David Grusch is a highly regarded whistleblower who provided testimony under oath regarding crash recovery operations of alleged exotic craft conducted by the USA outside the control of Congress. He contributed to a highly sensitive US document, the Presidential Daily Briefing, and acted as liaison between the NGA and the UAP Task Force.

He began by informing the audience that, throughout his career, he had served as the Intelligence Integration Division Chief for the Space Security and Defense Program in Colorado Springs. He also provided counterintelligence and program protection support to the clandestine X37B orbital test vehicle, which well-versed him in the conventional craft used by the U.S.

He then stated that the prevalence of UAS in today’s world has contributed to the advancement of the UAP problem due to their similarities.

He explained the struggles he faced :

There were legacy programs tackling this and I’ll call it rice bowls of stove piping, and a lot of that data was not shared with me and my team at NGA, and ironically not even with the AARO office that’s currently been instantiated at the Pentagon.

He then went on to explain that in order to resolve the problems caused by such craft, it would be necessary to have “persistent sensing, rapid attribution resilient networks and decision quality data machine speed”.

He followed this up by reminding the audience of President Trump’s commitment to declassification, but added… “the things we’ ve that we recovered and exploited over the last couple decades”.

The government had decades and decades of information and recovered ... material

and ance again it wasn’t being reported to Congress.

He then blew the whistle and briefed the Senate and House Intelligence committees in a classified environment.

We should be leveraging national overhead enterprise and other parts of our national intelligence enterprise in this topic, but we use it in secret, on the down low, the night job of a certain analyst at NASIC who also works for the legacy program that’s also analyzing this stuff without telling his boss, that’s essentially how the program has dealt with this other the time

Regarding what could happen in the future following Donald Trump’s statement requesting declassification of UFO files, he hoped that a plan could be divised between Marco Rubio, Devin Nunes, Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth.

I think there is a high expectation for the President to deliver, and I think if he does revela everything that I came in contact with, he’s going to go down in history as a great figure.

The US government understands it represents a form of sentient non-human intelligence.

It is true and I want the American people to be conforted that the universe is teeming with life,it seems, and readily available to be explored, and the US government does have a lot of information.

As President Trump explained when White House archives were found at Mar-a-Lago, he considers his own will to be sufficient for the declassification of any record. Following his own counsel, he may decide to allow whistleblowers like David Grusch to speak publicly on all the information the whistleblower has, and to provide definitive material evidence, something which has been lacking as claims have become more extreme.

December 2024

During the interview, Bilak declared :

…when I’d heard about the New Jersey thing, I was like, OK, if there’s going to be a drone flap, Barksdale’s going to be involved.

And I saw, and working with somebody else, you know, that we both know there were multiple reports of other bases.

And I just decided that, hey, unlike everybody else, I had the camera ready. I had my phone camera ready.

The first thing I caught was a giant object that you saw.

It was probably 75 feet (23m) off the ground, which was very concerning to me. This was a triangular object, probably 15 feet (4.5m), if not more.

Didn’t make a noise, nothing. And again, it flew, it had to have flown since it flew over my house, which is it, you know, maybe a mile from the West gate and from the backside of the base.

It had a flown directly over, which as you know, is an FAA violation.

And a 20 minutes later, I’ve seen objects, Ross, that there’s no way to describe these objects as anything that I’ve ever seen in flight pattern before.

They flashed, they moved left to right, they moved up and down so quick that I couldn’t believe what I was saying. And I saw three of them.

And I’ve never seen anything like that before. They were outside the area of the base. They were across from the West gate and across the river in the Shreveport area.

And again, I watched them for three to four minutes there. I filmed them. You see what I saw. I don’t know what I’ve seen. I’m not going to say, you know, but never seen anything like it.

As shown in the video above, ret. Master Sergeant filmed what he described to Ross Coulthart. Furthermore, he stated that he had identified additional witnesses via social media platforms, who had also recorded the events.

…when they blinked, you could see something was there.

It’s hard to explain, but it’s like you could see after the blink, there was a solid object behind that blink.

And then there were three of them and they moved in ways that you just can’t possibly move. You can’t.

no noise, no noise, no propellers, no chemtrail, no exhaust, no nothing, nothing at all.

Ross Coulthart : But you’re quite clear that the objects that you saw and videoed in December of 2024 would clearly not conventional drones.

Ronald Bilak : They were objects that were operating far outside the conventional limitations of modern technology.

The proof is in the video. I mean, that’s that’s all I can say is the proof in the video. I don’t know what they were, but obviously I’ve never seen anything like it.

So you tell me, you know, that’s that’s the whole thing. The video doesn’t lie.

March 2026

A few weeks ago, there was another wave of unexplained sightings near Barksdale Air Force Base. Bilak witnessed and filmed the sightings, but he insisted that they were different from the previous ones and were probably conventional drones.

According to a press release by the Air Force Global Strike Command, published march 31 2026 :

…beginning Monday, March 9, Barksdale AFB experienced several unauthorized drone incursions that varied in duration and number of drones. Out of an abundance of caution in response to the initial event, Barksdale base leadership issued a Shelter in Place order for the morning of March 9 that was lifted that same morning. Operations from Barksdale AFB continue unabated and the incident remains under an active federal investigation.

Senator Bill Kennedy announced that a drone had been recovered, but it was unclear whether it was related to the recent increase in drones spotted above the base.

While the video appears to show unidentified aerial objects, it does not by itself establish the nature or origin of what was observed. The footage has not been publicly and independently verified, and no evidence has been made public indicating the presence of advanced or unconventional technology. In recent years, reports of unidentified aerial phenomena near sensitive sites have increased in the United States and Europe. In some cases, authorities have responded with countermeasures. On December 4, 2025, five drones approaching a naval base hosting French nuclear submarines were shot down. However, the origin of these objects has not yet been publicly identified.

As previously reported by Sentinel News, the disappearance of scientists working on space technologies has forced President Trump to take action. Is it a statistical illusion or a conspiracy?

On August 28th, 2025, 48-year old Steven Garcia left his house in Albuquerque, New Mexico with a gun, and never returned. Mr Garcia was a government contractor with top security clearance at Kansas City National security campus, a major US Nuclear weapons facility with a covert role in US national defense. Like General McCasland, Garcia was working at a very high-level, overseeing all the assets, reportedly worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Rumours of a potential suicide attempt and of mental illness have been squashed, and parallels have been made with the disappearance of General McCasland, also in the same line of work, and with the highest responsibilities, who also left his house with a gun, also in Albuquerque, and never returned.

On April 16th, the Daily Mail published an article about yet another dead scientist. 34-year- old Amy Eskridge, who was working on anti-gravity technology, studied by UFO researchers who explain this is at least one of the ways UFOs can travel the way they do. In 2020, Eskridge announced that she was planning to present novel foundational work regarding antigravity but needed approval from NASA.

Although the US government denies the existence of recovered UFOs, and that work on them is therefore not possible, the many scientists, politicians, military personnel and Intelligence officers who spoke in the film ‘The Age of Disclosure’ asserted that the government is wrong about that. Secretary of State Marco Rubio even explained that the matter is so highly classified that even the U.S. Presidents do not know about the matter because the projects are operating on a ‘need-to-know’ basis’.

In the military and intelligence services, the ‘need-to-know’ is a restriction to access data that is considered very confidential and sensitive. Even if someone has all necessary clearances to be read into highly sensitive programs, they cannot access data that is under ‘need-to-know’ restriction.

Amy Eskridge’s cause of death has been reported as suicide. However, it is claimed that she warned previously that her life was in danger. Since her passing, some details, including an unearthed interview with Eskridge herself and independent findings submitted to Congress have pointed to the possibility that Eskridge’s death was not a suicide and was instead part of an elaborate ‘murder’ conspiracy. Eskridge’s father, himself a retired NASA plasma scientist who-co-founded the ‘Institute of Exotic Science’ with his daughter, rejects the claims of murder and insists that his daughter committed suicide. The institute’s stated mission is to make speculative science available to the public rather than keeping it buried in secret programs.

This brings the number of deaths or disappearances of scientists linked to nuclear, space or UAP research to eleven.

Prior to the announcement of Eskridge’s disappearance, on April 15^th, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked about the ten disappeared scientists, said that she was aware of the reports but could not confirm that an investigation was underway. She promised to seek answers from relevant agencies, and if the reports are true, she expected they will be investigated.

Some of the UAP caucus members have been very vocal about raising concern over the coincidences linking all these cases. Representatives Tim Burchett and Jared Moskowitz suspect foul play and call for serious enquiries and even congressional hearings on the matter. In an interview with News Nation aired on April 17th, Burchett went so far as to say that if we go back far enough in time, it is more than 10 scientists who have died in suspicious circumstances.

Representative Eric Burlison said that the matter had first come to their attention last year when General Matthew Sullivan (not yet added to the infamous list), apparently committed suicide two weeks after being asked for an interview which he did not attend with the UAP caucus. A report was sent to the office of the Inspector General, who deemed it ‘urgent and credible’ and referred it to the FBI. Burlison added that the caucus had reached out to General McCasland twice to interview him about his research on UAPs. He did not answer and mysteriously disappeared. Burlison insisted on the fact that the disappearance of such highly important scientists for national security did not sound right. For instance, the circumstances are too similar. He reminded us that Monica Reza, Stephen Garcia, Anthony Chavez, Melissa Casias and General McCasland went left their home without their phone and vanished.

When it was suggested to him that China, Russia and Iran could be involved because they are the main competitors to the US in the fields of nuclear power, advanced weaponry and space race, Burlison agreed that it is indeed a possibility. He calls for an investigation by top investigators in the FBI and every agency. He also revealed that multiple scientists have reported some sort of threat. He added that this a rallying-call on a bi-partisan basis , and he and his colleagues at congress are urging immediate investigation.

The rallying-call was heard and on Thursday 16th of April, President Trump told reporters that he would order an investigation into the matter.

On Friday 17th of April, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on X that the White House was actively working with the FBI and all relevant agencies to identify any potential commonalities that may exist between cases involving a number of government scientists and officials who’ve either vanished or died in recent months. Leavitt cited “recent and legitimate questions about these troubling cases” and said “no stone would be unturned” in the multi-agency effort.

In an interview on Sunday 19th of April, retired Brigadier General in the US Air Force and former deputy military representative to NATO Blaine Holt declared that two cases could be seen as a coincidence but he ‘doesn’t buy it’ when it is eleven, and asserted that these are not a coincidences. He said that we need to understand what exactly these scientists were working on and find the common denominator. He also asked why the White House initiated the probe when the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA have failed to do so and are not looking at it as an anomaly. He added that in the executive branch, there is a very big split between who thinks it is a concerning issue and who doesn’t, and he thinks it is very revealing. He didn’t elaborate on that but joined the chorus of voices demanding to treat the matter with the highest level of enquiry.

When asked if foreign involvement could be suspected, co-host Retired U.S. Navy Captain Brent Sadler added that he would not dismiss the possibility but insisted that investigators should follow the evidence. He also believes an investigation should take place because of the high level of similarities between these cases. He deplored that the White House had to be the instigator of the probe rather than any agency.

The affair is gaining momentum, and it has even reached European shores, with ‘Le Parisien’ newspaper, one of the first ones to take the matter of UFOs seriously, reporting on it.

The incident, documented in a report by the nonprofit organization Americans for Safe Aerospace, raises questions about flight safety.

As the aircraft climbed past 14,000 feet (4,260 m), air traffic control urgently ordered it to level off at 15,000 feet (4,572 m), reporting unknown traffic in their sector ahead, two nautical miles (approximately 4 km) away, rapidly approaching. The controller noted that this radar echo had “already appeared intermittently throughout the day.”

A few seconds later, both pilots visually identified an object that was described as an oblong spheroid lacking wings, windows, and navigation lights. They described its surface as metallic and resembling molten mercury. It had a translucent appearance, shifting shape, and seemed to pulsate and vibrate.

The co-pilot estimated that the object was about the size of a Boeing 737. However, the report mentions a length of approximately 40 feet (12 meters). This estimate is difficult to reconcile with that of a 737, which is about 40 meters long. This introduces an inconsistency in the description, likely due to a conservative estimate.

The object initially appeared to be stationary. When the co-pilot initiated an evasive maneuver to the right, the object instantly accelerated along the axis of the aircraft’s left wing and left the area at a very high speed. The entire event lasted less than ten seconds.

The co-pilot estimates the minimum distance to be approximately 500 feet (150 m), yet such proximity constitutes what the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies as a near-miss in flight. Indeed, given the difficulty of estimating trajectories and relative speeds in mid-flight, objects can become hazardous within seconds. Aircraft therefore maintain safety distances of several kilometers between them when at the same altitude, and several hundred meters between different altitudes.

According to the report, the collision avoidance system (TCAS) did not trigger any alerts. Installed on commercial aircraft, this system detects the risk of a collision by interrogating the transponders of other aircraft. However, the absence of an activation does not allow for a conclusion regarding the nature of the object, as not all aircraft are equipped with or identifiable by this type of device.

In their analysis, Americans for Safe Aerospace notes that the co-pilot, a former Marine Corps F/A-18 fighter pilot, has advanced training in visual aircraft recognition, lending credibility to his observation. The presence of two experienced witnesses is also a significant factor.

Air traffic control’s mention of similar activity observed several times throughout the day raises questions. When unidentified traffic appears to be moving through a busy departure corridor, one must ask to what extent crews could have been informed in advance of this activity. Systems exist to alert pilots to potential hazards, including Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs).

While this incident does not allow for a conclusion regarding the nature of the observed object, it does highlight a central aviation safety issue: unidentified objects moving through controlled airspace that exhibit atypical flight characteristics and are not integrated into conventional surveillance and collision-avoidance systems.

However, despite the danger posed by these flights, a recent amendment that would have allowed pilots to officially report their sightings was blocked from coming to a vote in the U.S. Congress due to lobbying by intelligence agencies, according to its author, Representative Tim Burchett.

As Sentinel News previously reported, political pressure in the halls of Congress has been rising following the Department of Defense’s failure to release UAP footage requested by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna via an official letter.

As you remember, I recently directed the Secretary of War…

How good is Pete Hegseth doing, by the way?…

To begin releasing government files relating to UFOs and unexplained aerial phenomena….

And I figured this was a good crowd, because I know you people. You’re really into that. I don’t know if I am. So I’m pleased to report today… I thought I’d save it for this crowd. Because you’re a little bit out there, you know, a little bit… That this process is well underway, and we found many very interesting documents, I must say. And the first releases will begin very, very soon. So you can go out and see if that phenomena is correct, you’ll figure it out. Let me know, let me know. But we’ve had a lot of, a lot of questions. It’s something that really captivates the mind.

Since the rally took place in Arizona, Trump’s reference to the crowd’s interest in UFOs probably alludes to the state’s long history of sightings, including the famous Phoenix Lights. Even the governor at the time recently confirmed that these sightings remain unexplained.

Only time will tell if Trump will follow through, but that announcement came after the Department of Defense confirmed that they were in talks with the White House regarding the release of UAP documents.

The Department of War’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) is working in close coordination with the White House and across federal agencies to consolidate existing UAP records collections and facilitate the expeditious release of never-before-seen UAP information

-DoW

Director Steven Spielberg was at CinemaCon in Las Vegas this week to promote his upcoming film Disclosure Day.

Nearly fifty years after his film “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” Steven Spielberg revisits the phenomenon of UFOs and the potential existence of non-human intelligence.

I’ve been curious ever since I was a little kid about what’s happening in the night sky, what’s happening in the sky during the daytime

Referring to the New York Times’revelations in 2017 and the videos “Flir,” “Gimbal,” and “Go fast,” he adds:

“In 2017, I got very curious again.”

“Half a century later, I made Disclosure Day with certainty that there is a lot more truth than fiction to what you’re going to see on June 12.”

“I truly believe that this movie is going to answer questions and cause you to ask a lot of questions.”

Close Encounters of the Third Kind left an indelible mark on an entire generation. The film’s title is based on the classification system created by J. Allen Hynek, a renowned ufologist who was involved in Project Blue Book. Hynek and Jacques Vallée, two of the film’s characters, were real-life ufologists. Close Encounters of the Third Kind incorporates numerous elements that were previously known only within ufology circles and were completely unknown to the general public. Some have speculated that Steven Spielberg had access to classified information. Last month, he addressed this allegation at the South by Southwest Film & TV Festival.

“I don’t know any more than any of you do, but I have a very strong suspicion that we are not alone here on Earth right now, and I made a movie about that.”

“Because no one should ever think that we are the only intelligent civilization in the entire universe. So I’ve been thinking as a kid that we were not alone ... The big question is: Are we alone now? And have we been alone over the last 80 years? Have we been alone over the last few thousand years?”

Like its predecessor, Disclosure Day is likely to leave a lasting impression and help the topic of UFOs become more deeply ingrained in the public consciousness by becoming part of pop culture. This is especially true given that the film’s promotion coincides with pressure from Congress to declassify certain videos. Representative Luna emphasized that the latter will not wait for a briefing at some unspecified future date. Thus, Disclosure Day could very well benefit from official revelations from the U.S. government.

The trailers shown contain strong Christian references…

…whilst The Phenomenon takes on a pagan appearance.

The antagonist represents a group capable of monitoring the population…

…but not hesitating to use unconventional means to achieve his ends.

The film draws on culturally familiar representational conventions…

…but also devises its own ways of showcasing the superhuman abilities of the protagonists, who are the subjects of the experiments depicted in the article’s illustration.

The information being released in dribs and drabs, as well as the rumors of small, large-headed creatures that can transform into deer to hide their identity, is designed to build anticipation. This was allegedly seen in a new trailer that was shown privately during the conference.

Despite the many details revealed in the trailer, Spielberg promises that none of the footage gives away the plot of the third act.

“This movie is an experience, and all you need to get from the beginning to the end is a seatbelt.”

