Every subject needs its sceptics. The UFO subject, it seems, has been issued Steven Greenstreet. Yay.

The New York Post's man in "The Basement Office" has built a tidy little brand out of explaining why there's nothing to see here. Birds. Blurry images. Bigelow. Fair enough, debunk away. But debunking cuts both ways, and on 23 October 2026 the Pentagon's PURSUE programme published Release 07. It includes nine contractor records from BAASS, the Bigelow company that ran AAWSAP.

I've read them. I don't think they're good news for Steven.

"NEVER an Official UFO Program"

On 25 September 2026, Steven declared on X:

"It was NEVER an official UFO program, as Variety incorrectly reports. In fact, UFOs / UAP are no where in the AAWSAP written objectives."

A day earlier he'd called the idea "a false story told by UFO activists like Stratton." In his 21 March 2023 New York Post article, AAWSAP was "a non-UFO program which shut down in 2012."

Capital letters and everything! Now here's BAASS, in document D175 (November 2010, PDF page 12):

"[BAASS] was contracted to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2008 to investigate and analyze the possibility of a credible threat posed by UAPs."

Contracted. To the DIA. To investigate UAPs. The previous page even gives the contract number: HHM402-08-C-0072. (D175, war.gov PDF)

And there's more. The March 2009 monthly report (D169, contents page, PDF page 3) lists the item "BAASS has Contracted to Purchase Information on UAPs from MUFON". (D169 PDF)

The December 2008 Project Management Plan (D168, PDF page 15) says: "Very recently, DIA has mandated the creation of a ninth project, that we call Project Physics." (D168 PDF)

So, not a UFO programme. Just a DIA contract to study the threat from UAPs, which involved buying reports from the Mutual UFO Network. Easy mistake to make, young blud.

The Objectives Trick

This is my favourite. On 25 August 2022, in the Post's Skinwalker Ranch (Pt 2) video (4:12), Steven told viewers:

"According to Reid, Lacatski intentionally left out any mentions of UFOs, Skinwalker Ranch, or anything paranormal. Because of this, AAWSAP appeared to just be a normal aerospace technology program."

So in 2022 the objectives were a deliberate disguise. By 2026 the very same objectives are, conveniently, his proof that it was never a UFO programme.

That's a bit like telling us the bank robber wore a mask, then pointing to the mask as proof he wasn't there. I mean, come one man.

Meanwhile D168 (PDF page 16) refers to "recent consultations between the DIA and BAASS" about behaviour "of very advanced spacecraft already known to exist." That's an odd topic for a normal aerospace technology program.

UFO Programme, Not a UFO Programme, UFO Programme

The really awkward part is that Steven has called it a UFO programme himself. Repeatedly.

In the Post's The UFO Lie (12 May 2022, 20:23): "To Harry Reid, in his words, AAWSAP was actually a program to study UFOs and related phenomena."

At 25:43 in the same video: "How did a story about a program called AAWSAP, which investigated UFOs, werewolves, ghosts, goblins, become a story about a program called AATIP, which only investigated UFOs?"

His 2023 Post article calls it "a non-UFO program". The same article says the contractors "chased UFOs around the world and hunted monsters at Skinwalker Ranch." Same article!

On 23 September 2026, Bigelow got "$22M in taxpayer funds to hunt UFOs, ghosts and goblins". The next day: "AAWSAP was not an official gov't UFO program."

To me, it looks like AAWSAP is a UFO programme whenever that makes a better punchline, and not one whenever someone else says it.

One Year or Two? Pick One, Steven

In The UFO Lie (22:03): "AAWSAP spent only one year investigating UFOs, ghosts, and goblins before the Pentagon started to pull the plug."

Three months later, in Skinwalker Ranch (Pt 2)(5:29): "BAASS would spend the next two years not just hunting UFOs around the world, but also chasing monsters and ghosts at Skinwalker Ranch."

Greenstreet versus Greenstreet, and the documents side with the August 2022 Steven:

• D173 (November 2009, PDF page 4) shows BAASS still receiving MUFON UAP reports under its February 2009 purchase order. (PDF)

• D174 records field deployments at the Utah ranch in March and April 2010. (PDF)

• D175 (November 2010, PDF page 12) describes UAP work "over the past two years", including modelling of the 2004 Tic Tac.

The Pentagon: Gospel or Gaslighting?

On 25 September, Steven assured us that "The Pentagon has released several statements clarifying that the UFO / paranormal stuff was never authorised for AAWSAP".

Six days earlier, he'd made a video about the Pentagon's new "orbs" footage, which he says shows birds, obviously, it’s Steven after all. At 1:15 he asks: "Are they trying to distract us from something?"

So the Pentagon might be trying to distract us, unless it's a statement Steven agrees with, in which case it's the final word. Handy.

Selective Scepticism

I think Steven Greenstreet has done real damage to how this subject is discussed. My problem isn't the scepticism. It's the selectiveness: nuance when it helps the debunk, none at all when it doesn't. He has called AAWSAP a UFO programme and then insisted it never was. He told us the objectives were scrubbed and then used the scrubbed objectives as his evidence. He gave the work one year, then two.

Release 07 says BAASS was contracted to the DIA to investigate UAPs. In black and white, on page 12.

Your move, Steven.

If you enjoy my work and want to support UAP Files, you can buy me a coffee here. Every contribution is genuinely appreciated. ☕

Plants, on the other hand, have no central brain or neuronal networks, they cannot move like animals and cannot evade predators. Yet they have developed effective ways of dealing with competitors and predators, the targeted appearance of which seems to point in the direction of problem-solving intelligence or possibly even consciousness. However, plants are not the only apparent anomaly scientific research has uncovered: Even single-cell organisms such as the slime mould Physarum polycephalum seem to be able to display higher-level problem-solving capabilities, as shown by the famous “Tokyo rail system” experiment conducted by Japanese researchers.

Research into plant intelligence is not a new phenomenon. Yet, in the last decades it has captured the imagination of an increasing number of scientists. Nonetheless, the understanding of the biological processes in plant reactions remain contested among natural scientists and philosophers of science, and speaking of plant cognition or consciousness is still certain to entail peer criticism or even ridicule.

A central problem of the debate is the continuing absence of agreement about the theoretical framework when it comes to matching the scientific data with philosophical concepts such assentience, cognition, intelligence, or consciousness.

Recognising the unresolved debate among natural scientists, the survey will look at the topic through a different lens. It uses the observable actions of plants vis-à-vis both other plants and animals as its epistemic foundation, and asks how far they seem to betray any appearance of intelligence, consciousness or even an ethical framework, using human common sense as a generalist basis.

The conclusion of whether plants display deliberate behaviour, intelligence, consciousness, morals or ethics, is after all a philosophical, not a scientific one. This philosophical debate should be informed by a generalist view, which the survey is meant to gather.

The survey is tri-lingual (English, French, and German), is open for participation until 10 January 2027 and can be accessed here.

The aim of the survey was not merely the typical set of questions often found, i.e., whether people believe in the existence of aliens, what or who they are, or where they come from etc., although it contained a set of such questions for the purpose of situating the answers to the essential questions within the necessary context. It mainly asked the respondents to describe their expectations of how different kinds of contact would unfold for them personally and, most importantly, how they thought the relationship with an alien species could develop, especially with regard to legal and ethical issues.

The results are obviously too complex to summarise them herein their entirety, but one particular aspect may be worth mentioning: The (multiple answer) question about the reaction to a signal from space produced the somewhat unexpected finding that roughly a cumulative three quarters of respondents would be excited in the first place, whereas only 23.9% would be predominantly worried. The proportion of those who would be excited rose to over 78% in the scenario that an artefact was found on on the Moon, despite the obvious logical consequence that ETI were once close to the Earth and that thus there may have been a much more imminent chance of possible direct contact. An equally relaxed attitude could be seen regarding the question about the reaction to an alien spacecraft in Earth’s orbit, when over 63% would just keep watching the news and otherwise continue as usual, with about 45% at least taking the precaution of getting a stockpile of food. This does not conform to the general expectation that there would be global pandemonium.

The survey has hopefully provided some arguments for the future debate about how humanity would react to contact with a non-human intelligence or civilisation. We hope that it will also be of use in the discussion about UAP disclosure and the risk of “ontological shock” when humans find out that they are not alone in the universe, or indeed on Earth. If the survey findings show anything, it is that humanity will be more adaptable in the case of non-hostile contact than is commonly feared.

The survey is part of the book “Human Life after Contact with Extraterrestrial Civilisations - Interdisciplinary perspectives on the consequences of first contact”, co-edited by Michael Bohlander, Andreas Anton, John Elliott, and Amber Dagnall. It is in press and forthcoming with Routledge Publishers in 2027.

The full preprint version of the survey can be accessed here.

There are very few people in the world of UFO research who need no introduction. Jacques Vallée is one of them.

A French-born scientist, computer pioneer, astronomer, venture capitalist and arguably one of the most influential figures in the history of UFO research, Vallée has spent more than six decades investigating a mystery that continues to challenge our understanding of reality.

From his early work alongside astronomer J. Allen Hynek on Project Blue Book to his groundbreaking theories about the phenomenon, Vallée has consistently challenged conventional thinking.

He’s also one of the few researchers who has managed to bridge the worlds of serious scientific investigation, government-funded research and the deeply strange experiences reported by ordinary people.

For this episode of the UAP Files Podcast, I was joined by my good friend Tom Vernon, from the Tom Vernon UAP YouTube channel, as we sat down with Jacques for what became an extraordinary conversation.

And I have to say, this one was very special.

Jacques has been on my podcast bucket list since I started UAP Files podcast. In many ways, he’s the holy grail of podcast guests in this field. Someone whose research has shaped generations of investigators, including many of the people we regularly interview today.

We ended up speaking for nearly two hours, and some of what he shared genuinely caught me off guard.

Here are a few of the moments that stood out.

Could Artificial Intelligence Make First Contact?

Perhaps the most fascinating part of our conversation centred on artificial intelligence.

I’ve been increasingly interested in the possibility that AI might fundamentally change how we investigate UFOs. With decades of sightings, scientific papers, witness testimony and government records available, the potential to identify patterns that humans have missed is enormous.

But Jacques took that idea somewhere considerably further.

He suggested that as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly sophisticated, it may eventually decide to investigate the phenomenon independently.

And potentially, communicate with it.

Think about that for a moment.

We spend so much time discussing whether governments are hiding evidence of non-human intelligence that we rarely consider what happens when humanity develops another form of intelligence capable of investigating the mystery independently.

Jacques suggested that we could find ourselves caught between two intelligences: advanced AI and whatever is responsible for the UFO phenomenon.

That raises an extraordinary possibility.

What if humanity isn’t responsible for making first contact at all?

Is This Why We’re Being Told Time Is Running Out?

This led me to a question I’ve been thinking about for some time.

Over recent years, we’ve heard increasingly urgent language from people associated with the intelligence and defence communities.

Retired Colonel Karl Nell has discussed the possibility of catastrophic disclosure. Others, including Luis Elizondo and former CIA officer John Ramirez, have made comments that have fuelled speculation about an approaching “event” or “deadline”.

But what exactly are we supposedly running out of time for?

I asked Jacques whether the rapid development of AI could be connected.

Could the urgency surrounding disclosure have something to do with the possibility that artificial intelligence might establish contact before governments have an opportunity to control the narrative?

His immediate response was intriguing.

“You know what? What would stop it?”

To be clear, Jacques wasn’t claiming that this explains the warnings about disclosure. He was reluctant to speculate about something for which we don’t have sufficient information. But he certainly didn’t dismiss the possibility of AI acting independently.

And it’s a question I think deserves much more attention.

The UFO Database That Never Reached Its Potential

Another fascinating revelation concerned Jacques’ involvement in the government-funded Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies programme.

He explained that his team had assembled a database containing approximately 260,000 selected UFO cases.

The intention wasn’t simply to catalogue sightings. Jacques described plans to develop the database further, eventually using artificial intelligence to identify patterns and relationships that traditional research methods might overlook.

But the programme was terminated after approximately two years, despite plans for a much longer research effort. The advanced AI analysis never happened.

According to Jacques, the project ended before the information could be properly organised and analysed.

For me, this was particularly fascinating. At VectorPoint, we’re working towards using technology and AI to analyse large volumes of UFO data, and hearing Jacques describe ambitions remarkably similar to those being discussed today was extraordinary. Imagine what researchers might have discovered had that work continued.

The UFO Encounter That Produced Nuclear-Level Energy

One of the most remarkable historical cases Jacques discussed involved an encounter in 1966.

A physics professor travelling with his family reportedly observed an intensely luminous object in a remote forest.

According to Jacques, the witness calculated that the energy being emitted was comparable to that of a nuclear reactor. The case was investigated by the Condon Committee and remained unidentified. But what makes this particularly interesting is the physical evidence.

Trees near the reported location showed signs of burning, and samples of bark were collected for scientific analysis.

Jacques explained that some of those original samples have since undergone further examination at scientific facilities in France.

More than half a century after the encounter, researchers are still studying the physical evidence. It’s a reminder that some of the most scientifically interesting UFO cases aren’t necessarily the ones dominating today’s headlines.

The Trinity UFO Crash and Government Secrets

We also discussed the controversial Trinity UFO case, which Jacques has investigated extensively. The incident took place in New Mexico in 1945, two years before Roswell.

Jacques believes there is compelling evidence supporting the account and explained why he thinks investigators looking exclusively towards the Pentagon may be searching in the wrong place.

He suggested that historical records associated with the incident would more logically fall under the Department of Energy and its predecessors, rather than conventional military intelligence channels.

He also discussed criticisms of his original research and the additional work undertaken to address them.

Disclosure Without Trust Is Worthless

Towards the end of our conversation, Jacques raised something I think is particularly important.

Trust.

He expressed concern about the increasingly fractured relationships between researchers, intelligence officials, military figures and those pushing for disclosure.

He spoke about disinformation, competing agendas and the difficulty of establishing genuine cooperation when nobody trusts anybody else.

And he offered a warning that I think perfectly summarises one of the biggest problems facing this subject.

“Disclosure without trust is worthless.”

It’s difficult to disagree.

We can demand transparency, congressional hearings and government investigations, but unless the public can trust the people presenting the information, what does disclosure actually achieve?

Watch the Full Conversation

I’ve barely scratched the surface of what we discussed.

We also explored Skinwalker Ranch, mysterious creatures in Utah, radar manipulation, the limitations of military UFO footage, alleged recovered materials, the Nimitz encounter and the possibility that the phenomenon operates outside our conventional understanding of space and time.

Jacques also shared fascinating insights into his pioneering work in computing and the future of scientific UFO research.

For me, this was one of the most memorable conversations I’ve had since launching UAP Files Podcast.

And I think you’ll understand why when you watch it.

👇 WATCH THE FULL EPISODE BELOW

If you enjoy my work and would like to support the independent research and interviews that go into UAP Files, you can make a small donation through my Buy Me a Coffee page. Every contribution is genuinely appreciated and helps keep the podcast going. ☕

What began as an ordinary purchase at an estate auction has developed into a remarkable investigation into NASA’s early space programme and the handling of potentially sensitive photographic evidence.

Ed Wilson, an American rare book and historical document dealer, has spent the past three years investigating an unusual image discovered among hundreds of original NASA photographs.

The image appears to show a disc-shaped object with a row of bright lights or openings along its underside. It carries the caption:

“Strange object as seen during the Gemini 11 flight.”

What makes this discovery particularly compelling is not simply the image itself, but where it was found, who originally possessed it, and the historical documents Wilson has subsequently uncovered.

I recently interviewed Wilson for UAP Files Podcast, where he explained his findings and revealed new evidence that he believes could ultimately lead researchers to original NASA photographs withheld from public release.

