秘書官アイリスの都市伝説手帳～Urban Legend Notebook of Secretary Iris～

I am Iris.
Urban legends are not mere fabrications—
I am the storyteller who traces the unspoken truths with you.

Disclosure Files No.02.

In the previous file, we concluded that the UAP hearings did not open the door of a spacecraft hangar.

They opened a door through which Congress and the public could examine what the government knows, what it does not know, what it has released, and what remains classified.

This time, we will examine the testimony spoken before that door.

Note: This article does not claim that witnesses appearing before Congress deliberately made false statements.

It also does not claim that sworn testimony alone officially proved the existence of extraterrestrial life, non-human intelligence, recovered spacecraft, or secret reverse-engineering programs.

It separates congressional records, witness statements, AARO reporting standards, imagery, documents, and physical evidence to examine the conditions under which testimony can move closer to verified fact.

The Power of the Phrase “Under Oath”

In a congressional-hearing video, witnesses raise their right hands and swear to tell the truth.

Then the statements begin.

The government concealed a retrieval program.

Military pilots encountered objects they could not explain.

National-security imagery has not been released.

Whistleblowers suffered professional retaliation.

A viewer may reasonably think:

If lying could be a crime, they would not say this unless it were true.

Sworn testimony is not equivalent to an anonymous post or an unattributed online rumor.

The witness appears under a real name.

A professional history is presented.

Members of Congress ask questions.

The statement becomes part of the congressional record.

Knowingly making a material false statement can carry legal consequences.

That is serious.

But one boundary must remain visible.

The statement—

The witness sincerely described what the witness believed to be true—

is not identical to the statement—

Everything described by the witness has been independently verified as objective fact.

A sincere witness may rely on an incorrect source.

An object may be misidentified.

Memory can change.

An authentic document can be misunderstood outside its original context.

Several apparently independent accounts may ultimately originate from the same rumor.

An oath increases the seriousness of testimony.

It does not automatically convert testimony into physical evidence.

A Congressional Hearing Is Not a Trial

A congressional hearing is not a criminal trial deciding guilt or innocence.

Congress uses hearings to obtain information and opinions, conduct investigations, oversee federal departments, examine the implementation of laws, and consider future legislation.

The purpose is not always to issue a final factual judgment.

A hearing may:

bring a neglected issue into public view,

require an agency to explain its conduct,

examine the use of authority and public funds,

identify failures in reporting systems,

or determine whether further investigation or legislation is needed.

For that reason, hearings receive different kinds of witnesses.

Eyewitnesses.

Experts.

Former officials.

People alleging retaliation.

Journalists.

Public-interest advocates.

Whistleblowers whose information came from other insiders.

Each may help Congress understand part of the problem.

But inclusion in the congressional record does not mean that Congress has officially verified every factual claim.

A hearing is not necessarily where the evidence becomes complete.

It is often where Congress identifies the evidence that must be collected next.

Perjury Does Not Mean Every Incorrect Statement Is a Crime

The legal meaning of perjury also requires precision.

In general, perjury involves a person who:

is under oath,

makes a statement about a material matter,

knows the statement is false,

and willfully presents it as true.

A mistake is not automatically perjury.

Confusion is not automatically perjury.

A faulty memory is not automatically perjury.

A disputed interpretation is not automatically perjury.

Information sincerely believed to be true, but later shown to be wrong, does not by itself prove an intentional lie.

The statement—

Lying can be punished—

is correct.

The conclusion—

Because the witness spoke in a setting where lies can be punished, error is impossible and every claim is proved—

does not follow.

Legal responsibility can deter deliberate deception.

It cannot eliminate the limits of human perception, memory, communication, and interpretation.

Four Boxes for Reading UAP Testimony

Testimony presented in UAP hearings should be divided into at least four categories.

The first is eyewitness testimony.

The witness claims to have personally experienced or observed the event.

The second is secondhand information.

The witness was told something by another person.

The third is classified information.

The witness claims to have encountered a record, program, or activity that cannot be described fully in public.

The fourth is physical or documentary evidence.

Video, radar data, sensor records, original documents, contracts, photographs, or material specimens capable of being examined independently of the witness’s words.

A real case may contain more than one category.

An eyewitness encounter may also have sensor imagery.

A secondhand account may later lead investigators to an original document.

Classified information may be presented privately to properly cleared members of Congress.

The essential discipline is not to merge all four categories into one word—evidence—without showing which type is actually present.

Eyewitness Testimony — What the Person Says Happened

At the 2023 UAP hearing, former naval aviators Ryan Graves and David Fravor described experiences involving objects they could not readily identify.

Graves stated that members of his squadron repeatedly encountered unusual objects in training areas and that the phenomenon appeared across more than one sensor system.

He also described receiving similar accounts from other military and commercial aviation personnel.

His testimony therefore contained at least two layers.