Matt Laslo of "Ask a Pol", Sentinel News’ partner in Washington, is the reporter who isn't afraid to ask questions about UFOs on the Hill. He investigated how politicians reacted to Trump’s claims of disclosure.

Sen. Gillibrand

On April the 8th, Laslo asked Senator Kirsten Gillibrand , long-standing member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), what she thought about President Donald Trump’s call for the federal government to make UFO files available to the public. She replied it was great. When asked if the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) would be involved, she said she didn’t know but tweeted the president to ask.

Her aide interjected that ‘it’s redundant,because we already passed it in the NDAA and that stuff has to be made public’.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2024 Fiscal Year included the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023, which mandates the public release of federal records concerning "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" (UAP) and "non-human intelligence (NHI)". It forces the creation of a centralized, public collection at the National Archives (NARA) with a presumption of disclosure, aimed at uncovering decades of government knowledge while addressing potential national security threats.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is amongst the most prominent contributors in congress to the disclosure and transparency push about UFOs, as long as it is under the authority of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). She was instrumental in its creation, is committed to making it a more efficient organisation and to keep the conversation in congress in order to reduce stigma in reporting and ensure UAP records are properly disclosed and made available to the public.

Following President Donald Trump’s announcement that the UAP files would be declassified, and the subsequent creation by the U.S. government of the ‘alien.gov’ and ‘aliens.gov’ websites, very few MPs have dared to speak out in public. So, when…

Rep. Ogles

On April 9th, Matt Laslo asked representative Andy Ogles :

‘Is the White House trolling us by registering Aliens.gov, or is it a genuine signal that UFO disclosure is coming?...

…It was a surprise to hear him reply that there has been so much chatter and that so many people have come forward that the administration, President Trump just wants to lay a baseline and be honest with it. He suggests that President Trump likes to break the mold and would like to be ‘the guy that revealed the truth’ because it’s historic’ and ‘that’s exactly who President Trump is’. He added : ‘There’s some pretty compelling stuff out there. Now, how much of it they release, we’ll see’. He didn’t say what the stuff ‘out there’ is…

There’s someone in congress who’s always happy to talk about UAP’s, though…

Rep. Burchett

On April 10th, Representative and UAP Caucus chair Tim Burchett didn’t wait to be asked a question and launched into a statement about ex-representative Matt Gaetz’ explosive revelations ‘being crazy’. He was referring to the declaration by Gaetz that he was briefed by a U.S.army whistleblower about a secret program of alien-human hybridisation allegedly using captured extraterrestrials and abducted humans from migrant or war-zone communities. The whistleblower allegedly revealed that there were between six and twelve such facilities in the U.S. Gaetz admitted that he did not verify the information but was later told by White House representatives that the disclosure was ‘anti-christian’. Burchett insisted that Gaetz did not say it was happening for sure, but merely that he was told it did.

The US society is very steeped in Judeo-Christianism, and the idea of hybridisation between humans and extra-terrestrials is enduring in the American mythos. In the Old Testament, the ‘Watchers’, gigantic and powerful beings said to be ‘the sons of God’ interbred with humans, creating the ‘nephilim’.

Matt Laslo moved on with his question:

‘The congressional UAP Caucus has been really outspoken lately on classified info. Is that because you all are banking on disclosure coming from President Donald Trump?’

The UAP Caucus is a focused group within the U.S. Congress dedicated to the study, disclosure and policy development surrounding Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

Burchett replied that they are all frustrated and when asked if he thought that disclosure is coming, he expressed doubts :

I really don’t think we’re going to get this information. The one shot we’ve got is somebody gets to the President before the other side does and says ‘release it’ and he pulls a classic Trump and does what he wants to do, regardless. Which I, in this case I would love that. Wouldn’t you?

Laslo then asked if the White House knew where to look, to which Burchett replied that he told President Trump where to find the information and that it’s like peeling onions, there’s always a layer underneath. He added that Trump was very receptive.

Laslo suggested that UFO files might be held by military contractors, and could be outside the reach of the government. Burchett acquiesced and added that it was done because it is ‘un-FOIA-able’ and he feels it will be ‘next to impossible unless Trump grants some sort of amnesty to come forward’.

‘FOIA’ stands for ‘Freedom of Information Act’. It is a 1967 US federal law allowing any person to request access to federal agency records, ensuring government transparency. There are exceptions such as national security or personal privacy.

Laslo mentioned that other UAP Caucus members want to replace AARO, while Burchett just wants to blow it up, and Burchett confirmed he wants to do away with it because he’s ‘tired of restructuring government’.

In another exchange with Matt Laslo, he opened up :

Matt Laslo: “What do you make of the Pentagon breezing through your guys’ April 14th deadline?”

Burchett: “See, that’s par for the course, dude. They’re just going to delay, delay, delay until they can get everything covered up.”

“I just don’t have much faith. It’s just got to come from the top. The president’s just got to say do it. Heck, in that 28 days right now for them to cover everything up, it’s got to happen right then.”

Laslo: “Well, now they see they’re working with AARO. What do you make of that?”

Burchett: “I don’t trust them as far as I can throw that dome off the Capitol.”

Whilst all these discussions are happening, some more worrying and pressing events are going on in the U.S. homeland, so…

Sen. Cassidy

On Friday 11th of April, Laslo asked Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), this question :

‘Do you have any idea what the mysterious craft were that reportedly surveilled Louisiana’s Barksdale Air Force Base?

Barksdale is one of the largest and most strategic airfields in the US, covering 22,000 acres and housing 15,000 personnel. It is home to the Air Force Global Strike Command and the 2nd Bomb Wing, which includes nuclear-armed B-52 bomber squadrons. Early March 2026, multiple waves of unauthorized drones were spotted over the base. They were thought so dangerous that they initiated a ‘shelter-in-place’ order, an official directive issued by authorities during an emergency, instructing residents to immediately seek safety within the building they already occupy, rather than evacuating the area. It is a short-term protective measure designed to create a barrier between people and an outside hazard.

Senator Cassidy did not know about this event (that happened in his own state of Louisiana) but expressed his concern about problems with drones in a more general way, such as drones delivering narcotics into a federal prison in his state. When asked by Laslo if he had an idea if the Pentagon knew what happened in Barksdale, he said he will try and find out. As Laslo mentioned that it had also happened in other air-force bases such as Langley and Arizona, Cassidy replied :

‘There’s enough stupid people out there that it could be totally benign – accepting that stupidity is sometimes not benign, but you have to fear the worst’.

He did not elaborate on what he meant… but true to his word, he has since followed up on the subject and explained on television that since the beginning of the Epic Fury operation, there have been more events of the kind happening over US military bases. There have been ‘five or so’ over Barksdale from the 9th to the 15th of March. One was a hobbyist and the others are unclear. Two of the drones have been recovered ‘or at least perhaps recovered’ (his body language seemed to indicate he was not told for sure). A drone was recovered but it is not known if it was related to the fly-over. He added that the incident has been treated as a police matter, and they are looking for fingerprints and other clues, but he suggests it could have been a test by someone to see what the Air Force react. He suggested that the Air Force knows it is more than just a police matter.

There is still division within Congress. Some lawmakers openly admit their ignorance, while others speculate that classified information may be released. Meanwhile, U.S. representatives are increasingly doubting the administration’s ability to share secrets with them.

Following the Department of War's failure to release UAP footage as ordered, Representative Luna stated :

“No one from the Pentagon had responded until we reached out, and it appears that someone did not pass the letter to the appropriate authorities.”

Intriguingly, according to Liberation Times, a source declared that :”The Department of War is in receipt of Rep. Luna’s letter and will provide a briefing in the future.”

How can the War Department claim it never received the letter, when a source says a briefing in response to it is currently being prepared?

This is yet another example of the numerous communication problems that have plagued the Department of War’s handling of the UAP case, even as Rep. Tim Burchett has just proposed an amendment to cut funding for the Pentagon’s UFO study group, following its repeated failures. Examples include the numerous delays affecting the official reports that were required by law to be submitted on time, and the factual errors contained in AARO’s historical report.

Luna continues :

How convenient. Nonetheless, we will be getting the requested list. We are not waiting for a briefing at some unspecified future date.

Interestingly, Luna is directly addressing the strategy of creating a briefing rather than delivering the videos directly, a strategy also mentioned earlier.

The Secretary of War is someone I consider a friend and someone who backs the President. The President has authorized the release, so whoever is trying to be cute at the Pentagon can take a hike.

The pressure is now at its peak on AARO, as Burchett’s axe threatens to befall it and Representative Luna won’t settle for just another empty briefing.

Who is Garry Nolan?

Dr Garry Nolan is a professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine, holding the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Chair. He earned his PhD under the supervision of Leonard Herzenberg and conducted postdoctoral research with David Baltimore, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Dr Nolan has published over 360 research articles and holds 50 U.S. patents. His research focuses primarily on the immune system and its complex interactions with cancer. In 2021, he stated that government officials and representatives of an aerospace company had approached him for help in understanding the medical injuries sustained by certain individuals following alleged interactions with an anomalous aircraft. He is also the co-founder and executive director of the Sol Foundation, an interdisciplinary academic foundation focused on UAPs.

While some compare UAP researchers to biologists studying animals in a reserve or zoo, Dr. Nolan prefers the metaphor of a laboratory in which two groups of rats study each other.

“It's not a zoo. It's a laboratory where both sides, at least at this point now, are the rats. I would think that if they are real, they're smarter rats than we are.”

Indeed, it seems that the UAPs are particularly interested in our nuclear capabilities, biodiversity, cognitive responses and social cohesion, while we study their propulsion signatures, composition, behavioural patterns and origin.

Skywatcher Discovery Framework: Technical Field Operations to Scientific Analysis

The Skywatcher programme is a private initiative comprising three groups with different motivations and definitions of success: scientists, the military, and investors. The scientific approach necessitates the publication and peer review of results, which requires open access to the data and methods used to obtain them. The military prioritises strategic dominance and operational security, which necessitate the protection of capabilities and the compartmentalisation of data. Finally, investors seek a return on investment based primarily on the acquisition of intellectual property. They are therefore initially reluctant to engage in ‘open-source’ collaboration.

“This was actually more difficult than I would have imagined, navigating these competing vectors of scientific, military, and venture capital. […] And the issue here is what we did want to be able to do is bring radical transparency for the scientific data.

Nolan starts by setting-out his approach. He insists that he speaks for himself, not as a Skywatcher representative, and that whilst his conclusions are based on data or what he has experienced during Skywatcher events, they remain speculative. His role with Skywatcher was to help them design rigorous scientific experiments that could be reported, and to work out changes for later experiments. The aim is to create a solid base of preliminary data that can be handed over to another scientist so that they can come to similar conclusions.

What is proof?

First and foremost, G. Nolan revisits the concepts of data, evidence and proof to establish a semantic framework.

Data is raw information. It can be obtained from instruments, or it can relate to observations reported by eyewitnesses. While these may be anecdotal, the question arises: how many observations are needed for something to be considered true?

A set of validated data constitutes evidence. Evidence is obtained by ensuring that the data has been collected correctly, irrelevant elements have been removed and it has been placed in context. G. Nolan therefore proposes a multi-sensor approach involving radar trajectory, an infrared thermal camera (FLIR) and visual confirmation. Proof, on the other hand, is convincing, indisputable and reproducible.

“You could read every one of my actually now 360 plus papers and you will very rarely see us claiming in our biology proof. We always say “the data supports”. […] Proofs are really only possible when you set such high guardrails around you or what it is that you're trying to prove that it becomes compelling and undeniable for that there are some objects. So, in other words, it either has to land or you have to shake its hand. So, that would be for many people the only proof that they'll accept.”

According to G. Nolan, we could speak of evidence in the following cases:

1. Physical artefact: the discovery of materials exhibiting non-terrestrial isotopic ratios, or of engineered metamaterials that exceed current manufacturing capabilities, the authenticity of which would be verified by at least three independent laboratories.

2. Biological sample: biological material whose genetic sequencing does not correspond to the terrestrial phylogenetic tree or which indicates artificial synthesis. The sequencing could be evaluated and confirmed by peers.

   In this regard, G. Nolan states:

   “I've never seen a biological sample to date that represents anything that one would claim to be extraterrestrial. The Atacama [skeleton], which we showed was a human girl, to the dismay of some at least. So, I haven't seen anything, but obviously that would be fantastic. Of course, we all know James Fox's work going on down in Brazil with the Varginha episode. I think that's probably the closest that we've seen to any, let's say, verifiable anecdotes so far.”

3. Transfer of information: the communication of verifiable knowledge that humanity does not yet possess (e.g. the solution to the P ≠ NP problem or to the theory of grand unification). Validation would then be based on mathematical proof.

4. Violation of the laws of physics: demonstration of a technology that breaks the laws of physics as we know them under controlled conditions. These characteristics have already been presented by Luis Elizondo, who refers to them as the ‘5 observables’. Validation would then rely on corroboration by various sensors.

The Bayesian model

G. Nolan points out that scientists do not rely on binary thinking: Do you believe it? Is it true / Is it false? Science generally operates within a Bayesian model, which is a statistical approach developed over more than 100 years. It therefore involves placing what is considered to be evidence on a spectrum ranging from 0 to 100% in terms of likelihood.

“There are different frameworks. The so-called Sagan standard of extraordinary evidence, I mean, just evidence. I don't think it needs to be extraordinary. I think we would need our P value, or our probability, to be greater than 99%. Strong evidence is what you would call preliminary data moving towards this. And then just saying raw data.”

G. Nolan thus defines three levels of evidence:

• Probability greater than 99% ⇨ Sagan’s standard (extraordinary evidence). Statistical certainty. Requires a radical shift in the scientific consensus. The anomaly is accepted as a physical reality. (P > 0.99)

• Probability greater than 90% ⇨ Strong evidence (actionable information). The risk of a false positive falls below 10%. Justifies targeted investigations and changes in strategy. (P > 0.90)

• Probability greater than 50% ⇨ Detection (tipping point). The hypothesis becomes “more likely than not”. Insufficient to draw a conclusion, but triggers the deployment of dedicated sensors. (P > 0.50)

For G. Nolan, one of the advantages of such an approach lies in the integration of reports and testimonies from members of the public. Referring to the presentation on citizen reporting networks as data infrastructures, G. Nolan adds:

“Now, this is something that I think would be great to apply to the kinds of data that Robert Spearing just presented because they have the raw numbers to put this into an ingestion system for Bayesian truth where you can look at the priors and the priors basically add up to a probability that gives you a great outcome.”

The Skywatcher experience

Nolan explains that the mission was to uncover and deliver accurate, timely and comprehensive aerial intelligence through evidence-based collaboration with federal, state and local authorities. He insists that Skywatcher is not a governmental project but very much a privately funded initiative gathering special operators, military, intelligence officers, and national security leaders, and himself as a scientist. The end-game for the investors was not intellectual property but proof.

It outlines the four stages of the recommended scientific approach:

• data detection and collection,

• validation of a multi-sensor correlation,

• analysis of flight dynamics,

• production of intelligence data.

Data Detection and Collection

Nolan discusses the equipment used for data detection and collection, as well as the importance of its configuration. He emphasises the importance of avoiding data filtering at source. Devices are often calibrated to detect only objects with similar characteristics (airplanes, missiles, drones, etc.) and filter out all other data before recording it. However, an object that remains completely stationary despite wind pressure should not be excluded from the study’s scope. G. Nolan notes that Chris Mellon had advocated opening the filters. This openness to a broader spectrum enabled the detection of Chinese balloons in February 2023. Similarly, former pilot Ryan Graves, who testified under oath before Congress, noted that UAP incidents near aircraft carriers began after a radar capability upgrade.

Validating a multi-sensor correlation requires cross-referencing telemetry, infrared, optical and ROEM data in order to eliminate false positives. He notes that algorithms are rigid, whereas human perception is adaptive. Experienced pilots can identify unusual behaviours such as formation changes or non-ballistic movements, which detection platforms may filter out.

“The pilot is also a sensor platform, and [...] we treat a pilot visual acquisition as a high confidence trigger [initiating immediate multi-spectral sensor focus on the designated azimuth] to say, okay, now we need to turn everything else on.”

“So, multi-sensor correlation was the objective. We were looking for things that had anomalous flight and something that would move in an intelligent manner, and should we have been so lucky, which we were not, to obtain some piece of technology that might have produced intelligence out of it. ”

“So, at the end of the day, what we ended up with was a very few number of tracks that were not in any way prosaic.”

Analysis of flight dynamics

Here, Nolan uses the immutable laws of physics as a filter. Any capabilities beyond the scope of conventional aircraft will be considered abnormal. This includes instantaneous acceleration exceeding 20 G. For reference, the structural limit of an F-35 is 9G. He also mentions the absence of a sonic boom and ‘cold hypersonics’ (the absence of material heating observed at the leading edge of objects moving at hypersonic speeds).

Generation of intelligence data

Although the data obtained is still being analysed, G. Nolan is very cautious and reserved about the prospect of publication. The diverse nature of the Skywatcher group has undermined the scientific rigour required for such studies.

“We’re still actually analyzing the data. We had, as I said, thousands of tracks, and this is where that triumvirate of groups (scientific versus military versus the capital structure) got things wrong. That the science wasn’t always done in the way that would have been my preference in terms of making sure that all of the instruments were run in the same way at the same time, at least some of the first events. And by the time of the second and the third events, that had been fixed. But time-syncing was not done the way that it should have been done.”

“We have not met the multi-sensored data collection metrics that I would have preferred. We would always get it on one but not the other. And so we couldn’t get the Bayesian inference that allows something there. But now we know what it is that we really need to do, and we’ve identified a group that is known to work with the government that can help us make sure that all of our instrumentation is being set up in the right way, at the right time for further data acquisition with now refined procedures.”

“I think the framework that was worked out remains in place, and the objective is to replace anecdote. But anecdotes should not be thrown away because of the Bayesian utility of them. But I think I've shown you that the multi-sensor correlation is the absolute key.”

