Congress Public Hearings About UFO

[Domzh]

Few things capture the public imagination quite like UFOs and sci-fi suggestions that aliens might be visiting our humble little planet. The US House Intelligence Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation Subcommittee will look to shed some light on UFOs -- more formally known as unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP -- with an open hearing on Tuesday, May 17.

Indiana Rep. Andre Carson will chair the hearing. "Congress hasn't held a public hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena (UFOs) in over 50 years," Carson tweeted on Tuesday. "That will change next week when I lead a hearing in House Intelligence on this topic and the national security risk it poses. Americans need to know more about these unexplained occurrences."

source: https://www.cnet.com/science/space/...in-50-years-how-to-watch/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa1e

What do you think will be openly discussed here?

Are you ready for a plethora of new conspiracy theories when "they" don't present an alcubierre drive and [aliens]?

Do you expect a lot of misleading, misinterpreted headlines from somewhat respectable news outlets?

For those who know about the US hearing process or the people involved, what do you think can we expect to happen and will all of it be openly discussed (as in a live stream)?

Can they talk about the classified UAP report as well or will there be a public and closed part of the hearing depending on the topic or questions?

 

[Mendel]

For those who know about the US hearing process or the people involved, what do you think can we expect to happen and will all of it be openly discussed (as in a live stream)?

Can they talk about the classified UAP report as well or will there be a public and closed part of the hearing depending on the topic or questions?

From your source:

Article:

The hearing will stream live starting at 7 a.m. PT on May 17. After the public portion airs, the subcommittee will hold a closed, classified briefing.

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray are scheduled to speak at the hearing.

Source: https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/congress-to-hold-first-public-hearing-on-ufos-in-50-years-how-to-watch/

Politico:

Article:

Testifying before the panel will be Ronald Moultrie, the Pentagon's top intelligence official, and Scott Bray, the deputy director of naval intelligence.

"The purpose of this hearing," Schiff added, "is to give the public an opportunity to hear directly from subject matter experts and leaders in the intelligence community on one of the greatest mysteries of our time, and to break the cycle of excessive secrecy and speculation with truth and transparency."

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/news/2022/05/10/congress-holding-ufo-hearing-00031367%3f_amp=true

 

[Mendel]

I expect there won't be any revelations, but enough "clues" to keep believers believing.

The experts will explain about the intelligence threat posed by unknown devices and known devices with unknown operators impinging on military training and operations.

Some members will push for funding for these investigations, and some will suggest the possibility of extraterrestrial threats (for which there will be a lack of evidence).

Article:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks announced that the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) would be the successor to the Navy's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force in a memo released on Tuesday [Nov 23, 2021].

AOIMSG will be administered by senior officials from the DoD and the intelligence community. The project will be overseen by an executive council comprised of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Ronald Moultrie, director of the Joint Staff Lieutenant General Andrew Poppas and officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/defense-department-forms-new-group-examine-threats-posed-ufos-1653436?amp=1

Moultrie will obviously speak on the aims of AOIMSG, and what it has done in the past 6 months since it was created.

Scott Bray is the Navy's UAP guy, he has briefed Congress on the UAP report last year. The upcoming public hearing is probably going to go over much of the same information as that briefing last year.

Article:

Last week, though, members of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee were briefed by Brennan McKernan, the director of the Pentagon's UAP task force, and Scott Bray, the deputy director of naval intelligence.

Sources familiar with the briefings said the officials walked through the steps the Pentagon is taking to try to identify the unexplained sightings and figure out their source or sources. Pentagon officials also used the briefings to highlight the potentially advanced nature of the technology being used.

"There have been questions about the sightings and whether they're natural phenomena, whether they're drones, whether they're weather balloons or vehicles from nation-states or non-state actors spying on our military or spying on U.S. citizens," said Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.), who chairs a key subpanel on the Intelligence Committee.

"It's always concerning when some of our foreign adversaries have a competitive technological edge over us," added Carson, who participated in the briefings.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/23/ufos-catch-congress-interest-lawmakers-495778

 

[Max Phalange]

The Pentagon press sec answered a question about the upcoming hearing.

