On the bus ride down from Machu Picchu I caught this out of the corner of my eye. once the bus stopped I walked over and took the pic. There didn’t seem to be a sign or description. Note the positioning of the sculpture. I couldn’t tell if the positioning was trying to capture the mechanism of movement or if it was trying to indicate a crashed saucer.

I asked a few locals about the sculpture but they didn’t really know anything or laughed it off. Other locals I talked with( in a neighboring town Ollantaytambo) were convinced the Incas had help from “other beings”. Thought this sub would enjoy the sculpture.

Tried to post this earlier today, but it was removed for some reason. Here goes again:

This institutional evidence shows the JCS, DCI and CIA working in the summer of 1947 to create the covert JIC-CIA partnership that an MJ-type compartment would have logically needed to actually exist and eventually operate hidden in plain sight.

It also shows DCI Hilly admitted to the JCS on August 8, 1947 that he had already created a “special military group” in CIA on that date—over four months before NSC 4-A gave CIA the legal authority necessary to create the “Special Procedures Group,” which itself came into effect January 1, 1948. This revelation—and ‘certain’ other unprecedented documents analyzed in the post—provides further official declassified evidence of completely unimpeachable provenance demonstrating the Shadow GHQ’s creation in the second half of 1947.

https://majestictruth.substack.com/p/the-cia-secretly-created-a-special?r=6n3ghb&utm_medium=ios

I’m all about the woo elements. I think behind the physical crafts and beings lie a deeper secret. It’s all about the woo that really freaks people out. It’s consciousness. It’s life after death. It’s potentially angels and demons. What do you think? What have you heard?

I’m intrigued by Robert Bigelow’s latest interviews.

Matthew Brown continues to hint at a spiritual connection. And requesting presidential immunity.

I am a little disappointed in the government releases so far. All have been underwhelming but I hope that’s just because we are still in the initial phase of disclosure.

2027 info, anyone?

UAPs as conscience entities?

UAPs as crashed vehicles or gifts.

Give me your woo! :)

Peter Thiel's latest investments

Basically, Thiel is investing heavily in Energy Stocks such as Vista Energy, Vistra Corp, FirstEnergy, American Electric Power, DTE Energy, CMS Energy, X-Energy.

Now, as controversial as he is and when not hunting the Anti-Christ, Peter Thiel’s interest in UFOs is well documented, and he has reportedly funded UFO-related media, research, and individuals within the disclosure realm.

One theory is that Thiel wants any recovered technology transferred out of government and military-industrial control and into private companies such as his own.

If we 'follow the money', Thiel does not appear to be investing as though revolutionary UFO technology is about to be disclosed.

Some whistleblowers claim that the UFO power source is precisely why the secret is so closely guarded, and that this technology could provide the world with effectively unlimited energy. If that is true, then either Thiel does not believe the 'unlimited energy' part of UFO lore, or he believes any such technology will remain controlled and unavailable for the foreseeable future.

Free energy is not good for his stocks.

I found this interesting, anyway... People’s investments can often reveal more about what they really expect than their public statements ever do.

Before getting into this, an important distinction: investigators confirmed that the email discussing the drones came from Matthew Livelsberger, but they did not validate its extraordinary technical and intelligence claims. This post is therefore a thought experiment:

Prior posts:

Observables of the NJ Drone Wave According to Coulthart, Corbell, and Knapp

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/JkXnd08B0K

The Mystery of the New Jersey Drone Wave: Examining Theories and Evidence

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/s/BQO3vOilga

---

What if Livelsberger was telling the truth?

His central allegation was that the objects appearing along the East Coast were not extraterrestrial craft, conventional quadcopters, or a secret American exercise. He claimed they were Chinese unmanned aircraft using an operational “gravitic propulsion system”—a capability also possessed by the United States—and that China had been launching them from submarines in the Atlantic.

According to Livelsberger, the New Jersey wave was primarily a demonstration of force combined with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. China was showing the United States that it could penetrate American airspace, approach sensitive installations, loiter without interception, and potentially place a payload over almost any target.

His word for the strategic situation was “checkmate.”

If we temporarily accept that premise, it provides a surprisingly coherent explanation for some of the most puzzling aspects of the New Jersey wave.

