Thursday, July 27, 2023

The July 26 Congressional Hearing


For those interested, yes, I did sit through the whole UFO, I mean UAP, Congressional Hearing. And, no, unlike so many of my colleagues, I was unimpressed. I heard and saw nothing new here. I knew days ago, who the witnesses would be, and hoped that some of David Grusch’s sources would be revealed. With hints about sources, we could have begun the process of verification but without them, we just have some interesting tales that might be more fiction than fact.

The Hearing Room and the witnesses, back to the camera.

Here are some of the things that I noticed. There was a great deal of talk about transparency, but little talk about sources, sightings or results. There was a great deal of talk about national security, and most of us could figure out what that meant. Revelation that the US was in possession of alien spacecraft, or rather proof of that, could certainly affect national security. Our competitors in world would fear what we might learn about the operation of alien spacecraft and what sort of an advantage that would give us.

Representative Glenn Grothman, who chaired the panel asked if the witnesses thought that UAP pose a threat to national security.

Hearing chair, Rep. Glenn Grothman.

Commander David Fravor, the Navy pilot involved with the tic-tac sighting said, “Yes, and here’s why. The technology we faced was far superior to anything that we had… if you have one and you reversed engineered one, you could go into space, go someplace, drop down in a matter of seconds and do whatever it wants and leaves and there is nothing we can do about it.”

Grothman asked about what kind of information is being hidden. Grusch, the alleged whistleblower said, “I can speak to that briefly in an unclassified matter…” But said nothing that he hadn’t said before and offered nothing in the way of evidence for his opinion.

Grusch was the one I wanted to hear and he was asked, finally, about the US having UAPs (he meant alien spacecraft) and said, “Absolutely, after interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years, I know the exact locations and those locations were supplied to the Inspector General… I actually had some people with first-hand knowledge provide protected disclosure to the Inspector General…”

David Grusch testifying in front of the Committee.

Which, of course, told us nothing that we didn’t know. As I have said, repeatedly, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have talked with first-hand witnesses and we didn’t suggest it was information that couldn’t be shared in an open forum. We named names, cited locations, and even have some documentation related to all this.

Representative Tim Burchett asked if anyone had been harmed and Grusch said, “Yes, personally.” But it seemed that he was referring to interference with his job and bullying by his superiors. He said, “It was very brutal and very unfortunate, some of the tactics used to hurt me both professionally and personally.”

Representative Tim Burchett asking questions.

Again, Don, Tom and I have interviewed many people who reported they had been threatened. We specifically mentioned threats related to the Roswell UFO crash that included members of the military, the sheriff and several civilians. All documented in the various books that include names and dates. Just this month, I reviewed one of those cases when I spoke to Tim Saunders about what his father, Patrick Saunders had told him. You can read all that here:

Burchett asked if he knew of anyone having been murdered. Grusch said, “I have to be careful answering that question. I directed people with the that knowledge to the appropriate authorities.” He said he was willing to discuss this in a closed environment, but gave us no hints about who that might have been killed, when the murder or murders might have happened, and where the investigation now stood.

Grusch continued in this vein throughout the hearing. He was asked for specifics, provided none, but suggested he would get into that in closed hearings. So much for transparency.

Representative Jared Moskowitz asked if he, Grusch, had met with people with a direct knowledge of non-human craft. Grusch said that he had personally interviewed those individuals. Again, Don, Tom, and I can say the same thing, citing specific generals and colonels, all of whom can be placed in positions to have witnessed these things. We talked with former counterintelligence agents (later Air Force OSI agents who had direct knowledge). We have also talked with civilians who had specific and direct knowledge such as Bill Brazel.

Moskowitz followed up by asking about crash sites and crash imagery. Grusch said, “I can’t go beyond what I have already stated publicly.” I thought that was a nice dodge of the question. This was the sort of thing that interested me, but each time someone had approached specifics, the answer was the same. Can’t go into it beyond what he had already said.