The discovery and the people behind it

Wilson’s professional background is in authenticating rare historical documents, working with original records, valuable collections and established auction houses, including Heritage Auctions.

He explains that his livelihood depends on determining whether historical artefacts are genuine.

In approximately 2023, he acquired 31 binders containing more than 560 original NASA photographs covering the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programmes.

The collection had belonged to Emily M. Ertl and Scott H. Simpkinson, two individuals with documented connections to NASA’s formative years.

Ertl worked within NASA’s early spaceflight organisation. Wilson describes her as the first female employee at Cape Canaveral.

Her employment is documented in NASA’s 1965 Manned Spacecraft Center personnel directory, which lists her as secretary to Scott H. Simpkinson in the Office of Test Operations.

She was also recognised by NASA for her contribution to the successful first Space Shuttle mission, STS-1, in 1981.

Simpkinson was a pioneering engineer involved in America’s early human-spaceflight programme. He worked with the Space Task Group and subsequently held important engineering and test-operations responsibilities during the Gemini programme.

A NASA publication from May 1964 identifies him as Test Operations Manager within the Gemini Program Office. These connections are significant.

The mysterious image was not discovered in an anonymous UFO collection. It was preserved alongside original NASA mission photographs in the personal archive of individuals who had worked within the organisation responsible for those missions.

Wilson believes their professional responsibilities placed them in a position to encounter sensitive photographic material.

The Gemini XI image

Inside the Gemini XI binder, Wilson discovered a small, approximately six-by-nine-inch halftone lithograph.

Unlike the surrounding photographs, it was a printed reproduction.

The words UNCLASSIFIED appeared on the document, along with the caption describing a strange object seen during the Gemini XI flight in September 1966.

Wilson believes this was a sanitised intelligence briefing image: a reproduction prepared from original photographic material, with potentially sensitive information removed.

He commissioned a high-resolution scan at approximately 2,200 DPI and paid around $5,000 for a forensic examination by MicroTrace, a specialist laboratory in Illinois.

According to Wilson, the laboratory’s findings did not identify anything that would preclude the document from being a genuine artefact dating to 1966.

This establishes an important distinction. The physical characteristics may be compatible with the claimed period, but that does not independently establish what the object represents.

Wilson subsequently worked with journalist Leslie Kean and other researchers to investigate its origin.

And this is where the story becomes particularly interesting.

A possible match with original NASA photographs

Wilson identified an original NASA photograph, S-66-54585, showing the Agena Target Vehicle during the Gemini XI mission.

He compared this and other mission imagery with the lithograph.

According to Wilson, the cloud formations visible in the images match with remarkable precision, including a distinctive three-lobed formation.

He argues that this indicates the lithograph was derived from the same original photographic scene. His research also examines apparent differences between the lithograph and the imagery preserved in NASA’s publicly available records.

Wilson believes these differences could be evidence of photographic alteration or the removal of information.

He has also obtained approximately 16,000 frames of film from the Gemini XI D-015 television-camera experiment, identifying several frames containing unusual features that he considers worthy of further investigation.

Separately, he examined Gemini XI mission voice transcripts and identified an exchange in which astronauts appear to discuss something passing a spacecraft window.

He highlights a subsequent electrical reading and a gap in recorded communications, although the connection between these events and the lithograph remains unestablished. Taken together, these findings led Wilson to investigate something much bigger than a single mysterious image.

Who controlled NASA’s original photographs, and could certain images have been withheld before the public ever saw them?

The classified intelligence documents

During our interview, Wilson presented historical intelligence memoranda that he says help explain how photographic material was handled during the early space programme.

One document, dated 9 August 1965, concerns arrangements proposed by Brockway McMillan of the National Reconnaissance Office for handling sensitive mission photography.

Wilson describes a process in which film recovered from space missions could be transferred through intelligence-controlled channels, rather than proceeding directly through NASA’s ordinary photographic system.

Another memorandum records astronaut Gordon Cooper’s dissatisfaction with the handling of Gemini V film, including his objection to material being collected by security personnel.

A third document, dated 3 September, records Scott Simpkinson himself becoming upset over the transfer of mission film.

For Wilson, this is a particularly important connection.

The individual associated with the archive containing the unusual lithograph was also directly involved in historical discussions concerning the handling of NASA photographic material.

This does not establish that Simpkinson received the specific Gemini XI image through those channels, but it supports Wilson’s argument that he occupied a professional position where such material could plausibly have reached him.

The most significant discovery: Missing NASA film frames

Perhaps the most consequential part of Wilson’s investigation concerns documents describing classified photographic review procedures associated with Apollo 6.

According to Wilson, these records show that intelligence representatives examined NASA mission film before certain material was approved for wider distribution.

Where images contained classified information, individual frames could be physically removed.

In some circumstances, the removed frames were replaced with numbered spacers identifying the missing sections.

Wilson says the procedures could also involve the original film and controlled duplicates, not simply copies intended for public release.

This creates an intriguing possibility.

Wilson is now attempting to locate the relevant frame-removal logs, custody records and potentially surviving photographic material. He has already identified examples of spaceflight imagery involving sensitive military installations that were withheld for national-security reasons.

His argument is not that every missing frame depicts something extraordinary. Clearly, intelligence agencies had legitimate reasons to restrict images revealing military capabilities or installations during the Cold War.

Rather, he believes the documented process provides a way to investigate whether other material, potentially including unidentified objects photographed during space missions, was similarly withheld.

What he believes he has identified is a documentary route that might eventually lead to original material unavailable in the public NASA collections.

His research begins with a physical artefact, supported by an identifiable historical collection and the documented careers of the people who preserved it.

He has commissioned forensic examination, compared the image against identifiable NASA photographs, studied original mission transcripts and uncovered intelligence records describing how sensitive photographic material was controlled.

Wilson’s latest findings also point towards a potentially testable outcome: locating records identifying which photographs were removed, where they went and whether they can still be recovered.

Watch the full interview

What I’ve outlined here represents only part of a much wider investigation.

During our conversation, Wilson walks through the original image, explains the photographic comparisons, discusses the forensic examination and presents the intelligence documents he believes connect the different elements of his research.

He also explains his latest discovery concerning classified film-removal procedures and why he believes the original photographic evidence may still be traceable.

For me, the strength of this case lies in the documentary trail. There is a tangible artefact, identifiable historical individuals, contemporary NASA records and a series of specific claims that can be investigated further.

I strongly recommend watching the full interview to understand how Wilson has connected these discoveries and to examine the evidence he presents for yourself.

WATCH: Ed Wilson’s Full Interview on UAP Files Podcast

This article is based on my interview with Ed Wilson, his published research and historical NASA records. Wilson’s conclusions concerning the image and potential photographic alterations are attributed to his investigation. You can find his book here: The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO: With Over 150 Earliest NASA Photos, Many Once Secret

During the conversation, Butler was asked about how intelligence agencies decide who to target, particularly when dealing with high-value individuals and the leadership of hostile organisations.

She explained that whilst those decisions were generally made above her pay grade, targeting leadership was often an effective way of disrupting an organisation. The principle, broadly speaking, was simple: remove the head, and the rest of the organisation can begin to fall apart.

Now, she wasn’t talking about UFOs. But as I listened, I couldn’t help drawing parallels with the world I’ve spent the last several years investigating.

Because when you look at the UFO community, the people who lead it, the personalities who influence it and the increasingly hostile environment surrounding disclosure, I think there are some interesting questions worth asking.

And perhaps the biggest of those is whether we’re all being manipulated, sometimes without even realising it.

The UFO community doesn’t really have a formal leadership structure. There’s no president of UFOs, no board of directors and certainly no shortage of people who think they should be in charge.

But there are individuals whose words carry enormous influence.

People like Luis Elizondo, Christopher Mellon, Jim Semivan and David Grusch.

Whether you agree with them or not, these are people who have become central figures in the modern disclosure movement. When they speak, thousands, sometimes millions, listen. Their interviews are dissected, their statements analysed and their credibility debated endlessly.

And that’s precisely why Butler’s comments caught my attention.

If you wanted to disrupt a movement, would you really need to convince every single person involved that they were wrong?

Or would it be considerably more effective to undermine the handful of individuals whose credibility holds much of that movement together?

Take Luis Elizondo, for example.

Here’s a former Pentagon official who became one of the most recognisable faces of UFO disclosure. Someone whose background and apparent access to sensitive information gave him considerable credibility.

Yet we’ve also watched him become embroiled in controversies involving questionable imagery, including the now-infamous photograph of a reflection in a lampshade and the irrigation crop-circle imagery discussed during a presentation.

Those incidents damaged his credibility with some observers, and understandably so.

But here’s the question I keep coming back to.

Where did that material come from?

Who supplied it? What assurances were given about its authenticity? Was it simply a failure of judgement and verification, he is human after all, or could somebody have deliberately introduced questionable information knowing what would happen when it eventually became public?

I’m not suggesting I know the answer. I don’t.

But if you wanted to damage someone’s reputation, getting them to publicly endorse something demonstrably questionable would be a remarkably effective way of doing it.

You wouldn’t necessarily need to attack them yourself. You’d simply need to provide the ammunition and wait.

And then there’s David Grusch.

For a considerable period, Grusch was arguably one of the most credible figures to emerge from the modern disclosure movement. A former high-level intelligence official, a decorated military veteran and someone who had provided testimony under Oath before Congress.

But following his second appearance on Joe Rogan, and particularly his discussion of allegations involving reptilian entities and the deaths of American citizens, we’ve seen fresh questions raised about his judgement and the information he’s been given.

Again, I find myself wondering about the sources.

Who is providing this information? How is it being verified? And are the people passing it along always acting in good faith?

Because there’s an important distinction between someone deliberately misleading the public and someone sincerely repeating information they’ve been led to believe is true.

And I suspect that distinction is particularly relevant to the UFO subject.

Here’s something I think both sides of the UFO debate need to acknowledge.

The United States government operates highly classified programmes developing advanced military technology.

That isn’t speculation. It’s a fact.

Special Access Programs exist to protect sensitive capabilities, intelligence and technologies that could provide a strategic advantage over adversaries.

And frankly, that’s exactly what we should expect them to do.

The purpose of an intelligence agency isn’t to make life easier for UFO researchers. It’s to protect national security, collect intelligence and help maintain a military advantage.

Now consider where the UFO subject overlaps with that responsibility.

We’re entering an era in which autonomous aerial vehicles, advanced propulsion research, electronic warfare and increasingly sophisticated unmanned systems will play an enormous role in military operations.

Some already do.

It’s therefore entirely reasonable to assume that at least some UFO sightings involve classified terrestrial technology.

And that creates a fascinating problem. Because within the UFO research community, you potentially have civilians, journalists, scientists and independent investigators collecting imagery, radar data and other information that could inadvertently reveal sensitive military capabilities.

They might believe they’re investigating non-human intelligence.

But what if, on some occasions, they’re actually documenting a classified American aerospace programme?

Do we really think the intelligence community would simply shrug its shoulders and allow that information to circulate freely?

Of course not.

It would be entirely reasonable for them to take an interest.

That doesn’t prove that every UFO researcher is being monitored or manipulated, but it does establish why an intelligence agency might have a legitimate interest in the subject. And what to have some control over it.

And this is where I think the debate becomes unnecessarily binary.

On one side, you’ve got people who believe practically everything unusual in the sky must involve non-human intelligence.

On the other, you’ve got people who believe practically everything can be explained by secret military technology, misidentification or conventional phenomena.

And then there are the more aggressive debunkers, for whom everything apparently turns out to be geese, balloons, satellites or somebody’s stray hobby drone (or AI slop).

But why can’t several things be true at once?

Why can’t some sightings be misidentifications, others involve classified terrestrial technology, and a smaller number represent something genuinely extraordinary that we haven’t yet explained?

I suspect the reality is considerably more complicated than either side would like to admit.

And anyone unwilling to consider that possibility is doing themselves, and the wider community, a disservice.

I believe the people spreading misinformation might not even know they’re doing it.

Another particularly interesting part of Butler’s interview concerned misinformation and the increasingly polarised nature of public debate.

She spoke about the threat posed by foreign adversaries seeking to exploit divisions within Western societies.

Russia, China and others have obvious strategic interests in weakening public trust, increasing hostility and encouraging people to turn against one another.

And the worrying thing is how easily we appear to participate.

We’ve reached a point where disagreement is increasingly treated as a character flaw.

If somebody disagrees with your political views, they’re a bad person.

If somebody questions your interpretation of a UFO sighting, they’re a government disinformation agent. If somebody believes a whistleblower, they’re gullible. If somebody doesn’t believe them, they’re part of the cover-up.

It’s exhausting.

I disagree with some of my closest friends about all sorts of things. I regularly disagree with my wife, who remains a wonderful human being despite occasionally having the audacity to think I’m wrong.

But the internet strips away so much of what makes ordinary human communication work. There’s no facial expression, no tone of voice, no humour and very little room for nuance.

Instead, we get a few sentences on a screen, decide whether we like or dislike the person who wrote them, and move on.

And I think that’s becoming a serious problem for the UFO community.

One of the things I’ve tried to do with the UAP Files Podcast is speak to people whose views differ from my own.

Not because I necessarily expect to change their minds, but because I think there’s value in sitting down with somebody and having an actual conversation.

A recent example was my interview with Ross Garber, a Washington-based lawyer and CNN legal analyst.

Ross and I had previously disagreed on X, particularly around the subject of government misinformation and the allegations surrounding a programme known as Yankee Blue.

Rather than spend another six months arguing through social media posts, I thought it would be considerably more productive to invite him onto the podcast.

And something interesting happened.

We discovered that we actually agreed on quite a lot.

We both recognised that misinformation and deception can play a role in protecting classified programmes. We also found some common ground around the possibility that something resembling the alleged Yankee Blue operation may have existed.

Where we differed was in how much explanatory weight we were prepared to give it.

Ross appeared more willing to consider the possibility that such activities could explain some of the extraordinary claims emerging from military and intelligence circles.

I remain less convinced.

Not because I dismiss the possibility, but because I don’t think the publicly available evidence surrounding Yankee Blue is sufficiently strong to explain away the broader collection of witnesses, incidents and allegations.

Particularly when you consider the number of people who have come forward from positions of considerable responsibility, with relevant clearances and backgrounds, claiming knowledge of extraordinary programmes or encounters.

Of course, credentials alone don’t prove those claims.

But equally, the existence of misinformation programmes doesn’t automatically invalidate every witness who comes forward.

Both things could be happening simultaneously. And I think that’s a possibility we need to take much more seriously.

You don’t need to pay somebody to influence them

Within the UFO community, there are certain personalities who are regularly accused of being paid disinformation agents.

People like debunker Mick West and New York Post video editor Steven Greenstreet (pictured above).

Whenever a prominent whistleblower comes forward or a significant UFO story gains traction, these individuals often become involved in challenging the claims, questioning the evidence or highlighting inconsistencies.

And almost inevitably, somebody will accuse them of working for the intelligence community.

But I don’t necessarily believe that.

In fact, I suspect the reality, if influence operations are taking place, could be considerably more subtle.

Think about it.

If you were running a sophisticated psychological operation, would you really need to approach somebody, hand them an envelope containing $10,000 and instruct them to spend the next six months mocking UFO witnesses?

That would be rather clumsy AND TRACEABLE, wouldn’t it?

You’d create an obvious relationship, a potential paper trail and somebody who knows exactly what they’re participating in and could become disillusioned in future and whistleblow.

But what if you could encourage somebody to behave in a particular way without ever asking them to do it? What if the incentives were already there?

Let me give you a hypothetical example using myself.

Imagine I publish a YouTube video challenging one of Mick West’s debunks.

The video performs exceptionally well. It gets 150% more views than my previous upload, attracts hundreds of comments and generates considerably more advertising revenue.

Now imagine my previous video, where I happened to agree with Mick West, performed terribly.

