was allegedly hidden from the public and Congress. All witnesses agreed that the UAPs pose a potential threat to the United States security and Grusch mentioned the way in which sensitive information regarding UAPs was restricted and not shared with intelligence professionals conducting step briefs to pilots.

Robert Garcia asked things in a more direct manner. He was interested whether the UAPs could be nothing but some sort of anomaly – the witnesses explained why they do not think that to be the case – but the most significant question he had was addressed to David Grusch:

“Robert Garcia: Mr. Grusch, finally, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs?

David Grusch: “Absolutely. Based on interviewing over forty witnesses over four years”.

Robert Garcia: “And where?”

David Grusch: “I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the inspector general and some of which to the intelligence committees, I actually had the people with the firsthand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the inspector general.“

If accurate, this could be an interesting thing to investigate further. I am not saying the UAPs he’s talking about are of extraterrestrial origin, but maybe there’s some sort of man-made craft that the producing state is not disclosing to the world, and figuring this part out could clarify the intentions of this state.

Tim Burchett had one of the longest interactions with the three witnesses. He conveyed from the beginning an increased interest in the matter. While there were some interactions of the personal type – such as him congratulating his wife on their anniversary during the hearing or saying that it is “a miracle that [they’re] having this meeting”, many of his questions facilitated answers to meaningful questions. 

Burchett wanted the pilots to explain how they knew the UAPs were not American aircraft. Graves talked about the fact that the unidentified objects remained stationary no matter the context, while Fravor mentioned their extraordinary performance.

Then he moved on to ask Grusch whether he faced “any retaliation or approvals for any of your testimony or anything on these lines?” 

Grusch: “Yeah. I have to be careful what I say in detail because there is an open, whistleblower reprisal investigation on my behalf, and I don’t wanna compromise that investigation by providing anything that may help provide somebody information, but it was very brutal. And very unfortunate. Some of the tactics they used to hurt me both professionally, and personally, to be quite frank. Yeah.”

“Brutal”, “unfortunate”, they hurt him professionally and personally, he says. Again, nothing specific. I understand that they cannot provide details on certain matters but the level of vagueness conveyed by Grusch almost renders the whole testimony useless. Sure, maybe he provided specific data in private, or in the proper professional contexts, but this is a hearing concerning the public, about how the information is being kept from American citizens and the world. And during this very hearing, they’re once again, keeping almost all of the information hidden.

Then Burchett asked a series of very direct and uncomfortable questions. All were addressed to Grusch.

Tim Burchett: “Do you have any personal knowledge of people who’ve been harmed or injured? In efforts to cover up or conceal this extraterrestrial technology?”

Grusch:  “Yes. Personally“.

[..]

Tim Burchett:  “Have you heard, has anyone been murdered that you know of or have heard of?”

David Grusch: “I have to be careful asking that question. I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities.“

[..]

Tim Burchett: “Has the US government become aware of actual evidence of extraterrestrial, otherwise unexplained forms of intelligence And if so, when do you think this first occurred?“

David Grusch: “I like to use the term non-human. I don’t like to denote origin. Keeps the aperture open, both scientifically. Certainly, like I’ve discussed publicly previously, nineteen-thirties“.

[..]

Tim Burchett: “Do you have any personal knowledge of someone who’s possibly been injured working on legacy UAP reverse engineering? Yes. K. How were they injured? Was it is it something like a radioactive type situation or something we didn’t understand? I’ve heard people talk about other Havana Syndrome-type incidences. What was your recollection of that?”

David Grusch: “I can’t get in the specifics, but you could imagine assessing an unknown unknown, there’s a lot of potentialities you can’t fully prepare for”.

[..]

Tim Burchett: “Are you aware of any individuals that are participating in reverse engineering programs for non-terrestrial craft?”

David Grusch: “Personally, yes. Mhmm”.

Tim Burchett asked great questions but while some of them seem to have received direct answers, there is nothing new disclosed by what Grusch said. He already claimed that people suffer from working on UAP-related programs or for attempting to disclose information about them but when he was asked about specific things, such as the types of injuries these people allegedly sustained, he failed to provide even a single example. This to me shows that his claims are meant to deceive and mislead.

It was also Tim Burchett who asked all the witnesses why they come forward on this issue. Graves said his colleagues did not have a way to mitigate this safety threat. Grusch made it about his courage and character again and said that he did it purely out of a sense of duty – “I first swore an oath when I was cadet eighteen years ago, and I still uphold that even out of uniform.“

Fravor had the best answer of the three, and the representatives thought it was an honest one: “I was pestered, by a friend. And I asked why? And he said, you’re the one person that they can’t discredit and you’ll give credibility to the New York Times article. And so, after about six times, I said “Okay.”“

Saying the truth is sometimes the best way to cover a lie. I believe the part where he is only in this conversation to provide credibility to the topic through his professional background.

