On 26 July 2023, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives held a public, sworn hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). Three witnesses spoke: former Navy pilots Ryan Graves and David Fravor, who described first-hand observations of phenomena they could not identify, and former intelligence officer David Grusch, who made allegations about purported secret craft-retrieval programmes. These two registers — documented observation and unverified allegation — do not carry the same weight, and the whole honest reading of this hearing rests on that distinction.
Definition. A Congressional hearing is an official proceeding in which witnesses testify under oath before elected officials. The fact that a statement is made under oath guarantees the commitment of its author, not the material truth of its content: testimony remains speech, which must then be corroborated by evidence.
The dated, verifiable fact is the holding of the hearing itself. It took place before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, under the title "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency." The session was public, recorded and transcribed: its existence and the content of the depositions are documented facts, independent of the value of any individual assertion made.
The hearing is part of a broader sequence of official transparency: the Pentagon's authentication of the Navy videos in 2020, the first ODNI tally in 2021, the creation of AARO in 2022, the independent NASA study in 2023. It is not an isolated event but a step in an institutional process pushed by Congress.
Graves and Fravor are former Navy aviators. Their depositions concern observations: what they saw, tracked on radar and judged inexplicable at the time. Fravor is associated with the famous 2004 "Tic-Tac" incident off the coast of California; Graves described objects encountered repeatedly during training off the east coast.
These accounts are facts as testimony: qualified people publicly and under oath state that they observed phenomena they could not identify. This is solid, and it warrants investigation. But one point must remain firm:
The register changes radically with the third witness. David Grusch, a former intelligence officer, asserted under oath that the U.S. government has for decades run a secret programme to recover and reverse-engineer craft of non-human origin, and that it holds "non-human biologics." These claims have not been corroborated by public evidence.
The methodological detail is decisive: Grusch stated that he held this information from third parties, without publicly presenting any documents, objects or verifiable material evidence. He reports what others allegedly told him — he indicated that he had himself seen no craft and no bodies, his statements resting on the accounts of witnesses he interviewed in the course of his duties. To date, no official or independent source has confirmed these allegations. They are therefore reported testimony, not a demonstration — which is why they must be read as an unverified allegation, and flagged as such.
Conflating the two registers is the most common error in media coverage of this hearing. On one side, credible observations of unidentified phenomena, documented by pilots and by sensors: that is a fact, and it justifies serious investigation. On the other, extraordinary allegations of retrieval programmes, with no public evidence presented: that remains, as things stand, unverifiable.
The standard articulated by Carl Sagan applies here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it is precisely the evidence that is missing. The right posture is neither belief nor contempt, but documented waiting: show the material evidence, and the allegation will join the column of facts.
No, and this is not a matter of opinion. In March 2024, AARO (the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) published Volume 1 of its report on the historical record of U.S. government involvement with UAP since 1945. After examining the programmes invoked by proponents of the retrieval thesis, AARO concludes that it found no evidence that any agency, company or programme has ever possessed or reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology, and attributes these allegations in large part to "circular reporting" from a group of people convinced of their truth.
This conclusion aligns with those of the ODNI (2021) and NASA (2023): three independent institutional sources converge on the same finding — real and sometimes unresolved phenomena, insufficient data, and no evidence of extraterrestrial origin. This convergence between bodies with distinct missions is a strong epistemic signal.
Did the 2023 hearing prove the existence of extraterrestrials? No. It established credible observation testimony (Graves, Fravor) and gathered uncorroborated allegations (Grusch). No evidence of extraterrestrial origin was presented. UAP does not mean ET.
Are David Grusch's statements reliable because they were made under oath? The oath commits the witness, but does not prove the content. Grusch stated that he held his information from third parties, without presenting verifiable material evidence. His claims remain unverified.
Why believe the pilots but not Grusch? It is not a matter of believing or not, but of distinguishing the registers: Graves and Fravor report what they directly observed; Grusch reports what third parties allegedly told him, about craft he did not see. Direct observation and second-hand testimony do not have the same evidentiary status.
To place this hearing within the whole declassification arc — the Navy videos, the ODNI report, AARO, the NASA study — read the pillar article: the Pentagon's declassification of UAP. And if you want the complete file, marked out level of certainty by level of certainty and backed by primary sources, the investigation PURSUE — The Greatest Declassification takes up each piece.
No. It established credible observation testimony (Graves, Fravor) and gathered uncorroborated allegations (Grusch). No evidence of extraterrestrial origin was presented. UAP does not mean ET.
The oath commits the witness, but does not prove the content. Grusch stated that he held his information from third parties, without presenting verifiable material evidence. His claims remain unverified.
It is not a matter of believing or not, but of distinguishing the registers: Graves and Fravor report what they directly observed; Grusch reports what third parties allegedly told him, about craft he did not see. Direct observation and second-hand testimony do not have the same evidentiary status.
Dossier : UAP / OVNI & déclassification
MINI9: PURSUE — La Plus Grande Déclassification
Accueil · Collection · Journal · Dossiers · Sources