Top Pentagon officials will testify before Congress on Tuesday in the first UFO hearing in more than 50 years, almost a year after a long-awaited US intelligence study on UFOs supplied few answers to what military pilots had witnessed in more than 140 instances.
Only one of the military’s 144 contacts with Unexplained Aerial Phenomena, the military’s new designation for UFOs, reported since 2004 could be explained by the intelligence assessment. The words “alien” or “extraterrestrial” were not used in that report, and it said that the inexplicable UAP episodes will require more investigation. Nonetheless, it stated that the majority of the events were most likely caused by physical items.
Ronald Moultrie, the Pentagon’s top intelligence official, and Scott Bray, the deputy director of Naval Intelligence, will testify before a House Intelligence subcommittee on Tuesday, and members of Congress will question whether there are any changes.
“Americans need to know more about these unexplained incidents,” committee chairman Rep. Andre Carson, D-N.Y., tweeted last week.
According to a US official, the defence is anticipated to show footage of some of the encounters that military personnel have had with UAPs at the hearing to showcase how investigations try to figure out what happened.
The release of previously classified movies and the Navy’s declassification of videos that documented its pilots’ encounters have reignited public interest in UFOs in recent years.
The hearing underscores the public’s interest in UFOs, according to Jeremy Corbell, a documentary filmmaker and UFO enthusiast who has released some of the footage.
“What’s so fantastic about this is that it’s a direct answer to popular demand,” Corbell told ABC News. “It’s a direct reaction to public outcry. It is a representative government that represents citizens’ interests.”
“I’m also heartened by the public’s eagerness to learn the truth about what UFOs mean to humanity,” Corbell concluded. “It is the most important story of our time. Finally, we’re starting to have the discussion without the contempt and shame that has harmed the pursuit of scientific truth on this matter.”
At the briefing, Kirby said, “It’s about organising around the efforts so that there’s a standard collection mechanism for how these complaints get brought into the system, how they get assessed, how they get probed, and ultimately how they get adjudicated.” “That’s what we have to wrap our heads around.”