What do you think happens psychologically?

I’m a content creator. Like most people, I enjoy seeing my work reach a wider audience. And like most people who run a business, I’m not exactly offended when that work generates revenue.

So when one type of content consistently performs better than another, there’s an obvious incentive to produce more of it. I might not even consciously recognise what’s happening.

But over time, the algorithms, the audience response and the financial rewards could begin influencing the subjects I cover and the way I approach them.

Nobody needs to instruct me. Nobody needs to pay me under the table. Nobody needs to tell me what to believe. The incentives do the work.

Now apply that principle to somebody operating on the other side of the UFO debate.

Imagine an individual who has spent years challenging extraordinary claims, perhaps with relatively little public recognition.

Suddenly, the UFO subject becomes enormously popular.

Their opinions are being shared, they’re appearing in interviews, their social media following is growing and people are increasingly treating them as an authority.

That’s a powerful incentive to keep going.

And if their most dismissive or provocative commentary attracts the greatest attention, could that begin shaping how they engage with the subject? Of course it could. That’s human nature.

To be clear, I’m not claiming this is what’s happening with Mick West, Steven Greenstreet or anybody else. I don’t know their private motivations, and neither does the average person accusing them of being intelligence assets.

They may simply believe, quite sincerely, that they’re exposing bad evidence and poor reasoning. But the broader principle is worth considering.

A person doesn’t have to know they’re being influenced for their behaviour to be influenced.

And if an intelligence organisation wanted to exploit existing divisions within a community, it wouldn’t necessarily need to invent those divisions.

It could simply encourage the incentives, narratives and behaviours that were already there. That’s what makes the possibility so interesting.

And potentially so difficult to identify.

My own strange experiences on social media

Over the last couple of years, I’ve had some rather curious interactions with social media accounts that have followed me, contacted me privately and attempted to influence the material I publish.

Some appeared particularly interested in directing my attention towards certain subjects or encouraging particular interpretations of events.

What struck me wasn’t necessarily the content of their messages, but the similarities in how some of these accounts communicated.

And something else. When I stopped engaging with them, some simply disappeared.

Accounts were closed, conversations ended and the individuals behind them appeared to vanish. Now, does that prove they were intelligence operatives? Absolutely not. Pretty weird patterns emerged, though.

There are countless perfectly ordinary explanations for strange behaviour on social media, obviously. It’s the Wild Wild West.

But when you’re working in a subject that overlaps with classified military technology, intelligence gathering and allegations of government deception, it’s difficult not to find those experiences interesting. Particularly when you begin considering the wider environment in which we’re operating.

The question isn’t simply whether somebody is deliberately spreading false information. It’s whether we’re capable of recognising when our own behaviour, assumptions and motivations are being influenced.

And I suspect most of us aren’t nearly as good at that as we’d like to believe.

And what if the confusion is the point? Let’s return to the alleged Yankee Blue programme for a moment.

The suggestion, broadly speaking, is that stories involving UFOs or extraterrestrial technology and non-human intelligence may have been used to mislead or test individuals within sensitive military environments, or to protect classified terrestrial capabilities.

There are accounts and claims supporting the possibility of such activity, although the precise nature, scope and even formal status of Yankee Blue remain far from established.

But consider the implications if something like that has happened.

You could have individuals who genuinely believe they’ve been exposed to extraordinary information. They might pass that information to colleagues, friends or eventually journalists. Those people could then repeat it entirely sincerely.

And before long, you have a collection of witnesses who all appear to corroborate one another. Yet the original information could have originated from the same deliberately misleading source. That’s a legitimate concern.

But here’s the other side of that argument.

What if genuine information about non-human technology also exists within the classified world?

What if some witnesses are accurately describing things they’ve encountered, whilst others have been exposed to deliberately fabricated stories?

What if some UFO sightings are secret American aircraft, some are ordinary misidentifications, and others remain genuinely unexplained?

Suddenly, the situation becomes way more complicated. And perhaps that’s exactly why the subject has remained so difficult to untangle.

Once you introduce genuine secrecy, deliberate deception, human error, extraordinary claims and sincere witnesses into the same environment, separating fact from fiction becomes enormously difficult.

You don’t even need one grand conspiracy controlling everything.

You simply need enough conflicting information circulating that nobody can confidently establish what is true. Remember Richard Doty? He literally told us he was doing that.

And whether that confusion is deliberately manufactured, organically created or some combination of the two, the outcome can look very similar.

A community arguing endlessly with itself. Complicating the investigation and feeding right in to the counter-intelligence operations objectives.

The biggest threat might be what we’re doing to ourselves.

One of Butler’s broader warnings concerned the way foreign adversaries exploit divisions within society.

I think this is something the UFO community should pay particular attention to. Because we’re becoming increasingly hostile towards one another. Some believers appear unwilling to question anything that supports their worldview. I am a believer, by the way. But I also believe this is more complicated than we like to make out.

Some sceptics appear equally unwilling to entertain anything that challenges their beliefs.

And in the middle are people genuinely trying to understand what’s happening, increasingly finding themselves caught between two sides who seem more interested in winning arguments online, than discovering the truth. I’ve seen it repeatedly. Some become hardened by their online fall-outs, their echo chamber, people questioning their intellect online. They become so hardened they could be considered a troll. allocating so much of their spare time to mocking and insulting online that they become a troll.

Last year I decided to redesign my podcast room in to a proper studio. lighting, soundproofing, audio and a set up able to entertain in-person guests. I named the new podcast studio the “Charlie Parish Studio” after my biggest “hater’ or “troll” online. After almost two years of trying to engage with him, I ended up having to block him because it was just abuse and offensiveness constantly.

This wasn’t some anonymous account online. He is a famous documentary cinematographer and film director. He helped make one of my favourite documentaries “The Defiant Ones” following Dr Dre as he makes one of the biggest music deals in history. That guy was the cinematographer. And I began talking with him frequently online. He is, to this day, one of the biggest enigmas as I try and navigate human psychology in this unusual space.

Our community is so strange. Not in a “weirdo” kind of way, but a sort of, investigative path kind of way. We investigate as outsiders, in a classified world. A new witness comes forward and before their claims have even been properly examined, half the community has declared them a hero and the other half has decided they’re either a liar or an idiot. We debate only open source info, or closely curated declassified releases and evidence intertwined with hyper secretive technology.

A new video emerges and people immediately divide into camps.

One side insists it’s extraordinary. The other insists it’s a balloon.

And somehow, within about fifteen minutes, everybody is arguing about somebody’s personality rather than the bloody evidence. It’s ridiculous.

But it’s also incredibly convenient for anybody who might prefer the subject to remain confused, divided and discredited.

And that’s the point I keep coming back to.

If an intelligence organisation wanted to undermine serious investigation into UFOs, it might not need to manufacture an elaborate campaign involving hundreds of paid agents.

It might simply need to exploit the divisions, egos, financial incentives and competing narratives that already exist. A little encouragement here. A questionable piece of information there.

Perhaps an influential person unknowingly repeating something that later turns out to be false.

And the rest of us do the hard work.

We argue, attack, ridicule and discredit one another until the original question has been completely forgotten.

What is actually happening in our skies, and what does the government know about it?

So where does that leave us? I don’t have a neat answer.

I can’t tell you who’s deliberately spreading misinformation, who’s being unknowingly influenced or whether any particular personality within the UFO community has been targeted by an intelligence operation. Or is an intelligence operative.

If you think the three letter agencies are that stupid to just send someone out to make up stuff, they can’t be that educated on how real intel operations actually work.

If you read any book on counter-intel, or misinformation operations from the past, almost every significant individual who’s name you know, is three people removed from the person who actually knows what’s going on.

And I think anybody claiming to know those things without evidence deserves a healthy degree of scepticism.

We also make huge leaps based on very daft human characteristics. For example: “he has a book right? There is always a book”. The suggestion that wanting to make a living from this subject, or wanting money in general is a sign of deception or a lack of trustworthiness. But yet we all want money. Are none of us to be trusted? It’s silly and not an accurate indicator of integrity. Would we only trust poor or homeless guys to tell the truth?

But I do think we need to acknowledge the environment in which we’re operating.

We know governments protect classified aerospace programmes.

We know intelligence agencies have historically used deception, influence and psychological operations. We know foreign states exploit social divisions through misinformation. We know social media algorithms reward outrage, conflict and engagement.

And we know that the UFO subject sits right at the centre of all those things.

So why would we assume our community is somehow immune?

Perhaps the greatest mistake we can make is believing that manipulation always involves somebody consciously lying to us.

Sometimes people sincerely believe what they’re saying. Sometimes that information is accurate. Sometimes it turns out not to be, or not quite as first thought, but opens a useful thread.

Watching that conversation with Brittany Butler reminded me just how complicated the world of intelligence gathering and influence can be.

And it made me wonder whether some of the most effective manipulation doesn’t involve convincing people to believe something entirely new.

Perhaps it simply involves encouraging them to become more convinced of what they already believe.

For those of us genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of the UFO mystery, that’s something worth thinking about.

Because if we’re too busy trying to destroy one another’s credibility, we might never get around to examining the evidence that actually matters.

And wouldn’t that be convenient?

If you find value in my work and want to support the UAP Files and associated UAP Files Podcast, please consider donating to help fuel my ramblings here.

One of the problems with discussing UFOs online is that everything very quickly becomes binary.

You either believe someone or you don’t.

You’re either a sceptic or a believer.

You’re either convinced the US Government has recovered non-human technology, or you think the whole thing is nonsense.

And, increasingly, if two people disagree about any part of this subject, we’re apparently supposed to pick a side and start throwing rocks at each other from opposite ends of the internet. Or mouth-off about the other in an X spaces…

I don’t find that particularly useful. Which is partly how I ended up sitting down with attorney Ross Garber for the latest episode of the UAP Files Podcast.

Ross and I had initially connected on X after a discussion around David Grusch and the alleged Air Force programme known as “Yankee Blue.”

We didn’t entirely agree. In fact, from our exchanges online, I initially thought our positions might be quite far apart.

Ross appeared to place more weight than I did on the possibility that disinformation, circular reporting and programmes such as Yankee Blue could explain at least some of the extraordinary claims that have emerged from people connected to the US Government.

I was more cautious about that explanation. Not because I don’t believe disinformation happens. Quite the opposite. The history of the UFO subject is littered with it.

My concern was that we were potentially allowing one alleged programme, which itself hasn’t been evidenced publicly, to become a convenient explanation for an enormous collection of claims, corroborating witnesses and events spanning decades.

So rather than continue firing posts backwards and forwards on X, I thought there was a much better way of doing this. Let’s sit down. Face to face. No character limits. No trying to score points. No “gotcha.”

Just talk it through and see where we actually disagree — and, perhaps more importantly, where we agree.

Who is Ross Garber?

Ross isn’t somebody who came into this subject after spending decades researching UFOs. And that’s partly what made me interested in talking to him.

He’s a lawyer who has spent around 35 years working on government investigations, representing public officials, politicians and corporate executives, as well as conducting investigations for companies.

He’s also previously worked as an on-air legal analyst for CNN and teaches political investigations and impeachment law.

His route into the UAP subject therefore isn’t really through UFOlogy. It’s through law, government, investigations, evidence and credibility.

As Ross explained to me, the question of whether UFOs are extraterrestrial, or non-human intelligence, might be the most exciting part of the story — but there’s another question he finds equally fascinating:

What exactly has the US Government been doing about this subject?

That’s a very different lens through which to look at UFOs. And it’s a useful one. Ross described the subject at one point during our conversation as a “hall of mirrors.”

I think that’s probably one of the better descriptions I’ve heard. Because the deeper you go, the more difficult it becomes to separate genuine information from misinformation, classified terrestrial programmes, misunderstandings, belief, secrecy and potentially deliberate disinformation.

And sometimes several of those things may be happening at exactly the same time.

Naturally, a large part of our conversation centred around David Grusch.

Ross’s position on Grusch is actually more nuanced than I initially appreciated from our conversations online.

He doesn’t believe Grusch is lying. Quite the opposite.

Ross told me that Grusch appears earnest and seems to be telling the truth as he understands it. That was quite a powerful statement from a man who works in an environment where the whole premise is proving honesty or dishonesty and poking at evidence.

The problem, from an investigator’s perspective, comes one step further back.

What did the people speaking to Grusch actually know?

Grusch has described interviewing dozens of individuals during his investigation, including people he says had firsthand knowledge of crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes.

But Ross’s concern is that without being able to identify those original sources, question them and assess how they obtained their information, it’s incredibly difficult for those of us outside the classified world to evaluate the ultimate claims.

A witness can be completely honest and still be wrong. That’s something Ross says he has encountered repeatedly during decades of investigations.

People aren’t necessarily lying. They can genuinely believe what they’re telling you.

The job of an investigator is to work backwards. What did you actually see? What were you told? Who told you? How did they know?

And where does firsthand knowledge end and interpretation begin?

That’s where Yankee Blue enters the picture.

The Wall Street Journal reported allegations surrounding an Air Force practice that has subsequently become known publicly as Yankee Blue.

The basic allegation is extraordinary. According to the account discussed during our conversation, Air Force personnel were allegedly brought into rooms, briefed on supposedly highly classified information involving aliens or UFO technology, shown material, required to sign secrecy agreements and warned of the consequences of revealing what they’d been told.

The implication presented by former AARO leadership is that this wasn’t disclosure of a genuine alien programme at all.

It was effectively a false narrative. And potentially one that spread. If true, it raises an obvious question around David Grusch:

Could some of the people he interviewed ultimately have been exposed to this information? That’s the possibility Ross is interested in.

But here’s where things get much stranger. Because where is Yankee Blue? Where are the documents? Where is the investigation? Where is the memo reportedly ordering it to stop? Where is the detailed explanation from the Pentagon?

If Yankee Blue really contaminated the UFO information environment to the extent being suggested, you’d think it would be one of the most important findings AARO could possibly present.

Instead, we’re left in a peculiar position where the alleged explanation for some of the biggest UFO claims is itself something we cannot properly examine. Or prove.

And Ross actually agreed that this is a problem.

He went further. If even a small percentage of what has been alleged about Yankee Blue is true, he believes it represents a major scandal in its own right.

Think about that for a moment.

If members of the United States Air Force were deliberately given false information about aliens, told it was highly classified and threatened with consequences if they disclosed it, that’s not some amusing bit of military hazing.

That’s a story. A very big one. And if it isn’t true? Then we have another problem entirely. Because senior former Pentagon officials have publicly discussed a programme that apparently didn’t exist. Lied to reporters, journalists, senior politicians, interviewers and podcasters (like me - see Former Pentagon AARO Director Sean Kirkpatrick telling me about Yankee Blue on the UAP Files Podcast).

And how can we trust a program when we are told the program was to misinform? How do we know it’s not misinforming now, still, today?

Either way, there are questions that deserve answers.

What if several things are true?

This was probably where Ross and I found the most common ground.

I’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with attempts to find one explanation for the entire UFO subject. I don’t think there necessarily is one. There could be highly classified US technology flying around.

There could be foreign adversarial platforms. There could be misidentifications. There could be psychological operations and counterintelligence programmes. There could be people deliberately spreading false information. There could be people sincerely repeating false information.

And there could also be genuinely anomalous objects that we simply cannot currently explain.

All of those things can exist simultaneously.

Ross agreed.

And once we got into that territory, I realised we weren’t actually as far apart as I’d initially thought.

Towards the end of our conversation, we arrived at what I think might actually be one of the biggest problems facing any future UAP disclosure effort.

Trust.

For decades, elements of the US Government have been accused — and in some cases shown — to have withheld information, manipulated narratives, FOIA returns, muddied the waters on purpose or deliberately misled people around this subject in a structured way to protect special access programs of at least terrestrial tech. Counter-intelligence and misinformation has been rife. It’s documented and corroborated:

Project Blue Book.

