Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: From UFO Taboo to Uncanny Reality
Prospects for a New Governing Narrative
The seeming mystery of UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena, formerly unidentified aerial phenomena) is whether a mundane explanation, in terms of natural phenomena or human technology, exists for all reported sightings. The actual mysteries are otherwise. A good place to begin to understand the difference is with the first congressionally mandated report on UAPs [1] from the Director of National Intelligence [2, 3]. The report opened with a series of cautiously worded but startling admissions:
The report acknowledged that the relative paucity of incidents and data (144 incidents over 17 years from 2004 through 2021) was not due to inherent rarity but a combination of "sociocultural stigmas" and the absence of any "standardized reporting mechanism". In fact, the subsequent report, "2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena", published less than two years later but after efforts had been made to establish reporting mechanisms, identified 247 new UAP incidents, an increase of more than an order of magnitude on a unit time basis [4]. This report also identified 119 older incidents that the preliminary report missed, bringing the total to 510.
As to explanations, of the 366 incidents first identified in the 2022 Annual Report, nearly half (171) remained "uncharacterized and unattributed" after initial analysis. In particular, classified technology developments by U.S. entities, and adversary systems, were largely ruled-out [3, 4].
Despite the minimal information provided in the unclassified versions of these reports, they expose the first two actual mysteries:
Bureaucratic caution or inertia does not provide a satisfactory explanation. Were it only this, the Pentagon's behavior should have changed once Congress took responsibility for UAPs by mandating incident reporting, data collection and analysis, and reporting to Congress itself and the public. In demanding action from the Pentagon, Congress transferred most of the political risk of a concerted investigation of UAPs to itself. And the public is likely to be supportive. A slim majority think that military-reported UFOs are evidence of extraterrestrial life [7], a remarkable one in four say they've personally seen a UFO [9], and when asked "does the U.S. government know more about UFOs than it is telling us?", over two-thirds said "Yes" [8]. The public wants more openness and information.
And yet the Pentagon's response to Congress has bred growing frustration rooted in accusations of excessive classification and stonewalling. Classification prevents many congresspeople involved with the UAP issue from getting vital information. Listen, for example, to representative Paulina Luna at the start of the recent House hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena:
We'll hear from people who have had personal sightings rather than Pentagon bureaucrats who have always been sent to stonewall investigations. Just so that the press knows and the people know, we were even denied access to a classified briefing in a SCIF [secure facility] prior to this hearing due the amount of hoops that we had to jump through to grant temporary clearance to witness Grusch who has knowledge of classified information [10, listen].
Classification also impedes communications by the so-called Gang of Eight, and the members of the two intelligence committees, with other members of Congress [11]. Until the House UAP hearing, leadership of efforts to compel greater disclosure came largely from senators on the Intelligence Committee or the Gang of Eight, chiefly Senators Rubio, Gillibrand and, more recently, Schumer. These efforts stretched back to 2020, when Senator Rubio led efforts by the Senate Intelligence Committee to improve UAP data collection, analysis, and reporting. Under the heading "Advanced Aerial Threats", the Committee expressed its concern "that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat" [12]. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 included a requirement that the Director of National Intelligence submit an unclassified report on unidentified aerial phenomena (though it was permitted to have a classified annex) [3, 13].
Growing conflict between Congress and the Pentagon, along with hints of discord over UAP policy within the Pentagon and among scientists, all point to the possibility that a new governing narrative is emerging. Narrative is integral to governance. Narratives define the setting or context of governance and policies; identify and delineate characters, both individual and institutional (heroes, villains, victims, experts, witnesses, and others); have a plot that orients events in time and interrelates characters; and invoke or imply values that enable good and effective or corrupt and ineffective governance [46, 47]. The articulation of narratives in politics always occurs with respect to an existing lived context shaped in extant narratives. Narratives are not arbitrary constructions. A source of jeopardy for any narrative in governance is dissatisfaction with its treatment of data and experience. For the long dominant UFO taboo narrative in particular, Philip K. Dick's epigram, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away", may prove an apt warning [50].
A narrative is governing when it explains and legitimizes existing forms of authority, both institutional and epistemic [48]. Governing narratives are symbiotically related to the institutions and other actors whose authority they define and legitimize. Narratives that would alter, reform, or transform a governing narrative articulate an altered or new configuration of actors and roles. Those it invests with authority and legitimacy become, at least prospectively, its advocates, evangelists, and defenders.
This article examines the July House hearing as an inflection point in a larger conflict over UAP policy and narrative articulation. The hearing was a highly visible public stage for new actors and new commitments regarding UAPs. It intensified the conflict and has engaged the media and the scientific community in rethinking their views on UAPs. The major sections below examine the hearing's themes in detail and with extensive excerpts, then review the long dominant UFO taboo narrative and delineate the principal features of the new narrative that is emerging. Along the way, I consider the possibility of a rogue special access retrieval program in the context of the Cold War.
Outline
July 2023: The House Hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena as Inflection Point
A New Narrative
The Actual Mysteries
July 2023: The House Hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena as Inflection Point
In a two and a half hour hearing on July 26th, the House Oversight subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs heard testimony from three military and intelligence agency witnesses about UAP incidents and secret investigatory programs.
