On November 13, 2024, four witnesses appeared before the Joint Subcommittee. US Congressional Oversight and Accountability for a testimony session on so-called “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP).” This is a necessary rebranding of the term “UFO.” The people who spouted these three letters in the past were rarely seen as trustworthy or worthy of testifying before the U.S. government.
The four witnesses were Rear Adm. Tim Gallaudet, former commander of the U.S. Navy’s Meteorological and Marine Command; Luis Elizondo, former director of the Defense Department’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program; investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger; Former NASA Deputy Administrator Michael Gold.
4 people submitted written testimony before the hearing. Shellenberger also allegedly original document An anonymous whistleblower report regarding a program called “Immaculate Constellation,” an “unauthorized special access program” for top-level monitoring of UAP-related activities.
The document referred to an extensive database of high-quality evidence collected over several decades, all of which had previously evaded democratic oversight by Congress and most executive branches.
Ann early hearing Held on July 26, 2023, former U.S. Navy pilots testified about events such as encounters with the famous “tic-tock object” and 2004 FLIR (forward-looking infrared) video from the USS. Nimitz Encounters, and GoFast and gimbal videos from the 2015 USS roosevelt Incident.
Previous reports of UAP/UFO sightings date back to the 1940s, and some even centuries earlier. There also seemed to be waves of UFO sightings.
Suspicions of a government cover-up have been floating since the Roswell incident in 1947, but the latest surge in interest in government secrets was sparked in 2017. new york times article About the Department of Defense’s alleged UAP program.
This has led to a bipartisan interest in Congress to uncover the extent to which the U.S. government and intelligence community covered up the sightings. They promised to provide transparency to the American people.
read more:
So far, it’s safe to say that attempts at transparency have been a total failure. Witnesses have refused to disclose classified material that could violate confidentiality oaths, and the government’s refusal to declassify the material (or even acknowledge its existence) has created obstacles. This had an impact on the full-scale discussion on UAP disclosure.
The hearing on November 13, 2024 was no exception. Chairman Nancy Mace began the cover-up game by saying she had no intention of “revealing names.” She also said there were people trying to influence her not to hold this hearing.
All witnesses except Gold are not allowed or unwilling to discuss certain questions in public session, or are not allowed or unwilling to discuss them completely. (Shellenberger claimed it was to protect his journalistic sources). They also reported being subject to threats or outright intimidation not to disclose confidential material.
close encounter
If Mr. Gold had confidential information, he never disclosed it. He simply, and rightly, emphasized the need for independent scientific and academically rigorous investigation of the phenomenon.
However, that did not stop witnesses from claiming knowledge of the crash recovery program and encounters with underwater UAPs and USOs (Unidentified Submersible Objects). They also implied that staff were being treated for injuries sustained from contact with the UAP, and that humanity was already dealing with non-human intelligence (NHI).
Information that, if true, would fundamentally change our view of our place in the universe. This also shows that there is still a lot of sensitive material hidden away.
Witnesses are allowed to speak to some extent about facts that are usually considered “official secrets,” but are prohibited from releasing confidential material that supports their claims. This means you can never really know if what they say is true.
Their testimony is always subject to ample doubt. They may all be sincere in their beliefs or have access to relevant evidence, but it is this personal editing that inevitably leads the witness to failure and, at worst, ridicule. It will be done.
But in many previous hearings, they have only presented what they were told, or in legal parlance, “hearsay evidence”, a type of evidence that legal systems around the world consider to be questionable. I haven’t.
This makes it easy for so-called “falsifiers” to point out that evidence is always announced to be released soon, but is never actually released.
And unfortunately, not all of the witnesses who appeared before Congress on November 13th have impeccable reputations for due diligence and fact-checking information.
For example, Elizondo was recently exposed during a lecture. Presenting a photo said to have been taken in Romania in 2022 Obtained from government contact. He claimed it belonged to a giant “mother ship”, but it turned out to be a fake.
His response was to congratulate those who realized his mistake and to say that he is always happy to see false evidence removed from a serious UAP story.
Regardless, former U.S. officials should reconsider their blind allegiance to secrecy and consider whether there is really any benefit to complying with the government’s demands for silence. Their current reluctance to disclose information only further fuels the US government’s quest to obfuscate the democratic process.
If the witnesses’ claims are true, this knowledge should be shared with the world, not held by one country’s government.
battle of words
The question of whether we are alone in space or even here on Earth is not, by definition, a national security issue. This myopic view, currently held by domestic intelligence agencies, is not appropriate for future policy principles.
It is inevitable that at some point someone will have to make the drastic decision to release or publish confidential material to which they have access, and have to impose their name and risk the consequences.
In fact, the threat of legal consequences not only lends greater credibility to the whistleblower’s character, but also increases the credibility of their testimony. Why risk making confidential documents public unless you are 100% sure they are true?
Even if the truth becomes public, it is unlikely to have any real impact. Steals Jack Ryan’s line, “If a bomb goes off, there’s no use trying to defuse it.” A clear and present danger.
Until then, the meaningless show of unchecked hearsay testimony will continue to be repeated on the floor of Congress. It is better to ignore the protests of witnesses that no real information can be revealed and to actively prevent the spread of unverifiable claims than to remain in a perpetual state of limbo of alien gossip and innuendo. Probably.
Keeping their mouths shut will ultimately do great damage to the truth behind UAP.
read more:
For more fact-checked news, visit the BBC. confirm website of bit.ly/BBCVerify
Source: www.sciencefocus.com
