Committee: House Oversight and Accountability
Related Items: Data will display when it becomes available.
Date: 11/13/2024
Location: Data will display when it becomes available.
Website: https://oversight.house.gov/
More on This Hearing
• U.S. Capitol Map
Listen
Text: UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA: EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Text available as:
 
• PDF (234KB)
[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA:
EXPOSING THE TRUTH

=======================================================================

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

NOVEMBER 13, 2024

__________

Serial No. 118-135

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-440 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

------

Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

Contact Number: 202-225-5074

Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

Contact Number: 202-225-5051

------

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation

Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Nick Langworthy, New York Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Eric Burlison, Missouri Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Vacancy Ayanna Pressley, Massachesetts
Vacancy Vacancy

Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Vacancy
Vacancy Vacancy

C O N T E N T S

----------

Page

Hearing held on November 13, 2024................................ 1

Witnesses

----------

Dr. Tim Gallaudet, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (RET.), Chief
Executive Officer, Ocean STL Consulting, LLC
Oral Statement................................................... 9

Mr. Luis Elizondo, Author, and Former Department of Defense
Official
Oral Statement................................................... 11

Mr. Michael Shellenberger, Founder of Public
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Mr. Michael Gold, Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space
Policy and Partnerships, Member of NASA UAP Independent Study
Team
Oral Statement................................................... 16

Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.

Index of Documents

----------

* Mellon Hearing Letter; submitted by Rep. Mace.

* Documents related to UAPs; submitted by Rep. Burchett.

* Report, Pentagon, ``Immaculate Constellation''; submitted by
Rep. Mace.

* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Elizondo; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.

* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Gallaudet; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.

* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shellenberger; submitted by
Rep. Burlison.

* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Gold; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA:
EXPOSING THE TRUTH

----------

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Oversight and Accountability

Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation

Jointly, with the

Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:37 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mace, Grothman, Timmons, Burchett,
Higgins, Luna, Biggs, Burlison, Perry, Garcia, Lynch,
Moskowitz, Porter, and Frost.
Also present: Representatives Boebert and Ogles.
Ms. Mace. Good morning. This joint hearing of the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation, and the Subcommittee on National
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order.
Good morning and welcome everyone.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an
opening statement right now.
Good morning and welcome to today's historic hearing, which
I am co-chairing with Mr. Grothman whose subcommittee held an
important hearing on this topic last year.
I want to thank my colleagues and the Oversight Committee,
including Mr. Burchett, Mr. Burlison, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Moskowitz,
Mr. Garcia, for their relentless drive to get answers on UAPs.
They have been steadfast in demanding transparency on the
sightings reported by military pilots and armed forces. Their
commitment to digging for the truth is exactly what this
country needs to cut through the secrecy surrounding this
issue.
And many high-ranking individuals in the military and
intelligence communities believe UAPs demand greater attention,
and thus the purpose for this hearing today.
Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said on Bill
Maher's program that, quote, ``There are phenomena that have
been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by
the science available to us.''
Army Colonel Karl Nell, a member of the Federal Government
UAP Task Force, said at a conference this past May that,
``nonhuman intelligence exists, nonhuman intelligence has been
interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new and has
been ongoing, and they're unelected people in the government
that are aware of that.''
But UAPs remain a controversial topic. I am not going to
name names, but there are certain individuals who did not want
this hearing to happen because they feared what might be
disclosed. But we stood firm. No amount of outside pressure
would ever keep me from pursuing a subject to ground, come hell
or high water.
On that score, I want to thank our witnesses for being
here. We have before us a panel of individuals accomplished in
the military and civilian government in science and in
journalism. Some of the testimony you will hear them deliver
today does not reflect well on influential individuals and
agencies within the U.S. Federal Government and, perhaps, some
of our contractors.
It is never easy to present such information publicly. So,
I appreciate our witnesses voluntarily agreeing to being here
today.
This hearing is intended to help Congress and the American
people to learn the extent of the programs and activities our
government has engaged in with respect to UAPs and what
knowledge it has yielded. This includes, of course, any
knowledge of extraterrestrial life or technology of nonhuman
origin.
If government-funded research on UAPs has not yielded any
useful knowledge, we also need to know those facts. Taxpayers
deserve to know how much has been invested. How much has been
spent? They should not be kept in the dark to spare the
Pentagon a little bit of embarrassment.
The reality is, despite their enormous taxpayer-funded
budgets, the transparency of the Defense Department and the
intelligence community have long been abysmal. The Pentagon has
failed six consecutive audits. In fact, it has never actually
passed one.
Adding to this is a runaway, overclassification of
documents and materials, and reluctance to declassify materials
when appropriate, and, at times, an outright refusal to share
critical information with Congress. In short, it is not a track
record that instills trust.
So, Congress has tried in recent years to lift the veil and
find out if information about UAPs is being withheld not only
from the American public but also from their elected
Representatives in Congress. Part of the transparency effort
was legislation created in the Pentagon, the All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office, or AARO, but the new office is struggling to
get its footing.
A recent statutorily required report from AARO intended to
illuminate the government's historic assessment of UAPs was
heavily criticized by those seeking UAP transparency. The
report has stoked suspicions AARO is unable or, perhaps,
unwilling to bring forward the truth about the government's
activities concerning UAPs.
I am disturbed that AARO itself lacks transparency. Even
its budget is kept from the public. So, if there is no there
``there'', then why are we spending money on it, and by how
much? Why the secrecy if it is really no big deal and there is
nothing there? Why hide it from the American people? Because I
am not a mathematician, but I can tell you that does not add
up.
I expect some of our witnesses to share their views on that
AARO report. We will also hear, from the witnesses today,
allegations of UAP-related misinformation and disinformation by
government officials of which they are personally aware and
directly experienced.
And we will hear testimony today concerning recent
revelations about a purportedly secret UAP program whose
existence and findings may have been improperly withheld from
Congress. But, before we get to the witnesses, we are going to
have a few more opening statements from our colleagues.
And one thing I wanted to add at the end of my closing
statement is there is a document that will be entered into the
congressional record today. Mr. Tim Burchett from Tennessee has
this document, and we just distributed it to every Member up
here on the dais, this document. But this is going to be the
original document from the Pentagon about Immaculate
Constellation that Michael Shellenberger delivered to Congress
today.
So, thank you, Mr. Shellenberger, for this information. We
are all reading it in real time now, and Mr. Burchett will
enter it into the record, but 12 pages about this
unacknowledged special access program that your government says
does not exist.
So, with that, I would acknowledge my colleague, Mr.
Garcia.
I want to say, first of all, to Mr. Connolly, who could not
be here today, the Ranking Member on my Subcommittee on
Cybersecurity, I want to say that I was greatly saddened to
hear about the recent news of Mr. Connolly's cancer diagnosis.
And I want to convey to him and to all of our colleagues, we
wish our very best to you and a full and speedy recovery.
And, with that, I would acknowledge Mr. Garcia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I
want to thank the Chairwoman and the Chairman both for their
continued support and really treating this discussion and these
hearings in a way that is bipartisan.
I think one thing that is very important for all of us that
are interested in the conversation around UAPs, is that this is
an area that both Republicans and Democrats, while we may
disagree in a lot of other spaces, this is an area where
bipartisanship is really important. And, in fact, I would add
it is critical that we all continue to work together in a way
that moves forward with the truth and important disclosure.
So, we are here to have a bipartisan and serious
conversation, I believe, about our national security. We should
always ground these conversations in facts, evidence, and the
data in front of us.
I want to note that we have our witnesses here, and I want
to thank you all for being here, and note that also amongst you
are folks that also served us in our military, and I know that
for many of you this is a very difficult process. But I am very
grateful to have you with us today, and thank you for joining
us.
I also want to note that today's hearing builds on a quite,
I think, also historic public hearing that we had many months
ago that Mr. Grothman and others help lead in this very same
hearing room where I believe we began a really important public
conversation about UAPs. And so, I want to thank him for that,
and I especially want to thank Chairwoman Mace for her
continued advocacy on this topic.
I also want to start with some facts. We know that there
are objects or phenomena observed in our airspace, as our
witnesses will testify, and also, possibly, in our oceans. In
many cases, we do not know what they are, and, of course, this
is why we are discussing UAPs.
Now, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO, has
reported hundreds of UAPs that remain, quote, ``uncharacterized
and unattributed'' and which, quote, ``appear to have
demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance
capabilities and require further analysis.'' This is our own
AARO office.
Now, we should not prejudge what they might be. I am
certainly not going to. We need evidence. But we are detecting
things, and we know that we do not understand them, and this is
worth investigating.
The American people have legitimate questions, and I
believe it is critical that Congress should help address them.
This is about the truth, and science and facts.
Now, transparency and faith in our institutions is vital in
a good democracy. Now, I am proud to say this hearing will
build on that important bipartisan work, and I want to thank
everyone from being involved, including Members of our
Committee.
Now, in our last hearing in July, we heard testimony that a
significant number of pilots of major airlines have witnessed
UAPs as well, but have no real confidential way of reporting
them to the government. We heard that commercial pilots, when
encountering UAPs, may be hesitant to speak openly due to
stigma or fear of retaliation.
We also know that AARO has reported that, and I want to
quote, that ``most reports still reflect a bias toward
restricted military airspace, a result of reporting from
military personnel, and sensors presence in such areas.'' And
so, the lack of ability for civilian pilots raises real safety
concerns and limits our ability to understand UAPs. This is a
particular piece of this conversation that I am very interested
in.
Now, our last hearing inspired us to introduce the Safe
Airspace for Americans Act, joined by Chairman Grothman,
Chairwoman Mace, and a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I see
some of our leaders from Safe Airspace for Americans Act here.
And that would create a safe reporting for the UAP process,
which we want to continue to do.
Now, Members of both parties and senior officials in
multiple administrations have now taken an interest in this
issue. Mainstream media, in many cases, are beginning to take
more of an interest in this issue, and we should all be proud
to carry that work and build confidence for the American
people.
I believe we can always be more transparent. To me, this
hearing and others are simply about the truth and getting to
the facts of what these UAPs actually are.
It is very important that we show that Democrats and
Republicans in Congress can work together to cut through
misinformation and look for a serious and thoughtful way to
have the discussion in public.
Many of us have also called for additional public hearings
to discuss UAPs. This should be a topic that continues on
throughout the Congress so we can gather more information,
data, and work with the relevant agencies to gather more
information.
Finally, I just want to add that those that are here on
this dais, many of us have participated also in classified
briefings as well, and we have also gained a lot of important,
I think, and interesting information, at least I personally
have.
And so, with that information, we want to continue today's
hearing, and I thank all of our witnesses for being here.
And, with that, I would like to yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Grothman for a 5-minute
introduction.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here one more time. This is a topic I have been interested in
since eighth grade.
I would like to thank Ms. Mace for working with me on this
topic and for making this a joint Subcommittee hearing.
Last year, the Subcommittee on National Security, the
Border, and Foreign Affairs held a historic hearing to
understand the potential national security risk of unidentified
anomalous phenomena, or UAPs. We heard from former Navy
Commander David Fravor, who shared firsthand experience with a
UAP engaged while on duty in the Pacific.
We learned from David Grusch, a former member of the
intelligence community, who revealed the supposed existence of
secret government programs hidden from congressional oversight.
Additionally, former military pilot Ryan Graves informed us
of the limited ways in which the military and commercial pilots
can report UAP sightings.
Since that last hearing, I have led several briefings with
government agencies to deepen my understanding with these
issues. First, the Department of Defense Inspector General's
Office informed us that the Department of Defense does not have
the streamlined process for servicemembers to report UAP
activity. Since then, the Joint Chiefs have implemented
standards for UAP reporting across the services.
The intelligence community Inspector General informed us
that whistleblowers often fear retaliation for reporting
mismanagement of highly sensitive government projects or
information.
Finally, AARO has expressed to the committee that, like any
other Federal Government agency, it has faced challenges in its
establishment, specifically, in hiring staff to manage UAP
historical records and coordinating with other Federal
agencies.
While these agencies have been helpful to us in
understanding the challenges that come from collecting UAP
data, none of them have been able to substantiate the claims
made at this hearing last year by David Grusch, despite our
Committee Members endlessly questioning these agencies inside
and outside of the SCIF.
I hope our witnesses today will be able to provide evidence
and content that is worthwhile to our pursuits of illuminating
government waste and increasing transparency.
To help alleviate some of the roadblocks, I am supportive
of measures that were included in last year's National Defense
Authorization Act to increase transparency and improve
recordkeeping measures when it comes to UAPs, but I believe
there is still more work to go.
I co-led the Safe Airspace for Americans Act with Ranking
Member Garcia, which requires the Federal Aviation
Administration to develop procedures to collect UAP data from
civilian aviators. I look forward to working with Members of
Congress to see if this legislation and other UAP legislation
crosses the finish line.
I am deeply alarmed by the reporting of the massive drone
swarm that flew over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia last
December. Langley is the home of the First Fighter Wing, which
maintains half of the F-22s in the U.S. Air Force inventory.
Reports of this incident indicate these drones were roughly 20
feet long, flying more than 100 miles an hour in an altitude of
over 3,000 feet, yet the origin of these drones and their
operators remains a mystery.
This incident and other sightings near sensitive military
installations highlights the complexity of the UAP challenge
facing our Intelligence, Defense, and Homeland Security
Committees.
Whether these phenomena are a result of foreign adversaries
developing advanced technologies, or something else entirely,
we must take them seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and
assess their implications on national defense.
The repeated UAP sightings around sensitive military sites
underscores the need for innovative defensive strategies beyond
traditional measures. They also highlight the urgent need for
updated policies to address emerging threats, as well as more
effective interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing.
However, none of this is going to be possible without
transparency. For far too long, critical information about UAPs
has been either classified or ignored, leaving the American
public and Congressmen without clarity needed to make informed
decisions.
Declassifying reports and fostering a more open dialog
about UAPs will not only increase the public trust but also
encourage collaboration between government, the scientific
community, and our allies. Quite frankly, there has been things
that have been kept secret that is, I think, old enough that
there is no reason it should not be released regardless of any
so-called, you know, private information.
A transparent approach will allow us to share insights,
identify patterns, and development new strategic defenses. As
we continue to investigate these phenomena, we must do so with
the mindset of protecting our country, advancing scientific
discovery, and upholding the trust of the American people, who
right now I do not think have trust. It is just obvious. I do
not have trust.
We cannot shy away from the unknown, especially when the
stakes are so high.
I look forward to discussing these matters with the
witnesses today. I am hopeful we can learn from the testimony
and come out of this hearing with actionable ideas to advance
UAP transparency. Actually, the idea is just to say, in my
mind, go back 15 years, and everything has to be released.
I am hopeful that we can learn from their testimony and
come out of this hearing.
And, with that, I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Moskowitz for a 5-minute
introduction.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Good morning, everyone. I first want to thank the Chairs
and Ranking Members for holding the hearing today on this topic
and, again, having a second hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today to
share your expertise on UAPs and the need to build trust
through transparency.
But, first, I want to mention you might be wondering why
Chairman Comer has allowed me to be a Ranking Member today, but
it is really only because our dear friend, Gerry Connolly, is
not here. As Chairwoman Mace mentioned, he was diagnosed with
esophageal cancer. And all of us on this Committee know Gerry,
and he is a fighter, and we are praying for him and hoping for
his speedy recovery.
So, today's hearing marks this Committee's second meeting
dedicated to UAP transparency. I was pleased, as I know all of
us are, on the bipartisanship that existed in last year's
hearing and, even though we cannot talk about what happens in
the classified settings, but bipartisanship that has existed in
those settings with the questions Members have asked.
Last year's hearing was a great example of open dialog
about UAPs, and we must remain committed to sharing information
with the American people. And I think you see that commitment
based on the people here and the commitment across the
political spectrum.
I personally have worked with multiple Members of this
Committee, but I want to particularly thank Congressman
Burchett, Mace, Luna, and Garcia for working on bipartisan
pieces of legislation.
In recent years, Congress has taken numerous bipartisan
steps toward greater transparency. In 2022, in the NDAA, we
created the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office to investigate
unidentified flying objects. Following, AARO, along with ODNI,
released an unclassified report on UAP sightings.
Of the 366 sightings included in the report, 171 remain
uncharacterized with some of these appearing to have
demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance
capabilities. That is a nice way of saying we do not want to
tell you what they are.
In March, AARO revealed a report on the historical record
of U.S. Government involvement with UAPs, which covered
investigatory efforts going back from 1945 to the present day.
Earlier this year, I joined Congressman Burchett to
introduce the UAP Transparency Act, which would require the
declassification of all documents related to UAPs, with many
other Members of this Committee.
In Fiscal Year 2024, the NDA required the National Archives
and Records Administration to establish the unidentified
anonymous phenomena records collection. This collection will
include digital copies of all unidentified UAP records that can
be publicly disclosed.
This commitment in transparency is vitally important, and
unnecessary overclassification has led to a void of
information, which has allowed theories over the decades to
foster.
When the American people and Members of Congress ask, ``Are
reports of UAPs credible?'' we are met with stonewalling, we
are met with responses of, ``I cannot tell you,'' and, in fact,
we are met with people not wanting us to have hearings; we are
met with people not wanting us to ask you questions. In fact,
many of us were told not to ask some of you certain questions
on certain topics.
In the time of heightened distrust of our government
institutions, I believe more transparency is not only needed
but is possible. And, obviously, we can respect national
security limits, but we also have to provide our constituents
with the information and oversight that they have tasked us
for. As part of this, government agencies must maintain open
lines of communication with Members of Congress.
And there are regular questions that Americans have. What
are UAPs? Are they real? Are they ours? How has this technology
been developed? How do they get funded? Right?
And now we have seen--this has gone from a long time ago
where you could discredit people because it is some guy living
in a Winnebago. You are able to see people now. These are
pilots. These are military. These are folks with serious
backgrounds. This has changed the face of this because now we
have video.
People will have questions. We know there are advanced
technology programs. Almost 15 years ago, one of those came out
of area 51 to go after Osama bin Laden. And the only reason we
know about that is because one of those helicopters was downed.
Americans have questions about whistleblowers who have come
forward to talk about retribution.
And so, I want to thank everyone for being involved today
on trying to get more transparency. This has been bipartisan,
bicameral. And, as we get into a new administration, the
President-elect has talked about opportunities to declassify
information on UAPs, and I hope he lives up to that promise.
And, with that, I yield back.
Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you, Mr. Moskowitz.
And I would now--Committee staff asked me to go ahead, and
I will do it, to enter into the Congressional Record this 12-
page document that Michael Shellenberger brought today that
describes the Immaculate Constellation government program. So,
we will do that now. Every Member up here has a copy of it.
The first section talks about the unacknowledged special
access program called Immaculate Constellation, and the second
section about USG imagery intelligence.
And Representative Luna just told me, if I say,
``Immaculate Constellation,'' I will be on some list. Maybe a
FISA warrant. So, come at me bro, I guess.
But, without objection, entered into the record.
All right. So, next we will introduce our witnesses for
today's hearing. Thank you so much for being here.
Our first witness is retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet,
who retired from the U.S. Navy and is now the Chief Executive
Officer at Ocean STL Consulting.
Our second witness is Mr. Luis Elizondo, a former
Department of Defense official and author of a recent
bestseller book about UAPs.
Our third witness is Mr. Michael Shellenberger, founder of
the newsletter, Public, and author of a recent journalistic
piece about special access programs, including one widely
identified as Immaculate Constellation.
I swear the staff wants me on a list.
OK. And our last witness today is Mr. Michael Gold, a
former NASA official who was also a member of the NASA UAP
independent study team.
Welcome, everyone. We are pleased to have you today.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise your right hands.
This is where it gets real.
Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Ms. Mace. Let the record show that the witnesses all
answered in the affirmative.
We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward
to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
You guys may be seated.
Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button in front of you so
the microphone is turned on so that everyone in the room,
Members included, can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired, and we
would ask that you please wrap it up.
So, I will first recognize Rear Admiral Gallaudet to please
begin your opening remarks.