Jamie Raskin wanted to find out more from Ryan Graves about the UAPs he allegedly witnessed firsthand. That’s when Graves said the UAPs were “dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere [..] and that the apex or tips of those cubes were touching the inside of that sphere“. He also mentioned that this is something that the reported objects had in common.

This is the first time I heard of such a description of a UFO, or UAP, but projections, plasma, and holograms come to mind when considering Graves’ description.

Later in the hearing, Raskin got Graves to say that when it comes to one of the most vivid sightings of the sphere-like objects, he was not in any of the two aircraft that “flew within about fifty feet of the object“.

Jamie Raskin: “And you were in one of the aircraft?“

Ryan Graves: “I was not. I was there when the pilot landed. He canceled the mission after. I was there. He was in the ready room with all his gear on, with his mouth open. And I asked him what the problem was. And he said he almost hit one of those darn things.“

My question is “Where are the pilots who saw those things closely?”. I suppose Graves could provide their names in a private setting.

Raskin then moved to ask both Grusch and Favror about how they were treated after coming forward with the information on UAPs. And here’s where things got really interesting for me.

Grusch’s response was “Well, it’s only been in about two months or so. So I guess my experience has been, you know, overwhelming support from former colleagues of mine that have, you know, privately messaged me. And I do appreciate that.  But I do have knowledge of active, planned, reprisal activity against myself and other colleagues. And it’s very, very upsetting to me.“

Jamie Raskin: “Coming from where?“

David Grusch: “Certain senior leadership at previous agencies I was associated with. And that’s all I’ll say publicly, but I can provide more details in a closed environment.“

So, colleagues support him, while senior leadership plans punishment? This is giving me “Look at me, I’m a hero, sticking for the little guy” vibes. 

He also said that he has knowledge about colleagues who have been “brutally administratively attacked“, which upsets him “as a leader“. He calls this set of tools “administrative terrorism“.

Grusch: “That’s their quiver, their tool in the toolbox. To silence people, especially, you know, the career government service cares about their career, cares about their clearance, the reputation to climb the ladder. And when you threaten that flow, career path, a lot of people back off. But I’m here to represent those people.”

He’s a hero alright.

David Fravor said that he was treated “very well” after coming out with the information on UAPs. Go figure, a positive story, with no Men in Black or similar.

Fravor also said that he is not a UFO fanatic, that he just thinks that what he witnessed is incredible technology, and that he told his colleagues that he would like to fly it.

But didn’t he say earlier that the objects moved and performed in ways that he hasn’t seen before and that they were “not of this world“? Sure, he may want to fly E.T.’s spaceship but there seems to be a big jump from being amazed by this object’s performance to casually talking about flying it. 

Anna Paulina Luna‘s questions and commentary seemed to me to feed the “these people are heroes and completely credible sources” story the most. She asked Grusch whether he had any incidents that have caused him to “feel in fear for his life“. And, of course, Grusch took the opportunity and said “yes”. It would’ve been OK if Luna didn’t continue right after, to strengthen the idea – “I just want everyone to know that he’s coming forward in fear of his life. To put in perspective, if they were really not scared about this information coming out, why would someone be intimidated like that?“. 

It sounds very serious but assessing what causes one to be “in fear of their life” is subjective. This is emotional reasoning – If they feel afraid, then this situation must be truly dangerous. 

And then she offered Grusch the opportunity for even more clarifications of otherwise problematic statements and claims that he made in the  NewsNation interview.

Anna Paulina Luna: “Mister Grush, why is it that you refer to the phenomenon as non-human intelligence, why deviate from the basis of extraterrestrial life?“

David Grusch: “I think the phenomenon is very complex, and I like to leave an open mind than lead to a specific origin“.

Anna Paulina Luna: “When you say specific origin [..] can you elaborate on that?”

David Grusch: “If it’s a traditional extraterrestrial origin or something else that we don’t quite understand, from either a biological or astrophysics perspective. Yeah. I just like to keep an open mind on what it could be. Yeah.“

That was the moment Grusch got to set the record straight about the nonsense he claimed on NewsNation. Now he’s not sure about the extraterrestrial origin and goes with “non-human intelligence“. Sorry to burst the bubble for some UFO fans but chimpanzees, dolphins, and dogs, they’re all “non-human intelligence“.

Jared Moskowitz asked for clarifications regarding the “non-human origin” description from Grusch and also inquired about the possibility of misappropriation of funds. His best intervention was to ask whether there is satellite imagery for alleged crash sites, an answer Grusch said he could not give in an open session. Moskowitz also wanted to know if the government is involved in any disinformation campaigns regarding certain UAPs. Grusch, once again, couldn’t provide a direct answer publicly.