This was the first hearing in over half a century that heard from highly credible witnesses concerning UAP incidents and government UAP investigations. Ryan Graves is a former F-18 pilot with over a decade of service in the U.S. Navy, including two deployments in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve. He testified not only about a UAP encounter by his squadron that was "tracked on multiple sensors [and] behaved in ways that surpassed our understanding and technology", but about the broader reality that UAP sightings were "a common occurrence" among his aircrew [16]. David Fravor is a retired Commander in the U.S Navy and a graduate of the Navy's famous Top Gun school with 18 years' experience as a pilot. In November 2004 he was the Commanding Officer of Strike Fighter Squadron Forty-One. During a training flight off the coast of San Diego, two F/A-18Fs, one piloted by Fravor, had an extended encounter with a UAP that was documented on multiple aircraft and shipboard sensors as well as visually by the crews [17, 18]. Many years later, the Navy declassified a video showing the UAP [25].
The third witness was David Grusch. Grusch was an intelligence officer for 14 years and retired earlier this year at the rank of colonel. He worked at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) as the co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans-medium object analysis, as well as reporting to the UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). On the UAPTF he was tasked with identifying all Special Access Programs and Controlled Access Programs (SAPs/CAPs) related to UAPs. Grusch was also attached to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on the director's briefing staff, which included coordination of the Presidential Daily Brief. Grusch filed a whistleblower claim with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleging that the U.S. federal government maintains a highly secretive UFO retrieval program and possesses multiple spacecraft of non-human origin as well as corpses of deceased pilots. He also claimed that there is "'substantive evidence that white-collar crime' took place to conceal UFO programs" [19, 20].
As the excerpts below show, every congressperson took the question of UAPs seriously and treated the witnesses respectfully as sources of information and perspective. The contrast with the hyperpolarization often seen in Congress was so great as to be disorienting. Representative Garcia's closing comments speak to both the unusual bipartisanship and to a shared recognition of the momentousness of the issue: "this is by far the most bipartisan conversation and discussion that I have seen happen in the Congress, and I think that a topic of this significance as it relates to our national security, as it relates to information that we're trying to gather for the American public, does bring people together, and I think that's been really great to see. I think it's also important to note for the public, we today in our hearing had on our side both our full ranking member, Mr. Raskin, and our vice ranking member, Miss Ocasio-Cortez. I think it shows the importance and seriousness that our side of the aisle is taking to this important hearing but also the broader issue as it relates to working with our Republican counterparts on this committee" [10, listen]. Similarly, Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), arguably the most engaged House Republican on UAPs, started by reminding everyone that this was a "nonpartisan issue" [10, listen].
In the sections below I use excerpts to illustrate key points from the hearing. Topics were often revisited by multiple congresspeople, hence the excerpts are snippets from different points in the hearing. Some excerpts were lightly edited for clarity. Congresspersons are identified by last name. Full names, party affiliations, and additional information is available from the subcommittee's official page. A few members of the parent Oversight and Accountability Committee also participated.
UAP encounters
The UAP encounters described by Graves and Fravor are notable for coordinated detection and tracking across multiple sensor systems along with visual identification by multiple pilots. Fravor, in addition, mentioned the sophisticated radar jamming that the crew of a pursuit jet experienced. It is extended multi-sensor recognition combined with visual identification that makes both pilots confident that they encountered real craft exhibiting unprecedented and highly advanced flight behaviors. Their experience is amplified by numerous encounters of other military pilots known to them, to the extent that Graves testified that UAP awareness became part of the pre-flight briefing of new pilots. And commercial pilots report similar experiences though with fewer available sensors.
By Ryan Graves's squadron
Graves described how, in 2014 "I was an F-18 foxtrot pilot in the Navy fighter attack Squadron 11, the Red Rippers, and I was stationed at NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach. After upgrades were made to our jets' radar systems, we began detecting unknown objects operating in our airspace. At first, we assumed they were radar errors but soon we began to correlate the radar tracks with multiple onboard sensors including infrared systems and eventually through Visual ID. During a training mission in Warning Area W-72 10 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach two F-18 Super Hornets were split by UAP. The object described as a dark gray or a black cube inside of a clear sphere came within 50 feet of the lead aircraft and was estimated to be 5 to 15 feet in diameter. The mission commander terminated the flight immediately and returned to base. Our squadron submitted a safety report but there was no official acknowledgment of the incident and no further mechanism to report the sightings. Soon these encounters became so frequent that aircrew would discuss the risk of UAP as part of their regular preflight briefs" [16, 49].
By David Fravor's squadron
In November 2004, Fravor was commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron Forty-One. In the middle of a training period, and during a training exercise "being controlled by the USS Princeton", training was abruptly "suspended for real world tasking" by the Princeton due to aerial objects detected in the training area. Fravor explained that "the air controller on the ship … had been observing these objects on their Aegis combat system for the previous 2 weeks. They had been descending from above 80,000 ft and coming rapidly down to 20,000ft [where they] would stay for hours and then go straight back up. When we arrived at the location at 20,000ft, the controller called Merge Plot, which means that our radar blip was now in the same radar resolution cell as the contact."