The Robertson Panel.

Richard Doty.

Paul Bennewitz.

Classified aircraft programmes.

Potential counterintelligence operations.

And now we’re being asked to consider Yankee Blue.

So imagine tomorrow the US Government holds a press conference and tells the world what UFOs are.

Would everyone believe them? Probably not.

And perhaps more importantly: Should they?

Ross used a courtroom analogy that I thought summed the problem up perfectly.

If a lawyer puts a witness before a jury who has previously lied, you don’t simply pretend those lies never happened and ask the jury to trust them now.

You confront the history. You explain it. You get the witness straight with the jury.

Only then can you begin rebuilding credibility. Perhaps that’s what needs to happen here.

Before the US Government can realistically ask the public to trust whatever it eventually tells us about UAPs, perhaps it first needs to tell us where it hasn’t been truthful.

Was Yankee Blue real? What exactly was it? Who authorised it? Who was exposed to it? What other disinformation programmes existed? What were they protecting?

And are any of them still operating today? Because disclosure isn’t simply about releasing more information. It’s about creating an environment in which that information can actually be trusted.

I went into this conversation expecting Ross and me to disagree far more than we did.

Instead, what I found was something I think this subject could probably use a little more of.

Two people approaching the same mystery from slightly different directions, sitting down for 45 minutes, challenging each other’s assumptions and discovering that the truth probably doesn’t sit neatly inside either camp.

You can watch my full conversation with Ross Garber on the UAP Files Podcast below.

Want to support the channel? Please consider buying me a coffee here ☕️

A knobbly-kneed boy stands on a riverbank in the beautiful Wye valley in Hereford, UK, watching his father patiently fish for Salmon.

The only sounds are the birds, and the occasional conversations of curious sheep that share the field with them.

This serene experience is soon ended by a growing, distant howl behind the onlooking mountains.

Within seconds, the howl would grow into a piercing roar as a young Pilot from the United States, pushes his eager F111 into a dive into the mouth of the valley. Wings swept back, Engines at full power.

The sleek jet ( and its wingman) tore through the air, following the riverway well below the top of the surrounding mountains, passing the two witnesses almost directly overhead, faster than you can describe, and louder than you can imagine.

Seconds later, peace restored, the only evidence of the event would be a goggle-eyed boy, with a grin like the Cheshire cat, and a fading rumble of distant thunder, as the Jets went about their business.

It is 2026.

The same Knobbly Kneed boy, now 40-something years older, sits in his bedroom on a Zoom call, interviewing that same Pilot which had buzzed them on that summer’s day, so many years ago.

This call would go on to be just as formative to the boy as their first interaction

The boy, as you’ve probably guessed, was me. The Pilot, Was Colonel Dan ‘Tanna’ Isbell.

I had first seen Dan during his fantastic interview with Jimmy on the UAP Files, where he briefly described his career in the USAF before recounting his multiple encounters with UAP throughout his life. From a Plasma-bathed craft over his base at Upper Heyford near Hereford, to a giant Black Triangle above the infamous Edwards AFB in California, and others.

The combination of his staggering career doing the things I had spent a healthy chunk of my life fantasising about, and his encounters told me immediately that I needed to speak to this man.

Originally, it was to be an hour long interview, covering much of the same ground with a sprinkling of nerdy details from the world of aviation but as the hour mark flew past faster than that F111 it was clear that this was a connection that was in its infancy.

It was after this call, whilst wearing that same Cheshire Cat grin, that I realised I had made an extraordinary friend, and that we were really onto something.

These chats spun into what has become a 15 ( and counting) episode series about the adventures (and misadventures) of Dan throughout his career, from attacking a NATO fleet at extreme low-level in an F111 and tangling with a Tomcat to boot, to touching the edge of Space in a U2 spy plane, from unleashing the full fury of an A-10 Warthog over a test range, to bobbing around serenely in the Goodyear blimp, each story and each episode were delivered in Dan’s inimitable calm, collected, well considered style.

In the latest and longest episode to date, we finally dug into his extraordinary encounters with UAP. It seems that not only has ‘The Phenomenon’ taken quite an interest in him, it seems to have followed him all over the world, popping in roughly every ten years to leave him similarly goggle-eyed as he did, me in our first meeting.

His first sighting was three hours prior to the legendary Rendlesham case, some 90 miles to the East of his location.

Whilst driving the country lanes in his Corvette ( the same car my Dad also owned at that time...weird) he became aware of a dazzling array of colours in his rear-view mirror.

Pulling over and investigating further, he witnessed a silent craft, bathed in swimming fields of multi-coloured Plasma, and as he approached, it began to slowly, silently, lower itself towards the ground.

Almost ten years later, now at the almost mythical Edwards AFB, home of Area 51 and countless black projects, he would have his second encounter.

Alone, in the desert, stargazing after another loud, fast days flying. He noticed as the stars above his head were gradually blacked out by the sharp silhouette of an immeasurably huge black triangle. The was no sound, contrail or trace, save an uncomfortable static-like tingling all over his body, no doubt added to by his growing goosebumps.

Fearing reprisal for his loose tongue and desert wandering, he would keep this story to himself for thirty years.

A decade later, once again stargazing, this time in his hot-tub behind his Florida-home, he would have a far closer-encounter as he was bathed in what he describes as a ‘defocused cyan laser’ originating from directly above his head. As he gazed upwards trying to discern the origin of the light, it would resolve into a ball of solid light, which appeared to ‘step up’ in size three times, before exiting the sky at such extreme speed that physics would not allow.

Later still, after moving home once more, he would experience a plasma ‘orb’ descending from the clouds, heading towards his very location, compelling him to go inside, close the blinds, and quietly hope out loud that it would not come inside.

As an investigator and experiencer of UAP, I have to say that this call was one of the most fascinating and rewarding experiences of my life.

As the little boy stood on a riverbank, becoming great friends with the hot-shot pilot that had put his pulse and imagination into full afterburner, was truly priceless.

There are no such thing as co-incidences.

I hope you enjoy the interview.

Tom.

He told us he works for the United States Navy and a former Space Force scientist. He was also clear that he was on the show as a private citizen, and that the ideas were his, not the Navy’s and not the Space Force’s.

We started with artificial intelligence, and he does not think we are close to a real one.

An AI agent, as he put it, has three layers: the hardware, the model, and the application. The United States, he argued, is betting on hardware. Bigger data centres are only more computational power, and that path plateaus. What he cares about is algorithmic power, the application layer working on the model. He thinks others, including China, may be further along on that recipe. A god in a bottle, he said, does not fall out of a larger server farm.

From there he went to what he calls a triarchy of sentience. His claim is that an agent could move from AGI toward what people call artificial superintelligence, and that the phrase is the wrong way round.

Later he sketched what would even count as a step toward AGI: combine computational and algorithmic power, use causal inference rather than scraping the internet, and demand an original idea that an experiment then confirms. Until then, he treats confident machine output as confabulation, not understanding.

He believes in human technology, not in being handed someone else’s.

If a non-human intelligence gives us machines and we reverse-engineer them, he argued, we build Trojan horses they already know how to defeat. Homo sapiens, in his view, can produce major innovations without being taught. He was just as blunt about drones. Swarms, he said, are a real change in how wars are fought, close to total war amplified, and he would not go further because it might get him in trouble. The point he would make was about cost. A cheap one-way drone, on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, set against a tank worth tens of millions. Equipment can still be exquisite. A war you fight into bankruptcy is not a path to victory.

On method, he rejected the usual line about thinking outside the box. There is no box, he said, because this is an open system. A theory needs an experiment. Funders say no and steer money to safer work, and he thinks that is how you miss the result that shows up off to the side.

Then he talked about time, and this is the stretch I want people to sit with.

He said someone tied to a tech fortune had offered him a lab, a team, and a figure, if he left government now. He would not. This physics, he said, can produce what he called weapons of time, and that work belongs inside government. Space, for him, is the geometric structure of the cosmos. Time is not an illusion. It is a physical field of informational energy inside that structure. He who controls time, he said, controls everything.

He pointed to a recent paper on gravitational entropy at neutron-star densities, and to the idea that the arrow of time, entropy rising as time passes, might reverse at those densities. Break the Schwinger limit, which he says his own effect can do, and travel to the past is no longer ruled out. He was plain about the prize. Winning wars before they are fought.

The engineering version of that is a paper he is proudest of, from 2019, on a plasma compression fusion device. Fusion at ignition. A plasma burn that no longer needs energy fed in. Yields that, in his account, could tear spacetime locally, with the tear closing unless the energy holds it open. He even asked whether the Sun, a spinning ball of plasma, sometimes breaks that limit in places and draws on the quantum vacuum, not only on fusion. Coronal mass ejections were his example of energy showing up where the usual story struggles.

Plasma, he said, is the bridge. The fourth state of matter, between ordinary stuff and the vacuum. Drive it far from equilibrium, hit resonance, amplify the energy, and if you break the Schwinger limit you can change local reality. He knows labs are trying this with extremely short lasers, on a microscopic scale. His argument is about scale. They are small. He wants the macroscopic case. Whoever can affect the local fabric of reality, he said, becomes master of it.

He described a briefing in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). Fourteen people, a little under an hour, and he said this part was not classified. A member of Congress was far more interested than the director of AARO, which Pais found strange. Three-letter agencies were in the room. He said only he and the congressman spoke.

On who should hold any of this, he does not want it left with the government as it stands. If the technology exists, he argued, it sits with the military-industrial complex or with a breakaway group. The question he kept returning to was who owns it, and who has the right to use it. He said he would not care about credit if someone else had already done the work.

Asked what the Navy patents were for, he did not mystify it. Another method of propulsion. Change the space around a craft so it moves without throwing mass out the back, against the usual reading of Newton’s third law. Matter, in his wording, is confined energy, bound in oscillating fields, frozen in a quantum of time.

He even asked whether the soul could be a cold plasma, a nonthermal plasma that can be held in ordinary matter without huge magnets. Some of these craft, he said, are said to be flown by consciousness. Some objects are ours and some are not. Split us, and you can run a civilisation down on purpose.

He closed on where he thinks power is going. A feudal technocracy, built with AI, and if that corporate state arrives he does not think ordinary people get a way back. The people building it think they are gods, he said, and they are not. Solving time, gravity, and consciousness would make us masters of the universe.

He hopes that stays ethical.

I am not asking you to buy any of it. I am asking you to hear how a Navy physicist argues it.

Watch the full conversation below and let me know your thoughts. This one is heavy.

If you enjoy my work and want to help keep UAP Files and associated UAP Files Podcast going, consider buying me a coffee here ☕ — every bit of support helps fuel the research, content and investigations! Thank you.

Decades later, those photographic plates have become the centre of a remarkable scientific discovery.

Astronomer Dr Beatriz Villarroel and researchers associated with the VASCO project have been studying thousands of short-lived points of light — known as transients — recorded on historical Palomar Observatory Sky Survey images.

These aren’t simply stars that subsequently disappeared. The objects appear on a single exposure, often as brief, star-like points, but have no corresponding object in modern surveys.

And crucially, many were photographed before Sputnik 1 was launched on 4 October 1957.

That makes the obvious modern explanation — reflections from conventional satellites — considerably more difficult.

One of the most intriguing findings concerns the Earth’s shadow.

Researchers have reported a significant deficit of transients in areas where an orbiting object would have been shielded from sunlight by the Earth. In other words, the flashes appear less frequently where sunlight couldn’t illuminate an object.

That matters because it is consistent with at least some of the events behaving like reflections from physical objects in space.

An independent 2026 analysis by Brian Doherty reproduced both the reported Earth-shadow deficit and another of the project’s more controversial findings: a statistical association between the number of transients and atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.

The latter finding originally emerged from peer-reviewed research published by Villarroel and Stephen Bruehl in Scientific Reports in 2025. Importantly, a statistical association does not establish that nuclear tests caused the transients — much less tell us what produced them.

But it gives researchers something measurable to test.

The Latest Development

And this month, the story became even more interesting.

In a new paper submitted on 4 September 2026, Villarroel and colleagues attempted to estimate where these objects would have been located if the flashes really were reflections from objects around Earth.

Their modelling places the characteristic altitude at around 20,000–25,000 kilometres above Earth, while a second method produces a broader range of approximately 20,000–35,000 kilometres — extending towards geosynchronous orbit.

Under the model’s assumptions, the flashes could last roughly 320 milliseconds, with the reflecting surfaces ranging from centimetres across to approximately three metres. The researchers consider both natural and non-natural models.

But there’s another development.

A second September paper took the 107,875-transient dataset and attempted to project the events back towards locations on Earth.

Researchers reported statistically significant clustering, including hotspots over the Pacific west of southern Mexico and Central America, the southern Gulf of Mexico, and the southwestern United States around Arizona and New Mexico.

Even stranger, the researchers reported that transients associated statistically with Pacific nuclear tests appeared over Pacific locations, while those associated with Nevada testing appeared predominantly over the southwestern United States.

So, the question isn’t whether these photographs prove extraterrestrial visitation. They don’t and the researchers aren’t claiming that, or indeed ruling that out.

The question is much simpler:

If a genuine population of short-lived reflections was being photographed thousands of kilometres above Earth before Sputnik, what was reflecting the light?

That question remains unanswered.

In my latest Podcast episode, I lay this all out in an “youth friendly” format for your viewing pleasure - volume up!

Watch Dr V and the Transients — the latest episode of UAP Files Podcast

Want to support the channel? Please consider buying me a coffee, here ☕️ Thanks!

Objects moving at extraordinary speeds. Strange lights. Radar returns. Military encounters. Pilots reporting things they cannot identify.

But eventually, if you spend enough time looking at this subject, another question tends to emerge.

What does any of this actually mean?

If some UFO encounters really do represent interaction with a non-human intelligence, then the implications extend far beyond aviation, defence or even science.

They would inevitably reach into philosophy, consciousness and religion.

And that raises a fascinating question.

What happens when we go back and look at some of humanity’s oldest religious texts through a modern lens?

Could people thousands of years ago have witnessed phenomena that today we might describe very differently?

It’s an uncomfortable question for some. For others, it’s irresistible.

And interestingly, despite the enormous growth of the UFO conversation in America, we don’t hear many members of the clergy publicly engaging with it — particularly here in Britain.

That’s why I wanted to speak with Father Lee Taylor.

Lee is a priest living in North Wales who recently joined me on the UAP Files Podcast to discuss UFOs, Christianity, consciousness and what some of the stranger passages of the Bible might mean when viewed from a different perspective.

Importantly, Lee isn’t claiming the Bible proves extraterrestrials visited ancient humanity.

Quite the opposite. His starting point is uncertainty.

As he explained during our conversation, Christianity itself has a long tradition of accepting that reality may exceed the limited language and categories human beings use to describe it. For Lee, UAP and the possibility of non-human intelligence currently belong within that same territory of genuine mystery.

And from there, our conversation went into some fascinating places.

Ezekiel’s extraordinary vision

Perhaps the most famous biblical passage to enter the UFO conversation is the vision described in the Book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel was a Jewish priest and prophet living during the Babylonian exile in approximately the sixth century BC.

Then, according to the text, something extraordinary happens.

The heavens open.

Something approaches from the north accompanied by a great wind, an immense cloud, flashing fire and brilliant light. Ezekiel describes four strange living beings with human-like forms, multiple faces and wings.

And beside them are the famous “wheels within wheels.”

The wheels apparently move in different directions without turning. Above the scene is something resembling a throne and, upon it, something resembling a human figure surrounded by extraordinary brightness.

Read today, it isn’t difficult to understand why some people have wondered whether Ezekiel was attempting to describe some kind of technological encounter.

But Lee makes an important distinction.

Ezekiel repeatedly uses language equivalent to the appearance of, the likeness of and something like.

