Members of the House went into a confidential briefing hoping for answers about what the government knows about alien life. They emerged with more questions.
- Share full article
Thomas A. Monheim, inspector general of the intelligence community, at a congressional hearing in 2021.
Alien bodies allegedly hidden by the United States government. Suspected Pentagon cover-ups of secret spending programs. Retaliation against any official who dares speak out. Perhaps no congressional briefing offers up more titillating claims — or does less to illuminate them — than one about U.F.O.s.
On Friday, members of Congress entered such a session with burning questions, only to receive hedged answers that they said did little to demystify what the government knows about extraterrestrial beings.
The closed-door briefing with Thomas A. Monheim, the inspector general of the intelligence community, was supposed to help members of the House Oversight Committee understand if there was any credibility to the bombshell claims made by a high-profile whistle-blower in July.
But what, if anything, was actually said was far from clear. It didn’t help that the whole session was confidential, so the lawmakers were barred by law from relaying what they had heard — not exactly a formula for combating the raft of conspiracy theories that has sprung up around U.F.O.s, fueled by government reports documenting unexplained incidents with what it calls “unidentified anomalous phenomena” and the recent whistle-blower account.
In July, David Grusch, a former intelligence official, testified that the U.S. government was holding nonhuman bodies taken from U.F.O. crash sites, that the military is misusing funds to cover up a “U.A.P. crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,” and that people had been injured in efforts to conceal these operations. He also alleged retaliation from his superiors for previously making similar claims. The Pentagon has denied the allegations.
On Friday, some lawmakers saw tantalizing hints in Mr. Monheim’s presentation that there might have been something to Mr. Grusch’s claims and, while the rules of a classified briefing barred them from actually repeating what they had learned, they suggested the inspector general had found some of the claims credible. Which ones? No one would say.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Source: nytimes.com
