Eric Burlison Comes Clean About UFOs (One Of The Wildest Videos I’ve Ever Made)

In plain terms, Burlison confirmed the date, outlined who’s expected to testify (without naming names), and described why his office leans so heavily on Grusch to vet sources. He also addressed questions about Luis Elizondo’s credibility, the status of Grusch’s ICIG complaint, and why some would‑be witnesses might need subpoenas. Perhaps most striking, he spoke as a self‑described skeptic who’s open to evidence but cautious about jumping straight to reverse‑engineered alien tech.

The conversation was candid, sometimes messy, and very human. Staffers giggled in early meetings, schedules collided, clearances blocked key discussions, and health scares derailed carefully laid plans. If you’ve ever wondered why disclosure feels like two steps forward and one step back, this is a rare window into the human realities behind the headlines.

Below is a clear rundown of what Burlison shared, why it matters, and what to watch next as the September 9 hearing comes into focus.

September 9 Is Official—And Fresh Military Witnesses Are Coming

Rep. Burlison confirmed the hearing date: September 9. He also sketched out the witness slate—three fresh faces rather than the familiar names we’ve seen on TV panels and in documentaries:

- A former U.S. Air Force veteran prepared to speak about five UAP incidents he witnessed and investigated during his service.

- A U.S. Navy officer who directly witnessed UAP events.

- Another U.S. Air Force officer with firsthand UAP encounters.

No names yet, by design. Burlison said the goal is to bring new perspectives to the record—people who haven’t already told their stories publicly. If you’re fatigued by the same talking heads, that’s welcome news. If you’re hoping for former program managers and scientists, he didn’t rule it out, but this round appears focused on operational witnesses with direct, recent experience.

The David Grusch Factor: Central, Complicated, and Constrained

Burlison didn’t dance around it: David Grusch is central to his team’s work. He attends weekly staff meetings. He is heavily involved in vetting who’s credible and who isn’t. And he’s the de facto gatekeeper on who should be prioritized to brief Congress—right down to which high‑profile figures are worth the committee’s time.

That reliance comes with upsides and risks. Upside: Grusch knows the community and can quickly verify whether someone likely has real access or just a good story. Risk: when one person’s instincts and network drive the intake, important voices can get de‑prioritized. Case in point: Jay Stratton—prominent in recent disclosure discussions—hasn’t been a priority according to Burlison, largely because Grusch doesn’t rate him as one. Whether you agree or not, it shows how much influence Grusch currently wields.

There’s a major constraint: clearances. Burlison explained that personal congressional staff are typically capped at Top Secret; SCI access is rare unless you’re committee staff. They tried to get Grusch a committee slot to facilitate SCI, but oversight leadership didn’t want to break precedent. Result: even though Grusch previously held SCI, in his current role he’s at TS only. That’s why there were moments when Arrow could engage with Grusch at a level Burlison himself couldn’t hear—because Grusch could discuss certain matters with the team, but not in settings that included those without SCI.

Arrow, Meetings, and a Health Scare

One of the most eye‑opening moments in Burlison’s account: a meeting with Arrow where, in his telling, Grusch was the most informed person in the room. Burlison said Arrow staff “followed his lead,” asking where to look, who to talk to, and how to proceed. Whatever your view of Arrow, that detail underscores why Grusch’s presence has become so consequential inside Congress.

Immediately after that meeting, Burlison said, Grusch experienced sudden health issues and had to leave Washington to see his doctor. He didn’t speculate, didn’t name causes, and emphasized he was being careful as an employer. The timing has fueled outside rumor mills, but Burlison kept it simple and respectful.

Trust, Verify, and the Elizondo Question

Burlison was asked directly about Luis Elizondo’s credibility amid controversies over misidentified photos and disputed claims. His answer was pragmatic: in a field rife with hearsay, if you set the bar so high you only talk to perfect sources, you’ll talk to no one. He tries to “trust but verify,” take stories at face value, and then evaluate. That won’t satisfy everyone, but it reflects the uneasy balance elected officials have to strike: keep the door open, guard against being misled, and keep the process moving.

Grusch’s ICIG Complaint: Still Ongoing

Remember the question that drives so much online debate: What actually happened with Grusch’s ICIG reprisal complaint? According to Burlison, it’s still an active investigation—two years on. That frustrates people who want resolution. Burlison floated a fair point: if it were empty, maybe it would have been dismissed quickly; the length could suggest there’s substance. Until there’s a formal outcome, though, it remains an open loop.

Subpoenas Are on the Table

Not everyone wants to testify voluntarily—no surprise there. Burlison said his team, with Grusch’s help, is building a list of witnesses to bring in openly or in a SCIF. For those who won’t come in, subpoenas are possible. He also mentioned he’d want to press Elizondo on specific details: the depth of his personal knowledge of any “legacy” programs, precise locations, additional witnesses, and whether he’s had direct contact with such programs. That’s exactly the kind of specificity that moves this conversation from headlines to evidence.

A Story From the Deep

One of Burlison’s most arresting stories came from a maritime whistleblower who described a structure in the deep ocean—an account Burlison said reminded him of The Abyss. He was crystal clear: he’s relaying what he was told, not certifying it as fact. He even lamented being misquoted in the past as personally asserting the existence of “giants” or a set number of alien species. Credit to him for sharing information without over‑claiming it—and for encouraging people to judge claims on evidence.

Why the April SCIF Briefing Imploded

If you watched the April drama and wondered how everything fell apart, Burlison’s blow‑by‑blow is telling:

- Oversight staff assigned to the UAP task force were brilliant at financial forensics and JFK files, but initially didn’t take UAPs seriously. Some literally giggled in meetings.

- Burlison hired Grusch to bring intelligence‑community fluency to the effort and navigated the maze to get him a renewed TS (but not SCI) clearance.

- A big week of events was planned: Grusch in town, a productive meeting with Arrow, and a scheduled briefing with Elizondo and others.

- Then the dominoes fell: Grusch’s sudden health issue, oversight staff pleading that they weren’t ready, a direct scheduling conflict with a hearing Burlison had to chair, and finally, calendar issues. The new date didn’t work for Elizondo, and on the day of the rescheduled hearing, Christopher Mellon reportedly had pneumonia.

Burlison’s stance through all this? Take people at their word, focus on facts, and don’t get distracted by reputational battles. Agree or not, it’s a sober approach in a space where personalities often eclipse substance.

A Skeptic from the Show‑Me State

Burlison describes himself as a skeptic—open‑minded, yes, but not convinced we’re looking at reverse‑engineered non‑human tech. He thinks it’s more likely (not certain, but likely) that some of what we’re seeing are natural advances in human technology moving into production. That’s not a dismissal of the UAP problem; it’s a posture: show me. Bring data, bring corroboration, bring firsthand witnesses under oath. That’s exactly what September 9 is supposed to deliver.

What to Watch Between Now and September 9

- The witness trio: Will their identities be revealed ahead of time, or will we meet them at the hearing? Either way, expect firsthand operational accounts from Air Force and Navy officers.

- Grusch’s clearance status: Unless he’s placed differently (e.g., committee staff or an executive-branch role), don’t expect SCI access to expand for him as a personal congressional staffer. That shapes what he can see and share.

- Subpoenas and priorities: If some high‑profile figures won’t come in voluntarily, does oversight pull the trigger on subpoenas? And will the current prioritization change to include other prominent names?

- Arrow’s next moves: If they took guidance from Grusch, will we see concrete follow‑ups—new taskings, interviews, or document pulls that make the hearing meatier?

The Takeaway

Beyond the headlines, this conversation humanized the process. It’s not just acronyms, clearances, and classified rooms—it’s overworked staff, imperfect calendars, conflicting priorities, and people trying to do the right thing while sorting wheat from chaff in one of the noisiest information spaces on Earth. Burlison’s candor about missteps and limits matters. So does his insistence on hearing new voices under oath.

If you care about this topic, do three things:

- Keep your expectations grounded but your curiosity high.

- Watch or listen to the full X Space when you can; context matters.

- Most of all, tune in September 9. Fresh testimony from credible, first‑hand military witnesses is exactly how this conversation moves forward.

We don’t need slogans or certainty; we need data, documents, and people with access speaking under oath. If the process holds and the witnesses deliver, September 9 could be a real step toward clarity—no matter where the evidence leads.

Bombshell Allegations Against UFO Whistleblower Karl Nell

Here’s the setup. Content creator Patrick from Vetted covered new allegations that Colonel Carl Nell—the same former Army officer who appeared at the 2024 SALT Conference and said “non-human intelligence exists”—is being named as the behind-the-scenes source telling members of Congress and staffers about an apocalyptic scenario. Another creator, Pavel of Seco Activo, said multiple sources pointed to Nell. An attorney associated with Luis Elizondo, introduced in a podcast as Ivan Hanel, also suggested that if anyone presented such a rumor to Congress, it would be Nell. Strong words, but no documents, no recordings, and no corroborating proof were provided.

That’s the core tension of the video: serious allegations without supporting evidence. Patrick’s take is refreshingly grounded—don’t jump to conclusions, don’t smear people without proof, and remember that in this topic area, almost everything comes through human storytellers. If we don’t have artifacts we can examine, we have to evaluate the people and the process. That doesn’t mean we attack; it means we assess.

In other words, the UFO conversation is really about information hygiene. Who is saying what? How do they know? What are their incentives? And why now? Until those questions have clear, verifiable answers, the only responsible posture is curiosity with caution. Let’s unpack what’s being said, why it matters, and how to think clearly about sensational claims in a community where rumors run faster than receipts.

What Sparked the Rumor

According to the coverage, the chain goes like this:

- Colonel Carl Nell spoke publicly at SALT 2024 about non-human intelligence existing and interacting with humanity.

- Pavel (Seco Activo) claimed that multiple sources told him Nell was the person briefing members of Congress or their staff in unclassified settings about an impending object—framed by some as an alien craft returning to reclaim recovered bodies or hardware.

- An attorney identified on a podcast as Ivan Hanel, associated with Luis Elizondo, said he doesn’t believe any apocalyptic event is real, but if such a rumor reached Congress, he believed Nell would be behind it.

Crucially, none of these claims came with evidence the public can independently verify. No emails, memos, calendar invites, texts, or audio. Just assertions. And that’s the through-line: big allegations, zero receipts.

Evidence vs. Assertion

One of the video’s most valuable points is simple: accusations are not evidence. Testimony can be a starting point, but it isn’t a finish line. For extraordinary claims—whether that’s craft recoveries, non-human bodies, or a countdown clock to an “impending object”—the bar must be higher than “a source told me.”

What would count as evidence here? At minimum, documentation that any such briefing occurred, confirmation from on-the-record participants, corroborating material from independent sources, and, ideally, primary artifacts like recordings or official summaries. Without that, we’re not doing journalism; we’re trading in rumor.

Why People, Not Just Phenomena, Are the Story

It’s popular to say, “Let’s stop talking about personalities and start talking about the phenomena.” Fair enough—but here’s the dilemma the video nails: in this field, there are vanishingly few publicly accessible artifacts to analyze. No publicly verifiable craft, no specimen in a museum, no open database of crash materials. Most of what we have are stories. Those stories come from people. That means the only way to responsibly approach the topic is to scrutinize the storytellers and the pathways the information traveled.

You don’t have to make it personal to make it rigorous. You can ask:

- What is the source’s track record for accuracy?

- Do their claims come with timestamps, documents, or other concrete anchors?

- Is there independent corroboration from people not in the same friend group or media circle?

- What are the incentives—attention, influence, business interests, or genuine public interest?

- How transparent is the messenger about what they don’t know?

Those questions aren’t attacks; they’re safeguards.

The Timing Question: Why Now?

Whenever a dramatic claim surfaces, timing matters. The video raises a fair point: Pavel teased similar information last year without naming names. Why go public with a name now? And why would an attorney associated with a prominent UFO figure add to the speculation at this moment? There are benign explanations (new confirmations, a sense of responsibility to warn, or misguided urgency), and there are less benign ones (audience growth, narrative positioning, or internal community politics). We don’t know. That’s the point.

Good-faith actors can still make mistakes. High-emotion topics distort judgment. Even well-meaning people can spread bad information if they believe the stakes are historic. That’s exactly why we need evidence standards, not just good intentions.

The Limits of Indie Vetting (And Why It Matters)

Patrick is admirably honest about the limits of independent media. Most YouTubers and podcasters don’t have newsroom budgets, investigative teams, legal counsel, or FOIA specialists on retainer. They can chase leads and sanity-check claims to a degree, but “full vetting” is a heavy lift. That doesn’t mean indie creators can’t break real stories—they can and often do. It means we should calibrate our expectations and be transparent about uncertainty.

If you follow UFO stories, expect a spectrum of reliability. Sometimes it’s documents and corroboration. Sometimes it’s vibes and hearsay. Treat each case accordingly. And for allegations that could seriously damage reputations—like identifying a specific person as the source of an apocalyptic hoax—demand receipts before you repeat it as fact.

A Practical Way to Think About Sensational Claims

When the next explosive thread hits your feed, try this checklist:

- Specificity: Are the claims precise (names, dates, locations) or vague?

- Provenance: Who first said it, and where did they get it?

- Corroboration: Is there independent confirmation from unrelated sources?

- Primary Evidence: Are there documents, recordings, or physical artifacts?

- Transparency: Does the messenger share what they can’t verify yet?

- Stakes: If true, would there be a trail—calendars, emails, security logs?

- Pattern: Does this fit a pattern of past exaggerations or accurate reporting?

- Falsifiability: What new evidence would clearly prove or disprove it?

The more “yes” answers you get, the more weight a claim deserves. If most answers are “no,” keep your curiosity open and your conclusions provisional.

What Would Move This Story From Rumor to Reporting

For the specific allegations about Colonel Carl Nell and the “impending object” rumor, here’s what would materially change the conversation:

- On-the-record confirmation from congressional offices that such a briefing occurred, including dates and who attended.

- Documentary evidence (emails, calendar entries, memos, or official scheduling artifacts) linking Nell to those briefings.

- Audio or transcripts confirming the content of the alleged warnings.

- Independent corroboration from multiple, unrelated attendees.

- Any official response or clarification from Nell addressing the claims directly.

Until then, anyone stating “Nell did it” as fact is leaping beyond the evidence.

Respect, Fairness, and the Human Cost of Bad Information

It’s easy to forget that real people sit behind the headlines. An unproven allegation can stain a reputation indefinitely, especially in a community that archives every rumor. Whether you’re a skeptic or a believer, fairness should be non-negotiable. Ask for proof, avoid piling on, and resist turning uncertainty into certainty just because it makes for a better story.

At the same time, remember that caution cuts both ways. If someone genuinely did mislead Congress, that’s serious. The responsible path is still the same: gather verifiable evidence, publish it transparently, and allow for responses from those named.

Why This Matters for the Bigger UFO Conversation

UFOs frustrate us because the stakes feel enormous and the proof is perpetually just out of reach. That limbo creates fertile ground for rumor—especially when high-profile names and institutions are involved. If we want the conversation to mature, we need norms: cite sources, separate what’s known from what’s believed, and hold everyone—insiders, influencers, and institutions—to consistent standards.

That’s the real takeaway from Patrick’s video. He doesn’t claim to have all the answers. He doesn’t pretend he can fully vet every lead. He’s reminding the audience—and the broader UFO world—that the desire to believe and the desire to debunk can both warp our thinking. The antidote is humility plus rigor: admit what we don’t know, and insist on the kind of evidence that would convince a neutral observer.

The Bottom Line

- Big claim: Colonel Carl Nell is being named as the source of an “impending object” rumor allegedly shared with Congress.

- Current status: No public evidence has been presented to substantiate that claim.

- Responsible stance: Stay curious, ask for receipts, and be fair to the people involved until verifiable facts emerge.

Conclusion

If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that UFO stories can turn on a dime. Today’s viral rumor is tomorrow’s retraction—or tomorrow’s revelation. The difference lies in proof. Until there’s something concrete—documents, recordings, on-the-record confirmations—treat this story as what it is: unverified allegations circulating in a high-noise environment.