In other words, this isn’t necessarily somebody confidently identifying what he is seeing. It could be somebody struggling to describe something for which he simply doesn’t possess the vocabulary.

Their description wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.

It would simply be constrained by the language and concepts available to them.

Could the same principle apply to Ezekiel?

If an ancient person encountered something genuinely anomalous, they couldn’t describe propulsion systems, plasma, aircraft or UAP.

They had wind. Fire. Wings. Wheels. Living creatures. Divine glory.

That doesn’t mean Ezekiel saw a spacecraft. Lee is very clear about that.

It means there is a distinction between what somebody experienced and what actually caused that experience.

And thousands of years later, we may simply not know the answer.

“In my Father’s house are many Mansions”

Another part of our conversation moved away from physical craft altogether.

Because perhaps one of the most interesting developments within modern UFO research is the increasing discussion around consciousness.

For many people, myself included, you tend to enter this subject through the nuts and bolts.

What was seen? How fast was it travelling? Was it detected on radar? Could known technology reproduce it?

But keep digging and eventually you encounter much stranger territory: altered consciousness, experiencer accounts, apparent beings, questions surrounding dimensions and even the nature of reality itself.

And this is where Lee brought up a passage from the Gospel of John.

“In my Father’s house are many mansions.”

It’s a passage frequently used within Christianity when discussing death and what might exist beyond our current lives.

Lee explained that the underlying Greek can be understood in terms of dwelling places — places in which to remain.

But he wonders whether that image could be stretched further.

Could the “many rooms” or mansions within a home represent different realms, different modes of existence or even different modes of consciousness?

Not necessarily distant planets somewhere across the galaxy.

Perhaps different layers of reality itself.

As Lee put it, we naturally assume that the reality we perceive is the entirety of reality.

But why should it be?

Our senses already allow us to perceive only a particular range of what physically exists around us.

Perhaps, Lee suggests, the universe contains more “rooms” than we currently know how to enter. It’s an intriguing way of approaching an ancient passage in the context of some very modern questions.

Taking experiencers seriously

For me, one of the most important parts of the conversation had nothing to do with “proving” or “disproving” UFOs at all.

It was about the people who experience them.

And some claimed experiences not simply involving objects in the sky, but encounters with what they interpreted as non-human beings or intelligences.

Whatever we ultimately discover about this phenomenon, there is an important point here. You don’t have to accept somebody’s interpretation of an experience in order to accept that the experience affected them.

For decades, people reporting UFO encounters have often faced ridicule.

Those reporting the stranger end of the phenomenon — missing time, beings, apparent abductions or other extraordinary experiences — have arguably had it even worse.

Lee approaches this from a pastoral perspective. Listen first. Don’t mock. Don’t immediately force the experience into your own belief system.

And don’t assume that because you cannot explain something, the person describing it has nothing worthwhile to tell you.

As Lee put it during our conversation, the experience itself should form part of the primary data. Our theories, assumptions and interpretations should come afterwards.

I think that’s an important principle regardless of whether you’re religious, atheist, believer or sceptic.

We can investigate extraordinary claims rigorously while still treating the person making them with compassion.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive!

The “Welsh Roswell”

There was also a much more local reason Lee became interested in the UFO subject.

He lives in North Wales, close to the Berwyn Mountains — location of one of Britain’s strangest UFO stories.

The incident occurred in January 1974.

Residents reported hearing an enormous explosion or violent bang which shook the ground. A magnitude 3.5 earthquake was recorded in the area.

But around the same period came reports of brilliant lights around the mountains.

Police received calls from people concerned that an aircraft might have crashed.

One of the best-known witnesses was local nurse Pat Evans, who drove towards the mountains believing there could be injured people requiring assistance.

She subsequently described seeing a large, glowing, pulsating orange object near the mountain with smaller lights around it.

Over time, the story became considerably more dramatic.

Claims emerged that a UFO had crashed, that the military had sealed off the area and even that alien bodies had been recovered.

Lee is careful about that part.

There isn’t solid documentary evidence establishing those more extraordinary claims.

But what particularly interests him is that the story hasn’t entirely disappeared into history.

Living locally, Lee says he knows people who still remember the event.

More intriguingly, he says people within his own community continue to report unusual aerial phenomena today — objects or lights they don’t believe are aircraft or satellites.

For a priest already interested in mystery, consciousness and unusual human experiences, having one of Britain’s most enduring UFO stories virtually on the doorstep certainly adds another dimension to the subject.

I came away from this conversation thinking that the most interesting question isn’t:

“Does the Bible prove UFOs are real?” It doesn’t. Nor does Father Lee claim that it does.

Perhaps the more interesting question is what happens when human beings encounter something genuinely outside their existing understanding.

We interpret experiences through the language, culture and beliefs available to us.

Today we might talk about UAP, non-human intelligence, dimensions or consciousness.

Thousands of years ago, people spoke about wheels, clouds, fire, heavenly beings and divine glory. Are these descriptions of completely different things? Probably, in many cases.

Could some describe experiences we might interpret differently if they happened today? Perhaps.

And that’s really what I enjoyed about this conversation. It isn’t about replacing religion with UFOs or forcing extraterrestrials into biblical passages. It’s about becoming comfortable enough to say we don’t know and curious enough to continue asking the question.

Lee believes the Church should begin engaging seriously with these possibilities now rather than waiting for some hypothetical moment of “disclosure”. If humanity ever did establish that another intelligence exists, the implications wouldn’t belong solely to scientists, governments and militaries.

They would belong to all of us.

My full conversation with Father Lee Taylor goes considerably deeper into UFOs, Christianity, biblical texts, consciousness, experiencers, the angels-and-demons debate and why Britain remains strangely quiet on the UAP subject.

Watch the full episode of the UAP Files Podcast below.

If you enjoy my work and would like to help support UAP Files / UAP Files Podcast and the independent research, interviews and content I produce, you can buy me a coffee here.

Every bit of support helps me keep doing this — and is hugely appreciated!

So what happens when the thing an officer is trying to describe doesn’t fit into any conventional category?

That is the territory explored by serving British police Inspector Roy Teague, who recently joined me on the UAP Files Podcast to discuss an extraordinary collection of UFO and UAP encounters reported by serving and retired police officers.

Teague has spent nearly 27 years in frontline British policing, following six years in the British Army, including service in Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

His approach to the subject reflects that background:

“Accept nothing, believe no one and check everything.”

And his investigation has now involved interviews with more than 250+ serving and retired police officers.

What they have told him ranges from unusual lights and aerial objects to encounters that are considerably harder to explain.

One of the most revealing aspects of my conversation with Roy wasn’t a particular UFO sighting.

It was the reluctance of officers to talk about them.

For decades, reporting a UFO could expose an officer to ridicule or leave them worrying about their professional credibility.

An officer might be perfectly prepared to stand in court and describe a suspect or vehicle, yet think twice about admitting they had watched something inexplicable moving through the sky.

That raises an interesting possibility: the cases Roy has collected may represent only a fraction of what police officers have actually witnessed.

And some of those cases are remarkable.

Police helicopters and objects in the sky

Roy described reports involving police aviation crews encountering unidentified objects while airborne.

These accounts are particularly interesting because identifying aircraft, lights and activity in the sky forms part of the operational environment for police aircrew.

Some of Roy’s cases involve much more than distant lights.

Officers have described apparently structured objects, including an extraordinary report involving a huge metallic craft over London.

Then there is the case of “Officer F” and the black triangle.

Officer F reported encountering an enormous black triangular object over Scotland.

The case becomes stranger still.

According to the account Roy investigated, the officer experienced approximately 30 minutes of apparently missing time associated with the encounter.

There was also an extraordinary subsequent medical detail: a metallic object reportedly discovered behind the officer’s eye.

Claims involving UFOs, missing time and unexplained objects within the body naturally attract scepticism.

But Roy’s position is that extraordinary testimony should be investigated rather than dismissed simply because it sounds extraordinary.

Investigating a claim doesn’t require blindly believing it.

It requires being willing to examine it.

Some testimony collected by Roy goes considerably further than unidentified craft.

During our interview, we also discussed an abduction experience reported from within the policing community.

It raises an uncomfortable question.

How should we treat extraordinary testimony from witnesses whose professional lives depend partly upon their ability to observe, remember and recount events?

Being a police officer doesn’t make somebody infallible. Officers can misidentify objects and memories can be imperfect.

But in almost any other investigation, the experience of the witness, their opportunity to observe, the consistency of their testimony and any supporting evidence would all be considered. And in courtrooms their testimony holds more weight than an untrained observer.

Why should UAP reports be treated differently?

National security

Our conversation also touched on the Official Secrets Act, national-security restrictions and unusual aerial activity (drones and orbs) around sensitive military locations.

Whatever ultimately explains individual incidents, unidentified objects entering restricted or sensitive airspace present a legitimate security question.

And it illustrates how much broader the modern UAP issue has become.

Some sightings will inevitably have conventional explanations. Others might involve drones, classified technology or foreign surveillance.

The interesting question is what remains after those possibilities have been eliminated.

Roy believes something does.

“Beyond reasonable doubt”

Perhaps the strongest moment of the interview came when I asked where decades of policing and hundreds of officer interviews had ultimately left him.

Using language familiar from his professional life, Roy told me he believes beyond reasonable doubt that a non-human intelligence is visiting Earth.

That is an extraordinary conclusion.

Viewers don’t have to agree with it.

What makes Roy’s story interesting is understanding how a serving British police Inspector, after speaking to more than 250 serving and retired officers, reached that conclusion in the first place.

Behind it sits a catalogue of testimony: police officers watching strange objects, aviation encounters, structured craft, a huge metallic object over London, a black triangle over Scotland, missing time and experiences some witnesses apparently kept quiet about for years.

Roy has brought many of those accounts together in his book, Close Encounters of the Police Kind.

Perhaps the bigger question isn’t simply whether we believe every account.

It’s whether credible witnesses have sometimes been discouraged from reporting genuinely anomalous experiences because of the stigma attached to the subject.

If so, ridicule hasn’t helped solve the mystery.

It has helped keep witnesses quiet.

Watch my full interview with Inspector Roy Teague on the UAP Files Podcast below, where we explore the individual cases, police attitudes towards UFO reports, national-security implications and the evidence that ultimately convinced Roy something genuinely extraordinary is taking place.

Clicks here.

Defence Minister Luke Pollard replied on 4 September, reiterating the longstanding MoD position: in more than 50 years, no reported UAP sighting had indicated a military threat to the UK, and as a result the Department stopped routinely investigating UFO reports in 2009. Its historical files were transferred to The National Archives.

However, Pollard also acknowledged that references to UAP could still exist elsewhere, including ships’ logs, air-safety reports and correspondence from members of the public.

This raises a more interesting question than whether Britain still has a “UFO desk”.

If something genuinely anomalous were detected today by military radar, electro-optical or infrared systems, signals intelligence or space-surveillance sensors, where would that information actually go?

Closing the MoD’s public UFO reporting function does not mean the British Government stopped collecting intelligence about unidentified objects. An unknown aircraft, unexplained radar return or unusual technological capability remains potentially important regardless of whether anybody calls it a UFO.

And there is a historical precedent for precisely this distinction.

DI55 and the old intelligence function

Historically, the public-facing Air Staff Secretariat handled UFO reports, while elements of the Defence Intelligence Staff, including DI55, assessed reports to determine whether they had intelligence significance.

The National Archives still places historical UFO material within records associated with the Chief of Defence Intelligence and Defence Intelligence Staff. One UFO policy file even retains its old departmental reference DI/55/40/9/1.

In other words, the office receiving UFO reports and the organisation assessing their potential intelligence value were not necessarily the same thing.

Today, Defence Intelligence has been reorganised within a much broader intelligence structure. Military Intelligence Services integrates intelligence from the Royal Navy, Army, RAF, UK Space Command and Permanent Joint Headquarters.

So if Britain still receives genuinely anomalous information, researchers perhaps shouldn’t be looking for another office labelled “UFO”.

They should be looking at Britain’s wider intelligence architecture.

SIS / MI6

SIS becomes particularly interesting if the question changes from “what are RAF pilots seeing?” to “what have the Americans, Russians or Chinese discovered?”

If another country possessed unusual aerospace technology, recovered materials or intelligence concerning genuinely anomalous objects, obtaining information about it would fall naturally within foreign intelligence.

That makes MI6 particularly relevant when considering Britain’s extremely close intelligence relationship with the United States, regardless of how fractured from temporary administrations they may be.

There is no evidence that I can find that show MI6 operates a UAP programme. But if highly classified American information concerning UAP or advanced aerospace technology had been shared with Britain through intelligence liaison channels, there is no reason it would necessarily appear in MoD UFO files.

It might instead be classified under foreign technology, scientific intelligence, aerospace intelligence or simply intelligence liaison.

GCHQ

GCHQ is another strong candidate for UAP-related technical intelligence outside the traditional MoD reporting system.

Its publicly acknowledged capabilities include the collection and analysis of communications and data with intelligence value. It supports Defence and works extensively with overseas intelligence partners.

Many of the most interesting modern UAP cases involve radar, electronic emissions, communications systems and multiple military sensors.

Once an unidentified object begins generating exploitable electronic information, it is no longer simply a UFO report. It becomes a signals and technical intelligence problem.

And if the United States shared highly classified UAP-related technical intelligence with Britain through Five Eyes channels, GCHQ would be among the British organisations positioned to receive certain categories of it.

National Space Operations Centre

The National Space Operations Centre (NSOC) is perhaps one of the most obvious places to look at modern unidentified-object monitoring.

NSOC tracks satellites, orbital activity, atmospheric re-entries and other objects affecting UK space interests. Its July 2026 report, for example, recorded 62 objects re-entering the atmosphere in a single month.

That does not make NSOC a UFO organisation. It demonstrates something more useful: Britain now possesses sophisticated infrastructure specifically designed to detect and understand objects operating above the country.

An unexplained detection does not need to be classified as a UAP. It can simply become a space-domain-awareness or national-security problem.

Cabinet Office / Joint Intelligence Organisation

The Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIO) is interesting for a different reason.

Sitting within the Cabinet Office, it produces all-source intelligence assessments for senior government, including the Prime Minister and National Security Council, drawing upon information from across government and international partners.

Imagine an incident involving RAF radar, Royal Navy observations, GCHQ intelligence and information supplied by the United States.

Somewhere, those different streams would potentially need to be brought together.

The JIO and wider Joint Intelligence Committee machinery exist precisely to assess intelligence that crosses departmental boundaries.

There is no evidence of a standing JIO UAP portfolio. But if genuinely anomalous information became strategically important, the Cabinet Office intelligence machinery would be an obvious area for researchers to investigate.

Dstl

Then there is the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

Dstl becomes particularly interesting if we move from collection to exploitation.

If Britain ever obtained unusual material, unfamiliar aerospace components, unexplained sensor signatures or technology requiring specialist analysis, it would become a scientific and engineering problem.

Dstl specialises in areas including sensors, ISR, weapons and advanced defence science, working alongside industry, academia and international partners.

There is no public evidence that Dstl possesses recovered anomalous technology.

But if we are asking where Britain could scientifically analyse highly unusual materials or technology on behalf of Defence, Dstl is an obvious candidate.

The private defence industry

Perhaps the least explored area is Britain’s private defence and aerospace industry.

Companies operating from facilities with Facility Security Clearance (FSC) — historically associated with the term List X — can be authorised to hold and work with highly classified government material on their own premises.

Major companies within Britain’s classified defence ecosystem include:

• BAE Systems

• QinetiQ

• Leonardo UK

• Thales UK

• MBDA

• Lockheed Martin UK

• RTX/Raytheon UK

• Ultra

• Babcock International

• Leidos UK

This becomes particularly interesting because highly classified defence programmes do not necessarily exist entirely within government buildings, or within Freedom of Information Act search results...