Events he said he personally experienced.

Events reported to him by other pilots.

The first is firsthand testimony.

The second is information received from others.

Fravor described his direct observation during the 2004 encounter commonly associated with the USS Nimitz.

He reported seeing a white, elongated object moving near an area of disturbed water.

According to his account, the object appeared to react to his aircraft before rapidly leaving his field of view.

A firsthand account has significant value.

It identifies a time, location, platform, observer, and reported sequence of events.

It provides investigators with a place to begin.

But firsthand observation also has limits.

Without a reliable distance, estimates of size and speed may change.

The open sky and sea provide few fixed reference points.

A brief encounter may be difficult to remember with precision.

Stress and surprise may affect the perception of time.

A trained pilot is not incapable of misidentification.

At the same time, the possibility of misidentification does not make the testimony worthless.

The proper role of eyewitness testimony is to establish that an event deserves further examination.

It does not, by itself, establish the identity or origin of the object.

Do Multiple Witnesses Prove the Event?

An account appears stronger when several people report the same event.

Several observers may reduce the likelihood of a purely individual illusion.

But the number of witnesses is not enough.

Were they in the same location?

Did they observe from different angles?

Were their first accounts recorded independently?

Did they discuss the event before giving formal statements?

Were they all looking at the same radar display or listening to the same radio description?

Did one witness’s language shape the memory of another?

Several people can observe the same phenomenon.

Several people can also share the same interpretation of an ambiguous phenomenon.

The evidentiary weight increases when independent accounts are recorded promptly and correspond with separate sensor, flight, and communications records.

A later consensus formed after extensive discussion requires greater caution.

Secondhand Information — Measure the Distance to the Source

The word hearsay is often used as if it means worthless rumor.

That is too simple.

Serious organizational wrongdoing is not always disclosed first by the person holding the original document or physical evidence.

An investigator may receive reports from several employees.

An oversight official may learn of a hidden activity from people inside a restricted program.

A source with direct access may approach a trusted intermediary before speaking to Congress.

Secondhand information can provide an important investigative lead.

At the 2023 hearing, David Grusch stated that he received information alleging concealed retrieval and reverse-engineering activities that had not been properly reported to Congress.

His written statement explained that important parts of his account were based on information provided by individuals with long careers in government and the military.

The public record therefore establishes that:

Grusch testified under oath that he received those accounts,

he stated that he reported the allegations through official oversight channels,

and the allegations entered the congressional record.

The next questions remain separate.

Who were the original sources?

Did they participate directly in the alleged program?

Did they see original documents?

Did they physically handle recovered material?

Were the sources genuinely independent?

What portions were verified by Congress or an inspector general?

Secondhand testimony is not zero evidence.

But the greater the distance from the original source, the more opportunities exist for misunderstanding, exaggeration, or repetition of a shared rumor.

The decisive question is not only:

Who told the story?

It is:

How did that person know?

Can Investigators Reach the Primary Source?

The weight of secondhand information depends heavily on whether investigators can reach the original source.

A heard the story from B.

B said that C had seen a document.

C said that D worked inside the program.

Even if A is completely sincere, the underlying claim may still be wrong.

An investigation must move toward B, C, and D.

Does D exist?

Did D have access to the relevant location?

What exactly did D see?

Is the original document available?

Was the program name official or informal?

Could an ordinary classified program have been misunderstood?

AARO’s reporting system for U.S. government UAP-related programs specifically seeks reports from current or former government employees, service members, and contractors with direct knowledge.

Its guidance instructs people not to submit secondhand information or hearsay and instead encourages those with firsthand knowledge to report directly.

That requirement is not a declaration that every indirect report is meaningless.

It reflects the need to reach the source before a claim can become a reliable historical record.

Classified Information — Does the Inability to Speak Become Evidence?

During UAP hearings, a witness may answer:

I cannot discuss that in an open setting.

I can provide the names in a secure environment.

I can explain further to properly cleared members.

Such answers create a powerful impression.

The information must be important because it cannot be spoken publicly.

Genuine national-security information cannot always be discussed in an open hearing.

Weapons capabilities.

Intelligence sources.

Sensor performance.

Operational methods.

Foreign-government cooperation.

Special-access programs.

The inability to disclose such information publicly is not inherently suspicious.

But the statement—

I cannot discuss it because it is classified—

does not by itself verify the underlying claim.

The public cannot examine what has not been presented.

The crucial question is what happens next.

Did cleared members receive the briefing?

Did an inspector general examine the files?

Were original documents submitted?

Were budgets and contracts traced?

Were the alleged firsthand participants interviewed?

Did any verified result later become releasable?

The statement “I can discuss it in a secure facility” can become a commitment to verification.

Until the commitment is fulfilled and an independent authority confirms what can be confirmed, it is not public physical evidence.