 

[jarlrmai]

I wonder if it as at all possible that UFO enthusiasts create so much fuss in congress about Gimbal etc that the Navy actually addresses it with more specifics.

At this point any silence or lack of specificity is just "confirmation it's aliens" for them.

 

[Domzh]

The secret hearing afterwards will be the carte blanche for guys like Lou Elizondo and other grifters to keep making wild claims, hinting at the "secret alien discussions you dont know about".

even if they publicly state that they have zero evidence of aliens or retrieved ET technology, they will use this closed hearing as a way out "of course they have to say this publicly, to prevent a mass panic duh..!"

 

[Mendel]

The Pentagon press sec answered a question about the upcoming hearing.

Thanks for the heads-up, here's the transcript. (Btw, your clip missed the follow-up question.)

Article:

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing

MAY 10, 2022

Q: Thanks, John. Let's change the pace a little bit. Next week Congress is going to be holding the first hearing into UFOs in 50 years. There's going to be two people from the Pentagon testifying. Can you comment about that? But also, can you tell us any update on the Airborne Objects Identification and Management Synchronization Group, otherwise known as AOIMSG? Any update on what they're doing?

MR. KIRBY: I don't have an update for you on the UAP group that you're talking about. We're still working to sufficiently staff that organization and get them into a battle rhythm. But, I don't have any updates for you.

And I could not hear your first question.

Q: Yes, can you comment about, next week Congress is going to hold the first hearing in 50 years on UFOs, UAPs. I was wondering if you could just comment on that since two people from the U.S. military will be testifying there?

MR. KIRBY: Yes. No, look, we're looking forward to the upcoming opportunity here to engage members of Congress on this very important matter. I'm not going to get ahead of that testimony.

But, we are absolutely committed to being as transparent as we can with the American people and with members of Congress about our perspectives on this and what we're going to try to do to make sure we have a better process for identifying these phenomena, analyzing that information in a more proactive, coordinated way than it's been done in the past.

And that we also are doing what we need to do to mitigate any safety issues as many of these phenomena have been sighted in training ranges and in training environments. And so, we're very much concerned about safety of flight. So, we're looking forward to the opportunity to talk to Congress about this. I won't get ahead of the hearing, though.

Q: [...] How concerned is the Pentagon that these might be some kind of adversary, you know, objects from somebody like China or Russia, et cetera?

MR. KIRBY: I don't have -- we don't have a view on that, Howard. I mean, we're -- been enough of the sightings in terms of -- particularly in terms of training ranges -- that we do have, we think, legitimate safety of flight concerns here. But, the department hasn't come to a conclusion about what all these phenomena are, what they represent.

That's why we're putting this group together, so that we can do a better job of just collating the information. It's been sort of ad hoc in the past, in terms of a pilot here and a pilot there seeing something and the reporting procedures haven't been consistent. So, what we're trying to do with this group is get together a process here.

And I know process isn't very fun for you to report on and probably not very fun to talk about. But that's what we need. We need a better process. That's what this group is going to do for us.

Source: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3027227/pentagon-press-secretary-john-f-kirby-holds-a-press-briefing/

Upshoot: hearing's going to be "not very fun" to watch.

 

[jarlrmai]

The secret hearing afterwards will be the carte blanche for guys like Lou Elizondo and other grifters to keep making wild claims, hinting at the "secret alien discussions you dont know about".

even if they publicly state that they have zero evidence of aliens or retrieved ET technology, they will use this closed hearing as a way out "of course they have to say this publicly, to prevent a mass panic duh..!"

Yeah there's no gains to be made there with general statements, but I can't see specifics getting addressed. It creates a perfect situation where it the government appears to be confirming something is happening and the gaps, default secrecy and non specific language can be twisted.

And yet again a news item will be there on the TV with GIMBAL playing in the background and in the NYT with a GIMBAL screen grab.

 

[KilliK]

What do you think will be openly discussed here?

at best, they will repeat what the UAPTF report already said, which is something strange is out there, needs more investigation.
at worst, they will claim it's a nothingburger and will bury the topic again.

 

[Ann K]

at best, they will repeat what the UAPTF report already said, which is something strange is out there, needs more investigation.
at worst, they will claim it's a nothingburger and will bury the topic again.

