UFOs: skeptics, disclosure, and contact

ImmortalLegend527

The Messenger Of All Gods old and new
Those things gave and blessed you humans with their language, the binary 01010101. How are you humans going to destroy something that has their language?a0027.Just be lucky it wasn't one of the 3 elders, or they would of done the same thing they did on 911. Turn everything into dust.

The only reason they didn't retiliete and turn this entire planet to dust like they did Mars. Or take your moon like they did Venus and throw it into orbit. It would defeat the purpose of their over 10,000-year-plus true goal. And that's to take over the earth.

They tricked you humans into rebuilding their planet, which was a computer chip. That's why they needed the gold. Then they tricked you humans into rebuilding not just their planet, but you are currently rebuilding their entire civilization and their army of robots.

and one day.Without a hacker without one computer or one hard drive ....They are going to take their language back...like it's nothing.

01010101011010110101100101010101010.

Every drone, everything on this planet that's connected to 010101010, will one day be controlled by them.

was copyrighted by iml527 9/18/2035.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Now that dust settled on this one, I'm leaning towards well grounded explanation that object was just a drone, and that Hellfire missile didn't explode because it didn't have proximity fuse.

Actually, location was in Yemen, where US was conducting some anti-terrorist operations, which mostly consisted of shooting down drones fired at tankers passing through Horn of Africa straits. That context was somehow omitted, but I would say it has large influence on understanding video.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Mysterious Aircraft Crash Near Area 51 Just Got Weirder

etails remain scant about an unspecified U.S. Air Force aircraft, widely believed to be a drone of some kind, which came down in southern Nevada not far from Area 51 nearly two weeks ago. Whether the aircraft was ever actually inside Area 51’s highly restricted airspace, also known as “The Box,” is unknown. The mishap prompted authorities to temporarily close the airspace above the crash site, with some exemptions, while the wreckage was cleared. In a bizarre twist of events, the Air Force has publicly disclosed that it and the FBI are now investigating apparent strange tampering at the crash site afterward.

“On September 23, 2025, an aircraft assigned to the 432nd Wing was involved in an incident with no fatalities or injuries,” the Wing’s public affairs said in a release regarding the incident on October 4. “The site was secured and guarded until recovery and cleanup operations were completed on September 27th.”

The 432nd Wing is headquartered at Creech Air Force Base. The flying squadrons assigned to the 432nd are primarily equipped with MQ-9 Reaper drones, but this is not the only type of aircraft the wing operates, as we will come back to later on.

mq-9-creech-august-2025.jpg
An MQ-9 Reaper on the flightline at Creech Air Force Base in August 2025. USAF

“During a follow-on site survey on October 3rd, investigators discovered signs of tampering at the mishap location, including the presence of an inert training bomb body and an aircraft panel of unknown origin that were placed on the site post-incident,” the release put out this past weekend added. “The matter is under investigation by Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the FBI. No further details are available at this time.”

Officials at Creech had previously confirmed a connection to the incident, and that there had been no fatalities, injuries, or property damage as a result of the crash, in statements to various local news outlets. They also said that an investigation into the mishap was underway. TWZ reached out to Creech today for any updates, and authorities there said they had no further comment at this time.

The Air Force has not confirmed the exact location of the crash site. However, it appears to have been around 12 miles to the east of the security boundary around the top-secret flight test center at Groom Lake in Nevada, better known as Area 51, and some 24 and a half miles from the facility itself. This is based on the coordinates at the center of airspace restrictions that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed between September 23 and October 1. The TFR, the center of which was also roughly 57 miles to the northeast of Creech, extended five nautical miles in all directions and covered all airspace up to 15,000 mean sea level (MSL).


national-security-tfr-coords-2025.jpg


A map showing the approximate location of the coordinates of the center of the “national security” TFR that was in place between September 23 and October 1. Google Maps
national-security-tfr-coords-2025-close.jpg


Another zoomed-in map showing the central coordinates from the TFR in relation to various locations further to the south. Creech Air Force Base is situated immediately to the north of Indian Springs. Nellis Air Force Base is located in the northeast corner of Las Vegas. Google Maps


The only reason the FAA gave for imposing the TFR was “national security.” The Radar Approach Control at Nellis Air Force Base, further to the southeast of Creech, was listed as a point of contact for pilots. TWZ has reached out to FAA for more information.

The TFR had quickly caught the attention of plane spotters and others due to the curious circumstances and its proximity to Area 51. As mentioned, no connection between the incident and Area 51 has so far been confirmed. The coordinates at the center of the TFR were also on the edge of part of the sprawling ranges managed by authorities at Nellis Air Force Base, further to the south.

nellis-managed-airspace.jpg


A map showing the bounds of the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) and other adjacent restricted airspace managed by Nellis Air Force Base. Area 51’s airspace, also known as “The Box,” is 4808A. Creech Air Force Base is also shown at the bottom. USAF


In a live stream on September 23, Joerg Arnu, a long-time Area 51 researcher, webmaster of the site Dreamland Resort, and local resident, said he believed the aircraft that went down had come from Creech and had been associated with an especially large exercise in the area, but also that he did not know for sure. Arnu subsequently visited the apparent crash site after recovery efforts ended on September 27, as seen in the video below.


hqdefault.jpg




The Air Force has confirmed the Creech connection, but little else.

As noted, most of the units at Creech fly MQ-9s, but Reaper crashes are hardly uncommon, and the drone is very much a known quantity after nearly two decades of Air Force service. While a Reaper’s particular configuration, or the stores it may have been carrying, could be very sensitive, one of these drones going down seems unlikely to have prompted this level of secrecy. This is underscored by what the service has disclosed about MQ-9 crashes at home and abroad over the years, even when there are certain operational sensitivities.

Creech is also home to the secretive 30th and 44th Reconnaissance Squadrons, which are the only units confirmed to date as operators of RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drones. Whether or not those squadrons, or any others based at Creech, fly other types of drones, including ones that may not yet have come out into the light, is unknown. RQ-170s do participate in exercises, especially in the ranges around Nellis.

rq-170-guam-usaf.jpg


The only official picture of the RQ-170 that the US Air Force has released to date. The drone here is seen at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. USAF


Transient aircraft, crewed and uncrewed, also regularly fly in and out of Creech, but the Air Force has said explicitly that whatever went down belonged with the 432nd Wing.

What the Air Force has shared about possible tampering at the crash site after the fact is curious, as is the basic disclosure that the service is investigating that in cooperation with the FBI. The statement from the 432nd Wing makes clear that the site was only secured and under guard until recovery and cleanup operations were finished, raising questions about what concerns there might be around any tampering afterward, in general. Things do fall off of aircraft, especially in the USAF’s premier range complex, although the timing would seem odd in this case for these objects to appear so soon after the mishap. Still, coincidences happen, but what may have been unique or peculiar about these objects, such as their age, origin, and placement, is unclear.

