UFO THEME IN THE US CONGRESS
JOSE LUIS MARTIN OVEJERO
Non-verbal communication of the deponents in the US Congress on the UFO issue
Master and Expert in Non-Verbal Behavior (Camilo José Cela University) Lawyer Expert in Rhetoric and Legal Argumentation (Complutense University)
Various senior military and intelligence officials appear before the US Congress in reference to the UFO issue.
Sus declaraciones no están pasando inadvertidas, así que, más allá de lo que están contando, como es costumbre en mí, entro a lo que cuentan a través de su comunicación no verbal.
Advance Warnings:
The expression “UFO” that I will be using is mine and I use it in order to use terminology closer to all of us; they call it something else, although with a similar meaning.
When I affirm that the protagonist has non-verbal aspects of credibility, I do not mean that what he expresses is true,
I, I can not know, but he does trust what he tells.
The first one I see testify, with a sign in front of him identifying him as Mr. Graves, is an ex-Navy pilot:
You are reading your statement. Doing it this way subtracts a lot of information at a non-verbal level since we become a bit like “talking robots”. Therefore, if I notice something, its relevance will be greater.
By stating that “military pilots” have had UFO sightings, he raises eyebrows, emphasizing this fact.
The reading where he expressly acknowledges that the sightings exist, that part of the Government knows more than they admit, that the credibility of those who make them public is stigmatized and doubted and that he himself has also been a witness, makes her totally calm. For now, he does not transmit emotions such as anger or contempt, which would be consistent based on what he expresses. Reading can justify it.
When he states that these sightings are classified as “secret or above that” he purses his lips and touches the blade, something he did not do before. It seems that what he says causes him more tension.
The second to testify is Mr. Grusch. Intelligence Officer in the US Air Force. Let’s go with his analysis:
Although he also has his statement prepared on several pages, it seems more expressive at the gestural level, emphasizing his messages with both hands. Like when he claims the government was secretly acting above congressional oversight. It is a very serious statement, but he looks up from the page and nods slightly. All of which gives her confidence in his words.
The moments that I observe the deponent with intense horizontal wrinkles on his forehead are frequent. Something typical of someone who tries hard to narrate something. It is not an indication of credibility or falsehood, rather that you care a lot about what he says.
The third declarant is the commander of the Navy Mr. Fravor:
It seems more nervous than the previous ones. He has physical self-contact gestures on his head, jacket, and holds his hands in a curious way, because with one hand he holds the thumb of the other.
When he recounts a UFO sighting that he himself witnessed as a military plane pilot, he makes appeasing gestures again, this time on his chin or neck. I perceive him quite nervous.
“…We made a 90-degree turn…” and she accompanies him with a gesture, despite reading. When she talks about another turn of the plane, she goes back to accompany him with his gestures. This is especially interesting because he seems to revive it.
He has some micro expression of anger when he states that the event was not investigated. Let’s watch his eyebrows and how he looks up. This is an indicator of credibility.
Has several involuntary expressions of anger. For now, without a doubt, he is the most annoying with the subject, specifically with the fact that it is not being investigated, at least, in a transparent manner.
So far have been their written and read statements. From now on, the answers to questions from the researchers who chair the Congressional Commission begin:
Graves: It’s interesting how you purse your lips when you’re feeling more tense or repressing emotions. Examples of this are when he affirms that these events pose a risk to aviation safety.
The first interviewer: Micro-expression of contempt and looks away from Graves when asked why he considers this information limited to the public. I think he doesn’t take you very seriously.
David Fravor: When asked if he believes that these phenomena are a threat to the national security of the United States, his answer is a resounding “Yes”, which he later justifies. His upright body position, his direct gaze, his gestures… are all consistent with what he expresses. He strongly believes in what he claims.
The first interviewer: your expressions of displeasure are quite evident.
Grusch: When asked if he believes that the US government has any of these objects, he answers in the affirmative and emphatically verbally and non-verbally (he nods and looks directly at the questioner).
Grusch: When asked if they have received reprisals for this information. He states that he must be very careful in this regard, and his facial expression falls somewhere between disgust and anger. And when he says that what he’s been through has affected him professionally and personally, his face reflects a lot of repressed emotions, he pulls back and lowers his gaze. Yes he seems affected.
Grusch: When asked if you have feared for your life for speaking about these issues, again your response from all areas of your communication has been affirmative and forceful; And let’s see how, again, he presses his lips again, repressing emotions.
Grusch: When asked if biological remains were found inside the recovered objects, he specified that they were, and that they were non-human. He closes his eyes, purses his lips, and then leans his body forward, looking directly at the questioner, and has a very marked forehead with horizontal wrinkles. He seems committed to what he expresses, though he starts off somewhat intimidated.
IN CONCLUSION
I believe that the three speakers in the US Congress commission are convinced of what they say, despite the fact that they have not felt comfortable doing so.
SOURCE LINKS:
Jose Luis Martin Ovejero (Madrid). Lawyer since 1989, he combined his profession with the in-depth study of communication, both verbal and non-verbal. In 2014 he decided to dedicate himself exclusively to training, advice and dissemination of what is his great specialty: non-verbal communication; although, later, he expanded his scope of action to the field of oratory. Since then he has taught numerous specialized courses, participated in conferences (including several TEDx talks) and congresses. He has a master’s degree in Non-Verbal Behavior Analysis from the Camilo José Cela University, having been trained by the heads of the National Police and Civil Guard Behavior Analysis Units. He is also an Expert -Mention of Excellence- in Rhetoric and Legal Argumentation from the Complutense University. He has received the Gold Medal for Professional Prestige from the Europa Forum 2001, as well as the Gold Star for Professional Career from the Institute for Professional Excellence. He is a regular contributor to television (Antena 3, TVE, Cuatro, Telemadrid, Mega #), radio and the press; where he makes revealing non-verbal analyzes of the protagonists of current news. In 2019 he published You speak that I read (Aguilar).
It has achieved more than HALF A MILLION views: EXCEPTIONAL. A luxury to have collaborated with my analysis of non-verbal communication.
