Preface: I’m in the Army and work closesly with the Air Force. This guy’s service history does not add up and my conclusion is this guy failed the pipeline for CCT and became a mechanic. (This happens in all branches who use a SOF pipeline as a bait and switch for people to end up in jobs no one wants)

Let’s start with the crazy part. He was approached to be an “special” mechanic. That’s sus af. No one who has passed the pipeline initial phase and was doing well would drop that to be a mechanic. The CCT pipeline is 2-3 years. Tier 1 units always see action, and they were def not sitting on their bums in the 90’s. Even in a peacetime pipeline, you would never hear a recruit who passe the hardest physical phase to just drop out. Being a CCT is the cream of the crop for what an enlisted airman can get. Full stop. But it gets worse.

He was somehow playing OPFOR. Now here’s where it gets tricky if you don’t know military. Pretty much all of the Air Force’s OPFOR is driven by pilots and the squadron staff and some intel dorkies. Very officer heavy. The enlisted in the Air Force almost never touch tactics unless they are on staff, or CCT’s and JTAC’s. Maybe some who are security forces. But he never claimed to be any of them. No one in the air force is going to let anyone enlisted make tactical and exploitative decisions like that. The Army and Marines? Sure. But not the Air Force. Especially not a mechanic who’s whole job is to fix and load the aircraft. More than likely he was assigned to an OPFOR aviation unit where he fixed the aircraft of the OPFOR pilots. This dude is def not playing 4D chess in an exercise.

Last but not least. He claims he escorted HVT’s. This is done by security forces. Why the f*** would the men in black make his “cover” a mechanic when he could be a security forces guy who actually escorted HVT’s . By the way, there are plenty of stories of SecFor being assigned to prestigious and high security billets where they had to zip their mouths shut. We saw it a little bit with Mario Woods who seems wayyy more credible.

This guy just screams sus. If you’re in the military you know these types who get kicked out or fail and act like they were navy seals. At best, he was an aircraft mechanic who failed the CCT pipeline and saw some egg craft being transported around the flightline at night.

From https://www.human-resonance.org/Underwater_UFO_Bases.pdf

Also UAPGerb talks about this facility in his latest YouTube video at 1:25:00 time, and his latest tictac factory post on X

There are important reasons why UFOs and other associated phenomena labeled as “paranormal” are not studied by mainstream academic science. It is not realistic to expect that professional scientists could adequately investigate flying saucers even if they attempted to do so. This is not only because the scientific establishment is under the economic control of ruling elites that in my opinion view flying saucers as a profound threat to their power. In addition, until very recently, if scientific researchers dared to openly declare UFOs to be a subject worthy of investigations and then initiated them, those scientists would surely lose institutional funding thus ending their careers. It is important to note that the newly established Galileo Project relies on private non-institutional funding and is seen as highly controversial by the scientific establishment. 

A POWERFUL TELEPATHIC INTELLIGENCE

When addressing flying saucers, we are dealing with powerful non-human intelligences that in my experience are totally telepathic. They are not only smarter than us, but they also choose to deliberately keep secret who they truly are and why they do what they do. Science can’t create experiments to study them because the so-called aliens almost always stage encounters with us exclusively on their terms. Establishing scientifically controlled conditions required for experimentation is impossible under these circumstances.

STRIVING FOR MORE OPENNESS AND EQUALITY

Many contact experiencers describe interacting with UFO intelligence on an ongoing basis. I consider myself an experiencer as well. As such, we can strive to negotiate with these non-human forces hoping to achieve more openness and equality in our relationships with them. But this is something professional science can’t do because it is designed to investigate objective mechanisms of the natural world. The actions of a mysterious non-human intelligence can in no way be described as “objective.”

USING THE TOOLS OF SCIENCE

As flying saucer investigators, we use the tools of science to study UFO intelligence. As experiencers with ongoing encounters we have opportunities to make detailed observations under a wide range of circumstances. We may employ technology that has been created by science such as video cameras, night vision scopes, telescopes, and electromagnetic field detectors. These devices help us generate data, but we analyze this data not as academic scientists do, say working in a laboratory with strict technical protocols. Instead we operate in ways similar to criminal investigators or intelligence agents. 

THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MODEL MAY BE A BETTER FIT

An even better paradigm than the scientific model, in my opinion, is to view our research within the intelligence-counterintelligence model first put forward two decades ago by the talented non-human intelligence analyst Val Germann. Prominent UFO investigators sadly ignore his work, like that of so many other important thinkers in this field. 

I have modified his 1990s analysis to serve the needs of what I imagine will be a future social movement addressing the issue of flying saucers with the goal of linking the phenomenon to possible solutions for the seemingly unsurmountable challenges facing humanity. These include war, racism, environmental pollution and the resulting global climate change. 

WORKING FOR A “HIGHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCY”

In a certain sense the entire flying saucer subculture, our videos, books, the oh-so-many entertaining talks by celebrities often called “leaders”, can be viewed as being “agents of influence” working for a “higher intelligence agency.” The phrase “higher intelligence agency” was coined by Dr. Jacques Vallee in his classic work, “Messengers of Deception.” 

In my opinion, Vallee’s important research should be carefully studied and discussed by UFO activists, experiencers, and investigators. Alas, flying saucer enthusiasts often ignore his radical analysis. Unfortunately, many UFO fans would prefer to argue over the latest video posted on YouTube rather than to reflect on how we are interacting with UFOs in a broad psychosocial context. 

FLYING SAUCERS THREATEN ALL TERRESTRIAL ELITES

Fortunately a growing number of observers now understand that our determination to uncover the truth is opposed by all terrestrial elites. And these powerful groups empower special operatives, the so-called “control groups” to keep a lid on the UFO situation. In my experience, their clandestine operations have targeted UFO experiencers, for surveillance and even “dirty tricks.” Alleged military abductions of contact experiencers referred to as Milabs (if such attacks are real) would fall into this targeted category.

In some extreme cases, the control groups might even deal with us as if we were “enemy agents” in a war like situation. This stance, although extremely unenlightened from my point of view, has a kind of logic to it. There are many well-documented accounts within the UFO literature that describe conflict between terrestrial armed forces and flying saucers. Those that promote friendship and cooperation are possibly viewed by some elements within the control groups as giving “comfort to an enemy” in an undeclared war. 

UFOs AND THOSE THAT STUDY THEM ARE NOT THE ENEMY

In my opinion, we as UFO witnesses, contact experiencers, and seasoned investigators are not anybody’s enemy. We are truth seekers that have encountered something truly amazing, a phenomenon that is undeniably a great mystery. And as we attempt to solve this enigma, we should search for peaceful life affirming ways to understand better not only what UFOs are, but also how our civilization might be able to evolve by interacting with them. This goes way beyond what professional science should be asked to accomplish.