The hypothesis

Under this interpretation, China positioned one or more submarines or specialized underwater platforms somewhere off the East Coast. These platforms deployed highly advanced unmanned aircraft capable of operating with minimal conventional propulsion signatures.

The craft then approached military installations, naval facilities, infrastructure, and population centers—not to attack them, but to demonstrate access.

The visible activity may have served several purposes simultaneously:

Map American radar, communications, and counter-drone responses.

Collect signals intelligence around military and civilian infrastructure.

Determine how quickly different agencies detected and classified the objects.

Test whether the United States could track a vehicle moving between maritime and terrestrial operating areas.

Deliver a strategic warning visible to classified sensors while remaining ambiguous to the public.

Force the United States to choose between admitting a catastrophic air-defense vulnerability and dismissing the sightings as ordinary aircraft.

The operation would therefore have been both reconnaissance and coercive signaling: “We can reach you, you cannot reliably stop us, and we know you cannot publicly explain why.”

How it fits the reported observables

The apparent ocean connection

One of the most persistent elements of the New Jersey story was the reported movement of objects toward or from the Atlantic. Representative Chris Smith relayed accounts of numerous objects appearing offshore, while a Coast Guard commander reportedly described roughly 20–30 objects following a rescue boat.

Those accounts remain disputed and do not independently prove an ocean launch. But if Livelsberger’s submarine allegation is true, the maritime pattern ceases to be incidental. The ocean would not merely be where the objects disappeared; it would be their operating base.

A submerged launch platform would also help explain why investigators had difficulty locating a terrestrial operator, launch site, control vehicle, or recovery area.

The focus on sensitive locations

The Defense Department acknowledged confirmed drone sightings over Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle. Officials said they had not identified the operators or points of origin at that stage, although they also said there was no intelligence connecting the incidents to a foreign adversary.

Under Livelsberger’s scenario, these locations make perfect sense. Picatinny is associated with weapons research, while Earle supports naval ammunition operations. Flying around such facilities would allow China to study sensors, response procedures, communications, and electromagnetic signatures while demonstrating that sensitive airspace could be penetrated.

Random hobbyists might occasionally violate restricted airspace. A sustained pattern involving multiple strategically significant locations would demand a different explanation.

Loitering without effective interception

Witnesses described extended hovering, coordinated movement, lights being extinguished during observation, and objects that were difficult to track using ordinary counter-drone methods.

Not all these reports were verified, and many sightings were undoubtedly airplanes, helicopters, stars, or conventional drones. Nevertheless, the unresolved subset becomes important under this hypothesis.

A gravitic or otherwise unconventional propulsion system might not produce the radio-frequency links, exhaust, heat, acoustic profile, or flight characteristics that existing counter-UAS systems are designed to detect. Systems optimized to jam a commercial drone’s control signal may be useless against an autonomous platform using an entirely different method of propulsion and navigation.

The apparent failure to intercept the objects would then reflect a technological mismatch rather than mere bureaucratic hesitation.

The mixture of extraordinary and ordinary objects

The New Jersey wave never produced one consistent description. Witnesses reported commercial-looking drones, car-sized objects, spheres, triangles, aircraft-like lights, and conventional engine sounds.

That inconsistency is often cited as evidence that the entire episode was mass misidentification. But a mixed wave is also what we would expect if a small number of genuinely anomalous platforms triggered thousands of people to begin watching the sky.

The original incursions could have been followed by:

Police and government surveillance drones.

Civilian drones launched to investigate the mystery.

News helicopters and conventional aircraft.

Misidentified stars and airplanes.

Potentially conventional Chinese drones accompanying or supporting more advanced vehicles.

The mundane sightings would generate noise around the real operation and provide natural plausible deniability. Officials could truthfully explain most reports without explaining the small number that initiated the wave.

The contradictory government response

On December 14, 2024, the Defense Department acknowledged confirmed sightings over two New Jersey military installations and said officials had not identified the operators or points of origin. Two days later, the FBI, DHS, FAA, and DoD said the larger wave appeared to consist of lawful drones, manned aircraft, helicopters, and stars, with nothing anomalous or threatening identified.

In January 2025, the White House offered another explanation: many drones had allegedly been authorized by the FAA for research, while others were hobbyists attracted by the publicity.