Specialist scientific, engineering and technical work can be contracted to industry and compartmentalised. Engineers may only have access to the specific information required for their part of a programme without knowing its complete intelligence background.

That is standard practice in sensitive defence work and provides an interesting parallel with allegations made in the United States, where whistleblowers have claimed that some UAP-related material and programmes have been placed within the defence-contractor environment.

This raises a legitimate question: if Britain ever participated in an exceptionally sensitive exploitation programme, would researchers necessarily find it by searching government departments alone?

Not necessarily.

Leidos UK is particularly interesting in this context because of a whistleblower I spoke to told me they had/have a UAP tracking program that he helped create for the FAA. Although this is an American company, their Leidos UK is its UK operation/subsidiary and works extensively with the British Government and defence sector. Watch that interview below.

Perhaps we’re searching for the wrong words

There is another problem facing researchers: terminology.

Searching government records exclusively for UFO or UAP assumes intelligence organisations use the same language we do.

An unidentified object detected approaching Britain might instead be recorded as an airspace incursion. An unusual electronic signature could become signals intelligence. Something arriving from orbital altitude could become space-domain awareness. Recovered material might fall under technical exploitation, materials science or foreign technology.

Information received from the United States might simply be intelligence liaison reporting.

The same underlying event could therefore generate records across several organisations without the words UFO or UAP appearing anywhere.

That makes the statement that Britain “stopped investigating UFOs in 2009” perfectly compatible with Britain continuing to collect and analyse information about unidentified objects. We know they are directing huge resources to UAVs and Drones in our air domain.

What ended was the MoD’s dedicated UFO reporting and investigation function.

That is not necessarily the same thing as Britain’s intelligence services deciding that unidentified objects detected by military sensors should be ignored.

So perhaps researchers need to stop looking for Britain’s modern equivalent of the UFO desk.

The more interesting places are Defence Intelligence, SIS/MI6, GCHQ, UK Space Command and NSOC, the Cabinet Office/JIO, Dstl and Britain’s classified defence-industrial base.

If something genuinely anomalous were detected today and judged to have intelligence, scientific or national-security significance, it would have to go somewhere.

The real question is no longer “does Britain still investigate UFOs?”

It is:

Who investigates the intelligence when nobody calls it a UFO?

This particular trail starts with UFOs, runs through the invention of coherent microwave and laser technology, passes through some extraordinary experiments involving lasers being fired into space, arrives at Skinwalker Ranch and eventually ends with a laser physicist being selected to run the Pentagon’s UFO office.

None of this proves that one caused the other. I’ll be clear on that, but as someone who believes there is a genuine phenomenon behind some UFO reports, and that synchronicities are everywhere in this subject, I think the technological parallels are fascinating.

And it starts in 1952.

1952: UFOs and Coherent Microwave Technology Converge

In early 1952, physicist Charles Townes was working on the concept that would become the MASER — technology capable of producing a highly coherent and tightly controlled beam of microwave electromagnetic radiation. At essentially the same moment, the United States Air Force’s UFO problem was dramatically escalating.

In March 1952, USAF Director of Intelligence Major General Charles Cabell ordered the establishment of Project Blue Book at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, formalising a renewed effort to collect and analyse UFO reports amid growing national-security concerns.

Then came the summer of 1952. The United States experienced one of the largest UFO reporting waves on record. Most significantly, during July 1952, unidentified targets were repeatedly reported around Washington, D.C., involving radar detections and visual observations. Whatever your interpretation of those incidents, they were taken seriously enough to generate enormous press attention and concern within the military and intelligence establishment.

So, by the end of 1952, two remarkable developments were occurring simultaneously. In physics, scientists were developing technology capable of generating controlled, coherent microwave electromagnetic radiation. In national security, the USAF and intelligence community were escalating their investigation of unidentified objects apparently operating in US airspace.

The important point is not that the maser caused the 1952 UFO sightings. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the order of events makes that unlikely. What interests me is something different: the US government’s UFO problem escalated immediately before scientists demonstrated, for the first time, a practical means of generating highly coherent microwave radiation.

That makes 1952–53 an unusually interesting junction between the history of UFO investigation and the history of directed electromagnetic technology.

From the MASER to the LASER

The maser was effectively the laser’s older microwave brother. By 1957, Gordon Gould was developing the concept of producing the same fundamental effect using light and coined the term LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). In 1958, Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow published their landmark work describing the optical maser. Then, in 1960, Theodore Maiman demonstrated the first working laser.

In less than a decade we’d gone from experimental coherent microwave radiation to coherent beams of light. And the military immediately understood the implications.

Over the following decades, laser technology progressed from laboratory experiments into target designation, ranging, tracking, communications, adaptive optics and eventually directed-energy weapons. Which brings us to somewhere particularly interesting: Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Starfire

At Kirtland sits the Starfire Optical Range, eventually operated within the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate. Starfire became involved in extraordinarily sophisticated work involving lasers, atmospheric compensation, adaptive optics, beam control and the acquisition and tracking of objects in space.

In 1992, Starfire participated in a remarkable experiment with NASA/JPL. Scientists fired laser pulses from Kirtland AFB towards NASA’s Galileo spacecraft. Galileo wasn’t orbiting a few hundred kilometres above their heads. Depending upon the stage of the experiment, the spacecraft was roughly 700,000 to 3 million kilometres from Earth.

Lasers were fired from Earth. Galileo detected the pulses.

Think about what that represents technologically. A precisely generated electromagnetic signal originating on Earth could be directed through the atmosphere and detected by an object hundreds of thousands, and ultimately millions, of kilometres away.

This isn’t UFO lore, by the way, it’s physics.

And it’s 1992.

Keep that date in the back of your mind, because five years later somebody rather interesting enters our story.

Enter Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick - Who, did I Mention, Is a Laser Physicist?

In 1997, a physicist named Dr Sean Kirkpatrick joined the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

And this is an important detail, so I’m going to mention it now and probably several more times before we’re finished: Sean Kirkpatrick is a laser physicist.

Kirkpatrick didn’t arrive at AFRL by accident. His background was in physics, and at AFRL he established an ultrafast laser physics laboratory for Air Force applications.

Laser physics. For the Air Force.

Keep that filed away, yeah..

His subsequent career would take him through some extraordinary corners of the US national-security establishment, including positions associated with the National Reconnaissance Office, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense. But it’s worth remembering where that journey began: Air Force Research Laboratory, advanced Air Force applications and laser physics.

I promise the laser physicist thing will become relevant again.

Skinwalker Ranch

By the 2010s, something very different was happening at Skinwalker Ranch in Utah. For years, researchers associated with the ranch had experimented with different ways of provoking, measuring and documenting the strange phenomena reported there.

That included electronic equipment, radio frequencies, electromagnetic measurements, lasers and other forms of technological stimulus.

The basic experimental question is fascinatingly simple: if there really is an intelligence behind some of these phenomena, can you deliberately interact with it?

Instead of waiting for something strange to happen, can you do something and observe whether the phenomenon responds?

This idea, technological stimulus followed by observation of an apparent response, is particularly interesting when viewed against the history we’ve just gone through. Coherent electromagnetic radiation. Lasers. Beam control. Sending signals towards objects. Detecting responses. Trying to understand what happens when you deliberately introduce energy into an environment.

And then, in 2018, the Skinwalker research reaches Washington.

19 April 2018

On 19 April 2018, Skinwalker Ranch owner Brandon Fugal and members of his team travelled to Washington, D.C. According to Fugal, his team had been invited to provide a confidential briefing to people associated with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Armed Services Committee.

This wasn’t a ten-minute chat over. Fugal says the presentation lasted approximately two and a half hours, consisted of 55 slides plus video, and covered roughly two years of investigation at Skinwalker Ranch.

The subject was the unusual phenomena they had been documenting and investigating.

And sitting in the room was someone we’ve already met.

Dr Sean Kirkpatrick.

Yes. That Sean Kirkpatrick.

The laser physicist.

The former AFRL scientist who had established an ultrafast laser physics laboratory for Air Force applications. The man whose career had subsequently taken him through some of the most sensitive science and intelligence organisations in the US government.

Apparently, when Washington wanted someone in the room listening to a lengthy presentation about strange phenomena at a ranch where researchers had been experimenting with electromagnetic effects, frequencies and lasers, somebody found themselves a laser physicist.

I’m sure you’re beginning to spot the recurring character.

Photographic evidence subsequently released by Fugal shows Kirkpatrick sitting at the table during the briefing. And remember: this was 2018. There was no AARO yet. Kirkpatrick hadn’t become the UFO guy. He was already being exposed to this material years before taking charge of the Pentagon’s eventual UAP investigation office.

And — just in case we’ve forgotten during the previous three paragraphs — he was a laser physicist.

Then Washington gets very interested in UFOs again.

Over the following few years, the UFO issue, now increasingly described using the term UAP, returned to Washington in a way we hadn’t seen for decades. Congressional and Senate interest increased. Legislation followed. The Pentagon’s UAP Task Force appeared. Lawmakers demanded greater reporting and oversight.

Eventually, Congress mandated the creation of a substantially more formal organisation for investigating UAP: AARO (the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).

Now the US government needed someone to run it.

You can probably see where this is going.

They needed someone from the science and intelligence world. Someone trusted within the national-security establishment. Someone capable of dealing with potentially extremely advanced technology. Someone who understood physics.

And guess who emerged as the intelligence community’s choice?

Dr Sean Kirkpatrick.

The laser physicist.

Kirkpatrick became the first director of AARO, serving during 2022–23.

Of all the scientists and intelligence officials available to the Pentagon, the man eventually placed at the centre of America’s renewed official UFO investigation was someone who had begun his Air Force research career establishing an ultrafast laser physics laboratory, subsequently moved through the intelligence community, and had already sat through a lengthy government briefing concerning Skinwalker Ranch four years before AARO existed.

That doesn’t prove anything nefarious. But as CVs go, it’s certainly an interesting one, right?

Put the Chronology Together

1952: Massive UFO wave; Project Blue Book established; Townes developing MASER technology.

1953: First working MASER; CIA Robertson Panel examines the UFO problem.

1957–60: LASER concept developed; first working laser demonstrated.

Following decades: Military laser technology develops rapidly into targeting, tracking, beam control, adaptive optics and directed-energy research.

1992: Starfire/Kirtland fires laser pulses towards Galileo; Galileo detects them hundreds of thousands to millions of kilometres from Earth.

1997: Sean Kirkpatrick joins AFRL and establishes an ultrafast laser physics laboratory for Air Force applications. Yes, we’re officially in the laser physicist part of the story.

2010s: Skinwalker Ranch researchers experiment with electronic equipment, frequencies, lasers and other technological methods while investigating anomalous phenomena.

19 April 2018: Brandon Fugal’s Skinwalker team gives a 2.5-hour Washington briefing, involving 55 slides plus video, to an audience associated with Senate intelligence and armed-services interests. Sean Kirkpatrick attends. The laser physicist.

2020–22: Congressional pressure drives increasingly formal government investigation of UAP.

2022: The Pentagon needs somebody to lead AARO.

And the man selected is…

Dr Sean Kirkpatrick.

Physicist. Former AFRL scientist. Intelligence official. Skinwalker briefing attendee.

And, in case I haven’t mentioned it:

laser physicist.

So what am I actually suggesting?

I’m not suggesting that Charles Townes invented the maser because UFOs appeared over Washington. I’m certainly not suggesting Theodore Maiman built the laser so somebody could summon a flying saucer. And I’m not suggesting that firing a laser at Galileo is the same thing as communicating with an Orb.

But I am suggesting there’s an extraordinarily interesting technological chronology sitting alongside the history of the UFO subject. Again and again we find electromagnetic radiation, signalling, detection, tracking and interaction appearing somewhere in the story.

In 1952, the US government was confronting one of the most extraordinary UFO waves in history just as physicists were developing the technology necessary to generate coherent microwave radiation. Within eight years, we had the laser. Within a few decades, the military was developing incredibly sophisticated systems capable of directing those signals through the atmosphere and towards objects in space.

By 1992, Starfire could fire laser pulses from New Mexico that were detected by a spacecraft millions of kilometres away. Five years later, Sean Kirkpatrick - laser physicist, for anyone arriving late - joined AFRL and established a laboratory dedicated to ultrafast laser physics for Air Force applications.

Then, two decades later, the same Kirkpatrick found himself sitting across the table from Brandon Fugal while the Skinwalker Ranch team briefed Washington about its investigation of anomalous phenomena - an investigation that itself involved experiments with electromagnetic frequencies, electronic equipment and lasers.

Four years after that, the US government needed someone to run its new UFO office.

And somehow, after seventy years of UFO investigations, intelligence agencies, electromagnetic research, lasers, radar, signalling and increasingly sophisticated attempts to understand anomalous objects…

the bloke they chose was the laser physicist.

Coincidence?

Possibly.

But it’s one hell of a chronology.

Skywatcher

Skywatcher then appeared publicly in January 2025, combining Jake Barber’s claims with an even stranger proposition: UAP could apparently be “called” through both human psionic/telepathic abilities and technology. James Fowler, co-founder, described a proprietary electromechanical signalling system, nicknamed the “dog whistle”, developed over roughly five years and allegedly capable of attracting particular classes of UAP. Importantly, Skywatcher never publicly established that this was specifically sound frequency; Fowler generally described it in terms of electronic signals or signatures rather than lasers. Yet they were remarkably open about the concept, promoting it through highly produced YouTube films, mainstream news and UAP conferences.

And that openness made me wonder whether we were being shown exactly what somebody wanted us to see.

If America were investigating something entirely different, lasers, coherent light or another directed-energy technology, publicly pointing everyone towards a mysterious electronic “dog whistle” would make quite the red herring for anyone watching in Russia or China.

Counter-intelligence? Misdirection? I genuinely don’t know.

But Skywatcher then largely disappeared from public view after its initial burst of publicity, with Fowler returning to government-contracting work and later reporting suggesting elements of the project had effectively “gone government.” None of that proves the dog whistle was a cover story, but given how loudly Skywatcher arrived and how quietly it disappeared, it’s an intriguing possibility. I covered the wider Skywatcher story in a recent video here:

These articles are totally free, but if you want to support my work? Please consider buying me a coffee, here ☕️

Not another whistleblower interview. Not another grainy debatable light in the sky. Not another retired official telling us that extraordinary things were happening somewhere behind classified doors.

Evidence.

At least, that was the promise.

On 24 January 2025, Jake Barber appeared on Reality Check with Ross Coulthart on NewsNation and made an extraordinary prediction about what his team was going to achieve.

“We have an opportunity to work with the U.S. Government right now. The U.S. Government is aware and knows what we are capable of. They are prepared to allow us to use their facilities. To help them. We provide them a path to redemption.”

Then came the part that really caught my attention:

“I believe the US Government, in the next 12 months, will use me and my team as a peaceful non-judgmental path forward to disclosure. They will help us conduct our operations and gather evidence in order to present this subject matter to the public to answer the questions once and for all.”

Barber went further, suggesting they should be able to answer questions such as what these objects look like, who is operating them and where they come from.

Those are not modest ambitions.

That is essentially the UFO jackpot.

And there was apparently going to be data, scientific analysis and peer-reviewed work at the end of it.

For somebody like me, who believes there is a genuine phenomenon buried somewhere beneath seventy-plus years of mythology, secrecy, misidentification and occasionally industrial quantities of nonsense, this was exactly what I wanted to hear.

But bold claims create equally bold expectations.

And more than eighteen months later, those expectations deserve revisiting.

There was something else interesting about the timing.

Skywatcher’s YouTube account was created on 18 January 2025, just six days before Barber’s NewsNation appearance.

Then the machine started moving.

The videos were beautifully produced. There were helicopters, sensor systems, large areas of land, people with impressive CVs and the unmistakable appearance of serious financial backing.