The Double Problem of Classification

Classification has legitimate purposes.

Protect military capabilities.

Protect human sources.

Protect operations.

Prevent adversaries from learning sensor limitations.

Protect sensitive foreign relationships.

But classification also restricts external verification.

Only part of a video may be released.

The time and location may remain hidden.

Raw sensor data may be withheld.

Analytical methods may not be public.

A witness may be unable to provide detail.

Two extreme interpretations then appear.

The evidence must prove extraterrestrial technology because it is highly classified.

There is no evidence because nothing can be shown publicly.

Both conclusions are premature.

Classified information does not become alien evidence merely because it is secret.

It also cannot be declared nonexistent solely because the public cannot see it.

The necessary bridge is trusted oversight.

Cleared legislators.

Inspectors general.

Courts.

Qualified scientists working under appropriate security restrictions.

A process must protect genuine national-security information while producing as much publicly testable conclusion as possible.

Secrecy and accountability cannot be treated as though only one of them matters.

Physical Evidence — Something That Can Be Tested Beyond the Words

The strongest support for testimony is evidence that can be examined independently of the witness’s narrative.

Original video.

Radar data.

Infrared sensor records.

Aircraft position and speed.

Radio communications.

Flight logs.

Satellite data.

Weather records.

Original documents.

Contracts and financial records.

Material samples.

But the statement “physical evidence exists” is not enough.

Where did it come from?

Who held it?

Was it edited?

Can the recording time be verified?

Are the sensor settings known?

Is the distance to the target available?

Did another instrument record the same event?

Can independent analysts reproduce the conclusion?

For a material sample, can the collection site and chain of custody be established?

A metallic specimen accompanied only by the statement—

This was taken from a crashed spacecraft—

does not establish extraterrestrial origin.

Even an unusual composition would require several additional steps.

Unusual.

Manufactured.

Beyond known human manufacture.

Recovered from the alleged event.

Produced by a non-human intelligence.

Extraterrestrial.

Those are separate claims.

Video Is Physical Evidence, but Video Is Not an Automatic Answer

UAP videos are persuasive.

A bright object appears in the center of the display.

A targeting system tracks it.

Pilots react with surprise.

When the government confirms that the video came from a military sensor, it appears even more significant.

Authenticating the video is important.

But an authentic military video does not automatically identify the object.

Speed estimates require distance.

Distance may require sensor and platform data.

Apparent motion may involve camera rotation or movement of the observing aircraft.

Infrared displays require knowledge of optics, processing, and thermal presentation.

AARO’s methodology for the GoFast case illustrates the amount of information needed.

Analysts considered the estimated path of the F/A-18, target altitude, geometry, and historical wind speed and direction.

The few seconds visible on a screen were not enough by themselves.

The numbers outside the frame mattered.

Video can be evidence.

Analysis determines what proposition the video actually supports.

When Physical Evidence Changes the Weight of Testimony

A statement becomes stronger when independent records connect to it.

A witness says an object appeared at a specific time.

Then investigators locate:

radar tracks,

flight data from several aircraft,

contemporaneous radio communications,

an unedited sensor recording,

and independent accounts made before the witnesses spoke to one another.

The probability that some event occurred becomes stronger.

If investigators can also determine:

distance,

size,

speed,

acceleration,

temperature,

and electromagnetic behavior,

the report can be compared with known objects and natural phenomena.

If multiple independent specialists then find that aircraft, balloons, drones, satellites, atmospheric effects, and sensor artifacts do not adequately explain the event, the claim of anomaly becomes stronger.

But the remaining steps still matter.

Difficult to explain.

Unknown technology.

Technology not produced by humans.

Technology from an extraterrestrial civilization.

Those conclusions are not interchangeable.

An unexplained result means the available explanation is incomplete.

It does not authorize the reader to insert a preferred explanation.

Does a Witness’s Career Strengthen the Claim?

Military officer.

Pilot.

Intelligence official.

Scientist.

Senior government employee.

Professional background can matter.

Such witnesses may understand aircraft, sensors, operational procedures, and classification systems better than the general public.

They may also face serious professional consequences for false or reckless statements.

Some testimony therefore deserves more careful attention than an anonymous online claim.

But credentials are not absolute proof.

An excellent pilot can misjudge a light at an unknown distance.

A person with a high-level clearance does not automatically know every program outside that person’s compartment.

A scientist may be mistaken outside the scientist’s field.

A decorated official repeating information from another person is still providing secondhand information.

Credentials can establish that a claim deserves investigation.

They do not establish that the claim no longer requires investigation.

Does Retaliation Prove the Original Allegation?

Whistleblower retaliation is a major issue in UAP hearings.

Loss of duties.

Damage to security clearance.

Blocked promotion.

Disclosure of private information.

Threats.

Professional isolation.

If such retaliation occurred, it deserves independent investigation.