Be open-minded, not empty-headed. Be skeptical, not cynical. And if you care about getting closer to the truth, make evidence your North Star. That’s how we protect real discoveries from being drowned out by the latest bonkers headline—and how we keep the conversation human, honest, and useful.

BREAKING NEWS: Head of NASA Demands 'Alien Briefing'

Here’s the nutshell: Gabbard says she’s pursuing “the truth” on UFOs while staying careful about what she shares. Duffy says he hasn’t received an alien briefing yet, but he’s asked for one and wants to be as transparent as possible. Meanwhile, former President Trump has offered mixed messages—first urging disclosure about the New Jersey drones, then later saying he knows what they were but can’t say. All of this is playing against a backdrop of genuine sightings, including footage captured by Duffy’s own family, and a policy push to “unleash American drone dominance” as the U.S. tries to counter China’s grip on the consumer drone market.

So what’s real, what’s political, and what should we reasonably expect to learn? Let’s break it down, set the sensationalism aside, and talk about what transparency could realistically look like in 2025.

Why this matters now: the conversation isn’t just about aliens. It’s about the government’s responsibility to communicate clearly when unknown craft—manned or unmanned—are flying over American communities. It’s also about how political leaders frame secrecy, security, and trust.

The Viral Clip Everyone’s Talking About

In the Fox radio/podcast segment that lit up social media, Sean Duffy said he hasn’t had an “alien briefing,” but he’s asked for one. He played it for laughs, then pivoted to a serious point: people want transparency, and government should share as much as is feasible. He also linked that message to President Trump’s ethos, calling the next four years “transformative.”

That combo—humor, a dash of mystery, and a promise of openness—travels fast online. Add in Duffy’s recent attention-grabbing remark about building a nuclear reactor at the Moon’s south pole (where ice could support human presence), and you’ve got a public primed to hear something big is coming. But a careful listen to his full comments shows no promise of UFO disclosure; it’s more about acknowledging public appetite for answers—especially about those drones.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Careful Tease

The conversation traces back to Tulsi Gabbard, who said on Pod Force One that her team is “continuing to look for the truth and share that truth with the American people.” She avoided specifics, emphasized her responsibility around classified information, and nodded to the idea that “the truth is out there.” It was a tantalizing tease—just enough to spike curiosity, not enough to count as confirmation.

If you’re wondering whether a Cabinet official can simply “ask for” an alien briefing, the practical answer is: not exactly. High-level officials can request classified briefings relevant to their portfolio or national security, but access is governed by clearances and the need-to-know principle. In other words, even very senior leaders see only what they’re authorized and required to know.

New Jersey’s Mystery Drones—and A Community on Edge

The New Jersey sightings are the gravity well pulling this conversation back to Earth. According to Duffy, he personally saw the drones; his wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, says her family captured footage right from their backyard. Local chatter boards lit up. People are worried. Was it hostile? Harmless? A test? Why no clear answers?

From what’s been said publicly, there are three broad possibilities:

- Domestic testing or training: federal, state, or private actors operating legally or quasi‑legally in complicated airspace.

- Commercial or hobby drones: less likely in higher-altitude or coordinated group sightings, but not impossible where regulations are ignored.

- Foreign surveillance: a concern officials don’t take lightly, especially as drones have become central to modern conflict.

Duffy himself argues for a whole-of-government fix—FAA, DOT, DOD and more—so the U.S. can reliably detect and identify drones, not just airplanes. That’s not a small task. Low-altitude, small cross-section craft are notoriously hard to track at scale without blanketing the sky in sensors. And yet, that may be exactly what’s coming.

Trump’s Transparency Test: Mixed Messages

The transparency angle gets messy when you look at Trump’s shifting tone. In December, he publicly pressed for answers about the drones, implying the government knew their origin and should come clean. Later, he said he knew who and what they were—but couldn’t say, while insisting it wasn’t a big deal and was legal. If your head is spinning, you’re not alone.

To be fair, that whiplash is pretty common when operational details are classified. Leaders may genuinely want to disclose, but are constrained by ongoing investigations, law enforcement sensitivities, or the need to protect sources, methods, and tech. Still, when messaging flips from “tell the people” to “I can’t tell you,” it’s easy to see why public trust erodes.

Are We Talking Aliens—or Airspace?

Here’s the blunt question beneath all the buzz: Are we inching toward UFO disclosure, or are we struggling with a more earthbound problem—how to govern, detect, and explain an explosion of drones in our skies?

Right now, the preponderance of evidence points to the latter. Drones are inexpensive, capable, and everywhere—often without robust, standardized identification systems. Meanwhile, U.S. agencies are pushing remote ID requirements and working to counter the dominance of Chinese manufacturers, who own roughly 90% of the consumer market. That’s not just an economic problem; it’s a data and security problem.

Duffy’s Drone Agenda: From Backyard Sightings to Policy

A revealing piece of the puzzle slipped in almost quietly: Duffy announced a push to “unleash American drone dominance,” following an executive order directing the federal government to lean into drone technology and airspace management. The stated goal: stop “turning over our skies” to a key adversary by reducing reliance on foreign-made systems.

Read between the lines, and the New Jersey mystery takes on a different hue. If U.S. agencies are retooling drone policy, testing detection networks, or evaluating counter‑UAS capabilities, some of what people saw could be domestic activity—lawful but undisclosed for operational reasons. That wouldn’t explain every sighting, but it’s a plausible throughline that aligns with the public comments we’ve heard: “It’s legal,” “not a big deal,” “we need better technology,” and “we want transparency where feasible.”

Why People Want Answers—Now

Rachel Campos-Duffy captured the mood succinctly: we’re in an era where people want more transparency, period. From JFK files to Epstein to 9/11 to UAPs, many Americans feel like the default is secrecy until the pressure gets too strong—and then, at best, partial answers trickle out.

There’s also a lived reality that wasn’t true a decade ago: when unmarked craft hover overhead, your neighbors can film them in 4K, triangulate location, and swap notes on apps within minutes. The information genie is out of the bottle. Government silence doesn’t calm people anymore; it fuels the void.

What Real Transparency Could Look Like

The good news is that transparency isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. Here’s what a reasonable, public-first approach might include without jeopardizing national security:

- Clear, time-bound updates: When unexplained activity occurs over populated areas, a lead agency should acknowledge it within 24–72 hours, even if the initial update is limited.

- Incident categorization: A simple framework—domestic test, commercial, foreign, unknown—updated as facts evolve.

- After-action summaries: Once operational sensitivity has passed, publish what was known, when it was known, and what actions followed.

- Community integration: Provide local officials with templated communication and a briefing channel to reduce rumor and panic.

- Tech roadmap: Share high-level plans for drone detection and identification, including timelines and safeguards for privacy and civil liberties.

Set expectations accurately, and you cool down the rumor mill while preserving space to do real security work.

What About the “Alien Briefing”?

Let’s demystify that phrase. There’s no single binder labeled “Aliens: The Truth.” Classified programs, if they exist, are compartmentalized, and access requires both clearances and a demonstrable need to know. Could a Cabinet official receive a UAP-focused briefing? Absolutely—especially if the topic touches transportation, aviation safety, or national security coordination. But the odds of a one-time briefing producing a primetime tell-all? Very low.

That said, Gabbard’s posture—pursue the truth and share what’s appropriate—spells the right direction. So does Duffy’s emphasis on feasible transparency. If their teams can deliver steady, credible updates on UAP policy and drone governance, that alone would mark real progress.

The Balance Between Curiosity and Caution

It’s easy to scoff at alien talk and just as easy to believe we’re one memo away from revelation. The more grounded path is to accept two truths at once: one, the U.S. should improve how it communicates about unknowns in the sky; and two, much of what’s unknown today is likely explainable tomorrow with better sensors, coordination, and policy.

Meanwhile, your instincts are right. Keep asking for clarity. Expect consistent standards. Challenge officials—politely, persistently—when messages change without explanation. And remember: in the realm of national airspace, “we can’t say yet” isn’t necessarily a dodge; sometimes it’s the honest answer.

The Bottom Line

This week’s viral clip didn’t prove aliens are real, and it didn’t prove the New Jersey drones were foreign. It did highlight three big realities:

- The public’s trust hinges on timely, plain-English communication.

- Drones—friendly, commercial, adversarial, or unknown—are rewriting the rules of our sky.

- Transparency isn’t a slogan; it’s a system. Build it, and the speculation cools down.

If you’re waiting for a capital‑D Disclosure, you might be waiting a while. But if you want better information, safer skies, and fewer mysteries over your cul‑de‑sac, press for the practical stuff: detection, identification, responsible declassification, and straightforward briefings when incidents occur. That’s how we move from viral clips to real answers.

And if an “alien briefing” does happen, here’s hoping it kicks off something even more valuable: a durable culture of transparency that treats the public like partners, not bystanders.

Shocking Allegations Against Lue Elizondo

If you blinked, you might’ve missed it—but the latest UAP dust-up unfolding around Congress, a Joe Rogan interview, and a 30‑second social clip says a lot about how messy the UFO conversation gets once it enters the halls of power. Representative Anna Paulina Luna shared her frustration about would-be briefers skipping classified meetings—what she jokingly called the “skiff flu”—and the internet immediately filled in the blanks with some of the biggest names in the UAP space. Then Lue Elizondo fired back online. The result? A sharp reminder that transparency, safety, and logistics collide in complicated ways when the topic is UFOs and government.

The Flashpoint: A 30-Second Clip

This round began with a short clip pushed out by Steven Greenstreet of the New York Post. In it, Luna says she reached out to “some of the biggest names in UFO lore,” only to watch them come down with “skiff flu” on the very days a SCIF was booked. For the uninitiated, a SCIF—often pronounced “skiff”—is a secure, classified space where people with clearances can speak freely and share sensitive evidence.

Here’s the twist: in that specific clip, Luna doesn’t name anyone. Online chatter quickly connected those dots for her, suggesting she meant David Grusch, Chris Mellon, and Lue Elizondo. The names matter, but so does context—and a longer portion of the conversation adds some.

What Luna Actually Said—and What Rogan Added

When the exchange continues beyond the viral snippet, Joe Rogan suggests another possibility: maybe some would-be briefers are scared—worried about their physical safety, or unconvinced that the government can protect them even if whistleblower protections exist on paper. Luna acknowledges hearing those concerns too, noting that legal protections don’t necessarily translate into bodyguard-level security.

In other words, the story isn’t just “people ghosted Congress.” It’s also about fear, trust, and whether witnesses believe the system will actually protect them. That complication is easy to lose in a 30-second sizzle clip, but it’s central to why the UAP conversation keeps stalling.

So Where Did Those Specific Names Come From?

Separate from the Rogan clip, there’s been chatter pointing to a May SCIF session and other briefings where, reportedly, high-profile figures were expected. In another moment, names like Chris Mellon and Lue Elizondo were cited as having gotten sick, with David Grusch also unwell at the time. Whether those absences were truly “skiff flu” or just real-life conflicts depends on whom you ask—and what receipts they’re willing to share.

Lue Elizondo Fires Back

Lue Elizondo responded on X, making it very clear he believed he was being implicated. His message boiled down to this: he’d traveled to D.C. multiple times at his own expense at the request of members of Congress, only to see meetings canceled last-minute. On one subsequent attempt, he says he was given three days’ notice with no guarantees while he was already committed to a public event in Oregon. He suggested Luna “knows the truth,” said there are emails to prove it, and added a barbed warning that if this is how things go, future whistleblowers may think twice about coming forward.

Tone aside, there were two notable wrinkles. First, Elizondo framed the situation as last‑minute, poorly coordinated, and costly—a perspective many can sympathize with. Second, in trying to back up his point online, he reportedly shared a screenshot that did a poor job of redacting email addresses, exposing private info that should have stayed private. Intentional or not, it’s not a great look in a conversation already fraught with sensitivity.

Who’s Who—and Why They Matter

- David Grusch: The former intelligence officer whose testimony last year escalated mainstream attention on UAP claims. He’s been seen as both a catalyst and a lightning rod.

- Chris Mellon: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, an influential voice who’s pushed for transparency and more responsible inquiry.

- Lue Elizondo: Former head of the Pentagon’s AATIP program (as widely reported) and one of the most visible public figures in the UAP space.

- Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: A key congressional player pushing for briefings and hearings, advocating that people who speak boldly on podcasts also step into classified rooms and official settings.

Why the SCIF Matters More Than the Podcast Studio

Luna’s core gripe is simple: some people will speak at length on podcasts, in interviews, or on stage at conferences. But when it comes time to walk into a SCIF—where claims can be vetted and corroborating material might be shared—they don’t show. Whether the reasons are illness, logistics, or fear, the effect is the same: congressional efforts stall, and public hearings keep getting pushed back.

SCIFs serve a crucial purpose. They allow sensitive data—sensor readings, classified footage, intelligence reports—to be discussed with far less hand‑waving. If the claims are as serious as they sound, this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s also where careers, clearances, and legal risk get real. That’s why scheduling a SCIF session is not as simple as booking a conference room and ordering coffee.

The Scheduling Slog No One Sees

High-profile briefers often juggle multiple commitments, international travel, and their own legal and security considerations. Meanwhile, congressional calendars are notoriously chaotic. Staffers wrangle rooms, confirmations, and clearances—all of which can change hours before a meeting. When last-minute cancellations collide with last-minute invitations, neither side feels respected. The result is resentment, and the blame game we’re seeing now.

Are Both Sides Right—At Least a Little?

In a way, yes. Luna is justified in wanting the conversation to migrate from podcasts to classified briefings and on-the-record hearings. If the claims are real, the public deserves clarity and Congress needs documented testimony to act. Likewise, Elizondo’s frustration with late cancellations, three-day windows, and travel at personal expense is legitimate. Few people can drop everything to fly across the country on a maybe—especially when your name and reputation are on the line.

Then there’s the safety piece. Rogan’s “what if they’ve been threatened?” point may sound dramatic, but it reflects what some would-be witnesses reportedly say: legal protections don’t stop anonymous threats, social blowback, or career damage. Whether such fears are well-founded or not, they are part of the decision-making calculus for anyone considering a SCIF briefing or sworn testimony.

The Cost of Calling People Out

Another layer: public callouts can backfire. If you want nervous or skeptical experts to come in, publicly accusing them of flaking might harden positions rather than build bridges. On the flip side, for lawmakers who feel stonewalled, public pressure is sometimes the only tool left to move the needle. It’s a delicate dance—and when cameras are rolling, it’s easy to step on toes.

Firsthand vs. Secondhand: Why Congress Keeps Drawing a Line

One reason the process drags: committees often insist on firsthand witnesses—people who directly saw, handled, or briefed material—rather than those who heard about it secondhand. That bar makes sense if the goal is evidence and action rather than speculation. But it also dramatically narrows the pool of willing, available, and cleared witnesses. Meanwhile, many who’ve heard credible stories may be eager to testify, but they don’t meet the threshold lawmakers set for moving the ball forward.

What Everyone Could Do Better

- Better scheduling and lead time: If Congress wants a briefing to stick, lock the date and secure travel funds—or provide remote secure options where feasible. Three-day windows invite failure.

- Clear expectations and scope: Spell out precisely what’s needed, what protections apply, and how long people will be in the room.

- Witness support: If safety is a real concern (even if unverified), explore protective measures that go beyond legal documents. Peace of mind matters.

- Private coordination, public restraint: Share receipts privately, avoid airing sensitive inboxes online, and try not to escalate disputes on social media.

- Media context: Report the clip—but include the follow‑on context. A 30‑second sound bite rarely captures a 360‑degree story.

Beyond the Headlines: What This Means for the Rest of Us

If you care about evidence, you should care about SCIF briefings and sworn testimony—because that’s where signals separate from noise. Our collective frustration with delays is understandable. But impatience can tempt us to draw hard conclusions from soft facts. Better to demand process improvements than to pick a favorite personality and treat their every claim as gospel.