"As we looked around, we noticed some white water off our right side. The weather on the day of the incident was as close to a perfect day as you could ask, clear skies, light winds, calm seas (no whitecaps from the waves) so the white water stood out in the large blue ocean. As all 4 looked down [the jets were two-seaters] we saw a small white Tic Tac shaped object with the longitudinal axis pointing N/S and moving very abruptly over the white water. There were no rotors, no rotor wash, or any visible flight control surfaces like wings. As we started a clockwise turn to observe the object, my WSO [weapons system officer] and I decided to go down to get closer and the other aircraft stayed in high cover to observe both us and the tic tac. We proceeded around the circle about 90 degrees from the start of our descent and the object suddenly shifted it longitudinal axis, aligned it with my aircraft and began to climb in a clockwise climbing turn. We continued down for another 270 degrees when we made a nose low move to head to where the Tic Tac would be when we pulled nose onto the object. Our altitude at this point was approximately 15,000ft with the Tic Tac at about 12,000ft."
"As we pulled nose onto the object at approximately half of a mile with the object just left of our nose, it rapidly accelerated and disappeared right in front of our aircraft. Our wingman, roughly 8,000ft above us, also lost visual. We immediately turned to investigate the white water only to find that it was also gone. As we turned back towards our CAP [Combat Air Patrol] point, roughly 60 miles east, the air controller let us know that the object had reappeared on the Princeton’s Aegis SPY 1 radar at our CAP point. This Tic Tac Object had just traveled 60 miles in a very short period of time (less than a minute) …"
"We returned to Nimitz and mentioned what we had witnessed to one of my crews who were getting ready to launch. It was that crew that took the now famous approximately 90 second video that was released by the USG in 2017. What is not seen is the radar tape that showed the jamming of the APG-73 radar in the aircraft, but we do see on the targeting pod video that the object does not emit any IR (infrared) plume from a normal propulsion system that we would expect" [17, 49].
In addition, during his testimony Fravor, elaborated on the extent of sensor detection:
Langworthy: Did this object come up on radar or interfere with your radar or the USS Princeton?
Fravor: The Princeton tracked it, the Nimitz tracked it, the E2 tracked it. We never saw it on our radars, our fire control radar never picked it up. The other airplane that took the video did get it on a radar. As soon as it tried to lock it, it jammed the radar, spit the lock and he rapidly switched over to the targeting pod which you can do in the F-18 [10, listen].
Numerous Military and Commercial Sightings
The excerpts below show that military sightings are common, not only on the eastern seaboard -- where Graves has connections with many pilots -- but in virtually all areas where there are Naval operations. And there is evidence of a similar pattern among commercial pilots. As discussed in the next section, very few sightings are reported, though that is beginning to change.
Some sightings include high quality visual identification, including one with 50 feet. In these cases, most reports described a dark gray or black cube inside of a clear sphere where the apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere.
Garcia: Mr. Graves, you mentioned that you're working with 30 pilots right now that have had encounters with UAPs but you've also I believe know of many more pilots than just those that you're currently working with. Is that correct?
Graves: I'll break that down in two ways. First, when we were first experiencing these objects off the Eastern Seaboard in the 2014 to 2015 time period, anyone that had upgraded their radar systems were seeing these objects so there was a large number of my colleagues that were detecting these objects off the Eastern Seaboard. They were further correlating that information with the other onboard centers and many of them also had their own eye sightings as well of these objects. Now that was our personal first firsthand experience at the time.
Since then as I've engaged this topic, others have reached out to me that share their experiences both on the military side as well as a commercial aviation side. On the military aviation side veterans that have recently got out have shared their stories and have expressed how the objects we were seeing in 2014-2015 continued all the way to 2019-2020 and beyond and so it became a generational issue for naval aviators on the eastern seaboard. This was something we are briefing to new students, this is something that was included in the notice to airmen to ensure that there were no accidents, and now with commercial aviators they are reaching out because they're having somewhat similar experiences as our military brothers and sisters, but they do not have any reporting system that they can send this to [10, listen].
Raskin: Are there common characteristics to the UAPs that have been cited by different pilots and can you describe what the convergence of descriptions is?
Graves: We were primarily seeing dark gray or black cubes inside of a clear sphere where the apex or tips of the cube were touching the inside of that sphere and that was primarily what was being reported when we were able to gain a visual tally of these objects and that occurred over almost eight years and as far as I know it's still occurring [10, listen].
Raskin: Is it just on the East Coast where these encounters have been reported?
Graves: No. Since the events initially occurred I've learned that the objects have been detected essentially where all Navy operations are being conducted across the world, and that's from the all-domain anomaly resolutions office reporting [10, listen].
Raskin: What is the most vivid concrete sighting with the naked eye of the objects that you described before, the cube-like objects?