Thus, G. Nolan does not believe that Skywatcher must necessarily continue to exist as an organisation. For him, what matters most is the approach to be taken.

And when asked about possible spacecraft landings or close encounters, he replies:

“Nothing ever landed, nor was anything materially collected. And if it was, it was something that I didn't know about. But look, I wish it something was, but the short answer is, if that's a rumor, it should stay as such because it's not.”

The Bayesian model applied to eyewitnesses

Garry Nolan also demonstrates that the Bayesian model can be applied to eyewitness accounts. To do this, we must return to Sagan’s concept of the ‘extraordinary evidence standard’. As a reminder, this corresponds to a level of certainty of 99% (P > 0.99).

“This is where I think it gets interesting: where we approach the bayesian standard. [...] Just by using simple Bayesian inference, by the time you've reached three or four simultaneously measured events or different events, your standard, actually your Bayesian priors go way up. Anybody out there can go do the math. Go ask chat GPT to help you if you want to learn how to do it. It doesn't take very much to do so. And I've run Bayesian analysis on basically several hundreds of anecdotes and what it is that it ends up creating in terms of outcomes.”

Bayesian inference allows G. Nolan to conclude that three sensors simultaneously detecting an anomaly result in a likelihood probability exceeding 99%. He achieves the same level of likelihood with eight trained observers (e.g. pilots) or 27 civilian eyewitnesses.

“When people say there's no evidence, that's because they don't have the knowledge of how Bayesian math operates. And they don't have the kind of scientific training that at least I apply to the problems that I work on.”

G. Nolan thus demonstrates that quality takes precedence over quantity. However, quantity also helps to achieve a sufficient degree of plausibility. It is therefore possible to incorporate accounts from civilian eyewitnesses into a scientific approach.

Analysis of materials

Garry Nolan is unable to provide further details regarding the data collected by Skywatcher, as he is bound by a non-disclosure agreement. He therefore discusses some of the work carried out in his laboratory on materials related to UFOs.

The Ubatuba fragments

He begins with fragments relating to the incident that took place in Ubatuba, Brazil, in 1957, which were given to him by Jacques Vallée.

“It's pretty clear now there's two chains of evidence of different materials that are claimed to come from the same event. One is highly pure magnesium (and Robert Powell and Michael Swords have done an incredible amount of analysis on that magnesium material). This was what was first reported. This material that I obtained through Jacques [Vallée] that we thought was magnesium and has some magnesium in it, actually turns out to be silicon.”

After carrying out atomic imaging using atomic probe tomography, physicists from Stanford’s Department of Physics realised that the distribution of the various silicon isotopes in the sample differed significantly from that found in natural silicon. In its natural form, silicon (Si) consists of three stable isotopes: ²⁸Si (92.2%), ²⁹Si (4.7%) and ³⁰Si (3.1%). However, the Ubatuba sample contains 72.3% ²⁸Si, 16.5% ²⁹Si and 10.9% ³⁰Si.

“First of all, it's nearly entirely like 99.9 percent silicon, the sample itself, only something which is usually made for silicon wafers and not something that was easy to make at the time. And certainly you wouldn't be modifying the silicon isotope ratios. So the wild speculation by one of the scientists over in the engineering department was that: there's less of what is supposed to be there and more of the next one and then more of the next one. There's a process that could do this and that's called neutron absorption.”

When a material is exposed to a high level of neutrons, a nucleus of that element can incorporate an extra neutron. Through this process, the isotope 28Si (14 neutrons) can be transformed into 29Si (15 neutrons), 29Si (15 neutrons) into 30Si (16 neutrons), and 30Si into phosphorus (P). Neutron capture could take place in a nuclear reactor. However, G. Nolan points out that to achieve such an isotope ratio, the silicon would need to be exposed for approximately 10,000 years in a nuclear reactor. G. Nolan demonstrates, with supporting calculations, that such a process yields isotope ratios identical to those of the Ubatuba silicon sample.

“It would require 25 kilo electron volts (keV) over a significant period of time to get the silicon isotope ratios that we achieved. And what is that amount of time? Something like 10,000 years in a nuclear reactor or a level of neutron radiation that is just at least at the time that these were capable of being found on earth. So, does that prove this stuff is alien? Absolutely not. It just says that it’s been engineered in a way that is interesting because it’s the exact ratio you would expect if you were to use this neutron absorption model, but found 40 or more years ago.”

“So it's an observation. It's data. And if I can get somebody else to agree with me that the data was collected correctly, it's not up to me necessarily to explain it, but it's up to us to then say, why? how? how did it get there? Why was it supposedly on a beach in Ubatuba, Brazil? And why is it different than the magnesium material that ended up going through another set of hands?”

G. Nolan points out that it is possible the various silicon isotopes were deliberately combined to achieve this ratio. But if that were the case, why choose a ratio that corresponds exactly to what one would obtain through neutron capture?

Samples from the Trinity site

G. Nolan then presents the study he conducted on samples of material recovered from the site of a suspected crash at the Trinity site. This is a laminated material consisting of layers of magnesium oxide separated by a layer of bismuth.

G. Nolan explains that the presence of bubbles measuring 50 to 80 µm, as well as their shape (rupturing outwards), demonstrate that they formed after the material was manufactured. Their presence is due to exposure to extreme heat following manufacture and originates from the molten material inside. This finding is therefore consistent with an explosion or a crash.

“Of course, we all know Hal [Puthoff]'s proposal that this would fit the idea of a metamaterial or a waveguide. I can't speak to that.”

“We actually did run a bit of a reflection, and it does absorb in the right area. I know that this is the same area where carbon dioxide absorbs, but we did do the controls. And this absorption criteria is due to the object itself. It is not due to just absorption of the FTIR in the air, because I know people have asked me that previously.”

“So it's actually in the range of what Hal [Puthoff] has suggested. It absorbs. What we have not done on the other side is see, well, if it absorbs, what does it emit? So that's one of the next steps that we'll be taking this material.”

Finally, G. Nolan studied the structure of the sample using EBSD (Electron Backscatter Diffraction). This technique makes it possible to map the structure of the grains and their orientation. EBSD imaging clearly shows that the magnesium crystals are positioned perpendicular to the bismuth layers.

“It is not something you would expect to see in a smelting process where people have claimed this is the bottom of a lead smelting system.”

“So what this rules out, and this is from material scientists who've looked at it, rules out rolling and bonding would have crushed the grains. It rules out casting, melting point mismatch between the bismuth and the magnesium. And it's not electroplating because of the reactivity. So those are ruled out.”

“Could have been done by vapor deposition. That's not something that we've really invented until the last 10 years. In bulk, technology at the time was maybe possible, but not to the extent that is seen here. Bulk layering even at this kind of resolution is challenging even today. It's not impossible, but it was not possible back then.”

“So we still need to do some further tests at the interfaces and to look at the transmission modes of this with various input.”

Physical after-effects

When asked about mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), Garry Nolan discusses the analysis of a skin sample that was sent to him.

“Here's something interesting, to this point exactly. So, I was brought the biopsy of an individual who had claimed one of these kinds of attacks, let's say. And the biopsy was of their skin. And so, I brought [...] a block of the skin to a pathologist in my department. And she's a specialist in dermatologic investigations. And what we saw was the top layer of the skin was uninterrupted. And the inflammation was below in the skin where there was damage underneath, as if there had been some sort of signal or energy that manifested beneath the dermal layer. And she said this was not chemical irritation. It wasn't a burn, because a burn would have manifested at the top of the skin. I don't know how you would get this kind of damage this far into the skin. And the reason why we know that it was not some of the things that this other person was just talking about is that there was no evidence of mast cells nearby.”

The skin has two layers: the epidermis, which is an outer layer of epithelial tissue, and the dermis, which is an underlying layer of connective tissue. Below the dermis is the hypodermis, which is mainly made up of adipose tissue (body fat). The hypodermis is inseparable from the skin. Therefore, a skin sample includes all three of these tissues: the epidermis, the dermis and the hypodermis. Nolan explains that the observed lesion was located in the hypodermis, with no abnormalities present in either the epidermis or the dermis. This does not align with a thermal or chemical burn, as these types of burn affect the skin from the surface and spread deeper (e.g. first-, second- and third-degree burns).

Mast cells are immune cells commonly referred to as white blood cells. They play a key role in the early recruitment of other immune cells and activate numerous important inflammatory mediators in the body’s response to infection. Their role in allergic reactions has also been recognised for a long time. An increase in the number of mast cells is often observed at sites of infection or in cases of allergy. The absence of mast cells in the skin sample studied therefore demonstrates that this is not one of the aforementioned cases. Consequently, G. Nolan’s team concludes that the observed damage is likely linked to exposure to a signal or a certain form of energy.

The challenges of the scientific approach

In his presentation, Garry Nolan demonstrates the importance of a rigorous scientific approach to advancing our understanding of UAPs. Using Bayesian inference, he proposes a method that can be applied by other teams around the world, allowing levels of evidence to be presented that meet even the most sceptical expectations.

He reminds us that science does not rest on a binary view of truth, but rather on a scale of certainty. Science advances step by step. The more scientists who confirm hypotheses, the closer we can get to the truth.

It is also important to broaden our fields of study without prejudging the relevance or value of each one. Opening up data collection filters has proven its value. The same must hold true for the disciplines involved in analysing the collected samples or data.

Neutron capture: a process in which an atomic nucleus captures a neutron without decaying. They fuse to form a heavier nucleus.

EBSD (Electron Backscatter Diffraction): a local crystallographic analysis technique based on the analysis of electron backscatter diffraction patterns. It allows for the correlation of crystallographic data with the sample’s microstructure.

FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared): an imaging technique based on infrared rather than visible light, which enables the detection of heat sources.

Harold (Hal) Puthoff: CEO and Chairman of the Board of EarthTech International, Inc. and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin.

Harold (Hal) Puthoff: President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of EarthTech International, Inc. and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin.

Mast cell: a connective tissue cell that secretes chemicals involved in the body’s defense reactions. Mast cells play a key role in the early recruitment of immune cells and activate numerous inflammatory mediators that are important in the response to infections. Mast cell hyperplasia is thus very often observed at sites of bacterial, viral, and parasitic infections.

Source: Dawicki W, Marshall JS. New and emerging roles for mast cells in host defense. Curr Opin Immunol 2007; 19: 31-8.

P ≠ NP Problem: a conjecture in mathematics, and more specifically in theoretical computer science, considered by many researchers to be one of the most important conjectures in the field, and even in mathematics in general. The Clay Mathematics Institute has included this problem in its list of the seven Millennium Prize Problems, and is offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove P = NP or P ≠ NP, or prove that it is undecidable. This problem is also Smale’s third problem.

Robert Spearing: Director of International Investigations, MUFON

Robert Spearing: Director of International Investigations, MUFON

SIGINT: Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) is intelligence whose sources of information are electromagnetic signals

Atomic force microscope: a high-resolution three-dimensional analytical microscope that allows one to observe the spatial distribution of atoms in a material while determining their chemical nature with a resolution of approximately five angstroms.

Grand Unified Theory: In theoretical physics, a Grand Unified Theory, also known as a GUT (short for “Grand Unified Theory”), is a model of particle physics in which the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear) merge into a single interaction at high energies.

One of the most intriguing discoveries in the scientific study of unidentified anomalous phenomena was published by Nature in late 2025. By studying astronomical plate photography, Drs Beatriz Villarroel and Stephen Bruehl showed that “Findings suggest associations beyond chance between occurrence of transients and both nuclear testing and UAP reports.”

Transients, which are sources of light in the sky whose brightness varies rapidly, have long been described by many UAP witnesses. However, their elusiveness makes them difficult to study, particularly in the present day. Aircraft, drones, satellites, helicopters and even the moon when partially obscured by cloud cover can often be misidentified as UAPs.

To prevent such artefacts in their data, Villarroel and Bruehl used data from a time before satellites and drones were used, and when there was much less aerial traffic. However, for a paper to be accepted as part of the scientific consensus, it must be confirmed by other teams and accepted by the scientific community studying related fields.

Recently, three papers have been published confirming Villarroel and Bruehl’s findings by Bian Doherty, Ivo Busko, and Kevin Cann. However, one paper has been released questioning their results by Watters, Dominé, Little, Pratt and Knuth. Villarroel responded to the latter with an article co-authored with Streblyanska, Bruehl and Geier, which pointed out methodological errors in the critique.

Sentinel News had the opportunity to speak with Dr Villarroel about her team’s publication and its reception within the scientific community.

Sentinel News : As reported by Sentinel News, you recently published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal regarding the possible detection of reflective objects in space prior to the Space Age, which was correlated with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) sightings and nuclear tests. However, this paper was initially rejected on Arxiv. How is that possible?

Dr. Beatriz Villarroel : We published indeed two papers, one in Scientific Reports and one in PASP. There is a big stigma in the scientific community against the topic.

SN : What response did you receive from the scientific community regarding your findings?

BV: I’ve received very mixed reactions. Some are very interested and have started looking into the problem. Others still try to say ”Plate defects!”, but then you ask them ”would you please like to explain why the ’plate defects’ are avoiding the Earth’s shadow?” and they won’t reply.

SN : As the manager of VASCO, could you explain what the project involves and how your paper fits into it?

BV : The project has had a “life”. It was originally designed to look for stars that vanish, not transients. We never found a star that vanished... but we did find thousands and thousands of light sources only visible on one single photo. Then we started observing signs that these transients might be flashes from highly reflective surfaces in the near-Earth space. That is when it got interesting.

SN : Do you plan to publish any more papers on the data you unearthed?

BV : Absolutely. There is a lot to discover in that data. But also in other data from other telescopes, which is something our team also is looking into.

SN : Three papers have been released, confirming different aspects of your work. Could you explain how each one supported your own research?

BV : The Doherty paper uses our sample of 107,000 and replicates the transient-nuke connection as well as the deficit in the Earth’s shadow. Doherty has also discovered that the transient-nuke correlation gets stronger when looking only at the sunlit transients. His transient-nuke analysis is further corroborated by Dr. Janne Sinkkoinens analysis.

The Cann paper finds an anticorrelation between the transient detections and geomagnetic storm activity. There are multiple ways of looking at that anticorrelation, but it’s very interesting and provides further evidence that the phenomenon is real, physical and ties the phenomenon to regions near the Van Allen belts.

Ivo Busko has used Hamburg plate collection to search for transients with a different method -- but arrives at finding the same type of objects, with similar shapes and profiles indicative of being very short flashes. This supports that the transients are real and recorded everywhere in the sky, all over the planet, and are not some “local issue” of Mount Palomar.

SN : Another paper critiqued your sample selection, claiming that your detection could be due to plate artefacts. You published a rebuttal highlighting errors in the analysis. Could you talk us through whether that paper fits the usual back-and-forth between different scientific teams?

BV : While plate defects certainly exist in the data and may indeed concentrate towards the edges of the plates -- as we ourselves discuss in the PASP paper! -- there is no physical mechanism for producing a deficit of emulsion defects specifically within the Earth’s shadow. Random noise on photographic plates have no reason to follow the time-dependent Earth-Sun geometry, or to systematically avoid a well-defined region like the Earth’s shadow. That is the key physical point.

The mentioned critique treats the presence of noise as grounds to dismiss a statistical signal altogether, throwing out the baby with the bath water. It uses same logics to motivate the use of a 20 times smaller sample, which is too small to observe any significant statistical signal, and was created for a different purpose.

Despite all this, my team has performed additional analyses specifically testing whether plate defects create the observed signal. These results will be presented in an upcoming work.

SN : What are your plans for future research?

BV : We want to understand the properties and locations of the objects, and turn the ExoProbe telescope in that direction and see if we can confirm their nature directly. The goal of ExoProbe is to use a network of telescopes to identify and examine such objects in the sky today, and also to carefully study them.

Nothing beats direct detection -- and imagine if we could get a spectrum?

SN : In your opinion, what are the three main obstacles to astronomical UAP research today?

1. Much data is filtered by the military under the context of national security. Take the Vera Rubin-telescope, for example, where all raw data is filtered by the three letter agencies before astronomers get to analyze it, see The Atlantic.

2. Enormous stigma permitting opponents to use “any method” to shut down uncomfortable results, including public attacks and slander. The stigma can damage lives, careers of anyone who believes in open discourse.

3. I’ve noticed certain paternalistic attitudes from some men in this field (but thankfully, almost all of the men I’ve met and work with are just the opposite and genuinely supportive and excited about the science we do together!). Nevertheless, this issue can become a serious barrier for collaboration and friendships. A typical scenario is that a guy friend/collaborator is extremely helpful while one follows his advice or lets him lead. But what happens the day one says “no”, or puts a boundary, and follows one’s own direction? Or if she refuses to let herself be silenced for somebody else’s comfort? Or worse, if she breaks up the friendship or collaboration? The social consequences might be very harsh, especially if the guy feels rejected and decides to retaliate. This might include social influence campaigns and attempts to attack her credibility. Let’s try to create an inclusive work environment where we treasure individuality and freedom of our friends and collaborators.

Contrary to popular belief, the Petrozavodsk incident did not start on 20 September 1977. In fact, it had quietly begun in the weeks leading up to that date.

The Petrozavodsk affair is often presented as an isolated incident, but it is actually part of a more complex reality: a paradoxical history of surveillance and repression intertwined with discreet scientific curiosity about unexplained aerial phenomena in the Soviet Union. A recently published article in Pravda reveals that the USSR’s interest in sightings of flying objects was real, albeit managed in an opaque manner and often exploited for political ends (Platov et Sokolov, Vestnik RAN, vol. 70, n° 6, 2000, p. 509).