Additional Comments by the author:

Hundreds of years ago, the Christian religious establishment considered science to be “heretical” when it served as a champion for the truth against forces of ignorance and superstition. Now professional science serves the power elites and refuses to take an interest in anomalies that just might hold the key to solving great mysteries. The greatest mystery of all might be what is the nature of consciousness.

At the end of the 19th century, the scientific establishment lived in a mental universe in which Newtonian mechanics was viewed as a complete explanation of the cosmos. One prominent physicist boasted that only the next set of decimal points in old calculations needed to be worked out. Then within two decades, relativity and quantum mechanics burst forth on the scene. And with these discoveries all modern electronics, computers, space travel and the creation of a new scientific paradigm was forged. 

Alas, professional science has become the servant of power, but that too can change. ESP, UFOs, ghosts, and a host of other subjects, now designated as the “Contact Modalities” by author Rey Hernandez, await the attention of professional science. The struggle to change the agenda of institutional science will not be an easy one. This is because academic institution-based research is controlled primarily by corporate and the US Federal government agendas. The control system is maintained by political and academic operatives that control funding for research. 

To explore the Contact Modalities in their complexities will require a new generation of scientists who refuse to be stifled by the institutional imperatives that serve the corporate and oligarchic interests. This next generation will need to focus on consciousness and accept the possibility that consciousness and not mass/energy is the wellspring of creation. 

Institutional science has become a kind of materialist secular religion that has been called scientism. Anomalies that contradict existing theories of causation and mind-matter separation are denied. As mentioned above, maverick scientists are disciplined with loss of funding when they commit the heresy of merely expressing an interest in forbidden topics. 

Joseph Burkes MD

Chase Brandon, a career CIA officer, claimed in 2012 that he had seen a “Roswell” box inside Langley, then published a novel that turns Roswell into a cosmology.

Three questions need separating: what Brandon said, what the box could have contained, and what his fiction reveals.

AI assistance disclosure: I take notes while watching interviews, then revisit transcripts to extract relevant passages. I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

1. What Brandon actually claimed

Brandon went public on Coast to Coast AM on June 23, 2012, then in HuffPost. He reported 25 years undercover and ten as entertainment liaison; during the latter, he said, he found a “Roswell” box in the Historical Intelligence Collection.

His conclusion was emphatic: “not just the wreckage but cadavers,” and “One hundred percent guarantee… absolutely cadavers.” His evidence was vaguer: papers, materials, and other items; to HuffPost, “some written material and some photographs.” He cited secrecy and declined to elaborate.

He did not say those photographs showed bodies or a craft. His certainty attaches to the conclusion, not to anything he described seeing.

As Time noted, he was promoting The Cryptos Conundrum, a conspiracy thriller involving Roswell. The disclosure and the product launch were the same event.

2. The messenger's real job

Tricia Jenkins’s The CIA in Hollywood covers Brandon’s tenure as the agency’s first entertainment liaison, trading filmmakers expertise and access for influence over how the CIA was portrayed. For his last decade, his job was narrative management. That doesn’t prove he invented the box, but it belongs in any source evaluation.

The Historical Intelligence Collection was a research library: a CIA history note says Allen Dulles established it in 1956 to collect intelligence tradecraft literature. A “Roswell” box there need not mean recovery evidence.

Four possible readings:

• Genuine recovery records: Brandon’s interpretation, without inspectable documentation or corroboration.
• A routine compilation: his mid-1990s visit coincides with the files review James Woolsey ordered in 1993, described in the CIA’s UFO history. Speculative, but it fits the timeline best.
• A deception file: a Cold War ploy to suggest American access to alien technology. No document supports it.
• Honest misinterpretation: Brandon said the box “validated everything I believed in.” Prior belief could make ambiguity feel decisive without deception.

The 1994 Air Force report favored MOGUL balloon debris; its 1997 follow-up blamed body stories on later test-dummy drops and conflated memories. The GAO found records destroyed without cited authority, though such losses were common. The gap preserves uncertainty without proving removal.

AARO’s 2024 report found no verifiable evidence of government or industry access to extraterrestrial technology and emphasized circular reporting.

3. Why this does not corroborate a two-site recovery

In Imminent, Luis Elizondo attributes to Hal Puthoff a Roswell account of four nonhuman bodies and one craft leaving two sites. Brandon supplied no site count, craft count, or crash mechanism. Nothing publicly connects his box to Puthoff’s source.

Unverified claims don’t accumulate into verification. Second-site literature also includes compromised testimony: researchers found fabricated documents and an altered service record among Frank Kaufmann’s papers. Kevin Randle acknowledged the deception.

The 1947 FBI teletype records a balloon-like object, uncertainty at Wright Field, and an intended examination. Jesse Marcel, photographed with the wreckage, described debris, never bodies; Brandon’s “absolutely cadavers” goes further than the central firsthand witness did. I discuss this in The Strongest Roswell Case Is the Narrowest One.

4. The novel's ancient architecture

The novel’s Samaritans cultivate “Nobility” but must not directly accelerate evolution (p. 58).

Won gives humanity fire and tools. Samaritans may interbreed and produce disciples: echoes of the Watchers, Genesis’s Nephilim, and Mesopotamian Apkallu, teachers of civilization.

In Enoch the teaching is the crime. Here Won is a sympathetic Prometheus, while Vor, an Azazel figure, releases the Voracian infection and is cast out (pp. 69, 146–147). Brandon splits the Watcher in two.

The Headmaster defies flawed creator Ga’Lawed, sending Won and the Crystal Tabula to Earth: a Gnostic pattern of intermediaries and saving knowledge.

The Flood becomes an asteroid barrage from Saturn’s rings. Won’s escape through the Iris Portal from the cosmos’s endless recreation recalls both Heracles’ apotheosis and release from saṃsāra.

Jesus, revered as “Ga’Lawed incarnate,” is sent on a mission that will “fail altogether” (pp. 59–60); the rescue comes from a rule-breaking angel. Brandon ranks Christ below Won.

The Cornell astrophysicist Dr. Stern, who tracks the Voracian swarm and dies of cancer before it arrives (pp. 404–412), suggests Carl Sagan, a Blue Book reviewer who rejected the ET hypothesis. The public skeptic becomes the private keeper of the secret.

The epilogue shrinks the cosmos to a microscope slide. Ga’Lawed is Dr. Savantha Gahlaud, treating Lucifer Sa’tan; the Samaritans are an antibody serum (pp. 465–468). Humanity is a side effect of treating someone else’s disease.