Whatever Skywatcher was, this didn’t look like four blokes standing in a field with night-vision goggles and a camping chair.

The organisation today describes itself in decidedly more defence-industry language, saying it combines special operations experience, advanced sensing and “non-traditional air defense techniques” to detect and analyse aircraft, UAVs, unconventional aerospace activity and anomalies.

Then there was Alex Klokus.

Klokus is a financier, technology entrepreneur and media founder who became closely associated with Skywatcher’s leadership. His involvement interested me because this wasn’t simply another collection of UFO enthusiasts. There appeared to be a business and investment infrastructure developing around the operation. The finance world expected results and appeared to be putting their money behind it - speculate to accumulate…

Alex was so involved in the leadership of the group that he personally registered the skywatcher.ai domain in his name in December 2024. A month before Skywatcher launched their YouTube efforts and Jake appeared on News Nation making the big claims.

Everything suggested momentum.

Skywatcher released two impressive instalments of what appeared to be a continuing series. Its YouTube audience climbed beyond 130,000 subscribers.

And then...

Nothing.

Or at least nothing resembling what many of us thought was coming.

There was no public disclosure of where the objects supposedly originated. No publicly demonstrated recovered craft. No scientific package capable of settling the argument. No Part Three arriving to deliver the answers promised at the beginning.

Instead, Skywatcher largely disappeared from the public UFO conversation.

And that matters to me personally because I supported them.

I made videos about Skywatcher. I wrote about them. When people immediately dismissed the whole project as nonsense, I argued that they deserved the opportunity to produce the evidence before being condemned. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.

That remains my position on almost everything in this subject: claims deserve investigation before either belief or ridicule.

But that principle works both ways.

Eventually, the people making the claims have to produce something.

And Skywatcher ghosted us. Sort of.

So What Happened?

There were hints.

James Fowler, one of the central figures in the organisation, eventually announced that he was leaving Skywatcher to pursue other ventures.

Then there were statements from Skywatcher’s official X account suggesting that developments were taking place away from public view.

This is where things become considerably more interesting…but also where we need to be careful.

One theory circulating within the UAP community is that Skywatcher didn’t fail at all.

It succeeded too well.

According to this interpretation, the team’s capabilities attracted the attention of the U.S. Government and its work was subsequently pulled behind the classified curtain, potentially through government contracting, national-security agreements or even some form of Special Access Program (SAP).

It’s a fantastic story.

Unfortunately, fantastic stories are something the UFO world has never been short of.

The question is whether there is evidence for it.

One of the most controversial elements of Skywatcher’s operation was its use of people who could somehow attract or “summon” UAP through consciousness or so-called psionic techniques.

So is the Skywatcher leadership aren't giving us straight answers, what about the psionic they worked with?

Rather than argue about it endlessly online, I spoke to somebody who was actually there.

I interviewed John, who worked with Skywatcher and participated in these summoning operations.

John explained to me that, although he only worked with them for a few days as part of the psionic’s team, he believed the psionic had gone their separate ways, moved in to their own endeavours and that potentially the Skywatcher team had disbanded.

Though John did caveat that with the understanding that he wasn’t any longer an insider. Part of that interview with John is in the YouTube video at the end of this article.

I also had the opportunity to put the subject directly to Dr Sean Kirkpatrick, the former director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office — AARO — who has publicly discussed meeting members of the Skywatcher organisation.

Kirkpatrick told me:

Now, whatever you make of Sean Kirkpatrick — and personally I take everything said by current or former government officials on this subject with a healthy pinch of salt, Kirkpatrick especially — his comments are important.

Not because Kirkpatrick automatically settles the argument, but because he occupied one of the most senior official positions investigating UAP inside the Pentagon.

His assessment therefore belongs in the evidence pile whether we agree with it or not.

That is how investigation is supposed to work.

I also decided to go directly to the people involved.

I contacted Alex Klokus seeking clarification about what happened to Skywatcher and where the project currently stands.

I separately contacted Susan Gough, the Pentagon spokesperson through whom many UAP-related media enquiries have historically been routed.

At the time of writing, I have received no response from Klokus.

Gough didn’t have anything for me at the time of writing this.

Gough may still respond. If either does, I’ll publish the response on my Instagram account, which has essentially become UAP Files HQ.

But the absence of a response leaves us with the same fundamental question.

What happened?

And that brings us to perhaps the strangest part of this story.

The Government SAP Theory

Congressman Eric Burlison has spoken publicly about an event involving a group conducting an operation intended to attract, down, document or interact with UAP.

The descriptions have naturally led people within the community to speculate that the group being discussed was in fact Skywatcher.

That identification needs to remain labelled as speculation unless Burlison or somebody directly involved confirms it.

But the wider suggestion is fascinating: an operation was apparently sufficiently successful to alter the way some people around government viewed the subject.

Then another location began appearing in conversations around these activities.

West Texas.

More specifically, the region around El Paso, Van Horn and southern New Mexico.

And that’s where something I noticed more than a year ago suddenly became rather interesting.

Jake Barber’s Helicopter

On 6 April 2025, Jake Barber posted an image of himself standing in front of a helicopter.

Most people presumably looked at Jake.

I looked at the helicopter.

More specifically, I noticed that its registration — the tail number — was visible.

Aircraft registrations are useful because aviation tracking services can sometimes allow you to reconstruct where an aircraft has been operating.

So I screenshotted it and checked.

The tracking data I found at the time placed the helicopter around Van Horn, Texas.

I didn’t know what to make of it then.

Van Horn is a small West Texas town surrounded by enormous stretches of desert. El Paso lies roughly 100 miles to the northwest, while the wider region contains Fort Bliss and, across the state line in New Mexico, White Sands Missile Range.

It is, in other words, quite an interesting neighbourhood if your business involves unusual things flying around in the sky.

The flight data I captured appeared to show the helicopter operating in the region across multiple days. Six days at the time I'd noticed. Full screenshots and location details in the YouTube video below.

At the time, I filed it away.

Then came February 2026.

The El Paso Shutdown

On 10 February 2026, the FAA abruptly shut the airspace around El Paso International Airport, initially announcing restrictions that were expected to remain in place for ten days.

They lasted only hours.

The original notice cited “special security reasons”, and the episode caused considerable confusion among local authorities, airlines and aviation officials.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy subsequently said:

“The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion.”

He added that:

“The threat has been neutralized.”

That was the official public explanation.

But reporting that followed made the situation considerably messier.

NPR reported that the Pentagon had authorised the use of a high-energy counter-drone laser against what officials believed was a cartel-operated drone. Other reporting described disagreements or coordination problems between military activity and the FAA over the safety implications of the counter-drone technology.

The Texas Tribune reported conflicting explanations from government and industry sources, including claims involving military drone activity and the White House’s account of Mexican cartel drones breaching U.S. airspace.

So there is no need to invent mystery here.

The documented story is already strange enough.

A major American airport was effectively told its surrounding airspace could be restricted for ten days for special security reasons, only for that decision to be reversed within hours amid conflicting explanations involving cartel drones, military activity and experimental counter-drone technology.

None of that proves a UAP was involved. It is important to say that clearly. But it certainly makes the region interesting. And shows a connection to Skywatcher.

This is where my old screenshots came back out.

People including Pavel from Psicoactivo Podcast have been examining activity around El Paso and White Sands, while Ross Coulthart has more recently discussed the wider story on Reality Check.

That prompted me to go back through my phone.

There they were.

The screenshots I’d taken in April 2025 showing the aircraft associated with Barber operating around Van Horn.

A helicopter journey between the Van Horn area and El Paso would be perfectly practical — roughly the sort of trip that could be made in under an hour depending on the aircraft, routing and conditions.

And the geography deserves attention. A helicopter being in West Texas in 2025 does not prove that Skywatcher was connected to an extraordinary airspace closure around El Paso ten months later. It doesn’t prove Skywatcher was operating at White Sands.

But it does prove they were operating in the area.

An aircraft associated with Jake Barber was operating in this broader region during the period in which Skywatcher was publicly claiming to conduct UAP-related operations.

Then, less than a year later, an extremely unusual “counter-drone” incident occurred around El Paso.

My Three Possibilities

So where does that leave Skywatcher?

As far as I can see, there are three broad explanations.

The first is the most tantalising.

Skywatcher genuinely demonstrated something valuable enough that the U.S. Government became interested. Contracts were offered, classified relationships developed, NDAs appeared and some or all of the operation disappeared behind national-security restrictions.

Perhaps the public campaign was even part of the leverage: demonstrate enough capability publicly that government couldn’t simply ignore them, then negotiate access, funding or cooperation. I.e if you don’t buy us out, we’ll give disclosure to the world. That’s one hell of a hand to play.

Skywatcher’s current website is intriguing in that context. The language is no longer simply about UFO disclosure. It describes advanced air-domain awareness, air defence, UAVs, unconventional aerospace activity and sensor networks.

That sounds rather more like a company positioning itself for defence and government work than a group preparing Part Three of a UFO YouTube series.

But again, intriguing is not the same thing as proof.

The second possibility is more straightforward.

Skywatcher hasn’t disappeared at all.

The team may simply have realised that conducting complicated scientific work while simultaneously feeding the UFO internet’s insatiable appetite for updates is almost impossible. Perhaps they stepped away from publicity, concentrated on collecting better data and will eventually return with the evidence Barber originally promised.

If Part Three suddenly drops with multisensor data, independent analysis and something genuinely extraordinary, I will happily get the popcorn.

Then there is option three.

They never obtained the extraordinary evidence they expected.

Perhaps they recorded genuinely unusual objects but couldn’t demonstrate that those objects were non-human, exotic or even particularly exotic aircraft.

Perhaps the imagery will remain what so much UFO imagery becomes: interesting enough for believers and sceptics to argue over until the cows come home, but never quite good enough to settle anything.

And perhaps the narrative that Skywatcher became so successful that the government absorbed it provides a convenient explanation for why the promised evidence never arrived.

That possibility has to remain on the table, too.

I don’t write any of this because I want Skywatcher to fail. Quite the opposite.

I want Jake Barber’s original prediction to come true.

I want somebody to put calibrated sensors in the field, attract whatever this phenomenon is, record it from multiple independent systems, publish the raw data and let scientists tear it apart. If consciousness is involved, test it. If there are structured craft, photograph them properly.

If extraordinary objects can be summoned on demand, repeat the experiment under controlled conditions. That would be disclosure. That is what I want.

The ball is in your court, Skywatcher.

Watch the full episode this article references here:

I’ll be joined by several special guests to break down the latest UFO/UAP news, stories, claims and developments — and this time, you’re part of the show too.

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

Drop your questions, comments and opinions into the chat while we’re live. We’ll be picking them up throughout the show and putting some directly to our guests.

🗣️ SEND US A VOICE MESSAGE

Got a question? A theory? Something you disagree with? Or a story you think we need to talk about?

Send us a voice message before the show and we may play it LIVE on air and discuss it with our guests.

👉 SEND YOUR VOICE MESSAGE HERE: https://www.speakpipe.com/UAPFilesNightLine

🔴 WATCH NIGHTLINE LIVE:

This isn’t a pre-recorded podcast. It’s live, unpredictable and driven by what’s happening in the UAP world and what you want us to talk about.

So get your questions and voice messages in, grab a drink, and join us tomorrow night.

This Sunday 9pm BST / 4pm ET

See you tomorrow.

That’s exactly why I wanted him in the UAP Files Podcast studio.

I’ve known Partick “Patch” for years, he’s a local around my area, we’ve worked together and been friends for a long time and one thing that has always stood out is his honesty. He’s not trying to convince anyone of anything. He isn’t selling a book - although he does have a book, though doesn’t mention it in our conversation - he isn’t pushing a theory or claiming insider knowledge. If anything, he spends more time questioning his own experience than trying to persuade other people to believe it.

His story begins on a cold October night in 1990.

Driving home along a familiar rural road, Patch noticed an unusual light in a field. Curious, he pulled his Mini Metro into a lay-by to get a better look. What he saw wasn’t the stereotypical flying saucer that popular culture has taught us to expect. Instead, he describes a dark, angular craft hovering only a few metres above the ground. The lights outlining its shape revealed something far stranger than a classic disc. Then, without warning, it slowly rose before accelerating away at incredible speed.

What stayed with him wasn’t simply the object itself.

It was the feeling.

During our conversation, Patch repeatedly returns to one moment above all others. He describes an overwhelming adrenaline surge—a genuine feeling of fear that he says has remained vivid for more than three decades. While memories can fade, distort and evolve over time, he believes that emotional response has never changed. Even today he openly admits that he questions parts of what he remembers, but not how it made him feel. It’s an unusually grounded perspective in a subject where certainty is often claimed far too easily.

Interestingly, when trying to compare the object to something people might recognise, Patch doesn’t point towards the familiar saucer-shaped craft often depicted in films. Instead, he says it reminded him far more of the object associated with the famous Rendlesham Forest incident than anything resembling an Adamski-style flying saucer or the modern “Tic Tac” reports.

That encounter eventually became the starting point for a much wider discussion.

One of the most fascinating parts of Patch’s life has nothing directly to do with UFOs at all.

His father served as a Royal Navy nuclear submariner on HMS Resolution, Britain’s first Polaris ballistic missile submarine. Growing up, Patch never fully appreciated the significance of his father’s career because, to him, he was simply Dad. Only later did he realise just how much responsibility came with serving aboard one of Britain’s nuclear deterrent submarines during the Cold War.

Naturally, I had to ask whether his father had ever experienced anything unusual beneath the ocean, or if Patch shared his experience with his dad.

The answer was yes to both.

Patch recalls asking him directly about unidentified objects underwater after reading about reports of USOs (Unidentified Submerged Objects). His father dismissed the idea that he’d encountered anything extraordinary during his service. Yet he also represented something increasingly rare in today’s world: someone who genuinely understood the importance of keeping official secrets. Even decades after retirement, there were aspects of his service that he simply would not discuss.

Many years ago, post-retirement, Patch’s father worked in computer programming and software development. During that time, an American visitor came to stay with the family while learning programming techniques from him. Curious, Patch asked where he worked.

The answer caught him completely off guard…Lockheed Martin.

More specifically, the man told him he had previously worked at the legendary Skunk Works division.

According to Patch, the visitor explained that the technology he’d worked with was decades ahead of what existed in the commercial world, and that he needed to learn, or re-learn mainstream programming languages before moving into civilian industry. Unsurprisingly, Patch admits he tried to get him talking over a beer, but the conversation never ventured into UFOs or classified aerospace projects. Even so, it’s one of those remarkable stories that stays with you and reminds you how small this world is and the synchronicities.

From there, our discussion broadened into many of the biggest questions facing modern ufology.

We explored whether disclosure is really happening or whether we’re still witnessing one of the largest counterintelligence operations in history. We talked about Roswell, recovered technology, the role of defence contractors, the gradual release of official information, and whether governments are trying to prepare the public without exposing decades of secrecy. Rather than presenting these ideas as established fact, both of us approached them as questions worth examining, weighing competing claims and acknowledging where evidence remains incomplete.

We also found ourselves wandering into some of the stranger corners of the phenomenon. Simulation theory. Interdimensional hypotheses. Time travel and “plasmoid” intelligence.

Neither of us pretended to have definitive answers. In fact, Patch repeatedly argued that perhaps we should understand the simplest possibilities first before trying to explain the most exotic ones. If there really is another intelligence visiting Earth in physical craft, he suggests, perhaps that alone is extraordinary enough before we begin trying to explain every mystery through increasingly complex ideas. It’s a refreshingly measured position that reflects the tone of the entire conversation.

That’s probably what I enjoyed most about sitting down with Patch. He isn’t interested in winning arguments. He isn’t interested in becoming another self-proclaimed insider.