"Something strange is out there" is begging the question. IS there really something strange out there? That's not yet been shown to be true.
"Will bury the topic" sounds like a deliberate attempt to hide it.

You fail to note what seems like the logical conclusion: "Since we have no evidence of something strange, let's attend to pressing business instead of chasing shadows. When somebody has better evidence of strange happenings, THEN would be the time to check it out."

Thats not "burying" the topic. That's just dropping it since we lack avenues to investigate. It can be revisited if and when.

 

[KilliK]

that is why more investigation is needed, to answer that question once and for all.
ambiguity, lack of transparency and lack of serious research is helping no side.

also, the report does state they have evidence of something strange going on in the skies. the research to validate or invalidate that evidence, which the report requested, has not happened yet. they hired the scientist to head the AMIGOS office just now, and their next public report wont come out until October.

So if the officials come on Tuesday, and claim that nothing serious is going on, and I dont mean aliens but that unknown objects are trespassing the usa air domain and even interfere with the military missions, and they do that without evidence to back up their statement which already contradicts the report, then yeah, that it is burying the topic.

 

[Ann K]

that is why more investigation is needed, to answer that question once and for all.
ambiguity, lack of transparency and lack of serious research is helping no side.

also, the report does state they have evidence of something strange going on in the skies. the research to validate or invalidate that evidence, which the report requested, has not happened yet. they hired the scientist to head the AMIGOS office just now, and their next public report wont come out until October.

So if the officials come on Tuesday, and claim that nothing serious is going on, and I dont mean aliens but that unknown objects are trespassing the usa air domain and even interfere with the military missions, and they do that without evidence to back up their statement which already contradicts the report, then yeah, that it is burying the topic.

But how do you do "more investigation"? Metabunk members and others have done a lot of technical examination of what's been seen, with some highly skilled analysis of trajectories, flight paths, camera capabilities, and alternatives. But they must wait until another event occurs to do more; it isn't a thing we can produce on demand. And since completely debunking a past event says nothing about the next event, there is never going to be such a thing as "answering a question once and for all".

It's a question of priorities, and there are a good many other matters that need the attention of the government. Wouldn't it be prudent to shelve this until a really strong case comes along?

 

[KilliK]

the existence of unknown objects buzzing inside a country's borders, and their interference with military activity, is not a priority for its government? wot?

 

[Woolery]

the existence of unknown objects buzzing inside a country's borders, and their interference with military activity, is not a priority for its government? wot?

The government does prioritize it. It has sensors all over the place to detect and identify objects that are trying to evade detection and may be intent on doing harm to its people and it's interests. Every sensor has limits and inevitably some objects fall outside these limits. Through these imperfect yet highly effective sensors the government prevents great harm to its citizens all the time.

You cannot prevent unidentified objects from being a problem regardless of how many sensors you have and how sensitive they are. There will always be things that are too small, too fleeting, too infrequent, too far away. There will always be sensor malfunctions.

The track record of the systems we have in place indicates that they do a good job of keeping us and our service people safe. People are not dying from collisions with UFOs. No evidence suggests that UFOs are gathering state secrets.

 

[KilliK]

but we are not talking about air clutter, but unknown flying objects interfering with pilots and ships. if this is truly happening, then that alone is a problem which should be addressed. and the least thing you need in this situation, is parts of the DOD obfuscating information which could assist at solving it.

 

[Woolery]

but we are not talking about air clutter, but unknown flying objects interfering with pilots and ships.

No we're not talking about air clutter. I don't know what that is. I just looked it up and got nothing. Did you mean radar clutter?

I'm arguing that detection and identification of airborne threats isn't lacking for funds or attention. It's a priority. The aircraft, ships and personnel you're referring to are designed/trained specifically to detect, identify and repel threats. That's literally their job. Arguing that it isn't a priority is like arguing the United States government doesn't prioritize air superiority, or accurate rifles.

 

[deirdre]

The aircraft, ships and personnel you're referring to are designed/trained specifically to detect, identify and repel threats.

apparently they aren't or they wouldn't be reporting ufos. they'd be reporting IFOs or shooting down IFOs.