For the UAP conversation to mature, we need three things: credible witnesses willing to go on record, lawmakers who protect them and respect their time, and media that prizes context over clicks. None of that is easy. But the alternative is another year of viral clips, heated threads, and very little concrete progress.

What Comes Next

Expect more public back‑and‑forth—statements, posts, maybe even more leaked emails. You may also see congressional offices tighten up their scheduling and communication after this flare‑up. And don’t be surprised if additional voices in the UAP space weigh in on the “skiff flu” narrative, either to defend their choices or to call for better processes all around.

There’s also the question of hearings. Lawmakers have said that hearings slip when witnesses won’t sit for classified briefings first. That means the next big public moment you’re waiting for likely depends on what happens behind closed doors in a SCIF you’ll never see.

The Bottom Line

- The viral clip didn’t name names, but plenty of people assumed who it meant.

- Luna is frustrated that would-be briefers keep missing SCIF appointments.

- Elizondo says last-minute cancellations and tight windows made attendance impractical—and he brought receipts (albeit with a messy redaction).

- Rogan’s context about safety fears complicates the story, reminding us that whistleblower protections don’t always feel like protection.

- Progress requires better planning, better protections, and less posturing on all sides.

Conclusion: Turn Down the Heat, Turn Up the Process

Whether you lean Luna or Lue, the truth is we need both pressure and prudence. Pressure to get real evidence into secure rooms, and prudence to protect people while making that happen in a way that’s fair and feasible. If you want more light and less heat in the UAP debate, ask for concrete steps: scheduled SCIFs with adequate notice, travel support for key witnesses, clear confidentiality, and responsible media coverage that includes context, not just quotes.

Curious where you land? Do you see “skiff flu” as an excuse—or as the predictable outcome of chaotic calendars and real risks? Share your thoughts and, more importantly, your standards. In a conversation this consequential, the rules of the road matter as much as the destination.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Comes Clean About UFOs

UFO talk just jumped from late-night whispers to prime-time debate. On a recent appearance with Joe Rogan, Representative Anna Paulina Luna shared startling claims: she hasn’t personally watched a portal crack open the sky, and she hasn’t stood beneath a hovering saucer—but she says she has seen classified photos inside a secure facility that convinced her some craft are not made by human hands. Pair that with her account of being denied access to whistleblower briefings at Eglin Air Force Base, and you’ve got a storyline that mixes hard questions about government transparency with the age-old mystery of what, exactly, is flying in our skies.

The Big Claims in Plain English

• Luna says she has viewed photos—inside a SCIF, a secure facility—of aircraft she believes were not made by mankind.

• She references credible witness testimony describing “movement outside of time and space,” language some officials and observers lump into an “interdimensional” bucket.

• She suggests some U.S. contractors may hold advanced technology or knowledge and could be operating beyond normal government oversight.

• She recounts a dramatic clash at Eglin Air Force Base, where she, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Rep. Tim Burchett were denied access to pilots and information tied to reported UAP incidents.

Those points land like thunder. They’re also deliberately careful: Luna stresses what she can and can’t say, frequently referencing classification limits. Still, the balance of her statements paints a picture of real evidence behind closed doors, questions about who controls it, and why elected overseers can’t simply walk in and see it.

What Luna Actually Said—and Why It Matters

Luna embraces a rigorous distinction between firsthand experience and exposure to evidence. She hasn’t watched an otherworldly craft touch down in a field; she hasn’t watched a “portal” spark to life. But she says she has seen photographs—plural—of aircraft that in her view are not human-made. Context matters: she viewed them in a SCIF, the kind of secure compartmented space designed for handling sensitive national security material. That’s the sort of setting where chain of custody and provenance are documented, even if the public can’t see those records.

She also echoes something we’re hearing more often in the modern UAP conversation: the idea that whatever is behind the phenomenon doesn’t just beat our aircraft—it bends our understanding of physics. She references witnesses who described movement “outside of time and space” and uses the term “interdimensional” the way many in the field do, as a best-available label for behavior that doesn’t fit our current model. Is that term precise? Not really. Is it the vocabulary people reach for when observations shatter familiar categories? Absolutely.

Layered on top of the metaphysical is something far more terrestrial: oversight. Luna argues that if contractors hold pieces of advanced technology or data related to UAP and are operating outside the normal purview of the federal government, it’s not just a mystery—it’s a governance problem. Budgets, reporting lines, and lawful authority exist for a reason. If elected representatives can’t access programs, pilots, or sensor data relevant to potential national security issues, then the public’s watchdogs are staring at a locked door.

Decoding “Interdimensional” Without Losing the Plot

Here’s where many people get derailed: “interdimensional” sounds like sci‑fi, and in fairness, it is easy to roll your eyes. But when Luna and others use that language, they’re usually trying to capture behaviors that look impossible by our normal playbook—instant accelerations, right‑angle turns at extreme speeds, or objects that appear to blink in and out around sensor systems. Descriptions like “outside of time and space” are imperfect, but that doesn’t mean the observers are making it up; it may just mean we don’t yet have the right vocabulary or theory.

A more grounded way to think about it: If you saw an iPhone in 1824, you might as well call it magic. It would defy every model you had of communication and light. “Interdimensional” in the UAP conversation may simply be a placeholder for “we don’t have a box for this yet.” The risk is that the term becomes a conversation stopper rather than a prompt for better questions. The opportunity is to move past labels and ask: What were the sensors? What were the conditions? How many independent sources recorded it? What’s the full timeline and chain of custody?

The Eglin Air Force Base Standoff

This is the part of Luna’s account that reads like a movie scene. According to her, Rep. Gaetz had been contacted by two or three pilots reporting that the Air Force was suppressing information related to UAP activity in the Florida Panhandle. Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett joined Gaetz for a visit to Eglin Air Force Base to investigate. She says the Pentagon tried to cancel the meeting, which was then re‑secured through committee channels.

On the ground, Luna says the delegation was steered toward discussions about the Chinese spy balloon—an important topic, but not the topic they were there to examine. Inside a SCIF, Luna and her colleagues demanded access to the pilots and the evidence. The base commander reportedly denied them authorization, and tensions rose. Back in a conference room, she recounts a charged exchange during which the commander allegedly blurted out that certain people “would be happy” he was blocking access, then abruptly left the building, later said to be “authorized to go on leave to Georgia.”

According to Luna, a single pilot did eventually brief the delegation. Gaetz later hinted publicly that what they saw didn’t look human‑made. Luna still won’t describe what, exactly, they were shown, but the takeaway is clear: elected members of Congress felt stonewalled as they attempted to fulfill basic oversight functions about incidents affecting military aviators.

Why This Isn’t Just Another UFO Story

You don’t need to pick a team—Believer or Skeptic—to see the stakes. If there are photos and sensor records locked behind classification that suggest craft or phenomena beyond known human capability, the American people deserve a plan for responsible, verifiable disclosure. If contractors possess technology or materials and operate through special access programs that even relevant members of Congress can’t review, that’s not just tantalizing—it’s a constitutional problem. Civilian oversight is not a courtesy the military extends when convenient; it’s a pillar of democratic governance.

Luna’s account also highlights something we don’t like to admit: uncertainty. She acknowledges the religious and historical echoes in this topic—the old texts, the apocrypha, the sense that humanity has brushed up against “the other” before. Whether you see those references as evidence of continuity or as the human tendency to mythologize unknowns, they serve as a reminder to keep humility at the center. We don’t know, and pretending we do helps no one.

What Would Convincing Evidence Look Like?

Let’s say the goal is to move beyond personality, politics, and rumors. What would actually help the public—and serious researchers—assess the truth?

• Multiple, independent sensor tracks. Radar, IR, optical, and telemetry from separate platforms pointing to the same object or event.

• Chain of custody documentation. Who collected the data? When? How was it stored? Who has handled it?

• Unclassified versions of key files. Redactions are fine for protecting sources and methods, but sanitized data could still reveal performance characteristics.

• Pilot and operator testimonies under oath, paired with declassified artifacts. Corroboration matters.

• A transparent review process. A clear timeline and authority framework for what gets declassified and why.

None of this requires leaking secrets or jeopardizing national security. It requires adults in the room willing to build a process that respects both security and public trust.

How To Think About UAP Headlines Without Losing Your Cool

We’re swimming in claims and counterclaims. Here’s a quick mental checklist:

• Separate personal belief from evidentiary standards. Curiosity is healthy; so is asking, “What, exactly, was recorded?”

• Prioritize primary sources. Hearings, testimony, official documents—even heavily redacted—beat secondhand summaries.

• Beware vocabulary traps. “Interdimensional” might be a metaphor, not a scientific conclusion.

• Follow the oversight story as closely as the phenomenon. Who can access what, and who says no?

• Stay patient. Breakthroughs are rarely unveiled with a single mic‑drop moment; they’re built through steady, documented releases.

Where This Could Be Headed

If Luna’s account is accurate, several threads are likely to unfold:

• Renewed pressure from Congress for access to special access programs related to UAP.

• More pilots and operators stepping forward, on the record or through protected channels.

• Incremental declassifications—photos, cockpit video frames, radar plots—that allow the public to scrutinize specific incidents.

• A growing conversation about the role of defense contractors and how to ensure transparency without compromising proprietary or sensitive systems.

In the background, expect the public’s imagination to keep racing ahead. That’s natural. But the closer we can stay to verifiable data, the faster we’ll trade speculation for understanding.

A Note on Humility—and Wonder

One part of Luna’s interview that’s easy to overlook is the humility baked into her caution. She doesn’t claim to have the answers, and neither do the hosts or commentators who’ve amplified her remarks. That’s not weakness; it’s intellectual honesty. The history of discovery is the history of saying “we don’t know”—and then building the tools to change that.

It might be that “interdimensional” turns out to be the wrong word. It might be that what looks non‑human now turns out to be human ingenuity in a black program. Or it might be that we’re in the early chapters of a story that rewrites our understanding of nature. All three possibilities deserve a serious, sober look.

The Takeaway

Representative Luna’s claims distill to two powerful ideas. First, that there is classified evidence—photos, testimony, sensor data—suggesting we’re encountering things we can’t yet explain with human technology. Second, that the way this information is being controlled may undermine legitimate congressional oversight. You can be skeptical about extraordinary craft and still be alarmed that elected representatives can’t access programs tied to pilot safety and national security.

So where do we go from here? Keep your curiosity switched on. Demand transparency with guardrails. Support whistleblowers who follow the rules and tell the truth. And hold leaders—civilian and military—to the standard the Constitution sets: accountability to the people they serve. Whether the mystery in the sky is ours, theirs, or something stranger, the path forward is the same—evidence, oversight, and the courage to follow the facts wherever they lead.

If we’re lucky, the next time someone says, “I’ve seen the photos,” those photos will have a public pathway—one that protects what must be protected and reveals what can finally be revealed.

Steven Greer Gets Pressed by Reporter About UFO Disclosure Promises

A quick recap sets the stage. The object in question—often referred to as Three Eye Atlas or 3I/ATLAS—has captured attention because of its speed, brightness, strange trajectory, and timing. On Newsmax, the host framed it with dramatic stakes: a Manhattan-sized object, unusually illuminated, accelerating, skimming the plane of Earth’s orbit, and possibly using a solar slingshot to mask a maneuver. He even suggested the window around the Sun could offer cover for a “secret high-speed” adjustment before approaching Earth. He cited a vanishingly small probability of the object being natural, then promised a follow-up interview with Dr. Avi Loeb.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In Loeb’s appearance, he did not say it’s definitely alien. He assigned a 0-to-10 scale—zero being definitely natural, ten being definitely technological—and placed this object around a 4. In other words, Loeb gives it a 40% chance of having a designed trajectory. That’s not certainty. It is, however, a strong scientific invitation to look closer.

On the other side of the seesaw is Dr. Steven Greer, who told Newsmax he thinks it’s unlikely to be a manufactured alien object. He leaned toward a big rock—potentially an asteroid-like body—while urging better imaging and better data. The key takeaway from both men isn’t actually disagreement; it’s an oddly aligned call to investigate.

What Dr. Steven Greer Told Newsmax

Greer’s core point was caution: don’t let fear or hype get ahead of the data. He noted the object is more likely a natural body than a built craft and suggested the proper response is to get “better eyes on it.” He drew a distinction between comets and large asteroidal rocks, and he questioned some of the claims around acceleration and trajectory until more solid measurements arrive.

Greer also argued that a truly advanced interstellar vehicle would not behave like a slow-burning cometary visitor. In his view, such craft would travel “transdimensionally,” beyond the speed of light, and not meander through the solar system on a path that looks like a long-haul commute. He even floated the idea that space could contain extraterrestrial detritus—old debris or “garbage”—that’s been drifting for millennia, which would be very different from an operational craft.

Importantly, Greer advised readiness without panic: improve surveillance, collect intelligence, and avoid psychological operations that exploit fear. He referenced historical warnings about stoking global anxiety via asteroid threats and emphasized the need for calm, methodical observation as this object approaches its next key milestones.

The Accountability Question: Where’s Disclosure?

The Newsmax host also pressed Greer on something separate but related: his earlier public timelines about “disclosure.” Greer responded that progress is happening behind the scenes with law enforcement and investigative teams, framing certain legacy programs as criminal and unconstitutional. He said the bottleneck is at the congressional and White House level and suggested that authorizations may be needed to address those programs directly.

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, the moment underscored a broader theme: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and deadlines rarely age well. If this object teaches us anything, it’s that real answers come from instruments, not promises.

Dr. Avi Loeb’s 40% Case for Design

Loeb’s interview, aired the next day, laid out why he assigns a meaningful probability to design over chance. His reasons were specific:

- Size and rarity: If this were a roughly 20-kilometer rock, the expectation is that such an object should show up in our cosmic neighborhood on timescales of around once every 10,000 years—not once per decade. That mismatch raises eyebrows.

- Cometary behavior: Loeb noted the lack of a typical comet tail. There’s a subtle fuzz ahead of it—a glow that could be dust on its surface burned off by sunlight—but not the pronounced tail we often see.

- Fine-tuned trajectory: The object’s path lies neatly in the plane of the planets around the Sun (the ecliptic). Loeb estimated the chance of that alignment by random chance at about one in 500.

- Planetary flybys: The odds that it would pass so close to multiple planets—Mars, Venus, and Jupiter—also struck him as low, on the order of one in 20,000.

- Convenient concealment: When it gets closest to the Sun, Earth won’t be in position to see it. That observational blind spot is exactly the sort of thing you’d want if you were trying to change course out of view—at least, that’s the hypothesis.

To be clear, Loeb isn’t declaring it alien. He’s arguing that the anomalies justify targeted observation. He even proposed a practical, low-cost test: use the Juno spacecraft, currently in Jupiter’s environment, to get a closer look when the object nears Jupiter in March 2026. Instead of ending Juno’s mission by sending it into Jupiter this September, he suggested extending the mission by about six months to bring the probe near 3I/ATLAS’s path. He said Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna spoke with him and sent a letter to NASA encouraging that option.

Loeb emphasized that no one has asked him to stop talking about it. He framed his view as scientific curiosity, not certainty: gather data, compare signatures, and within a month or two we should know more about whether it behaves like a comet or not. He even floated a friendly idea: beam a radio message—think simple code—to say hello. If it’s technology, start with a peaceful introduction.

Why This Debate Matters Right Now

Across both interviews, two truths can hold at once. First, extraordinary claims require scrutiny; fear doesn’t help. Second, when credible anomalies crop up, it’s responsible to investigate. That’s the healthy middle ground where public interest and real science meet.

What’s particularly valuable here is the focus on testable proposals. You don’t have to buy every claim, and you don’t have to dismiss every anomaly. But you can support gathering decisive data:

- Extend an existing spacecraft for a close pass if it costs little and delivers high-value information.

- Coordinate ground-based and space-based observations around key dates.

- Publish the results openly so the public and the scientific community can assess the evidence.

This is how you cut through sensational headlines, social media rumors, and all-or-nothing thinking. You turn “maybe” into “measured” by pointing instruments at the mystery.