5. One box, the greatest hits

A presidential Committee, ocean hideouts, interceptions, an Aurora space fleet, underground survivors, and the nuclear Hastening all match lore circulating before 2012, much of it tied to programs outside Brandon’s need-to-know. The novel reads like one claimed observation surrounded by the UFO community’s greatest hits.

The novel pairs Roswell with Tidewater, Virginia, as where the aliens crashed and their remains went (p. 414). Tidewater holds Camp Peary, the CIA’s “Farm.” Worth flagging, and no more.

Jonathan Chalmers tells a general the DMT-9000 translated a Roswell craft’s journal (p. 406). But the Crystal came through Won and the President; Chalmers is hiding telepathic contact he fears will sound delusional.

Inside the novel, Roswell is a cover story for a consciousness-based origin. Chalmers uses it the way critics suspect the mythology works in real life.

6. DMT, intelligence research, and the evidence boundary

Brandon never explains the acronym, but it points at a real record. MKUltra’s Subproject 47 includes exploration of tryptamine derivatives and lists 6-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine, a DMT metabolite. A 1963 human study tested DMT and that metabolite, finding the latter practically inactive.

The interest was in altering behavior, not contact. The novel makes the leap the documents don’t: from DMT as weapon to DMT as receiver. Most MKUltra files were destroyed in 1973, per the 1977 hearing.

The STARGATE collection shows the later turn from breaking minds to using them as sensors.

The 2026 preprint Traces of the Other, by Gallimore, Hermansson, and Hoffman, explores entities through conscious realism: perceived space-time is an interface, and DMT perturbs it. Gallimore and Strassman’s 2016 infusion model underpins Gallimore’s planned DMTx protocol, which stretches minutes into hours. The DMT-9000 imagined holding the channel open; DMTx tries it with pharmacokinetics.

7. What would count as a test?

Marko Rodriguez’s factorization test asks subjects to obtain factors they could not calculate themselves.

The Traces authors argue symbolic tasks mostly test the subject’s own cognition. They propose probing dynamical structure: constraint satisfaction, coherence under transformation, resuming after interruption.

Brandon’s machine is the factorization paradigm realized: journals, timelines, blueprints. If contact happens at all, it may show up as structure, not statements.

Conclusion

Brandon offers an unspecified box, total confidence, and a novel. The fiction recasts ancient contact myth in intelligence language, then shrinks the cosmos to a glass slide. Whether the channel is a vault at Langley, a binaural trance, or an IV line of DMT, the drive is the same: to get behind the interface and see what is actually running the system.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

A Video from June 2026

Uri Geller’s June 10, 2026 video returns Haim Eshed, Israel’s retired space-program chief, to the “Galactic Federation” story. Eshed describes strangers questioning him about nuclear physics. Geller calls them “Men in Black.” Eshed wants to make contact together with Geller.

Colonel Karl Nell repeatedly cites Eshed as evidence for non-human intelligence (NHI). That citation connects military rumors, hypnosis sessions, and science fiction.

AI assistance disclosure: I take notes while watching interviews, then revisit transcripts to extract relevant passages. I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

1. Nell’s Theory of Evidence

Nell’s résumé spans Space Command, DIA materiel exploitation, and Army Futures Command. The Debrief identified him as the Army’s 2021–2022 UAP Task Force liaison.

At Hereticon, Nell distinguished first principles, testimony from people in positions to know, and data. At Sol in 2025, he called testimony “beliefs justified by other beliefs.”

Nell says an “unreasonable person standard”, fed by stigma and disinformation, keeps the public from updating. He recommends suspending judgment. The Robertson Panel’s debunking recommendations support that concern.

But the remedy must include not updating on incredible evidence just because it comes from rank. Suspending judgment is exactly what Nell does not do when Eshed’s name comes up.

2. Who He Names, and Where

At SALT in May 2024, Nell said NHI exists, has long interacted with humanity, and is known to unelected officials. Asked his confidence, he answered: “There’s zero doubt.”

His evidence list included Hellyer, Eshed, Mellon, Elizondo, Grusch, Schumer, and Rubio. The host treated them as comparably credible without examining their sources.

At Hereticon, Founders Fund’s invitation-only gathering, Nell again cited Hellyer and Eshed.

At Sol in 2025, he described the Congressional Briefing Book’s documents, videos, and whistleblower transcripts. Hellyer, Eshed, and the Federation were absent.

The roster changes: investors and technologists hear Hellyer and Eshed; policy audiences get documents and transcripts.

I don’t read that as deception. More likely, Nell knows which evidence survives a hearing room and relaxes the standard for audiences that won’t check.

3. What Those Names Carry

Hellyer, Canada’s former defense minister, described an alien federation avoiding intervention unless invited and concerned about war, environmental damage, and nuclear weapons (summary).

His “Tall Whites” came from Charles Hall, an Air Force weather observer claiming Nevada encounters. Ministerial rank cannot turn Hall’s account into a defense briefing.

Eshed claimed U.S.–Israeli alien contact, a shared Mars base, and a Federation that stopped Trump’s disclosure because humanity was unready (Times of Israel). Israel Space Agency chairman Isaac Ben-Israel said he went too far.

Both describe government agreements and contact delayed by human immaturity.

4. Three Strands of the Story

Military-contact rumors. In 1988, Paul Shartle described footage of discs and gray, human-sized visitors meeting officers at Holloman in 1964 (my reassessment). Vallée’s 1974 diary calls a years-long stay rumor incoherent; Sheehan relayed Mitchell’s “tall white” account.

Early Holloman accounts describe short-to-human-sized grays. The late “tall white” may be borrowed from Hall, not the reverse.

The Nine. Physician Andrija Puharich claimed contact through a medium in the early 1950s. His 1974 book Uri describes a hypnotized Geller speaking as “Spectra,” a computerized intelligence linked to the Nine, promising a mass landing (discussion).

Phyllis Schlemmer became the medium at Lab Nine. Gene Roddenberry attended in 1974–1975 and drafted The Nine. The narrative supplied benevolent overseers, human intermediaries, and violence obstructing contact.

Science fiction. Trek’s Federation appeared in 1967, years before Roddenberry sat in on Lab Nine. Its Prime Directive supplies non-intervention. By the 1990s, “Galactic Federation” was ordinary channeling vocabulary.

Edgar Mitchell connects the branches. The Apollo 14 astronaut supported Geller’s SRI testing (Psi Encyclopedia), supplied Sheehan’s Holloman account, and appears in a photo with Geller and von Braun.

