The headline is referring to the open session of the congressional hearings on unidentified aerial phenomena, or UFOs, held on May 17, 2022. Hopefully, the open hearing was the first of many to come. Otherwise, greater official transparency on the UFO issue may remain a dream.
"Open C3 Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." Duration: approx. 90 min.
Introduction
The above link takes you to the “Open C3 Subcommittee Hearing on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” that took place on May 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. ET (credit for the video to the House Intelligence). The purpose of this article is to make some comments on selected parts from the public hearing on the UFO issue. The selected parts mainly relate to the question of more or less official transparency in the future. For a full understanding of what the congressional representatives asked, and the witnesses answered in the public hearing, you should carefully listen to the open hearing in its entirety (the link above).
For readers unfamiliar with the events of the last three to four years that have led up to the public hearing on May 17, 2022, I refer you to my previous Medium-articles (from 2018 and onward). However, the historical background goes back to at least 1947. You can understand the open hearing without the historical knowledge of the UFO phenomenon (or phenomena), but probably not understand all the implications of the witnesses' answers. One reason I bring up the crucial historical aspect of UFOs is because the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC) do not seem to think the historical aspect is crucial for further our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. I will come back to the DoD’s and IC’s perspective on the historical aspect further down.
What were the themes of the public hearing?
The witnesses referred to above were the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)), Mr Ronald Moultrie, and Deputy Director of Navy Intelligence (ONI), Mr Scott W. Bray. Mr André Carson, Counterproliferation Subcommittee, chaired the open hearing, which was a bipartisan effort by representatives from The House Intelligence Counterterrorism, and Counterintelligence.
Now to the main theme of the open hearing on May 17, 2022. Mr Carson started by reminding us of that the U.S. Government (USG) closed Project Blue Book over 50 years ago (8:23 minutes into the video above, and credit to Mr Carson for his attention to the historical aspect). Then Mr Carson stated the purpose of the open hearing: to bring the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) “out of the shadows” (9:10 minutes mark). In short, from the perspective of congressional representative Mr Carson, and the other representatives, the major theme of the open hearing was transparency.
How was transparency defined by the congressional representatives? They defined transparency as questions about:
How was transparency defined by the congressional representatives? They defined transparency as questions about:
- the status of AOIMSG and eventual obstacles to get it up and running,
- whether the social stigma of UFOs has been radically reduced, most especially within the military,
- whether the USD (I & S) and ONI are prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead and that all conclusions are on the table (Mr Carson brings up those three questions with the beginning of the 10:00 minutes mark).
For those new to the UFO topic, I think it is important to notice that Mr Carson, in his opening remarks, emphasized that UFOs/UAP are real (e.g. physical objects), as did both of the witnesses in their respective openings. The three questions above were during the open hearing, restated in different ways by different congressional representatives. So what did the witnesses, Mr Moultrie and Mr Bray, answer to those three questions? We will look at that next.
The rights of the people or national security needs?
First, I want to bring up a point that is unclear to me. During the entire session of the open hearing, both the congressional representatives and the witnesses are referring to the AOIMSG and the UAPTF (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, led by the Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI). That is, it is unclear to me whether there are, or will be, two different UFO programs/offices? Whatever the case, I could not find any clarification on this point during the open hearing.
So what answers did Mr Moultrie and Mr Bray give to the three key questions mentioned above, and what can we infer (if anything) about continued transparency on the UFO issue from their answers (or non-answers)?
In the following, I am pointing out selected parts of Mr Moultrie’s and Mr Bray’s answers. The parts are selected because they are interesting or worrying (in what way will be explained), or because the answers contain contradictions. In general, I am leaving out statements by both witnesses that may be considered reasonable, hopeful, and so on. In other words, what follows will be biased to what I interpret as negative for greater official transparency or what I suspect not being entirely accurate regarding the AOIMSG and UAPTF.
So again, for making up your own mind about Mr Moultrie’s and Mr Bray’s testimony and the relevance of the representatives’ questions, listen to the entire session.
With that said of the negative bias, I will start by mentioning some statements by both witnesses that sounds positive regarding the goals of AOIMSG and the achievements of the UAPTF. Both witnesses talk about “rigorous science” and “data driven approach” as the way to further our understanding of UFOs. Hence, the newly appointed physicist, Dr Kirkpatrick, as the director of AOIMSG (Mr Moultrie mentions that a new director is appointed at the 33 min. mark, but does not mention any name).
