anomalien.com
What We (Still Haven’t) Learned from the Second UAP Hearing
When the 13th of November approached, I—along with many others—had high hopes for Congress’s latest UAP hearing, titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.”
It’s fair to say that the last few years have been a whirlwind of revelations, half-revelations, and renewed public interest in unidentified aerial phenomena, yet each hearing leaves us wondering if we’ve truly gotten closer to the truth. The second UAP hearing was no exception.
Despite an impressive lineup 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 kicked off with Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s statement that set the room’s tone—or so it seemed. She hinted that certain government officials had attempted to prevent the hearing from happening “in fear of what might be disclosed.”
It was an ominous assertion, suggesting an internal struggle for transparency that might finally see the light of day. Her words tapped into a deep-rooted suspicion that many of us have: that the truth about UAPs is buried under layers of secrecy, more concerned with self-preservation than public knowledge.
Mace even displayed what she called “12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Special Access Program,” a document reportedly disavowed by the government.
It was a bold move, one that made us think perhaps Congress would finally be pushing the boundaries on UAP secrecy. However, as the hearing continued, it became painfully clear that even these “bold” gestures would do little to provide substantial answers. These glimpses into alleged classified programs raised questions but, as is all too common in these hearings, provided few answers.
Any part of the federal government knowingly concealing evidence about UAP from the public?
"Yes Sir." – Timothy Gallaudet"100%." – Lue Elizondo"Yes." – Michael Shellenberger"Yes." – Mike Gold
What do you believe UAP could be or are?
"Strong evidence that they are non-human… pic.twitter.com/cAIWgrccu3
— Mike Colangelo (@MikeColangelo) November 13, 2024
Muddled Questions and Missed Opportunities
Watching congressional members question witnesses was challenging, to say the least. At points, it was clear that some members didn’t have the background knowledge to ask pointed, necessary questions, or perhaps lacked the verbal finesse to frame them effectively.
The dialogue became tangled and disjointed, often leaving witnesses like former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo with only the broadest opportunities to make his points.
One of the most glaring missed opportunities involved the issue of “crash retrievals.” Mace made a connection to Elizondo’s non-disclosure agreement, hinting that it might involve the retrieval of UAP debris, though she didn’t explore it thoroughly.
More frustratingly, they failed to address the fact that terms like “crash retrieval” could refer to recovering foreign adversarial technology or actual “alien” crafts. This left an ambiguity in the questioning that could have been avoided with clearer communication and knowledge of the topic.
Particularly disappointing was how the phrase “Alien Reproduction Vehicle” (ARV) was glossed over in Michael Shellenberger’s testimony. Shellenberger presented it as a term within documents referencing “Reproduction Vehicle,” yet the term’s implications—potentially signifying reverse-engineered alien technology—were not fully unpacked.
It was a colossal missed chance to clarify if the government possesses technology directly modeled on or reverse-engineered from UAPs.
Witnesses Speak, Yet the Silence Remains Deafening
Witness testimonies felt more like reiterations than revelations. Elizondo, as expected, condemned the culture of secrecy around UAPs. He claimed that a “small group of government officials” had knowingly withheld UAP information from the public.
Despite giving a direct “yes” to the question of whether the government had secret UAP craft retrieval programs, he carefully avoided confirming any firsthand knowledge, leaving us to wonder if he’s privy to classified information or simply making an informed guess.
Retired Navy Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet added a moral weight to the hearing, vouching for the credibility of whistleblowers who’ve risked reputational damage to come forward with their experiences.
While his statements were sincere, they felt like echoes of what we’d heard before. Michael Gold, former NASA administrator, argued for NASA’s potential in investigating UAPs, yet his suggestions to reduce stigma and increase scientific inquiry felt like distant promises.
Shellenberger, too, had his moment, detailing the supposed “Immaculate Constellation” program, an alleged Pentagon initiative to document and quarantine UAP encounters. His revelations seemed compelling, yet when we remember the Department of Defense’s outright denial of this program’s existence, we are left to decide who we believe: the government or the journalists dedicated to exposing the truth?
“A small cadre within our own government involved in the UAP topic has created a culture of suppression and intimidation that i’ve personally been victim to along with many of my former colleagues.”
–@LueElizondo #ufoX #ufotwitter pic.twitter.com/0Ds1B6MSOT
— UFOs&Disclosure (@uaphenomenon) November 13, 2024
Key Questions Unasked—and Answers Never Explored
Beyond the information the witnesses shared, what they didn’t say spoke volumes. Congress missed a crucial opportunity to ask why some of the whistleblowers themselves weren’t present at the hearing. The implications of this are enormous and, sadly, painfully obvious: these individuals likely don’t feel safe or protected enough to testify directly.
This oversight by Congress is indicative of a much larger problem—the failure to ensure whistleblowers are safeguarded. If Congress truly wants the truth, they must first create an environment where the truth can be safely shared.
There was also a noticeable lack of follow-up on the question of why the “GoFast” UAP video and other key documents seem to have disappeared from government email servers, as testified by Gallaudet. This data loss—convenient for some, frustrating for the public—suggests a disturbing lack of accountability that Congress seemed reluctant to tackle.
Once again, we find ourselves at the end of a UAP hearing with a pile of hints but few answers. Congress seems hesitant to pursue the right lines of questioning, opting instead to tread carefully around hard truths. It’s a disappointing pattern we’ve seen before.
Though the topic is obviously a sensitive one, this skirting around the edges isn’t doing anyone any favors. At this stage, one wonders if these hearings are more a display of half-hearted curiosity than a genuine attempt to pull back the curtain on the unknown.
If these congressional representatives were genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, they would have left no stone unturned. Instead, we’re left questioning the significance of “12 pages of the Immaculate Constellation Program” and the extent of ARV technology without any clear answers.
If Congress had thoroughly interrogated the witnesses about the precise nature and scope of UAP retrieval programs, we might be closer to understanding what the government is truly hiding.
Another Frustrating Step Toward 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 simply returned to where we started.
The truth may indeed be out there, but it seems increasingly clear that we won’t find it in a congressional hearing. Instead, the government seems content to offer fragments of information, knowing that piecing them together without clear, honest testimony is nearly impossible.
So, what did we learn from this latest UAP hearing? Not much, if I’m being honest. It was a parade of evasions, unasked questions, and overlooked opportunities.
Congress needs to push harder, and witnesses need to be ready to answer the questions the public deserves to know. Until then, we are left with the feeling that there’s much more to the story—and that we may never be allowed to hear it.
The post What We (Still Haven’t) Learned from the Second UAP Hearing appeared first on Anomalien.com.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