What to Watch Next

- The solar slingshot: The object is expected to perform a close approach around the Sun in late October. Multiple voices in the Newsmax segments suggested that the next 30–90 days could be decisive for determining whether it shows classic cometary behavior, breaks up, or does something unexpected.

- The near-term data window: Loeb said that within a month or two we should have enough signatures to call it more confidently natural or not.

- Jupiter in 2026: The object could pass near Jupiter in March 2026. That’s the window where Juno might help, if NASA extends the mission and plots the trajectory accordingly.

A Practical Way to Think About It

Let’s talk probabilities, because that’s where this conversation can go off the rails. A 40% chance is not a prediction; it’s a wager that the odds of design aren’t negligible. Scientists express uncertainty in numbers so they can be proven wrong—or right—by data.

In plain terms:

- If it behaves like a normal comet, it likely is a comet.

- If it keeps defying expectations—no tail, odd illumination, suspiciously precise geometry—then the design hypothesis gains weight.

- Either way, targeted observation is a win. We learn something about the object, and we sharpen the tools we’ll need for the next interstellar visitor.

It’s also healthy to separate three different questions that often get conflated:

- Is this particular object artificial? That’s a yes/no question science can address with better data.

- Do advanced non-human civilizations exist? Loeb argues the odds are good, given the sheer number of Earth–Sun analogs. Greer says their technology wouldn’t look like this object’s behavior. You don’t have to settle that philosophical question today to decide to point a camera at the sky.

- Should we panic? No. Curiosity and caution beat fear every time. Even Loeb’s “friendly ping” idea is framed as a test, not a provocation.

My Take: Curiosity Without the Hype

The best part of these two interviews is that, beneath the disagreement, both voices are calling for exactly what the public deserves: transparency and data. Greer urges skepticism about fear narratives and wants better intelligence. Loeb outlines anomalies, proposes a straightforward test with Juno, and puts a number on his uncertainty so everyone knows exactly what he means.

Also worth noting: timelines and promises rarely survive contact with reality. The Newsmax host’s question to Greer about earlier disclosure deadlines is a reminder that the surest “disclosure” is always the kind that arrives as evidence—images, spectra, trajectories, and mission results—not press clips.

If you’re reading this wondering what to do next, here’s a simple checklist:

- Stay tuned for observational updates across the next 30–90 days.

- Watch for any NASA announcements about Juno’s mission plan.

- Seek out data over hype: official mission logs, observatory updates, and peer-reviewed analysis when it arrives.

- Keep an open mind without surrendering to fear.

Final Takeaway

This moment isn’t about choosing a team—Team Comet or Team Craft. It’s about choosing a method. Greer says don’t panic; Loeb says don’t dismiss; both say look closer. That’s the right path.

So let’s do the simple, sensible thing. Point our best instruments at 3I/ATLAS. Extend a mission if it gives us a clean shot at answers. And when the data come in, accept what they say—whether it confirms a perfectly natural comet or forces us to redraw the line between the familiar and the truly extraordinary.

Either way, we win. We’ll know more than we did yesterday. And we’ll be better prepared for the next object that streaks in from the dark, asking us—quietly, insistently—to look up and think bigger.

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.

Jesse Michels Releases Game Changing Nazca 'Alien' Mummies Video

Are the Nazca mummies a hoax, misunderstood science, or something stranger that refuses to fit tidy labels? After years of chaotic claims, awkward press events, and loud internet verdicts, a new on-the-ground look from filmmaker Jesse Michaels has people leaning in again. In a fresh trailer that’s already making the rounds, he teases first-person access to several tridactyl (three-fingered and three-toed) mummified bodies in Peru—and a promise to lay out evidence in a way that may finally help viewers make up their own minds.

Let’s be honest: for many, this topic became exhausting. The messaging around the Nazca mummies has been muddled from day one, with splashy presentations that answered few questions and raised a dozen more. It’s no surprise the public defaulted to skepticism.

Still, curiosity never really died. A handful of researchers, journalists, and creators kept digging, insisting there’s enough here—no matter the final truth—to warrant serious attention. Michaels is one of them, and he says he’s seen things up close that merit a second look.

Here’s what makes this moment different: instead of headlines and hearsay, we might finally get a cohesive narrative, filmed in the labs and rooms where examinations actually happen. If there’s anything worth salvaging from years of noise, this could be it.

The trailer also hints at something important: even the most enthusiastic investigators are not all calling these “aliens.” Some explicitly push back on the extraterrestrial label, focusing instead on anatomy, provenance, and test results. That shift—from spectacle to specifics—matters.

The story so far: a whirlwind of claims and confusion

- In recent years, several mummified bodies with unusual anatomy surfaced from the Peruvian desert region associated with Nazca. Some specimens are diminutive; others are larger, with pronounced tridactyl hands and feet.

- Early unveilings and pressers often felt more theatrical than scientific. One particularly chaotic moment, described in the trailer and recounted by observers, involved officials intervening mid-event at a Lima hotel. That kind of drama makes sober evaluation harder, not easier.

- The discourse polarized quickly. To some, these bodies were obviously fabricated. To others, they were obviously nonhuman. Most people—busy and understandably cautious—simply tuned out.

Why the skepticism stuck (and why it’s fair)

- Mixed messengers: High-profile promoters previously tied to shaky claims didn’t help credibility. When familiar faces from past controversies appear, the default reaction becomes, “Here we go again.”

- Disjointed data: CT scans here, a radiocarbon result there, a stray quote from a doctor somewhere else—none of it consistently compiled in one transparent, peer-reviewed package. Without a clear chain of custody and a complete methodology, conclusions feel premature.

- The “show-and-tell” problem: Live demos and stage reveals aren’t science. People want lab notebooks, measured language, and independent replication—not cliffhangers.

What Jesse Michaels’ trailer adds to the conversation

Michaels claims he and his team saw three especially interesting bodies up close—nicknamed Monserat, Sebastian, and Santiago. He leans into four key points worth watching when the full video drops:

- Expert involvement across borders: He references forensic and medical professionals in Peru, Mexico, and the U.S. who have inspected these remains and concluded that some were likely once living organisms. That’s not the same as “alien”—it’s a narrower claim focused on biological authenticity versus man-made composites.

- No obvious mutilation: According to the trailer, investigators looked for evidence that fingers and toes were cut or rearranged. The stated view: no clear signs of deliberate alteration in specific specimens. If true and independently verified, that’s significant.

- Possible fetal remains: The film teases a finding that one of the bodies might contain a fetus. That raises ethical questions and underscores the need for rigorous, respectful study under appropriate cultural and legal frameworks.

- The ET word avoided: One featured voice emphasizes they’ve never labeled the bodies extraterrestrial. The takeaway: the most serious investigators are framing this as an anatomy and provenance problem, not a sci-fi verdict.

The power (and hazard) of seeing it in person

Creators who’ve visited the mummies in person describe the experience as transformative. When you’re in the room with the specimens, the lines between “clever hoax” and “unexplained morphology” can feel blurrier. That’s not evidence by itself—but it does explain why some who travel to Peru return convinced there’s something to investigate with fresh eyes.

The risk, of course, is that awe can overshadow rigor. The best path forward demands both: the humility to say “I don’t know yet” and the discipline to follow standardized methods, even if they slow the story down.

Small bodies, big bodies, and missing threads

If you’ve followed this saga since the viral presentations in Mexico, you remember the small bodies first—revealed in a setting many assumed was an official congressional hearing, when in reality the space was rented. Those small figures lit up the news cycle and then, confusingly, faded into a tangle of mixed claims. Later, larger bodies appeared, pulling focus and spawning a second wave of arguments.

Where do the early small specimens sit in the picture now? Will Michaels’ film address their status with the same rigor as the larger mummies? A truly comprehensive overview needs to line up all known specimens, dates, tests, and custody histories so viewers can compare apples to apples.

Politics, pressure, and a culture of secrecy

The trailer hints at friction with Peruvian authorities and what some describe as “bad faith” actions that impeded open study. Whether that’s the whole story or just one side of it, it’s undeniable that political pressure and heritage law complicate any research on human (or human-adjacent) remains. Add in media incentives and internet pile-ons and you get a perfect storm where truth struggles to breathe.

A practical checklist for viewers when the video drops

You don’t need a PhD to assess extraordinary claims. Keep this common-sense checklist handy:

- Chain of custody: Who found the specimens? When? How were they handled, transported, and stored? Are the records continuous and verified?

- Dating with context: Radiocarbon results should include lab names, confidence intervals, and material tested (bone, skin, textiles). One date in isolation is not the whole story.

- Imaging with controls: CT scans and X-rays should be explained in plain language. Look for comparisons to known anatomy and independent interpretations from multiple specialists.

- Tissue and DNA: If DNA is mentioned, ask what regions were sequenced, whether contamination controls were used, and where the raw data is archived for independent review.

- Anatomy basics: If digits are truly tridactyl by design, the bones, tendons, and joint articulations should look coherent—not pasted together or truncated. Experts should be able to point to developmental pathways that could plausibly produce what we see.

- Peer review and replication: Are findings submitted to journals? Can a separate team access the same specimens and data to replicate results?

- Respect and ethics: These are remains. Were local laws, cultural norms, and ethical guidelines followed? Expect transparency and humility.

Why this matters even if it’s not extraterrestrial

One of the most refreshing lines in the trailer is a simple boundary: “I’ve never said extraterrestrial.” That’s a healthy stance. Extraordinary anthropology is still extraordinary. If any of these bodies are authentic, naturally mummified, and anatomically unusual in ways not yet cataloged, that would be a major scientific story—planetary, not cosmic, but thrilling all the same.

From an academic perspective, a verified, well-dated, and anatomically coherent mummy with novel traits could reshape our understanding of morphological variation, developmental anomalies, or ritual practices in ancient Peru. It could also deepen public appreciation for careful archaeology over sensationalism.

On the flip side, if rigorous, transparent inquiry shows these are composites or otherwise misinterpreted, that clarity is valuable too. It protects cultural heritage, improves scientific communication, and reminds us why evidence should always outrun hype.

Where the community goes from here

- Welcome nuance: It’s okay to be skeptical and curious at the same time. You can demand receipts without ridiculing people who are sincerely investigating.

- Reward good process: Click for long-form, source-heavy breakdowns, not just the splashy clip. The more we reward substance, the more we get.

- Keep it human: Behind every specimen are human stories—discoverers, local communities, researchers, and yes, critics. Assume good faith unless proven otherwise.

What I’ll be watching for in Michaels’ full film

- A single, coherent timeline of each specimen, including discovery, custody, tests, and findings.

- Named experts, clear affiliations, and published or publishable data.

- Methodology that’s boring in the best way: step-by-step, falsifiable, and replicable.

- Honest limitations: where data is missing, contradictory, or still under review.

- A clear distinction between what’s known, what’s likely, and what’s speculative.

The bottom line

The Nazca mummies conversation has been messy—part mystery, part media circus. But that doesn’t mean the truth isn’t reachable. It means the path to it requires patience, transparency, and a willingness to sit with uncertainty longer than social media prefers.

If Michaels’ upcoming video does what the trailer suggests—compile firsthand footage, expert perspectives, and structured evidence into one place—it could reset the conversation. Not by declaring a grand conclusion, but by showing the work. That’s how trust is built.

Your move

When the film drops, watch with curiosity anchored in common sense. Ask better questions than “alien or not?” Demand clear methods, clean data, and respectful handling of human history. Share the most measured resources you find. And if the evidence truly points to something new—whether anthropological or beyond—let it earn that conclusion in the daylight.

Until then, keep an open mind and a high bar. That’s how we move from spectacle to understanding, from rumor to reality—and maybe, finally, from noise to knowledge on one of the most polarizing mysteries of the last decade.

Chris Ramsay Speaks Out Against Luis Elizondo

Who can you trust when the topic itself is built on secrecy? That’s the question that lit up my screen after watching Chris Ramsay sit down with UAP Jerb. In the middle of an engaging, good-faith conversation about UFOs and disclosure, Chris said something a lot of people think but rarely say out loud: even if you like someone in this space—Luis Elizondo included—you still have to question what’s true. Not because you want drama. Because distrust is baked into how these stories work.

Here’s why that moment matters. In a community where criticism can get you dogpiled, doxxed, or dismissed, hearing a major creator calmly say, “I don’t know if I can believe him,” feels like a reset. Not a takedown. A reset. It’s an invitation to move the conversation from personalities and fandom to proof and process. And despite how uncomfortable that can be, it’s exactly what this topic needs if we’re ever going to answer the only question that really matters: Are there non-human intelligences interacting with Earth—or not?

What Chris Ramsay Actually Said—and Why It Landed

Chris didn’t go for shock value. He didn’t smear, speculate, or grandstand. He simply laid out a reasonable position: Lou Elizondo is a friendly guy; he’s also former counterintelligence. Some of his statements have been challenged and, in several cases, shown to be inaccurate. In a field where deception is a known feature—psyops, misdirection, need-to-know compartments—that reality demands healthy skepticism. You can respect the person and still question the claims.

That’s not an attack. It’s a boundary. And it’s a boundary more people feel comfortable setting when a bigger voice models it without spite or tribalism. The message wasn’t “don’t listen to Lou.” It was “listen, then verify—twice.”

The Trust Problem at the Heart of UFO Disclosure

If you care about UFOs, you’ve probably become part-time fact-checker by necessity. It’s not paranoia to recognize that the same machinery designed to protect sensitive technology also muddies the waters. Think about what the community has been batting around lately: the Wall Street Journal piece, chatter about “Yankee Blue,” and the broader idea that hoaxes and decoys may be used to mislead adversaries—and, by extension, the public.

If a story or set of images was created to fool people (including military personnel), then show the receipts. If it’s fake, it isn’t classified. Release the docs, release the photos, and let the community put them to bed. That simple act would reduce confusion and, ironically, increase trust in official sources by demonstrating a willingness to clean up the mess.

And let’s be clear: UFO programs aren’t just an Air Force thing. If you accept even a fraction of what seasoned researchers and insiders hint at, then parallel efforts likely exist across the Army, Navy, and intelligence agencies. That doesn’t automatically prove anything wild—it just means the information doesn’t live in one neat folder with a single public-facing spokesperson.

The Creator Dilemma: Big Voices, Small Targets

Another under-discussed angle is how criticism lands differently depending on who’s speaking. Smaller creators and researchers who question big names can get buried under backlash. The risk of doxxing or ridicule is real, and it keeps a lot of smart people quiet. When someone with Chris’s reach says, “I’d say this to Lou’s face,” it helps normalize open, respectful disagreement.

That’s healthy. Not because we need more conflict, but because we need more courage. “Trust but verify” shouldn’t be controversial.

Citizen Disclosure: Why Grassroots Work Still Matters

There’s a reason many of us keep banging the drum for citizen disclosure. When you rely on former or current government insiders, you’re always playing a game with unknown rules. In the best-case scenario, they’re protecting national security and can’t tell you everything. In the worst case, they’re spinning you on purpose. Either way, you don’t control the pace or the proof.

Citizen disclosure is messy and imperfect—but it’s ours. Field investigations, open-source analysis, FOIAs, skywatch projects, witness interviews, and transparent data collection give the public a way to make progress without waiting for permission. It’s the long road, but it’s the one that keeps the goalposts from moving every time a new “insider” steps into the spotlight.

Skywatcher, Jake Barber, and the Psionics Question

One thread that came up in the Ramsay/Jerb conversation is Skywatcher and the claims associated with Jake Barber. If you’re not familiar, Barber has been linked to testimony suggesting that psionics—think mind-mediated interaction—are used to communicate with or even summon craft. Before he went public, there were whispers about direct, repeatable methods to call in craft and facilitate retrieval. It’s a head-turning claim, to say the least.

Here’s the balanced take:

- If a group says it can repeatedly summon or communicate with non-human craft, that’s testable. Invite observers. Set up controls. Record, measure, and publish. If it holds up, it changes everything.

- If it doesn’t hold up, no harm in trying—as long as the process is transparent and no one is exploited.