In what was an important question that I think was missed by many, Rep. Burchett asked about when the US became aware of these alien craft. Grusch said, “I like to use the term non-human (who really cares what you like). I don’t like to denote origin. It keeps the aperture open both scientifically and (he trailed off here and didn’t finish that thought)” and then said, “Like I have discussed publicly, the 1930s.”

This is a reference to the 1933 Italian crash, which colleagues in Italy have said is a hoax. I will note that even if true, the US wouldn’t have learned about it until the mid-1940s. I did a longer post on it and you can read it here:

Now we come to the nitty gritty. Burchett asked for the names and the titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge about crash retrievals. And Grusch said, ‘I can’t discuss that publicly, but I did provide that information to both the intel committees and the Inspector General.”

This was what I had waited for. Names, organizations, maybe even a date or two but Grusch provided nothing other than that vague reference to the 1930s. He had said all this before.

While Ryan Graves, the other Navy pilot talked about interviewing some thirty other pilots about their encounters (without providing any names) he did mention a big sighting at Edwards Air Force Base by Boeing engineers and contractors. I mention this only because I didn’t want to leave him out. He was the third witness who didn’t add much to what we already knew about his experiences.

I suppose I should mention that I had written, in The Washington Nationals, a book about the sightings of UFOs over Washington, D.C., information about pilot sightings at that time, including interviews with Air Force pilots involved in attempted intercepts of UFOs. Again, complete with names, locations and other source material.

And, of course, the Project Blue Book files are filled with the names of pilots who had reported UFOs. Since the end of Blue Book, hundreds of other pilots have reported seeing UFOs. In fact, I interviewed a man who had been an alternative pilot on Air Force One during the Kennedy administration who told me that he had seen a domed disk flying off the wing of his fighter in the years before he had flown Air Force One.

Finally, I mention this only because it was so jarring. Representative Eric Burlison wondered how these craft could travel billions of light years and then crash. It seemed to boggle his mind that a race that could conquer interstellar flight would end up crashing. Of course, they really didn’t have to travel billions of light years. The closest star system to Earth is a mere 4.1 light years away. And yes, the technology that would allow travel across that distance is still beyond our capability but his point was irrelevant.

In the end, we heard more about transparency and national security, and there were even some questions about black funding that had little to do with the purpose of the hearing. We didn’t get any specifics that we didn’t already have and we learned nothing that we didn’t already know… except that Grusch sticks with the 1933 Italian crash. Someone should tell him that it might just be a hoax and he should forget about it.


Marcos said...

Kevin, thanks for your perspective on this. I watched most of it and was disappointed. And your historical take on similar accounts is very interesting. What I am curious about is how does this congressional interest compare to previous inquiries? I think Ford headed up congressional inquires in the 70’s shortly after the UFO wave in and around Michigan. Did that result in anything meaningful? I am guessing not. Do you think the current inquiries are different? Or is this destined to peter out?

Sky70 said...

All the main media mentioned Rep. Luna (R-FL.) several times in many articles, TV., etc., but not one mentioned of her here. Hmmmm......

KRandle said...

Sky70 -

Don't understand your comment. Rep. Luna did not query Grusch about the crash retrievals, which was my main concern. He has made some provocative statements but provided no way to vet them... no sources, no names and no documentation. Unlike many of those others, who have limited to no knowledge about the UFO situation in the past, I was looking for ways to validate the claims and for new information. There was nothing here... and you might have noticed that I didn't mention many of the others who were there and asking questions.

Louis Nicholson said...

Goodness Kevin. You seem to want to totally poo-poo a historic hearing. LOL. This was only the first of several hearings to come. It seems you would only have been satisfied if Grusch violated his legal obligations concerning classified information by publicly identifying the people who gave him the crash retrieval information. I'm sure you knew prior to the hearing he would not be able to publicly divulge that information. I too would have loved to have heard who the first hand witnesses are and where the craft are but its understandable why we did not. What is NOT UNDERSTANDABLE is why the Pentagon denied Congress' request for the requisite SCIF room in which they could have obtained that specific information.

