Speaker 1: It's a privilege to be here with you today to address your questions regarding unidentified aerial phenomenon or UAP. What are UAP put simply UAP are airborne objects that when encountered cannot be immediately identified. However, it is the department's contention that by combining appropriately structured collected data with rigorous scientific analysis, any object that we encounter can likely be as isolated characterized [00:00:30] identified, and if necessary, mitigated with regard to the importance of transparency, the department is fully committed to the principle of openness and accountability to the American people. However, we are also mindful of our obligation to protect sensitive sources and methods. Our goal is to strike that delicate balance. One that enables us to maintain the public's trust while preserving those capabilities that are vital to the support of our service. No, [00:01:00] in closing the department is committed to this effort and welcomes the challenge. We thank you for your committed support and look forward to your questions.
Speaker 2: Let me share with you the first video that we have here today, which shows an observation in real time.
Speaker 2: There it was that's in many cases, that's all that [00:01:30] a report may include. And in many other cases, we have far less than this. As we detailed in both the unclassified and classified versions of the preliminary assessment released by the office of the director of national intelligence last June, this often limited amount of high quality data, uh, and reporting hampers, our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP as detailed in the OD. And I report if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they likely fall into one of five [00:02:00] potential explanatory categories, airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, us government, or us industry, developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, or a other bin that allows for a holding bin of difficult cases and for the possibility of surprise and potential scientific discovery. Let me show you a couple of, uh, another video and image, uh, taken years apart in different areas. In this video, us Navy personnel recorded what appears to [00:02:30] be triangle. Some flashing recorded several years ago off the coast of the United States. This was recorded while the us Navy ship, uh, observed a number of small unmanned aerial systems, uh, in the area. And importantly, the video was taken through night vision goggles with a single lens reflex camera. These remained unresolved for several years
Speaker 3: [00:03:00] Of those a hundred forty four eighteen of them, uh, reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics appeared to demonstrate advanced technology. Uh, and some of them appeared to remain stationary and winds loft move against the wind maneuver abruptly or move it considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. Um, that's pretty intriguing. Uh, uh, and, and if you're able to answer this, [00:03:30] uh, in this setting, are we aware of any, uh, foreign adversary capable of moving objects, uh, without any discernible means of propulsion?
Speaker 2: Um, I think I would, uh, without discernible means of propulsion, I would say that, uh, we're not aware of any adversary that can move an object without discernible means of propulsion. Uh, the question then becomes in many of these cases where we don't have a discernible mean and propulsion in the data [00:04:00] that we have, um, in some cases, uh, um, there is likely sensor artifacts, uh, that, uh, that, that may be hiding some of that. Uh, there's certainly some degree of, uh, of something that looks like signature management that we have seen from some of these, uh, uh, UAP. Uh, but I would, I would caution, I would simply say that there are a number of, uh, of events in which we do not have an explanation in which, and there are a small handful in which [00:04:30] there are flight characteristics or signature management, um, that we can't explain with the data that we have.
Speaker 2: Um, we'll continue. Those are obviously the ones that are of most interest to us. Uh, earlier when we asked about how you, uh, avoid technological surprise, the biggest way you avoid technological surprises by collecting this type of data. And by importantly, um, calibrating the assumptions that you go into with how you do that analysis, I'll tell you within the UAP task force, we have, uh, one basic assumption. And that is [00:05:00] that generally speaking, generally speaking, our sensors operate as designed. Um, and we make that assumption because many times these are multi-center, uh, collections. We make no assumptions about, uh, the origin of this, uh, or that there may or may not be some sort of technology that we don't understand. That's I think the key to avoiding technological surprises by calibrating those assumptions,
Speaker 4: It's also been reported, uh, that there have been UAP observed, uh, and interacting with and flying over sensitive military facilities, particularly, and not just ranges, [00:05:30] but, uh, some facilities housing are strategic nuclear forces, uh, once such incident allegedly occurred, uh, uh, at Malmstrom air force base in which 10 of our nuclear ICBMs were rendered inoperable at the same time, uh, glowing red orb was observed overhead. I'm not commenting on the accuracy of this. I'm simply asking you whether you're aware of it and whether you have any comment on the accuracy of that report. Let
Speaker 1: Me pass that to Mr. Brave. You've been looking at UAPs over the last
Speaker 2: Three years. That data is not, uh, within the holdings of the UAP task force.
