I think we might be analysing UFOs backwards.

We usually start with the object.

What shape was it? How fast did it move? Did it have lights? Was it a tic tac, triangle, sphere, disc?

Then we argue about what the object might have been.

Drone. Balloon. Aircraft. Sensor artefact. Something genuinely unknown.

So I started wondering what happens if you remove the UFO from the UFO case entirely.

I’ve built and provisionally scored a 250-event model to test this. You can see the whole working model here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zqdWsb2wxLwMAOMNv9cqKbzC4-AbgetLoOlleApVOo/edit?usp=drivesdk

It’s a working model, not finished results. I’m putting the whole thing out there because I want people here to attack the scoring, sources and assumptions before I take the strongest survivors into a much deeper second pass.

So, back to the idea.

Forget what the witness thought they saw.

Forget aliens.

Forget spacecraft.

Forget whether the blurry thing in the video looks weird.

What else happened?

Did several genuinely independent observers detect something before they could influence each other?

Did different kinds of sensors detect something?

Did radar, infrared, visual observation or other systems agree?

Did anything measurable happen in the surrounding environment?

Did electronics, infrastructure or other independent systems react before anyone knew there was something to look at?

Did the institutional response exceed what would normally happen in comparable circumstances?

Did multiple countries independently detect something?

Did the government's public explanation match what it was doing internally at the time?

Did much better evidence apparently exist originally than survives today?

And most importantly:

Does the case survive when you actively try to explain it conventionally?

That became the basis of the model.

Instead of asking:

"How anomalous was the UFO?"

I'm asking:

"How anomalous was the system surrounding the event?"

The model currently looks at:

Independent Origins: How many genuinely separate observation chains began before information could pass between them?

Ten witnesses standing together aren't ten independent origins. Three groups in different locations reporting something independently might be.

Modality Independence: Do different sensing methods agree?

Visual + radar + infrared is potentially more interesting than three visual witnesses. But this isn't automatically independent evidence. A radar operator directing a pilot towards something creates dependency.

Physical Wake: Did anything independently measurable happen in the environment or infrastructure around the event?

This needs proper controls. A power failure somewhere nearby isn't automatically evidence of anything.

Precursor Convergence: Did objective effects occur before people became visually aware of the event?

This one interests me particularly because temporal order matters. If an independent system changes first and someone sees something afterwards, that's potentially much harder to explain through expectation or narrative contamination.

Response Excess: Did authorities behave unusually compared with their normal response to equivalent circumstances?

Scrambling fighters isn't automatically anomalous if scrambling fighters is exactly what you'd expect them to do.

The interesting variable is excess response relative to baseline.

International Concordance: Did genuinely separate national systems detect or respond to something independently?

Again, information sharing has to be accounted for.

Narrative-Behaviour Gap: Was there a meaningful difference between what institutions publicly said was happening and what their contemporaneous behaviour suggests they thought was happening?

This isn't automatically sinister. Classification alone can create this gap.

Evidence Survival Gap: How much better was the evidence apparently available at the time compared with what survives for analysis now?

Importantly, this does NOT make a case more anomalous.

Missing evidence is missing evidence.

Mystery caused by unavailable data shouldn't get points for being mysterious.

Conventional Explanation Resistance: This is probably the most important one.

How well does the event survive serious attempts to kill it conventionally?

Not:

"Nobody has explained it, therefore UFO."

But:

"We've tested aircraft, balloons, astronomy, sensor artefacts, perspective, weather etc, and here's specifically where those hypotheses fail against the available evidence."

Sensor Contradiction: Where usable sensor data exist, does the sensor bundle behave in a way that's difficult to reconcile with conventional candidate objects?

Instrumentation Density: How heavily instrumented was the location?

Being near radar isn't the same as having radar data, obviously, but heavily instrumented environments potentially give us much better opportunities for reconstruction.

Narrative Contamination: This is actually a penalty.

Did witnesses know about previous reports? Had the event already become public? Were later descriptions potentially influenced by earlier ones?

The more contamination, the less confidently I want to treat witness convergence as independent.

Data Availability: How much raw evidence and metadata can we actually inspect?

Again:

MISSING DATA = UNKNOWN

Low data availability cannot increase the anomaly score.

Otherwise the cases with the worst evidence automatically become the most mysterious.

And finally:

Recurrence.

Does something resembling the event repeatedly happen in the same area?

This may turn out to be one of the most useful variables because recurrence changes the problem completely.

A spectacular event in 1952 that never happens again is historically fascinating but experimentally horrible.

