On 16 September 2025, the Chamber of Deputies in Brazil held a public hearing to discuss ufology and the Access to Information Law. The event was convened by Representative Chico Alencar and, as expected, caused controversy. After all, Brazil faces numerous urgent problems and, to many, it may seem (rightly, I would argue) a waste of time and resources to devote legislative space to reports of flying saucers, or to the alleged global conspiracy to hide the “fact” that we are being visited by beings from other planets.
The hearing was generally lukewarm. It didn’t (nor did I expect it to) bring any relevant new evidence and, at several points, it flirted with delirium. In a discussion intended to be democratic, it lacked balance; the panel was composed mostly of people sympathetic to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, without a robust skeptical counterpoint. The only time a more serious critical perspective appeared (that is, not in the form of mockery) was in the form of a recorded video and, even then, the panel’s reaction was defensive rather than open-minded.
Among the participants was Thiago Ticchetti, editor of UFO Magazine, who presented classic videos and cases, including the famous “tic-tac” and the most recent video from Yemen, which shows a missile apparently piercing a flying object. These videos, however, have already been analysed by several independent investigators, some of them pilots or image experts, and explained as common phenomena or human technology. In fact, regarding the “tic-tac,” a recent rumour claims it is secret technology developed by Lockheed Martin. Relying on them as extraordinary evidence ignores well-documented refutations.
Thiago also mentioned a 1967 case in which nuclear warheads were allegedly deactivated by a UFO. The problem is that subsequent investigations, including by the US government, indicated that these were electromagnetic interference tests conducted by the military itself. The episode illustrates a recurring point: even when natural or conventional explanations exist, they are systematically rejected by those already convinced of the alien nature of the events.
Veteran Vitório Pacaccini, one of the lead investigators in the Varginha Case, was also invited. His account follows the traditional conspiracy theory: the military allegedly captured an extraterrestrial creature and conducted secret transportation operations. He considers the Army’s investigations to be nothing more than a smokescreen. But to date, no documentary or physical evidence has been presented to support these allegations. Pacaccini claims to have seen videos of the creature, but without public disclosure or the possibility of verification, these claims remain anecdotal.
Another point raised was the alleged “global cover-up” of the UFO phenomenon. This hypothesis doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny: we live in a world with hundreds of countries, cultures, governments, and conflicting interests. The idea that all these actors would collaborate to keep the greatest discovery in human history secret is implausible. The lack of solid evidence is best explained by the null hypothesis: perhaps there’s nothing extraordinary to be revealed.
There were also interventions that bordered on the absurd. One participant stated that “quantum physics is explaining UFO behavior.” Statements like these highlight the pseudoscientific nature of much of the UFO discourse. “Quantum physics” has become a kind of esoteric mantra used to justify anything, which only reinforces ufology’s distance from the scientific method.
It’s worth noting, however, that the hearing wasn’t a “circus,” as one attendee suggested, inelegantly and unnecessarily. Those who participated did so respectfully, at their own expense, and sincerely believe in what they advocate. In this sense, the initiative has merit; millions of Brazilians are interested in ufology, and Congress has a duty to listen to society.
The biggest controversy came from outside the hearing: science communicator Sérgio Sacani commented on the episode by saying that “Brazil hates science”. This is a strong statement and, in my view, an exaggeration. Holding a hearing on ufology doesn’t mean the country is hostile to science. Opinion polls show that a large portion of the population is interested in scientific topics. The question is, what do these people understand by “science”? Do they include astrology, creationism, or ufology in this category? If so, this interest is more a label than an understanding.
In other words, Brazil doesn’t hate science, but it doesn’t understand it either. Science is admired as long as it doesn’t challenge preconceived beliefs. When it does, it becomes seen as uncomfortable or “arrogant.” This ambivalence helps explain why pseudosciences thrive, as they offer simple answers, reinforce convictions, and rarely require critical review.
Ultimately, the hearing brought nothing new. We still have no verifiable evidence of the Varginha Case or any extraterrestrial visitation. The request to release documents through the Access to Information Law is legitimate and should be granted. But we must face the possibility that the documents simply do not exist. And, if that is the case, accept that the absence of evidence does not, in itself, constitute evidence of a cover-up.
I’ll give an example of how many ufologists are unwilling to accept anything that contradicts their narrative. As Pirulla points out, many science deniers actually claim to accept it, but in the regime, “science is only correct when it agrees with me.” For many in ufology, a military statement or declaration is only correct if it agrees with the thesis being defended. It is alleged that NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) warned Brazilian authorities about the presence of UFOs in southern Minas Gerais in 1996, close to the date the alleged events in Varginha began.
I decided to question NORAD about its involvement. I emailed the following questions:
- Can NORAD confirm or deny any involvement in activities related to the Varginha Incident or similar events in Brazil during the period in question?
- In 1996, did NORAD have the technological capacity to carry out the actions assigned to it in this context, such as tracking anomalous objects using satellite and radar systems in collaboration with international partners?
The answer I got was as follows:
NORAD cannot confirm any involvement in activities related to the Varginha Incident or similar events in Brazil during the 1996 period. There are no official records or operational documentation to support allegations of collaboration with the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) in tracking anomalous aerial objects in that region.
Although NORAD possessed satellite and radar capabilities in 1996, formal mechanisms for sharing Space Situational Awareness (SSA) data with non-US entities were only established in 2009, under USSTRATCOM—now USSPACECOM. Therefore, any information from 1996 would not have been shared within this framework. Operational sharing at that time is considered unlikely, although it cannot be completely ruled out.
When I made this public, what was the response from a segment of the UFO community that defends the veracity of the Varginha Case? They said the military would never reveal the truth, that it was very naive of me to ask this directly. In other words, since the facts don’t confirm the narrative, then they must not be true. Shouldn’t such an attitude be considered hypocritical? Of course, it may be my naivety, but the fact remains: on the one hand, an official statement from NORAD denying involvement; on the other, a rumor that there was involvement. Considering the case as a whole, it’s clear to me which alternative is more plausible.
Discussing ufology in Congress may seem like a waste of time, but it also reflects the public interest. It’s up to skeptics and scientists to seize these opportunities to bring quality information to the debate. Unfortunately, this opportunity was limited, as the skeptics were almost summarily excluded a priori. Douglas Rodrigues, from the website Universo Racionalista, participated in a previously recorded video, but it lasted no more than three minutes. Perhaps next time, the scales will be more evenly balanced.
This story was originally published by Revista Questão de Ciência in Brazil. It is translated and reprinted here with permission.
