The November 2024 House hearing: four witnesses and different sources of knowledge
Programme allegations, a recalled Navy communication, reporting from protected sources and proposals for scientific investigation require different forms of assessment.
The House hearing on 13 November 2024 brought together Luis Elizondo, Tim Gallaudet, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold. Their testimony addressed overlapping concerns about secrecy and research, but their access to the underlying material differed. Elizondo asserted knowledge of government programmes; Gallaudet recalled receiving a safety-related email; Shellenberger presented reporting from protected sources; Gold discussed scientific policy and reporting systems.
Former Department of Defense official giving programme and secrecy testimony
Luis Elizondo
Programme claims and the limits of the public account
Elizondo's written statement asserted that technologies made by neither the United States nor other governments were monitoring sensitive installations, and that the United States and some adversaries possessed UAP technologies. He described a secret arms race and alleged intimidation of people trying to disclose information. These were his substantive claims to Congress, rather than findings announced by the committee.
Under questioning by Nancy Mace, he answered affirmatively when asked whether the government had conducted secret UAP crash-retrieval programmes and whether these were designed to identify and reverse-engineer alien craft. He declined to discuss specific access and contractor questions in public, citing documentation signed three years earlier and the review of material permitted in his book. His account therefore combines direct assertions with a stated boundary on the supporting detail he would provide in that setting.
He also said he had seen government documentation concerning people injured in UAP incidents. The public exchange did not supply those records for examination. When Clay Higgins referred to the material Shellenberger had presented, Elizondo said he had not read that report or article. His broader claims cannot consequently be treated as a review of the particular anonymous report entered that day.
Evidence review
Elizondo identified retrieval assertions for Congress while reserving programme and contractor details for closed discussion. The public exchange supplies no supporting programme records, recovered material or custody history, and his stated restriction document was not presented.
He proposed a coordinated national approach, greater transparency and protection for people reporting misconduct.
Statement and reporting history
13 November 2024: submits a written statement asserting government possession of UAP technologies and alleging secrecy and retaliation.
13 November 2024: answers Mace's retrieval questions affirmatively while reserving specified details for a closed setting.
13 November 2024: tells Higgins that he had not read Shellenberger's report or article.
Official three-page PDF acquired and all three page images visually inspected. Documents his assertions and policy proposals; classified supporting records, restriction document and full book not inspected.
Official GPO HTML acquired. Selected opening, oath, statement and question-and-answer passages read, including Mace, Grothman, Burchett, Higgins and Biggs exchanges used here. Printed in 2025 for the 13 November 2024 hearing. Complete proceeding, video and separately listed questions for the record not comprehensively reviewed.
Retired Navy rear admiral recalling a communication and advocating disclosure
Tim Gallaudet
The safety email and the explanation he inferred
Gallaudet's written statement dates his experience to January 2015, when he commanded the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command. He recalled an email on the Navy's secure network from the Fleet Forces operations officer, addressed to subordinate commanders. Its subject concerned an urgent safety-of-flight issue. He described the message as warning about near-midair collisions and identified its attachment as the video now called Go Fast. This is his account of receiving a communication and viewing an attachment, rather than an account of personally seeing its aerial subject from an aircraft.
He said the email disappeared the next day and the subject was not raised in subsequent senior meetings. Answering Tim Burchett, he confirmed that the exercise continued. He expressly described his explanation of the disappearance as speculation because he had not discussed it with the sender. Answering Andy Biggs, he said he had not made inquiries and had inferred that the video belonged to a special access programme to which the participants were not admitted.
His testimony also addressed reports of submerged objects. When Burchett asked about personal experience, Gallaudet said he had none and described accounts brought to him by submarine witnesses. Those reports have a further source history; they are not additional incidents he personally observed. His written recommendations supported stronger congressional oversight, a records review board and coordination across government.
Evidence review
Gallaudet recalls receiving the message and its disappearance. The original email, network records and other recipients’ separate statements are absent from this comparison. His own answers identify the special-access explanation as speculation, without an inquiry to the sender.
His identification of the video attachment supplies no independent technical analysis of its performance. That question requires the recording and flight information, separately from the handling of the email.
Statement and reporting history
January 2015: period assigned by Gallaudet to the email and attachment in his 2024 recollection.
The following day: timing he assigns to the email's disappearance; no exact calendar day supplied.
13 November 2024: distinguishes his recalled communication from his speculative explanation and denies personal experience of submerged objects.
Official seven-page updated statement acquired and all seven page images visually inspected. Email history, interpretations and recommendations distinguished. Original email, system records, attachment provenance and complete linked supporting library not independently examined.
Official GPO HTML acquired. Selected opening, oath, statement and question-and-answer passages read, including Mace, Grothman, Burchett, Higgins and Biggs exchanges used here. Printed in 2025 for the 13 November 2024 hearing. Complete proceeding, video and separately listed questions for the record not comprehensively reviewed.
Journalist presenting protected-source reporting and an anonymous programme allegation
Michael Shellenberger
Reporting the Immaculate Constellation allegation
Shellenberger presented allegations concerning a programme called Immaculate Constellation. His written testimony attributed the report to a current or former government official and described its claims about imagery and human-intelligence records. The same document quoted a Department of Defense spokesperson denying any present or historical record of a special access programme with that name. The allegation and the response are therefore both part of the submitted material.
In exchanges with Mace and Glenn Grothman, he said he had checked the identities of sources, had more than one source and had obtained additional confirmation of the programme's name. He also said the report contained cases he had not found in existing reporting, which he treated as a reason against obvious circular sourcing. These are accounts of his journalistic checks; the protected identities and underlying databases were not opened to public scrutiny through those answers.