As you know, Grusch repeatedly said, UNDER OATH, that he is fully willing to give Congress the names of the 40 people who told him about the crash retrieval program, as well as all the other specifics but that he could not legally do that in a public hearing. He even said, UNDER OATH, he was willing to give that information to Congress RIGHT AFTER THE HEARING. As you noted, he gave the names of the first hand witnesses and other specific information to the Inspector General who is handling his whistleblower complaint. After receiving that information, the Inspector General said his complaint is both "credible" and "urgent." Seems to me that, while not totally dispositive, these facts tend to support Grusch's claims.

You seem to think that since you, Don Schmidt and Tom Carey publicly named your Roswell witnesses, Grusch should have done the same. Unless I'm wrong, unlike Grusch, the three of you were under no legal obligation not to publicly divulge such information. Nor was that information deemed as being classified.

I agree that we need to, at the very least, hear from the first-hand witnesses before coming to a conclusion about the veracity of Grusch's claims. And even then, even if they appear 100 percent credible, many, including me, might have some doubts. Who knows? But the bottom line is, this first hearing definitely moved the Disclosure football a few yards down the field. We are nowhere near scoring a touchdown yet, but let's give Congress, Grusch and the other two witnesses credit for moving the ball in the face of a tremendously tenacious defense. And let's not overlook the point that most people know nothing about ufology and this hearing captured the attention of many of them to this topic and its surrounding issues. That in itself was enough to make the hearing very significant.

Paul Young said...

I don't know why KR is so dismissive of David Fravor and Ryan Graves in this article...."I mention this only because i don't want to leave him out. He was the third witness who didn’t add much to what we already knew about his experiences."

Well maybe, just maybe, Graves had nothing else to add; He has told his story exactly how it happened and should be congratulated for not trying to embellish what he has previously said.
What would you have said, Kevin, if he had added anything else?
"Oh, here we go, another Sgt Penistone!"

What is different this time around, is that they are saying it...under the US House of Congress.

I'm sorry if this bores you.

KRandle said...

Louis -

My point here is that there was nothing new in the hearing and that Grusch offered nothing that we, outside the halls of Congress, that we could verify. It was the same thing he had said before. Without that additional information, I believe we need to remain somewhat skeptical. Without solid data, which he didn't provide, merely opinion based oh hearsay.

He did reference the 1930 UFO crash in Italy, which, as I have noted here, is most likely a hoax, based on what colleagues in Italy had said. This should raise a red flag because an insider, if he heard this tale, should have known that it is no more important than MJ-12.

The other thing is that without the names of his sources, we are unable to gauge the value of the testimony. I believe that Grusch is relating as accurately as he can, what he was told and heard, but without knowing the sources, we don't know if they were lying to him.

At this point, I am less than impressed, which can be turned around in a second with some of that information provided and I'm not sure that everything he has is covered by a security classification. In other words, if he has heard or seen things that weren't classified, then he has no obligation to hide the sources. I fear that some of those sources will reveal too much about the information... So, until we have more data, I just can't get overly excited about this. We've actually seen this in the past.

KRandle said...

Paul -

Only because they just told their same stories again and added nothing to the discussion. I certainly appreciate them coming forward, but with this hearing I was hoping for more than hearing them talk about the same things. I will note that Fravor talking about the radar returns from multiple radars at the time of his sighting was interesting.

I guess, I should have made it clear that I was hoping there would be additional witnesses who haven't shared their reports in public forums, and that we would have some new information about sources.

And I note, for all the talk of transparency, there wasn't much of that... We'll talk in closed sessions...

cotterc404 said...


What does AWF Regiment mean in the Scorpion Squad 'Body Count' book mean? It's in reference to a VC regiment.

William G. Pullin said...

I too was disappointed, which is admittedly an inaccurate term. I was not expecting anything new information to come to light, and my suspicions were confirmed. Time will tell if this situation will progress in a positive direction, or not. I won't be holding my breath. Hope all is well on your end Kevin.

Dr. Okuma said...

It was a letdown for me, too.

