Congress held its first hearings on UFOs / UAPs in over 50 years. There was some good (the hearing happened), some bad (witnesses did not sell the program), and some ugly (swamp gas returns).
[Update 2023-07-28: removed embedded YouTube video of hearing because it started displaying captchas]
The Good
The organization to collect and analyze the data exists and is funded by Congress.
A public hearing happened.
Virtually everyone made clear that significant progress has been made in destigmatizing the reporting of unusual phenomena.
A reporting process has been created and procedures established to preserve relevant data.
The witnesses, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security Ronald S. Moultrie and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott W. Bray, committed to transparency and declassifying as much data as possible as long as it does not jeopardize national security.
The Bad
Neither Moultrie nor Bray sold the program. From my experience, everyone is fighting to take your money away from you, so whether you lead a commercial company, a non-profit, or a government program, you always need to sell the value of your organization. Without selling it, the program could easily & quickly be defunded.
Bray simply had to lead with:
We already have a handful of incidents with good data from multiple sensors and witnesses of vehicle demonstrating remarkable performances that suggest breakthrough technologies.
That is, “What we are doing is very important.”
Bray should have then followed that with:
And we are currently building out the infrastructure to collect more a better data of future incidents and establishing teams of experts to analyze the data.
That is, “And this is what we are doing with your money.”
Moultrie and Bray did not demonstrate transparency or declassify any significant data or reports. Declassifying the longer versions of the FLIR, GIMBAL, and GO FAST videos would be a good start.
The committee did a bad job asking questions and not following up when the witnesses answered with evasive answers. For example, Rep Krishnamoorthi asked,
Have we come across any wreckage of any kind of object that has now been examined by you?
and Bray answers,
The UAP task force doesn’t have any wreckage that isn’t explainable, that isn’t consistent with being of terrestrial origin.
The UAP task force has existed for less than 2 years. It was established in August 2020. Virtually all purported reports of wreckage predate the UAPTF. Bray’s answer was a complete dodge.
The representative should have asked,
Has your organization looked into the possible existence of, or are you aware of, any wreckage or vehicles collected at any time by the government or organizations operating on behalf of the government that is not not consistent with known human technologies?
The Ugly
The swamp gas hypothesis returns.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup:
Well gas is physical… is a physical object. Well it can be, and so if you see where I’m going with this. I’m trying to determine what it is we’re looking at. So if we can decide if something is a solid or gas, and if there have been any conclusions on its capabilities.
There is interest in criminalizing UAP enthusiasts.
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL)
As we talk about, and I would say there’s a lot of what I would call amateur interest groups that are involved in the UAP field. My, my question is, when there are unsubstantiated claims or manufactured claims of UAPs, or kind of false information that’s put out there? What are the consequences for people that are involved with that, or groups that are involved with that?
...
So those, that misinformation, false narratives manufactured, so what are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us where people have been held accountable by this misinformation or disinformation?
[Text for the quotations are from The Debrief]