Yes, I sat through the
two hours and fifteen minutes (there about) of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability meeting about what is going on in the world of UAP. In the opening
remarks by Nancy Mace, we are told that UAP demand attention (with which I
think we all agree). Quoting a Colonel Carl, she said that there were
non-humans interacting with us and that high-ranking people knew it. That is a
somewhat provocative statement with which to open the hearing. You can watch
the hearing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT2iWKZr0qA
Robert Garcia told us
that the Main Stream Media is taking the matter seriously, or more seriously
than in the past. He also noted that the hearings were about getting at the
truth.
There were those on the
committee who told us other things that we all knew. We were told that the
allegations by David Grusch have not been verified. Although Garcia didn’t
elaborate, he was referring to the claim that there had been twelve crash
retrievals. We are told that some of the committee members, maybe all of them,
want more legislation for the study of UAP and we all know how well congressional
legislation has been in helping us get at the truth in the past.
I noticed that we get some
history, or rather a mention of history when Jared Moskowitz said that
investigations went back to 1945, which is probably a reference to the Foo
Fighters of the Second World War.
Once all the members
had a chance to make statements, the emphasis switched to the witnesses that
were retired Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger
and Michael Gold. They were asked, in turn they thought of the UAP situation
and all suggested something outside of our technological abilities existed, but
not that it was necessarily from alien visitation.
Swearing in of the witnesses. From left to right Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold. |
Gallaudet said that
while serving in the Navy, in a large-scale exercise, he received an email
about the intrusion of unknown craft that seemed to be a danger to that exercise,
specifically, the aviation assets that were being employed. The email, from a
higher authority, wondered if there was some secret project, to which he knew
nothing that might account for these intrusions and if they continued, they
would cancel the exercise. Gallaudet said that the next day, the email was gone
and in the after-action briefings, that concern was never mentioned… And, now,
as far as I know, based on the testimony, there are no copies of the email
offered in evidence.
I hadn’t expected much
in this hearing, but Lue Elizondo did make several comments that were interesting.
He said that UAP were real and that the US was in possession of UAP material,
though he didn’t specify what that material might be, and that some foreign
nations also had access to some form of alien material.
Once they got beyond
the opening statements which seemed to include most of the free world, each
member in attendance was given five minutes to ask questions or to pontificate.
Here is where I thought we might get into the nuts and bolts of the situation but
that somehow evaded us.
In the questions
address to Gallaudet, especially those about the intrusions during the
exercise, we learned nothing new. His answers to some of those questions was
that he was prohibited from talking about specifics in a public forum. He would
answer them in a closed session.
We had a similar
experience with Elizondo. He mentioned that those answers he could give were in
his book, which had been in review by officials in the Pentagon for more than
year before it was published. He said there were crash retrievals, but he would
only talk about them in a closed session.
Later in the hearings,
Elizondo would mention bodies. He said bodies were collected before he was
born. I believe this is a vague reference to the Roswell case, which is from
July 1947. But he would also say that he couldn’t talk about retrievals in an
open session.
Shellenberger, who was
the source of the information about Immaculate Constellation, said that he
trusted his sources on that information, but he wouldn’t reveal them. He said
that were either still in he government or had been in the government, but not
in which agencies they have worked. He also said that his sources had told him
that the government was sitting on piles of information about UAP, including high
resolution photographs and other material. But he wouldn’t say who these
sources were, only that they were credible, based on his knowledge of who they
were and his checking out their backgrounds.
Gold provided a good
answer on why some of this information has been hidden. It could expose
weaknesses in our capability to respond to the threats. That would be
information that our adversaries in the world would want to have.
Update: Shellenberger had provided a document about Immaculate Constellation to the committee members prior to the beginning of the session. Thanks to Nancy Mace, you can read that document here:
https://mace.house.gov/immaculateconstellation
There is one point that
I should make and here is probably the best place. There was a discussion that military
personnel had been injured by UFOs and that those people were being compensated
for those injuries. Once again, no names were offered, but I thought
immediately of John Burroughs who had been injured during the Rendlesham Forest
events of December 1980.
I also know of others
who claimed they were injured by UFOs, including Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum,
coincidentally during their sighting of a glowing, diamond-shaped object also
in December 1980. Neither of the women were compensated by the government.