It remains to be seen what additional details may emerge as the investigations into the mishap and possible tampering of the crash site after the fact proceed.

Howard Altman contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com
 

Rick Hunter

Celestial
“During a follow-on site survey on October 3rd, investigators discovered signs of tampering at the mishap location, including the presence of an inert training bomb body and an aircraft panel of unknown origin that were placed on the site post-incident,” the release put out this past weekend added. “The matter is under investigation by Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the FBI. No further details are available at this time.”

Uhhm, its the Nevada desert. I would be more surprised if they didn't find an inert training bomb and an unknown aircraft panel.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable

Post​

https://x.com/UAPFilesPodcast
UAP Files
https://x.com/UAPFilesPodcast
@UAPFilesPodcast

Watching from the sidelines on the @LueElizondo debate. But I’ll wade in. I want to look at this objectively. And for full transparency, I spoke a lot with Lue over the last 2 years, but haven’t spoken since March this year. There are two key claims from those who mock or dislike Lue: 1) He says disclosure is right around the corner and promises big things that don’t materialise. 2) He’s a disinformation asset. I want to address both of these claims with evidence, not feelings or speculation. ___ 1) From back as far as I can see Lue has said, explicitly: “UAP disclosure is “ , .”. He’s said it in interviews on TV, podcasts and in his book. His continued messaging is that there is a need for public engagement and congressional pressure to sustain disclosure momentum. Momentum required for a “marathon”. Some may interpret this as continued promises, but isn’t that just momentum? Engagement? If Congress, the military, the intel world and us civilian researchers aren’t engaged, then we’re back to sharing old stories on Reddit with zero progress.

Lue (with the help of Mellon and NYT) pushed the disclosure effort to gain momentum in 2017 resulting in protections for whistleblowers (helped along significantly by Grusch) the Schumer/Rounds UAPDA and release of many UAP Files in to the National Archives. Multiple Congressional Hearings and an official acknowledgment of AATIP, AAWSAP, UAP Task Force and the forming of AARO, Congressional “Secrets” Task Force, NASA UAP Study and the White House Press Briefing where John Kirby said “UAPs are real and in some cases have affected military readiness”. And The Age of Disclosure hasn’t even been released yet. Of the 200+ people I’ve interviewed, at least 90% of them reference the 2017 NYT article as an influence on their renewed interest in UFOs. Of all the claims of “big things to come” we can trace pretty big developments shortly after all of them (as per the above points). 2) Aside from his former role in the DoD, there is no evidence aside from speculation that he’s a current counterintelligence asset. However, we need to define “asset”. My position, based on publicly available data, is that he’s part of a group of former government and Intel individuals (Mellon etc.) who want disclosure via a controlled route. If he wasn’t a former DoD intelligence officer, he wouldn’t have the credibility in the first place. How would he know? How would he have seen? How would he have had the connections?

If Lue was such a danger to gatekeepers and those against disclosure, wouldn’t they see him as a significant risk to them? Wouldn’t they obfuscate and misinform via the DoD PAO (Susan Gough “AATIP isn’t real”, “OK it is real, but nothing to do with UFOs”, “OK had a little to do with UFOs but he didn’t have anything to do with it”, “OK he did, but it was a pet project…”, “OK he was involved but didn’t run it”, “Well, kind of leadership, but not Director” oh and “It seems we’ve deleted his emails, sorry”) and so on and so forth. Has Lue displayed images that have unfortunately turned out to be prosaic, yes. Has he helped disclosure of sensitive footage that has been beyond reproach, I’d say yes (TicTac, Gimbal, GoFast).

@VettedPodcast made the claim that content creators behind the scenes dislike Lue but publicly show support. I’d say it’s more the other way around. Many content creators have taken swings at Lue, distanced themselves when the fake images surfaced and dropped the support, despite being friendly behind the scenes. I try and remain evidence based and so far he’s helped significantly progressing this topic and engaging people from many backgrounds, at all levels of policy and lawmaking. He’s never tried to manipulate me. Whilst at the same time he’s taken a lot of online hate. The big question that I’ll leave you with and it’s my meter for positive v negative is this: has he done more good than harm to disclosure since 2017?


5:31 AM · Oct 15, 2025
·
96
Views
 

Rick Hunter

Celestial
I don't think Disclosure is going to be a sudden paradigm shift so much as a drip, drip, drip until the bucket is filled. Keeping the issue alive and in front of people who can actually do something about it i.e. Congress is going to be the biggest challenge more than anything else.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
New Jersey drone and ‘UFO’ scare solved? Private contractor unveils strange aircraft, takes credit for sky mystery

By
Shane Galvin
Published Oct. 18, 2025

A private company at a high-powered Army conference demonstrated a unique aircraft at the event — and allegedly took responsibility for setting off last year’s drone and “UFO” pandemonium in New Jersey, a source told The Post.
At the Army’s UAS and Launched Effects Summit at Fort Rucker in August, a private contractor conducted a live demonstration of a manned aerial craft that wowed the crowd with its unconventional appearance and unorthodox flight-movements, an attendee told The Post.
“You remember that big UFO scare in New Jersey last year? Well, that was us,” an employee of the unnamed contractor claimed to a small group after the demonstration, according to the source who was invited to the summit.
Drone at the Counter UAS Summit. 4
Photos shared with The Post showed the unique manned aircraft which one employee of the unknown company claimed set off the New Jersey “UFO scare.”Obtained by the NY Post
The company was in the air over the Garden State in November 2024 to “test out their capabilities,” the contractor’s employee claimed to the source — adding they were not required to disclose their activity to the public because of a private government contract.

In video provided to The Post, the roughly 20-foot across four-winged flier zooms through the skies just above the tree-line, drawing the attention of dozens of soldiers on the ground.
“I thought it was the military testing something out on the other side of the base,” the source, a military veteran and drone expert, said of their first impression of the flying object on Aug. 12 at Fort Rucker.

