Former BBC Journalist Threatens Ross Coulthart “3 Hours To Respond”

What would it take to hide a craft so massive you couldn’t move it? If you believe a viral claim making the rounds, the answer is simple: you build a building right over the top. That’s the gripping premise behind a story that’s ricocheted through the UFO community—fueled by an on-air tease from journalist Ross Coulthart, an online ultimatum from a creator who goes by Money Penny, and a flurry of theories that point to an ultra-secure facility at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. It’s a tale with just enough documents, timing quirks, and eyebrow-raising quotes to keep believers hopeful and skeptics busy.

Before we go any further, here’s the heart of it: Coulthart once said he knows of a nonhuman craft so large it couldn’t be moved, so authorities built something over it to hide it. He’s refused to disclose the location, citing source protection and national security, while promising that the truth will surface someday. Money Penny, meanwhile, publicly challenged him to either reveal the site or justify why it must remain secret—and then named a candidate anyway. The claim: a high-security, super-expensive command facility at Offutt AFB might be the very building rumored to sit atop an enormous, immovable craft.

No surprise, the internet lit up. Some say the Nebraska lead lines up with oddities in construction records and an extraordinary local sighting. Others point out that Coulthart explicitly said the site he knows is outside the United States. Could there be more than one location? Was he being coy? Or are people trying to fit a dramatic story to coincidental facts? As always in this topic, the answer you prefer probably says as much about your worldview as it does about the evidence.

Let’s unpack what was said, what’s been alleged, and how to keep a clear head while following a story designed to tug at your curiosity.

The Origin Story: A Tease That Wouldn’t Die

Years ago, on a podcast, Ross Coulthart said he’d been told about—and knew the location of—a craft so big it couldn’t be moved. Authorities, he claimed, built a structure right over it. He emphasized he would not reveal where, describing the matter as sensitive and potentially dangerous for people working there. He framed the secret as astonishing and worthy of oversight, even musing that Congress should investigate who’s paid to secure and maintain such a thing.

That short exchange became internet kindling. Clips went viral, forums dissected his wording, and interviewers kept asking follow-up questions. Coulthart held the line: he would not identify the place. He also bristled at the expectation that he should, reminding audiences that protecting sources is nonnegotiable for journalists dealing with sensitive material.

The Viral Ultimatum—and a Nebraska Theory

Enter Money Penny, a creator on X who posted a countdown video urging Coulthart to either disclose the alleged location or contact her with a compelling national security reason to remain silent. After the clock ran out, she posted a detailed theory that points to Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska—home to U.S. Strategic Command—and specifically to its Command and Control Facility (C2F), constructed over the past decade.

Why Offutt? Her case strings together a set of unusual data points:

- Cost and scale: The C2F is a sprawling, high-security build said to be extraordinarily expensive per square foot—reportedly more than the Pentagon.

- Underground complexity: Audits and oversight documents reference underground spaces, unexpected incidents (a fire, flooding), construction delays, and upgraded electromagnetic shielding.

- Building-within-a-building: The facility reportedly includes EM-hardened features usually associated with top-tier bunkers and secure communications.

- Timing oddity: On August 21, 2015, a witness inside Offutt’s perimeter reported a massive, silent, triangular craft—roughly matching the building’s footprint. On the same date, according to project notes, there were significant change orders and requests for more funding.

- Flood risk: In 2019, a third of the base was underwater, yet this crown-jewel node sits in a flood-prone zone. Why there—unless the location itself was non-negotiable?

It’s an intriguing bundle. But there’s a glaring catch: Coulthart stated the giant-craft site he knows is not in the United States. Money Penny counters that he could have been evasive, mistaken, or referring to a different site entirely—and suggests there might be more than one example worldwide.

Other Whispers, Other Places

Coulthart isn’t the only public figure to orbit this idea. Researcher Steven Greer has described a facility outside Seoul, South Korea, where an enormous craft was allegedly immobilized inside a carved-out mountain because it was too big to move. Former AATIP director Lue Elizondo, asked directly about the “building-over-the-craft” claim, declined to confirm or deny anything that could reveal “sources and methods,” but acknowledged having seen video of a very large underwater object in another context.

None of this is confirmation. Still, it shows how the “too big to move” motif pops up in different corners of the UFO conversation—and why the public finds it so tantalizing.

Can AI Crack a UFO Case?

A twist in Money Penny’s presentation is her claim that she worked on the lead with “Jack GPT5,” describing the AI as a colleague. AI is a powerful research ally for organizing public documents, summarizing reports, and suggesting angles to check. But it’s not a classified leak machine, nor is it an oracle. It’s a pattern matcher that can surface publicly available breadcrumbs—and it can also happily reinforce your hunches if you aren’t careful.

In fact, AI often hedges when asked to confirm specific, unverified claims. In a casual demo, an AI responded that there are no verified reports of a giant UFO hidden in a building in Omaha. That doesn’t prove the claim false—only that publicly accessible, reliable confirmation doesn’t exist.

Bottom line: AI can accelerate research, but it doesn’t replace verification. It’s best used to map what’s on the record, not to fabricate what isn’t.