- The bridge between “CE-5 experiences” and “crash retrievals” is massive. Any project claiming to stand in that space deserves both open-minded curiosity and rigorous scrutiny.

UAP Jerb has been connected to aspects of this story for a long time, including coverage of Michael Herrera’s account. Those threads have their share of behind-the-scenes complications—who knew what, when, and how. That happens in emerging stories. The key is not to get dragged into personality drama or turf wars. Stay focused on the claims and the evidence. If Skywatcher can demonstrate consistent, verifiable results under independent observation, it becomes part of the real conversation. If not, we learn, we refine, and we move on.

Cutting Through the Noise: A Simple Framework

At some point, all the intrigue and infighting starts to feel like gravity pulling us away from the only question that matters: Are non-human intelligences here, interacting with us? If the answer is yes, the rest sorts itself out. If the answer is no, the rest doesn’t matter.

Until we have that smoking gun, here’s a simple way to keep your footing:

- Separate people from claims. You can like or respect someone and still fact-check their statements.

- Look for repeatability. One-off stories are interesting; repeatable results are transformative.

- Ask for primary evidence. Original files, metadata, raw sensor data, corroborating witnesses—these move the needle.

- Reward transparency. If a claim fails a test, say so. If an image is a hoax used to train people, release it and explain why.

- Beware absolutism. “Always” and “never” are red flags in a field with incomplete data.

- Protect the humans. No doxxing, no pile-ons. Skepticism doesn’t require cruelty.

What Chris said out loud is what many feel privately: the UFO topic demands a new standard. We don’t need slogans. We need verifiable steps forward—shared methods, shared data, and shared courage to change our minds when the facts change.

Where This Goes Next

I’m personally all-in on the citizen path. Boots on the ground. Cameras rolling. Interviews with people who were there. Long drives to quiet places where the sky is big, and answers might be hiding in plain sight. Not because it’s glamorous—it isn’t—but because this is how we reduce the gap between claims and clarity.

So, what should you do if you care about the truth here?

- Stay curious, not credulous. Ask questions that move the story forward.

- Support independent investigations, not personalities.

- Encourage transparency. Cheer for released documents and raw data more than for dramatic podcasts.

- Participate. Join a skywatch, learn how to record the sky responsibly, file FOIA requests, or contribute to analysis communities that publish their methods.

The Bigger Picture: Why This Moment Matters

One of the strange gifts of the UFO conversation is that it forces us to practice intellectual humility. We don’t know what we don’t know. Even the most confident insider might be mistaken—or performing a role you can’t see. And even the most ardent skeptic can miss the forest for the trees when real anomalies refuse to fit the model.

What Chris modeled—and what more of us can emulate—is the posture of respectful doubt. It says: I’ll hear you out. I’ll test what I can. I won’t worship you if you’re popular, and I won’t cancel you if you’re wrong. I’ll keep my eyes on the goal and my feet on the ground.

The Takeaway

If we want disclosure that means something, we have to earn it together. That means shedding hero worship, embracing uncomfortable questions, and demanding evidence that survives independent scrutiny. It means letting go of the need for perfect narratives and welcoming the sometimes boring, often slow work of collecting facts.

Whether it’s the “Yankee Blue” chatter, questions about Lou Elizondo’s track record, or bold claims from projects like Skywatcher and witnesses like Jake Barber, the rule is the same: trust is earned, not granted. If something is a training hoax, show it. If something is real, prove it. If you don’t know yet, say so—and keep working.

Most of all, don’t lose sight of the question that started this whole journey. Are we alone? Every test, every interview, every long night under the stars should be in service of that one answer. Let’s go find it—together.

Shocking Allegations Against Steven Greer

If you spend any time in UFO circles, you know the drama can sometimes drown out the data. This week, a conversation on the Danny Jones podcast lit up that fault line again. Researcher UAP Gerb (a figure many in the space describe as meticulous and well-sourced) outlined why, in his view, Steven Greer is losing credibility with some whistleblowers. Whether you’re team Greer, team skepticism, or simply team evidence, the discussion is a useful case study in how disclosure can veer off track—and how we can keep it grounded.

In this post, we’ll unpack the claims from the podcast, why they matter, and what they reveal about the ethics, risks, and responsibilities of UFO research today. We’ll also talk about how to stay focused on the ultimate prize: credible, verifiable evidence of non‑human intelligence, not personality clashes.

The short version: allegations were made; emotions are high; the community is divided. But the bigger story is about trust—who earns it, who loses it, and how operational security and researcher ethics can make or break a movement.

According to UAP Gerb, several whistleblowers connected to Greer reported facing reprisals around 2023—things like threats to pensions or reputational smears. He also claims Greer’s disclosure archives were so poorly secured that third parties could identify and contact witnesses. These are serious allegations, and they’re not independently verified here. Still, they raise important questions about how we safeguard sources and keep the disclosure ecosystem healthy.

Beyond the claims themselves, the podcast spotlighted a broader tension: Can a researcher be close friends with sources and still stay objective? And what actually makes someone a “great” UFO researcher—access, time, method, or something else entirely? Those are the questions worth sitting with, no matter where you stand on the Greer debate.

The Clip that Sparked the Conversation

On Danny Jones’s show, UAP Gerb outlined what he described as a pattern: whistleblowers who previously engaged with Steven Greer later experiencing pressure or threats—especially in 2023. He also criticized what he called poor operational security (OPSEC) in Greer’s Disclosure Project archives, saying it was possible to identify whistleblowers from the stored materials. One explosive claim: an allegation that a whistleblower was threatened with an underage content smear after cutting off contact. Again, these are claims made by a guest on a podcast, and they require thorough, independent vetting.

UAP Gerb also said he has never met Greer and that Greer once labeled him an “intelligence asset”—a remark that clearly set a combative tone. He further argued that whistleblowers who go to Greer can end up being treated as “Greer’s whistleblowers,” rather than individuals who should be independently guided toward formal channels like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or credible investigators such as David Grusch.

Why does this matter? Because trust is the currency of disclosure. When witnesses fear that coming forward could cost them their pensions, reputations, or safety—or when archives may reveal their identities—fewer people speak, and the quality of evidence declines.

The Allegations: Infiltration, Peprisals, and OPSEC

- Infiltration claims: The podcast touched on the idea that an individual was “tasked” to infiltrate Greer’s orbit. If true, that would underscore just how contested and surveilled this territory can be. If untrue, it shows how easy it is for intrigue to overtake substance. Either way, it reminds us to separate verifiable facts from rumor.

- Reprisals against whistleblowers: Allegations of pension threats, smear tactics, and pressure campaigns are chilling—and, if substantiated, disqualifying for anyone fostering a safe disclosure environment. Until claims are verified, the responsible stance is to press for evidence and encourage witnesses to use secure, accountable channels.

- Poor operational security: If archives truly allow outsiders to identify sensitive sources, that’s a solvable problem with serious consequences. Source protection isn’t optional; it’s the backbone of credible investigative work.

Can Researchers Be Friends with Sources?

It’s human to bond with people who share high-stakes experiences. But friendship can blur lines:

- Confirmation bias: You’re more likely to believe a friend. That can make you less aggressive about verification.

- Information laundering: Once someone trusts you, you might unknowingly pass along unvetted or strategically planted claims.

- Ethical obligations: The closer the relationship, the more careful you must be about consent, anonymity, and data security.

Friendship and rigor aren’t mutually exclusive, but researchers should be transparent about their relationships and methods. A simple litmus test: could another investigator replicate your sourcing and analysis from your public methodology? If not, you may be asking the audience to trust you, not your work.

What Makes a “Great” UFO Researcher?

The podcast indirectly raised a fair question: Why do some researchers get labeled “the best”? In UFOland, “best” sometimes means “has access.” But real excellence looks more like this:

- Clear methods: Documented sourcing, transparent standards of evidence, and explicit caveats.

- Corroboration across silos: Military, scientific, journalistic, and legal sources that align without being interdependent.

- OPSEC proficiency: Protecting sources’ identities and data, even from curious allies.

- Willingness to change: Updating claims when new facts emerge—publicly and promptly.

- Independence from personalities: Avoiding team sports. The only side is the truth.

If someone is heralded as elite, it’s reasonable—and healthy—to ask them to walk through their process. This isn’t gatekeeping; it’s how trust is earned.

Greer, Elizondo, and the Personality Trap

The conversation also touched on the long-simmering friction between Steven Greer and Luis Elizondo. This is where the disclosure space can slide into soap opera. On one side, there are accusations of disinformation; on the other, debates about credentials and past roles. Add in social media skirmishes and content monetization, and the narrative can quickly become about people rather than proof.

Here’s the thing: personalities don’t fly craft, data does. When the discourse revolves around who’s the hero or the villain, the public gets distracted. Agencies or bad actors—if they exist—would love that. The antidote is radical focus on evidence chains, not rivalries.

How to Stay Grounded: A Reader’s Guide to Evaluating Claims

- Track the claim, not the person: Write down the precise assertion, who made it, when, and where. Then ask: What would confirm or falsify it?

- Demand chain-of-custody: Photos, videos, documents, and sensor logs need provenance. Who held them, when, and under what conditions?

- Look for independent corroboration: Not friends-of-friends. Independent witnesses, distinct data streams, and official records.

- Distinguish testimony tiers: Firsthand experience is not the same as hearsay. Both can be valuable, but they’re not equal.

- Note incentives: Is someone selling a doc, a book, or a brand? That doesn’t make them wrong—but it does add context.

- Privilege accountable channels: Encourage witnesses to use secure routes—legal counsel, inspectors general, congressional committees, or reputable journalists who can protect identities and verify claims.

- Watch for OPSEC red flags: Publicly accessible archives containing sensitive details, sloppy redactions, or unencrypted communications are all risk multipliers.

The Heart of the Matter: Evidence of Non‑human Intelligence

The host of the original video said it plainly: at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the best evidence for non‑human intelligence. Everything else is a sideshow. That doesn’t mean people don’t matter—they do. It means we measure progress by the quality of confirmed data, not by who “wins” the week on Twitter.

So, What Would Move the Needle?

- Multi-sensor corroboration released with provenance and context.

- Official acknowledgement paired with accessible documentation, not just statements.

- High-quality, repeatable scientific measurements and peer-reviewed analysis.

- Whistleblowers who safely testify under oath, backed by records.

Each of these outcomes depends on an ecosystem that protects sources and values verification over virality. If the allegations discussed on the podcast are even partly accurate, reforming OPSEC and source handling isn’t optional—it’s mission-critical.

Practical Steps Researchers Can Take Now

- Harden archives: Encrypt, access-limit, and aggressively scrub identifying metadata. Test your systems by inviting trusted red-teamers to try to de-anonymize samples.

- Publish your method: A short methods page—how you vet claims, how you protect sources, how you correct mistakes—goes a long way toward building trust.

- Separate friendship from verification: If a source becomes a friend, state that and bring in an independent reviewer to check your analysis.

- Default to least-harm: If there’s any chance a detail could expose a witness, withhold it or abstract it unless and until the risk is mitigated.

- Encourage formal channels: Where appropriate, guide witnesses toward legal counsel, inspectors general, or congressional staff with clearance to handle sensitive materials.

- Be transparent about conflicts: Monetization, partnerships, and affiliations should be disclosed. Transparency beats suspicion.

Where this Leaves Steven Greer—and the Rest of Us

It’s fair to note that Greer has played a significant role in bringing forward whistleblowers and popularizing disclosure efforts for decades. Many credit him with pushing the conversation into the mainstream. It’s also fair—and necessary—to scrutinize any claims about poor OPSEC or mistreatment of sources. Both statements can be true at once: someone can contribute in one era and still have practices that merit criticism or reform in another.

As for UAP Gerb, his growing visibility brings its own responsibility. If you’re touted as a leading researcher, the community is right to ask for transparency about methods, sources of access, and how you manage conflicts of interest. Great work can withstand great questions.

The Takeaway

- Claims about infiltration, reprisals, and poor OPSEC are serious. They deserve independent verification—not dismissal, not blind acceptance.

- Researcher ethics matter. Friendship with sources can coexist with rigor, but only with explicit guardrails and transparency.

- Personalities aren’t the point. Evidence is. If the conversation stays focused on people instead of proof, everyone loses.

- Healthy disclosure demands strong OPSEC, replicable methods, and accountable channels for whistleblowers.

If you care about this topic—and if you’ve read this far, you do—the best contribution you can make is to keep one foot firmly in reality while you explore the unknown. Ask for receipts. Reward transparency. And don’t let the loudest voice in the room drown out the quiet, careful work that actually moves the ball forward.

What do you think? Should researchers be transparent about their process? What safeguards would make you more confident in whistleblower-driven revelations? Share your thoughts, challenge the ideas, and let’s keep the spotlight where it belongs—on verifiable evidence and the safety of those who risk a lot to bring it forward.

Bombshell Claim From New Pentagon UFO Whistleblower

Every day, the internet swells with new, sensational stories that grab our attention and spark heated conversations. But there's one thing making headlines lately that deserves a closer look—and a healthy dose of skepticism. Recently, a video circulated featuring a supposed Pentagon whistleblower who claims he accidentally received a top-secret government email about an incoming alien spacecraft, set to arrive on Earth in October 2025. The document he displays is, according to him, undeniable proof of humanity’s first contact with extraterrestrial life.

Sounds wild? That’s because it is. But as the video starts spreading, it turns out there are some glaring red flags. In this post, we break down what’s happening, why you shouldn’t take everything at face value, and how AI-generated hoaxes like this are making misinformation harder than ever to detect.

Viral Claims: Aliens Are Coming (Supposedly)

The video in question, first brought to wider attention by Patrick from Vetted, presents the story with the drama you’d expect from a sci-fi blockbuster. The man, looking slightly disheveled as if fresh from a swim, claims to have worked seven years at the Pentagon as a data analyst. He says an internal email was mistakenly sent to him, meant for someone with the same name but a different middle initial. Inside, he discovered earth-shattering news: aliens are en route, and official contact is set for October 2025.

According to the video, he’s risking everything by going public. He’s even apparently gone into hiding out of fear for his safety. The grand reveal comes with a screenshot of the “official” document on screen, highlighted in ominous black boxes and bolded text for maximum effect. But is there any truth behind these claims?

How to Spot the Red Flags: AI-Generated Misinformation

Upon closer inspection, the so-called Pentagon document is more of a creative writing exercise by AI than a product of any government office. As Patrick carefully points out, the text is riddled with grammatical mistakes and formatting oddities—hallmarks of quick, unreviewed artificial intelligence generation. Surprisingly, even the Department of Defense seal is off, which is a glaring mistake any authentic document would never make.

These errors are not rare in fake documents produced by AI tools. From awkward phrasing to misspelled project names (for instance, “G Gay Lao” for what should reference the Galileo Project or similar real initiatives), the sloppiness becomes especially evident when you blow up the images and examine the fine print. Just like many AI-generated texts, the document falls apart under scrutiny—a reminder that miraculous revelations should always be double-checked.

Why Do These Hoaxes Spread So Fast?

There’s a natural allure to secrets, whistleblowers, and anything labeled “top secret.” Add a dash of extraterrestrial drama, and it’s no wonder people are quick to click, share, and theorize. The viral factor gets turbocharged when social media algorithms detect high engagement, propelling the story before critical analysis can catch up.

But it’s not just excitement that’s at play. AI-generated content is growing so advanced that, without examining the details, many people will accept such stories as truth. Hoaxers know this. They rely on curiosity and the human craving for the spectacular, counting on the fact that only a small minority will investigate more deeply.

Don’t Get Fooled: The Importance of Critical Analysis

Patrick’s video serves as a much-needed reminder: Not every fantastical claim should be believed, and sensationalism often masks fabrication. It’s easier than ever for hoaxes to circulate—especially when they’re supported by convincing visuals made with sophisticated generative tools.

If you see a story that seems too wild to be true, take a beat. Ask yourself:

- Does the information come from a credible, verifiable source?

- Are there visible errors, oddities, or inconsistencies in the document or evidence presented?