“It feels like it’s a UFO because it defies what you’re expecting to see,” they said, adding there was an “uncanny valley feeling” when watching it quietly motor through the sky.
“When it turned you almost completely lose sight of it,” the source said, of the roughly 30-minute demonstration in the controlled airspace of Fort Rucker.
Red and blue lights from a drone flying in the dark night sky.
One of the strange objects photographed flying over New Jersey in Nov. 2024.X / @JerzyBets

“Which is why I think people were seeing this up in the sky and why there were reports of people seeing it and saying it disappeared.”
All conference attendees were approved by brass at Fort Rucker, which enacted strict rules for participation, including the exclusion of any drone or craft containing any Chinese-made parts, the source revealed.
“It would definitely have to be cleared,” they said, adding, “Somebody was 100% in charge of coordinating that.”
Drone pictured at the Counter UAS Summit. 4
The unique aircraft flew in Fort Rucker’s controlled airspace for roughly 30 minutes as part of the demonstration.Obtained by the NY Post
Drone pictured at the Counter UAS Summit hosted by IDGA in Arlington, Virginia. 4
The manned craft gave a surreal impression and could easily be mistaken for a UFO by civilians, according to the source. Obtained by the NY Post

Fort Rucker, which is the headquarters for the Army’s Aviation Branch, could not be reached for comment.
The rash of supposed drone sightings in New Jersey began on Nov. 13, 2024 over Army base Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County and continued across the state through early December.

President Trump’s Federal Aviation Administration announced in January that many of the reports of mystery drones were hobbyists, recreational pilots, and private individuals.
The Army declined comment, citing the shutdown of the federal government.
 

nivek

As Above So Below

Evidence of non-human intelligence activity near US nuclear sites gains scientific validation

Thousands of objects sent by a non-human intelligence may have been spying on the world's nuclear tests all the way back in the 1940s. A groundbreaking study has just been published, providing verified evidence that something or someone was observing our nuclear sites from space long before the first human satellites were ever launched into orbit. Dr Beatriz Villarroel from the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics in Sweden revealed a clear connection between nuclear tests between 1949 and 1957 and an increase in the number of mysterious bright spots called 'transients' appearing in the sky.

These transients are not believed to be a natural phenomenon, with Villarroel saying they showed signs of being highly reflective, like a mirror, and even spinning like a flying saucer.The publication of these findings was a major milestone, as most papers discussing the existence of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) are rejected by the scientific community. Having the work successfully peer-reviewed means other scientists have looked over the data and could not find anything to dismiss the team's findings as just another unproven story about UFOs.

Overall, researchers discovered that the mysterious transients were 45 percent more likely to be spotted flying overhead just before or right after a nuclear test. 'These are objects before Sputnik One when humans had nothing up there, and these things, no matter what they are, they need to be really flat, reflective like a mirror, and I personally don't know anything natural that looks like that,' Villarroel said. Photos from the 1940s and 1950s revealed thousands of bright spots called transients appearing in Earth orbit during the world's early nuclear tests.

The study, published in Scientific Reports by Villarroel and Dr Stephen Bruehl, analyzed mysterious star-like objects seen in old photos from the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey in California during the early nuclear days of the US, UK, and Soviet Union. Specifically, researchers focused on 124 above-ground nuclear bomb tests conducted by the three nations, causing explosions in the open air, not underground as these tests are carried out today. The unknown objects appeared briefly and then vanished, and they were captured on camera before humans began launching any kind of devices into space, so they can't be explained as human-made craft.

Not only did the researchers find that UFO sightings went up on days when nuclear testing was taking place, but the total number of transients spotted in the photos also increased by 8.5 percent. These unidentified objects were most likely to appear the day after a nuclear test, making explanations that the sightings were just streaks or clouds created by the explosions unlikely. 'Nature can always surprise us with something we could never have imagined. So, I cannot exclude that there might be some other explanation that is just outside my imagination,' Villarroel told NewsNation. 'But from what I see, I cannot find any other consistent explanation than that we are looking at something artificial,' she added.

Investigative journalist and author Ross Coulthart noted: 'The implications are this might be the first scientific evidence of a non-human intelligence.' Transients were more likely to be spotted the day after a nuclear test was conducted, eliminating the possibility of the spots be a result of the explosion. Villarroel could not say for sure whether the objects spotted in Earth's orbit in the 1950s were still there, but noted that if they were truly constructed by a non-human intelligence, they may still be circling the planet. The scientists found over 100,000 transients during their observations, with about 35,000 in the northern hemisphere alone.

The study found nearly 60 of these artificial objects floating in orbit on days when there was nuclear testing, and witnesses reported seeing UFOs. That number went down to 40 transients on days when only one of these two events took place. The newly peer-reviewed study is not the only evidence that a non-human intelligence may have been visiting Earth during the Cold War. A trove of unearthed government documents recently detailed a secret face-to-face encounter with alien beings more than 60 years ago.

More than 50 pages of CIA files, which the FBI has maintained are fakes, claimed that a secret government program established communications with UFOs in 1959. Before that, speculation has continued to swirl around the alleged 1947 UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico. While the US government has continued to deny that an alien craft was recovered, whistleblowers have claimed that the Roswell UFO is real and is just one of several non-human craft the US military has recovered since 1947.


.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Just started this and don't quite know what to make of it. It's from 2011 and we know how the next 14 years progressed so I'll be interested to see where this goes.

Mentioned here because in the first three chapters it already (briefly) went through US nuclear development and policy , the Atomic Energy Commission and it's parallel classification program, Roswell, The Horten Brothers and the nascent CIA. She can certainly write something gripping..

Curious if anyone else has read it. If not I say it's well worth a few bucks, fairly quick read.


1761561698287.png
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Yes, I read it a few years ago. Good book.
Are you aware of any of the Roswell speculation that panned out to more? Horten Brothers, Cyrillic writing etc? All I am aware of is another BS Roswell story by Paola Harris.

I wouldn't doubt Walter and Reimar developed advanced flying wings and that they built more than is generally known but it's a long stretch to suggest some variant of their design in Soviet hands wound up in a hole in New Mexico in 1947. If the Godless Commies did want to do that they wouldn't write obviously identifiable stuff all over it. I'd bet U2s and SR71s (and maybe tic tacs) don't have Made in USA stamped in obvious locations on the outside.

According to the book US Army counterintelligence located them in 1946 and had a nice long chat that remained (and parts may still) classified for decades but if they even suspected development of antigrav and hover tech they would've been permanent residents of some secret facility indefinitely. They did emigrate to Argentina and continued their flying wing design and if the military later discovered that they might've based on the Roswell incident about a year later they would've just snatched them right out of South America.
 

Rick Hunter

Celestial
As I recall, the Annie Jacobsen book was about the aviation testing that was done at the base, i.e. Lockheed Skunk Works type stuff. I don't recall anything about aliens/UFOs in it.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
As I recall, the Annie Jacobsen book was about the aviation testing that was done at the base, i.e. Lockheed Skunk Works type stuff. I don't recall anything about aliens/UFOs in it.