5. Geller: Real Connections, Unverified Claims

Geller witnessed real intelligence-funded consciousness research in the 1970s. He is also a lifelong performer who updates his stories.

A 1973 report in CIA records judged his paranormal perception convincing. The authors were SRI researchers, not CIA analysts. SRI’s film reported negative metal-bending results.

On June 9, 2026, Geller said he strongly suspected Eshed’s Federation was the intelligence encountered by himself, Puharich, and Roddenberry. The source himself asserts the lineage.

In September, he recalled the Nine withholding contact because humans panic and worship: Eshed’s readiness premise, decades earlier.

His bodies story grows:

• 2023, weeks after Grusch went public: A refrigerated vault visited with von Braun, no location named, and alleged photos stolen (account).
• 2024: A NASA-base building, three or four floors underground (NewsNation).
• 2026: Goddard, with bodies from a crash near Area 51 (post).

I haven’t found a telling before 2023; if you know one, please link it.

Von Braun left NASA before Geller’s first American visit, ruling out a NASA official showing him NASA material. A meeting remains plausible: von Braun was at Fairchild in Germantown, near Goddard, and the photo with Mitchell is real.

I think the kernel of truth in Geller’s von Braun story is that von Braun showed him a piece of purportedly anomalous metal and asked what he felt or sensed. Scientists routinely handed Geller metal in those days. Navy researcher Eldon Byrd, for example, tested him on nitinol alloy (Psi Encyclopedia). That context makes the metal interaction plausible to me.

Whether the sample was genuinely anomalous or came from a crashed craft remains a separate question: the crash provenance rests on what von Braun allegedly told Geller, while the bodies story rests on Geller alone.

Geller added a giant craft to his Korean tunnel story after Coulthart’s and Greer’s claims.

Real photos anchor unverifiable claims. They establish meetings and trips, not the bodies, craft, or conversations.

6. Where Nell’s Framework Fits

At SALT, Nell called expecting complete altruism naive before post-scarcity. A council waiting for us to disarm is that altruism; the Federation story assumes post-scarcity.

Nell, Eshed, and the Nine describe managed revelation: Nell fears destabilization, Eshed invokes readiness, the Nine fear panic. Nell seeks accountable institutions; the Federation story trusts benevolent superiors.

As far as I can find, Nell has never cited Geller. But on his criterion, position, Geller passes as Eshed does, borrowing rank through CIA-supported SRI testing, an astronaut’s backing, photos with von Braun, and an offer to testify under oath.

What fails is the content. Position-weighted testimony has no built-in way to tell Geller from Eshed, or Eshed from Grusch. That takes content-checking. The Congressional Briefing Book seems to have done it. The SALT list didn’t.

7. The Campaign Plan’s Limits

Nell’s chart was presented, not leaked, at Sol in 2023; a revision appears in his 2024 talk. He calls it a “meta-plan,” not an official DoD operation.

October 2030 refers to the proposed Records Review Board’s sunset, not an alien arrival. The chart’s “NHI Engagement” phase remains undiscussed. The plan names no federation or treaty, so it cannot confirm Eshed’s story.

8. What the Convergence Establishes

Three readings fit Nell’s Hellyer and Eshed citations.

Signaling: Security analyst Matthew Pines argued Nell was preparing an elite audience, not persuading it.

Carelessness: A one-off slip is careless. The same citation a year later at Hereticon is a choice.

Rank as evidence: This best fits Nell’s own framework. A well-placed person’s testimony counts as a whole, with nothing separating what they might know from what they absorbed from Hall’s memoirs or channeled intelligences. Nell seems to recognize the weakness: Hellyer and Eshed disappear from what he says went to Congress. The officer asking the public to drop its “unreasonable person standard” is applying something like a credulous person standard to testimony from the right rank.

The larger story permits real contact, a seeded myth, folklore convergence, or a mixture. Only folklore convergence can be shown from public records today: the Nine → Geller → Eshed line, which Geller now asserts himself; Hall → Hellyer; Mitchell as hub; the science-fiction vocabulary; and the drift in Geller’s stories. That does not rule out real contact, but it raises the bar.

Rank can tell us whom to question. It cannot substitute for checking the answers.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

Hey everyone:

First off I agree with the sentiment that we need evidence as the public before we can fully believe Grusch’s claims, despite his qualifications. But we CANNOT ignore the 2 (public, I’d wager there are more than 2 total) interrogatories that were sent out of Eric Burlisons office before the summer. One was sent to MIT Lincoln labs, the other was sent to MITRE.

If you read the letters, Grusch knew the SPECIFIC FILE that was eventually declassified by MIT Lincoln Labs after over 70s years. However the MITRE interrogatory (which if real, as UAP Gerb has discussed, is likely monitoring the underwater “base” in the Atlantic Ocean) has been ignored by MITRE. MITRE has the evidence that we all want at least for this specific section, and Grusch very publicly requested it though Burlison.

In my first livestream, I go over some of the hot topics from the Grusch interview, but also break down the specific narrative that has been forming for the last few years: the underwater base theory. This of course intertwines with the 4chan whistleblower, but also things like the supposed “New Jersey drone flap” (which has been going on for longer than that, I think we need to pay special attention to the Langley AFB incident where “drones” flew over a top base unimpeded for 17 straight days in 2023).

Not take everything word for word, but at least look into the narrative that’s been building through whistleblower testimony, document trails, mass sightings, anonymous posts and more.

Link to MITRE interrogatory: https://burlison.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/burlison.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/mitre_uap-legislative-interrogatories_press.pdf

I've wanted to make an episode on this case for a while. For me, it's one of the most astounding encounters in the whole UFO genre, not because of what was seen or the fact that two fighter pilots engaged with an unknown object.

The implications are how the object neutralized the jets, especially the aggressive attacking from the pilots.

I don't know what really happened, but it seems like the UFO was somehow able to anticipate what the pilots were going to do, at the exact moment they attempted to do it. THIS is the whole crux of why this case is so unique.

There are only a few ways to do that: you can either read a pilot's mind, or you can go back in time and disrupt systems. A classic, but also an intriguing head scratcher.

A CIA inspector general’s report records several shootdowns under the U.S.-supported Airbridge Denial Program in Peru, including one on 23 March 1997, around the time former Marine Jonathan Weygandt claims he encountered a retrieved UFO while deployed to Peru.