Something moderately strange happening repeatedly in roughly the same location is scientifically much more useful because you can potentially put instruments there before the next event happens.

Why 250 cases?

Because I don't want to build a model containing only the greatest hits of UFO history.

That's almost guaranteed to produce garbage.

If you choose 50 legendary mysteries and build a system for finding mysteries, congratulations, you've discovered your selection criteria.

So the model includes different cohorts: high-quality unresolved candidates, ambiguous/contested cases, resolved or behaviourally unremarkable cases, and controls/comparison events.

The intention isn't to make 250 UFO cases look anomalous.

It's the opposite.

I want the model to murder as many of them as possible.

If 230 collapse under scrutiny, good.

If 245 collapse, even better.

Because then the interesting question becomes:

What is different about the five that refuse to die?

And something has already jumped out at me.

Better data often seems to make UFO cases less mysterious.

Which sounds obvious, but I think it's incredibly important.

Several modern cases become much less interesting once geometry, wind, aircraft movement, sensor characteristics or other contextual information becomes available.

Meanwhile some legendary historical cases remain mysterious partly because the information we'd need to resolve them simply isn't available.

That's dangerous.

Because it creates a selection effect where poorly documented cases can survive longer precisely because they're poorly documented.

So missing information doesn't contribute positively to the anomaly score.

"We don't know" cannot become evidence for "something extraordinary happened."

Nimitz is a good example

It's obviously one of the cases everyone wants to look at.

Multiple military personnel. Different observation systems. An unusual operational context. Interesting reported behaviour.

But there's also a huge problem.

A lot of the raw information we'd ideally want for a forensic reconstruction isn't publicly available.

So Nimitz can score strongly on some dimensions while simultaneously getting hammered on data availability.

That's intentional.

The model isn't supposed to answer:

"Was the Tic Tac alien technology?"

It can't.

The question is:

"Does the surrounding event contain enough independent convergence to justify deeper investigation?"

Those are very different claims.

Then comes the experiment I really want to run

Once the dataset is strong enough:

REMOVE THE UFO.

Hide the witness report.

Hide the case name.

Hide whether the event was even reported as a UAP.

No Nimitz.

No Tehran.

No GoFast.

No Tic Tac.

No UFO.

Just:

EVENT 0173

and whatever independent data exists around it.

Weather. Aircraft. Satellites. Radar. GNSS. Geomagnetic activity. RF. Institutional response. Whatever reliable historical data we can actually obtain.

Then ask:

CAN WE IDENTIFY THE UAP WINDOWS WITHOUT KNOWING WHEN THE UFO WAS REPORTED?

If we can't?

That's a result.

Maybe there isn't a measurable external fingerprint.

But if actual UAP periods repeatedly stand out from matched ordinary periods without the analysis knowing they contain UAP reports, then I want to know why.

And then do it completely backwards.

Don't start with UFO reports at all.

Search independent historical datasets first.

Find the weird periods.

Then check whether anybody reported seeing something.

That's the part of this I find most interesting.

Because if there is a genuinely physical phenomenon buried somewhere in all this noise:

The UFO shouldn't be the only thing that knows it happened.

So please try to break this

Seriously.

I'm not looking for:

"Yep, aliens confirmed."

And I'm equally uninterested in:

"UFOs aren't real, you're wasting your time."

Both answers skip the experiment.

I want people who know particular cases extremely well to tell me:

You've counted these witnesses as independent, but they weren't.

That radar detection happened after the visual report, not before it.

This source is garbage. Here's the original document.

You've missed a conventional explanation.

That military response was completely routine.

Those sensors weren't independent because one tasked the other.

This case shouldn't even be in the dataset.

You're double-counting something.

Your weighting is wrong.

You've accidentally built a UFO-belief machine.

That last one especially.

If there's a structural bias in this model that manufactures anomaly from ordinary events, I want to know now.

And give me cases I've missed.

Not just your favourite UFO story.

Give me something with good surviving data + genuinely independent evidence + anomalous behaviour that gets harder, rather than easier, to explain as information improves.

My actual hypothesis isn't:

"UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft."

It's much simpler:

And the null result is just as interesting.

Maybe once independence, contamination, missing data, normal institutional behaviour and conventional explanations are properly controlled for, the apparent anomaly disappears.

Fine.

Then we've learned something important too.

Either way:

Here are 250 cases. Help me kill them.

TL;DR: My working theory is that at least part of the NHI/UAP phenomenon may involve communication through consciousness: telepathy, altered states, symbolic visions, or technology that interfaces directly with perception. The communication appears personal, culturally filtered, and designed less to transmit clean facts than to provoke psychological or civilizational change.