As early as the 1940s, the Soviet military had been closely monitoring aerial sightings, driven by concerns for national security and scientific curiosity. The astronomer Felix Zigel, regarded by many as the founding father of Russian ufology, devoted years to collecting eyewitness accounts of sightings. His data partly formed the corpus that Gindilis, Men’kov and Petrovskaya subjected to statistical analysis in 1979. However, when Platov contacted Zigel as part of the SETKA programme, their collaboration was short-lived. Once Zigel realised that the Academy’s scientists were not seeking to validate the exogenous hypothesis, he distanced himself (Platov and Sokolov, Vestnik RAN, 2000).

As early as the 1950s, military officers and engineers organised closed-door conferences on these phenomena, while the Academy of Sciences set up an informal group to process reports. Its own leaders later described this approach as ‘inadequate and ill-conceived’ (Platov and Sokolov, Vestnik RAN, 2000). Unlike the ‘transparency’ displayed by the United States with Project Blue Book, the Soviet approach was characterised by extreme secrecy: information was limited, reports were classified and public discussion was discouraged.

Viewed in this light, the Petrozavodsk case takes on a new dimension. While the official Soviet explanation was that the fallen objects were debris from Kosmos-955, their initial silence on the matter and downplaying of the incident may have been an attempt to conceal other potential explanations linked to secret military technologies. Therefore, the history of the USSR and unidentified aerial phenomena is a history of state secrecy, mutual suspicion and scientific curiosity stifled by the need to maintain an image of power and control. The Petrozavodsk case is therefore not just a mere accident, but a symptom of this complexity.

Contrary to popular belief, the Petrozavodsk incident did not begin on 20 September 1977. In fact, it began earlier and more quietly in the weeks leading up to that date.

From August onwards, residents of Karelia reported seeing unusual lights streaking across the night sky at high speed. The descriptions were similar: multiple points of light moving in formation and leaving trails that lingered for a few seconds before fading away. Some witnesses described a ‘shower of rays of light’ above the city. In several cases, these sightings were accompanied by sounds that could not be identified: whistling, muffled crackling and something between a muffled explosion and a distant clap of thunder. However, these preliminary reports were largely ignored by the authorities and lost in the mass of routine reports that the Soviet bureaucracy processed slowly.

What happened on the night of 11–12 September was different and far more tangible. The Soviet government initially remained completely silent. It was not until three days after the event that information made it past the censorship filter. On 23 September 1977, the newspaper Izvestiya published an article with the headline: ‘Unidentified natural phenomenon: the inhabitants of Petrozavodsk witnessed an extraordinary natural phenomenon’. According to the article, at around 4 am on 20 September, a huge ‘star’ appeared in the night sky, emitting beams of pulsating light towards the ground. The object then slowly moved towards Petrozavodsk, hovering over the city like a ‘huge jellyfish’ and illuminating the area with light beams described as resembling a shower of rain.

The Soviet government initially remained completely silent. Only under pressure from mounting reports and the publication in Izvestiya did an official explanation finally emerge: the debris found was said to be fragments of the Kosmos-955 satellite. This was a convenient explanation that was unverifiable for anyone without access to the launch archives and technical enough to discourage the general public’s curiosity.

The flaws in the official explanation: why Kosmos-955 is not enough

The story could have ended there. There was a rocket launch, a misidentified luminous plume and a population unaware of its own government’s military space activities. However, when Soviet researchers began to cross-check the accounts, something stood out.

The first crack is embarrassing precisely because it comes from within. The January 1978 appendix to the Academy of Sciences’ report explicitly states that sightings were reported before the launch of Kosmos-955. For example, surveillance staff at the seaport of Leningrad reported theirs between 03:00 and 03:25 local time, i.e. one hour before the scheduled launch at 01:01 UTC. Similar reports were made in Medvezhyegorsk, Lukhi, Kovdor, and Palanga in Lithuania during the same time period (Gindilis, Men’kov, & Petrovskaya, 1979). Soviet witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Many were written hours or days after the events, and this factor alone is sufficient to explain part of the discrepancy. Nevertheless, the fact that the contradiction was raised by the official investigators themselves lends it a status that cannot simply be dismissed.

Then there is the question of geometry. In his initial analysis, L. M. Gindilis noted that the westward movement of the unidentified object called into question the explanation involving Kosmos-955, given that that satellite had been launched in a north-easterly direction. An observation from the Sortavala hydrometeorological station, published in the Krasnoye Znamya newspaper on 8 October 1977, confirmed that the object was moving from north-east to south-west. While a plume trail does indeed drift with high-altitude winds, a movement that is clearly opposite to the launch direction cannot be fully accounted for by wind effects alone.

Gindilis also pointed out that, when considered alongside the expected distance and prolonged hovering above Leppäsyrjä, the observed angular dimensions presented further obstacles to the launch explanation. The ‘hanging’ in the sky described by numerous witnesses, whereby an object approached and then remained stationary for several minutes before moving off again, is physically incompatible with any known orbital trajectory. High-altitude rocket plumes can create convincing illusions of approach due to the effect of perspective, and their angular velocity can virtually stop: this is well documented. However, a five-minute standstill still defies rational modelling.

The geographical inconsistency of the reports as a whole must also be considered. The sightings were reported across a vast area, from Copenhagen and Helsinki in the west to Vladivostok in the east. It is physically impossible for a single plume at an altitude of 100 km, generated 350 km north-east of Petrozavodsk, to be visible simultaneously from Scandinavia and the Russian Far East. These are distinct events that have never been examined individually; they have been absorbed into the collective narrative of ‘the incident’ by the press and collective memory.

Gindilis also pointed out that the observed angular dimensions, combined with the expected distance and prolonged hovering above Leppäsyrjä, posed further challenges to the launch explanation. This ‘hanging’ in the sky, which was described by numerous witnesses as an object approaching, coming to a standstill for several minutes, and then moving off again, is physically incompatible with any known orbital trajectory. High-altitude rocket plumes can create convincing illusions of approach due to the effect of perspective, and their angular velocity can virtually stop: this is well documented. However, a genuine five-minute standstill still defies rational modelling.

It is also important to consider the geographical inconsistency of the reports as a whole. Sightings were reported across a vast area, from Copenhagen and Helsinki in the west to Vladivostok in the east. It is physically impossible for a single plume, generated 350 km north-east of Petrozavodsk at an altitude of 100 km, to be visible simultaneously from Scandinavia and the Russian Far East. These must necessarily be separate events, which have never been examined individually and have been absorbed into the collective narrative of ‘the incident’ by the press and collective memory.

The key to resolving these contradictions may lie in Platov’s belated and little-noticed admission.

In a later article, Yuri Platov — a researcher at IZMIRAN (the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation of the USSR Academy of Sciences), executive director of the SETKA-AN programme, and the main proponent of the Kosmos-955 explanation — notes that ‘a number of additional effects accompanying the Petrozavodsk phenomenon were associated with the failed launch of a ballistic missile, carried out in the same region at roughly the same time’ (Platov and Sokolov, Vestnik RAN, vol. 70, no. 6, 2000, p. 512). The hypothesis of two simultaneous launches from separately classified programmes resolves both the chronological anomalies and the geometric inconsistencies in one fell swoop. It also explains why no one within the Soviet apparatus was ever able to piece together the complete puzzle. Each department held only one piece.

The question of the ‘holes in the glass’ remains unanswered. Several residents claimed to have found microscopic fusion craters in their windows. However, no systematic physical investigation has ever been carried out into this alleged damage. The preliminary report by the Academy of Sciences concluded that it was impossible to satisfactorily explain the observed phenomenon based solely on visual observations. The atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the fact that a significant proportion of UFO sightings were linked to military launches, as maintained by the military and the KGB, created an overlap between scientific and esoteric discourse. The origin of these phenomena was simply ignored. The holes in the glass are the clearest illustration of this: when a population has no credible official explanation, it fabricates one — and a spectacular one at that.

The culprit was formally identified years later: The report of the first European conference on space debris (1993).

The main observation from Petrozavodsk is the well-documented phenomenon of a rocket plume, which was likely complicated by a second, classified test conducted simultaneously. Soviet officials were never able to publicly acknowledge this. From a sceptical perspective, what makes this case truly interesting is not the lights themselves, but the institutional cascade they triggered: the failure of compartmentalisation, the proliferation of legends during the information vacuum and, ultimately, a thirteen-year state programme on NEOs based on a misidentified satellite.

The most striking twist in this story is not the glowing jellyfish that was spotted over Karelia. Rather, it is the fact that the Proton upper stage of Kosmos-955, catalogued as debris 77-091B, nearly destroyed the Discovery shuttle fourteen years later. The 1993 European Space Debris Conference (Klinkrad, ESA/ESOC) highlighted that the near-collision of STS-48 with this object on 16 September 1991, at a distance of just 2.59 km, required an emergency manoeuvre of ΔV = 0.6 m/s, performed four and a half hours before the critical moment. This increased the pass distance to 14.8 km. The article confirms the mass and dimensions of 77-091B to be approximately 1,500 kg and 3.8 m × 2.6 m — a substantial piece of equipment rather than a mere fragment — which has been in a near-circular orbit at an altitude of around 540 km since 1977. Thanks to data-sharing agreements between NASA and the ESA — precisely the kind of international cooperation that the USSR had refused in 1977 — a disaster was averted.

The incident unfolded as follows: on the night of 20 September 1977, a Proton rocket was launched from Plesetsk; its upper stage produced a luminous plume that was mistaken for a UFO over Karelia. The Soviet government was unable to recognise the launch as classified and launched a thirteen-year investigation into UFOs. The upper stage remained classified as space debris for fourteen years and, in 1991, nearly caused the deaths of seven astronauts aboard Discovery.

The extraordinary explanation given for this unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) turned out to have truly dangerous consequences... but not the ones imagined in 1977.

Space jellyfish

A space jellyfish is a phenomenon associated with rocket launches. It is caused by sunlight reflecting off the exhaust gases emitted at a high altitude during launches carried out at dusk or in the early morning. While the observer is in darkness, the exhaust plumes high in the sky remain exposed to direct sunlight. This luminous apparition resembles a jellyfish. Sightings of this phenomenon have caused panic and fuelled fears of nuclear missile strikes, leading to numerous reports of unidentified flying objects. In the case of Petrozavodsk, this is the most widely accepted explanation for the lights observed above the city.

From Petrozavodsk to the orbital commons, transparency is a survival imperative.

The Petrozavodsk affair is not just a curiosity of the Cold War. It is a paradigmatic case study whose lessons remain highly relevant today because the conditions that made it possible, state secrecy, the compartmentalisation of information and the institutional inability to share launch data, have not disappeared. In many respects, they have worsened.

This trajectory, from concealment to near-catastrophe, exemplifies a principle that is now widely recognised in the scientific literature as fundamental to space governance. Space debris is a global problem that can only be solved through international cooperation and data sharing, the two prerequisites for establishing an effective space surveillance system. However, some space powers still refuse to share the information they collect, while those that do share it keep part of it secret for reasons of national security. Anti-satellite tests conducted by China, the United States, India and Russia have significantly increased the amount of debris in low Earth orbit. In November 2021, Russia deliberately destroyed its Kosmos-1408 satellite, creating over 1,500 additional pieces of trackable debris and forcing the International Space Station (ISS) crew to take shelter. The paradox is striking: the same space power that refused to admit the launch of Kosmos-955 in 1977 is today intentionally generating debris whose proliferation threatens all orbital actors.

Since 1993, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) has organised annual meetings on the measurement, modelling, protection and mitigation of debris. This international consensus remains fragile as long as states maintain a culture of secrecy surrounding their launches and orbital failures. The USSR’s inability to disclose the nature of its space activities allowed an information vacuum to flourish, which was immediately filled by non-scientific narratives. This resulted in thirteen years of scientific and military resources being mobilised down a false trail whilst the Proton 77-091B stage quietly continued its orbital disintegration.

Transparency regarding launches, including military launches, must become a binding standard rather than an optional extra. The only coherent defence framework against the risks that nations have introduced into orbit is shared knowledge. No surveillance programme can compensate for the silence of those in the know. The deafening silence surrounding both OceanGate and Petrozavodsk demonstrated what not to do with regard to secrecy policies and the compartmentalisation of information.

By Lucianna Henry

Although naturally of a quiet and humble demeanour, Nick Pope was a very high-profile and respected researcher in the field of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP’s), also known as ‘Unidentified Flying Objects’ (UFO’s). Whether you have seen him as a regular contributor in almost 100 episodes of ‘Ancient Aliens’ or in any of the many, many documentaries or news flashes on UFO’s that he contributed to, you will probably remember him best for his passion and eagerness to share his knowledge with you. You might also feel you know him personally, as I do, which is why I refer to him here as ‘Nick’.

Whilst Nick is best known for his on-screen public image, he actually came to the subject of UFO’s when he was appointed as a civil servant to the ‘Flying Saucer Working Party’ (FSWP), colloquially known as ‘the UFO desk’ within the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) from 1991 to 1994. His role was to assess potential threats linked to Unidentified Areal Phenomena (UAP). At first, Nick was skeptical about the matter but his work and investigations led him to believe that UFO’s are a real phenomenon that needs be be studied and investigated. After leaving the UFO desk, Nick occupied other posts at the Ministry of Defense (it is customary to change post every few years). His final posting in the MoD was to the Directorate of Defence Security. Nick took early retirement in 2006, but when, under pressure from the British public, and to follow the example of the French Government and others, the UK government decided in 2007 to declassify and release its entire UFO files, Nick got involved as a consultant and an official person to release 60,000 pages of documents, now stored at the National Archives.

In 2009, the MoD announced that UFO sightings would no longer be investigated. Nick thought it was a mistake and left the UK vulnerable. He was criticised for his concern about national security risks associated to UFO’s. Yet, since the US recognised (after most of the rest of the world) the existence of UAP’s in 2020, and the subsequent congress hearings where members of the military testified under oath that they had witnessed or experienced close or even very close encounters (in the case of a Navy F18 pilot, as reported By Ryan Graves) with UAP, the idea of national security being compromised with UFO’s has been at the top of the agenda for many governments, and Nick has been vindicated over his concerns on the subject.

One of Nick’s well-known story is the one he related about a poster of a picture from the Calvine incident, a well-known UFO incident that happened next to the hamlet of Calvine, in Scotland in 1990. Two hikers witnessed a small army aeroplane next to a diamond-shaped UFO and took a picture of it. Although the ministry of defense asserted that it was a genuine picture, they did not discuss the affair in public and abstained from comments, which led to allegations of cover-up. Nick mentioned many times in interviews that he had the poster on the wall of his office in the ‘UFO desk’ for a long time but that one day, he went on holidays and when he came back, the poster had disappeared, together with the original six photographs of the incident.The absence of proof led to Nick’s credibility being questioned.

In 2022, he enlisted the help of a graphic artist to help him reconstruct the photograph from his memory, but it attracted criticism because it was seen as a hoax. Years later, David Clarke, a lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University who, like Nick, had also worked for the ‘UFO desk’, and worked as a curator in Britain’s National archives, found the name of the original investigator of the incident at the Royal Air Force (RAF) base whilst going through the UFO documents. This investigator, who wished to remain anonymous, led Clarke to the former RAF press officer Craig Lindsay who had handled the photographs before they were sent to the MoD. He had kept one of the original pictures, which Clarke was able to have assessed as genuine and show the world, in the process rehabilitating Nick’s credibility about the story. Ironically, Clarke was a fierce critic of Nick’s…

After leaving public service, Nick became more and more involved in talking loudly about the subject and gave conferences around the world, mostly with the History channel ‘Ancient Aliens’ show, proponent of the Ancient astronaut theory, as well as contributed to many films, documentaries and even video games about the subject. He was also often one of the first experts on the UFO subject to be called by news agencies for any UFO-related matter. He contributed to works like ‘War of the Worlds’ ,’The Day the Earth Stood Still‘ and ‘Alien: Covenant.’

In 2015, he appeared in multiple episodes of UFO Declassified on Canada’s History Television, the UK’s Yesterday, and Smithsonian Channel in the United States. He often appeared on the New York Post UFO YouTube series The Basement Office.

Since 1952, when the Robertson Panel in the USA decided on a campaign of discreditation of the subject of UFO’s, their researchers have had to endure ridicule, mockery, attacks, intimidation, and more. It was even worse if they dared question mainstream history, or if they reached some sort of celebrity status, as Nick did. So he was no stranger to fierce attacks, including from fellow UFO researchers, but remained stoical and steadfast in his determination to keep asking questions, and look for the truth even if he knew that some answers could not be found, at least during his life-time. People who knew him well said how nice he was, and also extremely funny.

At Sentinel News, we know he was also generous because when Baptiste Firscourt decided to create the organization, Nick immediately rallied support for it through his own social media network, and Baptiste believes that Sentinel would not have existed without that push right at the start from Nick.

Nick has written six books, some fictional ones inspired by his own investigations, and some factual ones where he shares his knowledge about UFO’s.

Nick met Elizabeth Weiss , an American anthropologist and a professor emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at San Jose State University in2010 in a chance encounter inside a hotel lobby in San José. They fell in love and married three months later, in February 2011 during a UFO convention in Phoenix, Arizona, famous for the biggest mass-sighting ever in 1997.

They relocated together to Tucson, Arizona in the United States in 2012, where they built a life centred on shared interests in science, nature and exploration.

In 2024, Nick joined his Ancient Aliens co-hosts Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, William Henry, and Jason Martell on the Ancient Aliens LIVE U.S. Tour, where he continued to advocate the hypothesis that extraterrestrials have visited Earth for thousands of years.

On 12 February 2026, Nick published the following social media statement :

A while ago, following some digestive issues, I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Unfortunately, it’s Stage 4 and has metastasized to my liver. While I know that it’s kindness and hope that leads people to suggest healers and supposed miracle cures, and to say things like “fight it”, and “you can beat it”, I’m afraid my diagnosis and my situation leaves no doubt whatsoever: I can’t beat it.

