The Latest Congressional Hearing on UFOs Was Full of Wild Claims

The proceedings featured testimony from a controversial military whistleblower.

Former Navy pilot Ryan Graves, former intelligence official David Grusch, and retired Navy Commander David Fravor, testify before a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on UFOs.Nathan Howard/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Wednesday, a House Oversight subcommittee held a highly anticipated hearing on “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAP)—more commonly known to the public as UFOs. Though Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) explained in his opening remarks that “we’re not bringing little green men or flying saucers into the hearing,” the hearing still got pretty…far out. 

The subcommittee heard testimony from three witnesses: former Navy pilot Ryan Graves, retired Navy Commander David Fravor, and former Air Force intelligence officer David Grusch. Both Graves and Fravor claim to have had encounters with UAP, while Grusch has attracted widespread media attention for his controversial allegations that the Pentagon is hiding evidence of alien technology.

Graves testified that, in 2014, he and his squadron in Virginia Beach would regularly detect unknown objects via radar and corroborate their  existence with infrared sensors. He described the UAP as “dark gray or black cubes” encased in clear spheres. Graves recounted a 2003 UAP sighting at a US air base by Boeing contractors who claim to have seen a football field–sized red square emerge from the ocean, approach the base, and hover for 45 seconds, before “darting away to the mountains.”

Fravor had a somewhat similar account. During a flight, he filmed a now-famous 2004 encounter off the California coast in which he says he saw a “Tic Tac”–shaped object over the water. (“Tic Tac, like the candy, not TikTok, the Chinese communist app,” Burchett later clarified.) Fravor said the object rapidly ascended as his aircraft approached it, then, like the cube, moved quickly away, traveling 60 miles east in a surprisingly short period of time. 

Though Grusch never claimed to have seen a UAP in person, his testimony proved the most explosive. In response to questions about whether the government has successfully contacted extraterrestrials, he responded that he couldn’t disclose classified information in public settings. However, he did claim that material recovered from crashed UAP contained “biologics” that were “non-human.” Grusch also asserted that people have been physically threatened to keep information on UAP secret, but said he couldn’t answer a loaded question from Burchett about whether anyone has ever been murdered over the knowledge about these “non-human” entities. (Prior to the hearing, Grusch said he’d heard secondhand accounts of people being killed to maintain UAP secrecy, though he didn’t repeat that before Congress.) Grusch provided no hard evidence to back up his allegations. 

Perhaps the best news from the proceedings is that one thing still unites the right and left: an insatiable curiosity about extraterrestrial life. In the hearing, which Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) called the “most bipartisan conversation” of his freshman term, committee members from both parties called for better UAP reporting systems for military and commercial pilots, and for curbing the government’s “over-classification” of information about UAP. 

Will we ever really find out everything the government knows about these mysterious flying objects? The subcommittee may not have provided any answers on Wednesday, but at least it made for a riveting two hours of C-SPAN. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate