Representative Mace posed the question to David Grusch, “Do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?” I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to assume they aren’t discussing “animals” in the traditional sense—that is, an animal you or I would think of, like a dog, cat, monkey, etc. This is especially true since every publicly known animal in the animal kingdom, humans excepted, lacks the ability to pilot a craft.

If your argument is that they’re referring to an animal not publicly recorded in the animal kingdom—a sentient being—then we are in agreement.

https://youtu.be/RZ_0ImDYrPY

https://youtu.be/czgC3T3lwEk

maybe you should do some googling before pretending your antiquated biases are facts.

The two examples you provided involve animals driving vehicles, not piloting a craft.

You may choose to either believe or disbelieve Mr. Grusch’s claims, both of which are reasonable stances. However, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to listen to the hearing, read the article, and then infer that ‘non-human’ in this context refers to animals as we typically understand the term.

To me, this seems like arguing in bad faith by nitpicking at semantics rather than debating the veracity of Mr. Grusch’s claims.