The only positive thing that came out of this "hearing", was a broader public exposure, about the existence of UFOs (sorry, won't say UAP), than any book could provide.

My hope is that Grusch actually delivers, and opens up behind closed doors (in a SCIF) to Congress about all of the questions he side-stepped in the hearing. I'm not holding my breath on that though. I believe reps. Burchett and Luna were already denied a SCIF, by the Pentagon, when they requested it.

Paul Andrew Kimball said...

Thanks for the common sense here, Kevin.

Paul Young said...

I've been a staunch believer in the ETH since the mid-seventies and had become wearisome of the debunkers for maybe a decade now. In fact, to the point I hold them in total contempt (as some here may have noted)..
I see that the usually ubiquitous knucklehead from SETI, Seth Silly-Name, isn't so smug these days...that's if he makes an appearance at all...and the usual suspects here on Kevin's blog (Lance, much as I enjoy some of his humorous comments) seem to have gone AWOL.
Since the beginning of this blog, I remember some of the comments aimed at fellow ETH'ers, like David Rudiak, had been nothing short of vicious.

Oh well, the tide has turned and the "tin-foil hat brigade" are now the debunkers and not the ETH'ers. For the last 80 odd years they have had their heads in the sand, calling the rest of us fruitcakes, hoaxers or (worse still) attention seeking liars.

I'm hoping that, from now on, main stream media and the main stream scientific world will stop with the scoffing and help get to the bottom of what is actually going on here.
In short : GET WITH THE PROGRAMME.... Help instead of hinder.

Of course, you'll still get a few twerps...or the NEW "tin-foil hat brigade" as THEY should now be called...who will insist that these UFO's that can drop from 60000 feet to sea level in one second and do 90 degree turns at hyper-sonic speed, are simply "USAF prototypes".
I'd say that's even funnier than swamp-gas!

Guest said...

Dear Mr Randle,

I recently heard you on the Paracast with Gene Steinberg where Gene mentions that Christopher Mellon [] vouches for whistleblower, retired Air Force Major David Grusch [] [at 57m 20s] [The Paracast: July 30, 2023 — Kevin D. Randle with Tim Swartz].

-- Dark Journalist's [Daniel?] interview [20 July 2023] with John Warner IV [] [at 1hr 2m 30"] ['John Warner IV UFO File Deep Events & Black Projects!'] mentions a possible connection between his cousin Christopher Mellon & David Grusch.

[Bio excerpt from John Warner IV's web-site:

'...I have been a skeptic about historical records, including textbooks, for over thirty years––a perspective that's been well-honed. My father, 5-term US Senator John W. Warner III (R-VA), was also Secretary of the Navy and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee (KBE) during the Vietnam War. My mother, Catherine Mellon, daughter of philanthropist Paul Mellon (OSS, KBE), was an activist who protested that war. She taught me to question authority, think independently, and speak my mind. ...']

Regards, Rob.

fermigas said...

Hi Kevin,

John Greenewald posted the CV for Grusch which was published by the House. There's a lot of USAF and Intelligence stuff in it. You're likely more qualified than almost anyone to make sense of it.

John-Paul Gagliano said...

Kevin, you mentioned that Grusch cited the alleged 1933 UFO incident in Italy and that it was most likely a hoax. Do we know that for sure?

I wonder if Grusch's reference to "the 1930s" was not in regard to that one case, but instead to other cases that none of us know about. There have been rumblings of FDR's administration coming into contact with flying saucers. Albiet unsubstantiated, the claims may be worth looking into.

You compared Grusch's reference to the '33 incident with MJ-12, yet in "UFOs and the Deep State" you took, what seemed to me, a somewhat positive view of Bob Lazar, a man who claimed to have been waiting on a needed security clearance to continue working at S4, a clearance level he referred to as "Majestic." My point here is not to argue the authenticity of the MJ-12 documents, as I'm more-or-less inclined to agree with you and Robert Hastings that they were faked. My point is simply that, like in the case of Lazar, government insiders may be deceived or fed false information. That doesn't necessarily discredit them altogether.