Graves: I think the most vivid sighting of that would have been a near mid-air that we had at the entrance to our working area. One of these objects was completely stationary at the exact entrance to our working areas not only geographically but also at altitude, so it was right where all the jets are going essentially on the Eastern Seaboard. The two aircraft flew within about 50 feet of the object and that was a very close visual sighting.
Raskin: And you were in one of the aircraft?
Graves: I was not. I was there when the pilot landed. He canceled the mission after and I was there. He was in the ready room with all his gear on with his mouth open and I asked him what the problem was, and he said he almost hit one of those darn things.
Raskin: He said he was 50 feet away from it?
Graves: Yes sir.
Raskin: And his description of the object was consistent with the description you gave us before, a dark gray or a black cube inside of a clear sphere?
Graves: Yes.
Raskin: And with no self-evident propulsion system?
Graves: No wings, no IR energy coming off of the vehicle, nothing tethering it to the ground. And that was that was primarily what we're experiencing out there [10, listen].
Burchett: Mr. Fravor, do you believe that you witnessed an additional object under the water in relation to your encounter?
Fravor: I will say we did not see an object. There was something there to cause the white water and when we turned around it was gone so there was something there that obviously moved.
Burchett: In another instance we're told about the capabilities of jamming. When there were some people chasing some of these objects did you experience any of that jamming or interrupting your radar or weapon system?
Fravor: My crew that launched after we landed experienced significant jamming to the APG-73 radar which was what we had on board which is a mechanically scanned very high-end system prior to the APG-79. And yes, it did pretty much everything you could do, range, velocity, aspect and then it hit the lock and the targeting pod is passive that's what we were able to get the video on [10, listen].
The UAP encounters, along with the claimed craft retrieval program discussed below, expose a third mystery:
Remedying the lack of reporting protocols and systems
The termination of Project Blue Book by the Air Force in 1969 ended any visible effort to investigate UFO phenomena, though classified investigations of UFO events that might "affect national security" may have continued [28]. Stigma and threats of professional repercussions discouraged reporting. This repressive system only began to change when, in response to a congressional mandate, the Navy established a standardized UAP reporting mechanism in March 2019 that the Air Force subsequently adopted in November 2020 [2].
The current reporting system has serious deficiencies within the government and is non-existent outside it. The witnesses recommended major improvements, creating a system that is:
To improve the quality of a UAP reporting system, each interface should have education and training components tailored to its users so that witnesses understand when to report and what information increases a report's value.
A robust UAP reporting system would enable effective scientific research and could begin to answer fundamental questions about UAPs.
Grothman: Are pilots adequately trained and briefed on how to handle encounters with UAPs?
Graves: No. Right now, military witnesses to UAP have limited options for reporting UAP, but more concerning is that the commercial aviation sector has not adapted to the lessons that the military has implemented. The military and Department of Defense has stated that UAP represent a critical aviation safety risk. We have not seen that same language being used in the commercial markets. We need a system where pilots can report without fear of losing their jobs. There is a fear that the stigma associated with this topic is going to lead to professional repercussions either through management or perhaps through their yearly physical check [10, listen].
Garcia: Would you agree that [not having this reporting system] is harmful to not just our national security interests but to understand this phenomenon of what's happening with UAPs?
Fravor: I think it's actually a travesty that we don't have a system to correlate this and actually investigate. If you took the East Coast, you know there's coastal radars out there that monitor our air defense identification zone out to 200 miles. They can track these you know, so when you see them, they could actually go and pull that data and get maneuvering, and instead of just having the airplanes there's other data sources out there.
You need a centrally located repository that these reports go to. If you just stuck it in DoD you wouldn't get anything out of the intelligence committee because they have a tendency not to talk, but if you had a central location where these reports would come in not just military but also commercial aviation because there's a lot of that going on especially if you talk to anyone that flies from here to Hawaii over the Pacific they see odd lights, so I think you need to develop something that allows you a central point to collect the data in order to investigate [10, listen].
Garcia: I think one of the clear outcomes of this hearing already is that there has to be a safe and transparent reporting process for pilots both on the commercial side and the military side to be able to report UAPs in a way that's also transparent but also understands the scope of our of our national security interests.
Garcia: What kind of process could be in place for civilians who are not pilots who may have UAP encounters do either of you have any suggestions that could facilitate that.
Graves: My recommendations would be to make that a sensor-centric operation in order to make it as objective as possible [10, listen].
Luna: What happens at the end of that video [publicly released in 2017] just for those Americans that are wanting to know about the rest of that footage?
Graves: Certainly, there was some uncertainty or instability with the object it seemed to rock a bit and that's the last I had seen of the video. Much of the data that I would recommend be analyzed would consist of radar data that would provide precise kinematics on the object as well as the fleet of objects that were operating nearby [10, listen].
Frost: Mr. Graves how might NASA's research influence the commercial industry regarding safety and UAP?
Graves: I think NASA has a big role to play as far as commercial aviation safety and it's one of their original charges as an organization. One of the recommendations that have been put forward is to utilize their existing aviation safety reporting system to serve as a short-term fill and trusted platform for pilots that want to report on UAP it also has built-in analytics capability and is funded by Congress [10, listen].