- Has anyone else credible confirmed or reported on this?

- Is it clear who the original author is, and are they traceable by other news outlets or professionals?

In the case of the Pentagon whistleblower video, none of these boxes are ticked. Instead, it’s a masterclass in how misinformation can take off with just a little creative AI work and a suspenseful script.

The Role of AI in Spreading—and Debunking—Misinformation

Artificial intelligence is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it makes creating realistic fake photos, videos, and documents easier than ever. On the other, savvy viewers and experts can use AI and technical tools to identify and expose these frauds before they cause widespread belief.

Yet as these tools evolve, so must our approach to online information. Healthy skepticism, cross-checking, and a willingness to take a closer look at sources are all crucial defenses against getting caught in the viral web of untruths. If you want to be a part of the solution, not the problem, don’t hit share before taking those steps.

Why All of This Matters

Fake stories about alien arrivals might be amusing or relatively harmless compared to more dangerous misinformation. But remember—every viral hoax undermines genuine trust in media, institutions, and even important whistleblowers who truly risk everything for the public good. The more “cry wolf” moments we see, the harder it becomes for real signals to stand out amid the digital noise.

The Takeaway: Stay Curious, Stay Cautious

Stories like the viral Pentagon whistleblower video show how easy it is in today’s world to fall for a well-produced hoax, especially when powered by artificial intelligence. The document’s shoddy construction, grammatical errors, and suspect details give it away, but it took a careful eye to notice.

If you’re online and see claims about secret alien arrivals, miracle cures, or anything else extraordinary, remember—it pays to look a little closer. Ask for credible sources, dig into the details, and never take a single viral video as the whole truth. Every day is a gift, and with a little caution, you can enjoy it without falling for internet fabrications.

What do you think about this latest viral video? Did you spot the AI mistakes right away, or did it take a nudge? Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments below, and as always—stay sharp out there!

BREAKING Alien Craft Detected Heading For Earth? (Ft. Gino From The Why Files)

If you've ever found yourself captivated by the possibility that we might not be alone in the universe, buckle up – because the latest discussion lighting up the science and UFO community could be straight out of a sci-fi thriller. Picture this: a colossal object, bigger than Mount Everest and traveling at an eye-watering speed, is making its way through our solar system – and it may be headed our way by 2027. Some scientists speculate that it could be an interstellar comet, while others, like Harvard’s Dr. Avi Loeb, suggest it might even be an alien probe. But as rumors swirl and conspiracy theories unfold, what’s actually happening with this mysterious object known as 31 Atlas?

Let’s break it down, separate fact from fiction, and dive deep into what could be one of the most intriguing astronomical discoveries (or UFO stories) in many years.

A Closer Look at 31 Atlas: Science Meets Conspiracy

In the transcript, the hosts and special guest Gino from The Y Files explore the phenomenon swirling around 31 Atlas – a massive interstellar object currently racing towards Earth at about 130,000 mph. Using newly acquired observations from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scientists have confirmed the object is about 7 miles wide, making it the largest interstellar object we’ve ever detected inside our solar system. For comparison, that’s more than twice the height of the tallest mountains on Earth.

Enter Dr. Avi Loeb, a respected Harvard physicist who believes we should at least consider the possibility that 31 Atlas could be a technological spacecraft, sent from another intelligent civilization. His argument is partly based on the unusual trajectory of the object: it’s entering our solar system from behind the sun, on a path that aligns “within 5 degrees” of Earth’s orbital plane. According to Loeb, the probability of this happening by chance is minuscule – only about 0.2%. Furthermore, the speed and direction make it nearly impossible for us to intercept the object with current rocket technology, fueling even more curiosity (and anxiety).

Navigating the Skepticism: Natural or Not?

Of course, not everyone is ready to claim “aliens!” just yet. Many experts – including astronomers from Oxford – insist that suggesting an artificial origin is pure speculation, bordering on nonsense. They highlight that, while fascinating, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And right now, we simply don’t have enough data to jump to any firm conclusions.

That said, the intrigue is hard to resist. The transcript captures the spirited debate that follows news like this: is this just another comet, albeit a very large and fast one, or could something more be at play? The hosts discuss how stories like this can get woven into existing UFO lore, referencing predictions (like those from filmmaker Jeremy Corbell) that such an incident would be used to prepare the public for an extraterrestrial event. Is it all smoke and mirrors? Or could this be the first act in a much larger cosmic story?

The Dark Forest Theory: Silence in the Universe

One of the more chilling concepts discussed relates to the "dark forest theory" – an answer to the famous Fermi Paradox: if there is so much intelligent life out there, where is everybody? The theory suggests that civilizations remain silent, hiding in the cosmic ‘dark forest’ out of fear of attracting attention from potential threats. For decades, Earth has been broadcasting its technological footprint into the cosmos, perhaps unaware of who, or what, might be listening. Dr. Loeb speculates that if another civilization has noticed us, this massive object could, in theory, be a response to our signals.

Uncertainties and the Thrill of Discovery

The truth is, much about 31 Atlas remains unknown. We can’t say with certainty whether it is a natural object or a sign of advanced technology. Since the object’s trajectory brings it in from behind the sun, visual confirmation is challenging until it moves to a more observable location. In the coming months, scientists expect to gather more data that could clarify its true nature – whether it's just another cosmic iceball or something far more extraordinary.

Meanwhile, the object is set to pass close to several planets, including Venus and Jupiter, possibly giving us multiple opportunities to study it as it barrels through our solar system. If it really is a probe gathering data, the path makes perfect sense for collecting as much information as possible from various celestial bodies.

Pop Culture, Skepticism, and Real Science

The discussion is peppered with healthy skepticism and a dose of humor – highlighting a key point: big discoveries often bring big speculation, especially in communities already fascinated by UFOs and extraterrestrial life. But as the hosts admit, there is a lot we simply don’t know; this is, as skeptic Mick West would put it, a 'low information zone.' That’s why, for now, the best course of action is to stay curious, pay attention to new findings, and avoid jumping to conclusions before the evidence is in.

Astronomically speaking, our ability to observe and discover objects like 31 Atlas is still very much in its infancy. Instruments are just now sensitive enough to detect these interstellar visitors. It’s entirely possible that similar objects have visited the solar system countless times before, undetected and unnoticed.

The Adventure Continues: Exploring the Unknown

As the hosts wrap up, they remind us that there’s plenty more to explore, both out in space and here on Earth. From documentary shoots at mysterious Sedona ranches to remote viewing experiments and sky-watching adventures, the search for the unknown is very much alive. The transcript ends on a playful note about avoiding time travel portals that could make you sick – an apt metaphor for keeping your curiosity alive while keeping both feet (firmly) on the ground.

Conclusion: Keep Watching the Skies – and the Headlines

Whether you’re a hardcore UFO enthusiast, a skeptical scientist, or just someone with a healthy sense of wonder, the saga of 31 Atlas is a reminder of how vast and mysterious our universe truly is. Science thrives on questions – and right now, this massive object has handed us one of the biggest in years. As more data comes in, our understanding will sharpen, and with it, perhaps a new chapter in the story of humanity’s place in the cosmos.

So keep your eyes on the skies, your mind open to new possibilities, and enjoy the wild ride as fact and fiction intermingle in one of the most fascinating cosmic stories of our time. As always – stay curious, and remember: every day is a gift.

Diana Pasulka Pushes Back in NEW New York Times Interview

What's up, fellow seekers? If you've ever found yourself scratching your head about the seemingly never-ending mystery that is the UFO phenomenon, you're not alone. The world of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) is awash with whistleblowers, government denials, secret programs, and everyday people trying to make sense of it all. In a recent stretch of engaging conversation between Diana Pasulka and The New York Times, these tangled threads were pulled apart, revealing just how complicated—and fascinating—this quest for answers truly is.

The Sedona Backdrop and a Fresh Perspective

Let’s set the stage: Patrick, your on-the-road guide from Vetted, reports in from mystical Sedona, dogs in the background and documentary cameras rolling. It's not your everyday studio-bound video but a peek into a real-life adventure. Amidst this, Patrick breaks down a riveting New York Times interview with Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, whose book "American Cosmic" delves deep into the intersection of UFOs, religious experience, and modern technoculture. This wasn’t your run-of-the-mill interview—here was a neutral platform offering real pushback and space for honest reflection. The result? An eye-opening conversation for skeptics, believers, and the endlessly curious.

When Government Employees Become UFO Enthusiasts

We all picture government whistleblowers as covert agents with classified dossiers. But as Diana described, those who reached out to her weren’t Hollywood caricatures. They were scientists, engineers, and employees from places like NASA or major aerospace companies—people with day jobs as mission controllers or technical specialists. What united them? A private (sometimes off-the-books) passion for investigating strange aerial phenomena.

The twist? Many referred to their investigative work as their “hobby job”—not official government assignments, but independent passion projects they kept quiet about. Some would scout alleged UFO crash sites and collect scraps for scientific analysis, always walking the fine line between their public duties and private pursuits. It’s a shadow world within the shadowy, where curiosity and duty blend.

Layers of Secrecy and Public Confusion

Things get even more perplexing when you realize how many layers these stories possess. On one hand, there’s the public record: since the 2017 New York Times exposé, we know the US government has at least officially acknowledged the existence of anomalous aerial events. There are videos, classified reports, and even Congressional testimony. On the other hand, there are countless whispers, private testimonials, and claims of secret programs holding materials from “other worlds.”

That’s where confusion takes root. As Diana pointed out, for each whistleblower or credible military official stepping forward to affirm the existence of secret studies or even nonhuman artifacts, there is another official source denying any such ongoing programs. For the average curious citizen, it’s no wonder the waters are so muddy. Should we trust the government’s public face, the passionate insiders turned hobbyist investigators, or the whistleblowers who risk their reputations by speaking out?

Diana’s own journey mirrors this tension. Even after embedding with researchers and writing an entire book, she didn’t immediately leap to belief. She stayed open, skeptical, but above all, curious. For her, and for many trying to untangle the contradictory information, the desire for clarity is endless—and the outright lack of transparency only makes the hunt more compelling.

Beyond the Headlines: Why It Matters to All of Us

At the heart of this dialogue is a universal challenge: how do we navigate a field where information is at once everywhere—and yet so frustratingly elusive? The phenomenon touches on more than just the possible existence of extraterrestrials; it strikes at our need for truth, community, and wonder. Whether it’s government employees out on “hobby” investigations, skeptical scientists, or ordinary folks keeping an eye on the night sky, we’re all drawn to the mystery for reasons both personal and collective.

The New York Times interview, as highlighted by Patrick, stands out because it asks the tough questions and doesn’t just let claims slide. It interrogates motives, clarifies definitions (is it government work or a private obsession?), and demands accountability. Yet, as Diana reflects, the confusion is more than just frustrating—it’s a deliberate byproduct of the way our institutions release (or obscure) information. Until there’s true transparency, curiosity is our best guide.

A Call to Curiosity (and a Little Bit of Skepticism)

So what do we take away from all this? We’re reminded that interest in the unexplained is a profoundly human trait. For every person discouraged by confusion or secrecy, there’s another who finds the unknown irresistible. As Patrick’s Sedona adventure shows, sometimes exploration means setting aside easy answers and embracing the journey—the late-night sky watches, the “out there” experiments, and the thoughtful conversations that keep us asking, “What if?”

If you’re hungry for more than just speculation, check out the linked New York Times video interview. It’s a masterclass in how to handle complex topics with honesty and rigor. Until then, remember: in the quest for understanding, every question counts, and every day is a gift. Keep searching, keep questioning, and—who knows—maybe one day the truth will be just as strange as the stories that keep us curious.

Like, subscribe, and never be afraid to ask big questions. Peace!

Jeremy Corbell REVEALS Location of Crashed UFO

If you’re even just a little into UFOs, whistleblowers, or the never-ending mystery of government secrets, this week’s update from Patrick at Vetted will have you buzzing. There’s controversy, hidden motives, cryptic tweets, and—of course—rumors of shadowy bases where the government might just be hiding… well, who really knows? Buckle up and let’s dig into what’s actually going on, why so many people are frustrated, and what it all might mean for the search for the truth.

A Road Trip, a Documentary, and a Big Reveal

Patrick—your friendly neighborhood investigator and host—opens from the road, literally on the journey to Sedona to work on a documentary about psionics. While details about his documentary shoot are still under wraps, you can feel the sense of anticipation. It’s clear: something fascinating is about to unfold. But before the film drops, Patrick brings us into the world of high-stakes whistleblowing and online drama that’s taken the UFO community by storm.

When Whistleblowers Name Names: Are We Crossing a Line?

In this latest saga, Jeremy Corbell—a familiar name in the world of advanced aerospace and government secrets—took things up a notch on his podcast, Weaponized. Corbell chose to publicly recite the exact addresses of facilities belonging to breakthrough aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. These plants are legendary among conspiracy theorists, suspected by some to house everything from exotic materials to, perhaps, the leftovers of crash-landed UFOs.

The move? It’s bold. Maybe reckless. Patrick points out that while these addresses are probably publicly available if you know where to look, shouting them out to a massive audience changes the game. What does Corbell expect people to do with these details? Will ordinary folks show up at the gates hoping to glimpse a secret? And more importantly, is this kind of exposure helpful to the cause, or does it risk unwanted chaos and confusion?

Many in the community are scratching their heads. Some think it’s just stoking curiosity, while others worry it might invite attention—good and bad—that these places don’t need. There’s a bigger question lurking: what exactly does Corbell hope for? Are these revelations breadcrumbs for Senators (as he suggests), or is it meant to spur grassroots investigation?

Cryptic Tweets and the Frustration of Not Knowing

Just as the community is recovering from Corbell’s dramatic address drop, attention swings to Matthew Brown, a recent whistleblower who appeared on Weaponized. Brown’s recent tweet is loaded with anxiety and ambiguity: "The strain is too much and there was no support. Hope you all enjoy the free entertainment. We are not free."

Fans, researchers, and fellow podcasters all reacted, many voicing a shared frustration—why all the riddles, all the hinting at explosive revelations, but never quite crossing the line into clear confirmation?

Astral, a voice from the podcast Need to Know, hit the nail on the head: are whistleblowers like Brown actually going to testify before Congress, or will it all remain smoke and mirrors? The lack of clarity and the persistent ambiguity are wearing thin on everyone chasing the truth.

Why All the Cryptic Messaging?

Patrick unpacks it: Brown may be using evasive language and indirect hints to protect himself. After all, the risks for whistleblowers are real, and revealing too much might put him in harm’s way. Maybe he hopes investigators or the public will piece things together without him having to spell it out—avoiding direct exposure.

Still, Patrick acknowledges the tension. On one side are people desperate for answers and action—something concrete. On the other: whistleblowers navigating a minefield of personal safety and legal risk. Both perspectives make sense, which is why this dance between disclosure and secrecy continues.

What’s the Takeaway? The Search Is Ongoing

Although nobody left this video with locked-tight answers, Patrick closes with optimism and encouragement. The quest for truth about UFOs, government secrets, and witnesses willing to speak up is far from over. Sometimes you get hints, sometimes you hit walls of confusion, and sometimes, just sometimes, you get bombshells.

For now, Patrick promises to keep sharing updates as his documentary work takes him to new locations. He appreciates the community’s patience and engagement, knowing that real breakthroughs often take time. One thing is for sure—this story isn’t over and the questions keep coming. If you’re along for the ride, stay tuned and stay curious. Because as Patrick reminds us, every day is a gift, and together, we might just get closer to the answers we seek.

Bombshell Allegations by Ross Coulthart

If you’ve ever found yourself captivated by the mysteries of UFOs, government secrecy, and the ongoing battle for transparency, you’re not alone. On a recent road trip through the iconic Southwestern landscapes—Roswell, Arizona, Utah—the creator behind Vetted, Patrick, took a pause to dive into perhaps one of the most pressing questions in the UFO community: are key members of Congress actively suppressing disclosure about secret UFO programs? With fresh rumors, frustrated whistleblowers, and even congressional intrigue, this video isn’t just a travel log, but a front-row seat to a controversy that may shape how we think about government transparency and the search for extraterrestrial truth.