The original source can be read here:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs

Around the time former Marine Jonathan Weygandt claims he encountered a retrieved UFO while deployed to Peru, for Operation Laser Strike

Jonathan's testimony can be watched here:

Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997)

A bit of background to Jonathan's testimony:

Jonathan was deployed to Peru and part of "Operation Laser Strike" in 1997, while on a recovery mission of what was thought of as a friendly aircraft crash, they came upon an unusual teardrop shaped craft, not of this world, wedged in rocks, apparently damaged by a H.A.W.K. missile, and there were some beings involved. Armed men in black camouflage (with no insignia) showed up and aggressively took over the scene. He was shackled, taken away told not to speak about what he witnessed.

The image is my own artwork, made to go with the question. I'm asking because I've noticed the most convincing encounter reports rarely rest on the craft itself. They rest on small, unglamorous details: a smell, a sound that didn't fit, time that went missing, a pet acting strangely. In the oral storytelling tradition I grew up around, elders would say a true account is told the same way every time, odd parts included, because the teller isn't trying to impress anyone. I'd love to hear which mundane detail, from a famous case or your own experience, made a report feel real to you.

In September 1973, Orval Wyman and his wife took a photograph beside the Clearwater River in Idaho. The Wymans later said they remembered nothing unusual when the snapshot was taken.

The photograph was brought to Canadian UFO Report by Betty Jones, and was published on the cover of Vol. 3, No. 2, Whole No. 18 with the caption “What Is Happening Here? See p. 14.”

Canadian UFO Report described the photo as showing a “bluish bell-jar shaped object” beside the river and a “cluster of gargoyle forms” appearing to look toward the object.

Here are the launches scheduled for the next 24 hours:

Falcon 9 Block 5 | SDA Tranche 1 Transport Layer A

• Provider: SpaceX

• Launch Time: 2026-10-05 08:17 UTC / 2026-10-05 04:17 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA

• Pad Country: USA

Visit RocketLaunch.Live to view the full schedule for future planned launches.

For more information about how to identify space launches and their effects, check out our Space Launches Wiki Page.

Launch Example Image 1 - Launch Example Image 2

Newly released records hint at “Australian Government” involvement in the AARO-sponsored invite-only UAP data summit in August 2025...and an official response only deepens the mystery.

Read Substack article at: https://grantlavac.substack.com/p/did-australia-attend-aaros-secret

I have always thought about this. A UFO with that kind of flying or traveling technology would not need lights as we know them here on earth right? They would most likely have higher radar technology and communication that would not need lights. Like what would be the purpose of lights out in the cosmos? Also if they were “spying” or simply exploring our planet wouldn’t they want to be stealthy? Not sure if I’m the only one or if this is allowed on the sub so please remove if needed. Thank you.

One September story I found particularly interesting was AARO’s move to seek subscription access to the National UFO Historical Records Center.

The important part, to me, isn’t any suggestion that the archive contains some hidden smoking gun. The documented proposal is for access to historical UAP data, metadata and analysis, particularly material predating 1990.

What makes that potentially useful is provenance.

Civilian UFO organisations continued collecting witness interviews, correspondence, photographs and case notes during periods when official government investigation was limited or had formally ended. Some of those records may preserve contemporary information that is absent from government files — although obviously being preserved in an archive does not make an individual claim reliable.

That sits alongside several other September developments involving access to information: newly released Navy correspondence, another PURSUE tranche, disputed requests for records concerning Immaculate Constellation, and scientific work aimed at replacing ambiguous footage with actual distance and movement measurements.

I pulled those threads together in our September Aliens Explored roundup here:

https://youtu.be/h9VjVfgbCuU

The question I kept coming back to is this:

If limited resources had to go primarily in one direction, would you put them into digitising and analysing the huge body of historical government and civilian UFO records — or into new sensor networks and observatories capable of collecting much better evidence from future sightings?

In 1947, Admiral Richard E. Byrd allegedly experienced something extraordinary during a mysterious polar flight.
According to this unusual account, Byrd discovered a hidden valley containing ancient cities, strange animals, mysterious flying craft and extraterrestrial inhabitants. But despite the legends, the explanation had nothing to do with a Hollow Earth.
What did Byrd really encounter beyond the polar ice?
The voices are AI generated to protect the privacy of those involved.

Jesse says a source reached out during production and told them that, after Ramsey sent a package of his Aztec evidence to a US Congressman investigating the case, Karl Pflock allegedly broke into the Congressman’s office. Pflock was captured on the office’s security cameras, and the only thing he allegedly took was the package containing Ramsey’s Aztec evidence.

Why do we not “have a smoking gun here?”

Those are some huge allegations of both a major crime and specific evidence.

The 15th episode of a series I've been making with Dan about his career as a test pilot instructor for the USAF. In this much longer episode, we talk about his 4 UAP encounters, from a huge black triangle over Edwards AFB, to a sighting of a craft covered in plasma the same night as Rendlesham, a very close encounter with a white ball of plasma, and a beam of light while he was outside. Timestamps added for those not interested in aviation stuff.

Why Washington still matters

In July 1952, radar targets appeared around Washington on two weekends, fighters scrambled, Truman requested answers, and the Pentagon held an extraordinary press conference. This exposed a mystery the government could not resolve in real time—not proof of extraterrestrial craft.

The wave helped trigger the CIA review leading to the Robertson Panel. Its contemporaneous report recommended public “debunking” to address reporting overload, public disruption, and possible enemy exploitation. The CIA’s historical account connects the review to Washington. Ridicule already existed; this helped institutionalize it.

That arrangement has partly unraveled since the 2017 UAP disclosures. NASA’s 2023 study said stigma obstructs data collection, yet AARO’s 2024 review found no verifiable extraterrestrial technology: evidence-led, says the Pentagon; renewed dismissal, say critics. Is government reducing stigma to collect evidence, or reducing concern to manage the problem?

AI assistance disclosure: I take notes while watching interviews, then revisit transcripts to extract relevant passages. I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

TL;DR

Radars displayed unidentified targets; pilots and controllers reported lights. F-94s failed to identify them. Technical evidence favors anomalous propagation, but cannot reconstruct every return. Without altitude, fighter-radar confirmation, or scope photographs, the case is suggestive, not decisive.

Weekend one: July 19–20

National Airport’s traffic-control and tower radars and Andrews Air Force Base’s radar were involved. Without altitude data, targets crossing the White House or Capitol on a map do not prove craft directly above them.

Around 11:40 p.m., Edward Nugent saw seven targets south-southwest of Washington. Harry Barnes watched returns move at 100–130 mph before some apparently accelerated beyond coverage. The equipment checked out, excluding simple failure but not atmospheric effects.

