As November 13 approached, I, like many others, had high hopes for the latest congressional hearing on UAP, titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Revealing the Truth.”
It's secure to say that the last few years have been a whirlwind of revelations, semi-revelations, and renewed public interest in unidentified aerial phenomena, but each hearing leaves us wondering whether we've really gotten any closer to the truth. The second UAP hearing was no exception.
Despite an impressive line-up of witnesses and a seemingly solemn approach from lawmakers, we eventually received the same constant questions and a familiar taste of frustration.
Setting the tone for transparency — or so we thought
The hearing began with a statement from Congresswoman Nancy Mace that set the tone for the room – or so it seemed. She suggested that some government officials tried to prevent the hearing “for fear of what might be revealed.”
It was an ominous statement, suggesting an internal struggle for transparency that may finally come to featherlight. Her words alluded to a deep-seated suspicion that many of us have: that the truth about UAP is hidden under layers of secrecy, focused more on self-preservation than public knowledge.
Mace even displayed as she put it, “12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Special Access Program” – a document allegedly rejected by the government.
It was a bold move that made us think that perhaps Congress would finally push the boundaries of UAP secrecy. However, as the interrogation went on, it became painfully clear that even these “brave” gestures would do little to obtain concrete answers. These insights into alleged secret programs raised questions but, as is often the case with these hearings, provided few answers.
Any part of the federal government is consciously withholding evidence about the UAP from the public?
“Yes, sir.” – Timothy Gallaudet
“100%”. – Lue Elizondo
“Yes.” – Michael Shellenberger
“Yes.” –MikeGoldWhat do you think UAP might be or is?
“Strong evidence that they are not human… pic.twitter.com/cAIWgrccu3
— Mike Colangelo (@MikeColangelo) November 13, 2024
Confusing questions and missed opportunities
Watching members of Congress question witnesses was challenging, to say the least. At times it was clear that some members did not have enough knowledge to ask the specific, necessary questions, or perhaps lacked the verbal finesse to formulate them effectively.
The dialogue has become convoluted and chaotic, often leaving witnesses like former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo with only the broadest opportunities to make their case.
One of the most glaring missed opportunities involved the issue of “crash reading.” Mace alluded to Elizondo's non-disclosure agreement, suggesting it might involve the recovery of UAP remains, although she did not investigate this further.
More frustratingly, they failed to account for the fact that terms such as “disaster recovery” may refer to the recovery of foreign, hostile technology or actual “alien” crafts. This left an ambiguity in the interview that could have been avoided with clearer communication and knowledge of the topic.
Particularly disappointing was the omission of the phrase “alien reproductive vehicle” (ARV) from Michael Shellenberger's testimony. Shellenberger introduced it as a term in documents referring to a “reproduction vehicle”, but its implications – potentially meaning reverse-engineered alien technology – were not fully disclosed.
This was a colossal missed opportunity to clarify whether the government had technology directly modeled after UAP or reverse-engineered.
Witnesses speak and the silence remains deafening
Witnesses' testimonies were more like repetitions than revelations. Elizondo, as expected, condemned the culture of secrecy surrounding the UAP. He claimed that a “small group of government officials” knowingly withheld information about the UAP from the public.
Despite a direct yes to the question of whether the government had secret programs to recover UAP ships, he studiously avoided confirming any first-hand knowledge, leaving us unsure whether he had access to classified information or was simply making an educated guess.
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet gave the hearing moral weight, vouching for the credibility of whistleblowers who risked reputational damage by speaking out about their experiences.
Though his statements were true, they felt like echoes of what we had heard before. Michael Gold, a former NASA administrator, advocated for NASA's capacity to study UAP, but his suggestions for reducing stigma and increasing scientific research seemed like distant promises.
Shellenberger also had his moment, detailing the alleged “Immaculate Constellation” program, an alleged Pentagon initiative to document and quarantine UAP meetings. His revelations seemed convincing, but when we remember the Department of Defense's complete denial of the program's existence, we are left to decide who to believe: the government or the journalists committed to revealing the truth?
“The small cadre in our government committed to the UAP has created a culture of repression and intimidation that I, along with many of my former colleagues, have personally experienced.”
–@LueElizondo #ufoX #ufotwitter pic.twitter.com/0Ds1B6MSOT
— UFO and disclosure (@uaphenomenon) November 13, 2024
Crucial questions that were never asked — and answers that were never known
Beyond the information the witnesses provided, what is telling is what they did not say. Congress missed a key opportunity to question why some whistleblowers were not present at the hearing. The consequences of this are enormous and, unfortunately, painfully obvious: these people probably do not feel secure and protected enough to testify directly.
This oversight by Congress points to a much larger problem — the failure to protect whistleblowers. If Congress truly wants the truth, it must first create an environment in which the truth can be safely shared.
There was also a noticeable lack of follow-up on the question of why the UAP “GoFast” video and other key documents apparently disappeared from government email servers, Gallaudet testified. This loss of data – convenient for some, frustrating for the public – suggests a troubling lack of accountability that Congress has seemed reluctant to address.
Once again, we find ourselves at the end of a UAP hearing with a pile of clues but few answers. Congress appears hesitant to ask the right questions, choosing instead to tread carefully with demanding truths. This is a disappointing pattern that we have seen before.
Although the topic is obviously sensitive, avoiding the edges is not good for anyone. At this stage, one may wonder whether these interrogations are not a manifestation of half-hearted curiosity, or a real attempt to pull back the curtain on the unknown.
If these congressional representatives were truly committed to uncovering the truth, they would leave no stone unturned. Instead, we question the meaning of the “12 Pages of the Immaculate Constellation Program” and the scope of ARV technology without clear answers.
If Congress carefully questioned witnesses about the exact nature and scope of UAP recovery programs, we might be closer to understanding what the government is really hiding.
Another frustrating step towards the truth
As someone who has followed the UAP issue closely, I wish I could say that this hearing changed my perspective or shed modern featherlight on this mystery. Unfortunately, I feel like we're just back to square one.
The truth may indeed be out there, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it won't be found in a congressional hearing. Instead, the government seems content to offer bits and pieces of information, knowing that putting it together without clear, forthright testimony is nearly impossible.
So what did we learn from the last UAP hearing? Not much, to be forthright. It was a parade of dodges, unasked questions and missed opportunities.
Congress must push harder, and witnesses must be willing to answer the questions the public deserves. Until then, we're left with the feeling that there's so much more to this story – and that we may never get to hear it.
Image Source: Pixabay.com
