Documents / Hearing transcript
This is the transcript of the open session of a hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena, held on 17 May 2022 by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation. Under Secretary Ronald Moultrie and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray testified on the new AOIMSG office, efforts to reduce stigma in reporting, and a UAP database of about 400 reports. Bray showed videos, explained flashing triangles as drones seen through night vision goggles, and called the 2004 Nimitz incident unresolved.
33 are lots of things, when you are moving very fast and an object is between you and a stationary reference point like the ground, it gives a lot of different impressions about how quickly something is or isn't moving. And it actually means it is a challenge, especially with narrative-based data, to get a lot of information on that. That is why the sensor data is so important, because things do happen very quickly, as you see there. And sometimes things that happen very quickly, something may be moving very slow. That aircraft is moving quite fast. How fast that object is moving that goes by is probably very slow. Mr. Himes. So I guess my point is that an observation, either a visual observation or an electronic observation, infrared or whatever, looks radically different than it does to most people. Even instruments, instruments are on gimbals and that sort of thing. So that creates a very unusual view to, again, those of us who are seeing things in two dimension largely. Second question, I think, Mr. Bray, you said something that I want to unpack a little bit. A number of these UAPs, you said, we can't explain. Again, in the service of sort of reducing speculation and conspiracy theories, "we can't explain" can range from a visual observation that was distant on a foggy night, we don't know what it is, to we have found an organic material that we can't identify. Right? Those are radically different worlds. So, when you say "we can't explain," give the public a little bit better sense of where on that spectrum of "we can't explain" we are. Are we holding materials, organic or inorganic, that we don't know about? Are we, you know, picking up emanations that are something other than light or infrared that could be deemed to be communications? Give us a sense for what you mean when you say we can't explain. Mr. Bray. Sure. When I say we can't explain, I mean exactly as you described.
Hearing transcript, from the hearings collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 53 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.