Tim Gallaudet Follow Up Q&A From November 2024 UAP House Hearing
A revealing Q&A session with Rear Admiral Tim Galet follows his testimony at the November 13th House hearing on UAP. The admiral addressed six questions regarding non-human technology, exotic materials, and classified physics breakthroughs.
Galet's responses consistently indicate he has not personally witnessed evidence of non-human technology or recovered craft. He maintains contact with credible former government officials who claim such evidence exists, though many prefer to remain anonymous. His most direct experience relates to one report from a Navy submarine officer who encountered an unidentified submerged object requiring evasive maneuvers.
Key Takeaways
Galet confirms no direct evidence of non-human technology despite credible sources claiming its existence
One verified submarine encounter required evasive maneuvers from an unidentified submerged object
The admiral's testimony relies primarily on secondhand accounts from trusted officials
Rear Admiral Tim Galet's Congressional Follow-Up Responses
Testimony Details
Tim Galet submitted written responses to six follow-up questions after his November 13th House UAP hearing testimony. His responses indicated no direct evidence of non-human technology in U.S. possession, though he noted credible former officials had privately shared evidence with him.
When asked about exotic materials and physics breakthroughs, Galet stated he had not seen evidence of either within government or contractor programs. He maintained this position regarding recovered non-human craft.
On underwater incidents, Galet referenced one credible report from a former Navy submarine officer who encountered an unidentified submersible object (USO) that required evasive maneuvers. The officer remains anonymous.
November 13th Hearing Background
The House hearing featured three other witnesses alongside Galet: Michael Gold, Michael Shellenberger, and Luis Elizondo. Each submitted separate written responses to follow-up questions after their testimony.
Galet's responses focused primarily on his expertise in naval operations. When asked about extra-dimensional phenomena, he acknowledged lacking the physics background to assess such possibilities.
The questions covered similar ground to those posed to other witnesses, particularly those sent to Luis Elizondo. Several of Galet's answers emphasized his reliance on secondhand accounts from trusted former officials rather than direct evidence.
Inquiries Posed to Admiral Galet
Non-Terrestrial Technology in Government Possession
Admiral Galet has not encountered direct evidence of non-terrestrial technology within U.S. government or defense contractor facilities. Several credible former government officials have privately disclosed to him that such evidence exists. Two of these officials have presented their testimony to Congress.
Military Applications of Non-Terrestrial Materials
Admiral Galet reports no direct knowledge or evidence of exotic materials from non-terrestrial sources being used in military or contractor applications. This includes both aircraft and watercraft development programs.
Classified Physics Discoveries
No evidence exists of undisclosed physics breakthroughs by the U.S. government or defense contractors, according to Admiral Galet. This applies to both classified military research and developments at the academic level.
Non-Terrestrial Vehicle Recovery
Admiral Galet maintains he has seen no direct evidence of non-terrestrial craft recovery by U.S. military or defense contractors. Multiple credible former government officials have privately indicated such evidence exists, with two providing congressional testimony.
Alternative Origins of Aerial Phenomena
Admiral Galet stated his physics knowledge is insufficient to evaluate whether unidentified aerial phenomena originate from other dimensions rather than extraterrestrial sources.
Submersible Object Encounters
One credible report from an anonymous former Navy ballistic missile submarine officer describes detecting an unidentified submersible object on sonar. The encounter required evasive maneuvers by the submarine crew.
Tim Galet's Statements
Reliable Contacts and Private Sources
Tim Galet maintains professional connections with former U.S. government officials who have provided him with sensitive information. Several of these sources prefer to stay unnamed, while others have spoken publicly, including two who gave congressional testimony. Despite their claims about existing evidence of non-human technology, Galet has not personally examined any direct proof of these assertions.
Missing Physical Confirmation
Galet acknowledges he lacks firsthand evidence of several key claims:
No proof of non-human technology in U.S. government or defense contractor possession
No verification of exotic materials being used in military craft
No knowledge of classified physics breakthroughs
No direct observation of recovered non-human craft
He reports one specific incident involving an unidentified submerged object (USO). A former Navy ballistic missile submarine officer, who stays anonymous, described detecting a USO on sonar that required evasive action. Galet considers this officer's account trustworthy.
When asked about extra-dimensional possibilities, Galet states his physics knowledge is insufficient to assess such theories. His statements reflect a clear distinction between secondhand information from trusted sources and his own direct observations.
Comparison of Congressional Testimonies
Tim Gallaudet's responses to post-hearing questions differ significantly from other testimonies presented at the November 13th UAP hearing. His answers consistently stated he had not seen direct evidence of non-human technology, recovered craft, or exotic materials.
The responses show a pattern of indirect knowledge. While lacking firsthand evidence, Gallaudet referenced credible former U.S. government officials who privately shared information about non-human technology and recovered craft.
Regarding underwater incidents, Gallaudet cited only one anonymous report from a former Navy submarine officer about a USO encounter requiring evasive maneuvers. This limited account stands in contrast to other testimonies suggesting multiple incidents.
His stance on extradimensional versus extraterrestrial origins remained neutral, citing insufficient physics knowledge to make determinations. This differs from other witnesses who offered more detailed theoretical frameworks.
Key differences from other testimonies:
No direct evidence or knowledge of classified physics breakthroughs
No firsthand confirmation of exotic materials
Reliance on secondary sources rather than personal experience
Limited reporting of USO incidents
Gallaudet's testimony aligns with his military background while maintaining professional distance from definitive claims about non-human technology or materials.
Future Content and Latest Developments
Tim Gadet's responses to post-hearing inquiries reveal a pattern of limited direct exposure to exotic technology or materials. Despite frequent public statements expressing certainty about non-human presence, his written responses indicate no firsthand evidence of recovered craft, exotic materials, or advanced physics breakthroughs.
His most notable testimony relates to underwater phenomena. A single credible report from an anonymous Navy submarine officer describes a USO encounter that required evasive action. This aligns with his naval expertise but represents a narrow data point.
The responses highlight a reliance on secondhand information from trusted sources. Multiple credible former government officials have shared evidence with him privately, including two who testified before Congress. Many of these sources prefer to remain unnamed.
Key Points from Written Responses:
No direct evidence of non-human technology in government possession
No knowledge of exotic materials used in military craft
No awareness of classified physics breakthroughs
Limited USO data from submarine operations
Multiple trusted sources claim evidence exists
The answers raise important questions about the balance between secondhand claims and verifiable evidence in UAP investigations. Three additional Q&A sessions from the November 13th hearing will be analyzed separately, featuring responses from:
Luis Elizondo
Michael Shellenberger
Mike Gold