What an amazing adventure I’ve had! A 21-year career at the UK Ministry of Defence, where I got involved in subjects ranging from financial policy to counter-terrorism; from military policing to UAP. And I saved six cows; it’s a long story! The things I’ve done; the places I’ve been; the people I’ve met; and the secrets I’ve been privy to. I wouldn’t have swapped it for the world. And then a second career, where my previous government UAP role brought me to the attention of the world’s media, leading me to become a regular commentator on TV news shows and documentaries, as well as consulting and acting as spokesperson on various UFO and alien-themed movies, TV series and video games. The media called me the real Fox Mulder!

The true highlight, of course, is life with my wonderful, beautiful and incredibly smart wife, Elizabeth. She’s a real-life Agent Scully: a scientist, a skeptic and a redhead. We met randomly in the lobby bar of the Fairmont Hotel in downtown San José (she was an anthropology professor at San José State University) in October 2010 and got married 3 months later. We applied successfully for my Green Card and she had me shipped over and imported to the U.S., where a new adventure began, as Elizabeth and I enjoyed wildlife watching at our wonderful home in Tucson, desert hikes, film noir, true crime, country music, Sunday lunches with my in-laws, and much more besides. Recently, we had an amazing one-year adventure in New York City, living 5 minutes from Times Square, and having a wonderful view of the Empire State Building from our apartment window.

We proofread each other’s books and articles (I love commas, hyphens and exclamation points way more than Elizabeth, and managed to win at least a few of those battles), and I’m supporting her in her ongoing fight for free speech, academic freedom, and keeping political correctness, superstition and identity politics out of science and academia. The White House Press Secretary tweeted one of her recent newspaper articles, which shows the huge impact she’s having.

I kept working for as long as I could (right up until last week), with my various film/TV interviews, conference appearances, and live events, including my position as moderator of Ancient Aliens Live - where I think I did 94 shows. Sadly, the time has come where I’ve had to step away from this work.

A lot of people have followed my work on UAP. I’m loath to use the word “fans”, because I’m not a celebrity. But I am a public figure, and many people have followed me on my journey as I’ve sought to keep the UAP subject in the public eye, and to frame it as a defense, national security and safety of flight issue - as well as a fascinating science problem. Some of this work has been public knowledge, but some such work, of necessity, has been done behind the scenes. I hope I’ve helped move the needle forward. But most people, of course, know me through my media interviews and live events. To everyone who’s followed me on my journey, thank you - and good luck with your own journeys. I wish you every success and happiness.

It’s all been amazing, and I’m grateful for the things I’ve done, not mournful for the things that I won’t now get to do.

Per Aspera Ad Astra!

Nick Pope, Tucson, Arizona, February 12, 2026

On April 7th 2026, Nick’s wife Elizabeth published this message:

My heart is breaking -- Nick passed away this afternoon at our home. The last few weeks of his life, even as he suffered, he managed to do a few interviews from home. I was so lucky to have met and to have married Nick. He was a wonderful husband. I loved him dearly.

-Elizabeth Weiss

The many tributes to Nick in the newspapers, television channels, social media networks and podcasts across the world and political spectrum are a testament to how he managed to bring a taboo subject into the mainstream consciousness and contribute to a certain change in society.

As I reminisced after Nick’s death and thought of the many hours I have spent ‘in his company’ during my own search for truth on the UFO matter, I realised that he and all his brave colleagues who risked their careers, reputation and safety have changed the world’s attitude and views. A recent survey showed that 61% of the world population believe that other life forms exist in the universe.

These selfless men and women have also changed me, my views and perceptions of what it means to be human, to live on this planet, and how precious and fragile life, peace and Mother Earth are. Nick and his fellow UFO researchers have inspired me to finally have the courage of my opinions, to join Sentinel News and contribute to the conversation that is going on all around the world about UFO’s and life in the universe. The team of Sentinel News echo my feelings and join me in addressing Elizabeth our most sincere and heartfelt condolences

Many of us are, all four of us, are familiar with very, very credible claims coming from people in a position to know, who say they know, that there has been a contact event, a very explicit, you know, very manifest, obvious contact event.

According to Dr. Skafish, not only him, but the other panelists too, journalist Leslie Kean, former CIA operations officer Jim Semivan and former Senate staffer Kirk McConnell, they all know reliable sources that have confirmed not only that non-human intelligence has landed in the US, but also that the US government has had contact with these entities.

If, as previously reported by Sentinel News, reports of alleged contact with non-human lifeforms have increased recently, the possibility that the U.S. has held talks, or even negotiated a treaty, would imply that the CIA’s cover-up of the UFO phenomenon is far more extensive in both scope and depth.

Nothing that was liminal or elusive, that, you know, something like a landing and an interaction to me, if that happened, that means most likely there was an interaction with something quite like us that does have political interests, that does have probably as law, probably as ethics may be very different from us in which there’s a great asymmetry of power and technology.

As Dr Skafish noted, talks with an organisation that is far more developed than the most advanced country on Earth would probably have been one-sided. In a strange twist of history, non-human intelligence may well have done to the US what the US did to the Native American population.

Such cultural symmetry is not unheard of. In his intriguing book Stalking the Herd, the late Christopher O’Brien showed that cattle mutilations were almost non-existent in India, where cows are revered, while they were extremely prevalent in the US, where cows are used on an industrial scale.

And I don’t know how you narrate that, I mean, while telling the truth, and I don’t know how you narrate it, the way it’s been narrated does, is if it just happened once. I have a very hard time believing that if that happened once, it didn’t happen several times. But the version we’ve all heard is that it happened once.

As is often the case in the study of UAP, the release of a piece of information is often intended to conceal a much larger body of information. As Dr Skafish noted, how can we consider the contact event to have happened only once, with the lines of communication established for the occasion never being used again? Is this to prevent further inquiry into communications and exchanges that could still involve living officials?

The silence that followed Dr Skafish’s remarks was deafening. None of the other panellists confirmed what he had just declared to be a matter of fact, showing how sensitive such discussions still are today.

In an article dated April 2, 2026, it was revealed that scientific teams at the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, which is jointly funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/SC), have discovered an unprecedented set of asteroid detections. These include hundreds of distant worlds beyond Neptune and 33 previously unknown near-Earth asteroids. According to preliminary data, scientists have discovered more than 11,000 new asteroids. This data has been confirmed by the Minor Planet Center (MPC).

In an article titled “The Rubin Observatory Could Discover Corner Reflectors or Artificial Lights in the Outer Solar System,” Avi Loeb makes the following observations:

“In 2012, I published a paper […] which showed that existing optical telescopes and surveys can detect artificially-illuminated objects comparable in total brightness to a major terrestrial city out to the outskirts of the Solar System. […] This idea is particularly feasible now with the Rubin Observatory.”

“Another interesting class of objects that would follow the inverse-square brightening law are corner reflectors along the Sun-Earth axis. […] The Rubin Observatory or other survey telescopes resemble the eyes of a fly hovering near a lamppost and looking away for reflected light from objects in the dark street.”

“Here’s hoping that the Rubin Observatory will show evidence for either sources of artificial light or a corner reflector. Any such detection will surely make our life on Earth far more exciting.”

Avi Loeb’s predictions have already begun to materialise in terms of available observations that may one day support scientific models, such as the Galileo project.

What exactly is archaeology?

Before we proceed with our analysis of this emerging science, it is advisable to briefly review the fundamentals of the subject: what is archaeology? This subject can be traced back several thousand years, to a time before telescopes were invented. The word ‘archaeology’ is derived from the Greek term ἀρχαιολογία ‘arkhaiologia’, which is derived from ἀρχαῖος ‘arkhaîos’, meaning ‘ancient’, and λόγος ‘logos’, meaning ‘discourse, word, study, science’. More specifically, it is derived from the Attic dialect, the variant of Ancient Greek spoken in the Athens region. Attic is often considered the ‘classical’ form of the language, as it was used by great authors such as Plato, Sophocles, and Thucydides, and served as the basis for the literary language of most of Antiquity.

In other words, archaeology is literally the science of ancient things; moreover, it should be noted that this discipline is not the exclusive domain of Western culture. For example, in Chinese, the modern term is 考古学 (kǎogǔxué), where 考 (kǎo): to examine, study, verify; 古 (gǔ): ancient, antiquity; 学 (xuē): study, science.

Unlike the Greek archaiologia (discourse on the ancient), Chinese emphasizes the act of investigation and concrete verification (考). This reflects a very ancient scholarly tradition, that of “evidential philology” (考据学, kǎojùxué) developed during the Qing Dynasty (17th–18th centuries), in which classical texts were verified by examining inscriptions on bone, bronze, or stone.

As a result, the meaning of the word “archaeology” in the modern sense is, in itself, a form of syncretism between the philosophy of the ancient Greeks—more driven by logos—and Chinese evidential philosophy, which likely emerged through exchanges such as those of 16th-century Jesuit missionaries like Matteo Ricci, who adopted a strategy of cultural accommodation, embracing the scholarly practices of Confucian scholars.

After all, as the saying of Ambrose of Milan goes: si fueris Rōmae, Rōmānō vīvitō mōre; si fueris alibī, vīvitō sicut ibi . Literally: “If you are in Rome, live as the Romans do; if you are elsewhere, live as they do there”.

Modern archaeology and deep space

Let us now return to the 21st century after this brief historical digression. As we saw earlier, the ancients were already fond of studying their own roots. The question therefore arises as to how this can be applied to the conquest of space. The subject is immediately more complex, and for a simple reason: the lack of artefacts. Space archaeology is still in its infancy. On Earth, archaeology has benefited from hundreds of years of expertise, tens of thousands of human artefacts to study, classify, analyse stratigraphy, and so on. But when we start looking up at the sky and observing the heavens, everything changes. Human history – even if we include prehistory – spans hundreds of thousands of years. Space, and thus exogenous potential, is measured in an entirely different unit: eons, where one eon equals one billion Earth years. This science currently finds itself in a sort of temporal paradox that might remind one of the early days of Egyptology.

To quote a famous 20th-century statement by Flinders Petrie:

In few kinds of work are the results so directly dependent on the personality of the worker as they are in excavating. […] Of late years the notion of digging merely for profitable spoil, or to yield a new excitement to the jaded, has spread unpleasantly at least in Egypt. A concession to dig is sought much like a grant of a monastery at the Dissolution : the man who has influence or push, a title or a trade connection, claims to try his luck at the spoils of the land. Gold digging has at least no moral responsibility […] but spoiling the past has an acute moral wrong in it […].

A closer look at the current methodology of space archaeology reveals that professionals use the concept of SETA, or Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts, which was introduced in the 1980s as a complement to SETI, which listens to space in search of signals. This approach is based on the idea that artifacts, unlike radio signals, can persist for millions, even billions of years. It thus circumvents SETI’s major problem: the need for a civilization to transmit a signal at precisely the moment we are listening. The Galileo project, led by Avi Loeb, is the most widely publicized initiative currently embodying this approach.

The search can take several forms: analyzing radar anomalies, looking for artificial light reflections, detecting abnormal heat, or analyzing the chemical composition of soils to find industrial residues. However, this method is far from universally accepted in its current form. Milan Ćirković, a Serbian astronomer and astrophysicist, coined the concept of SETI’s Catch-22, inspired by a 1961 short story by Joseph Heller, which describes an absurd situation where one is trapped in a vicious cycle of contradictory rules. In Heller’s version, a pilot who requests a psychological evaluation to be declared “insane” and stop flying proves, by the very act of requesting it, that he is of sound mind… and must therefore continue his dangerous missions.

What Milan describes with SETA’s Catch-22 is a circular validation rule:

To prove that an object is artificial, one must first prove that it is not natural. But to prove that it is not natural, one must already know what natural looks like—yet this knowledge could be contaminated by undetected artifacts.

The technosignature framework is inherently anthropocentric in nature, as it is designed to detect civilisations that resemble our own but are more advanced. Consequently, it fails to account for complex non-technological biological civilisations or those that operate in radically different ways, such as chemical, biological or quantum without EM emissions.

In her 2001 journal article, ‘The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)’, Jill Tarter, a pioneering figure in the field of extraterrestrial intelligence and co-founder and board member of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI), provides insights on this subject.

Intelligence is just as difficult to define as life and impossible to detect at a distance. All searches for extraterrestrial intelligence are in fact searches for extraterrestrial technologies revealed through physical artifacts, energetic particles, or electromagnetic radiation.

Missing Data According to Ross Coulthart

In a program that aired a few days ago on News Nations, Ross, accompanied by Meagan Medick, editorial producer for the news channel, the investigative journalist revisited an incident dating back to May 2023 :

I’d also like to ask about what I personally saw in Huntsville at the Marshall Space Center when I was there for the scientific coalition for the study of UAP’s conference in May of 2023. And what I saw in the company of a former wife of a NASA administrator herself uh and also in the in the company of another individual. Three of us witnessed this.

About eight or nine eggshaped objects, clearly anomalous,emerged from behind the space station as we were watching watching on a monitor and moved across screen. When I confronted and asked the director of the Marshall Space Center about those objects, what the hell were they? I thought they might be Starlink satellites that had just been released. He said,”No, they’re not Starlinks.” He turned and he looked at the young lady who was responsible for the administration of communications with the space station.

She flicked a switch and all of a sudden the screen went dead and up came a sign saying transmission to the space station has been temporarily interrupted. I saw it for myself and I for the life of me can’t explain what I saw other than that it looked suspicious that all of a sudden anomalous objects were showing themselves to us on the screen and a decision was made inside NASA to hide those objects from public view. And as soon as I tried to ask the director of the Marshall Space Center about what it was we saw, you know what he did? He left the room and didn’t come back.

His testimony is that of an observer, not a scientist, and it proves nothing about the nature of the objects in question. However, what he documents is real and verifiable: there is a recurring phenomenon of interruptions in the ISS live feed during the appearance of unidentified objects, captured dozens of times by civilian observers since the 2010s. NASA systematically attributes these to automatic technical interruptions. While this explanation is plausible, it has not been sufficiently independently verified. In the case of Ross Coulthart’s testimony, however, the interruption appears to have been intentional on the part of an employee. Nevertheless, a simple Google search reveals a pattern of causal links between NASA and the DoD, which suggests that the interruptions in question may be part of a standard procedure resulting from the compartmentalization of information.

Swedish researcher Beatriz Villarroel, an astrophysicist at Nordita (Stockholm), is seeking to fill a significant gap in her research with her VASCO and ExoProbe projects. VASCO (Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations) involves a comparison of astronomical photographic plates dating from before 1957 (before Sputnik, and thus before any human presence in orbit) with modern data to identify transients: light sources that appear or disappear without any known explanation. Several dozen candidates have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Villarroel’s work is distinguished by its rigorous approach, which sets it apart from its competitors. Rather than offering sweeping conclusions, it meticulously documents anomalies and proposes methods to test them. His team has also been transparent about the limitations of their work, acknowledging that VASCO transients may have conventional explanations, such as photographic artefacts, uncataloged Soviet-era satellites, or calibration errors. This is not just a sign of humility; it is a reflection of the scientific process as it continues to evolve.

The connection to Coulthart’s testimony is less about mutual confirmation and more about a convergence of issues. If unrecorded objects exist in orbit, regardless of their nature, they require independent civilian observation tools capable of producing data that institutions cannot filter or classify. This is where ExoProbe comes in. This project falls within the scope of space archaeology, not as confirmation of a hypothesis, but as a rigorous detection infrastructure for a science that is still in its early stages.

ExoProbe goes further by being a network of coordinated civilian telescopes actively searching for unlisted artificial objects in near-Earth orbit, using the Earth’s shadow as a natural filter to eliminate known human satellites. The approach is methodologically sound; it produces verifiable data, publishes its protocols, and operates within the peer-reviewed framework that Loeb, paradoxically, has often bypassed.

The Legal and Regulatory Framework of NASA-DoD Protocols

If we take a closer look at the mechanisms and protocols of censorship within NASA—much as an archaeologist or historian might do—this actually reflects the reality of the profession, far removed from the sensationalist headlines in the press. The archaeologist will spend a lot of time in the archives, while the historian will pore over obscure parchments, most often written in dead languages.

But what happens if we apply the same methodology to them? Well, we might find things like Executive Order 13526 of the NASA Information Security Program (14 CFR Part 1203). This program, which coordinates its actions with the Department of Defense, aims in particular to ensure “reasonable coordination and consistency with other government departments and agencies” (14 CFR § 1203.201).

The National Aeronautics and Space Act explicitly grants the NASA Administrator the authority to establish “the security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards he deems necessary in the interest of national security.” In other words, Ross Coulthart’s observation can be supported by the administrative mechanisms of the institution in question.

And to quote J. Robert Oppenheimer (Father of the Atomic Bomb, in 1955):

There are no secrets about the world of nature. There are secrets about the thoughts and intentions of men.

Or Leo Szilard (inventor of the nuclear chain reaction):

“The most powerful weapon of the Manhattan Project was not the A-Bomb, it was the SECRET stamp.”

The science historian Alex Wellerstein, a renowned expert on nuclear secrecy, is unequivocally credited with a version of this statement: “The SECRET stamp is the most powerful weapon ever invented.” It appears, notably, in his book *Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States* and features on the homepage of his widely read blog on the subject.

To sum up, an outside observer might say that this represents a paradox: science relies on observable phenomena to formulate theories intended to explain reality. When one analyses the actual nature of the correspondence between the scientists who founded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory – namely Jack Parsons and Edward Forman, for example – one finds exchanges with Wernher von Braun, the inventor of the V2 rocket, who was himself later transferred to the US via Operation Paperclip. He was appointed director of the Marshall Space Flight Centre, which may seem somewhat ironic and illustrative of the tension between the military’s rhetoric and the reality of scientific collaboration, which requires cooperation between people. Yet the mechanisms of censorship seem rather to slow down our understanding of the UFO phenomenon. On the one hand, the military justifies censorship on grounds of budgets or defence; on the other, this very censorship creates a bottleneck in knowledge.