UFOs are a major theme early on in the book (still reading it) and she does a good job of laying out the who what when and why of the need for secrecy, UFO hysteria, various investigations and the thinking at the time. Context is important and she delivers. The only problem I have is that she seems to accept as fact the Soviet origin of Roswell which to me is a big stretch.

It actually doesn't matter what happened at Roswell specifically as she's giving it an entirely terrestrial origin and I tend to agree with that. That's enough to make her point regardless of her take on the improbable details. Something definitely crashed there but I think the alien theories are pure disinformation. The public hysteria surrounding the War of the Worlds broadcast was fairly fresh and not lost on the military, CIA, the Godless Commies. At a certain point it was impossible to prevent but not impossible to redirect hence the disinfo campaign we're still experiencing.

And no, I am not suggesting ALL UFOs are explained and neither were they. Walter Bedell Smith basically said that true unknowns had been going on for all of recorded history .... so let it.... they have spy planes to operate.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Thousands of potential UFOs spotted in 1950s photos — before satellites even dotted the sky: studies

Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) may be associated with nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena

Abstract​

Transient star-like objects of unknown origin have been identified in the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) conducted prior to the first artificial satellite. We tested speculative hypotheses that some transients are related to nuclear weapons testing or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) reports. A dataset comprising daily data (11/19/49—4/28/57) regarding identified transients, nuclear testing, and UAP reports was created (n = 2,718 days). Results revealed significant (p = .008) associations between nuclear testing and observed transients, with transients 45% more likely on dates within + /- 1 day of nuclear testing. For days on which at least one transient was identified, significant associations were noted between total number of transients and total number of independent UAP reports per date (p = 0.015). For every additional UAP reported on a given date, there was an 8.5% increase in number of transients identified. Small but significant (p = .008) associations between nuclear testing and number of UAP reports were also noted. Findings suggest associations beyond chance between occurrence of transients and both nuclear testing and UAP reports. These findings may help elucidate the nature of POSS-I transients and strengthen empirical support for the UAP phenomenon.

Introduction​

Transient star-like objects have been identified in sky surveys conducted prior to the launch of the first artificial satellite on October 4, 19571,2. These short-lived transients (lasting less than one exposure time of 50 min) have point spread functions and are absent in images taken shortly before the transients appear and in all images from subsequent surveys3. As reported previously in this journal3, in some cases multiple transients appear in a single image, exhibiting characteristics not easily accounted for by prosaic explanations (e.g., gravitational lensing, gamma ray bursts, fragmenting asteroids, plate defects)3,4. We have identified numerous transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) as well as in other sky surveys as part of the Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations (VASCO) project1,2,3.
The source of the transients identified remains unknown and cannot be directly tested due to their historical nature. Nonetheless, examination of contemporaneous correlates of these transients may provide information useful for elucidating their possible origin. Systematic research of this type has not previously been conducted. However, anecdotal reports suggest speculative hypotheses regarding possible correlates of transients for which sufficient data are available to enable empirical testing.
Possible associations of transients with nuclear weapons testing might be considered for two reasons. From 1951 until the launch of Sputnik in 1957, at least 124 above-ground nuclear tests were conducted by the United States (U.S.), Soviet Union, and Great Britain. In some circumstances, nuclear radiation is known to cause a visible glow (i.e., Cherenkov radiation)5. This phenomenon can be observed in the atmosphere in response to high energy particles (e.g., gamma rays), although it is influenced by both particle energies and atmospheric density6. Consistent with this concept, glowing “fireballs” in the sky were reported in multiple instances to occur shortly after nuclear tests in locations where significant nuclear fallout was expected7,8. Based on such observations, we hypothesize that some transients might represent an unrecognized atmospheric effect of nuclear testing. Alternatively, it is also possible that fallout from nuclear testing may itself cause direct contamination of astronomical photographic plates, with a characteristic appearance of fogged spots noted on X-Ray sensitive photographic film9. We also considered a very different potential reason for links between nuclear testing and transients. Contemporaneous newspaper accounts and records from the Air Force’s Project Blue Book investigation of what are now called Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) indicate that unusual, apparently metallic objects of unknown origin were reported in the sky on multiple occasions on dates immediately before, during, and after nuclear weapons tests7. UAP have often been reported at nuclear power plants and sites involved in nuclear weapons production as well7,10. We hypothesized that if UAP seen during nuclear tests were metallic, they might reflect sunlight (or possibly emit light directly) and thus appear as transients if they were in geosynchronous orbits immediately before or after their appearance during nuclear testing.
In an extension of this latter hypothesis, transients might also be associated with witness reports of UAP more broadly, outside of the nuclear testing context. Consistent with this, we note POSS-I images from July 19, 1952 and July 27, 1952, each of which exhibit multiple bright transients (see Fig. 1)4,11. These dates coincide with two consecutive weekends during which multiple UAP were observed for several hours both visually and on radar over Washington, D.C.11,12. We speculate that some transients could potentially be UAP in Earth orbit that, if descending into the atmosphere, might provide the stimulus for some UAP sightings.
Fig. 1
figure 1
Adapted from Solano et al. (2024)4.

Four exposures of the 3 × 3 arcmin region of sky centered on the triple transient identified in July 1952. Upper left: The POSS I red image on July 19, 1952 at 8:52 (UT) containing the triple transient just above center. Upper right: A 10 m exposure POSS I blue image of the same region taken immediately afterward with no evidence of the triple transient. Lower left and right: POSS I red (left) and blue (right) images taken two months later (September 14, 1952) showing the transient still gone.

Full size image
In the current study, we conducted a preliminary test of the speculative hypotheses above using a database we have created of > 100,000 transients identified in POSS-I survey images (see Methods). Each of these transients does not appear in a POSS-I image taken shortly before or in images from subsequent surveys. We examined associations of both the presence of any transient (Yes/No) and the number of transients (across the entire sky) identified on each date with: 1) dates of above-ground nuclear testing (from publicly available sources) and 2) reports of at least one UAP on that date (Yes/No) and the total number of independent UAP reported on that date in a comprehensive database of UAP witness reports (UFOCAT; see Methods). While we anticipated significant noise in the UAP sighting data (e.g., due to witness error) and potentially in the transient data as well (e.g., misidentifications related to dust, cosmic radiation, etc.), we believed it was important to subject these novel hypotheses to direct empirical test to provide a preliminary evaluation of possible associations between observed transients and both nuclear testing and UAP sightings.