Speaker 4: Okay. But are you [00:06:00] aware of the, the report or that the data exists somewhere?
Speaker 2: Uh, I have, uh, I have heard stories. I have not seen the official data
Speaker 4: On that. So you've just seen informal stories, no official assessment that you've done or exist within D O D that you're aware of, uh, regarding the Malmstrom incident.
Speaker 2: Uh, all I can speak to is, you know, what's within my cognizant of the UAP task force and we have not looked at that incident.
Speaker 4: Well, I would say, I mean, it's a pretty high profile incident. Uh, I, I don't claim to [00:06:30] be an expert on this, but that's out there in the ether. You're, you're the guys investigating it. I mean, if who else is doing
Speaker 1: It, if something was officially brought to our attention, we would look at it. Uh, there are many things that are out there in ether that aren't officially brought to our attention.
Speaker 4: So how would it have to be officially brought to your either I'm bringing it to your attention? Sure. So this is pretty official. Sure.
Speaker 1: So we'll go back and take a look at it, but generally there is some, um, authoritative figure that says there is an incident that occurred. We'd like you to look at this. Uh, but in terms of just [00:07:00] tracking what may be in the media that says that something occurred at this time at this place, um, there probably a lot of leads that we would have to follow up on. I don't think we are resource to do that right now.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't claim to be an authoritative figure, but for what it's worth, I would like you to look in into it. Sure. If for another reason you could dismiss it and say, this is not worth wasting resources on.
Speaker 5: And have we attempted to communicate with those objects?
Speaker 2: Uh, no.
Speaker 5: So we don't, we don't even put out a alert saying, you know, uh, us, [00:07:30] um, iden, you know, identify yourself, uh, you are, you know, within our flight path or something like that. We, we haven't said anything like that.
Speaker 2: We've not put anything out like that, generally speaking, uh, what, you know, for example, in the video that we showed earlier, uh, it appears to be something that is, uh, you know, unmanned, uh, appears to be something that, uh, may or may not be in controlled flight. Uh, and so we've not attempted any communication with that.
Speaker 5: Okay. [00:08:00] So, um, and I, I assume we've never discharged any armaments against a UAP, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Um, how about wreckage? Ha have we come across any wreckage of any kind of, um, object that has now been examined by you?
Speaker 2: The UAP task force doesn't have any wreckage that isn't, uh, explainable it isn't consistent with being of terrestrial origin.
Speaker 5: Do we have any sensors underwater, [00:08:30] uh, to, um, detect on submerged, UAPs, uh, anything that is in the ocean or in the seas?
Speaker 1: So I think, uh, that would be more appropriately addressed in closed sessions, sir.
Speaker 5: Okay. Basically, it sounds like we have a good partnership with FAA. Um, but apart from FAA, we don't have partnerships with other agencies or other entities that might be tracking so that we could enlarge our data set to make comparison,
Speaker 1: But we [00:09:00] will. So that's the goal of this next effort will be to, uh, expand that relationship with the, um, the rest of the government and the interagency.
Speaker 6: Right. Uh, with that, I wanna thank you all for, for taking the time out. I also want to thank, uh, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in this very historical and important, um, hearing. I think it's one of the few times we can demonstrate some degree of bipartisanship around UAPs and UFOs. So I love it. Appreciate it. Thank you. And we will see you all. We will recess [00:09:30] this hearing for the moment in return in a closed session at noon.