The great silence of the institutions

The Smithsonian, the British Museum and the Louvre simply do not have a department dedicated to the possibility of space archaeology. Within the framework of traditional archaeology, this concept is immediately dismissed as pseudo-archaeology or science fiction in the vein of ‘Ancient Aliens’. However, voices are beginning to be heard:
Kathryn Denning (Anthropologist and archaeologist, York University): Her work focuses on the ethical and social issues surrounding the search for life in the universe, including the implications of discovering artefacts. She applies a genuine anthropological perspective to SETI and SETA.

NASA – Douglas Vakoch (Archaeologist): This is probably the most official initiative. Vakoch, an archaeologist, led the publication in 2014 of the book *Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication* for NASA. The book explicitly explores how archaeology and anthropology can inform the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Although Douglas Vakoch’s work is also caught in a Catch-22 situation, the book is a kind of study that compares elements such as Mycenaean Linear B with what might constitute an exogenous script, yet without proposing a non-anthropocentric analytical framework…

Among the honourable mentions, we might also cite the article: ‘A call for proactive xenoarchaeological guidelines – Scientific, policy and socio-political considerations’, written by Ben W. McGee, an ‘interdisciplinary geoscientist’ who works as a radiation protection engineer and part-time lecturer at a community college (College of Southern Nevada).

Incidentally, it is curious that the term ‘xenoarchaeological’ might bring to mind an obscure parchment from the Imperial Library of Terra in the Warhammer 40,000 universe; however, the use of ‘exo’ or ‘xeno’ stems from a distinction rooted, once again, in Attic Greek:

Exo (from the Greek exō, ‘outside’): refers to the extraterrestrial origin of the object of study. We use the term ‘exo-archaeology’ to denote the study of material remains originating from somewhere other than Earth, whether these remains are natural (e.g. meteorites) or artificial (e.g. potential probes). The prefix emphasises the origin’s foreignness to our planet.
Xeno (from the Greek xenos, ‘foreign, different’): refers to radical otherness, to that which is fundamentally non-human in its nature, intention and cognition. The prefix emphasises cognitive and technological strangeness, not merely geographical.

A science still seeking its foundations

Space archaeology is a field that exists more in intentions than in protocols. It has a potential subject of study—exogenous artefacts—but does not yet possess the methodological tools to identify them rigorously. Ćirković’s Catch-22 is not a philosophical curiosity: it is the fundamental obstacle that the discipline must overcome before it can claim the status of a fully-fledged science.

What is sorely lacking is what terrestrial archaeology has taken centuries to build: a reference stratigraphy, comparative assemblages, an operational definition of the artefact, and above all an interdisciplinary community including field practitioners—not just astrophysicists dreaming aloud in their Medium articles.
The quotation from Flinders Petrie at the start of this article is not insignificant. In 1904, excavations in Egypt resembled what space archaeology is today: a field of endeavour where enthusiasm and media hype far outstrip method. The difference is that Petrie had artefacts under his feet. Loeb, for his part, still hopes to find some.

This does not mean the approach is without value. Tools are being refined, protocols are emerging, and voices such as those of Kathryn Denning and Douglas Vakoch are finally introducing the anthropological and archaeological rigour the field requires. The Vera C. Rubin Telescope will produce unprecedented data. The question is not whether the discipline will take shape, but how, and whether it will have the patience to lay its methodological foundations before proclaiming its discoveries.
In the meantime, space archaeology remains what it is: a serious promise in a field still under construction. Like any excavation that is just beginning.

By Lucianna Henry

On February 27^th 2026, 68-year old Retired Major General William Neil McCasland (whose services at the highest level of secrecy in the military makes him one of the most knowledgeable servicemen in the USA when it comes to the deepest and darkest secrets of the country, including the famous ‘Legacy program’, or program of retrieval and reverse-engineering of crashed non-human UAP/UFO’s), left his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico, without his watch or phone, but with a backpack, a wallet and a .38-calibre revolver in its holster for a trail-run, and never returned.

His concerned wife Susan McCasland-Wilkerson contacted the police and the search was quickly afoot in the neighbourhood where the General used to go running. Having failed to find him, the search extended to over 600 homes in the neighbourhood, with all door cameras, dash cams, wildlife cameras looked at, yielding no result. A US Air Force sweat-shirt was found but it is unclear if it belonged to the General.

Horse-back riders and three different types of search dogs including cadaver dogs (human remains detection dogs) joined the search, as well as drones and helicopters, some of them equipped with infrared cameras. Unfortunately, the unusual heat on the day gave all the rocks a heat signature that made it impossible to distinguish a human body. A ‘silver’ alert was raised. It indicates that it is a person with medical issues, or a person over the age of fifty, or that the person needs medication. Some rumours attributed the disappearance to the General having dementia.

This was strongly denied by his wife. She insists that he is very fit, both physically and mentally. He is an experienced hiker, very familiar with the environment around Albuquerque. The police also confirmed he did not have any sort of dementia. However, he apparently reported that he was experiencing brain fog episodes. The police insist it does not mean in any way that he was mentally incapacitated, though. Yet, the release on April 2nd of Mrs McCasland-Wilkerson’s call to 911 adds another twist to the story as she mentions in her call that she and her husband had recently consulted a doctor due to him having physical and mental issues such as anxiety, short-term memory problems and lack of sleep. She suggests in the call that she thinks he doesn’t want to be found because he turned his phone off and left it at home.

It is also worrying that the General took a revolver with him when he does not normally do so to go hiking. The 911 call also reveals that McCasland mentioned he didn’t want to live with body and mind deterioration. Yet, his wife later insisted that the General was in no way in a suicidal frame of mind. And why no suicide note? You would think that a careful planner like him would leave some explanation for his family.

Investigative journalist Ross Coulthart was amongst the first to alert the general public to this puzzling affair. He deplored the fact that the mainstream media did not pay attention to the matter for a very long time, whereas they covered the case of the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of a well-known TV presenter very extensively.

They are now catching up with their own reporting, as has the UFO community. Coulthart considers the disappearance of the highest importance and gravity, and for good reason. General McCasland is not an ordinary US General.

As a young man, General McCasland studied in the United States Air Force Academy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Air War College, and Harvard university, where his high achievements were noticed and led him to be included in some very highly classified projects, usually reserved for people more mature in years and experience. The General’s pedigree is impressive but too long to summarise here, so here are only some of the highest profile posts he has occupied during his illustrious career:

• A number of classified projects in his early years in the military

• Director of mission planning for the Aerospace Data Facility

• Head of the Space Based Laser Project Office at Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB)

• Systems Program Director and Chief Engineer of the Navstar GPS Joint Program Office, the controlling authority for the Global Positioning System for government, commercial, and consumer applications.

• Materiel wing director, Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles Directorate

• Commander of the Phillips Research Site at Kirtland Air force base, where he worked closely with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

• Vice commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Centre

• Vice commander of the Space and Missile Systems Centre.

• Director of space acquisition within the Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force

• Director of special programs within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

• Executive secretary for the Special Access Program Oversight Committee (SAPOC), in charge of the oversight and review body with full purview of all of America’s most sensitive and secretive knowledge, capabilities, and programs.

• Commander of Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where he led billions of dollars in advanced materials sciences and future weapons research across one of the largest scientific centres in the Department of Defence.

• Since retiring from the army, General McCasland has been the director of engineering in a firm called ‘Applied technology associates’, specialising in missile defence, directed energy weapons, cyber warfare and space warfare.

Knowing all this, it is no surprise that the FBI has been brought in to help local authorities resolve the issue, but what is more significant is the involvement of the Kirtland Air Force Space. This is unusual to say the least and it goes some way to reinforce the idea that Coulthart is not the only one worrying about something sinister to do with the General’s disappearance.

There could however be a simple explanation like Kirtland base wanting to help find ‘one of their very own’, on account of his past services and out of loyalty and friendship to him. Incidentally, whilst at Kirtland Air Force base, McCasland had a close association with Michael Duggin, who was himself a UFO researcher for years, working as Project Blue book’s lead researcher J.Allen Hynek’s assistant.

Coulthart asserts that General McCasland, with his wealth of knowledge, could be extremely valuable for the USA’s adversaries, such as Russia and China in particular. Indeed, in the struggle for superiority in all fields but particularly in the space race, someone privy to the very latest space technologies and the reverse-engineering of crashed and recovered UFO’s is extremely valuable if they can be made to talk.

A week after The General’s disappearance, his wife Susan issued a statement saying that whilst her husband was in the Air Force, he had access to highly classified programs and information but it was years since he had access to that and it is unlikely he would have taken that with him, and also unlikely that somebody would have taken him because of it. Coulthart insists that although McCasland left the army in 2013, he carried on working with the department of defense and the Pentagon on secret defense projects. Mrs McCasland-Wilkerson said it was also true that he had a brief association with the UFO community through Tom DeLonge, founder of the organisation ‘To the Stars Academy’ (TTSA).

McCasland worked with him after he retired from the military as a consultant on technology and scientific matters but she doesn’t believe that connection with any of the UFO research would also be a reason to abduct him. She also said in her Facebook post : ‘Neil does not have any special knowledge about the ET bodies and debris from the Roswell crash stored at Wright-Patt’ (Wright-Patterson air force base). Yet, this is in direct conflict with information learnt through the 2016 Wikileaks leaked emails, which led to Hillary Clinton’s defeat, when she had been expected to win the election against Donald Trump.

The emails revealed that General McCasland was very heavily involved in conversations and strategies to bring about UFO disclosure with Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. Additionally, The leaked emails show that the conversations also included Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works former executive and vice President Robert F. Weiss, and retired Major General Michael Kerry. They were discussing and planning a cohesive disclosure project with the Defence Department, the National Intelligence Agency and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) for Clinton to divulge the truth about Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) to the American public and the world at large. Coulthart explains :

‘On the 24th of September 2016, there were recommendations from Neil McCasland for a White House memo, presumably to come from a future Hillary Clinton presidency, that would set out instructions for divulging information in coordination with the Defense Department, the Director of National Intelligence, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.This sounds very much like General Neil McCasland was setting out a plan for UAP disclosure.

This was at the very very highest levels of the White House. It’s beyond doubt that this man is the single most important figure in the US to be so prominently involved in contemplating disclosure. He recognized the importance of having a controlled disclosure. He’s the guy who has disappeared. His disappearance should be of grave concern and I’m sure it is to the people in the US Air Force.’

One email in particular from Tom Delonge to John Podesta even mentioned how much McCasland had helped him with advice on bringing disclosure about and how he helped him put together the advisory team. It also mentioned that the General had worked for two years at the laboratory in Wright-Patterson where the remains of the Roswell crash were allegedly stored.

Tom DeLonge related to podcaster Joe Rogan that he met ‘the General’ (at the time he didn’t mention his name but we know from the emails leaked by Wikileaks that it was McCasland) who talked to him about UFO’s and aliens being real, and how there is a non-human-intelligence (NHI) engaging with this planet. He also revealed that during the cold war, the US army recovered a life form. Tom DeLonge stated that the General was briefing him and encouraging him to create TTSA in order to bring a level of awareness to the General public that there is a non-human intelligence engaging with planet earth.

In February 2026, Hillary Clinton, during a closed-door deposition in the US House Oversight Committee regarding Jeffrey Epstein, was asked if she was pleased that President Donald Trump directed to release all UFO files. She said she was, so long as files pertaining to national security matters remained undisclosed. She added it was an important matter to many people and ‘whatever can be disclosed should be disclosed’. She added that if she had been elected, she would have listened to John Podesta’s advice (on disclosure).

It has been suggested that perhaps the General’s wife is downplaying the amount of knowledge her husband has about the UFO/NHI in the hope it will keep him safer. But also, although she is presumably interested in the subject and in his work (she is herself an astro-physicist, a former astronaut candidate with NASA, lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force, and, according to Ross Coulthart in his book ‘In Plain Sight’, attended the secret UAP meetings with her husband, and of course she would know about the leaked emails), she doesn’t have the same clearance as her husband and therefore would not/should not have knowledge of everything he knows.

As divulged by a number of whistle-blowers such as David Grush in the 2023 UFO congressional hearing and Lue Elizondo (amongst others), the alleged keepers of the secret about the said NHI presence on earth have not stopped at anything - including murder - to avoid the matter entering public domain. Coulthart raises the fact that the disappearance occurred very shortly after president Donald J Trump’s directive on February 20th to release all UFO files. It follows that General McCasland, as someone who has previously been heavily involved in UFO secrets as well as being a key adviser in the UFO declassification project could be seen by those opposed to disclosure as someone to be silenced.

So McCasland might be wanted to talk, or to be silenced, and both scenarios put him in grave danger.

The plot thickens when you also consider that Monica Jacinto Reza, a rocket scientist who created and patented a ‘super-alloy’ involved in the construction of high oxygen-rich rocket environments whilst in the Air Force Laboratory headed by McCasland, disappeared in June 2025 in the Angeles mountains in California. The odd thing is that whilst the search parties were still going on, someone who still remains anonymous and unknown today posted a death notice that she had died on the day she disappeared. There has never been any formal obituary or death certificate because her body has never been found.

Just four days after Reza’s disappearance, Melissa Casias, scientific adviser and administrative assistant at Los Alamos National laboratory (LANL), who worked closely on US aerospace research with General McCasland, also vanished.

On February 16h 2026, Carl Grillmair, a renowned astrophysicist who reportedly worked on telescope projects powered by military technology, and credited for finding water on a distant planet, was shot dead at his home in California. General McCasland oversaw his work…

These cases ignited discussions and parallels with other deaths and disappearances that occurred prior to them. It should be noted that all together, nine scientists are concerned. All worked on high-level space projects, or nuclear research, and/or UFO related research.

Below is a time-line of the disappearances or death. Notice the recurrence of JPL and Los Alamos laboratory…

1. On July 30, 2023 at the age of 59, Michael David Hicks, a research scientist at NASA‘s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), who was credited with publishing over 80 scientific papers and was part of multiple teams helping NASA understand the physical properties of comets and asteroids, died. The cause of death was never made public, and no record of an autopsy being performed could be found. Hicks was involved with the DART Project, NASA’s test to see if humans could deflect dangerous asteroids away from Earth. He also worked on the Deep Space 1 Mission, which tested new spacecraft technology that Carl Grillmair at JPL.

2. On July 4th, 2024 – Frank Maiwald, a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory researcher died in Los Angeles at age 61, with no cause of death disclosed. His untimely death seems to have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media and the general public until now.

3. On May 4th, 2025 – Anthony Chavez, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory employee vanished during a walk and was never found.

4. June 22nd, 2025: Monica Reza: see above.

5. June 26th, 2025: Melissa Casias: see above

6. December 12th, 2025: Jason Thomas, a researcher at Novartis went missing on a hike. His body was recovered from a lake on March 17, 2026. No cause of death was found.

7. December 15th, 2025 : Nuno Loureiro, the head of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center was fatally attacked at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts.

8. February 16th, 2026 – Carl Grillmair: see above

9. February 27th, 2026 – William Neil McCasland, main subject of this article.

Coincidences or pattern? As always, one must not jump to conclusions but keep asking questions, as does Congressman Tim Burchet, who sees a clear pattern in these seemingly unrelated deaths and disappearances, and notes that the work several of them were doing has been linked to theories about extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Congressman Eric Burlison, member of UAP Causus, who leads the charge for greater UAP transparency in congress, has asked the FBI to investigate a possible link. His questions are informed by murders disguised as suicides amongst people intent on whistle-blowing in the circles of UFO research.

Rep Tim Burchett, who sits on the House Oversight Committee investigating UFO reports, declared : “Something dark is going on. I know these scientists and researchers. They have testified. We’ve got to get to the bottom of it,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s just too much, too much is going on right now, and by the way, I’m not suicidal. The numbers seem very high in these certain areas of research. I think we’d better be paying attention, and I don’t think we should trust our government.” Burchett also stated that he was told by various sources that McCasland was the gatekeeper for UFO stuff. He also said that the fraternity of scientists working on the subject is very small and when something happens to one, they all pay attention. He says they are all very nervous at the moment. ‘This has had a real chilling effect. People don’t want to talk about this issue of Unidentified Flying Objects anymore. They are afraid, and probably rightfully so’.

When questioned about the possible link between those events, the police were unable to confirm there was one. However, former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker declared : ‘The FBI can’t have these examined in isolation and compartmentalise them as individual missing persons’. The Bernalillo County Sheriff Office also mentioned that they knew about the allegation of foul play in connection with the UFO matter and said : ‘Just because it’s crazy doesn’t mean it’s not true, but we have to look into the realities’.

They also said that they can neither state that the General was or was not abducted, or did or did not commit suicide. In fact, they have no clue as to what happened to the General…

Finally, asked if remote viewers had been tasked at some point to locate McCasland, Ross Coulthart said that he had two viewers contacting him with two different locations. One of them could see possible military buildings in an area a long way away from Albuquerque. He passed the information on to the Bernalillo sheriff office but as yet, he has not heard back them.

Sentinel News will keep you updated with the latest news on this subject. The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to questions at the time of writing.

As previously reported by Sentinel News, Rep. Burchett has been at the centre of a media storm since he stated :

I’ve been briefed by just about every alphabet agency there is. And I’ll just tell you this, if they would release the things that I’ve seen, you would stay up, you’d be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff.

it would have set the earth off. This country would have come unglued, I think, if they would have heard all that I heard.

Rep. Tim Burchett

In a new interview with TMZ, he was asked further questions about his statements.

I can’t get into too much specifics, but it was it was elaborating on some stuff that that we’d asked for. And it was important to get this person in a secure setting to where we could ask him these questions. And there was there was somebody in the meeting with us. One of my colleagues, I guess you’d say, was basically there just to kind of upset the apple cart and throw, you know, a monkey wrench into the deal. And every time the question was asked by this particular party, it was really the answers were out there and they gave specifics, they gave addresses, they gave times and dates and people that were in the meeting. And this went all the way up to the executive branch of previous presidents, not this current president.