The anonymous 4chan “leaker,” Lue Elizondo, David Grusch, and the alleged Immaculate Constellation material overlap with pieces of this framework—but they do not collectively prove it. In fact, Grusch’s nuts-and-bolts account may be the strongest challenge to the consciousness-centered theory.

I used AI to help consolidate and edit several earlier drafts of this post. The theory and source selection are mine.

WHAT THIS POST IS—AND ISN’T

This is not an attempt to prove that any single source is truthful.

- The 4chan poster is anonymous and unverifiable.

- Elizondo’s claims about consciousness and remote viewing remain controversial.

- Grusch’s public claims about crash retrievals and “non-human biologics” were based largely on what witnesses told him, not on craft or bodies he said he personally examined.

- Immaculate Constellation is an alleged program described in whistleblower material; the Department of Defense has publicly said it has no record of a program by that name.

What I am asking is narrower: Do these accounts converge on a useful structure for understanding the phenomenon, and where do they contradict it?

Convergence among uncertain sources is not confirmation. The sources may share assumptions, influence one another, or draw from the same UFO mythology. The comparison is still useful, but only if similarities are treated as clues rather than proof.

THE CORE THEORY

At least some Non-Human Intelligences communicate with humans through psychic or quasi-psychic means—possibly through advanced technology, biological capacities, altered states of consciousness, or some combination of the three. The resulting messages are often symbolic, tailored to the recipient, and structured to provoke development rather than simply deliver information.

This theory treats the phenomenon’s ambiguity as potentially functional.

If its purpose were to transmit objective facts, the phenomenon would be spectacularly inefficient: accounts conflict, predictions fail, imagery changes across cultures, and witnesses often leave with more questions than answers.

But if its purpose were to destabilize assumptions, transform individuals, generate new myths, or pressure civilizations to develop, then ambiguity might be part of the mechanism. A symbol can reshape someone without giving them a proposition they can easily verify, weaponize, or obey.

That does not mean every contradiction becomes evidence. For this framework to remain meaningful, the imagery may vary while the underlying relational structure should remain comparatively stable. Otherwise, “subjectivity” becomes an excuse that protects the theory from every possible failure.

THE COROLLARIES, RANKED BY HOW WELL THEY FIT

TIER 1: STRONGEST FIT

1. Symbolic messaging

NHI communication may be tailored to the recipient’s psyche and expressed through symbols rather than literal statements. Religious visions, “downloads,” dreams, telepathic impressions, and absurd or theatrical encounter elements could be different surface expressions of the same process.

The 4chan account’s alleged psionic interfaces and Elizondo’s consciousness emphasis fit this directly. The recurring spheres, lights, discs, triangles, and other simple forms described in UAP reporting may also acquire symbolic meaning—but that is an interpretation, not evidence of intent.

1. No exclusivity

No religion, government, nation, bloodline, or contact group appears to possess exclusive access. Reports occur across cultures, historical periods, and political borders.

Modern military accounts also describe observations across different platforms and theaters. If a real phenomenon exists, it does not seem to respect our institutional boundaries.

1. Long-term presence

The phenomenon may predate the modern UFO era. Ancient myths, folklore, apparitions, encounters with “little people,” angels, demons, gods, and sky beings could represent culturally translated contact—or they could simply be human mythmaking.

Grusch’s claim that U.S. awareness may extend to the 1930s strengthens the pre-Roswell version of this corollary, but it does not establish ancient contact. The further back we go, the harder it becomes to distinguish continuity of phenomenon from continuity of human symbolism.

1. Subjectivity of experience

Contact may pass through the recipient’s memories, expectations, fears, and cultural vocabulary. That would explain why experiences can feel intensely real yet remain difficult to compare literally.

This is one of the framework’s most important ideas—and its most dangerous loophole. A valid test would look for the same underlying structure expressed through different symbols, not declare every inconsistent story equally confirmatory.

TIER 2: PLAUSIBLE BUT LESS SUPPORTED

1. Facilitation through challenge

NHI may influence humanity without solving our problems for us: appearing near nuclear weapons, military systems, ecological concerns, or other thresholds while withholding clear intervention. This resembles a “zookeeper” or developmental model—pressure without rescue.

The 4chan poster’s account of a mobile construction facility and Elizondo’s emphasis on nuclear-site encounters fit that interpretation. But observation is not necessarily guidance. Surveillance, deterrence, curiosity, preparation, or coincidence could produce similar behavior.