With that said of the negative bias, I will start by mentioning some statements by both witnesses that sounds positive regarding the goals of AOIMSG and the achievements of the UAPTF. Both witnesses talk about “rigorous science” and “data driven approach” as the way to further our understanding of UFOs. Hence, the newly appointed physicist, Dr Kirkpatrick, as the director of AOIMSG (Mr Moultrie mentions that a new director is appointed at the 33 min. mark, but does not mention any name).
Mr Bray states UFO reports “are frequent and continuing” (21:41 min. mark), because of destigmatization-efforts by the US Navy, improved sensor capabilities, etc. Mr Bray includes the US Air Force (USAF) in the improved protocols for reporting UFOs/UAP (24:10 min. mark), which is interesting, or strange, considering the reluctance of the USAF to cooperate with the UAPTF during the preparation of the Preliminary Assessment report (ODNI, June 2021). At the 27:00 minute mark, Mr Bray says that since the Preliminary Assessment (June, 2021), the UAPTF data base has grown with 400 UFO/UAP reports. Whether Mr Bray is including UFO reports by the USAF in those 400 reports is unclear. It is also unclear whether the USAF has actively worked to reduce the social stigma of reporting UFOs and, overall, is more cooperative regarding the UFO issue than less than a year ago.
Mr Bray makes a (eventual) contradictory statement. First, he states the UAPTF has consulted “subject matter experts from a wide variety of fields, including physics, optics, metallurgy…” (25:10 min. mark, my emphasis). Later in the open session, Mr Bray and Mr Moultier get asked if they are aware of the USG in possession of any UFO “wreckage” (1:08:40 mark). Both, unsurprisingly, answers “no”. But why, then, consult subject matter experts in metallurgy? And are the witnesses not aware of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) having historical reports of findings and origins on UFO debris? (The link takes you to one of my blog posts about the CRADA between the US Army and To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science. The CRADA states the OSD are aware of alleged pieces/debris from UFOs). Or perhaps it is about the semantics: “wreckage” was not the appropriate wording by the representative? I do not believe the USG has any “off-world vehicles” in its possession, but I find it probable that the USG has debris (small pieces) from UFOs.
The same representative asks an interesting question at the 1:12:10 mark:
Mr Bray makes a (eventual) contradictory statement. First, he states the UAPTF has consulted “subject matter experts from a wide variety of fields, including physics, optics, metallurgy…” (25:10 min. mark, my emphasis). Later in the open session, Mr Bray and Mr Moultier get asked if they are aware of the USG in possession of any UFO “wreckage” (1:08:40 mark). Both, unsurprisingly, answers “no”. But why, then, consult subject matter experts in metallurgy? And are the witnesses not aware of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) having historical reports of findings and origins on UFO debris? (The link takes you to one of my blog posts about the CRADA between the US Army and To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science. The CRADA states the OSD are aware of alleged pieces/debris from UFOs). Or perhaps it is about the semantics: “wreckage” was not the appropriate wording by the representative? I do not believe the USG has any “off-world vehicles” in its possession, but I find it probable that the USG has debris (small pieces) from UFOs.
The same representative asks an interesting question at the 1:12:10 mark:
Have our encounters with UAP altered our development of either offensive or defensive capabilities or even our sensor capabilities?
I believe you can guess the nature of the answer. Mr Bray quickly responds “we safe that for the closed session”. Fair enough: sources and methods have to be protected for national security reasons. At the same time, Mr Bray’s answer point to the central dilemma with greater official transparency on the UFO issue:
What is the right balance between secrecy and openness, classified information versus unclassified information? And who decides what the right balance is between the public’s right to make informed decisions and national security?
Some credit goes to Mr Moultier for, at least in general terms, addressing the dilemma at the beginning of the open session. My overall impression of both witnesses’ stand on greater official transparency, is leaning to the negative side. That is, I do not feel confident that neither the AOIMSG nor the UAPTF (or however the organisational structure will be) will be forthcoming with public or unclassified information on their studies of UFOs or eventual progress they make in understanding UFOs. If I have to guess, I would say that Mr Moultier (AOIMSG) seems more keen on expanding the collection of data to civilian domains than Mr Bray (for example, listen to Mr Moultier at the 1:11:40 mark, and at the 1:17:50 mark). That does not, however, imply that the AOIMSG will make UFO data from civilian domains/partners public.