A Road Trip with a Bigger Mission

Patrick’s journey through places like Roswell isn’t just about breathtaking red rocks or quirky roadside stops. He’s filming a documentary on psionics and making sure to keep his Vetted followers updated along the way. What makes this episode stand out isn’t just the scenery, but the show’s relentless pursuit of truth—even from the road. As Patrick hits each destination, he brings a dose of real-time investigation into claims that certain U.S. senators have insider knowledge about government UFO programs and are now actively keeping this information from the public.

The Ross Coulthart Allegations: Senators in the Shadows?

The main event in this episode is a provocative clip from Ross Coulthart, a respected journalist in the disclosure movement. Ross doubles down on his claim that some sitting senators know much more about UFO recovery and reverse engineering projects than they let on. The real kicker? He accuses these lawmakers of not simply keeping quiet, but actively blocking efforts to bring UFO secrets to the public and holding up Congressional hearings that could change the narrative forever.

Ross’s argument is direct: certain senators have been “read into” these classified programs—meaning they’ve received high-level briefings most of Congress hasn't. According to him, this privileged group sees keeping the lid on UFO information as their patriotic duty, justified by national security or fear of public panic. Some of these suspicions, Ross says, even reach up to the Trump administration. He implies that the problem isn’t just ignorance, but deliberate “obfuscation” to keep Americans in the dark.

Skepticism and the Need for Proof

While Ross’s allegations raise eyebrows, Patrick plays the necessary skeptic. “These are huge claims,” he points out. After all, implicating sitting senators in a cover-up is a serious charge. Patrick urges Ross to back up these assertions with proof before naming names. After all, accusations of treason or betrayal at this level can’t be taken lightly—especially when you’re dealing with national security and public trust.

Even more intriguing is the revolving-door nature of Congress. Senators come and go, so what does it really mean to be ‘read in’ to such a profound secret? And do these alleged conspirators keep their silence after leaving office? These are the questions Patrick throws back to his viewers, sparking thoughtful debate and inviting speculation in the comments.

Transparency Clash: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna Weighs In

The controversy heats up when Patrick highlights the response from Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna—a vocal member pushing for UFO transparency. Luna clarifies that she isn’t a senator and has been attempting to bring informed witnesses into closed-door sessions, only to have participants withdraw at the last minute with mysterious illnesses or scheduling conflicts. This recurring pattern raises legitimate frustrations among advocates of disclosure. Who’s really holding things up—the supposed insiders or simply a lack of will among potential witnesses?

Luna’s insistence on hearing firsthand testimony—not just stories from secondhand sources—adds another layer to the puzzle. She and figures like Jeremy Corbell want individuals who’ve actually worked on or seen the alleged alien technology to testify before Congress. Yet, every time a hearing approaches, witnesses pull out, citing fear for their safety. While some level of caution is understandable given the gravity of the topic, Patrick rightly observes that these delays can appear suspicious, especially when some of these same voices share their stories publicly on podcasts instead.

The Challenge of Whistleblowers: Fact or Convenient Excuse?

The conversation then turns to the role of whistleblowers. While advocates claim there are multiple credible figures ready to testify about direct contact with non-human technology or beings, logistical hurdles and personal concerns have consistently prevented these groundbreaking stories from being shared in the appropriate forums. Patrick raises a fair devil’s advocate point: if witnesses feel too threatened to talk under oath, why are they comfortable discussing their experiences on public platforms? Transparency doesn’t rest on stories—it requires clear, documented testimony that can withstand public and governmental scrutiny.

What Happens Next?

So where does all this leave us? Are senators actively hiding UFO information from the public? Is there a conspiracy or just bureaucratic dysfunction? Patrick’s tone is hopeful yet grounded; he encourages viewers to stay engaged and to keep asking questions. He expects Ross Coulthart to eventually reveal names, and he hopes that, when the time comes, it will be accompanied by the proof necessary to spur real action.

Meanwhile, the promised congressional hearings remain in limbo—supposedly pushed from July to September over confusion about who would testify. Whether or not key whistleblowers step forward, and members of Congress are held accountable for alleged stonewalling, remains to be seen. What’s certain is that the push for UFO transparency is alive and well, fueled by investigators, advocates, and everyday citizens who refuse to let the topic fade into obscurity.

Conclusion: Stay Curious, Stay Skeptical

In the end, Patrick’s message from the road is a call for critical thinking. Don’t jump to conclusions, but don’t stop demanding answers either. It’s easy to be swept up in sensational allegations, but real disclosure takes patience, courage, and an unwavering commitment to truth. As the investigation continues, keep your eyes on the horizon—because, as Patrick says, every day is a gift, and perhaps one day soon, so will be the answers we seek.

Jesse Michels Drops Wildest Interview He's Ever Done

If you’ve spent any time on the fringes of YouTube’s UFO community, you know things can get wild fast. Enter Jay Anderson of Project Unity, recent guest on Jesse Michaels' podcast, with an episode that weaves deep government intrigue and UFO lore in true cliffhanger fashion. Throw in comedian Kurt Metzger, and what could have been a run-of-the-mill discussion about UFOs becomes something so packed with colorful commentary, wild stories, and deep dives into esoteric claims that you can’t help but get pulled in.

But at the heart of this episode lies a tantalizing question: What do true government insiders know about UFOs, secret technology, and the ultimate question of "Are we alone?". To answer this, Jesse and Jay dissect Jay’s bombshell interview with one of the most connected intelligence officials in US history -- Admiral Bobby Ray Inman. Buckle up as we break down what makes this episode a must-listen for anyone even remotely interested in UFOs, government secrecy, or just a good old-fashioned podcast showdown.

Behind the Curtain: The Influence of Scientology and Secret Societies

The conversation starts off with a mixture of humor and serious speculation as Kurt Metzger raises eyebrows about the alleged influence of Scientology in the UFO community. The trio jokes about infiltration, with Kurt’s comedic interruptions making for difficult but entertaining listening. But beneath the laughs, there’s a real discussion about the presence of secret societies, conditioning, and the “occult prison” of society — all suggesting that the UFO community is not free from the same games of power and secrecy that swirl around more mainstream topics.

This idea of social conditioning and hidden influence primes listeners for the deeper themes of the episode: who is controlling the narrative, and how deep does the rabbit hole actually go?

The Art of the Interview: Comedy, Esoterica, and High Stakes Conversations

The podcast’s energy isn’t just about content; it’s about style. With Kurt’s irreverent banter about childhood education programs and Jay’s encyclopedic knowledge of UFO lore, the conversation ranges from comedic asides to very real insights. The meta-commentary on production quality provides a subtle lesson: good showmanship doesn’t guarantee truth, but it does show that even the wildest subjects can benefit from a little polish.

Yet beneath the jokes is an almost palpable anticipation—because Jay Anderson is about to spill on one of the most intriguing interviews in UFO research: his sit-down with Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, a man whose résumé reads like a who’s-who of shadowy government agencies (NSA, CIA, DIA, Naval Intelligence, you name it). The stakes? Nothing less than the truth about secret programs, recovered alien technology, and legendary black projects.

Unlocking the Admiral’s Vault: Bobby Ray Inman Speaks

Here’s where things get truly interesting. Jay Anderson recounts how a strange twist of fate (or synchronicity) led to an interview with one of the highest-ranking intelligence officials to ever lay hands on classified UFO files. Inman, who has run everything from the NSA to the CIA to Naval Intelligence, takes the hot seat — and Jay presses him with both historical inquiries and forward-looking questions about UFOs.

One highlight is the reference to Inman’s decades-old conversation with famed UFO researcher Bob Exler. Back in the 80s, Inman mused that, over time, military technology once considered untouchable might eventually be made public for research. Did he mean "alien spacecraft"? Inman, now, is quick to firmly deny any knowledge of recovered UFOs — but his forthrightness feels almost too rehearsed. Even Jay can’t help but notice a distinct change in the admiral’s demeanor: open and conversational until the topic of UFOs comes up, then suddenly rigid and defensive. It’s as though the subject itself is wrapped in the kind of secrecy only those at the very top could truly understand.

The tic tac incident comes up. Inman, while expressing skepticism about alien visitation, acknowledges the level of secrecy around projects at places like Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works. The implication: even the wildest claims might not be as far-fetched as they seem—if you know where to look, or who to talk to.

Decoding the Message: Truth, Denial, and the Limits of Disclosure

Was Inman hiding something? Was he just reflecting decades of government habit, or did he drop subtle hints for keen listeners to decode? Jay and Jesse encourage viewers to listen closely to Inman’s words and body language. Was his “high confidence” that there’s no other life in the galaxy simply scientific conservatism, or coded language masking a deeper reality?

Throughout the interview, references to other legendary figures and claims abound—Ben Rich of Lockheed Martin reportedly hinting “anything you can imagine, we already know how to do,” and stories of technologies locked up in black projects that could ‘take an act of God’ to reveal. Jay doesn’t see these claims as empty exaggerations; rather, he feels that the tone, the caution, and the rare willingness of someone at Inman's level to even speak on camera suggest layers of meaning only the truly initiated might catch.

Final Takeaways: Why This Episode Matters

What makes Jesse Michaels’ podcast with Jay Anderson and Kurt Metzger extraordinary isn’t just the wild claims or the legendary guests. It’s that the episode offers a rare window into how information about the most mysterious topics—UFOs, black projects, national security—is handled, interpreted, and ultimately shared (or not shared) with the public.

We witness the collision of comedy and serious inquiry, the clash between high production values and rough-edged authenticity, and most of all, the struggle to extract any real truth from a system built on secrecy.

For viewers and readers, the biggest lesson is not to take any one statement—no matter how authoritative—as gospel, but to pay attention to the nuance, the hesitation, and the context in which information is given. As Jay’s experience with Admiral Inman shows, sometimes what’s not said rings loudest of all.

If you’re hungry for more, check out the full interviews—there’s always more between the lines, and, as these insiders prove, the search for truth is just getting started.

Keep questioning, keep watching, and remember: every day is a gift. See you next time on Vetted.

Chris Ramsay Drops Explosive Theory about the UFO Phenomena

If you’ve ever found yourself entranced by late-night discussions about UFOs, alien encounters, and the mysteries lurking beneath our oceans, you’re in for a ride. The conversation between Chris Ramsay from Area 52 and Michael from Third Eye Drops, recently featured and explored by Patrick of Vetted, dives deep into one of the most compelling and imaginative theories about UFO phenomena: What if what we witness in our skies and seas isn’t the product of a singular otherworldly intelligence, but rather the output of an elaborate, automated system—an intergalactic immune response, if you will?

Let’s pull back the curtain and break down the mind-bending ideas, fascinating analogies, and top-shelf skepticism that swirl around this theory, and examine why it’s as intriguing as it is unsettling.

A New Perspective: UFOs as Purpose-Built Machines

Chris Ramsay brings to the table a theory that reframes everything you thought you knew about UFOs. Rather than viewing these mysterious craft as singular, all-purpose alien vehicles, Ramsay suggests they are custom-made machines, each designed for a specific mission—much like our own bombers and reconnaissance aircraft are distinct and targeted in their functions. Some have speculated that what whistleblowers describe as ‘mobile construction units’ live in our oceans, continually building and ejecting different craft on demand, tailored to their intended task.

This “built to spec” approach also extends to the entities found within these crafts. Eyewitness reports and abduction accounts often note that these beings seem designed specifically for their roles: genderless, without the need for food, teeth, or basic comforts. In fact, they are so intertwined with their ships that, when separated, they reportedly do not survive. The ships themselves, stripped of any personal touches, are more akin to tools than vehicles—a purposeful, utterly utilitarian means to an unknown end.

Von Neumann Probes: Seeding Life Across the Cosmos

Ramsay’s ideas closely echo the concept of von Neumann probes—self-replicating robotic machines theorized as a way for an advanced civilization to explore or seed the galaxy. Just as trees spread seeds by the millions, hoping a few find fertile soil, so too might an advanced civilization scatter billions of tiny machines across the universe, each capable of landing, self-replicating, and building monitoring systems tailored to local environments.

Science communicator Michio Kaku, referenced in the discussion, explains that these nanomachines could, in theory, use planetary resources to create more probes—acting not unlike viruses, spreading, adapting, and establishing themselves wherever conditions are right. If you ever wondered why Earth’s life is so puzzle-piece diverse, teeming with everything from cephalopods to kangaroos, maybe it’s the result of cosmic tinkering on a grand scale.

System or Sentience? What’s Guiding the Phenomenon?

The heart of this discussion is the deeply fascinating question: is the UFO phenomenon a cleverly guided intelligence or a vast, automated system? Michael from Third Eye Drops takes this even deeper, pondering whether what we see is only the surface—possibly the immune response of a galaxy-spanning biological or tech-based system. Just as our own bodies respond to threats automatically, what if UFO encounters, abductions, and even the terrifying warnings given to contactees are simply systemic responses to human actions?

He draws this analogy further by comparing our attempts to interact with these entities through psychic means or provocative military maneuvers (such as the rumored ‘Operation Interloper’) to setting off white blood cells in a larger organism. The eerily consistent reports of abduction procedures—sterile, emotionless, focused on genetics or reproduction—seem less like the acts of a sentient being and more like repetitive, automated processes.

Exploring the Layers: Consciousness, Pattern Recognition, and the Human Psyche

But what if there’s more? Michael also points to the ‘multifaceted’ presentation of the phenomenon throughout history—appearing as angels, fairies, or even the Virgin Mary to fit the cultural context. Could the real ‘control system’ be something embedded in human consciousness itself, prodding us toward evolution or manipulating us for inscrutable reasons? As our understanding and technology grow, so too does the sophistication of these encounters. Are we being led, tested, or merely monitored as part of a universal experiment?

This brings up another psychological layer—our innate need to find patterns and fit everything into a grand unified theory. As appealing as it is to circle everything under one neat system, both Patrick and Michael acknowledge that the phenomenon is likely a confusing blend of technologies, entities, and perhaps even projections from ourselves.

Skepticism and Hope: The Divide in the UFO Community

The blog doesn’t shy away from the frustrations many feel in the search for ‘disclosure.’ With stories outstripping hard evidence and official statements often muddying rather than clarifying, it’s easy to grow skeptical. Patrick addresses this head-on, echoing the feelings of many: the search for the truth is both exhilarating and exasperating. For those feeling lost in the haze of speculation, Patrick offers a friendly reminder to manage expectations and keep an open mind—sometimes the journey really is just as important as the destination.

What Does This All Mean for Us?

To wrap it all up, the conversation is a rich tapestry of intrigue, skepticism, and wonder. Whether you interpret UFO phenomena as evidence of advanced alien civilizations, automated Von Neumann-like systems, or a mirror into our own consciousness, one thing is clear: the allure of the unknown continues to beckon us. The search for answers drives not only scientific progress but also fuels the imagination, urging us to look skyward—and inward—with renewed curiosity.

Maybe, at the end of the day, the true takeaway is that every strange encounter and unanswered question keeps the engine of human curiosity running. Our quest for understanding might very well be the greatest mystery and achievement of all.

So, as you ponder what’s lurking under our oceans or zipping through our skies, remember: every day is a gift, and every question opens a new door. Stay curious, vettors. The universe is waiting.

Dr. Garry Nolan SHOCKS Jordan Peterson in Wild Interview

If you thought the world of UFOs (or UAPs, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) had settled down, think again. Dr. Gary Nolan, a prominent scientist and fearless voice in the field of UFO research, recently sat down with Dr. Jordan Peterson for a conversation that’s sparked fresh debate, intrigue, and even concern among those tracking the ongoing mystery of what’s happening in our skies. From claims of government threats to new technology that could be pulling “anomalous objects” out of hiding, the interview is a must-listen for anyone interested in the search for truth about non-human intelligence.

Let’s unpack what was said, why it matters, and what it might mean for the future of UFO disclosure and public understanding of the phenomenon.

