Rep. Mike Gallagher Does His Homework
"I think the genie is out of the bottle and that’s a good thing, right?"
On May 17, 2022, the House Intelligence Committee held a UFO hearing. This was the first time that Congress had publicly discussed anything to do with UFOs since their last investigation wrapped up in 1970.1
For many, this was a big deal. There were high hopes that the intelligence community might loosen up, disclose some historical information, and talk about how that intersected with their modern investigation efforts.
In 2022, those efforts had recently transformed into the “Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group,” and, despite the mouthful, that office was now sitting in a much more prominent part of the DoD with better staffing and funding than its predecessor.2
This hearing was going to feature testimony from Ronald Moultrie (Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security) and Scott Bray (Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence). Both men had been involved on the file since at least 2020 and both had a good understanding of where it was going.3
So, what kind of questions were they asked? Not great ones. There were vague softballs about sensor capabilities, the importance of inter-agency cooperation, and a whole lot of conjecture about how intelligence is good. Perhaps my personal favorite came from Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) when he took a portion of his time to note that:
Most people when they see a video, [they’re] all used to seeing things from a car, seeing things from a sidewalk, very few people have the experience of observing something through night vision goggles at Mach 1.5. So just talk for a minute, if you would, about how radically different observation is at high speed in three dimensions than it is for most of us who walk around and drive cars.
- Rep Jim Himes 49min 16s.
And that is the way it went. For most of it, anyway. Except for five glorious minutes when a junior Congressman from Wisconsin decided to do his homework and give this topic the hearing it deserved.
Preparation H
You see, what every other committee member had in common was that there was no preparation required to ask any of their questions. You and I could have entered that exact same hearing and essentially “wung it” to come up with hard hitting content like “how can your office lead to the prevention of intelligence surprises.”4
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) had a slightly different approach, noting that: “I’m new to this debate. I don’t bring particular UAP expertise but I’ve done basic research – I’ve probably done about 5 hours’ worth of research – so I asked what I thought were basic questions for people that are just modestly familiar with the literature.”5
That might seem like a normal expectation, but it’s not very normal for Congress. Gallagher is a former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer who happened to write a PhD on Cold War history. When compared to the other nine Congressman present at this hearing, that made him the only person with any kind of historical education or intelligence background at all. Most of his counterparts were educated as lawyers, and I’d say when it came to the quality of their output, it showed.6
So where did Gallagher’s “basic research” lead him? I’m going to present you with his four questions below, with context offered by me and the response he received. Here is the result of his effort:
Question #1
Mike Gallagher: As the Chairman mentioned, DoD had an initiative to study UFOs in the 1960’s called Project Blue Book. It’s also been well reported in our briefing, and in other places, that we have more recent projects, specifically AATIP. Could you describe any other initiatives that the DoD or DoD contractors have managed after Project Blue Book ended and prior to AATIP beginning? Did anything also pre-date Project Blue Book?
For Context: The official U.S. Air Force investigation (Project Blue Book) technically ended in 1969. From 1969 until 2008 there was no official U.S. investigation into UFOs. That changed with the creation of the “Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications Program” (AAWSAP) which eventually changed its name to the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program” (AATIP).
Mike is basically asking what happened during this 39-year gap between officially acknowledged programs. The UFO literature supports a spectrum of possibilities that range from (1) poorly coordinated, informal studies run by different defense agencies, to (2) a sophisticated crash-retrieval and reverse engineering program. The jury is still out, though in 2023 a DoD whistleblower did claim to have significant evidence of the latter.
Ronald Moultrie: I can’t speak to anything that may have pre-dated Project Blue Book. Of course, there’s Roswell and all these things that people have talked about over the years. I’m familiar with Blue Book. I’m familiar with AATIP. I haven’t seen other documented studies that have been done by DoD in that regard… I’m not aware of anything official that was done between [Project Blue Book and AATIP]. Nothing has been brought to my attention.
Question #2
Mike Gallagher: Are you aware of any other DoD contract programs, focused on UAPs from a technological or engineering perspective? And by that I mean, are you aware of any technology initiatives focused on this topic other than [those] focused on individual case investigations?
For Context: One of the leading claims made by UFO literature is that major U.S. defense contractors have been handed recovered UFO material to study and reverse engineer. These programs are said to be administered through benign-sounding defense contracts which would also be shielded from any disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. With this question, Mike is asking if any program like this has been brought to AOIMSG’s attention.
Ronald Moultrie: I am not aware of any contractual programs that are focused on anything related to this other than what we were doing in the Navy [UAP] Task Force and what we are about to launch in terms of [AOIMSG’s] effort.
Scott Bray: Same answer. I’m not aware of anything outside what we are doing in the UAP Task Force.
Ronald Moultrie: Once again, I’ll say ‘no contractual’ or programmatic efforts that are involved. And the reason why I qualify that is … I can’t speak to what people may be looking at [informally] in the Department … I can speak to official programs that we have on the record.
Question #3
Mike Gallagher: It’s also been reported that there have been UAP observed interacting with and flying over sensitive military facilities. And not just ranges, but some facilities housing our strategic nuclear forces. One such incident allegedly occurred at Malmstrom Air Force Base in which 10 of our Nuclear ICBMs were rendered inoperable at the same time a glowing red orb was observed overhead. I’m not commenting on the accuracy of this, I’m simply asking if you’re aware of it and whether you have any comment on the accuracy of the report.