Higgins asked whether he had authored the report. Shellenberger said he had not, said he knew the author, and said he did not know where its nonpublic version could be found. He declined to narrow the agency affiliations of his sources. His written discussion of a video reportedly showing an orb near Kuwait likewise attributes the viewing to another source. It does not present the video as an object he personally observed or footage he independently analysed at the hearing.
Evidence review
The public statements do not show whether Shellenberger’s sources supplied independent information or drew on a shared account. The Department’s denial remains a competing institutional statement, with the alleged records unavailable for comparison.
Statement and reporting history
October 2024: earlier reporting month identified in Shellenberger's November testimony.
13 November 2024: presents the programme allegation and describes his checks on source identities and additional confirmation.
13 November 2024: distinguishes himself from the anonymous report's author under Higgins's questioning.
Official 214-page file acquired. Programme/source discussion on PDF pages 6–8 visually inspected; selected surrounding prose read as extracted text. The cover prints 13 November 2023, while the official hearing page and transcript establish the 2024 submission. Extensive appendices, underlying confidential-source records, alleged imagery and the separately submitted anonymous report were not comprehensively examined.
Official GPO HTML acquired. Selected opening, oath, statement and question-and-answer passages read, including Mace, Grothman, Burchett, Higgins and Biggs exchanges used here. Printed in 2025 for the 13 November 2024 hearing. Complete proceeding, video and separately listed questions for the record not comprehensively reviewed.
Former NASA official and independent study team member proposing scientific and reporting measures
Michael Gold
Scientific access and a civilian reporting proposal
Gold's written and oral statements expressly say that he was speaking for himself, rather than for NASA, Redwire or another organisation. He discussed his work on NASA's UAP Independent Study Team and argued that stigma impeded the collection and study of reports. His contribution concerned how institutions could obtain useful information and conduct research, rather than a personal aerial encounter.
He proposed searching NASA's archives with artificial intelligence or machine learning, seeking information from international partners, and building clearer routes for civilian and commercial reports. He cited the study team's recommendation concerning NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, which NASA administers for the Federal Aviation Administration. His written statement also considered dedicated instruments, while acknowledging their greater cost and NASA's budget constraints.
When Mace asked whether the study team had been briefed on the Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications Program, Gold said he had raised it with the chair and designated federal officer but that the team had not received a briefing. That answer defines an access limit. His interest in further investigation does not amount to the study team having reviewed or validated that programme's underlying records.
Evidence review
Gold’s archive search and dedicated instruments remained proposed activities. His personal-capacity statement presents his recommendations separately from NASA commitments, and the hearing contribution reports no completed search or results from those projects.
Statement and reporting history
13 November 2024: offers written and oral testimony in a personal capacity.
13 November 2024: proposes archival searches, civilian reporting and further scientific investigation.
13 November 2024: says the NASA study team did not receive the programme briefing about which Mace asked.
Official five-page PDF acquired and all five page images visually inspected. Its personal-capacity statement and proposed activities are retained. The quoted study-team recommendation was read in this statement; this review does not claim a new inspection of the full NASA report or any completed archival search.
Official GPO HTML acquired. Selected opening, oath, statement and question-and-answer passages read, including Mace, Grothman, Burchett, Higgins and Biggs exchanges used here. Printed in 2025 for the 13 November 2024 hearing. Complete proceeding, video and separately listed questions for the record not comprehensively reviewed.
What the shared hearing record establishes
Elizondo said he had not read Shellenberger’s report or article. Shellenberger said he knew the anonymous report’s author but had not written it. Their contributions cannot be combined as independent reviews authenticating that submission.
Testing the claims calls for different records. Original communications could test Gallaudet’s email history; programme and custody records could test the retrieval assertions; access to the alleged databases could test the protected-source reporting. Submission to Congress makes the statements available for comparison, while leaving those underlying records to be examined. Gold’s proposals address how an openly examinable scientific record might be created.
Key dates
January 2015
Period Gallaudet assigns to receiving the Navy safety email in his later testimony.
October 2024
Shellenberger's written testimony refers to his earlier reporting on the programme allegation.
13 November 2024
The joint House subcommittees hear the four witnesses under oath and receive their written statements.
13 November 2024
Questioning records the distinctions between claimed programme access, a recalled communication, protected-source reporting and scientific policy.
2025
The Government Publishing Office issues the printed hearing record as Serial No. 118-135.
Official hearing page inspected for date, witness roster, listed roles and links to written statements. Embedded hearing video not watched in this review.
Official GPO HTML acquired. Selected opening, oath, statement and question-and-answer passages read, including Mace, Grothman, Burchett, Higgins and Biggs exchanges used here. Printed in 2025 for the 13 November 2024 hearing. Complete proceeding, video and separately listed questions for the record not comprehensively reviewed.
Official three-page PDF acquired and all three page images visually inspected. Documents his assertions and policy proposals; classified supporting records, restriction document and full book not inspected.
Official seven-page updated statement acquired and all seven page images visually inspected. Email history, interpretations and recommendations distinguished. Original email, system records, attachment provenance and complete linked supporting library not independently examined.
Official 214-page file acquired. Programme/source discussion on PDF pages 6–8 visually inspected; selected surrounding prose read as extracted text. The cover prints 13 November 2023, while the official hearing page and transcript establish the 2024 submission. Extensive appendices, underlying confidential-source records, alleged imagery and the separately submitted anonymous report were not comprehensively examined.
Official five-page PDF acquired and all five page images visually inspected. Its personal-capacity statement and proposed activities are retained. The quoted study-team recommendation was read in this statement; this review does not claim a new inspection of the full NASA report or any completed archival search.