Ocasio-Cortez: And in your experience what data should the AARO program prioritize for potential collection? We have you know location date, time, but are there other specific activity characteristics that should be included in these reports?
Graves: I think that there's two categories that would be important. One would be kinematics and understanding the specifics of how the vehicle or objects are moving, and the second would be a more zoomed out approach of being able to look at origin and destination after and before the incident as well as getting a better contextual understanding of how these objects are interact with each other [10, listen].
Biggs: What steps can Congress take to address training range impacts?
Graves: Some of the initial procedures have been implemented, such as within the United States Navy that have a range value report that gathers information from pilots. I understand that a service-wide reporting mechanism is still pending, however that would be a great next step not only for gathering information but for showing the troops that it is an acceptable topic and reducing the stigma.
Grusch: As a recipient of a lot of those training range reports sometimes we only get contextual, kind of oral reporting. It'd be nice if they attached all the sensor data and there's a system in place that can handle multiple classifications of data [10, listen].
Mace: I have a few questions for Mr. Graves. What percentage of UAP sightings in your belief go unreported by our pilots?
Graves: This is an approximation based off of my personal experience speaking with a number of pilots, but I would estimate we're somewhere near five percent reporting.
Mace: So, like 95 percent basically don't report seeing UAPs?
Graves: That's just my personal estimate [10, listen].
UAP craft retrievals and non-human 'biologics'
David Grusch had very high level security clearances and, while serving on the UAPTF, was tasked with identifying all Special Access Programs and Controlled Access Programs (SAPs/CAPs) related to UAPs. His investigation led him to identify a program responsible for safeguarding and researching recovered NHI (non-human intelligence) craft and non-human biologics with the major aim of reverse engineering the technology. There are two distinct dimensions to this: the extraordinary claim that the Pentagon is in possession of NHI material, and the assertion that it has kept the existence of this program secret from Congress for decades.
The existence of a craft retrieval program that has remained secret for nearly 90 years [51, 52] seems incredible, and in other circumstances would be dismissed out of hand, especially without compelling physical evidence. There are several reasons why Grusch's claims were given a hearing:
In these circumstances, and just as with the testimony of Graves and Fravor, the House hearing served to publicize and amplify information the committee had already concluded was credible and important. Of course, there were clear differences among members in their familiarity with UAPs, and some were undoubtedly shocked by what they heard [63].
Garcia: Mr. Grusch, do you believe that our government is in possession of UAPs?
Grusch: Absolutely. Based on interviewing over 40 witnesses over four years.
Garcia: And where?
Grusch: I know the exact locations and those locations were provided to the Inspector General and some to the intelligence committees. I actually had the people with the first-hand knowledge provide a protected disclosure to the Inspector General [10, listen].
Burchett: Mr. Grusch, has the U.S. government become aware of actual evidence of extraterrestrial or otherwise unexplained forms of intelligence, and if so when do you think this first occurred?
Grusch: I like to use the term non-human I don't like to denote origin; keeps the aperture open scientifically. Like I've discussed publicly previously, 1930s.
Burchett: Can you give me the names and titles of the people with direct first-hand knowledge and access to some of this crash retrieval some of these crash retrieval programs and maybe which facilities, military bases, that the recovered material would be in.
Grusch: I can't discuss that publicly, but I did provide that information both to the Intel committees and the Inspector General.
Burchett: We could get that if we were allowed to get in a SCIF [secure facility] with you. … What special access programs cover this information and how is it possible that they have evaded oversight for so long?
Grusch: I do know the names once again I can't discuss that publicly and how they've evaded oversight. In a closed setting I can tell you the specific tradecraft used.
Burchett: Which private corporations are directly involved in this program? How much taxpayer money has been invested in these programs to your knowledge?
Grusch: The specific corporations I did provide to the [Intelligence] Committees in specific divisions. I spent 11 and a half hours at both Intel committees [10, listen].
Mace: If you believe we have crashed craft as stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?
Grusch: As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries.
Mace: Were they non-human biologics?
Grusch: Non-human. And that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program.
Mace: And was this documentary references, video, photos, eyewitness like how would that be determined?
Grusch: The specific documentation I would have to talk to you in a SCIF about.
Mace: Who in the government, either what agency or sub-agency, what contractors, who should be called into the next hearing about UAPs, either in a public setting or even in a private setting. And you probably can't name names but what agencies or organizations, contractors, etc. do we need to call in to get these questions answered, whether it's about funding, what programs are happening, and what's out there?
Grusch: I can give you a specific cooperative and hostile witness list of specific individuals that were in those.
Mace: And how soon can we get that list?
Grusch: I'm happy to provide that to you after the hearing [10, listen].
Burchett: Are you aware of any individuals that are participating in reverse engineering programs for non-terrestrial craft personally?
Grusch: Yes.
Burchett: Do you know any that would be willing to testify if there were protections for them?
Grusch: Certainly. Closed door and assurances that breaking their NDA they're not going to get administratively punished for doing so [10, listen].