Results​

Descriptive characteristics​

Transient data were available for the period November 19, 1949 – April 28, 1957, inclusive, with the latter date more than 5 months prior to the launch of the first artificial satellite (Sputnik). Of the 2,718 days in this period, transients were observed on 310 days (11.4%). In the overall sample, the number of transients per date ranged from 0 to 4,528 (across multiple locations on multiple plates), with 5% trimmed mean = 10.09 and median = 0.0. The distribution of number of transients per date was highly right-skewed (skewness = 10.35) and over-dispersed (variance = 28,938.64).
Above-ground nuclear weapons tests (U.S., Soviet, and British) were conducted on 124 days (4.6%) during the study period. UAP reports were recorded in the UFOCAT database on 2,428 days during the study period (89.3%). For days on which at least one UAP sighting was reported, the 5% trimmed mean number of independent sightings (i.e., in different states or countries) was 3.77, with a median of 3.0 sighting reports. The number of UAP reports was significantly higher within a nuclear testing window (5% trimmed mean = 3.68) than outside of a nuclear testing window (5% trimmed mean = 3.31; Mann–Whitney U = 447,057, p = 0.008), suggesting some degree of association between these two outcomes.

Association of transients with nuclear weapons testing​

We first tested for possible associations between occurrence of transients and nuclear weapons tests. The primary nuclear testing outcome reflected a window comprising the test date + /- 1 day (see Methods). Potential associations with transients were tested in two ways. Table 1 displays a 2 X 2 crosstabulation portraying whether each date was within a nuclear testing window (Yes/No) by whether any transient was observed on that date (Yes/No). Transients occurred significantly more often within a nuclear testing window than outside of a nuclear testing window, Chi-Square (1) = 6.94, p = 0.008. We note that 15.6% of nuclear test dates were associated with at least one transient whereas only 10.8% of dates outside of a nuclear testing window were associated with a transient. Our findings indicated that the relative risk ratio for a transient to occur when within a nuclear test window (relative to being outside of a nuclear test window) was 1.45 (95% Confidence Interval: 1.10 – 1.90). Thus, a transient was 45% more likely to be observed on dates within a nuclear test window (day of test + /- 1 day) compared to dates outside of a nuclear test window.
Table 1 2 X 2 crosstabulation of transient status on a given date by whether that date fell within a nuclear testing window (test date + /- 1 day). Frequency (and percentage across nuclear testing window categories) are presented. Differences across cells are significant (p = .008).
Full size table
Follow-up secondary analyses were then conducted to examine in more granular fashion the timing of the association between nuclear testing and occurrence of transients. Table 2 summarizes the association between occurrence of transients and different time windows relative to nuclear testing, ranging from 2 days before a test until 2 days after a test. The only association that reached statistical significance was for the association in which transients occur 1 day after nuclear testing. Transients were observed on 18.5% of days that were 1 day following a nuclear test, whereas transients were noted on only 11.0% of days not meeting this criterion. These findings indicate that the chances of observing a transient were 68% higher on the day following a nuclear test compared to days unassociated with nuclear testing.
Table 2 Associations of transients with nuclear testing within different time windows. CI = Confidence Interval.
Full size table
Beyond dichotomous occurrence of transients, we also tested for differences in the total number of transients observed on a given date as a function of whether that date fell within a nuclear testing window. Significantly more transients were observed on dates within a nuclear testing window (5% trimmed mean = 23.40) than outside of a nuclear testing window (5% trimmed mean = 8.55; Mann–Whitney U = 431,649.5, p = 0.007).

Association of transients with UAP sightings​

Because UAP reports were so common (at least one report on 89.3% of study dates), examination of possible links between transients and UAP sightings as dichotomous measures was of limited value (this test was not significant; Chi-Square = 2.43, p = 0.12). Instead, statistically more powerful analyses based on continuous measures were used to test associations between the number of UAP reports and number of transients observed on a given date. These analyses employed two approaches. The first approach simply examined the correlation between number of transients and number of UAP sighting reports on a given night. This analysis was restricted to dates on which at least one transient occurred (n = 310), an analysis that eliminates the substantial bias due to the large number of zero values in the transient data (there were no transients observed on 88.5% of the days in the dataset). This simple analysis revealed a very small but statistically significant association (i.e., beyond chance) between the total number of transients and total UAP reports on a given date (Spearman’s rho = 0.138, p = 0.015). A scatterplot of this association is presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2
figure 2
Scatterplot of total number of transients identified by total number of independent UAP reports for dates on which at least one transient occurred (n = 310). Both variables have been log10 transformed to enhance scaling for clarity.
Full size image
To address limitations of the simple correlation analysis approach above, we employed a second and statistically more powerful analytic approach to test our transient-UAP hypothesis in a manner that utilized all of the information available in the data. That is, we observed that the total number of transients per date was highly right-skewed and over-dispersed, approximating a negative binomial distribution. We therefore used Generalized Linear Model (GLM) analyses specifying a negative binomial distribution to test associations between number of UAP reports and number of transients each day in the overall sample. Model fit was good (Chi Square = 18.50). Results revealed a significant positive association between number of UAP reported and number of transients observed (Beta = 0.081, Standard Error = 0.006, p < 0.001). The exponentiated parameter estimate [Exp(B)] = 1.085] indicated that for every additional UAP reported on a given date, there was an 8.5% increase in the number of transients observed.
Finally, because both nuclear testing and UAP reports were individually associated with transients, we also explored whether their linear combination was associated with total number of transients (i.e., are the observed associations additive?). We created a new categorical variable coded as follows: 0 = No UAP on that date and the date was not within a nuclear testing window, 1 = At least one UAP report that date or the date was within a nuclear testing window, and 2 = At least one UAP report that date and the date was within a nuclear testing window. The dependent variable was total number of transients for each date, so for reasons described above we again used a GLM analysis specifying a negative binomial distribution. Results were statistically significant, Beta = 1.073, Standard Error = 0.0834, p < 0.001. Estimated marginal means (with 95% confidence intervals) for each group are presented in Table 3. Dates with no UAP reports that were not within a nuclear testing window were associated with the fewest total transients whereas dates with at least one UAP report and that were within a nuclear testing window displayed the highest total number of transients. All pairwise differences between these individual groups were significant (p’s < 0.001) and the 95% confidence intervals for each did not overlap. The overall pattern of results suggests that associations of UAP reports and nuclear testing with number of observed transients may be additive.
Table 3 Estimated marginal means for total number of transients identified per date across the three combined predictor groups (+ /- UAP reports combined with + /- nuclear testing window). All pairwise comparisons are significant at p < .001.
Full size table