Even if elected officials have been investigating the alleged UFO cover-up for years, what exactly they learned during their classified briefings remains a mystery today. The only person who can declassify the information, President Donald Trump, has so far refused to do so.

According to Burchett, these secret briefings point towards the executive branch, showing how high up the alleged cover-up goes and calling into question the many presidents, including Barack Obama, who denied being briefed on UFOs. If even the executive branch contains individuals who are lying or disobeying the U.S. President, it is hard to imagine how the world’s leading military power is actually managed.

An even worse situation would be if U.S. presidents had actually lied to their own population in order to preserve social order.

He was then questioned about the nature of what was allegedly recovered : mechanical or biological. He answered with a resounding:

I’d say you’d be safe to say both.

If whistleblowers such as David Grusch have alluded to ‘biologics’ being recovered during crash-recovery operations, the subject is still taboo and is often mocked by the media. According to Tim Burchett, it is now a fact that both non-human spacecraft and bodies have been recovered by the US.

He then explained that, despite the apparent technological gap between us, he wasn’t worried.

I don’t think we’re at danger of this.

They could have destroyed us with a blink of an eye. I just don’t see that.

I do think they have the technology and the capabilities of something that we can’t understand or we can’t grasp.

He was then questioned if there were interaction with people by these NHI. He answered:

Yeah, they have, it’s pretty wild. I’m just telling you, I’m not gonna lie to you, if you want to put me on a polygraph, I’ll take it. But, you know, this is what the guy told me.

This groundbreaking statement, despite lacking hard proof or direct testimony, reverberates through the world of ufology, where rumours of governments making deals with NHI have long been the stuff of legend. If Burchett’s statement reflects the current status of the Congressional investigation into UAPs, one can only wonder how extensive the alleged cover-up is.

Jacques Vallée
PO Box 641650
San Francisco, CA. 94164

San Francisco, March 2, 2026

Open letter to Jean-Jacques Velasco

RE: ‘ROSWELL’

Hello Jean-Jacques,

The Éditions Trédaniel kindly sent me your book on Roswell, for which I thank them. Your gracious inscription leads me to believe that we may still be able to communicate, despite the multiple personal attacks against my integrity and abilities as a scientific researcher and venture investor, that your book contains.

Reading the book, and after a thorough review of it and its historical context, I am left surprised and disheartened (I will not dwell on the insinuations made by people you may have listened to at Roswell).

I have no comment to make on the observations and investigations of the Roswell case. Just remember that I have a complete file on this event since my work with NIDS in the 90s, and with BAASS after that. A confidential file which will remain tucked away in a drawer, but on everything else I feel compelled to highlight passages from your book which left me in shock :

1. You repeatedly mention a so-called time proximity of this case with the one of Trinity, which I studied for many years and in great length: you know this, because you cite my book.

   Page 238 of your book: “a crash having taken place a few days later, over a zone (…) which would be the famous case reported by J. Vallée”

   This is false: Trinity happened in July 1945, Roswell in 1947! It’s enormous, in the US, in terms of historical and political perspective. Without delving into the details, the vast worldwide US army deployment was not yet over in 1945, whereas the economic, social and political situation had drastically changed in 1947. Furthermore, these two events, which are not close in time, aren’t geographically close either: it’s roughly 279 kilometres between the Roswell and Trinity sites! 165 miles to reach the American Highway and over 8 miles to the Trinity crash site. It’s at least 3 hours by car, going at the speed limit (comparable to the journey from Bayonne to Toulouse), followed by a half-hour, if you are willing, roaming across open terrain in a four-wheel-drive.

   The local geography is therefore completely different between the two sites. New Mexico is a very large state (121.590 US sq. miles) which is comparable to the size of Poland. Trinity occurred two years prior to Roswell and has by no means been copying Roswell.

2. You imply an absence of testimony at Trinity and the lack of thoroughness in my work:

   Page 237: “A desert region solely inhabited by native Indian tribes… No formally identified witnesses, no precise description of the site nor of the recovered physical evidence …”

   This is false:

   1. The region is not a desert! The breeding of large herds is a generations long practice. My book includes photos of the site and details.

   2. The Indian tribes who developed the region in the 18^th and 19^th centuries migrated to Arizona. The current population (70,000 people) is Anglo-Saxon and Hispanic American. Note that Rémé Baca’s family, one of the direct witnesses, is Spanish, of European descent, and not Indian nor Mexican.

   3. There were two livestock herders on the ranch, who observed the object’s arrival, heard its shock against a military communication tower and stayed for many hours next to the crashed object. These two witnesses returned to the site, where they cared for cattle and fences, over the seven days where the object remained in place and was inspected by the army.

      Our book includes transcripts of lengthy interviews with the families and the two witnesses. One of them, who is still alive, visited and measured the interior.

   4. Your book explicitly accuses me of knowingly making myself complicit in a fraud, a mere forger copying data from Roswell.

      Page 237: “It is Jacques Vallée, the Franco-American ufologist, who portrays himself as the spokesperson for this unknown “crash” event…”

      All the details of my investigations, day by day, are set out in our work on Trinity (along with observations on four other sites which I had worked on with professionals in New Mexico) in my multiple volumes journal, Forbidden Science, published a long time ago, and available within minutes on internet for a few dollars.

3. As you know, there is no witness of the crash at Roswell. The debris and bodies were found later. The CUFOS teams, directed on the site by Mrs Hynek with whom I was in close contact, had a hard time locating this (these?) important sites before concluding to the reality of this crash. The question is still not fully resolved today, and the controversies continue. I had followed them in my works with Stanton Friedman, a seasoned physicist, and with Colonel Corso (who had seen the bodies after Roswell) during two-days long interviews, confidentially organized by Colonel Alexander at the NIDS, in Las Vegas.

4. The bird names (Falcon, Partridge etc.) were invented by an individual who publicly recognized being a front for DoD’s disinformation, William Moore. He admitted it at a MUFON conference where there was one thousand people (myself included), therefore this is not confidential. Unfortunately, you fell for it like many others. The Aviary was a false organization, created to ridicule and discourage researchers by means of disinformation in the 70’s (Moore was paid for this ‘work’, and confessed it to us). This too, is available in many books, including mine.

- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :- :-

I could forget all of this but there are much more serious matters: you directly accuse me, with your publisher’s full awareness (who should nevertheless have reviewed your manuscript with his editorial advisors?) to be an American spy in France. Obviously, it is like asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife. We could never refute such an accusation, and the doubt is permanently set. But here, you accuse me of knowingly betraying my native country.

Even if it is impossible to prove one is not a spy, you know there were people within our circle who were in the position to verify, and whom you could have easily consulted, in your quality of ex-employee of a ‘sensitive’ government institution. Some of the individuals in question are among those named here among the officials I have copied in this letter. You know them as I do. Yet, you have not made this obvious enquiry.

I am obliged to take into account this serious accusation, now widely disseminated in France and internationally by your publisher and the media, which was brought to my attention by your own readers – with the suspicion and potential physical threats that this implies for me and my family.

I have, therefore, resigned from the CNES-GEIPAN expert panel, and I regretfully wrote to Mr Luc Dini of the Sigma 2 group (3F technical commission), that I will no longer do anything official that deals with this topic in France.

Your book’s multiple insinuations are serious because I have kept a financial investor role in French and international companies, a profession that doesn’t play around with such an accusation: it implies dissimulation, and foreign instructions that may interfere with the strategy and even the purpose of existence of a business corporation.

My integrity and my professional independence have been at the foundation of my work within French, European and American financial investment funds for over 40 years. I contributed to financing over 60 ‘start-ups’ in medicine, aerospace, artificial intelligence and in business software in the five funds that I started within international teams, notably NASA’s venture capital firm “Red Planet Capital” (which had selected my team among 45 candidates) and three Euro-American funds with professional financial partners who are French, Belgian, Swiss, Japanese, Canadian and American. I have been, twice, a member of European financial committees in Brussels.

I also have been one of the financiers and member of the Board of Directors for Dr Pouletty’s company SANGSTAT, the second French medical company for which we have successfully completed a rare introduction to NASDAQ. I was part of the French government scientific committee selecting investments (free of charge) for the Evry Génopole, for 10 years, with French doctors and representatives of main French pharmaceutical companies: ideal position for a spy!

Generally speaking, as in “general Partner” and member of Board of Directors for such companies, I have always respected the highest integrity and a responsibility that has never been in question. Institutional investors have means to verify whether they are entrusting a little spy with millions of dollars or euros (with the arrogance of being a ufologist in his spare time?).

I am forced to remind you it was I who insisted that you be invited to Pocantico as a part of the American astronomy elite; that I successfully convinced professor Hynek (whom I had introduced you to) to come to Paris to support the GEPAN when a majority of consulted French leading scientists had recommended to shut it down; and that you and I have together redone the Trans-en-Provence investigation, including analysis of your samples which had not been carried out by CNES.

You have suffered, as I have, from malicious insinuations and illegal attacks against our private lives. It is through your book, however, that I find myself exposed to an accusation of treason against my country and my colleagues. You will understand that I find this unpleasant surprise hard to accept. I am waiting for the decisions that you will take, with your publisher, to rectify this situation, and then, I hope, we will return to more serene relations.

Jacques.

PS1 : Contrary to political parties, the scientific debate doesn’t consist in excluding divergent opinions. Quite to the contrary, it encourages it. My interpretation of Kenneth Arnold’s case is different from that of Pierre Lagrange, but precisely, I am not competent in sociology, and it is this difference that interests me. I consider him with respect and friendship, and I listen to him. Likewise, my disagreement with Bruno Mancusi is real but neither he nor I have a demonstration-ready solution to the abductions problem (you neither). If we are both wrong, maybe we will find a solution together? This is how “science moves forward”… not by eliminating criticism.

PS2 : You write,

Page 239: “… real isotopic anomalies, only indications that can identify if a material is of extra-terrestrial origin or not”

This is scientifically wrong. In science, medicine and in the army we use some materials that have lab-made isotopic anomalies, to tag injected or mixed substances. An anomaly such as Ubatuba may be of terrestrial, artificial origin. (Let’s not forget that there was no available witness of the crash for this Ubatuba investigation, as at Roswell). The isotopic natural composition does not vary in the solar system and maybe further out as well: A lunar or Martian piece of aluminium does not differ from a standard Aluminium, or only by a minimal fraction (<5%) just like the terrestrial geological samples.

End of letter

Translated by Kate Sellier, reviewed by Dr. Jacques Vallée

Editor’s notes :

• This letter follows the publication of Jean-Jacques Velasco’s book : “Roswell, l’enquête qui change tout”

• Forbidden Science, vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

• Trinity : The Best Kep Secret, 2021

• NIDS : National Institute for Discovery Science, 1995-2004, “was the first professional scientific research institute in the United States that was devoted to the exploration and investigation of UAP and other anomalous phenomena.” Dr. Eric Davis

• BAASS : Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies

• SANGSTAT : “SangStat, which has a subsidiary in Nantes, develops its own technologies but also holds the exclusive North American licence from Pasteur-Mérieux Sérums et Vaccins for Thymoglobulin, a treatment for rejection reactions.” Les Echos

• GEPAN : Study Group on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, created in 1977, by the CNES (French space agency)

It is said that the main obstacle to disclosure is not only military, but also energy-related. Those involved in the case complain of institutional pressure, some of which has had dramatic consequences. A Missouri congressman was permitted to view recordings that neither he nor the intelligence services can explain, and he is one of a handful of elected representatives to have been given this opportunity. The legislative process is underway, but is moving slowly with obstacles at every stage. The issue of UAPs is becoming less marginalised. Thanks to representatives such as Luna and Burlison, it is no longer being ignored.

Through a selection of interviews summarised for you, you can gain an insider’s perspective on the state of affairs in the US.

Rep. Eric Burlison

The representative for Missouri’s 7th District has emerged as one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for transparency regarding Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). He has demonstrated his commitment by officially appointing David Grusch, a former senior intelligence officer and UAP whistleblower, as a special advisor for transparency efforts related to the House Oversight Working Group on the Declassification of Federal Secrets in March 2025.

Then, in August 2025, Burlison introduced the UAP Disclosure Act of 2025 as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2026 fiscal year. “For too long, Americans have been kept in the dark about UAPs,” he stated. ‘This amendment ensures these records are preserved, reviewed, and responsibly released to the public.’ During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee, Burlison presented a video of a military drone attempting to shoot down a luminous ‘orb’ off the coast of Yemen and questioned an Air Force veteran about evidence of extraterrestrial technology. He takes a pragmatic and objective approach: while he does not take a firm stance on the phenomenon’s possible non-human origin, he does not rule it out either. Above all, he focuses on verifying the testimonies of whistleblowers.

The Fresh Freedom Podcast

In the latest episode, Burlison welcomes Sam “Gerb” (also known as UAP Gerb) to discuss the institutional barriers to disclosure, including the role of the Department of Energy, administrative red tape and the need for transparency.

Obama, Trump and Disclosure

The conversation stems from a recent statement by Barack Obama, who suggested that if information on UFOs was being withheld, it might be because it was being withheld from the president himself. Presenter Nate Lucas uses this to pose the question that opens the debate.

Nate Lucas : Do you see what I’m saying, that when he said ‘unless there’s an enormous conspiracy hiding it from the president,’ and when you dig into all of these different agencies that seem to have some tie to something UFO or UAP related, maybe there’s this massive network where each agency knows a little bit, but not one single person knows everything. Could that perhaps be what he was alluding to there?

Burlison : And I’ve been requesting that. I’ve been talking to White House staff about making that request since Trump stepped into office and just saying this is something he, you know, he ran on disclosure. He did some executive orders on disclosure. One was the JFK files. The other one was MLK files. And we did not see the UAP files. And I kept asking and asking and I’m glad. I guess we could thank Obama for kind of prompting it.

Sam “Gerb” agrees and immediately puts the issue into a broader context, recalling the case of John Podesta (an American politician and former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton).

Gerb : “I think that’s exactly what he was alluding to. I also think that there have been several presidents who, during their tenure in the presidency, weren’t informed on these programs, and either towards the tail end of their presidency or following their administration, received a partial briefing. I mean, look at Barack Obama’s campaign manager, John Podesta. His name is all over the WikiLeaks files, talking about various UAP meetings with Hillary Clinton and so forth, Tom DeLonge (musician and co-founder of To the Stars Academy) , the now missing general McCasland (aerospace engineer, retired Major General of the US Air Force and former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory) and so forth.

The JFK Files as a precedent

When asked about a president’s actual ability to declassify documents by executive order, Burlison cites the JFK Files as an initial encouraging sign.

Burlison : “We’ve had tremendous success because there is an executive order and Tulsi Gabbard has acted on that executive order. I think a lot of it has to do with who you put in charge and what kind of moral character they have. And when Trump issued that executive order, she went in and demanded that the CIA release their files. But what it does prove is that the CIA at least tried to cover up their relationship with Oswald. They had connections to him. They definitely knew who he was. They definitely were tracking him. And all of those files have come out, and the CIA tried to hold those and squash those for decades. So we’ve made some success, quite a bit of success.”

The Department of Energy at the heart of the system

Sam “Gerb” then outlines the various US classification systems and their complexity. He gives the example of the Atomic Energy Act, which has been in place since 1954 and establishes what is known as ‘restricted data’ – an automatic classification for anything related to nuclear matters. Consequently, the Department of Energy can classify anything with even the slightest connection to these matters, regardless of any presidential decree.

Burlison : It is extremely challenging and just navigating it has been nearly impossible, which is why we hired David Grusch as a part-time employee in the office, really just as even a consultant to tell us which rocks to pick up.

Gerb : If there’s any infrastructure that can house and make such technology secret, it would indeed be the Department of Energy. From what I understand with the UAP Retrieval and Exploitation Programs, the Department of Energy is baked in at every level, not just because of the classification systems, but also because there’s elements of the DOE and its semi-autonomous subordinate agency, the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, that a lot of people don’t know about.

I’m sure quite a few people don’t know that DOE has its own intelligence agency, the OICI, Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. The DOE has its own transportation unit that conceivably would be perfect to transit UAP materials across the continental United States. It’s called the OST, the Office of Secure Transportation. Not only that, but the DOE and NNSA have their own FFRDCs, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. These are the national labs we all know, Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge on the Y-12 complex.

A history of disclosure in the 1990s

Gerb places the debate in a historical context, emphasising that investigative efforts are nothing new.

Gerb : “I think back to Dick D’Amato, who was a high level staff for the Senate in the mid-90s. He actually visited some infamous locations. I believe he went to Area 51 to try and study this topic and was given the consolation tour to show random things.

I also think back to New Mexico State Representative J. Andrew Kissner, who almost operated as a proto David Grusch. Kistner in the early 90s started to interview numerous firsthand individuals within these programs from then Air Force Major Command, Air Force Systems Command, the Office of Naval Research, the Research and Development Board, and so forth.

That actually launched Stephen Schiff’s investigation into Roswell with the General Accounting Office, when the Air Force supposedly lost all the Roswell files.

Gerb then describes the AARO as a ‘honeypot for valuable UAP information’, a trap designed to capture valuable information on UAPs and whistleblowers, and suggests that attention should be turned to the USDI and Ronald Moultrie, who helped found the AARO.

Burlison’s investigation

Nate Lucas : When you have dug into this issue, it’s probably been a little bit of a mixed bag with these agencies working with you, maybe giving you a crumb here, crumb there, leading you along, but how’s your overall experience been?

Burlison : “It was difficult at first. It’s gotten easier over time. And I think that my approach, and being consistent, I think that they realize that they can’t just continue to ignore me. But also that I tell them all the time, I’m trying to do this because I love the country. And I want to protect this country. And I think that it’s important that we be transparent to the American people on the things we should be transparent about. And then the things that really threaten our national security, I’m all for protecting as well.