This provides a short
rundown on what went on in those two hours and fifteen minutes of hearing. When
one committee member said that those on the committee who wanted additional
information and didn’t know where to begin to look for it (and I sympathize
with them on that point), he was told that the information could be discussed
in a closed session.
My problem was that we
learned nothing new, there were no sources named or documents presented, other
than one that was so heavily redacted that it was useless*, and all the
information was second hand at best. I have said before and I’ll say it again,
Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have talked to the men and women who had
first-hand knowledge. We can name names and have taped, both audio and video,
of these witnesses.
There were some
positives that came out of the hearing. I mean, here was a hearing about UAP
with suggestions of an off-world presence, observed technology that was beyond
our means to create, an interest in the topic by the Main Stream Media that was
not wrapped in ridicule, and a suggestion that an unbiased, scientific
investigation was needed.
The members of the
committee seemed to be interested in the topic and were searching for answers
rather than attempting to misrepresent the situation and taking the discussion
into areas that have nothing to do with the problem. All the witnesses, who
were under oath, when asked, answered that they believed, based on their person
experiences that the answer was alien visitation or that they didn’t know what
the answer might be. There didn’t seem to be anyone who ridiculed the idea that
we have been visited alien creatures.
There was a suggestion
that the stigma be removed from reporting of UAP because, to solve the problem,
the information must be received by those who can use it. If people are afraid
to report what they have seen or experienced, then no research can be conducted
and we solve no problems.
In reality, this
hearing was what I expected, long on suggestion but short on evidence. Too many
times, the answer to a specific question was that the witness couldn’t talk
about it in an open hearing, or that his sources would not be revealed. There
was nothing that we, on the outside, could do to learn more, no real cases that
we could study because we don’t have the necessary information, and a little
too much speculation. I can’t say that I was disappointed in the hearing
because I didn’t expect it to reveal very much.
Or, as my good friend
from Operation Iraqi Freedom would say after many staff meetings, “There is two
hours and fifteen minutes that I won’t get back.”
*Stan Friedman used to show a heavily redacted report that contained only one or two words per page. When the whole document was eventually released, we learned it had little to do with UFO research and a great deal to do with intelligence collections methods.
8 comments:
Great article. I thought you might be interested to know that AARO has released the second part of AARO's Fiscal Year 2024 Consolidated Annual Report on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY24-CONSOLIDATED-ANNUAL-REPORT-ON-UAP-508.PDF
Perhaps Shellenberger should have distributed his 10 page Immaculate Constellation document to congressional aides well in advance of the formal hearing.If information has been discussed by the witnesses here in closed hearings there have been no new updates on the specifics or locations of evidence.Opening statements from congressional representatives took up at least 30 minutes of the allotted time set forth for the 2.5 hour meeting, though I assume this was intended for the uninformed or curious public unfamiliar with the subject.... which is still very high, due to the indifference of the news media
The entire exercise was political drama, wrapped in unsubstantiated claims.
Especially the ridiculous comments by MTG. Why she was even allowed to speak is beyond reason.
William G Pullin.... I have to wonder about people like you.
For years you complain about a government cover up and then you have a winge when we finally get people within the government to discuss the topic. You're just another frigging naysayer.
Paul-
The problem here is that they might be talking about it but we are getting nothing new in all that talk. I can point to other such hearings decades ago, but the point was to suggest there was nothing all this. Here, we have four men talking about what they have heard, or seen, that suggests a cover up but we have nothing to go one. We don't know their sources, we don't know the reliability of those sources, so all we have is the same thing that we have had for decades. I saw this but no one else did. My source told me... but I can't reveal his name... I have the MJ-12 documents, but no one knows where they originated so we can't verify them. Oh, wait, I do know where the originals came from and that source is not credible.
a very interesting article, but I would like to comment on a couple of things.
1) it stands to reason that a journalist of Shellenberger's stature would want to protect his sources from being harassed or fired from Gov.
2) I think the reason new information is not released is because it is classified, we wanted it released and declassified under the UAPDA, but you witnessed it being gutted by Mike Turner and Jim Himes in 2023.
