UAPs & UFOs: Cosmic Watergate 2.0 — Some of the Supporting Cast

As I discussed in a post last weekend, there was a clear distinction in terms of subject matter and (to a degree) presentational style between the witnesses at the House Oversight National Security Subcommittee hearing in late July on UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena — the “respectable” new name for UFOs) and, well, other stuff.

I watched recordings of the hearing online. Nothing I heard overturned my longstanding skepticism about UFOs. I would still be astonished if UAPs prove, as one of the witnesses has claimed in the past, to be “not of this world.” Nevertheless, I do think that (some of) the material that has emerged in recent years is worth a closer look, not least in case some of these UAPS are the product of previously unknown Russian or Chinese technology. Balloons don’t count.

About the Author

Andrew Stuttaford

Andrew Stuttaford is the editor of National Review's Capital Matters.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Technology

UFOs

As I discussed in a post last weekend, there was a clear distinction in terms of subject matter and (to a degree) presentational style between the witnesses at the House Oversight National Security Subcommittee hearing in late July on UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena — the “respectable” new name for UFOs) and, well, other stuff.

I watched recordings of the hearing online. Nothing I heard overturned my longstanding skepticism about UFOs. I would still be astonished if UAPs prove, as one of the witnesses has claimed in the past, to be “not of this world.” Nevertheless, I do think that (some of) the material that has emerged in recent years is worth a closer look, not least in case some of these UAPS are the product of previously unknown Russian or Chinese technology. Balloons don’t count.