What We Know, What’s Claimed, and What’s Unknown

Here’s the clearest way to hold this story:

- What’s on record:

- Ross Coulthart said he knows of a giant, immovable craft concealed beneath a structure, and he won’t reveal where.

- Offutt AFB’s C2F is a real, extremely expensive, and highly secure facility with hardened features consistent with nuclear command-and-control needs.

- Official documents mention underground work, incidents, and cost/scope changes—common in massive, complex government builds, but intriguing in this context.

- A 2015 sighting near or within Offutt described a large, silent triangular object. As with most sightings, it remains unverified.

- What’s alleged:

- Offutt’s C2F sits directly over a craft that matches the building’s footprint and sparked mid-construction changes.

- The facility’s EM shielding and “building within a building” design exist because of a hidden object.

- What’s unknown:

- Whether the site Coulthart referenced is in the U.S., South Korea, or somewhere else.

- Whether any giant craft exists at all—or whether mundane explanations fully account for the anomalies.

Plausible Alternatives You Should Consider

- Hardened command centers are expensive by design. Facilities like STRATCOM’s C2F require intense electromagnetic shielding, redundant power, and compartmented spaces—essentially a “building within a building”—to survive worst-case scenarios, including EMP events and cyber/kinetic attacks.

- Construction “anomalies” are common in megaprojects. Complex underground work, unexpected soil conditions, fires, flooding, and midstream change orders aren’t rare in projects of this scale.

- Sightings are not the same as measurements. The reported 2015 triangular craft could have been misperceived, mis-sized, or unrelated atmospheric/aviation phenomena.

- Floodplains sometimes house critical infrastructure anyway. The location may have been chosen for strategic reasons that outweigh flood risk, mitigated by costly hardening and engineering.

Why This Captivates Us

Stories like this sit at the intersection of mystery, accountability, and wonder. If a giant craft exists and has been funded, guarded, and studied for decades, what does that mean for democracy and disclosure? Who pays for it? Who decides what the public is allowed to know? Those are fair questions even if the specific claim turns out to be wrong.

And if the claim is right, it reframes our place in the universe. Either way, the question is big enough to justify careful, principled digging.

How to Follow the Story Without Getting Lost

- Go to primary sources. Read the audit/oversight documents, site plans, environmental assessments, and public spending records for Offutt’s C2F. Don’t rely on screenshots of screenshots.

- Track timelines. Do the reported change orders and cost spikes actually align with the sighting date—and do independent records confirm it?

- Demand corroboration. A single witness report, a single tweet, or a single interview clip shouldn’t carry an entire narrative. Look for independent, converging evidence.

- Separate “could be” from “is.” EM shielding, compartmented construction, and high costs are consistent with secret programs—but also with ordinary nuclear command requirements.

- Respect safety and law. If a facility serves an active national security purpose, recklessly doxxing personnel or attempting to breach it is not journalism—it’s dangerous and illegal.

Ethics, Secrecy, and the Public’s Right to Know

Coulthart’s stance—that he won’t reveal the site to protect people and sources—frustrates some readers but is consistent with standard journalistic ethics. Journalists make judgment calls all the time about what to publish and when. Leaks carry consequences. Good reporters weigh harm, timing, and the reliability of what they’ve been told.

At the same time, secrecy can be overused, and “trust us” doesn’t satisfy a public that wants transparency around taxpayer-funded programs. The healthiest outcome is responsible oversight: document-driven reporting, good-faith inquiries from lawmakers, and whistleblowers who use protected channels when possible.

Could There Be More Than One Site?

It’s possible. If recovered technology exists on the scale implied, it’s logical that more than one location or method of concealment would be used. Greer’s South Korea claim and the Offutt theory could both be wrong—or one of them could be right while Coulthart was referring to yet another place entirely. Without verifiable documentation, we’re in a hypothesis space, not a certainty space.

A Personal Note That Grounds the Hype

One reason this specific theory resonates is that it’s attached to a real, storied base. Offutt AFB is woven into the lives of military families and the history of U.S. nuclear command. Many people who lived or worked there—some since childhood—never saw anything unusual. That doesn’t disprove anything, but it’s a reminder: vast facilities can look ordinary to most of the people who pass through them every day.

What’s Next

Expect more digging into Offutt’s construction records. Expect debunks that point to standard nuclear command requirements. Expect believers to find more coincidences—and skeptics to find more prosaic explanations. If this is ever confirmed, it likely won’t be because of a single viral post; it will be because multiple lines of evidence, documents, and credible insiders align over time.

The Takeaway

It’s okay to be fascinated. It’s healthy to be skeptical. The claim that a UFO is so big someone built a building around it is cinematic, and it might even be true somewhere. But extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence—and until we see verifiable documents, corroborated testimony, or imagery that passes professional scrutiny, the Offutt theory remains an intriguing possibility, not a proven fact.

So stay curious. Read the source material. Support responsible journalism. Ask good questions. And if you’re part of this story—working at a facility, holding documents, or possessing firsthand knowledge—protect yourself, use proper channels, and consider the public’s right to know. The truth, if it’s out there, will need both courage and care to bring it into the light.