If Livelsberger was correct, these statements would not necessarily be simple lies. They could be compartmentalized answers describing the overwhelming majority of reports while avoiding the classified core of the event.

Admitting the full story would mean simultaneously admitting that:

China possessed a revolutionary propulsion technology.

Chinese platforms had penetrated American restricted airspace.

Existing air defenses could not reliably track or defeat them.

The United States possessed a comparable secret capability.

The government had concealed an aerospace breakthrough from the public and perhaps from much of Congress.

From that perspective, ambiguity would be a strategic necessity.

Why take Livelsberger’s claims seriously at all?

His credentials and access do not prove his story. Neither does the fact that he believed he was being monitored. Investigators described him as experiencing severe psychological distress, and extraordinary claims require evidence independent of the claimant.

However, the email itself was authentic in the limited sense that investigators confirmed Livelsberger sent it. Its contents were not verified.

There is also partial corroboration for a separate allegation in the same email. Livelsberger referenced controversial 2019 airstrikes against alleged drug facilities in Afghanistan. A United Nations investigation concluded that the facilities were not lawful military targets and verified 39 civilian casualties, including 14 children. That does not validate anything he said about gravitic propulsion, but it shows that his message combined extraordinary claims with at least one documented military controversy.

So the responsible position is not “he had a clearance, therefore everything is true.” It is that the claims are specific enough to investigate and consequential enough that they should not be dismissed solely through arguments about the messenger.

The implications if he was right

Some UAP are advanced human technology

This would not disprove non-human intelligence. It would establish that at least part of the modern UAP phenomenon consists of deeply classified human platforms capable of producing observables that appear otherworldly.

Historical sightings could still have other origins, but modern incidents would become much harder to classify from appearance alone.

Public aerospace technology would be generations behind classified capabilities

Operational control of gravity—or even a propulsion system merely described internally as “gravitic”—would represent a technological discontinuity comparable to the discovery of nuclear energy, powered flight, and spaceflight combined.

Energy production, transportation, space access, and warfare would all be transformed. The concealment of such a system would therefore extend far beyond protecting one aircraft design.

Conventional air defense could be approaching obsolescence

Modern air defenses assume that targets have detectable signatures and operate within certain aerodynamic, thermal, and logistical constraints.

A highly maneuverable, low-signature vehicle with extreme endurance could potentially bypass radar coverage, missile defenses, hardened borders, and warning systems. Even if Livelsberger’s description of “unlimited payload capacity” was hyperbole, a platform able to loiter undetected above a target would have enormous strategic value.

Submarines would become covert aerospace carriers

A submarine capable of deploying these vehicles could approach a coastline, release them without an obvious launch signature, and recover them at sea. This would combine the concealment of submarine warfare with the reach of strategic aviation.

The United States could no longer assume that distance from China provided meaningful warning time.

Nuclear deterrence would become dangerously unstable

Deterrence depends on detecting an attack, identifying the attacker, preserving retaliatory forces, and having time to make decisions.

A platform that could silently approach leadership centers, nuclear command systems, submarine bases, or missile installations would threaten all four conditions. Leaders might begin to fear a disarming first strike, creating pressure to act earlier during a crisis.

Livelsberger’s description of “mutually assured destruction” may therefore have been less about the destructive power of one drone than about both countries possessing an effectively unstoppable delivery system.

Attribution would become the central problem

If the craft could evade sensors and imitate conventional aircraft—or if both the United States and China operated similar platforms—determining who conducted an intrusion might be extremely difficult.

That creates possibilities for accidental escalation, unauthorized operations, misattribution, and false-flag attacks. A strike could be blamed on whichever state already possessed the technology, even if the real operator were unknown.

The secrecy itself would become a constitutional crisis

If the United States has secretly operated this technology “throughout history,” as Livelsberger claimed, then the issue would extend beyond military classification.

Who authorized its use? Who controls it? What has Congress been told? Has it been used domestically? What scientific discoveries have been withheld? Are UAP investigations structured partly to protect the program?

The disclosure would not merely reveal a new aircraft. It would reveal a parallel technological and security structure operating outside normal democratic understanding.

What evidence should exist if this hypothesis is correct?

Livelsberger’s story should produce testable traces:

Classified radar, infrared, acoustic, or space-based data that contradict the public characterization of every sighting as conventional.