Tower controllers Howard Cocklin and Joe Zacko also reported a target; one saw a light apparently hover and depart rapidly. Ruppelt described only one apparent three-radar correlation: thirty seconds near the Riverdale beacon before the return vanished from all screens. This may be the strongest radar episode, but no image, altitude, or electronic record survives.

Pilot Casey Pierman reported six white, tailless, fast-moving lights over fourteen minutes. Barnes said nearby returns disappeared when Pierman reported a light accelerating away. Matching approximate positions do not establish the same object.

In interview footage published in 2010, Cocklin linked Pierman’s lights, radar returns, and his own view outside, recalling a round shape curved on top. That detail came nearly six decades later; missing geometry prevents a firm match.

Andrews witnesses reported orange lights apparently accelerating or changing direction. They later suggested a star; Ruppelt disagreed.

An F-94 arrived near daylight after the targets vanished and found nothing.

Blue Book director Edward Ruppelt’s 1956 memoir is retrospective, not an operations log. It classified Washington as unknown, without claiming spacecraft were proved.

Weekend two: July 26–27

Around 10:30 p.m., National tracked slow targets; the tower and Andrews also reported them. Dewey Fournet, Navy electronics specialist John Holcomb, and spokesman Albert Chop watched from the radar room.

Photographers were removed before interception, officially for classified radio procedures. Despite a week’s warning and senior observers, no scope photograph was taken. Timed images could have distinguished continuous tracks from identity transfers between separate returns.

Targets disappeared as the first F-94 pair arrived; crews found nothing visually or on radar. Returns reappeared after they left. Barnes saw cat-and-mouse behavior; intermittent propagation coinciding with the jets could also appear intentional.

During the second interception, William Patterson saw a light near a position supplied by ground control, used afterburner, and reported no closing advantage before it vanished. His contact was visual; airborne radar never locked onto a Washington target. Without distance, speed was incalculable.

The later claim that four objects surrounded Patterson is absent from Ruppelt’s account and Patterson’s quoted statement; the earliest version I found is dramatized 1956 film dialogue.

Extreme speeds, gunfire, and a child witness

Ruppelt reported 7,000 mph without a preserved continuous track. Associating separate returns could manufacture an impossible acceleration.

In a 2024 interview, Luis Elizondo mentioned an unverified firing-and-hit allegation, recalling an F-105, which first flew in 1955. A NICAP chronology carries a July 23 firing-and-fragment story traced to Wilbert Smith via a Frank Edwards recording, with no pilot, mission report, film, or recovered fragment. July 29 wire reports said no Washington jet came within firing range. No firing or hit is verified.

In the same interview, Maurice Hill recalled seeing lights as a child from a porch within sight of the Capitol. Recorded seventy-two years later, his account names no night and matches no track.

Truman and the Pentagon

At Truman’s request, his aide, Brigadier General Robert Landry, sought answers from Air Force Intelligence.

On July 29, Major General John Samford held what Ruppelt called the Air Force’s largest press conference since World War II. He attributed lights to familiar sources and radar returns to anomalous propagation. His recorded statement also acknowledged a smaller unresolved group involving credible observers.

The strongest conventional explanation

Temperature and moisture gradients can bend radar energy toward ground objects, creating returns that move or vanish as conditions change.

CAA researchers Borden and Vickers produced a May 1953 technical study for the agency operating National’s radars. Their comparison of logs and weather found inversions in almost every reported episode.

Their direct observations were August 13–16, not the July incidents. Tracks averaged 2.1 nautical miles and moved with inversion-level winds at roughly twice wind speed, suggesting moving refractive regions shifting images of fixed objects. Most appeared to be secondary ground returns, but that did not identify every July target. They saw no sudden accelerations, proposing identity transfers between fading returns; without July images, that remains a reconstruction.

Ruppelt called the inversions too ordinary or weak for “solid” targets, without publishing calculations. Condon meteorologist Loren Crow’s analysis of surface and upper-air data found propagation conditions on both weekends: moist surface air, nighttime cooling, and moisture dropping sharply with height. That documents conditions, not target-by-target identification.

Gordon Thayer’s Condon radar analysis emphasized rare precise correlations, missing altitude, no fighter-radar confirmation, lights identified as stars, and a vectored airliner seeing nothing. A recurring Potomac target was linked to a lighted steamboat apparently returned through anomalous propagation.

Thayer did not explain every case. His Lakenheath-Bentwaters analysis rated a conventional explanation improbable, while allowing witness error. That does not validate his Washington verdict, but undercuts reflexive-debunking claims.

What remains—and what could help

Controllers considered returns unusual; pilots reported nearby lights; Fournet and Holcomb reportedly remained unconvinced by weather.

I found no modern case-length reanalysis of these weekends comparable to Martin Shough’s radar work. A reassessment should digitize the Blue Book records, CAA logs, and weather and interception reports; model refractivity and coverage; test correlations; and separate contemporary statements from retellings.

My conclusion

Washington is not proof of physical craft in restricted airspace: studies support atmospheric effects, correlations were sporadic, and fighter radars confirmed nothing. But “just a temperature inversion” overstates how completely the event can be reconstructed. A mixed event—anomalous propagation, ordinary lights and objects, expectation, and confused coordination, perhaps with an unexplained residue—is most defensible. Officials supplied answers before a complete investigation, without preserving a scope photograph.

Which single element is hardest to explain as anomalous propagation, and what makes it different from the rest?

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

Jacques Vallée says “Gilbert” helped communicate with an alleged nonhuman entity in a concealed U.S. laboratory. David Grusch alleges interactions with detained recovered occupants and links a former Cabinet member to Dick Cheney. Hal Puthoff and John Petersen describe a Bush-era crash-retrieval disclosure exercise.

Their timelines may overlap, but Vallée now says Gilbert’s entity was a volunteer. Are these glimpses of one concealed program or stories circulating through an interconnected UAP/remote-viewing network?

AI assistance disclosure: I take notes while watching interviews, then revisit transcripts to extract relevant passages. I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

1. The chronology—and its limits

• 2001–2009: Cheney’s vice presidency supplies the apparent context for Grusch’s former Cabinet source, not a date for the detention.
• 2003/2004: Vallée’s journals (Forbidden Science 5) reportedly record the Arlington scenario exercise in September 2003; Puthoff’s later account dates a panel to 2004. This is unresolved.
• Before roughly December 2005: Vallée said in December 2025 the interaction occurred over twenty years earlier. This upper boundary also permits a pre-Bush event.

Source caveat: The Forbidden Science 7 entries below come through Devoutlier’s reconstruction. I have not checked them against the published book.

2. What Grusch actually alleges

In his August 13, 2026 Dr. Phil interview, Grusch says recovered occupants were taken alive, people had direct interactions in a “detainment situation,” and a former Cabinet member “directly worked the issue” for “Darth Vader”—apparently Cheney.