STATEMENT OF TIM GALLAUDET, PH.D.

REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RET.)

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OCEAN STL CONSULTING, LLC

Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman
Grothman, Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today
regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAP.
Confirmation that UAPs are real came to me in January 2015,
when I was serving as the Commander of the Naval Meteorology
and Oceanography Command. At the time, my personnel were
participating in a predeployment naval exercise off the U.S.
East Coast. It included the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier
Strike Group, and this exercise was overseen by the United
States Fleet Forces Command, led by a four-star admiral who, at
the time, was also my superior officer.
During this exercise, I received an email on the Navy's
secure network from the operations officer of U.S. Fleet Forces
Command. The email was addressed to all the subordinate
commanders, and the subject line read, in all capital letters,
``URGENT SAFETY OF FLIGHT ISSUE.''
The text of the email was brief but alarming with words to
the effect, ``If any of you know what these are, tell me ASAP.
We are having multiple near midair collisions, and if we do not
resolve this soon, we are going to have to shut down the
exercise.''
Attached to the email is what is now known as the Go Fast
video captured on the forward-looking infrared sensor of one of
the Navy F/A-18 aircraft participating in the exercise. The now
declassified video showed an unidentified object exhibiting
flight and structural characteristics unlike anything in our
arsenal.
The implication of the email was clear. The author was
asking whether any of the recipients were aware of classified
technology demonstrations that could explain these objects.
Because the DoD policy is to rigorously deconflict such
demonstrations with live exercises, I was confident this was
not the case.
The very next day, that email disappeared from my account
and those of the other recipients without explanation.
Moreover, the Commander of Fleet Forces Command and the
operations officer never discussed the subject even during
weekly meetings specifically designed to address issues
affecting exercises like the one in which the Theodore
Roosevelt Strike Group was participating.
This lack of follow-up was very concerning to me. As the
Navy's chief meteorologist at the time, I was responsible for
reducing safety of flight risks, yet it appeared to me that no
one at the flag officer level was addressing the safety risk
posed by UAPs. Instead, pilots were left to mitigate these
threats on their own without guidance or support.
I concluded that the UAP information must have been
classified within a special access program managed by an
intelligence agency. That is, a compartmented program that even
senior officials, including myself, were not read into.
Last year's UAP hearing before this Oversight Committee
confirmed that UAP-related information is being withheld from
senior officials and Members of Congress.
And, just this week, I learned from former DoD official
Chris Mellon that satellite imagery of UAP from a few years ago
still has not been shared with Congress.
Equally concerning, last year's UAP hearing also revealed
that elements of the government are engaged in a disinformation
campaign, to include personal attacks designed to discredit UAP
whistleblowers.
Having never signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding
UAPs and now, as a private citizen, I have become an advocate
for greater UAP transparency from the government. The continued
overclassification surrounding UAPs has not only hindered our
ability to effectively address these phenomena but has also
eroded trust in our institutions.
While I applaud previous bipartisan legislation passed by
Congress concerning UAPs, a more comprehensive approach is
needed to address the broader implication of UAP on public
safety and national security, as well as the socioeconomic
opportunities that open UAP research could unlock.
Therefore, I recommend Congress take the following action,
which I believe will receive bipartisan support: First,
establish robust oversight of the executive branch's management
of UAP information by directing key officials, beginning with
the Director of the DoD's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office,
to provide comprehensive briefings on what the government knows
about UAP and does not know.
Two, enact the provisions of the UAP Disclosure Act to
establish a UAP records review board to ensure independent
oversight, transparency, and accountability in the government's
handling of UAP information.
And, three, strengthen the UAP Disclosure Act and future
reauthorizations with provisions that mandate a whole-of-
government approach to addressing UAP.
In closing, I will share my personal reasons for speaking
out on this topic. First, as a former science agency leader,
having led the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, I
have always sought the truth in human knowledge and thought.
Now that we know UAP are interacting with humanity, and
these include unidentified submerged objects in the ocean, we
should not turn a blind eye but, instead, boldly face this new
reality and learn from it.
Additionally, at a time when leaders in government leave
much to be desired, I feel obligated to share moral leadership
on this issue of UAP disclosure by validating the credibility
of the courageous men and women who have come out as witnesses
and whistleblowers to expose the truth.
My speaking out has encouraged others to do the same, and
it is my hope over time that a number of your constituents will
want to know the truth about UAP, and this number will increase
to such an extent that the congressional action I just
recommended will become inevitable.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Elizondo for his opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF LUIS ELIZONDO