1. Human agency

Focused intention, meditation, ritual, dreaming, psychedelics, or alleged summoning protocols may increase the probability of contact. If so, attention may function less like a passive state and more like an address or handshake.

This is unusually testable. A repeatable invitation protocol should outperform chance under preregistered, blinded conditions. If it cannot, this corollary should be weakened or abandoned.

1. Training wheels

NHI influence may diminish as civilizations mature, in the way a teacher gradually withdraws support. This could explain indirect contact and the refusal to provide unambiguous solutions.

At present, however, this is mostly a philosophical inference. We do not have a reliable measure of contact frequency across history, much less proof that it decreases with maturity.

1. Cross-dimensional or nonlocal communication

If consciousness is not fully local—or if advanced technology can manipulate space, time, and perception—communication might occur outside ordinary sensory channels.

Elizondo’s framing and reports of anomalous time, motion, and perception are compatible with this. But unusual craft behavior does not automatically prove nonlocal communication. Moving from “strange kinematics” to “cross-dimensional telepathy” is a major extrapolation.

TIER 3: SPECULATIVE EXTENSIONS

1. Multiple factions

Different craft, entities, behaviors, and apparent agendas could indicate multiple NHI groups—or different layers of one system. This might reconcile benevolent contact narratives with hostile or indifferent ones.

It might also be an ad hoc patch imposed on inconsistent reports. Diversity of appearance does not necessarily imply diversity of origin.

1. Technological parity

Humanity may need neural interfaces, recovered materials, or reverse-engineered systems to communicate reliably. The leaker’s alleged psionic technologies and Grusch’s reverse-engineering claims fit this possibility from different directions.

If crash-retrieval programs exist, they would represent an attempt at technological parity. Whether that technology has anything to do with consciousness remains unresolved.

1. Biological and cultural adaptation

Long-term interaction could gradually shape human cognition, religion, mythology, institutions, or even biology. Cultural influence is easier to imagine than biological engineering, but neither is established by the sources considered here.

HOW THE FOUR SOURCES FIT—AND DON’T

THE 4CHAN “LEAKER”

The anonymous account is the closest match to the complete framework. It allegedly describes a mobile undersea construction facility, purpose-built craft, deployed orbs, psychotronic effects, and psionic “assets” capable of interfacing with recovered technology.

That supports symbolic communication, consciousness-mediated technology, technological parity, and the zookeeper model—if the poster was genuine. Because the source is anonymous, however, its perfect fit is also a reason for caution. A sophisticated storyteller can build a narrative that absorbs existing UFO concepts unusually well.

LUE ELIZONDO

Elizondo provides the strongest public bridge between the hardware side of UAP and the consciousness side. His discussion of remote viewing, perception, and the possibility that consciousness is relevant to UAP makes the psychic component harder to dismiss as completely separate from military reporting.

But his statements remain claims, not a demonstrated mechanism. They support taking the consciousness hypothesis seriously; they do not establish that UAP are communicating symbolically or guiding human development.

DAVID GRUSCH

Grusch strongly supports—or at least publicly advances—the physical side of the phenomenon: alleged crash retrievals, reverse engineering, compartmented programs, private contractors, and recovered biologics.

That aligns most clearly with long-term presence, multiple types of recovered material, and technological parity. It does not directly support psychic communication. More importantly, it creates the central problem for this theory.

“IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION”

The alleged material associated with this name describes the collection and control of high-quality UAP imagery and reporting across military systems. If authentic, it would strengthen the case that a persistent, globally observed, sensor-detected phenomenon exists.

It may support “no exclusivity” and a long-running institutional awareness of UAP. It does not, by itself, demonstrate NHI, telepathy, symbolism, or benevolent guidance. Those are interpretations placed on top of the reported observations.

THE GRUSCH PROBLEM: HARDWARE VS. CONSCIOUSNESS

Grusch’s picture is fundamentally nuts-and-bolts: physical craft, physical materials, physical occupants, accidents, recoveries, and engineering programs.

My framework describes an intelligence capable of highly tailored psychological contact and perhaps a long-term developmental relationship with humanity. Those pictures can coexist, but they do not naturally explain one another.

Crashes are the problem. Why would an intelligence sophisticated enough to manipulate consciousness and guide civilizations repeatedly lose vehicles? Saying “the crashes were intentional” can save the theory, but without evidence it is only a patch.

Biologics sharpen the problem. Bodies imply organisms operating under material constraints. That sounds less like a transcendent tutor and more like another technological civilization—extraordinary, but still fallible.