Virginia Foxx had one of the most balanced interventions of the hearing. She mentioned doctor Sean Kirkpatrick – the director of AARO – and his previous testimony given before Congress, where he said that there has been “no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of [..] off-world technology brought to the attention of the office”, and asked David Grusch if he finds this statement to be accurate. To which Grusch said “It’s not accurate.” Foxx also addressed the poor management by the Biden administration of the Chinese spy balloon incident which, in her words, caused “needless confusion, fear, and panic across the country”.

Maxwell Frost had a poor exchange with the witnesses and then James Comer yielded five minutes to Tim Burchett.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez could’ve made good points by asking about the interactions between defense contractor companies and any UAP-related programs or activities, but her intervention was disorganized. In the end, she asked a lazy, yet somehow useful question.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez: “But, for the record, if you were me, where would you look? Titles, programs, departments, regions. If you could just name anything. And I put that as an open question to the three of you.”

Grusch couldn’t say anything publicly, while Graves and Fravor pointed at Grusch and people like him to provide the directions of investigation.

Andrew Biggs was practical in his questioning and focused on training ranges and data collection systems regarding UAPs.

Since the start of his intervention included “I’m from Missouri, you’ve gotta show me“, I did not have high expectations from Eric Burlison‘s set of questions for the three witnesses. Turns out, I was so wrong. His exchange with the panel was the best one that came out of the hearing.

Here are some highlights:

Eric Burlison [to David Grusch]: “Has any of the activity been aggressive and hostile? In your reports?”

David Grusch: “I know of multiple colleagues of mine that got physically injured.”

[..]

Eric Burlison: “[..] by UAPs or by people within the federal government?”

David Grusch: “Both.”

[..]

Eric Burlison: “So there has been activity by alien or non-human technology and/or beings that has caused harm to humans?”

David Grusch: “I can’t get into the specifics in an open environment, but at least the activity that I personally witnessed, and I have to be very careful here because you don’t, you know, they tell you never to acknowledge tradecraft, right? So what I personally witnessed, myself and my wife, was very disturbing.”

[..]

Eric Burlison: “You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft?”

David Grusch: “I have to be careful to describe what I’ve seen firsthand, and not in this environment, but I could answer that question behind closed doors here.”

Eric Burlison: “And have you seen any of the bodies?”

David Grusch: “That’s something I’ve not witnessed myself.”

[..]

Then Burlison directly challenged Grusch’s claims by saying “And so with that being said, you know, you have another statement that has been made that was intriguing to me because [..] my view has been that we are billions of light years away from any other system. And the concept that an alien species that’s technologically advanced enough to travel billions in the light years gets here, and somehow is incompetent enough to not survive Earth or crashes, is something that I find a little bit far-fetched.“

Then he asked Grusch to expand on his previous claim regarding an “interdimensional potential“, to which Grusch replied with some sort of explanation that included the Holographic Principle.

Eric Burlison: “But you have not seen any documentation that that’s what’s occurring.”

David Grusch: “Only a theoretical framework discussion.”

[..]

Eric Burlison: “Occam’s razor is that this, these aircraft, have they been identified that they are being produced by domestic, you know, military contractors? Is there any evidence that that’s what’s being recovered?”

David Grusch: “Not to my knowledge. Plus the recoveries predate a lot of our advanced programs that I [was previously aware of]”.

[..]

Then Burlison put the final nail in Grusch’s statement by asking if there’s a possibility that agencies keep advanced technology programs secret from each other so that when one of them encounters said technology, it may seem alien in origin to them.

David Grusch: “I mean, that’s a hypothetical situation. I’m not aware of any historical situation that would match what you described.”

Matt Gaetz‘s intervention was decent but brought nothing new to the conversation. 

The next impressive exchange followed, though. Nancy Mace used her time perfectly to maximize the direct answers from the three witnesses on a variety of relevant issues. She asked whether there were any repercussions for the witnesses when it comes to their superiors – they all said “no”. A very bold question followed: “Do you believe there’s an active disinformation campaign within our government to deny the existence of UAPs? Yes or no?” – Graves had no answer, Grusch said “yes”, and Fravor said that he is positive regarding the past, mentioned Project Blue Book, but then said that he doesn’t speak for the present U.S. government.

It was also Mace who inquired about the percentage of UAPs that go unreported. Ryan Graves’s response put this percentage at 95%, which, if true, indeed represents a problem potentially affecting both the U.S. national security and human knowledge.

The questions Mace had for Grusch were very direct and challenged his previous claims.

Nancy Mace: “Do you believe our government has made contact with intelligent extraterrestrials?”

