Congress holds hearing on UFOs

[BIAD]

Here's an objective commentary article of the recent Hearings from The Washington Post in regarding testimonies
from Ryan Graves, David Grusch and David Fravor. In itself, the piece offers a gentle slant of being vigilant towards
the statements made by the three gentlemen and counters their words with an official communication from the
Pentagon.

But what surprised me was a line near the bottom of the article:
"This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners."

Odd...? We're talking about trusted military personnel relating to Congress that they are aware of a possible
threat to the world, noted political leaders of a country assumedly unaware that the military have been keeping
a world-changing secret from those they serve and with assistance from certain medias, maintain a perception
of ridicule -and- it is only now that the aliens have decided to be a danger!!

Yet, the editorial board/ Bloomberg LP and its owners feel it relevant to remain on the side-lines of something
one of their employees published because of doubts in the testimonies. The word that keeps coming to mind
is 'Theatre'.

..............................................

Are UFOs a Threat to National Security?

'Last week’s congressional hearings on UAPs, more popularly known as UFOs, were unusual even by the standards of US
politics -in both content and style. Not only did members of the military and intelligence community claim, under oath, that
truly inexplicable events occur on a regular basis, but members of Congress from both parties treated them with respect.

In all, the proceedings restored my faith in one of my favorite maxims: Sincerity is the most underrated motive in politics.
The hearings themselves send the signal that it is OK to talk and even speculate about this topic -and may even help us
get closer to the truth.

That is not to say that I believed everything I heard. I do not think that the US government has the remains of alien
spacecraft, for example, including some alien bodies, as claimed by retired Air Force Major David Grusch. But the
rest of the evidence was presented in a suitably serious and persuasive manner. It is clear, at least to me, that there
is no conspiracy, and the US government is itself puzzled by the data about unidentified anomalous phenomena.

The most notable claim from the hearings, including from former F-18 Navy pilot Ryan Graves, is that there have been
repeated sightings of highly unusual craft over eight years or more — confirmed by a mix of consistent radar, infrared
and eyewitness data. These craft, some of which take the shape of a sphere encompassing a cube, can both hover
and move very fast without any visible signs of propulsion.

Of course, there will always be people who lie, suffer from delusions or are otherwise unreliable. But none of these
claims is news to those of us who have been following the UAP debate, and it is striking that none of the elected
officials in the room challenged the Graves claims. (There was, in contrast, pushback against Grusch’s claims.)

Members of Congress, to the extent they desire, have independent access to military and intelligence sources.
They also have political ambitions, if only to be reelected. So the mere fact of their participation in these hearings
shows that UFOs/UAPs are now being taken seriously as an issue.

The Pentagon issued a statement claiming it holds no alien bodies, but it did nothing to contradict the statements of
Graves (or others with similar claims, outside the hearings). More broadly, there have been no signs of anyone with
eyewitness experience asserting that Graves and the other pilots are unreliable.

As is so often the case, the most notable events are those that did not happen. The most serious claims from the
hearings survived unscathed: those about inexplicable phenomena and possible national-security threats, not the
hypotheses about alien craft or visits.

The US military is a huge bureaucracy that is programmed to respond to potential national-security threats. If so many
insiders believe that the US does not control its own airspace, and in the proximity of its own military equipment, that
is a crisis of sorts, even if those insiders are misunderstanding the data.

The system will not do nothing indefinitely — and these hearings are best understood as an attempt to do something.
Some people in government had the idea that hearings would be useful, and no one had a better idea. If you listen
to the beginning of the hearings, you will hear a good articulation of the position that possible national-security and
aviation-safety threats cannot go forever uninvestigated. It is striking how often the discussion turned to national
security.

Every now and then, it’s appropriate to take the government literally.

I suspect that, from here on out, this topic will become more popular — and somewhat less respectable.
A few years ago, UAPs were an issue on which a few people “in the know” could speculate, secure in the knowledge
they weren’t going to receive much publicity or pushback. As the chatter increases, the issue will become more
prominent, but at the same time a lot of smart observers will dismiss the whole thing because they heard that
someone testified before Congress about seeing dead aliens.

I am well aware that many people may conclude that some US officials, or some parts of the US government, have
gone absolutely crazy. But even under that dismissive interpretation, it is likely that there will be further surprises.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners...'

Washington Post: