Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth - Additional Post-Hearing Questions
This material was originally made available by D. Dean Johnson, who is facilitating the dissemination of these documents as a resource for researchers, journalists, and interested members of the public.
Below, you will find post-hearing questions and answers submitted to the official record for the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs joint hearing that was held on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.”
Lue Elizondo, Author and Former Department of Defense Official
Responses to Questions for the Record at the Hearing “UnidentifiedAnomalous Phenomena: “Exposing the Truth”
Dear Chairwoman Nancy Mace and Chairman Glenn Grothman:
It was an honor to testify on November 13, 2024, at the hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” convened by your subcommittees of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (the “Committee”). I have responded to each question for the record (“QFR”) posed by Representative Eric Burlison on December 9, 2024, following the hearing. See Attachment 1. The responses below are presented at the UNCLASSIFIED level. I remain available to provide additional details via secure means if I am given approval by a
corresponding Original Classification Authority (“OCA”).
1. Question: “Does any branch of the United States government, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), possess technology derived from a non-human source?”
Response: Yes. I served as the senior ranking person of the Advanced Aerospace Threatv Identification Program (“AATIP”) within the Department of Defense (“DoD”). AATIP investigated unidentified anomalous phenomena (“UAP”). AATIP engaged senior executives at DoD Defense aerospace companies who claimed they possessed recovered “exotic material” not made by any U.S. or foreign source. Because these executives indicated that they could no longer glean additional insight from such material, they initially agreed to allow AATIP/AAWSAP to take custody of the material. Confirmation of this may be inferred from an official DoD Office of Prepublication and Security Review (“DOPSR”) document, dated September 6, 2023. This document authorized the release of a statement by Dr. James Lacatski, the former Director of the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (“AAWSAP”). The statement, marked ‘Cleared for Open Publication,’ reads in part: The 22M allocated for DIA AAWSAP, after speaking to multiple individuals on the program, was originally intended to SCIF-out Bigelow Aerospace facilities in Las Vegas due to a UAP material divestment plan proposed to AAWSAP leadership by Lockheed Martin Space Systems Vice President, Dr. James Ryder, (now deceased).
See Attachment 2.
This statement addressed the ‘crash retrieval’ of UAP material recovered during the 1950s and other historical operations. I was also informed that, immediately following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the U.S. Government significantly reduced its UAP legacy efforts due to the budgetary constraints associated with the Global War on Terror.
2. Question: “Does any branch of the United States military, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), employ exotic materials of non-human or non-terrestrial origin in any application, including aircraft and watercraft?”
Response: Yes. The U.S. Government (or a defense contractor) has in its possession exotic materials of nonhuman origin.
3. Question: “Has the United States government, or defense contractors, made new breakthroughs in physics that are currently undisclosed to the general public, including at the University level?”
Response: Yes.
4. Question: “Are you aware of any evidence or indication that the United States military, or defense contractors, have recovered craft of non-human origin?”
a. “(If yes) – Were there non-human entities associated with these craft?”
b. “(If yes) – Were the non-human entities recovered alive?”
Response:
(a) Yes. I am aware of several incidents where the U.S. military and certain Defense Contract companies recovered craft/vehicles of non-human origin. In some cases, biological specimens were recovered from such crashes.
(b) I am unaware, however, if any of these specimens were “alive” at the time of the recovery. Furthermore, I am unaware if these biological specimens were complete specimens or partial, due to the nature of the crashes. Several key scientists associated with both AAWSAP and AATIP were part of a conversation, sponsored by the White House in approximately 2004, to determine if the U.S. public was prepared for the acknowledgement of UAP by the U.S. Government. After approximately one week of deliberations, the decision was made that the U.S. Government
should not disclose any UAP-related information to the public.
5. Question: “Is it possible UAPs are extra-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial? What I mean by that is—is it possible that UAPs might not fit in the traditional narrative of aliens from another planet but could instead be entities from other dimensions.”
Response: Yes. Several scientists within AATIP proposed that UAP may have interdimensional or even crypto-zoological origins. Leveraging cutting-edge knowledge of quantum physics and human consciousness, some scientists suggested that non-human intelligence—potentially responsible for operating certain UAP—might be as integral to our environment as other natural phenomena. However, we currently lack the tools to observe or measure them using conventional scientific methods. Another hypothesis put forth by AATIP scientists suggests that UAP may originate from the depths of our oceans. There is a well-documented correlation between large bodies of water and UAP activity, which could explain why the U.S. Navy has reported more incidents than the other Services. Notably, as of June 2024, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that only 26.1 percent of the global sea floor has been mapped with modern high-resolution technology.
6. Question: “Are you aware of the recent claim made by journalist Christopher Sharp regarding Bigelow Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, and the CIA allegedly blocking the transfer of materials of advanced, non-human origin?
Response: Yes. The CIA opposed the transfer of materials of advanced, non-human origin from Lockheed Martin to Bigelow Aerospace.
7. Question: “Can you confirm or deny the attempt to transfer non-human technology to Bigelow Aerospace from Lockheed Martin during your time at AATIP?”
Response: Yes. I can confirm that specific facilities were identified to enable Bigelow Aerospace to acquire and securely store recovered UAP materials as the new custodian, following their transfer from Lockheed Martin. These facilities included locations in the Las Vegas area and a newly built hangar at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (“PAX”). Specifically, the PAX River hangar was designed to facilitate the transfer of future materials via air and river. The hangar was purpose-built to meet the requirements of a Special Access Program Facility (“SAP-F”) and was capable of accommodating materials at any classification level. I was informed that funding for the hangar, approximately $10 million, was allocated at the request of then-Representative Steny Hoyer. I have visited this facility; however, as it was a new construction at the time, no materials had yet been transferred.
8. Question: “How was it determined that Lockheed Martin had such non-human technology to begin with? If so, how was it confirmed by Lockheed Martin?”
Response: I am unable to answer this question due to a lack of direct knowledge.
9. Question: “Were you aware of any efforts by the CIA to block the transfer of UAP-related materials or information during tenure at AATIP?
Response: Yes, and similar obstructionist efforts were also made by the U.S. Air Force. There seemed to be passive resistance from certain elements within the Central Intelligence Agency and a more active campaign by specific factions within the U.S. Air Force to suppress inquiries and investigations into the UAP topic
10. Question: “Do you believe that the CIA or other government agencies are actively working to conceal UAP-related information from the public?
Response: Yes. Many of my former colleagues and I have faced retaliation for our public advocacy for UAP transparency. This has included efforts to suspend or revoke our security clearances, as well as direct threats to our safety and that of our families. Some elements within the DoD and the Intelligence Community (“IC”) have engaged in what can only be described as 'administrative terrorism' to deter individuals with security clearances from raising this issue. Other forms of retaliation have included harassment, surveillance, adverse bureaucratic actions, unauthorized data leaks, criminal investigations, and even death threats. Additionally, efforts to discredit whistleblowers and spread disinformation to the public and Congress by certain Pentagon Public Affairs officials have persisted for at least seven years, if not longer.
11. Question: “Was any or all of the $22 million said to have gone to AASAP [sic.] program earmarked for this alleged transfer of non-human technology from Lockheed Martin to Bigelow Aerospace?”
Response: The $22 million dollars that funded AAWSAP/AATIP was directed to a variety of programmatic needs, including commissioning academic studies on advanced physics concepts, funding civilian personnel and contractors, and conducting field research. As a result, thirty-seven of these academic studies were published as Defense Intelligence Agency Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (“DIRDs”). See Attachment 3 for a complete list of published DIRDs.
In addition to my responses above, I strongly encourage the Committee to obtain the U.S. Government’s current UAP Security Classification Guide, which outlines the classified aspects of UAP and their levels of classification. Additionally, the Committee should review the latest UAP Collection Requirements from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as these may highlight critical gaps in our understanding of UAP relevant to these inquiries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee about this urgent matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional information or be of any assistance.
Very Respectfully,
_______________________
Luis D. Elizondo
Download the original document here.
Dr. Tim Galladuat, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy (RET.)
Responses to Questions for the Record at the Hearing “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: “Exposing the Truth”
1. Question: Does any branch of the United States government or defense contractors (aerospace and
otherwise), possess technology derived from a non-human source?
Response:I have seen no direct evidence that any branch of the United States government, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), possess technology derived from a non-human source. However, I am in contact with credible former U.S. government officials who have indicated to me that such evidence exists. Some of them wish to remain anonymous, some have gone public with this information, and two have testified about this before Congress.
2. Question: Does any branch of the United States military, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), employ exotic materials of non-human or non-terrestrial origin in any application, including aircraft and watercraft?
Response: I have seen no evidence that and have no knowledge about any branch of the United States military, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), employing exotic materials of non-human or non-terrestrial origin in any application, including aircraft and watercraft?
3. Question: Has the United States government, or defense contractors, made new breakthroughs in physics that are currently undisclosed to the general public, including at the University level?
Response: I have seen no evidence of and have no knowledge about the United States government, or defense contractors, having made new breakthroughs in physics that are currently undisclosed to the general public, including at the University level?
4. Question: Are you aware of any evidence or indication that the United States military, or defense contractors,
have recovered craft of non-human origin?
Response: I have seen no direct evidence that the United States military, or defense contractors, have recovered craft of non-human origin. However, I am in contact with credible former U.S. government officials who have indicated to me that such evidence exists. Some of them wish to remain anonymous, some have gone public with this information, and two have testified about this before Congress.
a. (If yes) – Were there non-human entities associated with these craft?
b. (If yes) – Were the non-human entities recovered alive?
5. Question: Is it possible that UAPs are extra-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial? What I mean by that is—is it possible that UAPs might not fit the traditional narrative of aliens from another planet but could instead be entities from other dimensions.
Response: I do not have a sufficient understanding of physics to confirm or refute the possibility that UAPs are extra-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial.
6. Question: Have there been any reported incidents of USO’s tracking or disrupting the operation of underwater craft, including nuclear submarines?
Response: I have heard one report from a former U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine officer who detected a USO on sonar which forced the crew to take evasive maneuvers. That former officer is very credible but wishes to remain anonymous.
Dr. Tim Galladuat, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy (RET.)
Download the original document here
Michael Gold - Former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy and Partnerships
Responses to Questions for the Record at the Hearing “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: “Exposing the Truth”
1. Question: Does any branch of the United States government, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), possess technology derived from a non-human source?
Response: With apologies, I have no first-hand knowledge with which to respond to this question. However, for what it’s worth, I can say that I know and trust my fellow witness, Louis Elizondo, implicitly. In my opinion, Mr. Elizondo is a paragon of integrity and an American hero. Therefore, any statements and/or claims that he makes on this topic should be treated with the utmost seriousness and priority.
2. Question: Does any branch of the United States military, or defense contractors (aerospace and otherwise), employ exotic materials of non-human or non-terrestrial origin in any application, including aircraft and watercraft?
Response: Please see my response to the previous question.
3. Question:Has the United States government, or defense contractors, made new breakthroughs in physics that are currently undisclosed to the general public, including at the University level?
Response: I have no knowledge of any such breakthroughs that are undisclosed to the public.
4. Question: Are you aware of any evidence or indication that the United States military, or defense contractors, have recovered craft of non-human origin?
Response: I am not aware of any such evidence beyond what my fellow witnesses provided (which, again, should be treated with seriousness and urgency), what was disclosed in the prior UAP hearing, and what is publicly available.
5. Question: Is it possible that UAPs are extra-dimensional rather than extraterrestrial? What I mean by that is—is it possible that UAPs might not fit the traditional narrative of aliens from another planet but could instead be entities from other dimensions.
Response: I have no special knowledge, but my personal belief is that while the vast majority of UAPs have mundane or at least terrestrial explanations (e.g., drones from adversary nations, balloons, unique weather phenomena, etc.) that some small percentage may be extraterrestrial in nature. I don’t mean to be dismissive of the extra-dimensional hypothesis, but I suspect that the mechanisms necessary to traverse star systems may leverage technology that could appear to be extra-dimensional or is in fact extra-dimensional in nature. For example, a spacecraft that utilizes a warp bubble and/or technology that integrates some of the more extraordinary aspects of quantum mechanics could be mistaken for extra-dimensional activity. Another possibility that has been broached is that some UAP are highly evolved humans from the far future traveling back to the past. I don’t think we have enough data to come to any definitive conclusions, but I personally believe extraterrestrial intelligence is the more likely explanation than extra dimensionality for some of the most inexplicable UAP incidents.
6. Question: Mr. Gold, regarding your time at Bigelow Aerospace, specifically from 2003 to 2016, when you served as the Director of D.C. Operations & Business Growth:
a. Can you describe your primary responsibilities in that role and how they relate to the topic of UAP research?
Response: I had a wide variety of responsibilities at Bigelow Aerospace, including Congressional Relations, developing and implementing a Space Act Agreement and Intellectual Property licenses from NASA Johnson Space Center, procuring launches for our Genesis I and II spacecraft, overseeing the launches of Genesis I and Genesis II (with a specific focus on export controls), developing the agreement for the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) with
NASA, achieving trailblazing export control reforms that enabled space tourism operations, obtaining a unique payload review from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation for a lunar base, and conducting international business development (e.g., signing MOUs with a wide variety of potential international customers). However, none of my activities involved UAP. UAP-related activities were conducted by a separate corporate entity from Bigelow Aerospace, specifically, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAAS), which I was not a part of.
b. According to a recent article by journalist Christopher Sharp, it appears that Bigelow Aerospace was involved in attempts to transfer materials of advanced, non-human origin from Lockheed Martin to the Defense Intelligence Agency's Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP). Were you aware of these efforts during your time at Bigelow Aerospace, and if so, can you elaborate on your involvement?
Response: Again, because I worked for Bigelow Aerospace and not BAAS, I am not and would not have been aware of any attempt to transfer materials of advanced, non-human origin.
c. Did you interact with James Ryder, the former Vice President of Lockheed Martin Space Systems, regarding the attempted material transfers? If so, what was the outcome of those interactions?
Response: I do not recall ever interacting with James Ryder and if I did it would not have been in relation to UAP material transfer or UAP generally.
d. Are you familiar with the alleged blocking of these material transfers by former CIA Director of Science and Technology, Glenn Gaffney? Can you provide insight into this matter?
Response: I don’t have any familiarity with the alleged blocking of this material transfer beyond what I have read in the media and therefore cannot provide any additional insight.
e. During your tenure at Bigelow Aerospace, were there any successful acquisitions or analyses of anomalous materials that you believe warrant further examination in the context of UAP research?
Response: I’m not aware of any acquisition or analyses of anomalous materials. Again, such activities, if they took place, were occurring at BAAS and were separate from Bigelow Aerospace. That being said, while serving on the NASA Independent Study Team, I did learn about the Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications Program (AAWSAP), which was supported by BAAS. If it hasn’t already, I believe the Committee could benefit from a briefing on AAWSAP, what it was and what it discovered.
f. Considering your experience at Bigelow Aerospace and later at NASA, do you believe there are opportunities for collaboration or resource-sharing between the private sector and government agencies in the pursuit of UAP research?
Response: There are numerous, diverse, and invaluable opportunities for the private sector to partner with NASA and other government agencies to support UAP research. Specifically, NASA should solicit private sector partners to develop an Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning algorithm that would scan the agency’s archives for UAP. NASA has voluminous archives that are very likely to contain information relevant to UAP. We spent a great deal of the hearing
talking about classified information, however, I believe that NASA currently has data open to the public that could be significant if a modicum of time and effort is spent on a review. The costs of conducting such an activity could be minimal, especially if a private sector partner were willing to donate their time and capabilities. Due to the high-profile nature and public interest in UAP,and the prestige of working with NASA, I suspect companies would be very interested in such an opportunity and would subsidize their work. Moreover, per my testimony, NASA should team with the FAA to leverage the existing Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) to collect UAP data from commercial airlines. This was a key recommendation of the NASA UAP Independent Study Team which would lead to the collection of invaluable UAP data with negligible cost to the taxpayer since ASRS is already established and has been operating successfully for decades. Expanding ASRS to include UAP is a commonsense action that could and should be immediately implemented.