AUTHOR

FORMER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIAL

Mr. Elizondo. Greetings, Chairwoman Mace, Chairman
Grothman, Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, and Members of
the Committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before
you on the issue of unidentified anomalous phenomena, formerly
known as UFOs.
On behalf of our brave men and women in uniform, and across
the intelligence community, as well as my fellow Americans who
have awaited this day, thank you for your leadership on this
important matter.
Let me be clear. UAP are real. Advanced technologies not
made by our government or any other government are monitoring
sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore,
the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of
our adversaries.
I believe we are in the midst of a multidecade secretive
arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and
hidden from our elected Representatives and oversight bodies.
For many years, I was entrusted with protecting some of our
Nation's most sensitive programs. In my last position, I
managed a special access program on behalf of the White House
and the National Security Council. As such, I appreciate the
need to protect certain sensitive intelligence and military
information. I consider my oath to protect secrets as sacred,
and I will always put the safety of the American people first.
With that said, I also understand the consequences of
excessive secrecy and stovepiping. Nowhere was this more
apparent than in the aftermath of 9/11, which many of us
remember all too well.
I believe that America's greatness depends on three
elements: A, a watchful Congress; B, a responsive executive
branch; and C, an informed public.
Over the last decade and a half, I learned that certain UAP
programs were and are operating without any of these elements.
Although, much of my government work on the UAP subject still
remains classified, excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds
against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the
public, all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the
cosmos.
A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP
topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation
that I have personally been victim to, along with many of my
former colleagues. This includes unwarranted criminal
investigations, harassment, and efforts to destroy one's
credibility.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the
Pentagon's very own public affairs office openly employs a
professional psychological operations officer as the singular
point of contact for any UAP-related inquiries from citizens
and the media. This is unacceptable.
Many of my former colleagues and I have provided classified
testimony to both the Department of Defense and the
intelligence community Inspector General, and many of us have
subsequently been targeted by this cabal with threats to our
careers, our security clearances, and even our lives. This is
not hyperbole but a genuine fact, and this is wrong.
To fix these problems, I propose three principal actions.
First, Congress and the President should create a single point
of contact responsible for a whole-of-government approach to
the UAP issue. Currently, the White House, CIA, NASA, the
Pentagon, Department of Energy, and others play a role, but no
one seems to be in charge, leading to unchecked power and
corruption.
Second, we need a national UAP strategy that will promote
transparency and help restore the American public's trust at a
time when the public's trust is at an all-time low. This
strategy should include a whole-of-government approach,
including the academic and scientific communities, the private
sector, and our international partners and allies.
Third, Congress should create a protected environment so
whistleblowers desperate to do the right thing can come forward
without fear. As it currently stands, these whistleblowers
suffer because of stigma, a code of silence, and concerns about
retaliation.
These whistleblowers should be encouraged to come forward
in ways that protect them against any forms of retaliation.
Policies and procedures should ensure that protection.
And, for those who refuse to cooperate, it is up to the
Members of this Committee and other lawyer makers to wield
their subpoena power against hostile witnesses and prevent
additional government funding to those UAP efforts that remain
hidden from congressional oversight.
In closing, we, as Americans, have never been afraid of a
challenge. In fact, we thrive on them. Whether it is
eradicating polio or going to the moon, we do not run from a
challenge. We take it head on.
To the incoming administration in Congress, I say to you we
need immediate public transparency, and this hearing is an
important step on that journey. If we approach the UAP topic in
the same way as we, as Americans, have met other challenges, we
can restore our faith in our government institutions.
Together, we can usher in a new era of accountable
government and scientific discovery. I believe that we, as
Americans, can handle the truth, and I also believe the world
deserves the truth.
Thank you, esteemed Members of Congress, for your time
today. It is profoundly appreciated by many.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Ogles of
Tennessee and Boebert of Colorado to be waved onto the
Subcommittee for today's joint Subcommittee hearing for the
purpose of asking questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Shellenberger for his
introductory remarks.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

FOUNDER

PUBLIC

Mr. Shellenberger. Chairwoman Mace, Chairman Grothman,
Ranking Member Connolly, Ranking Member Garcia, Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for inviting my testimony.
One of Congress' most important responsibilities is
oversight of the executive branch, in general, and the military
and intelligence community in particular. Unfortunately, there
is a growing body of evidence that the U.S. Government is not
being transparent about what it knows about unidentified
anomalous phenomena and that elements within the military and
the IC are in violation of their constitutional duty to notify
Congress of their operations.
President-elect Donald Trump and former President Barrack
Obama have both said that the government has information about
UAPs that it has not released.
There are other explanations for UAPs, that they represent
a new form of life or nonhuman life. Current dominant
alternative theories, including those put forward by AARO, are
that UAPs are some kind of natural phenomenon we do not yet
understand, like ball lighting or plasma. They could also be
part of some new U.S. or foreign government weapons program,
such as drones, aircraft, balloons, CGI hoaxes, or birds.
Whatever UAPs are, Congress must be informed, as must the
people of the United States. We have a right to know what UAPs
are, no matter what they are.
However, we now have existing and former U.S. Government
officials who have told Congress that AARO and the Pentagon
have broken the law by not revealing a significant body of
information about UAPs, including military intelligence data
bases that have evidence of their existence as physical craft.
One of those individuals is a current or former U.S.
Government official acting as a UAP whistleblower. This person
has written a report. This is the report that says the
executive branch has been managing UAP/NHI issues without
congressional knowledge, oversight, or authorization for some
time, quite possibly decades.
Furthermore, these individuals have revealed the name of an
active and highly secretive DoD unacknowledged special access
program, or USAP. The source of that document told Public, me,
that the USAP is a strategic intelligence program that is part
of the U.S. military family of longstanding, highly sensitive
programs dealing with various aspects of the UAP problem.
The new UAP whistleblower claims that the U.S. military and
IC data base includes videos and images taken using infrared,
forward-looking infrared, full motion video, and still
photography.
The report that was just shared with Congress says
Immaculate Constellation serves as a central or parent USAP
that consolidates observations of UAPs by both tasked and
untasked collection platforms.
Immaculate Constellation includes high-quality imagery
intelligence and measurement and signature intelligence of
UAPs, the whistleblower's report adds. The sources of this
intelligence are a blend of directed and incidental collection
capacities, capabilities, position in low Earth orbit, the
upper atmosphere, as well as military and civilian aviation
altitudes and maritime environments.
The report to Congress details in detail various UAPs,
including spheres/orbs, discs/saucers, ovals, triangles,
boomerang/arrowhead, and irregular/organic. The report
describes various incidents found in the human intelligence
data bases.
One involved orbs surrounding and forcing an F-22 out of
its patrol area. In another incident, the crew of a Navy
aircraft carrier watched a small orange/red sphere rapidly
descend from a high altitude of 100 to 200 yards directly above
the flight deck of the CVN aircraft carrier.
And, since my reporting on this Immaculate Constellation
last month, another source came forward who told me that they
saw a roughly 13-minute long, high-definition, full-color video
of a white orb UAP coming out of the ocean approximately 20
miles off the coast of Kuwait. It was filmed from a helicopter.
Then, halfway through the video, the person said the orb is
joined by another orb that briefly comes into the frame from
the left before rapidly moving again out of the frame. The
person discovered the video on SIPR, the Secure Internet
Protocol Router Network, which the DoD uses to transmit
classified information.
A leading UAP researcher who utilizes the Freedom of
Information Act to find out what the government knows, John
Greenewald, told me last year that the U.S. Government had been
increasingly denying his request for UAP information. He has
been doing FOIA requests for 27 years and has an archive of 3
million pages.
The government has for decades denied any interest in UFOs.
He told me that the documents that he has assembled showed that
behind the scenes, it was a completely different story.
Contrary to the hopes of many advocates of transparency,
the government has been restricting more information since the
leak of three UAP videos in 2017. The DoD organization, AARO,
has been labeling many documents with a B7 exemption, which
Greenewald says does not make any sense. They are stating that
anything AARO does is involved in a law enforcement
investigation, which allows AARO to not release it.
Greenewald says that DoD has denied the existence of UAP
and AATIP-related records on multiple occasions, only to
acknowledge them after an appeal was filed. He added that the
Naval Air Systems Command in March 2022 stated they found no
additional UAP videos. It seems strange that they had three and
only those three, but other requests have been filed by The
Black Vault--that is John Greenewald's group--to seek out more
places UAPs might be hiding.
Then, in September 2022, the Navy admitted that the UAP-
related videos and photographs existed but denied the request
in full for their release saying that the requested videos
contain sensitive information that are classified and exempt
from disclosure.
The DoD will ``deny things on a Monday and then admit to it
on a Friday,'' said Greenewald. He said the government can and
does release videos that protect secret methods of capturing
it. They fall back on the sensitive platform excuse a lot, he
said. However, the on-screen information can be blurred and
scrubbed. The metadata can be removed.
I will show you this example here. This is a presentation
from the UAP task force. This is completely absurd. It is nuts,
this level of censorship, of redaction on a document. It shows
the redaction of how many reports they have collected for how
many years. Two of the three potential explanations are blacked
out.
The Pentagon, the intelligence community is treating us
like children. It is time for us to know the truth about this.
I think that we can handle it.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Gold for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOLD

FORMER NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

SPACE POLICY AND PARTNERSHIPS

AND

MEMBER OF NASA UAP INDEPENDENT STUDY TEAM

Mr. Gold. Thank you, Chairman Mace, Chairman Grothman,
Ranking Members Connolly and Garcia, Representative Moskowitz,
and distinguished Members of both Subcommittees. I am grateful
to all of you, as well as your intrepid staff, for the
opportunity to testify and would like to begin by discussing
courage.
Courage is what it takes to tackle this topic, and courage,
in the face of adversity, is what I see in front of me, beside
me, and behind me.
Per my introduction, I am currently the Chief Growth
Officer at Redwire Space and have had several leadership
positions at NASA. That being said, I want to be clear that I
am speaking exclusively on my own behalf and not for Redwire,
NASA, or any other organization.
However, I am here today to speak out for science. Science
requires data, which should be collected without bias or
prejudice. Yet, whenever the topic of UAP arises, those who
wish to explore the phenomenon are often confronted with
resistance and ridicule.
For example, members of the NASA UAP independent study
team, particularly those in academia, were mocked and even
threatened for simply having the temerity to engage in the
study of UAP.
Our best tool for unlocking the mystery of UAP is science,
but we cannot conduct a proper inquiry if the stigma is so
overwhelming that just daring to be part of a NASA research
team elicits such a vitriolic response.
Therefore, one of most important actions that can be taken
relative to exposing the truth of UAP is to combat the stigma,
and this is where I believe that NASA can be imminently
helpful.
The NASA brand is synonymous with hope, optimism, and
credibility. If you were to take a walk down to National Mall,
you would immediately see the NASA logo on T-shirts, hats, and
bumper stickers. Few Federal agencies enjoy this kind of
popularity. I have never seen anyone wearing an Office of
Personnel Management T-shirt, which is why NASA could play such
an influential role.
Specifically, NASA could, with relatively little cost and
effort, host symposia on UAP or even just participate in
existing panels examining the topic. NASA personnel stepping
forward and participating in such discussions would make a
powerful statement to the scientific community that UAP should
be taken seriously and researched accordingly.
In regard to research, NASA has vast archives, much of
which may contain important UAP data. Again, for relatively
little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI or ML algorithm
that could search the agency's archives for anomalous
phenomena.
I suspect that such an effort would not only result in
information that will help us to understand UAP but could
result in data that will assist in other areas of scientific
inquiry, such as anomalous weather or meteorite activity.
Beyond its existing archives, NASA could act as a clearinghouse
for civilian and commercial UAP data.
During my work on the UAP independent study team, it
quickly became evident that there is no clear or well-
publicized process for civilian pilots to report UAP sightings.
The stigma associated with UAP hampers the number of pilots
that would report such phenomena, but even for those who
overcome the stigma, I believe the current FAA guidance is
largely unknown and poorly understood.
In order to effectively collect UAP data, the independent
study team recommended the use of NASA's aviation safety
reporting system, or ASRS. The system, which is administered by
NASA and funded by the FAA, provides a confidential means for
reporting of safety violations in a voluntary and nonpunitive
manner.
Over 47 years, the ASRS has collected nearly 2 million
reports. ASRS is the perfect tool to collect UAP data, which
could then be collated by NASA and shared with the public at-
large.
Leveraging ASRS could create a treasure trove of UAP data,
potentially hundreds of thousands of reports supporting this
hearing's goal of exposing the truth.
I am grateful to our two co-Chairs and other Members who
have already incorporated this idea into proposed legislation.
At this hearing, as others have demonstrated, the UAP issue is
justifiably dominated by national security and defense.
However, I would urge the Subcommittees to keep in mind the
numerous ways that NASA and the FAA, as well as commercial
activities in the air, in space, and in the water can generate
a massive amount of invaluable data on anomalous phenomena.
I cannot help but be excited by the potential for such an
endeavor since scientific discovery is driven by anomalies. It
is the existence and study of anomalies that led to the theory
of relativity, quantum mechanics, and nearly all of humanity's
scientific breakthroughs.
This is why the study of UAPs should be embraced since,
whatever is occurring, the chance to garner new knowledge,
should never be ignored. We must be thorough in collecting
information, fearless in making conclusions, and open to
following the data no matter how mundane or extraordinary the
results may be.
I began this testimony by praising the joint Subcommittee
Members for their courage, and I will end by echoing that
sentiment. As the saying goes, the truth is out there. We just
need to be bold enough and brave enough to face it.
Thank you.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. Thank you all.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
I have a lot of questions, and I have a lot of witnesses.
So, I would just ask, if it is ``yes'' or ``no'', to please
just tell me ``yes'' or ``no''. If it requires more than that,
be very succinct because I would like to go down the line and
ask as many questions as possible.
So, for the Admiral this morning first, former DoD official
Chris Mellon reached out to about satellite imagery from 2017
that depicts a UAP. What were the dates in 2017 when this
occurred?
Dr. Gallaudet. I cannot share with you the details, ma'am,
but I can do it in a closed setting, and I could also tell you
the agency that wrote a report on it.
Ms. Mace. OK.
So, who has the imagery?
Dr. Gallaudet. I can tell you that in a closed setting.
Ms. Mace. Can you describe what was depicted in the
satellite imagery, just a description?
Dr. Gallaudet. It was a UAP, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. That is it? No other description?
Dr. Gallaudet. The term that the analyst used, they call it
the button. It was a disc-shaped object.
Ms. Mace. OK. Where was it?
Dr. Gallaudet. I cannot tell you that, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. OK.
All right. Mr. Elizondo, you state in your testimony that,
quote, ``Advanced technologies not by our government or any
other government are monitoring sensitive military
installations around the globe,'' end quote.
If these technologies are not made by any government, who
is making them? Private companies? Or are you implying they are
crafted by a nonhuman intelligence?
Mr. Elizondo. Well, ma'am, that is precisely why we are
here. The problem is that, temporally speaking, over decades,
not just the last 10 years, before--to put this in
perspective----
Ms. Mace. Are these private companies you are implying, or
is this nonhuman intelligence?
Mr. Elizondo. It may be both.
Ms. Mace. OK.
Mr. Elizondo. When it comes to Blue Force Technologies, I
would not be able to discuss----
Ms. Mace. OK.
Are you read into secret UAP crash retrieval programs?
Mr. Elizondo. We would have to have a conversation in a
closed session, ma'am. I signed documentation 3 years ago that
restricts my ability to discuss specifically crash retrievals.
I submitted for my book, through the DOPSR process, which
took a year for it to be reviewed, and what is in the book is
what I was told I am allowed to talk about.
Ms. Mace. Has the government conducted secret UAP crash
retrieval programs? Yes or no?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes.
Ms. Mace. OK.
Were they designed to identify and reverse engineer alien
craft? Yes or no?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes.
Ms. Mace. Does the U.S. Government have any reverse--OK.
You have already answered that question about retrieval
programs.
Do any U.S. contractors have the same?
Mr. Elizondo. I would prefer to address that in a closed
session, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. OK.
In your book, you mentioned government employees who have
been injured by UAPs placed on leave and receiving government
compensation for their injuries. Is that correct?
Mr. Elizondo. That is correct.
Ms. Mace. How can the government deny we have recovered
craft if they are paying people because they have been injured
by recovered craft?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, that is a great question. That is why
I think we are here again, because I have seen the
documentation by the U.S. Government for several of these
individuals who have sustained injuries as a result of a UAP
incident.
Ms. Mace. That is a crazy idea, right? The hypocrisy and
the logic.
OK. Mr. Shellenberger, I am going to say it again to be
very clear. Immaculate Constellation. What is its mission, and
how are they funded?
Mr. Shellenberger. Its mission is to--as I stated, its
mission is to--it is an unacknowledged special access program.
Its mission is to document UAPs.
Ms. Mace. OK.
And do you, for your story and your report, do you have
more than one credible source, sourcing?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Ms. Mace. OK.
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Ms. Mace. And then why do you believe your sources to be
credible? How do you judge the veracity of the documentation
you have been provided about this program?
Mr. Shellenberger. I checked the sources, and they are who
they say they are. They are current or former government
officials. I should also--I want to also add that I did not
specify that they were Defense Department employees. I did not
specify the agency nor the gender.
Ms. Mace. Would they have included non-government
employees, people that are not employed by the government?
Mr. Shellenberger. These are--I am comfortable saying that
these are government or previously government employees.
Ms. Mace. Any of them currently employed by a private
contractor or private contractors?
Mr. Shellenberger. I would rather not say.
Ms. Mace. OK.
What is the key takeaway, in just a few seconds, about the
Immaculate Constellation document you provided us today?
Mr. Shellenberger. I think that what the American people
need to know is that the U.S. military and intelligence
community are sitting on a huge amount of visual and other
information, still photos, video photos, other censor
information, and they have for a very long time, and it is not
those fuzzy photos and videos that we have been given, there is
very clear----
Ms. Mace. High res?
Mr. Shellenberger. High resolution.
Ms. Mace. How many visuals, graphics, videos, photos?
Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, I have been told hundreds, you
know, maybe thousands.
I mean, I also wanted to say, because there was some
conversation around concern around the reviewing of these
materials revealing the source collections, but some of these
are shot from helicopters using normal videos of oceans. I just
think that is absurd that somehow you are going to be revealing
some secret U.S. technology by revealing that you photographed
orbs off the coast of Kuwait.
Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you.
I have 8 seconds.
Mr. Gold, did the NASA independent study team get briefed
on what you call AAWSAP? Very quickly.
Mr. Gold. I flagged the Advanced Airspace Weapon Systems
Applications Program to our Chair and our DFO. We did not get
briefed. But I believe it is definitely worth looking into.
That was probably the largest UAP review effort ever and I
think produced a lot of interest data--including revealing
Nimitz. I do not know if my fellow witness might want to--he
did yeoman's work on it--might want to comment.
Ms. Mace. OK.
All right. I am going to turn to Mr. Moskowitz, who will be
recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
So, Mr. Gold, you gave a whole diatribe for a couple of
minutes about UAPs, science, data collection, stigma. A lot of
non-believers in all of this would just ask a very simple
question. Why? Why is it so hard, right? Like, why are people,
any time they ask, why are they always thwarted? Why are they
always judged? Why do they always have misinformation spread?
Why is there always retribution? Why is it always met with
inure? What is the why? If it does not exist, why is it such a
problem?
Mr. Gold. I think if you go through the history of science,
Representative, it is always difficult for breakthroughs and
new information regardless of whether it is UAP or any other
kind of discovery.
In science, we are supposed to be open, but when you break
with the orthodoxy of what is believed, whether it is Galileo
saying that the Earth does not rotate or the Earth rotates
around the sun or the sun does not rotate around the Earth, it
is always challenging for new beliefs. And the more
extraordinary those discoveries, the more extraordinary those
new beliefs, it is very difficult.
So, I think this is natural. There is natural conservatism
when it comes to science, but this issue in particular has been
very difficult where, again, even to attempt to study it
becomes problematic.
But every hearing like this, every news report, every video
documentary--I was privileged to be part of something Dan
Farrow was putting together. I think many of us have
interviewed for it, documenting 30 different government
officials, every brick in the wall will help get us closer to
getting to the truth.
Mr. Moskowitz. I appreciate that.
Mr. Elizondo--do I have that correct?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. I am a recovering lawyer, so I am going to
put my hat on for a second. You said you signed a document.
Love that. Who gave that to you?
Mr. Elizondo. The U.S. Government, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Elizondo. It is stored in the SCIF right now. I do not
have possession of it. The U.S. Government does.
Mr. Moskowitz. What department of the U.S. Government gave
you this document?
Mr. Elizondo. I will say the Department of Defense.
Unfortunately, I cannot say in this forum much more than that.
Mr. Moskowitz. You specifically said the document said you
cannot talk about crash retrieval. Well, you know, you cannot
talk about fight club if there is no fight club.
Mr. Elizondo. Correct.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK. I am just making an observation.
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. So, that document that you signed that you
said exists specifically said you cannot talk about crash
retrieval?
Mr. Elizondo. Correct, sir. It was a limitation on what I--
because already I had been speaking publicly about the topic,
and so the document said, ``You can continue saying X, Y, Z,
but you cannot discuss the topic of crash retrieval.''
Mr. Moskowitz. Give me the atmosphere of signing this
document. You are in a room by yourself?
Mr. Elizondo. I am in a SCIF with a security officer, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. Just one on one? Anybody else?
Mr. Elizondo. There may have been an assistant as well. It
was in a SCIF within a Department of Defense facility.
Mr. Moskowitz. Give me your background real quick.
Mr. Elizondo. My background is I went to school to study
microbiology and immunology. I entered into the U.S. Army, and
after a very short stint in military intelligence, I became a
counterintelligence special agent as a civilian. Later on, I
became a special agent in charge, running investigations and
counter terrorism and counter espionage primarily with some
experience in counter insurgency and counter narcotics.
And then, in 2009 timeframe, when I came back to the
Pentagon after a tour with the Director of National
Intelligence, I quickly became part of a program that was
originally called AAWSAP. That evolved into the program now
called AATIP, which is where those videos that we now see, the
GOFAST, the GIMBAL, the FLIR, that was part of our effort, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. Right. So, you are not some conspiracy
theorist. You actually have a legitimate background.
Mr. Elizondo. Well, sir, I am certainly not a conspiracy
theorist. I am fact-based, just a fact----
Mr. Moskowitz. So, when you are in this room--I want to
paint the picture for everybody. You are in this room. You are
by yourself. You are in the SCIF. You are handed a document.
How long is the document?
Mr. Elizondo. It is about a page front and back. So,
basically, you have some things they call trigraphs, which I
cannot, again, talk----
Mr. Moskowitz. How long were you given to sign the
document?
Mr. Elizondo. As long as I needed, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. And what if you did not sign it?
Mr. Elizondo. Well, I suspect there would be repercussions.
I would not have access to certain information.
Mr. Moskowitz. Were you allowed to conduct--ask a lawyer or
you were not allowed to talk--you were not allowed to ask for a
lawyer to review the document?
Mr. Elizondo. It was an option, but they probably would not
have allowed me to because the document itself was pretty
explicit about you have to be--you are putting me in an
interesting--let me try to thread the needle here.
There are certain documents that we have in the U.S.
Government that allow people to have access to certain
programs, whether it is a specialized--I am being very generic
here--whether it is a special access program or controlled
access program, SAP, CAP, whatnot.
Mr. Moskowitz. How many people have to sign that document?
Mr. Elizondo. It depends how many people are going to get
access to the information, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
Last question. Doctor, real quick, can you tell us about
the Omaha incident in greater detail? I have read your
background, right. Some people would label you as a member of
the deep state since you worked in government for a long period
of time.
But can you tell us more about that incident? You have
written a lot about that.
Dr. Gallaudet. I wrote a lot about incidents like it,
Congressman, but that specific incident involved the USS Omaha,
the tour combat ship of the U.S. Navy operating off of Southern
California. I do not remember the exact date. It was within the
last decade, but what the watch standers on the bridge observed
was a UAP. Again, something that was aloft but had no
observable exhaust or control surfaces. So, it was something
that could not be explained.
And then they saw it enter the water from the atmosphere
and going through the air/sea interface and so, thus,
exhibiting transmedium travel.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Grothman for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, we will start with Mr. Gallaudet. During
a previous UAP hearing, Navy Commander David Fravor discussed
the Tic Tac object engaged in 2004. Are you familiar with the
incident, the Tic Tac incident?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. That is almost 20 years ago, right?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. It has been said there are more videos,
documents, and reports related to this incident. Do you believe
the information regarding the Tic Tac incident should be
available to all Members of Congress?
In your expertise, what reason would the Department of
Defense possibly have for not releasing information that is
over 20 years old?
Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman.
I do not think there is any good reason to withhold
information and important data, especially of a national
security concern, from Congress.
Mr. Grothman. Well, what would they say?
Dr. Gallaudet. I will speculate, sir, that they do not want
to share that kind of information because it reveals weaknesses
in our ability to monitor and protect our airspace.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
In your written testimony, you claim last year's UAP
hearing before this Oversight Committee confirmed that UAP-
related information is--well, it is not only being withheld,
but that elements of the government are engaging in a
disinformation campaign, to include personal attacks designed
to discredit UAP whistleblowers.
Could you elaborate on that statement a little?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Earlier this year, I met with the DoD's All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office, and what I thought would be a 90-minute
meeting just to meet with leadership turned out to be an hours-
long influence operation on me, where I was--they attempted to
convince me of the validity of the very flawed and error-ridden
historical records report.
In addition, they tried to have me question very valid UAP
reports like the Tic Tac incident, even coming to a--stating
possibly that the Tic Tac was American technology. And then, of
course, if you ask David Fravor or Alex Dietrich, the two
witnesses, they were convinced it was otherwise.
And then--and they also cast discredit on various UAP
whistleblowers and witnesses to----
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Question their validity and
credibility as witnesses.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
We will go to Mr. Elizondo. I hope I got that right or at
least not that wrong.
Mr. Elizondo. Close enough, sir.
Mr. Grothman. You are familiar with the recent drone
incursion over Langley Air Force Base?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. The owners of the drones remain unclear. The
U.S. military has not been able to give us in Congress an
answer.
Given your experience with the Department of Defense and
the intelligence community, how frequently are UAP sightings
over military installations?
And, second, I suppose hypothetically you could have
incursions over just, say, regular airports. Is it obvious
these incursions are more likely over military facilities than
just a random airport out there?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, there is definitely enough data to
suggest that there is certainly some sort of relationship
between sensitive U.S. military installations, also some of our
nuclear equities, and also some of our Department of Energy
sites.
There is a long historical record that some of your
colleagues may have, documentation that demonstrates this. This
is not a new trend; this has been going on for decades. And
that information has been obfuscated, unfortunately, from folks
like you and this Committee.
And I think that is problematic because, ultimately, at the
end of the day, we have a significant situation here. We have
something that can enter into U.S. airspace, completely with no
attribution----
Mr. Grothman. And how long has this been going on?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, decades. And there is information that
will hopefully be entered into the record at some point.
Mr. Grothman. Can you think of any possible reason why they
cannot release any information they have on something, say, 15
or 20 years old?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, if I could echo my colleague here,
Admiral Gallaudet, I think one of the big issues that we have
in the intelligence community and Department of Defense is we
do not want to broadcast any potential vulnerabilities or
weaknesses in our national defense systems or in our
intelligence collection platforms.
Therefore, when you have a conversation where you address a
problem for which there is no solution, it makes that a very
uncomfortable conversation to have.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
We will switch to Mr. Shellenberger.
The primary reason you are here today is because you
published an article on the news publication that you own--
called Public, right?--alleging that a new, unnamed government
whistleblower has come forward asserting that a highly
classified program exists dedicated to recovery and reverse
engineering of UAP technologies.
Can you give us what specific evidence you have or that
your source provided you to substantiate the claims about the
existence of the Immaculate Constellation program?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, you have the report in front of
you now, so you can see it for yourself. But I checked the
report, and I did not find it based on existing cases; it was
new cases for me. At least, I had not found anybody--so that
solved--that answered for me that it was not obviously circular
reporting, which is one of the big concerns in this space.
I also had the name of the program confirmed by more than
one additional source. So--yes. And then, of course, I checked
to make sure that the source was who they claimed to be.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mr. Shellenberger. I should also say that when I said
before it was this data base, it is a much broader program than
that. It also includes human intelligence and then, as you
mentioned, the retrieval and the----
Mr. Grothman. Any knowledge of what country these things
originated in?
Mr. Shellenberger. No. No, I have no idea.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Ms. Mace. OK. I will now recognize Mr. Burchett for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Burchett. Thanks, Chairlady.
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record
documents provided to us regarding legacy UAP programs and
psychological operations, Lue Elizondo.
Ms. Mace. So, ordered.
Mr. Burchett. I also want to thank my buddy Jeremy Corbell
for providing these documents and access to some
whistleblowers.
Mr. Elizondo, what is the last position--your last position
with the Federal Government?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I was the Director of National Programs
Special Management Staff, managing a White House special access
program on behalf of the National Security Council.
Mr. Burchett. How would you characterize UAPs?
Mr. Elizondo. An enigma, sir, and a frustration.
We are talking about technologies that can outperform
anything we have in our inventory. And if this was an
adversarial technology, this would be an intelligence failure
eclipsing that of 9/11 by an order of magnitude.
Mr. Burchett. Are there classified Department of Defense
materials related to UAPs that you believe could be safely
disclosed to the public without compromising national security?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, I do. I would never, ever try to
endorse providing some sort of information that could
compromise what we call a ``blue force'' technology or
capability, but I do believe there is a lot of information
regarding this topic--and I have been very vocal about it--that
should be shared not only with the public but, most
importantly, with Members of Congress.
Mr. Burchett. Are you familiar with my friend David Grusch?
Mr. Elizondo. Absolutely, sir. I had the privilege and
honor of working with him myself several years ago at U.S.
Space Force.
Mr. Burchett. Last year, as you know, he testified that the
U.S. has run a multi-decade UAP crash, retrieval, and reverse
engineering program.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Are there UAP programs operating without--
without--proper congressional oversight?
Mr. Elizondo. One hundred percent.
Mr. Burchett. What are they?
Mr. Elizondo. Unfortunately, sir, I would have to have that
conversation in a closed session.
Mr. Burchett. I know you said that, and a lot of people are
frustrated with those kind of answers, but we are asking those
kind of questions so you all know what the heck we're up
against.
You also mentioned in your opening statement that the
Pentagon's Public Affairs Office employs a psychological
operations officer as the singular point of contact for UAP-
related inquiries.
Why the heck would they do that?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that is a great question. I would ask
the Pentagon.
There is a long history here of that individual providing
misleading and false information to the public through various
news outlets and media outlets in order to discredit this
topic. I have personally been victim to it.
We have the documentation to substantiate where this
information has been absolutely inaccurate that has been
provided time and time again. And it turns out that that
individual was also working with former leadership of AARO at
the time as well.
Mr. Burchett. And we punish them by giving them
multimillion dollars more than they ask for every year.
Admiral Gallaudet, you mentioned in your opening statement
an email you received from the operations officer of the Fleet
Forces Command regarding unknown objects almost colliding with
U.S. military planes.
Did anyone respond with knowledge of what the objects were?
Dr. Gallaudet. I have received no response, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Did the operation--did the exercise get
canceled?
Dr. Gallaudet. The exercise did not get canceled.
Mr. Burchett. Why do you think the Commander of Fleet
Forces operations officer never discussed the incident again?
Dr. Gallaudet. Sir, I am speculating, because I did not
have an exchange with him, but I believed it to be part of a
special access program, the information and the video, which we
know now it was. And he realized he could not share that openly
with the recipients of the email, and, therefore, the email was
pulled from everybody's account.
Mr. Burchett. Again, tell us what happened to the email
from the Commander of Fleet Forces.
Dr. Gallaudet. The day after I received it and all the
other recipients received it--which were all the subordinate
commanders of U.S. Fleet Forces, so one-and two-star admirals,
including strike group commanders--the email was wiped or
deleted from our accounts----
Mr. Burchett. OK.
Mr. Gallaudet [continuing]. And then no one talked about
it.
Mr. Burchett. All right.
Have you specifically had any experience with submersible
objects?
Dr. Gallaudet. Sir, I have not--no personal experience, but
I have had witnesses on submarines come to me and say they have
seen on sonar data----
Mr. Burchett. Correct.
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. OK. How would you characterize those, and how
did they move?
Dr. Gallaudet. The one instance that I was--that was
revealed to me was in the 1980's on a nuclear-powered
submarine, a ballistic missile submarine, that the object
exhibited the characteristics of a Russian torpedo in terms of
its speed of movement and closing rate with the submarine. And
then it slowed and followed the submarine slowly in its wake
for a period of minutes and then rapidly exited the scene.
Mr. Burchett. OK.
Dr. Gallaudet. And nothing that we know of technology-wise
could replicate that.
Mr. Burchett. And the speed of these objects was faster
than anything that we have or anybody else has that would be
manned. Is that correct?
Dr. Gallaudet. It was on the order of a----
Mr. Burchett. Underwater.
Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Torpedo, so----
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir. But as it exited, it did----
Mr. Burchett. Well, I do not exactly know how fast a
torpedo is, but I expect it does better than my old outboard
Scott-Atwater, so I will take that as a yes.
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. OK.
Have you any experience with the All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office, AARO?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. As I mentioned previously,
I have met with them.
Mr. Burchett. OK.
You heard Mr. Elizondo describe psychological operations
for those contacting the Department of Defense about UAPs. You
mentioned a similar influence operation by AARO.
Why are Federal agencies invested in running information
operations about UAPs if they do not exist?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
But I will make a statement on AARO's behalf. They have new
leadership. The office has reached out to me to meet again, and
I take that as a good-faith effort. And we will see where that
goes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Chairlady, I have run over. Thank you.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Tennessee.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Burchett. That is a first for me.
Ms. Mace. You are the king of Tennessee.
Mr. Higgins, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Elizondo, Mr. Shellenberger notes in his--in the report
that we have been given for this hearing--I believe, Mr.
Shellenberger--let me shift--you are author of this report?
Mr. Elizondo. I am sorry, sir, I am not the author of----
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Shellenberger, were you the author of this
report? There is----
Mr. Shellenberger. No, I was not.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. No name on it.
Mr. Shellenberger. No.
Mr. Higgins. Do you know the author?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Mr. Higgins. You do. And how would you estimate that madam
or gentleman, the author?
Mr. Shellenberger. The person is a current or former U.S.
Government employee.
Mr. Higgins. And it states here that it is the public
version of the author's report.
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. So, where might one find the non-public
version of the author's report?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Higgins. Would that be with the Department of Defense?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know.
Mr. Higgins. But you do know the author.
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Mr. Higgins. Do you know what the author's sources were?
Mr. Shellenberger. The author's sources are described in
the report--these data bases, the Immaculate Constellation
program----
Mr. Higgins. All right. But you expressed some confidence
in the sources----
Mr. Shellenberger. I would.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Earlier in testimony.
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Mr. Higgins. You expressed confidence. So, do you know
those sources?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do.
Mr. Higgins. Are they within the Department of Defense?
Mr. Shellenberger. I cannot say.
Mr. Higgins. You cannot say or you will not say?
Mr. Shellenberger. I will not say.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Why not?
Mr. Shellenberger. Because I protect my sources, and I
think the----
Mr. Higgins. But you are not naming them. It is a big
department. Many of us on my side of the aisle would say it is
far too big.
So, you are talking about the Department of Defense,
sources from within the Department of Defense?
Mr. Shellenberger. I am uncomf--I am not willing to
reduce----
Mr. Higgins. OK.
Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. The potential universe of
my--where my sources might be.
Mr. Higgins. OK.
Moving on, in this report, Mr. Elizondo, for reference,
several types of allegedly alien craft or possibly alien craft
or unknown AARO phenomena, what we used to call UFOs, are
described--spheres and orbs, disks and saucers, oval or Tic
Tac, triangular shape, boomerang and arrowhead, and irregular
or organic.
Mr. Elizondo, does that summarize to you the types of craft
that we are discussing today?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that is the general morphology,
historical speaking, of many UAPs----
Mr. Higgins. OK. So, those descriptions are very different
craft. Is it your assessment that they would come of different
origins?
Mr. Elizondo. It is possible, but this also could be a
matter of utility.
And let me just state for the record, I never read the
report that--or the article that Mr. Shellenberger put out. The
reason is----
Mr. Higgins. That is a good point. We are just referencing
it----
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. For descriptive purposes for the
American people.
Mr. Shellenberger, in this report, it is striking to me
that, regarding the descriptions of experiences with these
various craft, several of them include biological effects and
several do not.
Are you familiar with what I am talking about?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. OK. So, spheres and orbs, triangular craft,
and irregular or organic craft include some descriptions of
biological effects, including feelings of unease, electronic
device malfunctions, long-term psychological effects such as
anxiety or insomnia have been noted, feeling of being watched,
a shared awareness with the triangle craft. And under the
irregular and organic craft, biological effects include
physical sensations of warmth or cold and unexplained smells
and psychological distress.
So, these are very specific descriptions of the reactions
of human beings which allegedly have been noted from a study
here, a report. All of those experiences would have been
described by the sources that the author used?
Mr. Shellenberger. I am not sure I understand your
question, sir.
Mr. Higgins. This is a very broad description of biological
effects, and it is striking to me that they are present with
relation to some types of craft----
Mr. Shellenberger. Right.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. But absent in others. This would
require a great deal of research and study. Can you explain
that?
Mr. Shellenberger. My understanding is that this is--the
data base is very large. It includes both the images, the
videos, the still images, as well as the human intelligence,
the reports, the raw data from individuals having these
experiences.
So, in answer to your question, yes, I mean, I think we are
looking at a very large amount of data collected over many
decades.
Mr. Higgins. And that data is held by the Department of
Defense?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, I will say that, after I
published, I was told that this program--that the USAP was
actually managed by the Department of Defense but held at the
White House.
Mr. Higgins. Roger that.
Mr. Shellenberger. But that is a single source, and I do
not have multiple sources to verify that.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. I did my best to trick an
answer out of you, but--I was partially successful.
Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I would now recognize Mr. Frost for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In addition to serving on this Committee, the Oversight
Committee, I also serve on the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, where we often discuss how essential data and
evidence are used in science and used at departments such as
NASA. During a hearing, NASA Administrator Nelson affirmed the
importance of NASA in helping us to understand UAP.
Mr. Gold, if the government does not have the data it needs
on UAP because, say, someone who saw something is concerned
about stigma, public backlash, et cetera, or maybe there is
just not good systems in place, how are we supposed to
ultimately figure out what is going on?
Mr. Gold. Yes. Thank you for the question.
And let me compliment Administrator Nelson, that there
would not have been a UAP Independent Study Team if it was not
for his leadership and courage.
We are talking about data and where we can get data from.
As I described, NASA has whole archives of data, much of which,
I believe, will likely have information that will help inform
UAP; we need only look. And, again, in an era with AI and ML,
we can relatively quickly and easily go through it. So, I think
it is something that we should encourage NASA to do.
However, per Chairman Grothman's comment about UAP focusing
on national security sites, I believe there is something, sir,
that you may have heard of called ``sensor bias,'' that because
we have got more cameras, more monitoring of national security,
we do not know how extensive UAP activity may be over civilian
areas.
Now, this is to the second part of your question, where we
are not collecting the data. We are not collecting sufficient
data from pilots. We are not collecting sufficient data from
civilian and commercial activities. And this is, again, where
ASRS, I think, could substantially change that, get the data
out there, and allow us to do good science.
Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you.
I mean, on the data, you know, I am a really big proponent
of transparency, but obviously there is always a little bit of
balance that we have to have in government on transparency as
well. I mean, last year, NASA appointed a Director of UAP
Research and Response, to the recommendation by the Independent
Study Team.
In the final report, there's a quote: ``Despite numerous
accounts and visuals, the absence of consistent, detailed, and
curated observations means we do not presently have the body of
data needed to make definite and scientific conclusions about
UAP.''
Can you just talk really quickly about that balance of
security and transparency?
Mr. Gold. So, I can say, having served at NASA, it is the
most transparent organization I have ever been in. When we
would have conversations with executive leadership, things
would leak out almost instantly. So, I can assure you,
intentionally or not, NASA is very transparent. I do not know
if many of you have worked with engineers or scientists; they
love to talk.
So, I believe that NASA is a paradigm of transparency, but
we must have the ability and the data to be able to be
transparent with.
Mr. Frost. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gold. And if we are not gathering that, if we are not
looking at it, then we cannot bring NASA into the game and get
to that good science that you need.
Mr. Frost. You know, it was about a year ago, I was touring
a facility with a pretty senior government official. We went by
a certain hangar, and they said, ``Yes, that is--you know, a
company leases that out. We do not really know what is going on
in there. We have no way of knowing what is going on in
there.'' And there was a few of those, in fact, while we were
driving around this facility.
To what extent do you think that some of the UAP out there
comes from off-the-books or unauthorized experimental aircraft?
Mr. Gold. I mean, I think probably the vast majority of UAP
are drones, experimental aircraft, weather conditions. Which
is, again, why I say, if we reviewed the data, I think we are
going to discover a lot about things we were not even thinking
about. But there is a percentage that is not. And looking into
those anomalies is how discoveries will be made.
And relative to science, Congressman, if I can say, when
NASA studies black holes, when NASA studies galaxies, we have
instruments that are tailored to do so. With UAP, we are using
cockpit gun cameras or cell phones. We could never do good
science with that.
And let me tell you, the NASA budget is under pressure. We
need to make sure that the Artemis program is funded fully. We
need to beat China to the Moon and maintain our presence in low
Earth orbit. So, NASA would need more money to do this.
But I think tailored instruments that would look at UAP, in
the same way that we have tailored instruments to look at
astronomical data, is important to gathering valuable and
uniform information.
If we were studying black holes by using fighter cockpit
cameras, we probably would not know that much about black
holes.
Mr. Frost. Huh. A hundred percent.
Well, I think it is important that Federal leaders take the
necessary steps to ensure that UAP does not pose threats to the
American public as well and that we have the necessary budgets
to collect this data so we can actually see what is going on.
And I am fully supportive of funding the Artemis mission. I
think it is very important. Also, a personal note: The pilot is
a frat brother of mine. He is a member of the Phi Beta Sigma
Fraternity, Incorporated. And so, I would love to see my
fraternity make it to the Moon.
Mr. Gold. But Redwire is building the cameras for Artemis,
so we will take some pictures of your frat brother and get them
to you.
Mr. Frost. There we go. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mrs. Luna for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Elizondo, to your knowledge, can you name
the country and around timeframe that the first back-engineered
UAP program started?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, unfortunately, I would not be able to
have that conversation in public.
Mrs. Luna. Can anyone on the panel name that?
Mr. Shellenberger. I cannot.
Mrs. Luna. None of you? OK.
This next question is for Mr. Gallaudet.
To your knowledge, have any USOs ever outpaced our
submarines?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. At what magnitude?
Dr. Gallaudet. I do not have the exact speed, but, again, a
witness came to me--a credible former submarine officer who
observed it on sonar data. And this was in the 1980s in the
North Atlantic during a storm. And it outpaced his submarine by
orders of magnitude.
Mrs. Luna. Are you aware of any hotspots that currently
exist off our shores in North America?
Dr. Gallaudet. Not with sufficiently credible data, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. OK. We have heard reports of there potentially
being hotspots, maybe entry and exit points. Have you heard of
any of that?
Dr. Gallaudet. I have not, ma'am, but my colleague here,
Mr. Elizondo, does discuss some USO activity that he has
observed in certain DoD data bases.
Mrs. Luna. Mr. Elizondo, in regard to these aircraft being
piloted by whatever they might be--nonhuman biologics--would
you agree that it is likely that they are being piloted by some
mind-body connection?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I think it is safe to presume here
that they are being intelligently controlled, because they in
some cases seem to anticipate our maneuvers, and in other cases
they seem to--and I came across an email where the word
``stalked'' was used, in a--it was a very secure email between
Navy officers discussing their ships being pursued by a UAP.
Mrs. Luna. In our previous panel, we had Grusch, and he had
testified to say that some of these were interdimensional
beings. Can you speak on that at all?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I am not qualified, certainly as a
scientist or otherwise, to speculate points of origin.
I look at everything from a scientific perspective. So, if
you look at, for example, instantaneous acceleration, which was
one of the observables of the program that I belonged to,
AATIP, the human body can withstand about 9 g-forces for a
short period of time before you suffer negative biological
consequences--blackouts and ultimately red-outs and even death.
In comparison, our best technology, the F-16, which is one
of--it is an older platform but one of our most highly
maneuverable aircraft, manned aircraft, made by General
Dynamics, can perform at about 17 or 18 g-forces before you
start having structural failure, meaning that the airframe
begins to disintegrate while you are flying.
The vehicles we are talking about are performing in excess
of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 Gs.
Mrs. Luna. So, are you--I guess, would it be safe to infer
that they are living craft?
Mr. Elizondo. You know, I am not prepared at this point to
state for the record is something alive or not, because even
that definition--sorry, there was a time in science where we
thought that life required oxygen, and we now know that is not
true. There are anaerobic bacteria that thrive in environments
that lack oxygen.
And, also, same with photosynthesis. When I was in college,
I was told everything is derived from photosynthesis as a form
of energy. In reality, that is not true. There are things that
live off of chemosynthesis.
So, we are constantly having to reevaluate our
understanding of what the definition of ``life'' is.
Mrs. Luna. Uh-huh.
Do any of you ever come across reports from people that
claim to have firsthand experiences with these entities,
whatever they might be, or these aircraft and then, as a
result, whether or not they are religious, find that these
things will automatically disappear?
Anyone? This is open to any of you on the panel. So, just
real quick, because I am running out of time.
Lue?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I have always been a nuts-and-bolts
kind of guy. When I was at AATIP, I was focusing more on the
performance characteristics and less on the potential
occupants.
Mrs. Luna. OK.
The reason I ask is because it seems like, just based on
our conversations, that we have had people that say that there
are good and bad of whatever these things are.
And so, my concern from a national security perspective is,
A, is that true? B, are you guys hearing reports of that?
And, C, I think moving forward in regard to technology--Mr.
Gold, if you can answer this real quickly--some of these
aircraft, it seems that they are operating off of energy that
we do not currently have.
But just yes or no, in your opinion, if we were able to
obtain that, would that impact humanity for the better or
negative?
Mr. Gold. It would certainly save us some money on funding
on Artemis.
And----
Mrs. Luna. Definitely.
Mr. Gold [continuing]. This is a national security issue,
that if there is such technology out there, we are not the only
country that might have access to it. We do not want to be on
the wrong end of technological surprise.
Mrs. Luna. OK.
Thank you guys for your time.
Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
I will now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
And I apologize for stepping out. My Governor is here,
upstairs. So, I am going, trying to get in between meetings, so
apologize for that.
I want to just start by just asking everyone on the panel,
our witnesses--and I had a chance to read all the testimony
before. But just to set the agenda, just if you can go down
real briefly, do you believe, just for the record, that the
Federal Government, any part of the Federal Government, is
knowingly concealing evidence about UAPs from the public?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Elizondo. One hundred percent.
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Gold. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
I also want to just go down the line--and I know many of
you have already said this, but I just--for the record, again,
just briefly: What do you believe UAPs could be or are?
Dr. Gallaudet. Strong evidence that they are nonhuman
higher intelligence.
Mr. Elizondo. I echo my colleague's comment, sir.
Mr. Shellenberger. Genuinely do not know.
Mr. Gold. Do not know, but we must find out.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. I appreciate those answers,
gentlemen. I think this is obviously another remarkable hearing
with just really important information, so I thank all of you
for answering the questions.
Admiral, I just want to go back to one thing. Now, last
year, our Subcommittee heard from two retired Navy pilots,
Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Commander David Fravor, regarding
UAPs. Actually, I think Ryan is here in the audience, and been
a great person to get to know and to have conversations with.
He, of course, has been involved in the Safe Airspace for
Americans Act, with Chairman Graves, with Chairwoman Mace, for
UAP reporting by civilian aviation personnel.
Can you discuss briefly why it is important for civilian
pilots to be able to report UAPs and why these legal
protections are critical for our national security?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. And I did
invite Ryan Graves as my guest, as I am on his advisory board
for the Americans for Safe Aerospace.
And that legislation, that you supported and introduced, I
fully support as well. And I think it is important that more
civilian pilots, commercial pilots report so we can better
understand and learn and do research on UAP, as well as remove
the stigma so more citizens report on what they observe.
And, also, it will only contribute to aviation safety when
we have a better understanding of where these UAP are, how they
operate, and at what frequency and what capability level.
So, it is important for aviation safety, and it will be
important for moving science and research forward.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
And I want to just reiterate to my colleagues, I mean, this
is a very bipartisan piece of legislation, and we have just got
to continue to get this through the Congress.
And it is incredibly important that civilian pilots have
the opportunity to safely report the UAPs that they are seeing
or encountering in the air. And I cannot express how critical
this piece is, of what I believe is a larger collection of
evidence and facts, actually happen.
We have been approached by pilots, I have talked to folks
that have been engaged with our office and others, and there is
still enormous stigma, and essentially we do not have a system
where folks are feeling free to be able to report what they are
seeing. And so, I just want to reiterate that advocacy.
Mr. Gold, in your testimony, you discuss NASA's Aviation
Safety Reporting System, a confidential, nonpunitive reporting
mechanism.
In the Safe Airspace for Americans Act, we explicitly allow
for civilian reporting, of course, of UAPs.
Can you explain why the NASA task force recommended the use
of the Aviation Safety Reporting System?
Mr. Gold. The Aviation Safety Reporting System is an
existing system that is trusted, that has taken hundreds of
thousands, now millions, of cases. And, again, recognizing
budgetary constraints, this seems like the perfect way to be
able to gain more data.
And when it comes to the stigma, sir, it is something that
pilots are used to reporting on, that crew is used to reporting
on.
So, it is a great way to get data, to overcome the stigma,
without spending really that much more additional money since
the system exists.
Thank you so much for your support of that. Thank you for
what Ryan Graves does. This is a commonsense means to expose
the truth of UAP for the purpose of this hearing.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
And I just want to also add: Now, earlier this year, as
part of the House defense authorization bill, the NDAA, I had
filed an amendment to include the UAP Disclosure Act, which
would create a UAP Records Review Board with exercise of
eminent domain over UAP-related material, modeled actually on
the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which is widely
known. Now, the amendment was blocked, but thankfully the
Senate included the amendment by Senators Rounds and Schumer
for the UAP Disclosure Act.
So, I just again want to say that we should be pushing and
ensuring the UAP Disclosure Act, which is bipartisan in its
support, should move forward.
And if I can just briefly also--particularly, Admiral, can
you just briefly, as I close my time, explain why the UAP
Disclosure Act would be critical for us and our national
security?
Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, I believe the UAP Disclosure Act is important for
national security; as well as advancing potential socioeconomic
benefits resulting from UAP research; as well as public safety,
as we referred to previously, regarding aviation.
And this act will allow for greater transparency and open
research. And that is why I am also a member of the UAP
Discloser Fund as an advisor and the Sol Foundation as a senior
