As November 13th approached, I – along with many others – had high hopes for the final UAP Congressional hearing, entitled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon: Uncovering the Truth.”
It’s fair to say that the past few years have been a whirlwind of revelations, half-revelations and renewed public interest in unidentified aerial phenomena, but with each hearing we wonder whether we have really gotten any closer to the truth. The second UAP hearing was no exception.
Despite an impressive line of witnesses and a seemingly serious approach from lawmakers, we ended up with the same lingering questions and a familiar taste of frustration.
Setting the tone for transparency – or so we thought
The hearing began with Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s statement, which set the tone of the room — or so it seemed. She hinted that certain government officials had tried to prevent the hearing “out of fear of what would be revealed.”
It was an ominous claim, suggesting an internal struggle for transparency that might finally see the light of day. Her words addressed a deep-seated suspicion that many of us have: that the truth about UAPs is buried under layers of secrecy, more focused on self-preservation than public knowledge.
Mace even displayed what she called “12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Special Access Program,” a document that was reportedly rejected by the government.
It was a bold move, one that made us think that Congress might finally push the boundaries of UAP secrecy. However, as the hearing progressed, it became painfully clear that even these ‘bold’ gestures would do little to provide substantive answers. These glimpses into so-called secret programs raised questions but, as is all too common in these hearings, provided few answers.
Is there any part of the federal government that is knowingly hiding evidence about UAP from the public?
“Yes sir.” – Timotheus Gallaudet
“100%.” – Lue Elizondo
“Yes.” – Michael Shellenberger
“Yes.” – Mike GoldWhat do you think UAP could be or is?
“Strong evidence that they are non-human… pic.twitter.com/cAIWgrccu3
— Mike Colangelo (@MikeColangelo) November 13, 2024
Muddled questions and missed opportunities
Watching members of Congress question witnesses was challenging, to say the least. At some points it was clear that some members did not have the background knowledge to ask pointed, necessary questions, or perhaps did not have the verbal finesse to formulate them effectively.
The dialogue became confused and disjointed, often giving witnesses like former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo only the broadest opportunities to express their views.
One of the most glaring missed opportunities was the issue of crash retrievals. Mace made the connection to Elizondo’s non-disclosure agreement and hinted that it could involve the retrieval of UAP debris, although she did not investigate it thoroughly.
Even more frustrating, they failed to address the fact that terms like “crash retrieval” could refer to the recovery of foreign enemy technology or actual “alien” crafts. This left an ambiguity in the questions that could have been avoided with clearer communication and knowledge of the subject.
Particularly disappointing was the way the phrase “Alien Reproduction Vehicle” (ARV) was glossed over in Michael Shellenberger’s testimony. Shellenberger presented it as a term in documents referring to “Reproduction Vehicle,” but the implications of the term – possibly indicating reverse-engineered alien technology – were not yet fully understood.
Witnesses speak, but the silence remains deafening
Witness statements felt more like replays than revelations. Elizondo, as expected, condemned the culture of secrecy surrounding UAPs. He alleged that a “small group of government officials” had knowingly withheld UAP information from the public.
Despite giving an immediate “yes” to the question of whether the government had secret UAP vessel recovery programs, he carefully avoided confirming any first-hand knowledge, leaving us to wonder if he was aware classified information or simply made an informed guess.
Retired Navy Admiral Timothy Gallaudet added moral weight to the hearing, vouching for the credibility of whistleblowers who risked reputational damage by coming forward with their experiences.
Although his statements were sincere, they felt like echoes of what we had heard before. Michael Gold, former NASA administrator, championed NASA’s potential in researching UAPs, but his suggestions for reducing stigma and increasing scientific research seemed like distant promises.
Shellenberger also had his moment, describing the so-called “Immaculate Constellation” program, an alleged Pentagon initiative to document and quarantine UAP encounters. His revelations seemed convincing, but when we remember the outright denial of the existence of this program by the Ministry of Defense, we must decide who to believe: the government or the journalists committed to exposing the truth?
“A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP issue has created a culture of oppression and intimidation that I have personally been a victim of, along with many of my former colleagues.”
–@LueElizondo #ufoX #ufotwitter pic.twitter.com/0Ds1B6MSOT
— UFOs and Disclosure (@uaphenomenon) November 13, 2024
Important questions not asked and answers never explored
In addition to the information the witnesses shared, what they did not say also spoke volumes. Congress missed a crucial opportunity to ask why some whistleblowers themselves were not present at the hearing. The implications of this are enormous and unfortunately painfully obvious: these individuals are unlikely to feel safe or protected enough to testify directly.
This congressional oversight is indicative of a much larger problem: the failure to ensure whistleblowers are protected. If Congress really wants the truth, they must first create an environment where the truth can be shared safely.
There was also a noticeable lack of follow-up as to why the “GoFast” UAP video and other key documents appear to have disappeared from government email servers, as evidenced by Gallaudet. This data loss—convenient for some, frustrating for the public—points to a troubling lack of accountability that Congress has been reluctant to address.
Once again we find ourselves at the end of a UAP hearing with a pile of hints but few answers. Congress seems hesitant to ask the right questions, choosing instead to tread carefully on hard truths. It’s a disappointing pattern we’ve seen before.
While the subject is clearly a sensitive one, this haggling around the edges does no one any favors. At this stage, one wonders whether these hearings are more an expression of half-hearted curiosity than a genuine attempt to pull back the curtain on the unknown.
If these congressional representatives were truly committed to exposing the truth, they would have left no stone unturned. Instead, we are left questioning the meaning of “12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Program” and the scope of ARV technology without clear answers.
Had Congress thoroughly questioned the witnesses about the precise nature and scope of the UAP collection programs, we might have come 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 had changed my perspective or shed new light on this mystery. Unfortunately, it feels more like we’ve just returned to where we started.
The truth may exist somewhere, but it seems increasingly clear that we won’t find it in a congressional hearing. Instead, the government seems content to offer snippets of information, knowing that it is virtually impossible to piece it together without clear, honest testimony.
What have we learned from this latest UAP hearing? Not much, if I’m honest. It was a parade of dodges, unasked questions and overlooked opportunities.
Congress must push harder and witnesses must be ready to answer the questions the public deserves to know. Until then, we’re left with the feeling that there’s much more to the story – and that we may never be allowed to hear it.