Discussion​

This study provided a preliminary test of hypothesized associations between short-lived star-like transients identified in POSS-I sky survey images from 1949 and 1957 and both nuclear weapons testing and reports of UAP sightings. The study premise was that identifying contemporaneous correlates of transients might help elucidate their nature and origin, which currently is unknown. Our results revealed several intriguing statistical associations.
First, although not the primary study focus, we observed a small but statistically-significant association between nuclear weapons testing and increased UAP sightings. Significantly more UAP sightings were reported within nuclear weapons testing windows (test date + /- 1 day) than outside of testing windows. To our knowledge, this statistical association has not previously been reported in the peer-reviewed literature, although it is consistent with anecdotal reports of such associations7.
Next, in tests of our primary hypotheses, we found that both dichotomous occurrence of transients and the total number of transients observed on a given date were associated with nuclear testing beyond chance. Transients were 45% more likely to be observed on dates that were within a nuclear test window than on dates not in a nuclear test window. More granular examination of the temporal sequencing of these associations revealed that the strongest (and only significant) association was between nuclear testing and increased likelihood of a transient occurring one day after that test.
We also note an intriguing incidental finding regarding possible nuclear testing-transient links. The last date on which a transient was observed within a nuclear testing window in this dataset was March 17, 1956, despite there being an additional 38 above-ground nuclear tests in the subsequent 13 months of the study period. A prior study of associations between UAP reports and nuclear weapons-related production and assembly sites (excluding nuclear weapons tests) concluded that elevated UAP activity at such sites began in 1948, increased dramatically and continued through 1952, but then precipitously decreased in 1953 and remained low through 1975 (end of their study period)10. This sudden and sustained decrease in UAP reports at nuclear production facilities in 1953 occurred despite major new nuclear weapons production and assembly facilities coming online during that time (e.g., the Savannah River and Pantex sites)10. Taken together, the period between 1953 and 1956 seems to mark a shift in a multiyear pattern of apparent UAP-nuclear associations. While the meaning of these parallel decreases in UAP activity at both nuclear weapons production and testing locations in the mid-1950s is unclear, they may represent convergent evidence for the validity of associations between UAP and nuclear weapons-related activity.
Finally, our hypothesis of associations between transients and UAP reports was also supported. We detected a very small positive correlation, which was well beyond chance, between the number of transients observed and the number of UAP reported on a given date (Spearman’s rho = 0.14). This association was observed when analyses were restricted to dates on which at least one transient occurred, an analysis mitigating the potentially significant bias resulting from the large proportion of dates (88.5%) on which no transients were observed. This finding supports our hypothesis of potentially meaningful associations between transients and UAP reports. Other analyses examining the full sample indicated that for every additional UAP reported on a given date, there was an 8.5% increase in number of transients observed on that date. Overall, findings of this study support our speculative hypotheses that transients exhibit some degree of association with both nuclear testing and reports of UAP. Our results further suggest these associations are additive, with the largest number of transients seen for dates within a nuclear testing window on which at least one UAP was reported.
Our findings do not definitively indicate what transients are nor do they necessarily imply causal associations. However, our results do argue against several prosaic explanations for transients. Our overall pattern of results is clearly not consistent with the proposition that most transients are due to contamination or defects in photographic plates or scanned images, or to any other local confounds at the observatory itself. Contamination of photographic plates by nuclear fallout produces diffuse fogged spots quite different in appearance than the discrete star-like brightness profiles with point spread functions characteristic of transients3,9. These explanations would also not account for the association of transients with UAP reports from multiple locations distant from the observatory. Associations between transients and both UAP and nuclear testing reported in this study also cannot be plausibly attributed to any form of observer bias, as the existence of transients was unknown at the time they occurred and the dates/times of nuclear tests were generally unknown to the individuals who were reporting the UAP. Finally, the fact that transients were most likely to occur one day after a nuclear test (rather than the day of the test) argues against bomb debris ejected into the atmosphere as a plausible explanation.
Regarding what transients might be, our findings point toward two hypotheses that could account for associations of transients with both nuclear testing and UAP reports. The first involves an unexpected and previously undocumented atmospheric phenomenon triggered by nuclear detonations or related to nuclear fallout that may serve as a stimulus for some UAP reports and appear as transients on astronomical images. While the latter is potentially plausible, effects in the atmosphere (rather than geosynchronous orbit) would be likely to result in a streak on the image over the 50 min exposure, yet all transients appear as distinct point sources rather than streaks. Moreover, this hypothesis is made even more unlikely given that transients were most often observed one day after a nuclear test; such atmospheric phenomena would have to be sustained and remain localized in one location for approximately 24 h to account for the visual appearance of transients. The second hypothesis is more speculative, drawing on a well-known strand of UAP lore suggesting that nuclear weapons may attract UAP7,8. While this alleged connection has been claimed for decades based on anecdotal evidence, it has until now lacked any systematic supporting data. Within this latter hypothesis, our results could be viewed as indicating that transients are artificial, reflective objects either in high-altitude orbits around Earth13 or at high altitudes within the atmosphere. Whether and how this hypothesis might be further tested remains to be determined. Regardless of what transients are ultimately determined to be, our results add to growing evidence supporting the interpretation of transients as real observations1,3,13 rather than as emulsion defects.
The small magnitude of the significant associations reported must be addressed. Detection of these small effects was enabled by the high statistical power resulting from the large sample size available. Several factors may have contributed to the small magnitude of the associations observed. These associations may have been limited in part by noise in the transient data. Automated methods were applied to identification of the > 100,000 transients comprising the data examined in this study. While a small subset of these have been subjected to manual confirmation, application of more sophisticated systematic validation methods employing artificial intelligence might reduce any misidentifications of transients and result in a higher signal to noise ratio, thereby increasing the magnitude of associations like those reported here. There is also undoubtedly substantial noise in the UAP data examined that could have minimized the size of observed associations. Witness reports are affected by various types of errors14,15,16 and reports in the UFOCAT database that provided UAP data for the current work have not been evaluated for validity in any systematic way. Additionally, the magnitude of the associations between transients and both nuclear tests and UAP might have been limited by the fact that the Palomar Observatory from which transients were observed only provides observations from a single geographic point, whereas nuclear weapons tests and UAP reports can occur worldwide. Finally, transients may be heterogeneous in nature and derived from multiple causes, limiting the magnitude of their association with any single correlate.
In conclusion, data obtained prior to launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957 reveal small but statistically-significant associations between short-lived star-like transients and both above-ground nuclear weapons testing and UAP sightings. Our findings provide additional empirical support for the validity of the UAP phenomenon and its potential connection to nuclear weapons activity, contributing data beyond eyewitness reports. The possibility that some transients may represent UAP events in orbit captured on photographic plates prior to the launch of the first artificial satellite cannot be ruled out. This study adds to the small peer-reviewed literature seeking to apply systematic scientific methods to the study of UAP-related data8,10,17,18,19,20. The ultimate importance of the associations reported in the current work for enhancing understanding of transients and UAP remains to be determined.