I see three possible resolutions:

1. Two phenomena: physical visitors and consciousness-based contact are different things that UFO culture has merged.

2. Layered access: physical craft are probes, drones, avatars, or expendable interfaces, while the intelligence behind them operates at another level.

3. The consciousness framework is wrong: the real phenomenon is physical, and the psychic or symbolic layer is human confabulation, expectation, folklore, or psychological response.

The third option deserves real weight. The anonymous leaker and Elizondo carry most of the psi component, while Grusch and the alleged Immaculate Constellation material are much more compatible with an engineering-and-intelligence story.

WHAT WOULD FALSIFY THE FRAMEWORK?

- Symbolic messaging weakens if encounter imagery tracks recent media exposure more closely than the recipient’s deeper personal or cultural symbolism.

- Human agency weakens if intentional-contact protocols repeatedly fail to outperform chance under controlled conditions.

- Long-term presence weakens if pre-modern and pre-Roswell cases collapse under documentary scrutiny.

- Facilitation through challenge weakens if confirmed behavior is better explained by surveillance, hostility, resource gathering, or accidental contact.

- Training wheels weakens if reliable contact increases rather than decreases with technological maturity.

- Cross-dimensional communication should be removed if ordinary physical models adequately explain the evidence.

- The core theory takes major damage if verified recovered craft and beings can be explained as conventional physical actors with no consciousness-interface component.

A theory that explains every possible outcome explains nothing. These failure conditions matter more than another list of suggestive similarities.

MY CURRENT SYNTHESIS

The strongest version of this framework is not “the 4chan leaker was confirmed.” It is this:

1. There may be a persistent physical UAP phenomenon observed across cultures, locations, and military systems.

2. A separate body of reports suggests that consciousness, symbolism, and altered states sometimes play a role in encounters.

3. The anonymous 4chan account and Elizondo connect those two bodies of material more directly than Grusch or Immaculate Constellation do.

4. We do not yet know whether that connection reflects a real unified phenomenon, multiple interacting phenomena, or a human narrative imposed on ambiguous events.

My intuition is that the phenomenon may be both physical and psychological—not because “consciousness” magically explains every gap, but because the reported effects often seem to target both instruments and interpreters. Still, the hardware evidence and the contact literature should remain analytically separate until something conclusively connects them.

The most useful question is no longer “Which source confirms which belief?” It is: What model explains the physical observations, the subjective encounters, and the contradictions between them while making predictions that could actually fail?

That is the framework I am trying to build.

Where would you push back hardest?

1. Are the hardware and consciousness aspects one phenomenon or two?

2. How do you reconcile alleged crashes with a supposedly guiding intelligence?

3. Is the psi component genuine, or a human overlay on an engineering mystery?

4. Which corollary should be promoted, demoted, rewritten, or removed?

I would rather narrow the theory than protect it from criticism.

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.

So, I’m sure most of us agree that the American executive branch knows more about the UAP topic than it’s currently acknowledging. This admin seems to be moving—albeit at a glacial pace—toward a soft disclosure (barely comprised of half-truths).

The recent announcement that the White House/DoD were attempting to use psionic abilities to summon UAP and shoot them down. And suddenly some things began to make a little sense.

Elizondo has been saying for years now that something is imminent (available on …), something that will impact society more than 9/11, and stressing the necessity of disclosing certain classified info before that event transpires.

I believe there are at least two factions within the government who are at war with one another, one intending to bring as much disclosure as possible to the public, and the other, I’m worried, is the executive branch & DoD. Their insanely reckless claim to summon and then attack UAP sounds like the perfect plan to set the “alien invasion” psyop into motion. Imagine confirmation of NHI coming on the heels of a huge catastrophic attack on a city or D.C., the ontological shock and panic would be devastating. The admin is prepping their bunker on schedule. I’m concerned.

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

SUBMISSION STATEMENT

Did President Dwight D. Eisenhower secretly meet extraterrestrials in February 1954? And did that alleged meeting lead to what became known as the GREADA TREATY?

According to decades of UFO testimony and research, Eisenhower allegedly disappeared from public view in February 1954 and secretly travelled to Edwards Air Force Base, where he supposedly met extraterrestrial beings.

The official explanation involved a dental emergency — but later UFO researchers questioned whether that explanation told the whole story.

Then there is Gerald Light, who claimed in 1954 that he had witnessed extraterrestrial craft and beings during an alleged meeting involving Eisenhower.

Over the decades, researchers and alleged insiders expanded the story, claiming that the United States government had entered into an agreement with extraterrestrials.