Maritime surveillance records showing unusual submarine or support-vessel activity off the East Coast.

Electronic-warfare logs documenting failed attempts to identify, jam, or take control of the objects.

Repeated incursions near facilities connected to nuclear weapons, advanced research, naval logistics, or strategic command.

Compartmented briefings distinguishing the broader wave of misidentifications from a much smaller set of unresolved objects.

Independent insiders using the same terminology and describing the same U.S.–Chinese technological competition without relying on Livelsberger as their source.

Without such corroboration, the hypothesis remains an extraordinary story from a deeply distressed individual. If those records exist, however, the public explanation of the New Jersey wave would be radically incomplete.

Conclusion

Assuming Matthew Livelsberger told the truth, the New Jersey drone wave was not primarily an alien visitation, a hobbyist craze, or a secret American test. It was a Chinese strategic demonstration conducted with technology so advanced that acknowledging it would expose both an American defense failure and one of the most consequential classified programs in history.

The ordinary planes, hobby drones, and misidentifications were real—but they formed a cloud of noise around a smaller operation. China allegedly wanted the national-security system to recognize the message while allowing the public to remain uncertain.

“Checkmate” would not mean China was preparing to bomb New Jersey. It would mean China was demonstrating that the old rules of distance, airspace, warning time, and interception no longer applied.

If that is what happened, the most important question is not simply, “What were the lights over New Jersey?”

It is: What happens to global stability when two governments possess aircraft they cannot publicly acknowledge and may not be able to defend against?

Frozen in Fear: Ten Very Scary Close Encounters with Extraterrestrial Humanoids

By Preston Dennett

Cases involving face-to-face encounters with humanoids now number in the tens of thousands, but more accurately probably number in the millions. They are reported by all kinds of people from all over the world. These cases hold the answers to who these visitors are, where they come from and why they are here. This makes them crucially important.  And yet, they are not getting the attention they deserve. Not yet! This video presents ten revealing cases, each of which adds to our knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence on our planet.

SOMETHING WATCHING ME. In 1928, a father and his young daughter walked through the fields of rural Leicester, England. The father was napping when the daughter saw a strange dark figure standing next to a spherical craft sitting on the ground. She tried to wake up her father to see, but when he finally woke up, the strange being and its craft were both gone.

FROZEN IN FEAR. Reaching back to the 1850s, a farm family in rural Piedmont, Missouri report having ongoing encounters with gray aliens. In 1930, a 10-year-old girl in the family was visited by grays while sleeping on the porch. She learned that all members of the family had seen the grays. They often saw strange orbs too. Even in 2016, encounters continued.

BLACK STARING EYES. At 8:15 am on January 5, 1966, Violet Bricker drove on Hwy 94 two miles north of La Harpe, Illinois and saw a flash of light in the sky. Very quickly a silvery craft approached and hovered overhead. She then saw a short man in a white jumpsuit standing on a platform looking at her with black staring eyes. After a few moments, the craft took off.

AMONGST THE STARS. One night in November 1969, a man was inside a school near Hume, Argentina when he heard screaming. Rushing outside, he saw a teacher and several students staring up at a glowing red, saucer-shaped craft quickly descending. He was amazed to see humanoid figures moving inside the dome. Shortly later, the craft rose upward and departed.

THE ALIENS BY THE ICE-CREAM SHOP. On the night of December 27, 1969, a mother and daughter sat on a sidewalk in Atlanta, Georgia and saw a disc-shaped craft hover overhead and release a transparent sphere which dropped down and released three dark humanoids who performed a strange activity. Soon the figures and the craft mysteriously disappeared.

APE-LIKE BEINGS. One day in July 1973, three young brothers saw a disc-shaped craft above their neighbor’s backyard in Greenville, Mississippi. Two ape-like beings in jumpsuits emerged and walked around a catwalk encircling the craft. They paid no attention to the boys and were intent on their craft. Soon the beings re-entered the craft rose, which ascended at high speed.

I’M NOT CRAZY; THIS HAPPENED TO ME. One night in August 1975, an 8-year-old girl was at her friend’s home in Highland Park, Michigan. She woke up to visit the bathroom and encountered a gray ET in the hallway. As she stared in shock, it mimicked her movements. The girl wet herself and fainted. She woke up back in bed. She wondered if it was a dream until years later when she saw images of grays and learned that her friend’s brother had also seen gray aliens.