Ocasio-Cortez: If you were me where would you look? Titles, programs, departments, regions, if you could just name anything. Grusch: I'd be happy to give you that in a closed environment. I can tell you specifically [10, listen].
The craft retrieval claim introduces a fourth mystery:
Ongoing efforts to minimize and coverup UAP evidence
The House Oversight subcommittee was unable to gain approval for a classified hearing with David Grusch. Severe limitations on what Grusch could share publicly were apparent throughout his testimony. And there were numerous other examples of a concerted effort to prevent disclosure and misrepresent the state of knowledge and information about UAPs. This included:
Burchett: Mr. Grusch, have you faced any retaliation or reprisals for any of your testimony or anything on these lines?
Grusch: Yes. I have to be careful what I say in detail because there is an open whistleblower reprisal investigation on my behalf and I don't want to compromise that investigation by providing anything that may help provide somebody information, but it was very brutal and very unfortunate some of the tactics they used to hurt me both professionally and personally.
Burchett: Do you have any personal knowledge of people who've been harmed or injured in efforts to cover up or conceal these extraterrestrial technology?
Grusch: Yes, personally.
Burchett: Have you heard anyone been murdered that you would think that you know of or have heard of?
Grusch: I guess I have to be careful asking that question. I directed people with that knowledge to the appropriate authorities [10, listen].
Luna: Mr. Grusch, in the last couple of years have you had incidents that have caused you to be in fear for your life for addressing these issues?
Grusch: Yes, personally [10, listen]
Luna: on the 19th of April Dr. Kirkpatrick, head of AARO, had said that he did not find any evidence of UAPs. You also stated that you had briefed him on information that you are uncovering but that he did not follow up with you. Were the items that you divulged to him pertinent to national security?
Grusch: Yes. He and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July of 2022, and I provided him some concerns I had [10, listen].
Foxx: Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick , the director of AARO, previously testified before Congress that there has been and I quote "no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of off-world technology brought to the attention of the office". To your knowledge is that statement correct?
Grusch: It's not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to AARO thus far. A few of those individuals I also interviewed and I know what they provided Dr. Kirkpatrick. I was able to evaluate that information [10, listen].
Luna: With the FAA, to your understanding pilots that are seeing this, commercial airline pilots, are they receiving cease and desist letters from corporations for coming forward with information in regards to safety for potential airline passengers?
Graves: I have been made privy to conversations with commercial aviators who have received cease and desist orders.
Luna: So the American public should know that corporations are putting their own reputations ahead of the safety of the American people. Would you agree with that statement?
Graves: It appears so [10, listen].
Moskowitz: We have satellites all over the place, some that we're aware of and many that we're not aware of, right? We're taking pictures of everything at every point and second. Mr. Grusch are you aware, do you have direct knowledge or have you talked to people direct knowledge, that there is satellite imagery of these events?
Grusch: That was one of my primary tasks at NGA [National Geospatial Intelligence Agency] since we process, exploit, and disseminate that kind of information. I've seen multiple cases … [that] I personally reviewed, both what we call overhead collection and from other strategic and tactical platforms that I could not even explain prosaically -- and I have a degree in physics by the way as well -- and I'm aware that you guys have not seen these reports unfortunately and I don't know why [10,listen].
Gaetz: Several months ago my office received a protected disclosure from Eglin Air Force Base indicating that there was a UAP incident that required my attention. I sought a briefing regarding that episode and brought with me congressman Burchett and congresswoman Luna. We asked to see any of the evidence that had been taken by flight crew in this endeavor and to observe any radar signature, as well as to meet with the flight crew. We were not afforded access to all of the flight crew, and initially we were not afforded access to images and to radar.
Thereafter we had a bit of a discussion about how authorities flow in the United States of America and we did see the image and we did meet with one member of the flight crew who took the image. The image was of something that I am not able to attach to any human capability either from the United States or from any of our adversaries, and I'm somewhat informed on the matter having served on the Armed Services Committee for seven years, having served on the committee that oversees DARPA and advanced technologies for several years.
When we spoke with the flight crew [member], and when he showed us the photo that he'd taken, I asked why the video wasn't engaged, why he didn't have a FLIR system that worked. Here's what he said: they were out on a test mission that day over the Gulf of Mexico and when you're on a test mission you're supposed to have clear air space, there's not supposed to be anything that shows up. And they saw a sequence of four craft in a clear diamond formation for which there is a radar sequence that I and I alone have observed in the United States Congress.
One of the pilots goes to check out that diamond formation and sees a large floating what I can only describe as an orb again like I said not of any human capability that I'm that I'm aware of, and when he approached, he said that his radar went down he said that his FLIR system [Forward-looking infrared] malfunctioned and that he had to manually take this image from one of the lenses and it was not automated in collection as you would typically see in a test mission [10, listen].