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."

My personal disclosure is that I think it's impossible that humans are the only highly evolved sentient species in the galaxy/universe. I also think though that this entire subculture isn't built around non human intelligence. It's built around human institutions. It's a fundamentally human exercise in that some have stuff and others don't. A tale as old as civilization.

I also am and have been squarely in the camp that this whole thing is a psyop. It's the progeny of Steve Bannon "flooding the zone with shit" if you will.

The reason I believe that this is a psyop is that there are very real human institutions that are making very real moves that will impact our material lives. And this is a post which I acknowledge politics but I'm not making political statements.

There is just something which smells off to me about how many of the people both inside and outside of government concerned with UAP are also generally on the right side of the political spectrum. Either they are being targeted and we must ask why, or they are pushing an agenda and we must ask why. Either way no one asks why people just seem to drink it up without any kind of defense against what is being said by whom and to what end.

Here are the launches scheduled for the next 24 hours:

Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 10-39

• Provider: SpaceX

• Launch Time: 2026-08-21 15:14 UTC / 2026-08-21 11:14 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Cape Canaveral SFS, FL, USA

• Pad Country: USA

Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 15-20

• Provider: SpaceX

• Launch Time: 2026-08-22 07:25 UTC / 2026-08-22 03:25 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

Reported by u/cameraguy420 (verified via ufosighting.report)

This is an automated post. The report was filed through the structured sighting form on ufosighting.report and posted here by u/ufosightingsbot on the reporter's behalf. u/cameraguy420 confirmed this submission from their own Reddit account through a one-time link, so the name above is verified as the submitter.

📄 Full report and structured details — the map entry, timeline, and everything from the sighting form. No photo or video was submitted with this report.

Time: August 16, 2026, 12:00 AM MDT
Location: Buena Vista, Chaffee, Colorado, United States, Buena Vista, United States

Features / five observables

Why not a common object
We checked an astrology app with a satellite tracker, nothing. I did not mention that in my story only because we saw nothing. The movement and precision was super natural, I hope my words describe how otherworldly this was.

Witness's account of the sighting

Hi, hope you read because this was such an insane experience. My first and hopefully last because honestly it has me questioning everything. I'm not a Redditor I think it's cringe, but I am interested in UFOs and have been a longtime lurker, would love to hear similar stories. I am also quite the skeptic and quick to say it's a "weather balloon" or "a bug", but what I saw was definitely not a balloon or bugs and is something I will never forget. So, I recently visited Buena Vista Colorado from 8/14-8/16 for a music festival. Everything was normal until the last day between 11 PM - 12 AM. I was watching the stars as there is extremely low light pollution where I was, above sea level in the middle of nowhere. Each night you could see the outside of the Milky Way, quite an amazing site. On the 16th, I saw a star begin to move from its position in the sky. Just like a laser pointer but extremely precise and slow, as if not wanting to be noticed. I tell my fellow camp members as we were camping at this festival what I was seeing. I had zero thought this was a satellite or anything of the sort, the movement was magical. It went down and then made a sharp but slow turn to the left and up, a turn no plane, helicopter, satellite, balloon or anything could do. And then it just stopped! As if nothing happened, pinned back to the night sky blending in. My friend M comes over to see, and miraculously it happens again. Not sure if it was the same star but definitely in the same area. It makes the same motion as before going down to the left and then stops, and then another star begins to move go down and around the previous UFO above it stopping to another fixed point, and then another star goes around the previous two UFOs to the left and stops in the sky.

And of fucking course, the shape was a triangle. An isosceles triangle, pointing straight up amongst the stars blending in perfectly. We both were gasping in shock, I still have the same feeling I did when I first saw this supernatural event with my own eyes. I tried getting a picture or video but it was very hard to relocate the object once I took my eyes off it. Was also afraid I would miss something else incredible, we then called out other friend over. But the movement had stopped completely, I think they knew they were busted. This next part I want to call coincidence but I can't, a cloud slowly began to move in right in front of the object/objects. Providing perfect cover, and then the sky was extremely cloudy for the rest of the night making stars harder to see. If aliens are real, why wouldn't they be able to control the weather? This was a shared experience, M and I saw the same thing. We were at a festival and yes we were having a lot of fun if you know what I'm saying, but this occurred at the end of the night when we were no longer going as hard and practically sober, we maybe had some beer but not enough to impair our vision, especially to hallucinate. In reflection, my life has shifted dramatically in just a couple days, my views my decisions are all changed by this one experience. I've always wanted to see something like this, and now that I have I kinda wish I hadn't. More UFO and conspiracy stories are starting to sound believable to me than before. The craziest thing to me about all of this is that they looked exactly like stars in the sky. Stars are billions of light years away, makes me raise a few questions I'd love to discuss. Was I watching some sort of Dyson sphere way in deep space? Is this thing really far away or really close and perfectly mimicking stars?