White House Threats and the Cost of Speaking Out

Dr. Gary Nolan dropped a bombshell: he claims he was “threatened with lethal force” by someone connected to the White House for speaking too openly about the UAP question. To most, this would sound like the stuff of conspiracy thrillers, but Dr. Nolan isn’t exactly your typical fringe theorist—he’s a Stanford professor and renowned researcher.

Nolan recounts receiving a phone call, after accidentally referencing information he “wasn’t supposed to know,” in which he was told that if he kept speaking out, “lethal force is operable.” Far from dismissing the experience, Nolan called a reporter to document it and has since referenced it publicly. Whether you believe such a threat was credible or not, it highlights the immense pressures, and risks, faced by those at the intersection of sensitive scientific evidence and government secrecy.

What’s Skywatcher Doing That’s So Different?

The interview also delved into Dr. Nolan’s work with Skywatcher, a privately funded project setting up sophisticated sensors in remote locations to collect data on anomalies—everything from military drones to objects that don’t act like anything we know. The approach here is clear: don’t wait for “daddy government” to green-light research. Instead, use science and technology to capture and analyze all aerial phenomena. Nolan, acting as a chief scientific adviser, emphasizes the importance of having hard data and independent verification, and not simply relying on videos or eyewitness accounts that flood social media.

Skywatcher’s goals initially centered on bringing UFO disclosure to the American public, aiming for a data-driven approach to a field too often clouded by speculation. Over time, the mission has evolved, with Skywatcher expanding its menu of services—now working in concert with government agencies and private industry to enhance airspace security and awareness.

The Mysterious ‘Dog Whistle’ Technology

Among the more intriguing pieces of the Skywatcher puzzle is the so-called “dog whistle” technology. Details are closely guarded, but according to Nolan and others involved, Skywatcher possesses a unique electromagnetic sequence capable of attracting or summoning certain aerial objects. Team member James Fowler reportedly engineered this system after noticing unusual effects during past military operations. These aren’t just speculative stories: the group claims repeatable results, with multiple anomalous sightings attributed to the use of this technology.

Is this the key to reliable, repeatable UFO encounters, or simply a novel way of drawing out classified or experimental drones? The truth remains elusive, but Skywatcher is adamant about continued research and cautious about the potential consequences of pushing these technological boundaries. For them, the risk is not just scientific but potentially geopolitical—and the need for responsibility is top of mind.

Are We Alone? Dr. Nolan’s Provisional Conclusion

Perhaps the most provocative aspect of the interview is Dr. Nolan’s frank assessment of the phenomenon itself. “There’s something nonhuman here and it’s been here for a long time is my provisional conclusion,” he tells Dr. Peterson. He is quick to temper this with scientific humility, emphasizing that his views are based on accumulated evidence and not wishful thinking or sci-fi fantasy.

Nolan calls for an end to reflexive skepticism and sarcasm among his academic peers, arguing that with thousands of credible reports worldwide, there’s undeniably something that merits a real, scientific investigation. Importantly, he points out that the critical question isn’t “is there something here?” but “can there be something here?”—and from a purely scientific, cosmological standpoint, the answer is a clear yes, given the age and size of the universe.

Skeptics often question why so many “alien” beings reportedly look so much like humans—a point Nolan himself acknowledges is puzzling from a genetics perspective. But regardless, he insists there is enough credible evidence to warrant a full-scale, transparent scientific inquiry.

From Parliament Briefings to Public Pressure

Dr. Nolan hasn’t limited his advocacy to American audiences. He’s briefed both the Canadian Parliament and the European Parliament on his findings, emphasizing that these issues transcend borders and secrecy in one country can’t keep the rest of the world in the dark forever. As other governments become aware of and admit to their own military encounters with anomalies, the pressure builds for a more unified, global approach to UAP research.

The Expanding Horizon of UFO Disclosure

This conversation—alongside ongoing documentaries, documentaries, and increased media coverage—marks an inflection point. Skywatcher’s evolution from a group with a single focus (UFO disclosure) to a multi-dimensional player in aerial data collection reflects the broader trend: the field is professionalizing, and the roles of government, private science, and citizen journalism are changing fast.

Yet, as with any disruptive field, there’s a risk that initial ideals get diluted as new agendas and stakeholders come aboard. The hope, as expressed by many longtime advocates, is that the original mission—transparency and data-driven disclosure—remains at the forefront.

Why Now? The Big Question

One question posed by viewers and echoed by Patrick, the host, is why this surge of disclosures and government hearings is happening now. Why, in the midst of new congressional attention and whistleblower reports, are figures like Ross Coulthart and Gary Nolan making waves? Is there a real shift underway, or could it be a tactic to control or redirect the narrative?

The timing remains suspicious to some, but as more official channels begin to acknowledge UAP research as a legitimate, even urgent, security and scientific matter, it may simply be the case that the cultural taboo is finally breaking.

Conclusion: The Growing Call for Openness and Scientific Rigor

If there’s one takeaway from Dr. Nolan’s appearance on Jordan Peterson’s podcast, it’s that the era of dismissing all UFO talk as fantasy or fringe is ending. The combination of academic credibility, technological innovation, and international attention is making it harder for skeptics—and governments—to ignore the mounting evidence.

For those eager to see real answers about what’s flying (or appearing) in our skies, this is a moment to push for more data, more openness, and a willingness to consider even the most unsettling possibilities. As Dr. Nolan puts it, 'Earth may well be someone else’s property.' Maybe it’s time we started paying attention, with science leading the way.

What do you think—is this the dawn of true UFO disclosure, or just another chapter in a never-ending mystery? Join the conversation below and remember: every day is a gift.

Ross Coulthart Reveals Shocking UFO Truth

Welcome back to another dose of UFO intrigue and speculation, courtesy of Vetted and your host Patrick. If you’ve been following along, you’ll know the air has been thick with rumors, revelations, and fresh confusion around one of the most talked-about incidents in modern UFO lore: the 2004 USS Nimitz "Tic Tac" encounter. Between sun-soaked breaks in Spain and behind-the-scenes documentary work, Patrick dives straight into the swirling debate— is the Tic Tac truly a Lockheed Martin marvel, or is it something even stranger, linked to non-human intelligence and mind-bending technology?

The Tic Tac Tug-of-War: Technology, Origins, and Operation

Let’s rewind for context. The saga picked up steam when investigative journalist Ross Coulthart boldly claimed—categorically, then reasonably—that the infamous Tic Tac isn’t quite what we thought. Coulthart suggests not only that Lockheed Martin was behind the Tic Tac UAP’s 2004 appearance, but that it may have been operated psionically: controlled by the human mind, possibly tapping into technology retrieved from non-human intelligence (NHI).

But as the conversation unfolds, we tumble into a rabbit hole of ambiguity. Is the Tic Tac a purely human creation, a reverse-engineered alien artifact, or a hybrid somewhere in between? Even Ross himself seems to vacillate, leaning on multiple anonymous sources but hedging those explosive claims with refreshing honesty: “I could be wrong.” Patrick channels the collective head-scratching, asking—how can one mysterious craft belong to Lockheed, yet also be a piece of alien tech controlled by the power of human brains?

Human vs. Non-Human: Who’s Flying the Tic Tac?

Ross draws a line: not all Tic Tacs are alike. According to his sources, some are products of cutting-edge aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin, while others are alleged to be the handiwork of non-human intelligences. The 2004 Tic Tac, Ross argues, might have been a Lockheed-operated test—perhaps using a recovered craft, perhaps something they built themselves. And the operation method? Psionics, or the use of mental discipline to control advanced craft, which is as sci-fi as it sounds.

This stew of speculation raises another question: if Lockheed Martin was running a secret op with such extraordinary technology, why weren’t the Navy pilots in the know? Patrick, echoing the confusion of Commander David Fraver (the very pilot who encountered the Tic Tac), calls out the compartmentalization of military secrets—where even those on the frontline aren’t told everything. As Ross puts it, “compartmentalization works.” Still, it begs the question: how do outside journalists get these inside scoops, and how do we discern truth from rumor when everyone’s operating in shadowy circles?

The Public’s Response: Unraveling a Viral Enigma

Pat’s video returns again and again to a key theme—confusion, even among experts. As the debate rages, commenters and keen-eyed viewers demand clarity. Is Lockheed just the keeper of an object they found, or are they its creators? What does it mean if a craft can be controlled psionically by a human operator? Can recovered alien craft really be repurposed and flown by corporations, or is that just another layer of speculation?

Complicating matters, former Naval aviator Commander David Fraver has flatly denied the idea that Lockheed Martin built or operated the Tic Tac he and his team encountered in 2004. His reasoning? If such a program existed, it would have been so compartmentalized, even those with top secret clearance—like himself—would never be briefed. Ross agrees, suggesting secrecy in the military-industrial complex runs so deep that even the best pilots would be kept in the dark. But once again—a big question mark hovers over who knows what, and who can actually be trusted.

What’s Really at Stake? Technology, Secrecy, and the Human Drive to Know

As Patrick points out, there are more questions than answers. Was the Tic Tac a test against the Navy’s best, designed to see how militaries would respond to radical new tech? Or is this tale part of a broader effort to throw the public off the scent, muddying the waters with stories that are impossible to fact-check? And if psionics—mind-over-matter tech—is real, even at the experimental stage, what does that mean for humanity’s understanding of consciousness and machine?

The conversation reflects something vital about the UFO/UAP debate: it’s a hall of mirrors where transparency is elusive, sources are anonymous, and official silence reigns. Yet it’s precisely these unsolved puzzles and passionate disagreements that keep us coming back for more. Is the truth out there—or just more questions?

Takeaway: Curiosity, Conversation, and Seeking the Truth

Patrick wraps up with candor and a personal touch. He doesn’t pretend to have all the answers, but he’s here to keep the conversation going—a reminder that amid uncertainty, thoughtful discussion and a healthy dose of skepticism are our best guides. Whether you’re a die-hard UFOlogist or just a curious viewer, these mysteries invite us to think bigger, question harder, and ask not just what’s flying in our skies, but who (or what) is really pulling the strings.

So, if you found your mind spinning with possibilities, drop your thoughts in the comments. Subscribe for more deep dives, and remember: every day is a gift. Until next time, keep your eyes on the skies—and your mind open to the mysteries that still await.

Ross Coulthart Drops UFO Bombshell

If you’ve followed the world of UFOs, you know that few incidents have rocked the community quite like the 2004 Nimitz encounter—the infamous "Tic Tac" UFO. With eye-witness accounts from decorated Navy pilots and serious discussions even in Congress, it’s no wonder the mystery has sparked endless speculation. But now, Australian investigative journalist Ross Coulthart has dropped a bombshell: he claims, categorically, that the Tic Tac isn’t extraterrestrial at all—it’s Lockheed Martin technology. If that’s true, why are we being led to think otherwise? Let’s dive deep into the twists, contradictions, and the wider implications of this stunning claim.

The Unfolding Tic Tac Mystery

In November 2004, seasoned Navy pilots like Commander David Fraver and Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich bore witness to a craft off the coast of Southern California that defied all known physics. Their vivid descriptions—a white, oblong shape the size of a fighter jet, no visible propulsion or flight surfaces, executing maneuvers no known aircraft could replicate—sent shockwaves even through skeptics. Multiple eyewitnesses, radar confirmation, and declassified footage led many to believe this was the smoking gun for extraterrestrial visitation.

But even among experts and insiders, interpretations have varied. Dietrich herself, when pressed, refrained from wild conclusions, insisting she’d leave judgment to qualified analysts. Fraver, too, sustained the mystery, stating that what they saw was beyond anything known to current material science. That ambiguity—combined with the craft's seemingly impossible movements—fueled the belief that the truth was far stranger than mere advanced aerospace technology.

Ross Coulthart’s Explosive Revelation

Enter Ross Coulthart, a journalist who’s built a reputation on dogged investigation. In a now-viral interview, Coulthart bluntly states, "I now know categorically that the tic tac is Lockheed Martin technology. Categorically." He suggests this isn’t some slip of the tongue or idle speculation—it’s based on trusted sources deeply embedded in defense circles. So, if it wasn’t aliens, but the result of some secretive American black project, why all the cover-up?

Coulthart hypothesizes that the secrecy isn’t about protecting the technology itself, but rather protecting pride and geopolitical position. The US defense apparatus, after spending trillions, might be embarrassed to admit it lags behind foreign adversaries—particularly China—in some crucial technological domains. Revealing how far behind they are could be far more dangerous to national security than any one piece of hardware falling into enemy hands. Moreover, Coulthart claims that a large part of this cutting-edge work has been kept in the shadows by private sector contractors like Lockheed Martin, eluding even the knowledge of those within the Department of Defense itself.

Manmade Marvels or Misdirection?

Coulthart’s assertion isn’t standing alone. Dr. Steven Greer, another high-profile figure in the UFO discourse, has independently said that the Tic Tac craft is yet another feather in the cap of Lockheed’s Skunk Works—a division famous for pushing the boundaries of aviation secrecy. According to Greer, even Fraver has since acknowledged the human origin of the Tic Tac, despite his earlier claims to the contrary.

Elected officials are beginning to voice similar suspicions. Representative Eric Berles reports that two separate sources have told him the Tic Tac is a Lockheed Martin creation, pointing to a progression of prototypes and a new type of propulsion technology. This tech, Berles suggests, has matured through multiple iterations, and may now be integrated into more familiar military platforms. It’s a tantalizing claim that blurs the line between science fiction and covert military R&D.

But the story takes another twist: Jeremy Corbell, documentary filmmaker and well-known UFO commentator, recounts that the CIA actively tried to shape the UFO narrative by convincing key witnesses, like Fraver, that what they chased that day was homegrown technology. Corbell warns that so-called “passage material”—disinformation intended to mislead both the public and perhaps even insiders—is actively circulating. In other words, there may be people with a vested interest in either planting the idea that extraterrestrial technology is among us, or the opposite: that everything extraordinary is just the work of well-funded defense contractors.

Truth, Information Warfare, and Public Trust

What are we to believe? Are we witnessing a truth so extraordinary it must be hidden at all costs—or is this just a modern-day reshuffling of Cold War era cloak-and-dagger, with government agencies and private companies each protecting their slice of the pie?

Coulthart and others believe the secrecy serves a strategic purpose. If revealed, the existence of technology as advanced as the Tic Tac could reshape global security and diplomatic balances, especially if the U.S. is not quite the leader it appears to be. At the same time, this secrecy raises questions about oversight: Who decides what the public and even Congress gets to know? Should even the most sensitive technological breakthroughs remain in the hands of private contractors, unaccountable to the public or legislators who fund these initiatives through taxpayer dollars?

On the other side, the presence of active disinformation campaigns further muddies the water. As Corbell notes, we’re living in an information warfare era. The challenge for all of us—investigators, lawmakers, and average citizens alike—is to separate fact from fiction, not just to satisfy our curiosity, but to safeguard transparency and trust in both government and the broader social contract.

The Ultimate Takeaway: The Human Factor in UFO Mysteries

No matter where you stand on the alien vs. human technology debate, the Tic Tac incident reveals how complex the search for truth can be. We’re confronted not just with technical mysteries, but with layers of secrecy, pride, misdirection, and genuine marvel at what humanity may have already achieved—perhaps well away from public scrutiny.

So, what’s more unsettling: the idea that we encountered alien visitors, or that humanity has quietly developed technology so advanced it outpaces our own comprehension, all while keeping it locked away? The debate is far from settled. Every new revelation demands that we remain critical, curious, and above all, vigilant about the sources and motivations behind the narratives we’re offered.

As the UFO discourse continues to evolve, the Tic Tac will remain a litmus test—not just for what we believe about the universe, but about our own society, its priorities, and its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. What do you think? Human ingenuity or something otherworldly? The answer may reveal more about us than about what’s flying in our skies.

And by the way, if you’re following Patrick from Vetted and craving more on the subject, stay tuned for more deep dives—even if a quick Spanish vacation means fewer uploads for a week. Remember: Every day is a gift, and every mystery is an opportunity to look closer, ask harder questions, and never stop searching for the truth.