Mr Bray’s notion of transparency can be inferred from his answer, for example, at the 1:21:16 mark, to Mr Carson’s relevant question about the UAPTF’s protocols for what data they can make public. Now read the two quotes below from Mr Bray carefully and decide what it implies about future transparency on the UFO issue.
[The Security Classification Guide is an] important piece in the balance between transparency and preserving our war-fighting advantage, because the US military does train as it would fight.Mr Bray then states (I will comment on both quotes after the second one), and this second part is the most important one:
When it [the data] does not involve sources and methods or when we can with reasonable degree of confidence determine that it does not pose a foreign intelligence or national security threat, and it’s within my authority to do so, I commit to declassifying that. So I believe very much in the transparency of this and we work very hard to balance that with our national security needs.
My interpretation of the two quotes above is that Mr Bray does not have to “work very hard” to balance transparency (the needs of the people) and national security needs. Why not? Well, ask yourself what data does not pose a national security threat, according to Mr Bray and the UAPTF’s “Security Classification Guide”? (The link takes you to a pdf-version of the Security Classification Guide provided by the https://www.theblackvault.com). As I understand Mr Bray, not much. Just take the statement “because the US military does train as it would fight”. What does the statement imply? Again, what data on fighter jets and other military platforms collected during wartime is made public? Close to zero. So now we know why the US Air Force seems more cooperative with the UAPTF.
There is another reason the USAF is playing ball with the US Navy. And here is where the crucial historical aspect of the UFO phenomenon becomes relevant. It seems like both Mr Moultier and Mr Bray do not count the academic discipline of history or the social sciences as “science”. Or maybe they are stuck in the old dichotomy of “hard” and “soft” sciences? If so, that is worrying. I would even say a disaster for understanding the UFO phenomenon (phenomena) in all its complexity.
But let us focus on history, because both gentlemen explicitly make statements about their view on UFO cases from “earlier than year 2000”. On the one hand, Mr Moultier states the AOIMSG is “open to all hypotheses” about UFOs and that “we are open to all conclusions we may encounter” (33:55 min. mark). But how can you determine the validity and reliability of a conclusion when you are not looking at all the facts and patterns? How can you even start with the most fundamental thing in the search for truth: to pose relevant questions? Regarding the UFO phenomenon, the historical facts and patterns are fundamental to better understand UFOs/UAP.
Also, I believe the narrow focus on UFOs as a national security threat (though not an unreasonable focus) is an obstacle for the AOIMSG and the UAPTF to, so to speak, see the whole picture and approach the UFO issue as a puzzle or a mystery. However, I have some hope for Mr Moultier: he talks a lot about curiosity and his drive to understand things (for example, starting at the 34:22 min. mark, he talks about being a “sci-fi buff” and going to “science fiction conventions”). Let us hope that Mr Moultier’s inquisitive mind set will influence the AOIMSG’s view on and the questions it asks about the UFO phenomenon.
Also, I believe the narrow focus on UFOs as a national security threat (though not an unreasonable focus) is an obstacle for the AOIMSG and the UAPTF to, so to speak, see the whole picture and approach the UFO issue as a puzzle or a mystery. However, I have some hope for Mr Moultier: he talks a lot about curiosity and his drive to understand things (for example, starting at the 34:22 min. mark, he talks about being a “sci-fi buff” and going to “science fiction conventions”). Let us hope that Mr Moultier’s inquisitive mind set will influence the AOIMSG’s view on and the questions it asks about the UFO phenomenon.
To conclude…
My overall impression of the open hearing is that talk about transparency and openness is easy, but in reality we will see less official transparency regarding the UFO issue. Especially the ONI, represented by Mr Bray, seems to have taken over the “Project Blue Book-spirit” from the US Air Force. The AOIMSG may have more of a curious and scientific approach to UFOs/UAP than the UAPTF. If that is the case, it does not imply a more generous attitude towards making data publicly available.
Most of my expectations about what the public hearing on May 17, 2022, would discuss were met. No surprises. Except one, and that is the degree of the old (and perhaps current) US Air Force attitude regarding transparency, that Mr Bray seems to have emulated. That attitude is not promising for the future of official transparency. Let us hope the AOIMSG chooses another attitude and manifests it in action.
Take care!
J. T
No comments:
Post a Comment