UFO whistleblower tells Congress the US government is hiding evidence of 'non-human intelligence'
"The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence and unexplainable phenomena."
UFOs came to Washington today.
UFOs — or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), as they're now called — have been receiving increased scrutiny from the U.S. government in recent years due to high-profile testimony from credible witnesses. In order to shine light on what some deem to be the pressing national security threat posed by UAP, the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on National Security at the Border and Foreign Affairs held a hearing Wednesday (July 26) in Washington titled "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency."
Three key witnesses testified at the hearing: Ryan Graves and David Fravor, two former U.S. Navy aviators who reported highly publicized encounters with unknown objects in military training airspace; and David Grusch, a decorated U.S. military combat veteran and Pentagon intelligence officer.
In his opening remarks, Representative Glenn Grothman (R-WI) stated that "we must demand transparency from the Department of Defense," adding that "Congress recognizes the subject of UAPs is multifaceted and requires a careful, data-driven approach." Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) went even further: "We need to tell the folks at the Pentagon, they work for us, that government, we don't work for them. And that's exactly the point. This is an issue of government transparency. We can't trust a government that does not trust its people."
Related: Pentagon has 'no credible evidence' of aliens or UFOs that defy physics
Echoing this further in the opening remarks, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) stated that "the American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence and unexplainable phenomena." Moskowitz added that any disclosure of classified information must be done carefully, pointing out how the existence of stealth helicopter technology wasn't publicly known before one was used in the 2011 raid on a compound housing Osama bin Laden. "But we can't allow that to be used as a shield to keep the American people completely in the dark from basic truths," Moskowitz added.
In the witness testimony that followed the opening statements, Grusch claimed he was told of the existence of a "multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program" and was denied access to it, prompting him to file the whistleblower complaint. Grusch, who served as a member of the Pentagon's short-lived UAP Task Force from 2019 to 2021, told the committee that his whistleblower complaint is based on "information I've been given by individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy and service to this country, many of whom also have shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation and classified oral testimony to myself and many of my various colleagues."
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Moskowitz asked Grusch if the former intelligence community official has any knowledge of "programs in the advanced tech space that are unsanctioned," to which Grusch replied that these programs do exist and are outside of congressional oversight. When asked if he was aware of imagery of crash sites of craft of unknown origin, Grusch said he cannot discuss the answer in an open, unclassified setting.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) pushed Grusch on his claims that the U.S. government is in possession of "non-human spacecraft," asking if previous statements made by Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the Pentagon's All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO, were correct in stating the U.S. government had no evidence of non-human intelligence. "It's not accurate," Grusch replied.
Burchett asked Grusch if there has "ever been an active U.S. government disinformation campaign to deny the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena." Grusch affirmed there has indeed been such a campaign, yet said he can't add anything beyond what he has already stated publicly.
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) also pushed Grusch on some of these statements. "You've said the U.S. has intact spacecraft. You said that the government has alien bodies or alien species. Have you seen the spacecraft? [...] Have you seen any of the bodies?" Burlison asked.
"That's not something I have witnessed myself," Grusch replied. But he answered a subsequent question by stating definitively that, when it comes to UAP crash retrievals, "biologics came with some of these recoveries." Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) pushed Grusch if he meant human or non-human. "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to," Grusch replied.
Grusch added in response to a later question from Burchett that he is aware of "reverse-engineering programs for non-terrestrial craft."
Related: UFOs and UAP: History, sightings and mysteries
In his testimony, Graves told the committee that UAP are severely under-reported in American airspace. "These sightings are not rare or isolated. They are routine," Graves said. "Military aircrew and commercial pilots — trained observers whose lives depend on accurate identification — are frequently witnessing these phenomena." Graves described how Naval aviators operating on the U.S. East Coast witnessed objects that appeared to stay stationary in the face of hurricane-force winds before suddenly accelerating to supersonic speeds.
Despite the extraordinary nature of these sightings and their proximity to U.S. military airspace, Graves said that he and his colleagues, not to mention other pilots who have had similar encounters, have historically been hesitant to report them. "The stigma attached to UAP is real and powerful and challenges national security," Graves told the committee. "It silences commercial pilots who fear professional repercussions and discourages witnesses. It is only compounded by recent government claims questioning the credibility of eyewitness testimony. "
Graves made reference to NASA's recent UAP study group, stating the agency "has a big role to play as far as commercial aviation safety and it's one of their original charges as an organization," given that NASA already operates an Aviation Safety Reporting System.
During Fravor's testimony, the former F/A-18 pilot told the committee that he is concerned by the lack of government oversight when it comes to "processing or working on craft believed not from this world."
"I'd like to say that the Tic Tac object we engaged in 2004 was far superior to anything that we had at the time time, have today or [are] looking to develop in the next 10 years," Fravor said. "If we in fact have programs that possess this technology, it'd be nice to have oversight from those people that the citizens of this great country elected in office to represent what is best for the United States, and best for the citizens."
In response to a question on whether or not UAP pose a potential threat to U.S. national security, Fravor stated a definitive "yes," adding that "the technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had." Fravor called it a "travesty" that the U.S. military and/or government doesn't have a centralized repository for reports of UAP.
Grusch was also asked about a possible "interdimensional potential" to the UFO phenomenon. Grusch stated that he's familiar with concepts of "multidimensionality" and the "holographic principle," ideas about how beings might be "projected from higher-dimensional space to lower dimensional," but added that these are only theoretical.
During questioning, all three witnesses stated that it's possible UAP are interested in America's nuclear capabilities, testing for vulnerabilities in U.S. air defense systems or conducting reconnaissance in American airspace.
In closing remarks, representatives underscored how this issue, at its core, is less about hunting down evidence of alleged alien craft, and more about demanding accountability and transparency from the U.S. government.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) reiterated the need for using science to try and find answers on the UAP enigma. "I also really believe in following facts and doing your homework and making sure that we follow science as we try to get as much information as possible," Garcia added. "Transparency is a cornerstone of government. We live in a vast galaxy. A lot of unanswered questions."
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Brett is curious about emerging aerospace technologies, alternative launch concepts, military space developments and uncrewed aircraft systems. Brett's work has appeared on Scientific American, The War Zone, Popular Science, the History Channel, Science Discovery and more. Brett has English degrees from Clemson University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In his free time, Brett enjoys skywatching throughout the dark skies of the Appalachian mountains.
-
SRS Maybe Bob Lazar was telling the truth. Looks like things are stacking up in his favor. Maybe when full disclosure comes out the fabled, "island of stability" element 115 that he is suspected to have, will be revealed. As we know element 115, Moscovium, is artificial, extremely radioactive having a short half life of 0.65 seconds. But Lazar stated in 1989 that the extraterrestrials have produced this element in the "island of stability" where it does not go through radioactive decay. If this hearing goes further, maybe we will soon come to know the truth.Reply -
ChrisA This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"Reply
The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"
In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.
The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.
A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries. -
autumn For heaven's sake, why can't they just come out with the truth. Star Trek is a documentary! My favorite episodes are the ones that have Q in them ;-)Reply -
ChrisA
Even if he has material that is impossible to exit, that does not mean space aliens exist. It only means our understanding of physics is very wrong.SRS said:Maybe when full disclosure comes out the fabled, "island of stability" element 115 that he is suspected to have...
The only way to prove aliens exist is to produce an actual alien. Even if very advanced technology were found, it only proves that it was created in the past. The actual aliens could be long extinct.
The claim of non-human pilots would be very hard to prove. -
SRS ChrisA said:This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"
The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"
In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.
The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.
A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries.
Ah... But in this case before congress, there are credible "witnesses" that have made very clear statements that such things do exist; even to state under oath that the US Government has artifacts; craft that are not from this world.. It is either true or it is not. You say "there is "FAR MORE evidence for mermaids".... Come on,. really, from the eyes of sailors of the centuries before? No comparison to the data, the veracity of witnesses today, military pilots, who know how to identify objects in the sky about them, but not these observed objects, that they chased got images of? And one who claims to be in the "know" states under oath that our government have actual crafts, and possibly non-human occupants as well. Perhaps we will eventually find the truth in all of this. But is is not going to be in the same vein as "evidence for mermaids." -
cfurry
There are some (relatively obvious) flaws in your argument. No one said they "know" anything. If "Unidentified" doesn't explain that sufficiently, I'm not sure I can do much better.ChrisA said:This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"
The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"
In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.
The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.
A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries.
When an object that was obviously not created by humans, yet requires intelligence to create, then logically one might assume it is from some other intelligent species. Being there are no other tool-using species of sufficient intelligence and technology to create mechanical objects living in this planet, that we know of - I'll give you that a lack of definitive evidence that species like mermaids exist is not grounds for assuming they don't - we must then assume that the species is not of Earth. If that is, in fact, the case, then they are , by definition, space aliens. If that is not the case, we must ask what other explanation exists. Time-travelling humans? Interdimensional beings?
Your argument that it is illogical to assume something is not alien is as just as illogical, because you are positing that you don't know what a thing is but it CAN'T be aliens.
Scientific progress is based on the idea that we offer a made up answer to questions we don't know, then work to disprove it. If there are aerial vehicles that are not made by humans, the hypothesis must be they are made by some other race. we start there and then work to disprove that hypothesis, or eliminate all other possibilities until that is the last remaining. -
billslugg I do not accept that there are aerial vehicles that could not have been made by humans. I will agree there are film clips of dots moving around, there are lots of very credible people who believe they saw such craft. You can eliminate possible causes all you want and that does not prove ET. Only one thing will, repeated isotopic measurements, by independent groups indicating ET origin, peer eviewed and published in a reputable journal. You can bet it will be in Nature, when I see it there, I'll be a believer.Reply
In science the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you say there are ETs here, it is your responsibility to meet a standard that someone else sets. That is the usual repeatability along with a lot of statistical numbers. Every single branch of science uses a similar method. If you came up with an ET sample, then at least two, preferably dozens, of laboratories will analyze it. Statisticians will look at the numbers and tell you what the chance is of a random fluke. They insist on "nine nines". That is a 99.999% chance it is real and not just a random hit. Come up with a fingernail clipping, they'll divvy it up and we'll have absolute proof one way or the other, at least to five nines.
If I say "There are no ET's here" then the burden of proof is on me. I cannot prove a negative so we have to take it one case at a time. When a claim is made of ET, my role is to see if it holds water. I have never seen a claim without holes. -
ChrisA
He said "non-human pilot." That is very specific. The claim is completely bogus unless we see the pilot and can verify it is not human.cfurry said:There are some (relatively obvious) flaws in your argument. No one said they "know" anything. If "Unidentified" doesn't explain that sufficiently, I'm not sure I can do much better.
When an object that was obviously not created by humans, yet requires intelligence to create, then logically one might assume it is from some other intelligent species. Being there are no other tool-using species of sufficient intelligence and technology to create mechanical objects living in this planet, that we know of - I'll give you that a lack of definitive evidence that species like mermaids exist is not grounds for assuming they don't - we must then assume that the species is not of Earth. If that is, in fact, the case, then they are , by definition, space aliens. If that is not the case, we must ask what other explanation exists. Time-travelling humans? Interdimensional beings?
Your argument that it is illogical to assume something is not alien is as just as illogical, because you are positing that you don't know what a thing is but it CAN'T be aliens.
Scientific progress is based on the idea that we offer a made up answer to questions we don't know, then work to disprove it. If there are aerial vehicles that are not made by humans, the hypothesis must be they are made by some other race. we start there and then work to disprove that hypothesis, or eliminate all other possibilities until that is the last remaining.
Saying "It does not fly like an airplane" is not enough. All that means is that it is not an airplane. Do you know how EW (Electronic warfare) systems work? They send fake signals to a sensor to fool the sensor. This was first done with radar. How do we not know there is no optical EW? non-hmans are VERY hard to prove untill you can point at the non-human and have it exampled by experts.
Again even the claim of having an alien artifact is not good enough. Because in the past the artifact has in fact human made, it is just unfamiliar to the person who found it. Again hs argument was "I don't know what this thing is, there for it is an alien artifact."
I know many people want this to be true so badly. But you have to be careful and defend actual science. Look for replicated and falsifiable evidence. -
billslugg
If the artifact undergoes isotopic analysis we can tell where it came from.ChrisA said:Again even the claim of having an alien artifact is not good enough. Because in the past the artifact has in fact human made, it is just unfamiliar to the person who found it. Again hs argument was "I don't know what this thing is, there for it is an alien artifact."
If from Earth we can tell you which mine(s) the metals came out of.
If from elsewhere in the Solar System we can tell how far from the Sun it formed.
If from out side the Solar System we can tell which star it came from.
This analysis is absolute and irrefutable. It is dirt cheap to do. It takes but a few micrograms of your sample. Turnaround time a couple of minutes. Out of pocket cost about $100 in lab time. If truly ET, you can send it in and get a Nobel Prize. It is so easy to do, so monumental in impact, if ET was here, someone would have done it. -
orsobubu
I don't accept nature or other flagship science journals as the truth, instead; it was demonstrated that up to 50% of published articles are fake; think only at covid virus official informations, for example. There is an astounding number of holes in academic scientific theories, mainly due to corruption in every field of capitalistic activities; feynman used to say that reality doesnt exist at all, only math exists, and this absurd idealism (ie in quantum mechanics, with its full load of crap virtual particles, actions at distance, entanglements, superpositions, etc, introduced ad hoc only to avoid the collapsing of scam equations) is enough for me to throw the official truth in the garbage. Read a common newspaper nowadays: you can understand them to the exact contrary, and you are surely nearer to the truth, i don't have sufficient elements to imagine that contemporary most advanced science is different. Anyway, at present i dont believe to aliens on earth, though.billslugg said:I do not accept that there are aerial vehicles that could not have been made by humans. I will agree there are film clips of dots moving around, there are lots of very credible people who believe they saw such craft. You can eliminate possible causes all you want and that does not prove ET. Only one thing will, repeated isotopic measurements, by independent groups indicating ET origin, peer eviewed and published in a reputable journal. You can bet it will be in Nature, when I see it there, I'll be a believer.
In science the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you say there are ETs here, it is your responsibility to meet a standard that someone else sets. That is the usual repeatability along with a lot of statistical numbers. Every single branch of science uses a similar method. If you came up with an ET sample, then at least two, preferably dozens, of laboratories will analyze it. Statisticians will look at the numbers and tell you what the chance is of a random fluke. They insist on "nine nines". That is a 99.999% chance it is real and not just a random hit. Come up with a fingernail clipping, they'll divvy it up and we'll have absolute proof one way or the other, at least to five nines.
If I say "There are no ET's here" then the burden of proof is on me. I cannot prove a negative so we have to take it one case at a time. When a claim is made of ET, my role is to see if it holds water. I have never seen a claim without holes.