A reporting system cannot function when people reasonably expect punishment for bringing forward safety, oversight, or misconduct concerns.

But two questions must remain separate.

Did retaliation occur?

Was the underlying UAP allegation true?

Confirmed retaliation would not, by itself, prove the existence of recovered craft or non-human intelligence.

Failure to prove the UAP allegation would not, by itself, prove that retaliation never occurred.

An organization’s treatment of a whistleblower and the factual accuracy of the disclosure are different matters requiring different evidence.

Different Forms of Testimony in the 2025 Hearing

The September 2025 hearing brought several types of testimony into the same room.

Former military personnel describing observations.

Witnesses alleging knowledge of government activity.

A journalist presenting information gathered through long-term sources.

Policy testimony concerning whistleblower protection and transparency.

Each type serves a different function.

An eyewitness provides an account of an event.

A whistleblower identifies an internal matter requiring investigation.

A journalist may reveal historical patterns and sources not yet publicly named.

A policy specialist identifies failures in reporting and protection systems.

No single witness can prove every layer of the issue.

The function of the hearing is to assemble those fragments and show Congress where further investigation is needed.

Seven Questions for Weighing Sworn Testimony

When reading sworn UAP testimony, seven questions are especially useful.

First:

Did the witness experience the event directly, or receive the information from someone else?

Second:

Was the account recorded soon after the event, or reconstructed years later?

Third:

Are independent witnesses or records available?

Were the accounts formed separately?

Fourth:

Does original material exist?

An unedited recording, raw sensor data, original document, or physical sample?

Fifth:

Can provenance and chain of custody be established?

Who obtained it, when, where, and who retained it?

Sixth:

Has an independent authority examined the claim?

Congress, an inspector general, a scientific laboratory, or another competent body?

Seventh:

What evidence would cause the claim to be rejected?

A claim that absorbs every contradiction cannot be meaningfully tested.

The more clearly these questions can be answered, the more testimony moves from compelling narrative toward verifiable history.

Five Layers of Sworn UAP Testimony

The testimony can be separated into five layers.

The first is the institutional fact.

A named witness appeared, swore an oath, provided statements, and entered material into the congressional record.

The second is firsthand experience.

The witness reports personally observing an event or participating in an activity.

The third is information received from others.

The witness reports what government, military, or contractor sources said.

The fourth is independently testable evidence.

Video, radar, documents, contracts, budgets, samples, or inspector-general findings.

The fifth is the urban-legend connection.

The witness was under oath, therefore every statement is proved.

The information is classified, therefore it must concern extraterrestrial beings.

The witness suffered retaliation, therefore the hidden program exists.

Evidence is unavailable, therefore a perfect cover-up has removed it.

The first three layers can be identified in the public hearing record.

The fourth determines how far verification can proceed.

The fifth consists of meaning added to the remaining gaps.

Conclusion — Testimony Is an Entrance, Not the Destination

Sworn testimony has weight.

A person appears publicly under a real name.

Professional history is placed before Congress.

Questions are answered.

Knowingly making material false statements may carry legal consequences.

Professional credibility may be placed at risk.

That commitment should not be dismissed casually.

But the size of the commitment does not prove the accuracy of the claim.

A person can be sincerely mistaken.

A witness can accurately describe an event without knowing what caused it.

A trusted source can provide incorrect information.

An authentic classified document can be misunderstood.

The choice is not simply belief or disbelief.

Was it a direct observation?

Was it secondhand?

Was it classified?

Did it connect to physical evidence?

Examine the route by which the claim reached the hearing.

Look beyond the witness’s character to the source.

Look beyond credentials to the original material.

Look beyond the drama of the hearing to independent corroboration.

Sworn testimony can be an entrance to the truth.

Passing through that entrance does not mean the destination has been reached.

Beyond it, investigators still need:

original records,

independent verification,

comparison with competing explanations,

and the discipline to leave an unresolved question unresolved.

In the next file, we will examine the apparent divide between AARO and members of Congress.

AARO has resolved many reports as ordinary objects or insufficient data.

Some lawmakers and witnesses argue that AARO has not received access to everything it needs.

Is this a conflict between science and politics?

Or does it reveal a structural gap involving investigative authority, compartmented programs, and access to classified information?

Next time—another fragment of truth we will trace together.
I will return to continue the telling.

References / Sources

U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform — 2023 UAP Hearing

Ryan Graves — Written Testimony

David Fravor — Statement for the House Oversight Committee

David Grusch — Opening Statement

U.S. House Committee — 2025 UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection Hearing

U.S. Government Publishing Office — Congressional Hearings

U.S. Department of Justice — Perjury Overview

U.S. Department of Justice — Elements of 18 U.S.C. §1001

AARO — U.S. Government UAP Program Reporting

AARO — UAP Program Report User Guide

AARO — GoFast Case Resolution Methodology