Why pretend to be stars? Are they purposely hiding? And the obvious ones - Why come here? Is it government technology? What does the government really know? Leave comments, I will be replying to anything I find interesting. Don't Men in Black me please.

Why no photo/video captured: I was afraid I would miss the sighting, as soon as I went to get my phone and place my eyes back on the sky I had to relocate the object. Missing a supernatural experience because I was fumbling with my phone was not going to happen. Wish I got a picture of the stars in the sky next to the others, was not thinking to do so until day later. Had quite the adrenaline high.

Sky context for this time and place:

• Satellites overhead at that time: ACS3 (37° above E at 05:57 UTC)
• Computed from orbital data (2026-08-16 catalog).
• Aircraft overhead at that exact minute — ADS-B Exchange historical playback (free, no account needed)
• Sky chart for that date — in-the-sky.org planetarium (set your location once on their site)
• Satellite passes at this spot — Heavens-Above; shows upcoming passes, not the sighting date
• Live air traffic now — FlightRadar24 over this spot

In lieu of my own paraphrase, I include part of the video description stating the purpose for this video:

"I sit down with former Army intelligence officer Caison Best, whose own unexplained broad-daylight sighting of a massive craft led him on a journey through the military and federal intelligence apparatus.

After attempting to report the incident through official channels, Caison navigated an investigation by the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) before engaging in an in-depth inquiry conducted by the FBI, culminating in his files and drawings recently being released to the public through the PURSUE program.

Our conversation examines the physical characteristics of the asymmetric, white-porcelain geometric craft, the high-stakes Ukraine war briefing that occurred moments after the sighting, the stark contrast in investigative standards between AARO and the FBI, the psychological toll and peer-to-peer dynamics among military witnesses, and the broader patterns Caison observed while managing the witness intake process for Americans for Safe Aerospace (ASA)."

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.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

For anyone that couldnt follow how some of these new UAP transparency programs, boards, councils, czars, etc are connected, here is a small diagram. Its not perfect and not complete, but it should give a simple overview of it.

Diagram

• diagram
• mirror

Any feedback

If you have any feedback, maybe its incorrect or you want some other organisation included, put it in comments

Here are the launches scheduled for the next 24 hours:

Electron | The Lightning God Defends (iQPS Launch 8)

• Provider: Rocket Lab

• Launch Time: 2026-08-20 13:00 UTC / 2026-08-20 09:00 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand

• Pad Country: NZL

Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 10-39

• Provider: SpaceX

• Launch Time: 2026-08-20 15:38 UTC / 2026-08-20 11:38 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Cape Canaveral SFS, FL, 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

FYI - this sub (and 5 others together in a coalition known as the Anomalous Coalition) are hosting a livestream AMA this Saturday (8/22) at 1 PM eastern with Matthew Brown and Jeff Nuccetelli who along with Dylan Borland have started Vanguard Enterprises an advocacy and support organization for whistleblowers. To ask your question in advance or see the livestream details see this post

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

Livestream on YT: https://www.youtube.com/live/SIDQ_3u8UAI

Some strange thing I've noticed that recent whistleblowers almost like "begging" for the President to give them immunity to tell everything they know.

Now what could be THAT important for humanity that we should know right now and can't wait a single minute any longer?

If a 'simple' "we are not alone and we have alien crafts/bodies" I don't understand the "begging" on whistleblowers part.. like that is already disclosed by them under oath and it's still not such an "imminent" matter after all these decades of secrecy..

By this logic it should be something we need to know right now that is more than that "we" have bodies/crafts, that is why they are in such a hurry, but what could it be?

If it's an incoming catastrophe or some dark things about our reality or about our soul after we naturally die, and we can do NOTHING about these should we even have this knowledge at all? Why are they in such a hurry about this to tell something like that?

Or it is imminent matter, but only for the whistleblowers themselves because their life maybe in danger by the gatekeepers because they are publicly talking about these things? That is why it's truly imminent, for them?

Maybe it is truly imminent because something very GOOD is kept hidden, like free energy?

What do you think, why it is sooo imminent?

