We've had 4 congressional hearings on UAPs since May 2022. I found out of the 4 hearings that the testimonies from David Grusch, Dylan Borland, and George Knapp to be the most interesting. You may ask, "why these three?" I think one of the strongest things to come out of the recent UAP hearings is not any single “smoking gun” statement, but the way David Grusch, Dylan Borland, and George Knapp overlap. They are not the same type of witness, and that matters. Grusch is an intelligence officer and UAPTF-linked whistleblower who says he investigated UAP-related SAPs and CAPs and was informed of a multi-decade crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program. Borland is a former USAF geospatial intelligence specialist who claims firsthand UAP experience and later exposure to legacy crash retrieval information through a SAP. Knapp is a journalist, not a whistleblower, but he has spent decades tracking the paper trail, defense-contractor claims, AAWSAP/BAASS material, and people connected to crash-retrieval allegations. What stands out to me is that all three point toward the same basic structure: Legacy crash retrieval / reverse engineering exists behind compartmentalized access, contractor involvement, intimidation or retaliation, and incomplete congressional oversight. Legacy crash retrieval / reverse engineering Grusch stated under oath that he was informed, during official duties, of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program and was denied access to additional read-ons. Borland’s written testimony says that, after his own UAP encounter, he was later exposed to classified information from a UAP legacy crash retrieval program through a sensitive position inside a SAP. Knapp’s written testimony says plainly that there is a crash recovery program and that reverse engineering has been underway for a long time with limited success. He also directly ties this claim back to Grusch’s 2023 testimony. That is a major overlap. Grusch says he found the architecture. Borland says he was exposed to legacy-program information from inside a SAP. Knapp says his decades of reporting and sources point to crash recovery and reverse engineering as real. SAPs, CAPs, and compartmentalization are the lock Grusch said the UAPTF director tasked him in 2019 to identify all SAPs and CAPs needed for the congressionally mandated mission, and that he was cleared to relevant compartments, yet denied access to the crash-retrieval read-ons. Borland says his exposure to legacy crash retrieval information came through a Special Access Program, which fits the access-wall mechanism Grusch described. Knapp’s testimony adds the older historical layer: AAWSAP/BAASS generated a large body of research, data, and reports, including a large UFO data warehouse, and some material remains unreleased or “bottled up.” So the overlap is not just “they believe in UFOs.” The overlap is: The real issue is compartmentalized custody, not public-facing UAP offices. Contractors and material custody keep coming up Knapp’s testimony specifically discusses long-running claims that Lockheed Martin may have safeguarded unusual material or craft-related material. He says Robert Bigelow/BAASS attempted to acquire unusual material from Lockheed and that the material was reportedly not made here, though the deal was not completed. That lines up with Grusch’s broader claim of reverse-engineering programs and with the contractor/SAP model people have talked about for years. It also lines up with the idea that a program could be legally and practically fragmented: government agency here, contractor there, national lab somewhere else, oversight seeing only slices. This is important because if materials or craft are in contractor custody, FOIA and normal disclosure processes may miss the actual hardware. You would be looking for contract trails, SAP reporting, IR&D, audit anomalies, or congressional access disputes, not necessarily a document titled “alien craft.” Public statements vs. internal reality Knapp’s testimony says that FOIA-released documents showed military and intelligence personnel admitting internally that these things were real, evasive, and outperform known aircraft, while the public was told the opposite. Borland says he had reservations about AARO because he believed its public assessments were a misrepresentation of the truth, and he withheld sources-and-methods information to protect people with firsthand exposure to technologies of unknown origin. Grusch says he became a whistleblower after receiving reports from multiple credentialed military and intelligence individuals that the government was operating with secrecy above congressional oversight on UAPs. That is another overlap: The public-facing narrative does not match what witnesses and documents suggest is happening internally. Retaliation and intimidation Grusch says he suffered retaliation after reporting his findings. Borland says his career was deliberately obstructed, that he faced reprisals for more than a decade, and that people connected to these programs feared for their careers. Knapp says that in his early reporting, people who agreed to speak with him were visited by government/security figures soon afterward and warned to stay quiet, including one person who had worked for a defense contractor and discussed crashed UFOs. That is not proof by itself, but it is a repeated pattern: People who get close to crash-retrieval or program information report pressure, threats, retaliation, or career harm. Borland’s critique of how AARO defines “scientific evidence” This may be one of the most important overlaps because it explains how AARO can make a public denial that sounds definitive while still avoiding the deeper issue. Borland argued that AARO’s statement about finding no “scientific evidence of extraterrestrials” depends on an almost impossible standard of proof. His point was basically this: To scientifically prove something is extraterrestrial, you would need a scientific control. That means you would need to know the planet of origin, go there, acquire comparable technology, bring it back, and compare it to what we have here. Under that definition, almost nothing found on Earth could ever be publicly admitted as “scientific evidence of extraterrestrials,” even if it were clearly non-human or unknown-origin technology. That is why Borland said AARO’s statement is “not technically a lie,” but a “misrepresentation of the full truth.” This matters because AARO can deny one narrow thing: “We have no scientific evidence of extraterrestrials.” But that does not necessarily answer the more important questions: Do we possess technologies of unknown origin? Do we possess craft or materials that are not ours? Are there legacy crash retrieval or reverse-engineering programs hidden behind SAPs, CAPs, contractors, or classified nuclear/DOE channels? So the issue may not be whether AARO can prove “extraterrestrial origin” under an impossible scientific-control standard. The issue is whether the U.S. government or its contractors possess or study technologies of unknown origin. That distinction matters because “extraterrestrial” is an origin claim. “Unknown origin technology” is a custody and evidence claim. My takeaway: Grusch, Borland, and Knapp are not giving identical testimony. They are describing different sides of the same possible architecture. Grusch describes the official/intelligence architecture: SAPs, CAPs, crash retrieval, reverse engineering, denied access, oversight failure. Borland describes the witness/SAP side: direct UAP encounter, later exposure to legacy crash-retrieval information, retaliation, and distrust of public-facing assessments. Knapp describes the historical/paper-trail side: decades of documents, sources, contractors, AAWSAP/BAASS, material claims, and crash-retrieval reporting. The overlap is the point. If the claims are true, the program is not likely sitting in one obvious “UFO office,” or found in what we're getting in UFO.gov. It is likely fragmented across legacy SAPs/CAPs, contractors, intelligence channels, national labs, and possibly nuclear/classification pathways. AARO is looking more like the public-facing filter/shield. Especially since they are an office within the DoD. The DoD which gives funds for many awarded contracts to Defense Security Contractors / Private Aerospace as well, including Novel Propulsion contracts, that can be found on SAM.gov That does not prove every claim. But it does make the pattern harder to dismiss as random noise. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Whether you agree, disagree, and why? Or I'd love to hear your thoughts on AARO and their ridiculous scientific control method. Links to the congressional hearings, (yes they are long but well worth it): Grusch's congressional hearing/testimony on UAPS: https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?si=dRVsmnB39oLl1Olu Borland's + Knapp's congressional hearing/testimonies: https://www.youtube.com/live/zxx40F1uv4Y?si=QDU4VtG09356-1uX For looking up awarded contracts, (if interested): SAM.gov submitted by /u/Academic-Butterfly23 [link] [comments]