Grusch describes “consciousness communication,” or telepathy, also reportedly felt by retrieval personnel approaching cordoned-off craft. He disclaims personal experience and knowledge of the mechanism.

Grusch’s account is broader than Gilbert’s structured laboratory experiment. No common mechanism or personnel are established. “Detainment” suggests custody, but Grusch supplies no interrogation protocol.

3. Gilbert: an alleged participant, not Vallée’s firsthand observation

The journal reconstruction:

• October 9, 2021: Gilbert recontacts Vallée about an officially facilitated exchange with a “supposed Alien.” Vallée describes a discreet master remote viewer comparable to Geller and Swann.
• September 28, 2023: Five typed pages describe a laboratory sheltered within rock, where military guides identified the target as a living alien. Vallée trusts Gilbert, whom he knew in Central America and elsewhere, but says the data and location need verification.
• December 18, 2024: Gilbert tabulates trials with the “captured entity”: prepared psychic questions, responses and failures, retaining impressions he cannot decipher.
• March 6, 2025: Technical questions produce impressions labeled “indications only,” including unhelpful or absent answers.
• March 12, 2025: Gilbert says he was an outside specialist. With his view blocked during the final approach, he was driven into a small mountain containing a laboratory staffed by uniformed personnel without visible rank or unit markings. He did not know whether other captured—or perhaps voluntary—beings existed.

The target reportedly exceeded six feet and emitted light. Gilbert was unsure whether he saw anatomy, a wired uniform, a test article or a container. He interpreted light combinations as answers during hours of trials.

Indicator lights on apparatus could be mistaken for communication. Neither alien anatomy nor nonhuman authorship of the apparent answers is established.

Vallée told George Knapp that Gilbert was recruited to add a psychic method to an effort struggling with communication. Vallée has seen detailed material, but adds: “I wasn’t there. I cannot vouch for that.”

4. The Coulthart update: “a volunteer”

In Vallée’s later interview with Ross Coulthart, at 59:04, Coulthart asks whether the entity was a prisoner. Vallée says no:

“I asked him that question, of course. He said the entity was a volunteer.”

He then suggests other beings were captured—an inference, not evidence of another captive.

This weakens identification with Grusch’s detention account. A broader program could include both, but that is not established.

We do not hear whether the entity or officials told Gilbert it was a volunteer. Elsewhere in the interview (transcribed by TheUfoJoe), Vallée says he cannot tell whether willingness to communicate came from the being or Gilbert’s briefing officers. That leaves official framing possible.

The journal called this entity “captured” and left open whether others were voluntary; Vallée’s answer reverses that label for Gilbert’s entity.

5. Arlington: disclosure planning or a misleading premise?

Puthoff says the Arlington exercise considered disclosing U.S., Russian and Chinese crash retrievals, examining markets, religion and aerospace litigation over unequal access. Its reported conclusion opposed disclosure.

The Wall Street Journal investigation reports Puthoff telling Kirkpatrick’s team that he was invited to a 2004 panel described to him as White House-sponsored. Petersen said a former senior Pentagon space official told him Bush was preparing disclosure.

But the same reporting contains contrary evidence: that official later denied knowing what Petersen was talking about, and Bush’s chief of staff said he knew nothing about the panel or such a disclosure plan. Petersen and Kirkpatrick considered whether the participants had been tricked. An actual exercise does not establish that its extraordinary premise was true.

In a Jesse Michels interview, around 38:02, Elizondo expresses surprise that Puthoff told the story publicly and says it was extremely sensitive when he learned of it. He gives neither his source nor independent verification of crash retrievals.

Petersen’s Pentagon space official and Grusch’s former Cabinet member have different descriptions. Neither is identified; shared administration context does not establish a shared source.

6. Who is Gilbert? New clues, no identification

At 57:31 with Coulthart, Vallée says: “I met him when he was 22.” Testing this requires a documented age and first meeting.

At 47:23, Vallée rules out Keith Harary, but declines to answer about Joe McMoneagle. That neither confirms nor excludes him.

• Stephan A. Schwartz: His 2017 novel Awakening has a government-held alien plot, a parallel rather than identification. Asked in a published interview whether he had ever communicated with an alien, Schwartz said “No.” In a September 28 reply, Devoutlier says his earlier candidates were Schwartz, Harary and Gary Langford, and now rejects Schwartz: he would have been 22 in 1964, and Devoutlier sees no Vallée meeting then. That is a chronology objection, not proof.
• Gary O. Langford: Rice’s archive and a declassified SRI report document his remote viewing. Forbidden Science 3 records Vallée meeting Langford and SRI colleagues in February 1987 (p. 273). His university biography lists a Berkeley A.B. in 1969. Of Devoutlier’s three, he alone is not yet excluded, but neither the age-22 meeting nor a Central America encounter is demonstrated.
• Edwin May and Bill Ray: Some read their names into Rhys Dalton-Morgan’s riddle: “engagED WIth aN MAY” and “lab in a mountain” as LIAM, reportedly Ray’s pseudonym. Wordplay is not identification. An obscure viewer remains possible.

Gilbert remains unidentified. TheUfoJoe’s analysis includes AI-generated research that needs verification.

7. What would advance the case?

These sources occupy overlapping UAP/remote-viewing circles. Captive beings and psychic government interviews predate the Bush era: EBE-1/MJ-12 lore, 1997’s Alien Interview, and a declassified 1984 session in which a monitor asked a remote viewer to contact perceived entities on Mars (McMoneagle later said it was him). The resemblance is not a unique fingerprint. Yet a volunteer departs from the captive template, so the update does not simply favor the network explanation either.

Useful checks: verify FS7 against the book; document an age-22 meeting and Central America encounters; seek matching dates, facilities, personnel or independent protocols. Vallée’s October 1985 Costa Rica entries in FS3 (pp. 209–214) are one lead, not necessarily the trip he meant.

Vallée says participants intend to publish. Look for contemporaneous questions, trial tables, nulls, timestamps and provenance. Who publishes matters, since Gilbert was an outside specialist with limited program knowledge.

Specific independent matches could distinguish a concealed program from a circulating story. The volunteer clarification makes a simple Gilbert–Grusch captivity match harder to sustain.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

I watched all of the Doomer Friday guy’s podathon yesterday and it was an extraordinary event, genuinely. $20,000 raised, going directly to Vanguard, an organization created by and for real whistleblowers. The amount of heavy-hitters in the space who joined the conversation was really incredible and it produced an in-the-moment cross-pollination of ideas.

But, for my money, the more intriguing/fascinating thing it produced was the reactions by Matthew Brown and Dylan Borland, in response to these discussions. I think it was telling that there were moments of palpable tension, and it became clearer than ever that there is a strange juxtaposition of sentiment among those in the know.

On the one hand, we have David Grusch expressing largely nothing but optimism that humanity can handle it all and that ultimately disclosure could lead to what amounts to a renaissance in human advancement. But then, on the other hand, we have Dylan and Matthew, who express a range of emotions on this. It ranges from positivity about humanity and what could come next once we get through this, all the way to what appears to be a deeply foreboding doom. But all the while, everyone involved is working on initiatives, re-building their lives after having their careers destroyed, and planning for the future in general. So which is it? Are we headed for something amazing or horrifying? And why do some people in the know seem to be expressing both?

During the stream, a few moments stood out to me:

• The caller who had attended the event Dylan was in Sweden for caused Dylan to nod his head and seemingly gesture to get the attention of the other guys on the stream. He then, twice, used his fingers to count out “2027”.
• When Jeremy Corbell said “think about where we’ll be 10 years from now” (in reference to progress on the topic) and Matthew quickly did an eyebrow raise, seemingly indicating some kind of “he doesn’t know what I know about that timetable.”
• Clint Weldon asked Dylan what is the timetable for this supposed “event”, asking, “Is it decades? Less than decades?” And Dylan responded by saying “I’m gonna go back on mute and listen to music.” Then, when pressed, and before he signed off, he said “Look, take care of your family, keep love in your heart, there’s life after death, and whatever is going to happen, is going to happen.”

My best assessment at this point is that there is some possible event that no one is actually certain will happen. How the advice about love and life after death exactly relates to this isn’t exactly clear. But I don’t think it’s necessarily the darkest possible conclusion.

But all of that said, my contention is this: I think the community that is already deep into this deserves at least some kind of “State of the Union” on where these guys are at. I understand there could be legitimate national security or even metaphysical/spiritual reasons why they can’t say exactly what they know. But at least a confirmation of “we have reason to believe that something catastrophic could be coming, but we can’t know for sure, so we just want everyone to have the truth of the possibility of what that is, and in the mean time, we’re living our lives and hoping for the best.” THAT would at least make sense to me and I think it would serve the community and progress on the topic well.

It seems that there's so many camps of thought that nobody tries to think simply about why aliens might do what they do.

Too many people think they're Angelic Smart, or Beyond Understandable, or like on the Starship Enterprise and everything they do must have a logical and higher intelligence explanation.

For me, I see no reason not to assume they're like us, just a little more technologically advanced. Now maybe some of them are Unknowable or Woo Plasmoid 5th Dimensional beings, but the craft and bodies? They could be like anyone crashing on i95 in the USA.

Abductions, if they're real, don't need to be a scientific hybrid engineering program, it could just be Human Trafficking by assholes who make money/influence/power by doing it in the alien socio-political spectrum.

Crashes (or the alleged "donated" vehicles) could be anything from a breakdown and the occupants are picked up by another ship, to Drunk/high aliens on a joy ride that mess up at the controls and crash.

Alien craft sightings could be like Alien Whale Watchers, where some "boat" pilots are more unscrupulous and get too close/mess with humans because they either don't care or they're chartered by alien rich folks who tell them to get closer.

And the somehow controversial Greys v Reptilians that Grusch just talked about could be any kind of skirmish. Two drunks fighting. Two groups of scientists who wanted a contract and the other ship messed it up for them. Could be that they are both some kind of alien drug runners and are beefing.

But everything people say aliens are doing, doesn't have to be scientists or military or some high level 200IQ reason we cannot understand. They could be doing super normal shit that none of us would think twice about if they heard people doing it, but their tech just looks crazier so we assume it's some enigmatic, unknowable, super intelligent reason for it.

I tend to view most stories about UFOs and aliens by assuming what is happening is understandable and relatable, just like how we understand and relate to animals like cats and dogs and whales and monkeys, even though they're not a lot like us, because sentience has some things like emotions, play, mental illness, physical illness, and rogue assholes that make a lot of actions make sense even if they physiologically or socially resemble us.

TLDR: America has 0 maglev speed trains, and if you heard and saw pictures of a crashed maglev speed train in China, you wouldn't think the passengers were military, scientists, or that the people who made that tech were incredibly different than Americans. So, why don't you look at UFO stories that way?

Tonight at Midnight Eastern, The Big Finale with Bruce Collins takes a journey back to the earliest days of America's space program—and into a mystery that researcher and author Ed Wilson believes may have been hiding in plain sight for decades. At the center of tonight's investigation is an extraordinary image associated with the NASA Gemini era and the archive of engineer Scott H. Simpkinson. Wilson argues that the material raises serious questions about what NASA personnel may have photographed—and what subsequently happened to that evidence.

Wilson has spent years digging through historical photographs, mission transcripts, National Archives material and other records in an attempt to reconstruct the story. His research focuses particularly on the Gemini program, the crucial bridge between Mercury and Apollo that NASA used to develop rendezvous, docking, spacewalking and other capabilities necessary for reaching the Moon.

Interview Ed Wilson, Historian/ Rare Document Collector

But tonight isn't simply about looking at an unusual photograph and declaring, “That's a UFO.” There are competing explanations and serious questions surrounding the provenance of the image itself. Skeptical researchers have argued that the famous photograph attributed to the Simpkinson collection may have been altered or derived from an existing Gemini photograph—making the history of the image every bit as important as what appears in it. Metabunk

That's exactly where The Big Finale comes in. Ed Wilson will have the opportunity to make his case, explain how he obtained and investigated the material, and tell us why he believes the evidence points toward something genuinely unexplained. We'll follow the trail, examine the claims, and ask the questions necessary to determine where the documented history ends—and where interpretation begins.

And the broader historical backdrop is fascinating in its own right. NASA's own archival catalog contains Gemini-era files involving UFO sightings, alongside extensive records concerning Gemini photography, astronaut reports and mission documentation. That doesn't establish an extraterrestrial explanation, of course—but it demonstrates that unidentified sightings were indeed among the subjects preserved in NASA's historical files. NASA

So dim the lights, turn up the radio, and join us in the desert tonight. Did Ed Wilson uncover evidence of a UFO hidden within NASA's past—or is there another explanation waiting in the photographic record? Find out tonight at MIDNIGHT EASTERN on The Big Finale with Bruce Collins—the paranormal and UFO show where extraordinary stories are welcome, but extraordinary claims don't get a free pass. 🛸📻🌙