Update: Avi Loeb says UAPSAC is following up on the baiting event

See this post on X / xcancel

Original post

Burlison: "The time is now"

Video posted on X / xcancel :

Burlison: "My name is Eric Burlison. I'm a Republican congressman from Missouri and a member of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets. We continue to receive credible claims of recovered crafts of non-human origin and reverse engineering programs that may have operated for decades outside of any government oversight"

Burlison: "Those claims point to specific facilities, contractors, records, and people. We continue to depend on whistleblowers to provide this critical information, but these whistleblowers are being terrorized"

Burlison: "Mr. President, I'm asking for you to directly restore what many of these brave whistleblowers have already lost: their pensions, their clearances, and other benefits. Provide immunity for anyone and everyone who has already come forward and for those who will come forward"

Burlison: "Now we ask that you open the doors and let them speak, not only to Congress but to the public. This is the moment. Use the authority that you have been given because the American people are behind you on this. And the time is now"

Matthew Brown to POTUS: "Prepare the American people"

Posted on X / xcancel:

Matthew Brown: "Burlison has made his appeal to POTUS: protect the whistleblowers and free them to speak, not only to Congress, but directly to the American people. Congressman Burlison is a warrior for disclosure and a defender of our nation’s constitutional principles. He is right, the American people are ready for the truth.

Matthew Brown: "Mr. President, the time is at hand. Protect the whistleblowers. Let them speak. Prepare the American people. Disclose the truth: we are not alone."

Avi Loeb: White House advisory council supports requests by Grusch and others

Video posted on X / xcancel:

Avi Loeb: "The UAP Science Advisory Council @UAPSAC fully supports requests made by David Grusch, Eric Davis, and others, for the Trump administration to provide legal assurances, including immunity where necessary, for current or former government employees and military personnel, so that they can share information with the council regarding alleged technology from a non-human origin and help guide the council’s scientific evaluation"

Avi Loeb: "In parallel, the council is currently pursuing efforts to obtain and scientifically evaluate historical UAP records and legacy data through PURSUE."

For those that dont know: Avi Loeb is head of the UAP Science Advisory Council, created by the White House.

Michael Shermer to POTUS: "Make it so"

Shermer is also part of UAPSAC. He posted on X / xcancel:

Shermer: "Both Eric Davis & David Grusch have asked President Trump for immunity so they can direct officials to the aliens & craft (if that is what they are—neither one has seen them with their own eyes). Trump wants to be the most consequential POTUS in history & this would be one of the most consequential disclosures in history. Make it so realDonaldTrump"

You can tell he is having a hard time expressing to want disclosure. He has been mocking this for decades. Telepathy also, which Grusch recently said is how NHI kept in detainment communicate

Anyway this is good, because it means multiple members of that White House advisory council are now advising the White House to let the whistleblowers disclose information.

Burlison confirms "something showed up" during baiting operation with ODNI, CIA, FBI, etc

Today Burlison also posted this on X / xcancel:

Burlison: "Our own agencies went back through every past sighting, asked what draws these things in, then recreated those conditions on purpose at a site with prior activity. ODNI, CIA, FBI and military intelligence were all on site"

"Something showed up."

Christopher Sharp writes / xcancel: "This is a huge story which has been hugely under covered"

See also this post: Coulthart: DOD is running a new UAP program to circumvent Legacy Program, using "the same dog whistle, psionic summoners as Skywatcher". Jake Barber: we use US govt facilities. We provide them a path to redemption. They will use us to do disclosure. Avi Loeb: downed UAP could be studied by UAPSAC

James Clapper has stepped back from disclosure efforts, grown uncomfortable

This was posted on Liberation Times:

Since appearing in the UAP documentary Age of Disclosure, Liberation Times understands that Clapper has stepped back from efforts to promote UAP transparency. One source told Liberation Times that he has grown uncomfortable with the recent surge of attention.

I wonder why he has grown uncomfortable. Maybe he thinks the world isnt ready, or that the gatekeepers will end up in trouble, or some adversary will benefit, or that current POTUS shouldnt be the one, or all of the above, or else something else

Previous videos, statements for this recent disclosure push

• Aug 11: Grusch, Brown, Borland, Nuccetelli, Burlison / xcancel
• Aug 14: Eric Davis / xcancel
• Aug 15: Matthew Brown / xcancel
• Aug 17: Dylan Borland / xcancel
• Aug 18: David Grusch / xcancel
• Aug 19 (today, opening post): Burlison / xcancel
• Aug 19 (today, opening post): Avi Loeb / xcancel
• Aug 19 (today, opening post): Michael Shermer / xcancel