Congress has held its first hearing on unidentified flying objects (UFOs) in more than 50 years.
The hearings addressed military sightings of UFOs in training areas and whether they posed a threat to pilots or national security.
The Pentagon officials did not entirely rule out an extraterrestrial origin for the sightings.
Members of Congress quizzed government officials tasked with investigating sightings of unidentified flying objects for more than an hour yesterday.
The hearing, held by the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation, was the first on the subject of UFOs since 1968. Questions included whether or not the government had crashed UFOs in its possession and whether or not the Pentagon was investigating reports of flying saucers interfering with nuclear weapons.
Although the C3 Subcommittee may seem like a strange host for a hearing on UFOs, the questions primarily focused on sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) on military training ranges,
and whether they represented a safety or security threat to U.S.
military personnel. The reasoning is that if UAPs have a man-made
origin, they could be intelligence operations against U.S. military
forces conducting training.
Two Pentagon officials, Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie, answered questions on the Pentagon’s recent UAP efforts.
The 2022 defense budget mandated that the Department of Defense create an agency to track UAP sightings. That agency, the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), was tasked with, “scientific, operational, and technical analysis of data gathered by field investigations…to better understand and explain unidentified aerial phenomena.”
“Tuesday's hearing was a step forward,” Nick Pope, a former UFO investigator for the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence, tells Popular Mechanics, “For far too long, this subject was unfairly stigmatized, and witnesses were disbelieved or ridiculed. That discouraged pilots and radar operators from speaking out, but a few brave ones did, and what happened on Tuesday is a testament to their courage and a vindication of their experiences.”
Bray explained during the hearing that UAP incidents likely resolve into five main categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, U.S. government or industry developmental programs (secret aircraft), foreign adversary systems (drones), or an “other” bin that allows for “difficult cases and for the possibility of surprise and scientific discoveries.”
The “other” bin could allow for foreign adversaries that have developed breakthrough technologies, but the other obvious implication is that it could also allow for extraterrestrials and extraterrestrial technology. Both officials however stated they would not speculate on some of the more unusual sightings gathered by AOIMSG. Bray said that, like everyone, he wanted immediate explanations but that “understanding can take significant time and effort.” This, he suggested, is why the Office of Naval Intelligence embarked on a “data driven, facts-based approach.”
At one point in the hearing, Moultrie talked about being “open to all hypotheses.” Pope sees this as a positive sign. “It's a fascinating indication that the extraterrestrial hypothesis apparently hasn't been ruled out,” he says. “That should give believers some hope—and should give everyone else pause for thought.”
Rep. Adam Schiff reiterated a point made in the Pentagon’s June 2021 UAP report: Of the 144 UAP incidents between 2004 and 2021, 80 percent were recorded on multiple instruments. So-called “multi-sensor data” includes smartphones, video cameras, infrared cameras, and radar. Eighteen of the 144 incidents appeared to demonstrate “unusual flight characteristics that appeared to demonstrate advanced technology.”
Schiff asked if any of the 18 sightings appearing to demonstrate strange tech involved craft that emitted radiofrequency energy—possibly nodding to a 2004 incident when U.S. Navy pilots believed they were encountering anti-radar jamming from UAPs. Bray said some of the objects that did emit radiofrequency energy were not behaving “oddly otherwise,” which suggests that some of the radio wave-emitting UAPs could have been some form of man-made drone.
In response to another question, Bray admitted he was not aware of an adversary that could move an object “without a discernible means of propulsion,” but later said sensor artifacts could accidentally hide evidence of conventional propulsion. For example, a blurry pixel and a lack of detail might obscure a jet engine nozzle or a propeller. He also said some of the objects appeared to have “signature management,” which might include masking an object’s infrared or radar signatures in a similar manner to stealth aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit stealth fighter and the F-22 Raptor fighter.
The Pentagon officials exhibited two clips of video evidence. The first, apparently captured from a smartphone, shows a small spherical object that whisks past the cockpit of a U.S. Navy strike fighter in the blink of an eye. “I do not have an explanation for what this particular object is,” Bray said.
Bray and Moultrie then showed another video, taken off the West Coast in 2018, of what appears to be a flashing triangle, similar to a "swarm" of other objects reported by multiple U.S. Navy assets off a different coast.
“We are now
reasonably confident these triangles correlate to unmanned aerial
systems in the area,” Bray stated. The UAP’s triangular appearance, he
explained, was the result of light “passing through the night vision
goggles and then passing through the SLR camera,” and that the actual
flying objects were not triangular in nature.
Rep. Mike Gallagher asked if the UAP Task Force was aware of the so-called “Malmstrom Incident,” in which ten nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base were “de-alerted” and rendered inoperable, allegedly by a nearby UFO. The officials replied they had heard of incidents like it but that this particular incident was not in the AOIMSG database.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi asked if there had been any communication with the objects (initiated by either side) or if any weapons had ever been discharged at the UAPs. Bray replied that no communication had been established and that no weapons have been fired at the objects. Next, Krishnamoorthi asked if the government had come across any “wreckage.” According to Bray, the Pentagon does not possess any object of terrestrial origin that cannot be explained.
The questions, Pope tells Popular Mechanics, did not include any actual assessments of what is going on: “A key question that wasn't asked is this: If specific high-profile cases like the USS Nimitz 'Tic Tac' incident in 2004 remain unexplained, what's the best current assessment in the DOD and the intelligence community?”
“In any high-profile intelligence analysis, I would expect there to be a best current assessment. But we haven't heard what it is, and the DOD won't even comment on its existence,” Pope says. “It would also be interesting to hear the most popular competing theories—classified US technology, adversary drones, and extraterrestrials—ranked, using words of estimative probability.”
One of the most revealing exchanges between Bray, Moultrie, and members of Congress took place when Rep. Krishnamoorthi asked if “our encounters with UAPs have altered the development of our offensive, defensive capabilities or even our sensor capabilities.”
Bray's answer was a mysterious and tantalizing. “We’ll save that for the closed session,” he replied.
It may be a while before we find out much more information. Closed sessions are hearings closed to the public, restricted to members of Congress and their staff only, where classified and other secret information is discussed.
Ultimately, the hearing did not reveal much. To the contrary, it spurred a number of important questions about the unidentified aerial phenomenon we've recently encountered.
Kyle Mikozami
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.