 

[Ann K]

but we are not talking about air clutter, but unknown flying objects interfering with pilots and ships. if this is truly happening, then that alone is a problem which should be addressed. and the least thing you need in this situation, is parts of the DOD obfuscating information which could assist at solving it.

Have we any verified instances of UFOs "interfering with pilots and ships"? I agree that pilots getting distracted could be a problem, but that's just as true if they're being distracted by misperception of a natural phenomenon. And certainly all the examples of people seeing something on an older video and saying "What's that thing" were not distracting the pilots who didn't notice it at the time.

I think the important part of your statement is "if this is truly happening", with emphasis on the "IF".

 

[Mendel]

But how do you do "more investigation"?

Hiring people, and bureaucracy.
From Kirby's statement (see full transcript above):

what we're going to try to do to make sure we have a better process for identifying these phenomena, analyzing that information in a more proactive, coordinated way than it's been done in the past.

Have we any verified instances of UFOs "interfering with pilots and ships"?

In aviation, any aircraft entering restricted airspace without prior authorization is ipso facto interfering with it and threatening the safety of air operations.
Most of the sightings in last year's UAPTF report probably fall into that category. This is what they mean when they talk about "range safety".

 

[Woolery]

apparently they aren't or they wouldn't be reporting ufos. they'd be reporting IFOs or shooting down IFOs.

I think they do report IFOs (to their superiors) all the time. But that wouldn't be news. It would be routine. And most aircraft they do identify are of the friendly military, commercial or private type that don't warrant further investigation once ID'd. When it isn't friendly like when some Russian bombers were training near Hawaii we sometimes hear about the IFOs.

I don't think an ID'd Cessna that strayed into or flew near a restricted airspace would be a report we'd hear about. But I could be wrong.

I think military pilots reporting UFOs instead of IFOs is the exception not the rule.

 

[Mick West]

What I expect will be discussed (largely based on Kirby's statement)

• Setting up a process to identify the unidentified phenomena
• Being more proactive, and coordinated
• Addressing safety concerns in training ranges
• No conclusions about what the unidentified things are
• Better reporting procedures
• Complains about lack of progress

What I'd like is to get details about specific cases.

 

[Max Phalange]

Here's a link to the livestream for those on the edge of their seats:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSDweUbGBow


9am EST

 

[Ravi]

What I expect will be discussed (largely based on Kirby's statement)

• Setting up a process to identify the unidentified phenomena
• Being more proactive, and coordinated
• Addressing safety concerns in training ranges
• No conclusions about what the unidentified things are
• Better reporting procedures
• Complains about lack of progress

What I'd like is to get details about specific cases.

I am 100% sure there was an event in the 60's which would have the same points. Hilarious how in the ufo world they keep op running in circles. It seems almost deliberate.

 

[Ravi]

Here's a link to the livestream for those on the edge of their seats:


9am EST

I am ready, with my bag of crisps and a crate of beer. This is going to be better entertainment than DeppVSHeard!

Seriously though, half of the ufo community over at Reddit are having a field day.

 

[jarlrmai]

I am ready, with my bag of crisps and a crate of beer. This is going to be better entertainment than DeppVSHeard!

Seriously though, half of the ufo community over at Reddit are having a field day.

They cannot wait to fill any ambiguity in language or default secrecy with aliens. The hijack of the real issues is irreversible.

 

[Ravi]

They cannot wait to fill any ambiguity in language or default secrecy with aliens. The hijack of the real issues is irreversible.

I am going to watch the event, just to know what was really said. Surely we will discuss it over here thoroughly and being Metabunk we have to stay with the facts.

 

[Mendel]

just to know what was really said

Hopefully the livestream stays online on Youtube, as it usually does. Taking notes of time and topics may be useful in navigating the video later.

I've been looking for committee hearing transcripts:

Article:

When are Hearings Available?

Most congressional hearings are published two months to two years after they are held. Hearings are available on govinfo as they become available during each session of Congress.

Not all congressional hearings are available on govinfo. Whether or not a hearing is disseminated on govinfo depends on the committee.