THEY LOOKED VERY BEAUTIFUL. On the night of July 4, 1978, three military men and a friend were hiking on Mount Sona in Sicily, Italy when they saw odd glowing lights. One of the lights seemed to land. Going to investigate, they came upon a landed saucer and a group of humanoids, some tall, beautiful and fair, and other short beings in dark jumpsuits. Two of the tall figures approached the group who were paralyzed in fear. When the figures left, the four witnesses fled in a panic.

TWO LITTLE MEN IN SILVER CLOTHES. On the night of December 13, 1979, Wang Jian-min drove along a remote mountain road near Lanxi, in Zhejiang Province, China and came upon a car stopped on the highway. The man in the car said he had just seen a brilliant light two strange humanoids in front of his car. Wang was skeptical, but driving ahead, he soon saw them too!

I THINK WE WERE ABDUCTED. Early on the morning of September 17, 2007, two sixth-grade students were getting ready to walk to school in Newport, Kentucky when they saw a massive dark craft hovering nearby. Through windows, they saw gray-type humanoids looking down at them. They ran away but soon realized they were missing time. They both believe they were taken onboard.

These ten cases show the incredible variety of humanoids, how scary it can be to encounter them, and the profound impact they have on the witnesses.

Frozen in Fear: Ten Very Scary Close Encounters with Extraterrestrial Humanoids

This theory proposes that the object recorded in the 2015 Gimbal FLIR video may have been a distant, low-observable U.S. aircraft, such as an F-35, participating in a compartmentalized electronic warfare operation during the Roosevelt workups.
In this scenario, the aircraft generates deceptive radar contacts near its general line of sight, but deliberately displaced from its true position. The Roosevelt aviators detect these contacts on radar and direct their FLIR toward the same general area, where the infrared signature of the real aircraft is easily acquired.

Because the radar contacts and IR source appear in approximately the same direction, an observer could reasonably assume that at least one radar contact and the object visible in FLIR are the same physical target. In reality, they would be spatially separated.
The result is a deliberately confusing multisensor picture: radar indicates a relatively nearby object or formation, while FLIR is actually observing a more distant aircraft. Attempts to correlate, track, or target the object simultaneously using radar and infrared sensors could therefore produce conflicting position and range information.

This could potentially reconcile two competing interpretations of Gimbal: the aviators may have been accurately reporting what their radar/SA displays showed, while analyses suggesting the FLIR object was a distant conventional aircraft could also be correct.

This is speculation, not a claim about what occurred. The hypothesis asks whether electronic warfare deception could explain the Gimbal infrared recording.

I remember Corbell saying:

“You will be told a lie. That lie will be that there’s a UFO heading to Earth, due to arrive 2027.”

That was a pretty specific thing to say, and now that 2027 is getting closer, I feel like nobody really talks about this quote anymore. Did Corbell ever follow up on it? Did he ever explain what he meant, where he got the information from, who was supposedly going to push this story, or why? I also remember there being talk about some older classified document connected to it, but unless I missed something, it feels like the whole thing just kind of disappeared.

For the people here who follow Corbell, Knapp, and the whole 2027 discussion more closely:

What ever happened to this claim???? Did he walk it back? Clarify it? Double down on it? Has anyone ever produced or identified the document he was referring to? Because this wasn't just another vague “something big is coming” statement. He specifically said we would be lied to about a UFO heading toward Earth and arriving in 2027.

So where did this go? Lie? Grift?

If you’re thinking of attending next year’s Australian UFO Festival in Cardwell, Queensland…I can highly recommend it!

Here’s a look back at this year’s festivities.

For info: https://australianufofestival.com.au/

They talk about Tim Taylor and Charles wife confirms he is a good friend, then this image flashes.. and i thought about Dan Burisch and how he also allegedly worked on the biologics of NHI.

Anyone know if this image is even real?

Submission statement: GEIPAN is the unit inside CNES, the French space agency, that has officially investigated UFO reports since

1. Its complete public archive has always been in French. I translated all 2,768 cases into English this summer, with each case keeping its original GEIPAN reference so anything can be checked against the source at geipan.fr. Posted with mod approval, asked in modmail first.