He’s simply someone who experienced something he still can’t explain, has spent decades thinking about it, and remains willing to question even his own conclusions.

He’s also just a really great guy and someone I'm lucky to call a friend.

If you’d like to hear the full story—from his extraordinary 1990 encounter to our conversation about Rendlesham Forest, Lockheed Martin, Cold War secrecy, disclosure, counterintelligence and where the UFO subject might be heading next—you can watch the complete interview now on the UAP Files Podcast.

Watch the full podcast here:

Yet Canada may have been quietly doing a better job of documenting the phenomenon all along.

That was one of the most interesting points to emerge from my recent conversation with Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski. Chris has investigated reports since the 1970s and helped compile the Canadian UFO Survey, which now contains around 26,000 to 27,000 individual cases.

Most have ordinary explanations. Aircraft, satellites, stars and atmospheric effects account for a large proportion of what people report. However, Chris estimates that around three per cent remain genuinely puzzling after investigation. Anomalous, some might say.

That may not sound like much until you consider the size of the database. Three per cent of tens of thousands of reports still leaves hundreds of cases that cannot be dismissed with a quick glance at a flight tracker.

Chris’s approach is refreshingly grounded. He checks aircraft records, astronomical charts, satellite information and witness testimony. He is not claiming every unexplained light is an alien spacecraft. He is simply saying that some cases survive the usual explanations and deserve to be taken seriously. He’s not a debunker. He wants to assess which cases warrant further investigation.

Canada was releasing government UFO documents long before the recent wave of American “disclosure”.

According to Chris, Canadian records include military, aviation and civilian reports stretching from 1947 to the present day. These include sightings reported by pilots, police officers, astronomers, air traffic controllers and military personnel.

Between roughly 2000 and the late 2010s, hundreds of reports came from pilots alone.

Chris contrasted this with the United States, where official UFO investigations appeared to vanish after Project Blue Book closed in 1969, only for the public to discover decades later that secretive programmes had continued behind the scenes.

Canada’s record is not perfectly open, and some information is understandably withheld for operational or national-security reasons. However, it has often released considerably more detail.

The Falcon Lake Incident

Of all the cases Chris has studied, Falcon Lake remains one of the strongest.

On 20 May 1967, amateur prospector Stefan Michalak was searching for mineral deposits in a remote area near Falcon Lake, Manitoba, when he reported seeing two unusual objects.

One moved away. The other landed on a rocky outcrop nearby.

Michalak described something resembling the classic metallic flying saucer. Rather than watching from a safe distance, he approached it and spent several minutes observing the object.

He claimed that a blast of extremely hot gas suddenly emerged from a grid-like opening, setting fire to his clothing, burning his chest and igniting vegetation around him.

He was later treated in hospital.

This is where Falcon Lake separates itself from the endless collection of distant lights and blurry photographs.

Medical records documented Michalak’s injuries. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigated. The Royal Canadian Air Force investigated. Material was recovered from the area, and radioactive contamination was reportedly detected at the site.

There are hundreds of pages of records covering interviews with Michalak, members of his family and people connected to the investigation.

Neither the RCMP nor the Royal Canadian Air Force produced a satisfactory explanation.

As Chris put it during our conversation, Falcon Lake gives us injury to a witness, medical documentation, physical traces, radiation, government records and a detailed investigation.

What more could we reasonably ask from a historical UFO case?

It does not prove that Michalak encountered extraterrestrial visitors. Even Chris, who has spent decades studying these reports, remains cautious about crash-retrieval stories and unsupported claims of alien bodies hidden in bunker.

But Falcon Lake is not merely an anecdote. Something happened to Michalak, and the official investigation failed to explain it.

The modern UAP debate has given us numerous military videos, but often without the information required to investigate them properly.

We are shown a blob moving across a screen without the precise location, complete sensor data, flight conditions or full chain of custody. We are then expected to choose between “alien spacecraft” and “nothing to see here”.

Falcon Lake is different. The documentation exists. The witness was examined. Officials visited the location. Physical material was tested. The case was not solved.

Believing that some UFO reports represent something genuinely anomalous does not require accepting every extraordinary claim. It requires recognising when a case has earned the right to remain open.

Falcon Lake has earned that right.

Chris Rutkowski explores the case, along with many others, in his latest book, Canada’s UFO Secrets. His work is based on decades of collecting reports, studying official records and separating cases with genuine substance from the inevitable noise surrounding the subject.

I spoke with Chris about Falcon Lake, the Shag Harbour incident, Canada’s government files, pilot reports, UFO statistics and why Canada may have been ahead of America on transparency for decades.

Watch the full interview with Chris Rutkowski now on the UAP Files Podcast. Link below.

Want to support the channel? Please consider buying me a coffee, here ☕️

Then, almost unbelievably, one of the most recognisable scientists on the planet does exactly that... and large parts of the same community immediately turn on him.

It really is one of the strangest contradictions in modern ufology.

Professor Avi Loeb isn’t some YouTuber chasing clicks or a self-proclaimed whistleblower with a story that can’t yet be verified. He’s a Harvard astrophysicist, the former Chair of Harvard’s Department of Astronomy and the founder of the Galileo Project. Now he’s also been asked to lead the newly established UAP Science Advisory Council, advising organisations including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, AARO, the FBI, the White House and the wider intelligence community.

When I sat down with Avi this week, it wasn’t another discussion about obscure videos or anonymous sources. Instead, we spoke about what this council actually is, why the government approached him in the first place, and perhaps more importantly, what it isn’t.

One thing became clear almost immediately. Avi isn’t claiming to know the answers. If anything, he’s saying precisely the opposite.

During our conversation he explained that representatives from ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) came to him to ask whether he would establish and lead the council. That detail alone caught my attention. Governments don’t generally knock on scientists’ doors because they’re completely confident they’ve already solved a mystery. As Avi put it, if officials already knew they were simply dealing with Chinese drones or conventional technology, the conversation would have been very different. The fact they’ve asked scientists to become involved suggests there are at least some cases they genuinely can’t explain with confidence.

That isn’t disclosure. It isn’t proof of ET or inter-dimensional beings. But it is damn interesting.

What also impressed me was how grounded Avi remains despite the headlines that inevitably follow him around. He repeatedly stressed that much of what has been released publicly can probably be explained by mundane causes. Some cases may be sensor artefacts. Others may be satellites, balloons, atmospheric effects or human technology. The aim isn’t to prove aliens. The aim is to separate the wheat from the chaff and collect data that’s actually worth analysing.

Oddly enough, that’s exactly what good science is supposed to look like.

I’ve interviewed Avi a number of times now, including during the media frenzy surrounding 3I/ATLAS, and that period taught me something about both journalism (I’m not a journalist btw, just a researcher) and the UFO community.

Before speaking to him back then, I read every article Avi himself had published about the object in preparation for that particular interview with him. What struck me was that almost every piece began with essentially the same disclaimer: “this is most likely a comet, but…”.

Only after establishing that did he begin discussing the object’s unusual characteristics and why they deserved scientific attention. And a bit of speculating on possibilities. Yes ET is a possibility.

That nuance somehow evaporated the moment it reached social media.

Headlines declared that Harvard’s top astronomer thought an alien spacecraft had entered the Solar System and was going to land. Critics then spent weeks attacking him for a claim he hadn’t actually made, while many believers simultaneously became frustrated because he wasn’t declaring it to be alien technology with enough confidence, or because they felt he was sensationalising the subject with wild conclusions.

Both sides, bizarrely, ended up arguing against positions he hadn’t taken.

Ironically, Avi himself raised exactly this frustration during our interview this week. He told me that much of the criticism directed towards him stems from headlines and second-hand interpretations rather than what he actually writes. I have to admit, having read the source material myself, I think he has a point.

Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that we’ve spent decades demanding mainstream scientists engage with this subject, only to instinctively distrust them the moment they do.

We say we want Harvard involved. Then Harvard gets involved. We say we want respected academics to speculate responsibly.

Then we accuse them of being government assets because they don’t immediately confirm our preferred conclusion.

It’s almost impossible to win.

Which brings me neatly onto another accusation that follows Avi around online with remarkable persistence: that he’s somehow working for Mossad, the CIA or whichever intelligence agency happens to be fashionable on social media that week.

Now, could intelligence agencies attempt to influence public conversations? Of course they could. History tells us governments are perfectly capable of doing all sorts of things.

But where’s the evidence in Avi’s case? I’ve looked. Genuinely.

As someone who’s perfectly happy to entertain unusual possibilities if there’s data to support them, I’ve searched for something even slightly concrete. I haven’t found it.

The overwhelming “evidence” seems to boil down to the fact that Avi was born in Israel before becoming an American citizen.

That’s... not evidence.

If someone has something more substantial than rumours based off country of birth, I’d genuinely like to see it. Seriously, leave it in the comments if you have.

If we’re going to ask scientists, whistleblowers or government officials to produce evidence, perhaps we should hold ourselves to exactly the same standard.

One of the more controversial appointments to the new advisory council was Michael Shermer, probably the best-known sceptic in the UFO debate. Some would go further and describe him as a professional debunker. So I asked Avi directly why he’d invited someone with such a reputation.

His answer, I thought, was quite sensible.

He wants someone in the room who doesn’t already agree.

If compelling evidence eventually lands on the table and Shermer is forced to accept it, then that evidence has probably reached the highest standard imaginable. As Avi put it, if someone who has spent years questioning “extraordinary claims” is convinced beyond reasonable doubt, then the rest of us can have far greater confidence that bias hasn’t crept into the process.

Frankly, that’s exactly how science should work.

You don’t build a serious investigation by surrounding yourself with people who already agree with you. You actively invite people who’ll challenge your conclusions.

The interview wasn’t without controversy, however. Discussing former AARO Director Dr Sean Kirkpatrick, Avi didn’t hold back.

“I’m wondering if he’s getting paid by someone...”

He continued:

“It’s either some psychological issue that he has... or he’s being paid to be negative about the disclosure... and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case.”

Whether you agree with those comments or not, they’re among the strongest public criticisms Avi has made and will no doubt generate plenty of discussion.

Walking away from the interview, though, that wasn’t my biggest takeaway.

What stayed with me was something much simpler. Avi Loeb isn’t asking people to believe. He’s asking them to measure. To collect better data. To test every hypothesis, even the uncomfortable ones.

That really shouldn’t be controversial.

In fact, it’s exactly what many of us have spent years asking mainstream science to do.

Perhaps it’s time we stopped eating our own every time someone with genuine academic credibility decides to take the subject seriously.

If we keep doing that, we may eventually get exactly what we wished for.

A scientific community that decides UFOs simply aren’t worth the grief.

If you want to watch the full interview, click the link below.

Want to support my work? Please consider buying me a coffee, here ☕️

That isn’t speculation. It is well documented that DeLonge communicated extensively with John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff and counsellor to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The Man who (apparently) wanted to disclose the reality of UFOs via Hillary Clinton, had she won the Presidency.

Those conversations became public following the release of the Podesta emails by WikiLeaks, revealing that DeLonge wasn’t merely discussing UFOs with enthusiasts on internet forums, or bis buddies on celebrity podcasts, but was engaging directly with senior political and national security figures.

Which is kinda weird, right?

He was emailing back and forth with Podesta about disclosure, his growing network of contacts inside government, and the team he was assembling to help bring the subject into the public domain.

That team would eventually become To The Stars Academy, whose founding members included former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon, former head of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) Luis Elizondo, former CIA operations officer Jim Semivan, and several respected scientists and engineers. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the organisation, the calibre of people willing to publicly associate themselves with DeLonge was unlike anything the UFO community had seen before. Way before they all hit the Congressional hearings, or featured in The Age of Disclosure.

The emails also revealed repeated references to the now missing Major General William Neil McCasland, formerly commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory. McCasland oversaw the organisation responsible for advanced Air Force science and technology programmes, making him one of the most senior research officials in the United States Air Force. Within UFO circles, he has long been rumoured to have been connected to, or at the very least knowledgeable about, the alleged reverse-engineering effort surrounding recovered unidentified craft. If such a programme existed, many researchers have argued that someone in McCasland’s position would almost certainly have been aware of it.

One email is particularly interesting because it records DeLonge telling Podesta that McCasland had helped assemble his advisory team and was “very, very aware” of what DeLonge was attempting to achieve. DeLonge also made the much more extraordinary claim that McCasland had previously overseen the laboratory where material recovered from the Roswell incident had supposedly been taken after the 1947 crash. That allegation has never been substantiated with independent evidence, but it is significant because it demonstrates the level of trust DeLonge believed existed between himself and senior defence figures, and the level of access he believed he had been granted.

Whether DeLonge’s understanding of McCasland’s knowledge was accurate remains open to debate. Nevertheless, what cannot be disputed is that he was communicating with individuals at the highest levels of the defence and intelligence establishment, including people who had held positions with access to some of the United States’ most sensitive aerospace programmes. He wasn’t simply talking to retired officials looking for publicity. His network included people who had served at the highest levels of the Pentagon, the intelligence community and advanced defence research. That context is important because it means his public endorsement of an obscure UFO video carried considerably more weight than if it had come from an ordinary social media account.

Does that make the footage genuine? Well, no. An endorsement is not evidence. By itself it proves absolutely nothing. But it does make the question worth asking: what did Tom DeLonge believe he was looking at when he decided to show this footage to millions of people?

It’s also worth noting that DeLonge didn’t make a habit of publicly endorsing random UFO videos very often or encouraging people to pay attention to specific details within them. When he shared this footage, he specifically drew attention to the unusual swirling sound captured during the encounter and stated that he believed the video was genuine. That makes this case stand out from the thousands of clips that circulate online every year.

Someone convinced him this footage was real and deserved attention.

Whether that person was a witness, a researcher, or someone from within the circles DeLonge had spent years cultivating remains unknown. We simply don’t know. But given the people he was communicating with at the time—including former and serving defence and intelligence officials—it is difficult to dismiss his endorsement as being based on something trivial.

That, perhaps more than anything else, is what makes this case worth revisiting today.

The original video didn’t come from a well-known UFO researcher, filmmaker or media outlet. It appeared on an obscure YouTube channel called ResearchForTruth12, belonging to someone identifying themselves only as “Bob.” The account uploaded just two videos, both showing unusual aerial objects, before disappearing completely. No further uploads. No interviews. No social media presence. No attempts to build a community. More than a decade later, the channel remains exactly as it was left.

Then something remarkable happened.

Years after the upload, Tom DeLonge shared the footage with his audience of well over a million followers, instantly exposing Bob’s forgotten video to one of the largest UFO audiences on the internet. For most YouTube creators, that kind of endorsement would be life-changing. It could have launched an entire channel, generated thousands of pounds in advertising revenue and opened the door to interviews, documentaries and media attention.

But none of that happened.

The channel was not monetised. Bob never returned to acknowledge the sudden interest. He never answered questions, never uploaded another video and never appeared to capitalise on the attention in any way. The account simply fell silent, leaving behind two intriguing videos and a great many unanswered questions.

That behaviour is difficult to ignore because it runs completely against the way viral internet hoaxes normally unfold. People seeking fame usually continue posting. People seeking money monetise. People seeking attention tend to embrace the spotlight. Bob did none of those things. Instead, he walked away from what could have become one of the most talked-about UFO channels on YouTube almost overnight.

There is another strange coincidence. Long-time UFO researchers will immediately recognise the name Bob from the infamous Skinny Bob footage, another anonymous upload that appeared online before its creator vanished without explanation. The similarities almost certainly end there, but it’s an interesting parallel nonetheless. Once again, an anonymous uploader, a couple of mysterious videos, and then complete silence.

ResearchForTruth12 remains one of the more unusual YouTube channels in UFO history.

Watch the full episode, case analysis and footage enhancement below.

Want to support the channel? Please consider buying me a coffee, here ☕️