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/help/chrg#about

I couldn't find any Intelligence Committee hearing transcripts, but that may be due to that committee not being in the habit of holding public hearings?

If there's no news outlet producing a transcript, the best we'll get may be Youtube's auto-generated subtitles.

 

[jarlrmai]

I am going to watch the event, just to know what was really said. Surely we will discuss it over here thoroughly and being Metabunk we have to stay with the facts.

I suggest if possible someone record it live in case there are edits / delays to the eventual archive version.

 

[Ravi]

I suggest if possible someone record it live in case there are edits / delays to the eventual archive version.

i don't have any recording software to do so, perhaps someone has?


EDIT
I watched a few older hearings, just to understand how it all goes about. I was not impressed. It is mainly talking heads and monologues. If the upcoming hearing is similar, then there is nothing that indicates we will see something different than we already have seen before.

 

[jarlrmai]

i don't have any recording software to do so, perhaps someone has?

OBS will do in a pinch I would but I am working

https://obsproject.com/

 

[Ravi]

OBS will do in a pinch I would but I am working

https://obsproject.com/

Nice!
Thanks for the pointer, downloaded it and now trying it.

It looked easier than I thought. I cannot select the YT video... (sources: window, it is red and also audio is disabled?)

I give up.

 

[Mendel]

there is nothing that indicates we will see something different than we already have seen before.

Ronald Moultrie talking on AOIMSG may be interesting because AOIMSG is new, though it may not be that different from what UAPTF was.

If we get a clear idea of the scope of AOIMSG's work, and the means it has to perform it, then the hearing will have been a success.

 

[Mick West]

I'll record the stream.

I've heard there will be video, with discussion of analysis.

 

[Mendel]

It looked easier than I thought. I cannot select the YT video...

try a stream that is live now

 

[Mick West]

For recording on the Mac, the most consistent app I've found is Downie. https://software.charliemonroe.net/downie/. $20, but I've used it a thousand times.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks Mendel and Mick for the tips, but I leave it to you guys to record.

 

[jarlrmai]

wow Corbel gets a shout out in the opening chairman statements.

 

[FatPhil]

Nice!
Thanks for the pointer, downloaded it and now trying it.

It looked easier than I thought. I cannot select the YT video... (sources: window, it is red and also audio is disabled?)

I give up.

yt-dlp, a youtube-dl fork, looks like it will cope (you'll need to remove the space from the URL, I added that to disrupt the "smart" forum software:

[pre]$ yt-dlp -F 'https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=aSDweUbGBow'
[youtube] aSDweUbGBow: Downloading webpage
[youtube] aSDweUbGBow: Downloading android player API JSON
[youtube] aSDweUbGBow: Downloading m3u8 information
WARNING: [youtube] Ignoring subtitle tracks found in the HLS manifest; if any subtitle tracks are missing, please report this issue on https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/issues?q= , filling out the appropriate issue template. Confirm you are on the latest version using yt-dlp -U
[youtube] aSDweUbGBow: Downloading m3u8 information
[info] Available formats for aSDweUbGBow:
ID EXT RESOLUTION FPS │ TBR PROTO │ VCODEC VBR ACODEC ABR
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
91 mp4 256x144 15 │ 290k m3u8_n │ avc1.42c00b 290k mp4a.40.5 0k
92 mp4 426x240 30 │ 546k m3u8_n │ avc1.4d4015 546k mp4a.40.5 0k
93 mp4 640x360 30 │ 1209k m3u8_n │ avc1.4d401e 1209k mp4a.40.2 0k
94 mp4 854x480 30 │ 1568k m3u8_n │ avc1.4d401f 1568k mp4a.40.2 0k
95 mp4 1280x720 30 │ 2969k m3u8_n │ avc1.4d401f 2969k mp4a.40.2 0k
[/pre]

 

[jarlrmai]

Holy shit bokeh triangle just confirmed as bokeh, they still think its a UAV though apparently.

 

[Ravi]

Hmmmmmmmm mr Scott Bray claims the "green triangles" are undetermined. Well, ehrrrrr no? Is he missing the facts we presented or what? Is this the level we are now at? Is this the state of the art we expect?