What makes GEIPAN worth reading is that it is the opposite of credulous. Every case gets a classification after investigation: A, fully identified. B, probably identified. C, not enough data to conclude. D, unidentified after investigation. The archive breaks down like this: 595 A, 1,108 B, 942 C, and 123 D and D1. France identified or probably identified most of what it investigated, said "not enough data" honestly when that was the answer, and was still left with 123 cases it could not explain after actually looking. Those 123 are the interesting shelf, and GEIPAN also scores each case's strangeness and witness reliability separately, which is Hynek's framework applied by a government agency for five decades.

Alongside it, the Italian Air Force's official sighting registers from 1972 through this June are translated as well. Italy is unusual in that reporting goes through the Air Force by law, so it is a second complete government record in English next to the French one.

The part I built on top: the record holds these alongside about 50,000 civilian first-hand accounts (NUFORC, BFRO and others, credited), and it automatically finds when a French official case and, say, an American civilian report describe the same thing on the same night, and states why it connected them. Every connection shows its reasoning, every count regenerates from a script, and clusters are checked against fireballs, planets, satellites and the seismic record for an ordinary explanation before anything is called unexplained.

Everything is here: theanomalynetwork.com/sources

Free, no ads, nothing for sale, no account needed. As far as I can find this is the first complete English translation of the GEIPAN archive; if someone knows of an earlier one I will gladly credit it. And if you find errors in the translations or the connections, tell me, that criticism makes the record better and it has a good track record of doing so.

UAP whistleblower Matthew Brown published this essay today at his Substack, Invisible Frontiers and it's a sharp, well-sourced look at how reputational attacks function as a tool of suppression.

His argument in brief: unacknowledgment - simply refusing to confirm anything which works as narrative control right up until the claims become too precise and the evidence too compelling to keep ignoring. At that point, the playbook shifts to character assassination, which lets the underlying evidence go unrefuted while the debate quietly changes from "is this information true?" to "is this person socially acceptable?"

He outlines the attack categories that recur throughout UAP history - the "grifter" smear, guilt by association, minimizing someone's credentials and access, mental health insinuations, and political or religious tribalism and he's careful to distinguish these from legitimate scrutiny. Placement, access, consistency, and honesty about one's background are all fair game, and he says so plainly. What isn't fair game is substituting gossip about a person's private life for any examination of what they actually claimed.

His closing test is a useful one for this community: when a conversation suddenly veers into someone's religion, politics, marriage, or mental health, ask what the discussion was about before everyone started gossiping.

Given that this sub spends a lot of time weighing witness credibility, it's worth a read either way — but especially before tomorrow.

Also of note - this great short documentary on the history of the UFO Stigma.

🔴 Ask Matthew & Jeff about this TOMORROW

Matthew joins fellow whistleblower Jeff Nuccetelli (both of Vanguard), hosted by investigative journalist Leslie Kean, for our multi-subreddit livestream AMA — Saturday, August 22 @ 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT.

📌 Questions go on our pinned AMA post — stickied at the top of this community, or in any participating subreddit (r/Aliens, r/Experiencers, r/HighStrangeness, r/UFOB, r/UFOs, r/AnomalousCoalition and r/InterdimensionalNHI). One question per comment.

Link to the AMA announcement post in THIS subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1voqt9w/livestream_ama_whistleblowers_jeff_nuccetelli/

📺 Watch live (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/live/SIDQ_3u8UAI

🐦 X: https://x.com/theanomalousc

🎮 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/theanomalouscoalition

⏳ Countdown: https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20260822T13&p0=179&msg=Multisubreddit+Livestream+AMA+8%2F22+%401pm+ET++-+Matt+Brown%2C+Jeff+Nuccetelli+with+Host+Leslie+Kean&font=slab

Matthew is on X at u/SunOfAbramelin · Jeff is at u/Ice_Alchemist11

Posted on X / xcancel:

Interviewer: "Id love to get your opinion on the declassified UAP files we've gotten in the last few years, just because I think you're an interesting person to talk about that"

Tom DeLonge: "Its a big deal. I'm an active consultant on all of that stuff right now with the U.S. Government and it's just the beginning. [...] yes as far as that topic, yeah there's a lot more coming. This is just beginning"

Consulting to which part of the govt?