A New Narrative
The Cold War Taboo
The governing narrative about UFOs was articulated in the 1950s and 1960s under Cold War conditions. There is substantial evidence that the CIA and some members of the senior military leadership were preoccupied with two potential threats posed by UFO incidents. First, that the "credulity" of the American public might be exploited by the Soviet Union to induce "mass hysteria and panic". Second, and more important, that a constant stream of UFO sighting reports could, at a critical moment, confuse the U.S. nuclear attack warning system, which depended "upon a combination of radar scanning and visual observation" [26, 27]. In contrast, they may have believed, as the contemporaneous Robertson Panel put it, that there was "no evidence of a direct threat to national security in the [UFO] objects sighted" [26]. The Robertson Panel, a committee of prestigious scientists, was convened in January 1953 to assess UFO reports. Whether due to direct pressure, convergent beliefs, or some combination of these, the committee supported and extended the CIA's conclusions that the potential for psychological warfare and overloading of air defense systems were the real threats, and all UFO sightings must ultimately have mundane explanations. Their final recommendations set in motion a process for articulating and institutionally securing a governing narrative. In particular, the Panel recommended:
This led to a framework that included:
As Wendt and Duvall note, this institutional framework and the governing narrative it sustained functioned as a taboo. By fiat, the extraterrestrial hypothesis was rejected, which meant that data collection and study were not warranted, and anyone suggesting otherwise was a fantasist or, worse, a subversive. Nor were UFO incidents to be considered newsworthy except as examples of human gullibility [29, 30].
This approach was more effective than any secrecy mandate could have been, because it delegitimized leaks that occurred as the concoctions of grifters or rantings of the mentally disordered. Not only that, but for the most part, claims would not be considered scientifically or investigated by reputable media.
Cold War secrecy and the possibility of a rogue Special Access Program
The Soviet Union was a critical ally during World War II, and the model of post-war power relations crafted during the war envisioned normal, if not amicable, relations with it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Four Policemen" called for the expected victors -- the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and China -- to be responsible for keeping order within their spheres of influence [34]. It was a pragmatic recognition of the changed contours of global power and of the need to focus on massive rebuilding after the war's destruction. Yet as the historian Martin Sherwin has shown, Roosevelt kept in reserve a second, preferred alternative that was contingent on successful development of the atomic bomb. To keep post-war foreign policy options open, Roosevelt "consistently chose policy alternatives that would promote [the bomb's] postwar diplomatic value if the predictions of the scientists proved true" [32]. As another historian has noted, American leaders gambled "on the baseless hope that the Russians would be incapable of acquiring a bomb through their own efforts (every knowledgeable scientist denied this) and would therefore be benignly subservient at every point where their interests clashed with the United States" [33]. The successful test of the atomic bomb at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945 set in motion, under Truman, this plan for a more aggressive foreign policy.
The ideological underpinnings of the Cold War were articulated in 1946 in Churchill's "iron curtain" speech and the diplomat George Kennan's "Long Telegram" [35, 36]. Once it became apparent that there was substantial elite and popular support for anti-Sovietism, American policy was swiftly reorganized [37]. Three years later the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, ending the dream of unbridled American hegemony and ushering in the reality of "mutually assured destruction" that we still live with. Conservative anger that this was the result of Soviet espionage abetted by internal subversion led to McCarthyism, or the second Red Scare [38].
In this climate of profound internal suspicion, compounded by the shock and bitterness some felt at the loss of both the atomic monopoly and of China to the communists in 1949, imagine that a unit within the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency becomes aware of a downed alien craft. Initially, perhaps, they are concerned about a Soviet technological breakthrough. More likely, they are aware of existing sensor and visual evidence of UFOs exhibiting technological capabilities far beyond human ones. Recovering such a craft would be a godsend, potential compensation for the loss of the atomic secret. Those involved might be willing to resort to extraordinary and illicit means to protect this secret more effectively than the atomic one was. The minimal requirements would probably be an executive sponsor and creation of a rogue SAP. The establishment of the Cold War UFO taboo would have doubly aided this. First, it would amount to a gigantic disinformation campaign suggesting to adversaries that the U.S. was dismissive of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, thus providing cover to a recovered craft program while discouraging adversaries from doing their own investigations. Second, as already discussed, it could be used to convince media and the public that leaks were sheer fantasy. The durability and viability of this stratagem would ultimately have depended on the ideology and institutional framework of the Cold War, in the sense that the really dangerous leaks -- those occurring within the upper echelons of the military, intelligence, and political systems -- might have been managed by appealing to patriotism and a sense of duty.
Recent events make such speculation necessary. Grusch's claim of recovered craft has sufficient credibility in Congress to motivate legislation demanding disclosure. As Senator Rubio put it in a recent interview, either whistleblower claims are partially or entirely true, or there are “some really smart educated people with high clearances and very important positions in our government who are crazy and are leading us on a goose chase" [39].
The new narrative
Congressional actions and proposed legislation on UAPs will, if successful, reconfigure institutional engagement and control. They will restore policy initiative to Congress and make the scientific study of UAPs legitimate and feasible. In addition to demands for disclosure and accountability, establishment of reporting and data collection procedures, and an end to the stigmatization of sightings, this reconfiguration depends essentially on accepting the validity -- and thus real possibility -- of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, or what is now better referred to as the non-human intelligence (NHI) hypothesis. Why? Because this reconfiguration and the narrative that justifies and supports it rests on the premises that there are real, observable, trackable objects and we don't know what they are. The weight of evidence from the best documented sightings, such as those described by Graves and Fravor, indicates that they are technological objects under intelligent control. Fundamentally, though, we don't know, and we must rely on science and monitor our environment to generate the vast amounts of data scientists need to advance UAP knowledge.