For Context: Mike is referring to one of the most classic cases in UFO history, where, U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Robert Salas claims to have witnessed a UFO remotely deactivating our nuclear weapons. This incident occurred in 1967 and Salas began discussing it openly in 1996. The Malstrom incident is often used to discuss the complexity of the UFO file when it interacts with other historical considerations like the Cold War. While Robert Salas has written several books, some of the best coverage of this event comes from a classic work in the community called UFOs & Nukes.
Scott Bray: That data is not within the holdings of the UAP Task Force… I have heard stories. I have not seen the official data on that… all I can speak to is what’s within my cognizance on the UAP Task Force and we have not looked at that incident.
Ronald Moultrie: If something was officially brought to our attention, we would look at it. There are many things that are out there in the ether that aren’t officially brought to our attention… so we could go back and take a look at it but generally there’s an authoritative figure that says ‘there’s an incident that occurred. We’d like you to look at this.’ But in terms of just tracking what may be in the media that says that something occurred in this time in this place, there’d probably be a lot of leads that we’d have to follow up on and I don’t think we’re resourced to do that right now.
Question #4
Mike Gallagher: Are you aware of a document that appeared around 2019 sometimes called the “Admiral Wilson Memo” or “AW Notes” Memo? This is a document in which a former head of the DIA claims to have had a conversation with Dr. Eric [Davis] and claims to have been aware of certain contractors or DoD programs that he tried to get fuller access to and was denied access to. [Are you] aware of that?
For Context: The “Admiral Wilson Memo” is a pretty famous document inside the UFO Community. It’s the record of a conversation held between a defense consultant (Eric Davis) and the retired head of the DIA (Admiral Thomas Wilson). In the memo, Wilson notes that as head of the DIA he was denied access to certain defense programs he believed were involved in UFO crash retrieval. The memo was prepared confidentially for a former astronaut (Edgar Mitchell) who was advocating for UFO transparency at the time. It entered the public after Mitchell’s death in 2016.
Ronald Moultrie: I am not.
Scott Bray: I am not personally aware of that.
Mike Drop
With these four sharp questions hanging out there, a lot of the follow-up coverage understandably focused on Gallagher. Debate lines essentially drew around whether he had used his time to promote unsubstantiated conspiracy theories or whether he had held important DoD officials to account.
What eventually emerged was a view best characterized by Gallagher himself when he told Politico in a follow-up interview that “the quicker DoD can disconfirm certain hypotheses … the better we can focus time and energy on more plausible hypotheses.”7 In other words, clearing up the substantial claims made by almost 50 years of witness testimony and UFO literature might actually help, rather than hurt the investigation. And unless Gallagher had done his homework, we might not have ever learned that the DoD wasn’t particularly interested in that process.
This hearing opened an opportunity to correct that. First, through legislative action that directed the DoD to begin looking at these historical events. And second, through behind the scenes political pressure that saw AOIMSG begin to interview people like Robert Salas. Vague, unprepared comments from your Congressional Reps. would not have produced this result. And in that sense, you have decades of UFO research and Mike Gallagher to thank for moving that ball down the field.
As for Gallagher’s involvement? He’s continued to be a champion for action on the file. A day after the hearing he would remark that “I appreciate this effort to destigmatize the discussion, but until the defense department starts speaking in simple and direct plain English and answering questions, we’re just going to spin everybody up. Or we’re going to be spinning around in circles. So though I started off as a casual observer in this whole UAP debate, now I’m so pissed off that I’m not going to let it go until they answer my questions.”8
P.S. Do you think this walkthrough might help someone you know? If so, then please:
Kean, Leslie, and Ralph Blumenthal. “House Panel to Hold Public Hearing on Unexplained Aerial Sightings.” The New York Times, May 10, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/us/politics/ufo-sightings-house-hearing.html.
“DoD Announces the Establishment of the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG).” U.S. Department of Defense, November 23, 2021. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announces-the-establishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/.
Note: The 2020 Press Release announcing the formation of the UAP Task Force places it under the cognizance of Ronald Moultrie. During the hearing, Moultrie at one point implies Bray has been involved on the file “for the last three years.”
“House Intelligence Subcommittee Holds Open Hearing on UFOs.” Reuters, May 17, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqtPr0BpYxc. At 28min 24s.
McAfee, Pat. “The Pat McAfee Show | Wednesday May 18th, 2022.” The Pat McAfee Show, May 18, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbHokbn6zqA. At 1h 21min 0s.
Note: That conclusion was drawn from publicly available information about each Congressman’s educational and professional background. Mike Gallagher’s PhD is technically in “International Relations” while his thesis substantially covered Cold War history. Of the 10 Congressmen present at the hearing, 4 have law degrees.
Bender, Bryan. “‘A Glowing Red Orb’: Wild UFO Theories Move from the Shadows to Congress.” Politico, May 18, 2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/18/ufo-theories-congress-pentagon-00033497.
McAfee, “The Pat McAfee Show.” At 1h 21min 57s.