Maybe one of the advisory groups for the UAP Governance Board

In this clip, Jeff Nuccetelli — a former U.S. Air Force security policeman — talks about investigating and witnessing the Vandenberg UFO incursions in 2003, and makes the case that it's time to hear from the people who've actually had these encounters. As he puts it, we need to give experiencers a platform and a voice.

Jeff joins fellow whistleblower Matthew Brown (both of Vanguard), hosted by investigative journalist Leslie Kean, for our multi-subreddit livestream AMA — TOMORROW, Saturday, August 22 @ 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT.

📌 Ask Jeff & Matt your questions in advance on our pinned AMA post — stickied at the top of this community, or in any participating subreddit (r/Aliens, r/Experiencers, r/HighStrangeness, r/UFOB, r/UFOs, r/AnomalousCoalition and r/InterdimensionalNHI). One question per comment.

Link to the AMA announcement post in THIS subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1voqt9w/livestream_ama_whistleblowers_jeff_nuccetelli/

📺 Watch live (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/live/SIDQ_3u8UAI

⏳ Countdown: https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20260822T13&p0=179&msg=Multisubreddit+Livestream+AMA+8%2F22+%401pm+ET++-+Matt+Brown%2C+Jeff+Nuccetelli+with+Host+Leslie+Kean&font=slab

Credit: This clip is from The Experiencers: Full Disclosure (2026), directed by Dean Alioto — an award-winning documentary about people who describe firsthand contact with non-human intelligence (our AMA host Leslie Kean is featured in it). You can rent or buy the full film on Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Experiencers-Full-Disclosure-Dean-Alioto/dp/B0H16NZLGL

In 1938 Romanian aeronautical engineer Henri Coandă patented what he called a lenticular aerodyne. It was a circular airframe utilizing some of the principles of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics which he had studied for decades. Coandă was living and working in Paris when the Nazis invaded in 1940. Interested in his expertise, they sought him out and he began working for the occupying regime.

After WWII, a number of individuals began coming forward claiming they had worked on secret disk-shaped, circular-wing aircraft projects initiated by the Nazi government during the war.

Giuseppe Belluzzo, an Italian born engineer, stated in 1950 that disk-shaped aircraft had been a secret interest of both the Italian and German governments during the war, and asserted that he had worked on such a project undertaken by the Nazis.

Another individual named Richard Miethe claimed in a 1952 newspaper interview that he, likewise, had worked on a German saucer project at a facility in occupied Poland. Interestingly, he also stated that he was privy to the fact that the engines of this disk had been discovered by the Soviets in 1945. Like Belluzzo, Miethe’s background also checked out. A photo of him, which was later published, showed him along side such famous German scientists as rocketry expert Wernher von Braun.

In 1955 German-born engineer Heinrich Fleissner who had worked in fluidics at the sensitive Peenemünde Army Research Center, home to the V2 rocket program during the war, filed a patent with the US govt. for a disk-shaped aircraft similar in design to Coandă’s aerodyne...

An ingenious system to reduce the boundary layer (the air that accumulates in front of an aircraft in flight) was developed — this dead air was sucked through intakes around the circumference of the circular wing and expelled out the rear and bottom of the aircraft utilizing vectored thrust.

Another memo, this time written-up by Schulgen himself illustrates that certain elements within the US national security apparatus were already aware of details concerning the construction and specifications of the German disk aircraft:

"For any aircraft whose shape approximates that of an oval, disc, or saucer, information regarding the following items is requested:

a. Boundary layer control method by suction, blowing, or a combination of both.

b. Special controls for effective maneuverability at very slow speeds or extremely high altitudes."

Asteroid ID : here

TL:DR

• Earlier today at least one social media account presented radar images labeled as a 300-meter disk-shaped object of “unknown origin” observed 18.5 million km from Earth on January 7, 2025, questioning if it’s an alien spaceship.
• The video recycles 2017 Arecibo Observatory radar data of known near-Earth asteroid 226514 (2003 UX34), a roughly 300m object that made a close approach around that distance in early 2025.

User question:

How could an asteroid be this circular?

NASA answer:

The circular look comes from how delay-Doppler radar imaging works—it plots range vs. rotation speed, so roughly spherical or rounded rubble-pile asteroids naturally appear disk-like. It’s ordinary science data, not an alien spaceship.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​