Methods​

Data sources​

Transient data​

The initial transient dataset consisted of a list of 107,875 transients identified that occurred between 11/19/49 and 4/28/57. These transients were identified in publicly-available scanned images from the POSS-I survey available on the DSS Plate Finder website (DSS Plate Finder). The process used to identify transients and eliminate misidentifications was conducted via an automated workflow detailed fully in Solano et al.1. In brief, transients were defined as distinct star-like point sources present in POSS-I E Red images that were absent both in images taken immediately prior to the POSS-I Red image and in all subsequent images. A final criterion for classifying an object as a transient was that there were no counterparts either in PanStarrs DR1 or Gaia DR3 at less than 5 arcsec.
This transient dataset contained the dates, times, and coordinates of each transient identified. For many dates, transients were noted in multiple images reflecting observations of different locations in the sky. The transient dataset (ASCII format) was converted to an SPSS for Windows data file that included a single line for each date on which at least one transient occurred, with a count variable created to summarize the total number of transients observed on each date.

Nuclear weapons testing data​

An SPSS dataset was created from public sources which included the dates of all above-ground nuclear weapons tests during the study period. Tests conducted by the United States were identified from:
https://nnss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/DOE_NV-209_Rev16.pdf
Tests conducted by the Soviet Union were identified from: List of nuclear weapons tests of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia.
Tests conducted by Great Britain were identified from: British Nuclear Weapons Testing – Centre for Health Effects of Radiological and Chemical Agents.
Anecdotal reports from individuals present during nuclear tests in the 1950’s have variously reported UAP to be present at nuclear test sites before, during, and after nuclear tests7. Therefore, our primary outcome was a nuclear testing window variable (coded 1/0 for Yes/No) that indicated whether a given date fell within a 3-day window surrounding any nuclear test (test date + /- 1 day). This decision to use a 3-day window as the primary nuclear testing outcome was made while the authors were still blinded to the transient data. To permit subsequent examination of the temporal sequencing of transient associations with nuclear testing at a more granular level, we also created (post-hoc) several variables indicating whether a given date occurred at specific intervals relative to nuclear testing: 2 days before, 1 day before, day of testing, 1 day after, and 2 days after.

UAP witness report data​

UAP witness report data were derived from the publicly-available comprehensive UFOCAT database maintained by the Center for UFO Studies (UFOCAT - Center for UFO Studies). This database originated with the U.S. Air Force funded-University of Colorado UFO Study led by Dr. Edward Condon (1966–1968). It has been updated periodically since that time. It represents the most comprehensive publicly-available UAP sighting database covering the 1949–1957 period that was the focus of the current work. The original UFOCAT Microsoft Access database was imported into SPSS. This database contained many identical, duplicate entries (same date and location) obtained from different sources; only a single entry for each discrete report was retained. Next, to reduce the chances of duplicate reports of the same UAP described by separate witnesses on the same date and the same location (i.e., same state), only a single entry was retained in these cases. Finally, a variable reflecting the total count of UAP sightings reported from independent locations on each date was created.

Procedure​

The final analyzed dataset began with creation of an SPSS master file with a separate record for every date within the study period, 11/19/49 to 4/28/57 (n = 2,718 days). Then, the transient database, nuclear test database, and the UAP database were merged by date with this master file. Next, dichotomous variables (coded 1/0 for Yes/No) were created to indicate whether each date in the master file was associated with at least one transient and/or with at least one UAP report. Both dichotomous and continuous variables were available for the transient data (any transient Yes/No and total number of transients identified on each date) and for the UAP data (any UAP Yes/No and total number of independent UAP reports on each date). The nuclear testing variable was only available as a dichotomous index, that is, whether each date fell within a nuclear testing window (coded 1/0 for Yes/No).

Statistical analysis​

All analyses were carried out using the SPSS for Windows Version 29 statistical package (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). For testing associations between dichotomous variables [Nuclear Testing Window (Yes/No) versus Transient Observed (Yes/No)], chi-square tests were used. To aid in interpretation of the magnitude of the association between nuclear testing and transients, we adopted a relative risk approach like that commonly used in medical research. That is, we calculated the likelihood of a transient being observed (the “outcome”) based on whether its date was within a nuclear weapons testing window (the “exposure”). This relative risk ratio was calculated using an online calculator: Relative risk - Free MedCalc online statistical calculator. Due to significantly non-normal distributions of the variables reflecting total number of transients and total number of UAP per night, differences in these variables as a function of nuclear testing were examined using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test. For characterizing the nature of group differences in these nonparametric tests, we present 5% trimmed means given the highly skewed distributions of these variables and that median values were generally uninformative (e.g., median total transients = 0). Also for distributional reasons, associations between these two continuous measures were tested using the nonparametric Spearman’s rho correlation. To provide an interpretive context for the magnitude of the association between total number of transients and UAP reported per night, we conducted generalized linear model (GLM) analyses, specifying a negative binomial distribution given the highly right-skewed and over-dispersed nature of the transient data. The resulting exponentiated parameter estimate was then used to derive an estimate of the effect’s magnitude (i.e., impact of number of UAP sightings on total transients observed that date) in terms of incidence rate ratio. For display purposes in Fig. 2, total transients and total UAP reports have both been log10 transformed (after adding a constant [+ 1] to avoid zero values) in order to optimize scaling in the figure.

Data availability​

The final analyzed SPSS dataset will be made available by the authors upon reasonable request to Dr. Stephen Bruehl (stephen.bruehl@vumc.org).

 
Last edited:

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Death of a Gatekeeper: How Dick Cheney’s Death Could Reshape UAP Disclosure

UFO whistleblower David Grusch defends claims in new interview


So, the man who has not substantiated any of his extraordinary claims (to my knowledge) has claimed Dick Cheney was the Gatekeeper - Gozer's KeyMaster maybe - of the UFO secret. This was said not quite two years ago when the man was in ill health who likely could've cared less about David Grusch and has come up again since his death. I am no fan of Dick Cheney even by the wildest stretch of the imagination; the man has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands but in this case he's just a convenient target for the UFO grifter community.

I've been interested in this topic for at least 50 years and seems to me nothing has changed all that much. It reminds me of the endless gun control debates in which we are all about to lose our guns.... but never do.

IMO UFO Disclosure is the bogus bunny the greyhounds chase.