Eric W. Davis: "Grusch reported to the House Oversight subcommittee last year his DOPSR-approved unclassified synopsis of his classified whistleblower complaint to the IGIC (ca. June/July 2022) which itself contains TS/SAP (Special Access Program) information that is exempt from FOIA which no member of both houses of Congress can get access to except for the bicameral Gang of Eight.
"I was one of the witnesses in his classified complaint. And the contents of his classified complaint contain direct firsthand evidence from Dave's security investigations that discovered the existence of the legacy UAP crash-retrieval program.
"You are woefully uninformed about actions and events which took place during 2020-2022 that are not in the public domain. So your commentary is uninformed. The 'evidence,' so to speak, is not releasable by federal laws under Title 10 and Title 50, and a few POTUS executive orders. There are also contractual issues between the USG agencies and the industry firms that are involved in all this, which cannot be legally breached to publicly disclose the evidence that you desire.
"And you witnessed in December how the Schumer-Rounds amendment to the FY24 NDAA got pushback from House leadership and the WH to where the amendment got watered down (via the removal of two key provisions) to prevent the Executive Branch from exercising those now-deleted provisions to avoid violating those (government agency & contractor) contractual legal protections. This is now the key hangup that prevents full disclosure of the evidence that you demand."
Neil –
First, I think you missed my point about Shellenberger’s sources. I understand that, as a journalist, he would want to protect his sources so that they aren’t harassed or fired. The point is, we don’t know who they are, so we are unable to gauge their reliability. They could be the most credible sources ever, but we don’t know that.
You are, of course, correct when you point out that I’m uninformed about what took place in the various classified briefings. However, that doesn't mean that I am unable to deduce from the clues provided by witnesses such as David Grusch and Dr. Eric Davis. I believe that I’m the top civilian crash retrieval expert in the United States (I think that Ryan Wood might hold that title for the world), which means I know who the players are and where they got together.
Many of them were, at one time or another at Skinwalker Ranch, which means that Grusch, who was also there had an opportunity to meet them, share information, and may have overheard conversations by them. Grusch has also told us about two UFO retrievals, one in Italy in 1933 and, of course, Roswell. Based on research conducted by colleagues in Italy, I am confident that the Italian crash is a hoax. I have published that evidence on this blog.
If that is true, then what does it say about the reliability of other information that Grusch shared in those classified briefings. Has anyone tried to learn more about this Italian crash or are they just taking his word about it? And yes, I believe he’s telling the truth as he knows it, but that doesn’t mean that it happened.
Dr. Davis had said, on multiple occasions, that the Del Rio UFO crash was real. But does he know that the original, and the only known firsthand witness, Robert Willingham, changed the date of the crash, the type of military aircraft he was flying was wrong, and that the claim the UFOs were first spotted by the DEW Line, was wrong (Neither the jet he claimed to be flying or the DEW Line didn’t exist in 1948). I found the first interview that he gave that listed him, not as an Air Force colonel but as a lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol. His military records, available in St. Louis, show he spent 13 months in the Army from December 1945 to January 1947 and he was discharged as an E-4. He was never a colonel, fighter pilot or a witness to a UFO crash (though he eventually claimed he had seen seven such events).
I believe based on my knowledge of this narrowly defined field, that I can deduce, with a certain amount of accuracy, the twelve events that Grusch alluded to, and I can deduce who told him what. I can tell you that the Aztec crash of 1948 is a hoax invented by two con men, that the Kingman crash of 1953 came from a single source who admitted to spinning tall tales when drunk and said that he had used astral projection to communicate with alien beings on a prison ship a thousand light years from Earth. These are just two examples of the trouble with the tales of spacecraft crashes.
You can cite all the laws and regulations you want, but using the excuse that the information is highly classified is a really nice dodge to keep us from learning more about it. Hiding behind that excuse prevents us from vetting the information. We’ll just have to take your word for it because, well, if anyone talks out of school, they are breaking the law and will end up in jail. But the problem is, the little bit that has trickled out suggests that those providing these clues don’t know any more about it than I do. Actually, given what they have said, I suspect that I know more about crash retrievals than they do.
So, if you want to see a list of the UFO crashes that I believe Grusch claims are real, just take a look at my posting about that on this blog. I fully and freely admit that I could be wrong about this, but so far nothing has surfaced to suggest that, and if I have guessed correctly about the twelve UFO crashes, what does that say about so-called classification of that data.
Post a Comment