The fundamental premise of the new narrative is that UAP sightings should be taken seriously and warrant scientific study. This contrasts with justifications given for the UFO taboo, such as "We are alone", "They can't get here", "They would land on the White House lawn", and "We would know if they were here." As Wendt and Duvall succinctly put it, these categorical assertions "ultimately rely on unproven assumptions rather than established scientific facts" [29]. Yudkowsky's recent reframing of this perspective shows that the new narrative will have to overcome the taboo's anchoring biases to gain ground. He asserts that
These claims of rational certainty combine anthropocentric flattery with psychological reassurance about the unknown. But we don't know. However vast interstellar space, if the NHI hypothesis is correct, we don't know how they got here. Yudkowsky's other objections can be similarly addressed:
The new narrative not only favors greater openness consonant with scientific study but also global cooperation, because UAPs are a global phenomenon. The new narrative positions UAPs within larger questions about the place of humanity, and of life on Earth, in a cosmos likely rich in life and potentially inhabited by other intelligent and technologically advanced lifeforms. A recent Pew Research survey found that two-thirds of Americans, and three-quarters of younger Americans, believe that there's intelligent life elsewhere (I could not find any global surveys of attitudes about extraterrestrial intelligence) [7].
In the new narrative, government and the scientific community accept responsibility for key roles in preparing -- insofar as preparation is possible -- for the anthropological shock of encountering alien intelligence. If this happens through UAP, it could be soon and highly disruptive, not necessarily because it "would mean the alien civilisation has access to technology far beyond what we're capable of" [43], but because, as depicted in Arrival [45], it might make real-time communication possible and have profound, virtually immediate impacts on social life, politics, and science. If not, it may be a more distant possibility. Given the potential impacts and great uncertainty, it is worthwhile to adopt a narrative that facilitates and enables knowledge acquisition and preparation.
The Actual Mysteries
The prospects for the new narrative becoming dominant, and the specific form it takes if it does, will depend on how the mysteries identified above are resolved politically and epistemically:
References
Appendix 1. Persons Vouching for David Grusch or the craft retrieval claim
In May of 2022 David Grusch submitted a whistleblower complaint to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community alleging that he had "communicated classified information about the improper withholding and/or concealment of classified material from
the US Congress by certain IC [Intelligence Community] elements. Mr. Grusch believes that his identity and the fact of his UAP-related communication(s) with the DoD IG have been disclosed to individuals and/ or entities outside the DoD IG, and that he has suffered retaliation and reprisal(s) related thereto" [58]. The Inspector General "found Mr. Grusch’s assertion that information was inappropriately concealed from Congress to be urgent and credible" [59]. Of note, Grusch's lead attorney was Charles McCullough, III, the first Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, in their seminal report on Grusch, cited the following people:
Senator Marco Rubio, vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made a series of startling statements, including that many people with "high clearances and very important positions" had made claims similar to Grusch's, that some claimed first-hand knowledge, and that they were fearful of losing their jobs, careers, and even their lives by coming forward [39].
Jim Shell, former Chief Scientist for the Air Force Space Command, vouched for Grusch's integrity and warned that "the DoD and IC [Intelligence Community] security apparatus is in trouble" [55].
2nd Generational Heir to Nikola Tesla, 1st to Drazen, World's leading authority on CTP Energy Science, C-domain Communication™, CTP (anti)gravitic & FTL propulsion. Architect of the Nth Industrial Revolution™
8moThe real #UFOs/#UAPs are #postquantum #CTPtech.
Sigma moving in silence tonight.
1yA UFO/UAP sighting in southern Minnesota https://youtu.be/QOaX_ssCyLI?feature=shared
On June 24, 1997, 26 years ago today, U.S. Air Force officials released a 231-page report dismissing long-standing claims of an alien spacecraft crash in Roswell, NM, almost exactly 50 years prior. To commemorate this event, we prepared a 20-question quiz about UFOs: https://mastersoftrivia.com/en/all-quizzes/history/eras-periods/modern-history/ufos/
✈ 20 Years Aircraft Technician Turned Online Coach Helping Busy Aviation Professionals Lose Weight & Get Healthy ✈ Rated 'Excellent' on TrustPilot ✈Message Me 'Take Off' & Receive Your Free Plan to Lose Your First 5kg ✈
1yWow, this report from the Director of National Intelligence is truly eye-opening! The fact that a majority of UAPs were registered across multiple sensors, along with the acknowledgment of unusual flight characteristics, raises many questions. It's fascinating to see the shift towards accountability and systematic monitoring in this field. I would love to connect and learn more about your research on this topic. Feel free to send me a connection request! #ufo #uap #uscongress #intelligencecommunity