Finally, in all of its relevant agreements with the private sector, whether it’s for Earth remote sensing, aviation, Earth orbit, cislunar, lunar, planetary, or the study of any other celestial bodies or astrophysical phenomena, NASA should always include clauses to gather UAP data. NASA leadership should develop standard UAP language that can be included in all relevant contracts, grants, and agreements. Again, due to the public interest in UAP, which is shared by many in the commercial space industry, I suspect that companies would be very willing to identify and provide any relevant data that they collect with NASA. Any information provided by the private sector could be combined with material from the ASRS and posted publicly on a NASA website. While any or all of these concepts can be implemented with relative ease and low costs it will require some, or at least one, official at NASA to support UAP research. Unfortunately, I believe that the only official at NASA that was explicitly responsible for UAP research was recently reassigned to Earth Science. The Committee should urge NASA to reconsider this decision. Per the attached article, I have gone on the record during my tenure on the NASA UAP Independent Study Team advocating for the agency to establish a permanent, albeit modest, UAP office. Particularly in light of the recent spate of UAP sightings over New Jersey and other states, the issue must be taken seriously and NASA has a critical role to play in unraveling the mystery of UAP, acting as a publicly open and transparent mirror to the Department of Defense’s All-domain Anomalous Resolution Office.
Michael Gold
Download the original document here.
Mr. Michael Shellenberger, Founder of Public
Responses to Questions for the Record at the Hearing “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: “Exposing the Truth”
1. Question: Can you outline the scope and methods of your investigation into Immaculate Constellation, including any sources or whistleblowers you've spoken to?
Response: I vet all my sources to make sure they are who they say they are. I had multiple sources for this information. I won’t reveal who they are beyond what I said during my testimony.
2. Question: According to your reporting, what is the purpose and structure of the Immaculate Constellation program, and how does it relate to UAP research and management within the U.S. government?
Response: I have nothing to add beyond my testimony.
3. Question: Can you provide more details on the alleged database of UAP-related imagery, videos, eyewitness accounts, and electronic sensor evidence compiled under Immaculate Constellation? How extensive is this database, and what types of information does it contain?
Response: I have nothing to add beyond my testimony.
4. Question: Have you obtained any primary documents or records that substantiate the existence and activities of Immaculate Constellation? If so, can you share them with the Committee?
Response: I have nothing beyond what I shared with the Commitee
5. Question: The Department of Defense (DoD) has officially denied the existence of the Immaculate Constellation program. How do you respond to these denials, and what evidence do you believe contradicts the DoD's statements?
Response: I trust my sources and would note that the DoD lied about UAPs as recently as December. "There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace,” claimed Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.
Kirby stressed this point. “I want to go back to something I said at the top. There has been no evidence of any of this activity in or near restricted spaces.” A few days later, Kirby was forced to admit that unidentified “drones” had, in fact,
been flying over US military bases. Assuming Immaculate Constellation exists as you've described, what implications does this have for our understanding of UAP and the U.S. government's handling of these phenomena? Immaculate Constellation is further confirmation that the DOD has been intensely studying UAPs since at least the 1940s, and that it has been actively spreading disinformation about them and its study of them.
6. Question: What recommendations do you have for Congress and the executive branch to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and cooperation on UAP-related issues, including any potential connections to Immaculate Constellation?
Response:I applaud the increasingly assertive tone taken by Congress toward the DOD’s unconstitutional secrecy around UAPs. I encourage Congress to insist upon full disclosure of the information the DOD and other government agencies have been hiding about UAPs. It is clear that the DOD is hiding information without national security justifications for doing so.
Michael Shellenberger