strategic advisor, which is advocating the same.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this Committee.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Admiral, the video that is called the ``Go Fast'' video,
the email that you have talked about being deleted, I just want
to briefly cover this.
You said that the email--the author was asking whether any
of the recipients were aware of the classified technology
demonstrations that could explain the objects that were
observed. And then you said the email disappears; then you guys
have a series of meetings; the Commander of Fleet Forces and
his operations officer never discussed the incident again.
Is that accurate?
Dr. Gallaudet. That is accurate, sir.
Mr. Biggs. And even during weekly meetings, it was never
discussed again.
My question for you is--you were in those meetings. Did you
personally hear that nothing was going on about that?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir, I was in those meetings. And----
Mr. Biggs. Did you make inquiries about that?
Dr. Gallaudet. No, I did not, sir, because I inferred,
since I had been read in to other special access programs, that
this UAP video was part of one that I was not read in to, or
any of the recipients or the author of the email, and that an
intelligence agency basically pulled it back and instructed the
author of the email, ``Hey, this is--you just conducted what
they call 'spillage' into a lower classification level.'' And
when that is done, the procedures are basically to remove any
of the communications.
Mr. Biggs. You are going to silo it.
So, Mr. Elizondo, you said in your report and your
testimony today, ``Government work on UAP subjects still
remains classified. Excessive secrecy has led to grave misdeeds
against loyal civil servants, military personnel, and the
public--all to hide the fact that we are not alone in the
cosmos.''
Fair?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. All right.
And all of you--and, Mr. Shellenberger--by the way, I have
read several of your books, Mr. Shellenberger. Excellent stuff.
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. What I would say, too, is: You were asked about
the veracity of the author of this report. Are you comfortable
with the veracity?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. OK.
And then--and I will get to you in a second, Mr. Gold. We
will talk about Kuhnian and Lakatosian scientific advancement
and our obviating that through these processes. But we will get
to that in a sec.
Because what I want to really get to is, the ultimate
question really becomes this: For what purpose is the Federal
Government overclassifying--because that is what they are
doing; they are overclassifying--and forbidding the public from
getting access to this?
And if you know, if you have an explanation, I am curious.
Because I know what I have been told. I just want to know from
your perspective, why do they overclassify?
Mr. Elizondo, you look like you are finger-on-the-button,
ready to go.
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir. Forgive me.
I think there are several reasons. I think at the time when
this first--this reality became evident to the U.S. Government,
we were in the middle of a cold war with then-Soviet Union, and
we did not want to tip our hands to what our knowledge base was
on this topic. We did not want to broadcast that to the
community.
Mr. Biggs. The cold war is long over.
Mr. Elizondo. It is, sir. It is, sir.
There is also, then, the philosophical argument that the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community is
solution-oriented, and when you do not have answers, it is a
really tough spot to be in.
Mr. Biggs. It is easier to be quiet and suppress if you do
not have the answer.
Mr. Elizondo. Indeed, sir.
Mr. Biggs. OK.
Mr. Elizondo. In fact, there is a very real example when we
built the U-2 spy plane and flew it over then-Russia and were
taking reconnaissance. And when we first started flying the
aircraft, it flew so high and so fast we thought they were not
tracking us. In reality, they were tracking every flight.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Elizondo. It wasn't until the Russians could develop
the SA-2 surface-to-air missile and successfully shoot them
down----
Mr. Biggs. And I would suggest to you also, along with
Lakatos and Kuhn, you also have a problem with Kenneth Arrow's
path dependence and increasing returns. That is one reason why
they will not disclose it, is it is too painful to admit.
But I just want to read a couple things from Mr.
Shellenberger's--what he gave to us today, because I think this
is interesting stuff, and I just want to convey this to you.
``On USG networks, there exists infrared footage of and
imagery of a grouping of vessels engaged in SIGINT and MASINT
collection at night in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean. In
this footage, which was in close proximity to the vessels, a
large equilateral-triangle UAP suddenly appears directly over
the ships. Three bright points are seen at each bottom corner
of the UAP, which is observed to slowly rotate on its
horizontal access.'' And he goes on to describe that.
And I just want to read one more. And I am doing this
because I think it is interesting; this stuff is interesting as
anything. So, let us get this one here, right here.
``While performing a routine Airspace Surveillance and
Control Mission in the Eastern Air Defense Sector, an F-22
fighter observed multiple UAP contacts at mission altitude.
Moving to intercept, the F-22 pilot noted multiple metallic
orbs, slightly smaller than a sedan, hovering in place. Upon
vectoring toward the UAPs, a smaller formation of the metallic
orbs accelerated at rapid speed toward the F-22, which was
unable to establish radar locks on the presumed-hostile UAPs.
The F-22 broke trajectory and attempted to evade but was
intercepted and boxed in by approximately three to six UAPs.''
And then I will leave that there, because I just have no
more time left. I--well, she is not looking. So, let us just
get into--let us get into part of this----
Mr. Gold. I thought I would be saved by the bell.
Mr. Biggs. No, no. Let us talk about Kuhnian, Lakatosian
type of scientific development. And the problem that we have
here is, you have institutional blockage of what would be
normal development of scientific ideas.
And if you want to expand on that, Mr. Gold?
Ms. Mace. We are over time, so be very fast, please.
Mr. Gold. I will just say, I am a recovering attorney, so
please take it easy on me on the science. But all breakthroughs
have been heretical at first, and that is the challenge that we
face, particularly with something as extraordinary as this,
which is why gathering the data is so important.
And I will just end by saying, by the way, the
overclassification of material is in no way limited to UAP.
That is occurring throughout the government, as well as the
inability to get people classifications in a timely and
efficient measure and then to have those classifications be
broad enough to be useful. So, this is a larger issue that I
hope that Congress will remedy.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Ms. Mace. I have been generous.
All right, Mr. Burlison, I will recognize you for 5 minutes
of questions, please.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Elizondo, I--or, does any branch of the U.S. Government
or defense contractors possess technology?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, there is documentation, that I believe
was submitted for the record, that was approved for release by
the U.S. Pentagon, by the Department of Defense Office of
Prepublication and Security Review. And it states that one of
the reasons why my predecessor program, AAWSAP, was trying to
collect material of unknown origin and----
Mr. Burlison. And was it successfully collected?
Mr. Elizondo. It was not. What happened is that there was
an aerospace contract company that requested to divest itself
of the material----
Mr. Burlison. OK.
Mr. Elizondo [continuing]. That was collected in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, that did not actually occur.
Mr. Burlison. So, let us dive into that. That is the
Bigelow Aerospace, correct?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burlison. So, there was a journalist, Christopher
Sharp, who said that there was a transfer between Lockheed
Martin, Bigelow Aerospace, and the CIA allegedly blocked this.
Can you describe that?
Mr. Elizondo. What I can say is that it was blocked. Why it
was blocked, I can only surmise. I was part of some
conversations later on with some of those contract personnel
where they had told all of us that is accurate.
What we required was a memo from the Secretary of the Air
Force in order to make that complete, and that never occurred.
And so, when Secretary Mattis became Secretary of Defense, I
decided it would be appropriate for me to try to receive a memo
from him, as SecDef, as Secretary of Defense, if we could not
get a memo from the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer that
material.
Mr. Burlison. So, if that material exists today, who is in
possession?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I would not be able to have that
conversation in an open hearing. We would probably have to have
that in closed.
Mr. Burlison. OK. My question to you then is, if we were in
a secure setting, if we were in a SCIF, would you be able to
provide or get access to something, whether it is visuals or
material that we could put our hands on, or biologics, that
would convince me, that would show me that we have nonhuman
origins?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, that decision would not be mine. That
would be to the gatekeepers still in the U.S. Government.
Mr. Burlison. And who would we--so, if you were in our
shoes, where would you go from here? How would you get that
information? How would--where is--you know, a lot of times we
just don't know who to ask, because we do not know where to go
next.
So, if you were in our shoes, where would you go?
Mr. Elizondo. Well, I prefer to answer that question in a
closed session. However, we established AARO for that very
purpose. And, unfortunately, under its previous leadership, it
failed. So, one would hope that they would have the authorities
necessary to do that. Let us hope that this new iteration of
leadership will be successful.
Mr. Burlison. In the discussions, it is simply about
material? Or is there discussion about--it was previously
testified that there was biologics that were collected. Are you
aware of any of that?
Mr. Elizondo. I am, sir, aware of the reporting that
biologics have been recovered. Again, my focus was more nuts
and bolts, looking at the physical aspects of these phenomenon,
how they interacted around military equities and nuclear
equities.
So, I am certainly not a medical expert. I would not be
able to probably provide you a whole lot of value in that,
simply because I do not have the expertise.
Mr. Burlison. But was anything described as that we have
possession of bodies?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burlison. Is it multiple types of creatures? Or----
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I could not answer that. I can tell you
anecdotally that it was discussed quite a bit when I was at the
Pentagon. The problem is, the supposed collection of these
biological samples occurred before my time, in fact before I
was even born.
Mr. Burlison. And was this part of the Lockheed Martin
discussion? Or was this completely--the biologics--was it
completely separate?
Mr. Elizondo. Separate yet related.
Mr. Burlison. OK.
Has anyone made contact?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, I am sorry, could you specify----
Mr. Burlison. Has there been any, to your knowledge, any
communication with a nonhuman life form?
Mr. Elizondo. So, the term ``communication'' is a bit of a
trick word, because there is verbal communication like we are
having now; the problem is, you also have nonverbal
communication.
And so, I would say definitively yes, but from a
nonverbal--meaning, when a Russian reconnaissance aircraft
comes into U.S. airspace, we scramble two F-22s, and we are
certainly communicating intent and capability.
I think the same goes with this. We have these things that
are being observed over controlled U.S. airspace, and they are
not really doing a good job of hiding themselves. They are
making it pretty obvious they have the ability to even
interfere with our nuclear equities and our nuclear readiness.
Mr. Burlison. Is the U.S. Government and our contractors,
are they pulling, you know, technology from this? Are they
reverse-engineering this?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, as I previously stated--and please
forgive me--I am not authorized to discuss specifics about
crash retrievals. Again, I signed documentation with the U.S.
Government.
What I can say was, after a very thorough review process by
the Pentagon, what I wrote about. And that was my limit,
unfortunately, that I was given.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Timmons for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Elizondo, you just said something interesting. You
said, they do not seem to be hiding. They do not seem to be
hiding. The UAP sightings are becoming increasingly brash, if
you will.
And, you know, we have been hearing about these for years,
but they have generally been isolated and not as consistent and
over critical military installations.
Would you say that's fair? Is this becoming increasingly--
is it happening more and more?
Mr. Elizondo. Great question, sir. Let me see if I can
answer this for you.
Certainly, there seems to be some indication that they are
being provocative, meaning that they are in some cases
literally splitting aircraft formations right down the middle.
So, that is an air safety issue.
The question is, is the frequency increasing? And, really,
the response is, it depends. Yes, it is possible that there is
an increase in frequency, but it is also possible that there is
heightened awareness now, and there is also more pervasiveness
of technology out there that is collecting this information and
that can record this information.
So, we are not quite sure yet if it is actually an increase
in numbers of these events or is it that we have better
equipment now to record these things and we have a better
ability, if you will, to analyze these things and----
Mr. Timmons. And that is my next question. It seems that a
lot of these sightings occur near military installations. Do
you think that these UAPs are intentionally targeting military
installations, or do you think that we have increased abilities
to monitor surrounding military installations?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, it may be both.
Part of my concern is, we have something in the Department
of Defense and the intelligence community called IPB, initial
preparations of the battlespace. And we use equities like ISR--
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance--and other types
of equities and technologies to prep the battlespace.
And, certainly, you know, if I was wearing my national
security hat, even if there was a two-percent chance that there
was some sort of hostile intent here, that is two percent
higher than we really can accept.
And so, we must figure out--there is a calculus,
capabilities versus intent, in order to identify if something
is a national security threat. We have seen some of the
capabilities, yet we have no idea on the intent. And so, this
is why this discussion is somewhat, I think, problematic from a
governmental perspective, because we have no idea.
Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Shellenberger, you are particularly familiar with the
Langley Air Force Base incident a year ago? Are you familiar?
Mr. Shellenberger. Just from what I read in the news.
Mr. Timmons. Just from what you have read?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Timmons. I would imagine a large percentage of the
American population became aware of that with the Wall Street
Journal article. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Timmons. And were you aware of that incident prior to
the Wall Street Journal article?
Mr. Shellenberger. No.
Mr. Timmons. To the rest of the panel, was the Wall Street
Journal article the first time that y'all were made aware of
what was essentially an over-2-week UAP frenzy over Langley Air
Force Base? Were y'all aware of this prior to the Wall Street
Journal article? Anybody. A show of hands.
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Timmons. Yes, Dr. Gallaudet. Could you give me your--
how did you become aware of it?
Dr. Gallaudet. Well, a colleague of mine, who I referenced
previously, Chris Mellon, he wrote an extensive article about
this, that there were other incursions of drones over Langley
before this, as well as many, many military installations over
the last five decades.
Mr. Timmons. And it is my understanding that there has been
an ever-increasing-in-number and--I am trying to think how to
say this, because I wear two different hats. I am still in the
Air Force.
So, I mean, it seems that they are becoming increasingly
brash. And the question that we really have to figure out is,
is it China or is it nonhuman? And I think that is the biggest
question the American people want to know.
If it is China, it is scary because they have a lot of
technology that we cannot explain. And if it is nonhuman, that
is scary because we do not know the intent.
Would you say that's fair?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman.
And, in fact, I really believe that we should use this
hearing as a catalyst to improve and bolster our air defense
capabilities and our maritime domain awareness capabilities,
because obviously there are holes in it, whether it be UAP of
non-HI direction, or NHI direction, or, as you say, sir, China
or any other adversary.
Mr. Timmons. Are y'all aware of any task force at the
Pentagon or in the national security apparatus that is trying
to assess the answer to that question?
Dr. Gallaudet. At the current moment, sir, no, but that is
a great point.
From 2020 to 2022, there was a UAP task force in the DoD
succeeding where Mr. Elizondo worked, led by Jay Stratton, who
had the first comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to
UAP, which involved pathways to declassification and to
increased transparency, as well as assessing the national
security risk of UAP.
This was a really well-established approach, and we have
all advocated that something like it return.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
I am running out of time. The last thing is that we need
authorities. Law enforcement, military do not have authorities
to actually engage, and we need to--Congress needs to act to
give those authorities to local law enforcement and the
military so they have clear guidelines on how to assess these
issues going forward.
I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I would like to recognize Ms. Boebert for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Now that we have all been cautioned in this Committee
hearing that the mention of Pentagon's Immaculate Constellation
program could put us on a list--well, I already find myself on
many lists, I am sure, so--I speak my mind often, so why not
just keep going with it? May as well just go all out and say
it: The Earth is flat, birds are government drones, and we have
never set foot on the Moon. And Joe Biden received 81 million
votes in the 2020 election.
So, let us just see how many lists we could get on here
today.
But, Mr. Shellenberger, I wanted to ask you: I think I
understand from this hearing that you would agree that
classifying information like this is not in the best interests
of the people. Is that correct?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, I mean, with the caveat that of
course, you know, I would support classification necessary to
protect secrets essential to national security. But I think it
is pretty obvious that there is overclassification.
Ms. Boebert. Over-classification, yes.
And so, in most instances, if they cannot tell us what, do
you think at some point they will at least tell us why?
Mr. Shellenberger. You know, President-elect Trump has
repeatedly committed to greater transparency both on the UAP
issue, on JFK files, on----
Ms. Boebert. Yes.
Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. COVID origins and many
other things. So, I think that we need to make sure that the
next administration is held accountable for that.
Ms. Boebert. Agreed.
And this is for all four of you. Yes or no, please. I have
many questions I want to get to.
Are there any known instances of recovered materials or
technologies that are not of human origin and may be connected
to any advanced bioscience defense programs within the USG?
Dr. Gallaudet. I do not know.
Mr. Elizondo. I would not be able to answer that, ma'am.
Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know.
Mr. Gold. I do not know.
Ms. Boebert. OK.
So, there are rumors that have come up to the Hill of a
secretive project within the Department of Defense involving
the manipulation of human genetics with what is described as
``nonhuman genetic material'' potentially for the enhancement
of human capabilities--hybrids.
Are any of you familiar with that, yes or no?
Dr. Gallaudet. No, ma'am.
Mr. Elizondo. I am not, ma'am.
Mr. Shellenberger. I am not.
Mr. Gold. No, ma'am.
Ms. Boebert. OK.
I would like to know, with Immaculate Constellation, how
does this relate to UAP activities, Mr. Shellenberger, in
oceanic environments? Are there any instances where the Navy or
other maritime forces have encountered UAPs that could not be
explained by known technology or natural phenomena?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, the Immaculate Constellation covers
both terrestrial and oceanic, and there is actually a number of
cases described in the report that occur in the ocean.
Ms. Boebert. And do you believe that there is a concerted
effort by the Pentagon to keep Congress out of the loop
regarding these UAP activities specifically in our waters?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Ms. Boebert. I think it is about five percent of our ocean
that has actually been studied in detail by man, and we have
studied more of space than we have of our own oceans.
And so, are there any accounts of UAPs emerging from or
submerging into our water, which could indicate a base or
presence beneath the ocean's surface?
Mr. Shellenberger. I do not know about a base, but, you
know, as I mentioned, I had a different source entirely
describe this pretty extraordinary footage that exists of
orbs--of an orb coming out of the ocean and being met by
another orb.
Ms. Boebert. Some would say that there is multiple hotspots
where we see frequent activity.
So, in your investigations, have you come across any data
or visual evidence like sonar readings or underwater footage of
these UAPs?
Mr. Shellenberger. I have not beyond what is in the report.
Ms. Boebert. You have written about UAPs not only in the
air but in underwater. Are there any specifics on what you have
learned about the UAP activity in our oceans? Particularly,
have you spoken with sources who have provided any evidence or
eyewitness accounts of these UAPs interacting with our Naval
forces or being detected by our underwater surveillance
systems?
Mr. Shellenberger. Nothing beyond what is in the report and
then the specific case that I mentioned with the orbs.
Ms. Boebert. So, this report says it all; there is no other
information that we are aware of regarding the activity within
our waters?
Mr. Shellenberger. I have other sources that have told me--
that have shared a significant amount of information, but they
are not comfortable with me sharing it at this point.
Ms. Boebert. OK.
Are there any technological capabilities observed in these
oceanic UAPs that seem to defy our current understanding of
physics or our engineering capabilities?
Mr. Shellenberger. It seems like they all do.
Ms. Boebert. Yes. I would agree with that.
And my time is up, but I do appreciate your bravery, your
courage for coming here and speaking today.
And it seems like there is still some questions that we
need answers to, and we will not relent until we get those to
the American people.
Thank you all.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I move to allow myself and the Ranking Member 5 additional
minutes for questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Elizondo, were you read in to the Immaculate
Constellation program?
Mr. Elizondo. Ma'am, I would not be authorized to confirm
nor deny the existence of any ongoing or past program,
especially as it relates to a special access program, either by
name or trigraph.
Ms. Mace. OK.
And then, does the U.S. Government or private contractors,
do they work with other foreign countries--China, for example--
to exchange data, quote, ``from a source,'' that intelligence
data, about UAP?
Mr. Elizondo. Let me see if I can answer that a little bit
more generally, ma'am, if I may.
Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
Mr. Elizondo. We do have foreign materiel exploitation
programs. That is something that is widely known, and that term
itself is unclassified. How exactly that works becomes a bit
sensitive. It is a discussion we could certainly have in a
closed session if you would like.
We do work with international partners and allies quite
often, not just in military exercises and workups but in other
intelligence efforts as well.
Ms. Mace. In terms of material, that is given to private
contractors, is certain material given to certain contractors
because of their experience? So, for example, if it is related
to submerged and undersea propulsion, would it go to a general
contractor like General Dynamics?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, ma'am, absolutely correct. Different
contractors have different levels of expertise----
Ms. Mace. What is Lockheed's expertise?
Mr. Elizondo. Aerospace, ma'am.
Ms. Mace. And in the UAP space? That is all that--they
would not do submerged?
Mr. Elizondo. No, I did not say that ma'am.
Ms. Mace. OK.
Mr. Elizondo. Lockheed Martin and others do quite a bit of
work both in our atmosphere, in space, and even underwater.
There are certain efforts to--it is a tough question you are
asking. You are putting me on the spot here.
Ms. Mace. I'm asking--I'm looking for the answer.
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, ma'am. No, they are involved in a lot. I
would rather let Lockheed Martin explain the different domains
that they are involved with. I am----
Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
Mr. Elizondo [continuing]. Probably not authorized to
discuss that. But they are involved in a lot of different areas
and domains.
Ms. Mace. Admiral, flight safety risks for our pilots,
based on what you have experienced and seen in your career?
Dr. Gallaudet. They are extensive.
In the one exercise I referred to where I received the
email that was then deleted was, the pilots--and this is worth
bringing out. There are debunkers out there who have said the
``Go Fast'' video was just a balloon. That was only one video
that was released. There were dozens of these encounters that
pilots, friends of Ryan Graves, who is in this room right here,
witnessed and caused significant safety concerns.
And to almost call out an exercise and shut it down, which
is very compressed and the carrier is getting ready for
deployment and the pilots have to get certified to land on a
carrier, it is extreme, to say the least.
Ms. Mace. All right.
I have two last questions.
Real quickly, Mr. Shellenberger, how do we get more
whistleblowers to come forward?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, this hearing, you know, is very
important. And, obviously, you know, I cannot encourage
whistleblowers to obtain information, but I can guarantee that
I will protect them and go to prison to protect their
identities----
Ms. Mace. OK.
Mr. Shellenberger [continuing]. If they come to me.
Ms. Mace. Yes, sir.
OK, my last question. The first hearing we had on this, I
had never been briefed on UAPs or what they were--biologics,
nonhuman, et cetera.
How would you define, each of you--my last question--how
would you define nonhuman biologics, nonhuman intelligence?
What are we actually talking about?
Admiral? And we will go down the line.
Dr. Gallaudet. I do not think it is a stretch, when you
look at the diversity of life on this planet and the size of
this universe, to think that there would be more diverse,
higher-order, nonhuman intelligence throughout the universe,
and that is probably what is visiting us.
Mr. Elizondo. I would take the scientific approach. The
definition would be the ability to react to a stimulus in a
manner that requires an intellectual thought process.
Mr. Shellenberger. I just do not know.
Mr. Gold. I think we must be modest in our assumptions,
that we are looking for intelligence. That could be biological;
it might not.
Ms. Mace. ``Nonbiological.'' ``Nonbiological
intelligence.'' What does that mean, though?
Mr. Gold. Artificial intelligence, ML, machines.
We assume that all intelligence would be like us, and every
time we look out into the universe, we are humbled relative to
what we do not know in terms of the forms of intelligence and
what it may take.
I can assure you I probably cannot answer your question,
but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all.
Ms. Mace. And then Mr. Garcia has a few closing marks.
Mr. Garcia. And I know we are about to hit votes here, so I
will be brief.
Just, I want to thank you all for being here. I want to
thank Chairwoman Mace, especially, for holding this important
bipartisan hearing. And I want to thank all the Committee
Members that are interested in this topic.
I think our commitment to all of you and to all the folks
that have contacted us and certainly to the advocates and the
pilots is that we need to continue investigating UAPs. I think
the country owes--the country is owed explanations. And to
ensure that the safety of national security is always
protected, this is a conversation and questioning that must
continue. So, I am very grateful to all of you.
And I also just want to just add, just personally, I think
it is really important, for me, two things guide my questioning
and my observations on UAPs. One is, we should always be guided
by facts, science, and data, and stay serious on those issues.
And the second thing is, I think that we should not limit our
imagination and our thoughts and our curiosity on what UAPs
could actually be. And I think those two things, for me, are
really important.
And I am grateful for all of you to be here.
So, with that, I yield back.
Ms. Mace. OK.
And we have Mr. Ogles who is on the way. He is going to be
here any second; is that correct?
Check. And he will be the last Member with questions that
we have today. And then we are going to--we have votes. So, we
want to thank you all for being here.
I want to thank Mr. Garcia and folks on both sides of the
aisle for being here today and being patient. We have a lot
more questions, and I hope that this will open the door to more
hearings in the future.
I obviously would like to know how much taxpayers are
spending on this. You have the right to know. But, also, if we
are spending money on something that does not exist, why are we
spending the money? And if it does exist, why are we hiding it
from the public?
And, of course, our national security is a huge issue,
because if there is technology that could harm us or allies
that are in the hands of our adversaries, we obviously want to
stay ahead of that to the best of our ability to ensure that
that technology is not in the hands of someone who could use it
against us or our allies anywhere in the world.
So, Mr. Ogles, you are just in time, babe. I will recognize
you for 5 minutes of questioning before we head on out today.
Mr. Ogles. Well, thank you all for being here.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I am out of breath because I
sprinted to get here. But this is an important hearing. I think
we all know that there is something going on.
Mr. Elizondo, based on your knowledge of UAP sightings, do
you believe it is fair to say that they are especially common
near nuclear sites?
Mr. Elizondo. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, I absolutely am
convinced of that, as are my colleagues inside the government.
Mr. Ogles. And the reason why I pose that question--and
this has been one of my talking points from the beginning--is,
you know, Oak Ridge is in Tennessee. The so-called weather
balloon that drifted, that we now know was controlled, it
passed near Oak Ridge. It obviously is a sensitive site, both
of interest to our adversaries and to whatever else this is.
Because we know that at military installations, at
sensitive locations such as nuclear facilities, that we are
seeing this take place. So, the question is, what is it?
Do you believe they have caused irregular activity? And why
might they be interested in those sites?
Mr. Elizondo. Sir, in some cases, actually, regular
activity. You would be surprised. There is actually
documentation right now that has been submitted. It is not just
Oak Ridge. It is Savannah River Site, SRS. It is also Los
Alamos. A lot of our sensitive R&D locations appear to be under
some sort of surveillance and monitoring.
Why? Well, because a lot of innovation comes out of those
areas. A lot of new technologies, a lot of, if you will,
disruptive technologies that we use for our national defense
originates out of those locations, and advanced concepts and
physics as well. So, if I was doing any type of reconnaissance,
even on a foreign adversary, that is a great target to start
with.
Mr. Ogles. Sure. And, again, this has been one of my
talking points. I do have questions, what role might the
Department of Energy or its subsidiaries or affiliates have in
this type of technology or possessing this type of technology,
whether it' is ours or others?
Mr. Gallaudet, I think your testimony has been pretty
clear, but would you please reiterate: Do you believe UAPs pose
a threat to pilots?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir, absolutely. They were threatening
Navy pilots during the exercise that my people were involved
with in 2015, and it is my understanding that they are risking
pilot safety, commercial and military, today.
Mr. Ogles. Well, considering--and I understand that there
is a need, in some cases, to keep certain technologies secret.
But you believe that it is posing a threat to our personnel,
correct?
Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ogles. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if
there is a threat to our personnel who are serving our country
faithfully, that there be oversight.
Dr. Gallaudet. One hundred percent, Congressman.
And, in fact, that is the one thing that we have not talked
about enough during this hearing, the fact that the government,
the executive branch, not sharing with Congress what it knows
about UAP infringes on your legislative and oversight
responsibilities to such an extent that it is very concerning.
I mean, what else are we--if you look at national security or
intelligence or foreign affairs or appropriations, you all have
oversight and legislative responsibility regarding those. This
UAP issue may be the greatest issue of our time, and it is
being hid from you.
Mr. Ogles. Well, I mean, and to your point, I think we have
seen over the decades that we have certain adversaries, like
China, like Russia, that, technologically speaking, are not as
advanced as us, that they lack some of the lethality that we
have, and that we have seen that they have gone after our
technologies and in some cases succeeded, in particular with
missile technology.
And so, again, my concern: Whether this technology emanates
from us or otherworldly, that we know that we possess it. And
where is the accountability? Where are the stopgaps? What are
the guarantees that if this were to fall in enemy hands that it
is not immediately weaponized against us?
And I will say this. It is clear from my experience and
what I have seen that there is something out there. The
question is, is it ours, is it someone else's, or is it
otherworldly?
And, Madam Chairwoman, I would posit that, as the
legislative body, as the regulatory body, we must know. And
anyone who prevents us from gaining access to that information,
I would consider that criminality. Because we have U.S.
personnel who may very well be in harm's way, we have
technology that ultimately may threaten our very existence.
With that, Madam Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence,
and I yield back.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Ogles.
And with that and without objection, all Members will have
5 legislative days within which to submit materials and to
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[all]