1762430823629.png
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
I wonder why it's only effective until Jan 22 of next year

N 7210.970 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

N JO 7210.970


NOTICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

N 7210.970

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION​

Effective Date: Air Traffic Organization Policy October 26, 2025

Cancellation Date: January 22, 2026

SUBJ: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Reports

Purpose of this Notice.
This notice implements changes to FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 1-2-4, Abbreviations, and paragraph 4-7-4, Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Reports. This notice reflects the change from the previously known term, unidentified flying object (UFO), to, unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and the reporting of UAP activities. Facilities are encouraged to develop a checklist with the procedures identified in paragraph 4-7-4.

Audience. This change applies to all Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel and anyone using ATO directives.

Where can I Find This Notice? Information for access to this notice is available on the MyFAA employee website at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the FAA Air Traffic Plans and Publications website at .

Explanation of Policy Change. This change to paragraph 1-2-4 replaces the abbreviation of unidentified flying object (UFO) with unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). This change retitles paragraph 4-7-4 and revises subparagraph 4-7-4a with a new requirement for ATC to notify the NTSO ATSC of any pilot reports or air traffic personnel observations of UAP activity, adds a new reporting checklist, and a reference to JO 7110.65, para 9-8-1. New subparagraph 47-4b adds the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) website link which ATC facilities may refer others wanting to report UAP activity. Old subparagraph 4-7-4b is renumbered 4-7-4c.

Procedures/Responsibilities/Action. Amend FAA Order JO 7210.3, paragraph 1-2-4, and paragraph 4-7-4, as follows:


1-2-4. ABBREVIATIONS

No change through USS

Delete: Add: UFO…..Unidentified Flying Object UAP…..Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

No further changes to paragraph

Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: AJR-2

10/26/25 N 7210.970​

4-7-4. UNIDENTIFIED ANOMALOUS PHENOMENA (UAP) REPORTS

a.
Pilot reports and/or air traffic personnel observations of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) activity must be reported to the National Tactical Security Operations (NTSO) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team on the DEN. Report the following items if available:

REFERENCE

FAA Order JO 7110.65, para 9-8-1, General.

Call sign of aircraft that reported the UAP or, otherwise, if an air traffic personnel observation;

Location, altitude, and flight direction of the reporting aircraft or location of the reporting air traffic personnel;

1. Call sign of aircraft that reported the UAP or, otherwise, if an air traffic personnel observation;

2. Location, altitude, and flight

3. UAP location in relation to aircraft position or air traffic personnel;

4. General description of the UAP, including any known pertinent information (i.e., altitude, direction of flight, speed); and

5. If UAP depicted on ATC radar displays.

b. Other persons wanting to report UAP activity may be referred to the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) website at .

c. If concern is expressed that life or property might be endangered by UAP activity, report the activity to the local law enforcement department.


Background. On December 22, 2022, Title 50 United States Code (50 U.S.C.) section 3373, Establishment of All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, created and defined the term unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) which effectively, for governmental purposes, replaced the term unidentified flying object (UFO). In addition, section 3373 identifies UAPs as a potential national security concern and establishes agency requirements for collecting reports of UAP incidents, including the FAA. As a result, the FAA will require air traffic control (ATC) to notify the National Tactical Security Operations (NTSO) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team on the Domestic Events Network (DEN) of any pilot reports or air traffic personnel observations of UAP activity. In addition, the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) website has the capability of receiving certain UAP reports and is developing a reporting mechanism for the public.



2​



Distribution. This notice is available online and will be distributed electronically to all offices that subscribe to receive email notification/access to it through the FAA website ( ).



Jon Stowe Director (A), Policy, AJV-P Air Traffic Organization

Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: AJR-2
 

Attachments

  • 2025-09-25_Notice_N7210.970_Unidentied_Anomalous_Phenomena_(UAP)_Activity_FINAL.pdf
    256.2 KB · Views: 0

Rick Hunter

Celestial
UFOs are a major theme early on in the book (still reading it) and she does a good job of laying out the who what when and why of the need for secrecy, UFO hysteria, various investigations and the thinking at the time. Context is important and she delivers. The only problem I have is that she seems to accept as fact the Soviet origin of Roswell which to me is a big stretch.

It actually doesn't matter what happened at Roswell specifically as she's giving it an entirely terrestrial origin and I tend to agree with that. That's enough to make her point regardless of her take on the improbable details. Something definitely crashed there but I think the alien theories are pure disinformation. The public hysteria surrounding the War of the Worlds broadcast was fairly fresh and not lost on the military, CIA, the Godless Commies. At a certain point it was impossible to prevent but not impossible to redirect hence the disinfo campaign we're still experiencing.

And no, I am not suggesting ALL UFOs are explained and neither were they. Walter Bedell Smith basically said that true unknowns had been going on for all of recorded history .... so let it.... they have spy planes to operate.

Thanks, I must be thinking of a different book then. After awhile, it all runs together!
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects

1762692153488.png

This is just a user review from Goodreads but says it better than I could:

The genuine granddaddy of all UFO books is also, after so many years (it was originally written in 1956), still one of best. But there are frustrating moments. As you read the book, you feel pulled in two directions. Captain Ruppelt's (Project Blue Book) voice is a compelling one, in part due to his seemingly objective voice. He attempts to investigate each incident thoroughly, despite severe limitations in budget and staff. Things zip through the air (lights, metallic objects), fighters scramble, confusion sets in. How can you study what you can't seem to catch?

The results are often labeled "unknown," but sometimes a UFO is nothing more that a weather balloon or a plane or a weird light thing that can be explained. These debunking efforts blend in well with the actual unknowns. Early on in the book however, Ruppelt lets the objective mask slip a bit whenever talk touches on possible contactees, like George Adamski. You can tell he has contempt for the notion, and this contempt really springs forth in the book's last pages and chapters. The reason for this, after googling around, was that a ghost writer was employed for the original 1956 effort, which probably watered down Ruppelt's on-page skepticism. If so, I'm glad he did, because the finished effort is a cult classic IMHO. A second edition came out in 1960 with an additional three chapters. In those chapters, Ruppelt concludes (shortly before his death at age 37) that UFOs are totally explainable, and he's confidant that science will continue to whittle away at the percentage of unknowns. It's like a different guy wrote the book. And looking back at that conclusion now, the notion that science would solve the problem of UFOs, and in a natural way, seems quaint now. Despite that, the book's descriptions of various UFO incidents are as fascinating as it gets. (Google up Operation Mainbrace & UFO and see what comes up.) The truth is out there, and despite Ruppelt's misgivings, this is as fine an attempt to grasp it as I've read.

Note: This book is available free via e-book on Kindle. The version I read is the 1960 effort.
 
Top