David Grusch: “Something I can’t discuss in a public setting.”

[..]

Nancy Mace: “If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?”

David Grusch: “As I’ve stated publicly already in my News Nation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries.”

[..]

Nancy Mace: “Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?”

David Grusch: “Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to, that are currently still on the program.”

Nancy Mace: “And was there documentary evidence video, photos, eyewitness? Like, how would that be determined?”

David Grusch: “The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a SCIF about.”

Note: SCIF is an acronym for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities.

Finally, Mace asked Grusch for specific witnesses – agencies, subagencies, contractors, individuals – who he thinks should be called in the next hearing on UAPs.

David Grusch: “I can give you a specific, cooperative, and hostile witness list, of specific individuals, that were in those“.

Nancy Mace: “And how soon can we get that list?“

David Grusch: “I’m happy to provide that to you after the hearing“.

Nancy Mace was simply amazing in her ability to not only get the three witnesses to be very specific about their claims but also made Grusch promise a list of names that can help the US Congress get to the bottom of this issue.

Well done! I would’ve liked to see this kind of rapid, relevant, structured interaction from all the members of the committee and representatives who got the chance to ask questions during the hearing.

The last two members of the committee to ask questions in the UAP hearing, Nick Langworthy and Andrew Ogles, both managed to extract meaningful answers from Graves, Grusch, and Fravor.

Nick Langworthy asked Fravor to give even more details about the Tic Tac incident. The bit of Fravor’s response that got my attention was the following: “It knew exactly what it was doing. It was aware of our presence, and it had acceleration rates.”

That’s a bold type of speculation about the Tic Tac’s intentions and its pilot’s knowledge and awareness regarding the environment and the interaction with the human pilots witnessing it. This is the kind of interpretation that makes me question Fravor’s ability to think critically about the alleged UAPs.

Andrew Ogles had several great questions for the panel of witnesses. They mainly centered on the topic of national security. Ogles asked if the UAPs could be collecting reconnaissance, probing the U.S. military’s capabilities – including nuclear -, and whether they provide an “existential threat to the national security of the United States“. The answers were affirmative and indicated a potential threat to the United States national security. 

The best question from Ogles, in my opinion:

Andrew Ogles: “Mister Graves and Fravor, you know, in the event that your encounters have become hostile, would you have had the capability to defend yourself, your crew, your aircraft?”

Both pilots said “No”.

In the end, Andrew Ogles asked the witnesses something that point to a new speculative direction.

Andrew Ogles: “Is there any indication that the Department of Energy is involved in UAP data collection and housing?”

Graves had no answer, Grusch couldn’t disclose any opinion on the matter in a public setting, and Fravor said he did not know.

When closing the hearing, Glenn Grothman said “I think we’re gonna wanna look into what we can do to make more of this information public. I think there’s certainly a time period after which it should always be made public, and people have been concerned about these issues.”

So, there’s the promise from the U.S. Congress that they will investigate further and will, hopefully, manage to make some of the information regarding UAPs public.

CONCLUSIONS

The U.S. Congress hearing on UAPs from July 26 brought nothing new when it comes to evidence that the U.S. government, or any other government, is in possession of knowledge regarding alien beings or alien technology. 

We’ve seen these things before – military pilots coming forward with personal accounts of UFOs, intelligence officers claiming they have knowledge of classified information that prove that we are not alone in the Universe. Think Bob Lazar and Luis Elizondo, think of the entire Disclosure Project led by Steven Greer. This is not new.

The fact that we still have no hard evidence regarding UAPs being linked to alien technology, or interdimensional beings, is still very telling about the validity of these claims and events, no matter how serious and official some may claim to be.

The time for “I have the data but I cannot show you” and “I think I saw something, I did not understand, so it must be alien” has passed. Show us the evidence. We will analyze and come to our own conclusions. Otherwise, there can be dozens of so-called whistleblowers and witnesses, the facts remain: An anecdote is not evidence and more anecdotes are not better than one.

As for this specific hearing, well done on yet another disinformation and diversion campaign, dear United States government. That is my main interpretation of the event. Whether they only try to move the public’s attention from the many social, political, and economic issues that plague the United States right now, or try to cover up the technological advancement of their military, I cannot say. UAP is a broad subject, it can stretch to cover many things, as needed at a certain moment in time.

This too has been done before. Governments, in general, and the U.S. government, in particular, have been proven to lie in a variety of ways to their own citizens and obviously, to their enemies. Most of the time they will claim it’s for national security purposes, and the July hearing on UAPs is no exception. I still call it lying to your people and the world. And if you, indeed, must lie, at least don’t try to make a fool out of everyone in the target audience. Maybe come up with something better, smarter than “aliens” when you build your next PSYOP, hm?