I’ve been given access to go visit a site, multiple sites potentially. I’ve already visited one, I plan to visit at least three more. And, you know, I might be given the dog and pony show and taken to the cafeteria or whatever, but at least I’m able to do my part and try to do everything I can to get to these locations and see what’s there. And we have more and more whistleblowers coming to us all the time. So I think that this is starting to unravel. I really do.

Energy: the crux of the mystery

The presenter then raises the most mind-boggling aspect of the subject: if these objects can operate without visible fuel, hover indefinitely, and accelerate without generating heat, the technology they use could transform the global economy.

Nate Lucas : That would mean that they’re using an energy system that is fundamentally different from anything publicly known. There are some people who legitimately think that our advanced technology is... That’s what’s being hidden.

Burlison :Yes. And that our advanced technology is like 30 years in advance of what we know to be real or most up-to-date.

What Burlison saw with his own eyes

Nate Lucas : What’s the most compelling piece of testimony? I know some things you cannot disclose because they’re classified, but just curious if there’s anything you know or that you’ve heard that you could make the case to the American people.

Burlison : I have seen videos of objects. I can’t tell you exactly what they are. And I say that because I don’t, I’m saying I saw it and I can’t tell what they are. And neither could the people that filmed them. But it’s something that’s wild. Very, very, you know, defies logic, the way in which they operate. What you’re often seeing is these glowing type orbs. They look like balls of plasma that seem to be stationary. And then sometimes they’ll just move at incredible speeds. So I don’t know what that is. And I don’t think that our intelligence community knows what these things are.

Blackmail, intimidation and the protection of whistleblowers

Nate Lucas : Do either of you buy into the idea that one of the reasons we can’t get total disclosure is because of these blackmail networks in which people continuously hold positions and it’s used against them to keep information from getting out?²

Gerb : Well, I certainly think so. The figureheads of these programs are not a president. It’s not elected officials. It’s individuals who are not temporary employees, unelected officials. I think of senior executive service within the US armed forces, and these individuals can stay within their positions for an indefinite period.

So the keepers of the secrets, if you will, can remain in power without leaving and can also bully and intimidate others from releasing information or whistleblowing on topics. I have personally spoken to individuals who have had their pensions threatened by expressing interest in the topic.

Some other individuals have claimed that they have been threatened with very explicit content crimes if they were to go forward with some of their knowledge about the UAP programs. So it seems like there is a very large intimidation and bullying structure used to prevent people from speaking on this.

Burlison : Yeah, we have the UAP Disclosure Act and within that is whistleblower protection language. Hopefully we’ll be able to get it in the base text of the National Defense Authorization Act before it leaves the committee. That’s my goal. And so then the only way to get it out would be to strip it out and have an amendment. And I just don’t see Democrats voting to do that.

And I think most Republicans would not support that either. So I think if we can get it in, I think it’ll stay. The question is, will the Senate let it stay in? And so what we’ve seen is that there’s some senators, early Senate offices that seem to be adverse to letting other committees or other people in on their turf. And which is sad because oftentimes up here it’s a turf war.

He adds, regarding the bipartisan nature of the issue:

I’ve just got in a briefing today on this topic in a SCIF with Democrats and Republicans who came because they were all interested in this topic. It is probably one of the most bipartisan topics that’s up here.

Out of the shadows

A few days after the podcast was released, the story reached a new media milestone. On 30 March, Burlison appeared on Fox News as part of a panel discussion with three presenters. The tone of the conversation shifted, moving beyond classification and bureaucratic red tape. Names were mentioned, suspicious deaths were discussed and the crushing pressure on individuals was highlighted. Until then, the UAP dossier had been confined to specialist circles and congressional hearings, but it entered the mainstream public debate.

The interview focused on three themes: the troubling fate of individuals associated with the case, the true nature of the observed technology, and the extent and reasons behind government secrecy.

Disturbing fates

Burlison began on a sombre note. The case of General McCasland alone illustrates the pressure being exerted on those involved in this matter. He also mentioned Monica Reza, who had worked on a government-funded project concerning a superalloy used in rockets under McCasland’s supervision. She disappeared while out hiking, and the circumstances surrounding her disappearance remain unexplained. However, it is yet another case that is capturing Congress’s attention even more.

I’ve heard of others. We’ve already sent a letter when I first came in. I heard of another gentleman, and I’ll keep that name out of respect, sent a letter to the FBI investigating the suspicious suicide of another individual who had worked alongside other whistleblowers like David Grusch and Jake Barber who had come forward. So their colleague has mysteriously committed suicide. We’ve already sent the letter to the FBI to investigate that, and that is an ongoing investigation.

Reporter: I watched a documentary called Age of Disclosure. Those that have seen it know that those that are whistleblowers and talking about UFO activity, alien activity, they know that they are fearful of retaliation, retribution, whatever, for disclosing alien activity. So how much of this are you concerned, it could be not the aliens themselves doing this, but somebody who possibly wants to shut people up?

Burlison :That’s my concern as well. Look, let’s set the alien from another planet topic aside. There’s clearly demonstrated technology that is extremely advanced. And I’ve seen videos, we’ve had a lot of reports, we’ve had pilots that have encountered these objects. There is a type of technology that is so cutting edge and advanced, whether it’s being held by a foreign entity or a private contractor in the United States. What’s clear is that there’s a lot of work to keep very highly guarded the secret of that technology. And so, probably a lot of work that’s being done by our adversaries to try to discover what this technology is.

The files, the cameras and Burlison’s list

The third presenter raises two points. The first is the case of Monica Reza, a scientist whose patent on a superalloy led to a $4.7 billion deal before she went missing. The second is the statement by Christopher Mellon, a former Under Secretary of Defence under the Clinton and Bush administrations. He told the press that the federal government is said to hold a staggering number of photos and videos of UFOs. Why hide them?

Burlison : I don’t know why they’ve been keeping it a secret for so long. A lot of these videos that they’re keeping classified have been captured on technology that we don’t want our adversaries to know that we have the ability to capture. So in other words, the cameras themselves are highly classified. And because of that, we don’t want to release the footage.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Congress shouldn’t be able to see this, which is why I’ve submitted an official request to Tulsi Gabbard’s office, to the Department of War, to the Secretary of State and the Department of Energy to be able to see these files. And I’ve got a list of about two to three dozen of these files. I’ve got contact with other whistleblowers. There’s more files to come. We’ve got people on the inside watching to see based on our request, if these files have been moved, if they are deleted or changed in any way to avoid that. So we’re on the trail and hopefully Congress can be able to at least get our eyes on these videos and give some insights to the American people.

Beyond Politics

When asked about the potential significance of these findings, a presenter asks whether Burlison thinks there might be more to it than meets the eye.

Burlison : That’s what we’re looking into. I’m trying to figure out what is going on. What is actually flying in our airspace? What’s going over some of our military bases or some of our missile silos locations? There’s a lot of activity that’s reported and documented. And it’s important that we identify and figure out what’s going on.

What I’ve made very clear is that if I uncover the fact that we are not alone in this universe, that’s not something for any politician, any government to withhold from humanity. That is not top secret and it shouldn’t be top secret. But any kind of advanced technology that keeps us safe is probably something we should guard and protect.

Despite their different formats, these two interviews point in the same direction and help to highlight some clear themes.

Essentially, Burlison and Gerb are asking a simple question: who owns the information? While the Department of Energy can classify information at will, the AARO can detain whistleblowers without accountability and senators can oppose the UAP Disclosure Act, the answer remains the same as it always has been: it belongs to no one and everyone except the public.

Resistance to disclosure exerts real pressure on real people. Suspicious suicides, unexplained disappearances, forced retirements and overt intimidation: what Burlison and Gerb describe is not an abstract theory; it is a list of individuals who have been sent letters to the FBI.

Burlison himself has seen things. Not evidence of aliens, but inexplicable videos and objects that neither he nor the intelligence services can explain. He is no longer just an elected representative relaying testimonies; he is a first-hand witness.

Finally, we can gauge the scale of the legislative work currently underway. The UAP Disclosure Act exists, official requests have been sent and people within the system are monitoring whether files are being moved. The machinery is in motion. Perhaps what has changed is simply this: an elected representative continues to knock on doors, site after site, refusal after refusal, and he is now doing so live on Fox News. The obstruction may well remain systematic, but it is no longer silent.

A few weeks earlier, on the UAP Summit podcast, Representative Burlison gave a slightly more technical interview, in which he addressed other, more down-to-earth but equally compelling topics.

Before whistleblowers and bureaucratic red tape, there is a simpler, almost mechanical reality. The United States lacks the means to detect what it claims not to see.

We have built a system that is mostly designed around identifying foreign adversaries, planes and jets, things that are missile systems, things that we would know, and everything that we have has been built around that. Unfortunately, UAP is not one of those things that we have built things around.

The Chinese balloon case is less of an anomaly and more of a demonstration. They had not been spotted because nobody was looking for a balloon. The same structural blind spot applies to what the UAP community has been observing for decades: it is not merely a secret deliberately kept under wraps, but a reality that the US surveillance apparatus was simply not configured to detect.

Critical Infrastructure

The detection problem takes on a whole new dimension when plotted on a map. Reports of incursions are not concentrated in empty areas: they occur regularly over nuclear sites, military bases and underground natural gas storage facilities.

They have a deep level of concern, which is why, I think that what technology we do have in place that’s monitoring is located in those places, but we have much more that we can do.

L’aveu est précis : les agences concernées reconnaissent en interne une menace réelle. Ce qui leur manque, c’est la capacité d’y répondre, voire même de décrire précisément ce qu’elles voient.

Aviation safety: Ryan Graves and near-misses

Ryan Graves’s testimony to the House Oversight Committee highlighted an issue that military and commercial pilots had been raising for years, but without an official channel through which to do so. Burlison draws a direct conclusion from this regarding air traffic safety.

There was a grave concern that there were near miss events with objects that they could not identify that were over the military base. I have myself seen a video... one plane is landing, it’s filming another plane across the horizon, and you see three objects go at incredible speeds passing in between these two planes. Those objects have not been identified, but that’s extremely disturbing when you see something like that.

The FAA has no formal mechanism through which commercial pilots can report UAPs. Instead, their observations are referred to civil organisations that lack the authority and resources to act on them. This results in lost data building up and witnesses remaining silent for fear of professional repercussions.

The turf war

Whereas the Department of Energy imposes restrictions through classification, the Department of Homeland Security is simply absent by default.

“What I’ve learned about the federal government in the three short years I’ve been in Congress is that it’s all about territories and turf.”

The Pentagon has taken control of the UAP dossier. Despite being the US department that has released the most UAP videos and being responsible for protecting domestic airspace, borders, critical infrastructure and civil aviation security, the DHS has never been invited to the table. Special access programmes are not shared between agencies.

Burlison suggests that the Executive Office for Unmanned Aerial Systems, which already exists within the DHS, could be tasked with this mission. However, this would require congressional authorisation and a dedicated budget.

Sputnik

If the threat comes from China or Russia, the situation changes completely. Burlison puts forward this hypothesis quite bluntly.

If we were to verify that what’s happening in our airspace is a Chinese technology that is capable of doing things that we’re not capable of, that would be a Sputnik level crisis that we would have to address. And so, one has to wonder : is this non-human intelligence?

The wording is deliberate. The choice presented is not between the known and the unknown: it is between strategic humiliation at the hands of a human adversary, and something that human intelligence cannot explain. Both options are equally unsettling, for different reasons.

The legislative process

The UAP Disclosure Act, modelled on the legislation that led to the release of the JFK archives, faces an obstacle that, Burlison notes, is unusual for a subject receiving so little media attention.

You have to get the four corners of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate counterpart, the four corners of the intelligence committee and the Senate counterpart, and the Homeland Security committee and its counterpart. It becomes extremely complicated.

The process involves three committees across both chambers. At least twelve people are involved, any one of whom has the power to block the process. During the previous session, the amendment was not approved by the House Rules Committee and was not included in the NDAA in the Senate. This was due to a lack of time, not votes. However, Burlison has succeeded in making the committee chairs recognise the issue.

You’ve opened up the door for the conversation now, and we are all kind of aware of the topic. Going forward, you have a much better chance.

Lawyer Danny Sheehan has since reviewed the text. The wording has been clarified. The clause on eminent domain remains in the draft, slightly reworded.

The 2019 drone incident

The winter of 2019–2020 was a symbolic moment. For several weeks, large drones, flying in formation at night over Nebraska and eastern Colorado, overwhelmed local emergency services. Dozens of sheriffs and their deputies witnessed this first-hand. The FBI, the DOD and the FAA launched investigations. Then the drones disappeared, and the phones in Washington stopped ringing.

When this wave stopped, it was as if the telephone in DC just went dead. They were receiving no more responses from DOD and the FBI.

The duration of this episode is almost exactly the same as that of the Langley incursions. In 2026, the relevant agencies publicly treated the waves of drones as a new phenomenon. Burlison then asks the obvious question: if it isn’t new, why is it being presented as such?

Trump

Burlison’s final argument is more political than institutional, and perhaps the most perceptive of all. There are allies within the executive branch, such as Gabbard, Rubio and Vance. However, the political will must ultimately come from the president. According to Burlison, the president possesses a quality that his predecessors did not.

I don’t think we’ve ever had a better opportunity than now to have a president that doesn’t owe the intelligence agencies a damn thing. And really, if the American people want it, I think that he would make it a priority.

The strategy is clear: ensure the issue receives sufficient media coverage to bring it to the attention of a president who responds to public pressure by nature. Taking advantage of this flexibility in the interests of freedom of information seems to be the way forward.

Tim Burchett, who is well known for his inquiries into the allocation and misuse of funds, was interviewed on Newsmax on 2 April 2026. During the interview, he provided an overview of the investigation into UAP:

I’ve been briefed by just about every alphabet agency there is. And I’ll just tell you this, if they would release the things that I’ve seen, you would stay up, you’d be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff. We just need to disclose and all. I’m sick of it. Well, I was briefed. I’ll just tell you this. I was briefed last week on an issue, excuse me, two weeks ago. And it would have set the earth off. This country would have come unglued, I think, if they would have heard all that I heard.

Representative Burchett’s statement raises questions. It followed a question about an alleged programme involving the interbreeding of human and non-human populations, which an individual dressed in military attire had revealed to Matt Gaetz in an unsecured and informal setting. According to Matt Gaetz’s own admission, he had been unable to confirm this information.

Regarding the potential disclosure of PAN information by Donald Trump, he outlined the various barriers that would prevent the US president from accessing declassified information :

When I’m in a meeting, in a closed-door meeting, and I asked about the president’s points on these, and then I’m told by some arrogant, unelected bureaucrat that the president is on a need-to-know basis.

When I sit in a meeting and some little punk with a man bun is sort of running the show, and you have decorated military officers in the meeting there that are basically unallowed to say anything, and you can read their faces what’s going on.

I talked to the president about this. I said, “ *it’s just layers of the onion, Mr. President”. You peel one off, and there’s another one underneath. You put your top people in, and it’s just too much to clear out in four years.

unfortunately, it just keeps getting covered up and covered up.

And I told the president, release it all. And the problem is, the people that are around the president don’t know the, and the president doesn’t know the questions to ask. A few of us are going to have to get with the president and tell him what he needs to ask and where he needs to look.

I know Donald Trump wants to disclose something. He hasn’t done it yet, but I think he wants to be the president to do that.

One can’t help but wonder what kind of information could trigger such a collapse of American democracy. If the Department of Energy is hiding a means of transportation capable of reaching space safely without using conventional fuel, the launch of Artemis would go from being a celebration of a new space age to a grim farce. Whistleblowers have also reported threats to their safety and that of their loved ones, with the government going so far as to threaten to remove their children from the families supporting them, according to their accounts.

Regarding his own access to information, he stated

We’re in meetings and they have addresses and tell locations of items

This observation, which might go unnoticed amid all the other news, is nonetheless significant: the U.S. lawmakers leading the investigation into the possible recovery, concealment, and reverse-engineering of UAP now know where the physical evidence, kept under wraps for over 70 years, has been stored.

This news comes amid renewed speculation that Donald Trump may disclose UAP information in 2026, with suggestions that a commemorative coin bearing his likeness could be minted to mark the occasion.

In an interview on 77 wabc, Tim Burchett also stated regarding missing General McCasland that he was pointed as one of the gatekeepers regarding UFO information.

“He is the guy that had a lot of nuclear secrets and that was allegedly the gatekeeper, and I’ve been told by several sources that he was the gatekeeper for the UFO stuff.”

He also confirmed that his meetings were under surveillance:

I had a meeting with somebody and they, they brought a person in to talk to me about the UFO issue. And then there was a guy sitting in the back and I said, well, well, “who’s that?” And he said, “he’s not here”.

Regarding the group of scientists who allegedly worked on UAP materials, some of whom disappeared last year, he explained:

it’s a very small fraternity. And when anytime one of them, something happens to one, the others are take note of it, and I was, I was briefed this week, I guess past week. And I’ll just say that that, that group is, is very nervous. They are very nervous about what’s going on.

One of the most well known member of this group is Gen. McCasland, who has been missing for weeks. According to a recording of Gen. McCasland’s wife 911 call, the missing General might well planned his disappearance :

I have some indication that he must have planned not to be found.

He’s left his phone, he changed his clothes

He turned it off and left it behind, which seems kind of deliberate, because he’s always got his phone.

he’s also facing some medical issues

we’ve been seeing a doc for both physical and mental in terms of anxieties, short-term memory loss, lack of sleep

I went to look in the gun safe to see if anything was missing, but I couldn’t tell if anything was, because he has quite a number of pistols and rifles, other than saying if his brain and body keep deteriorating, he didn’t want to live like that.

Representative Burlison also stated that General McCasland, who appeared to be a source of UAP information on Wikileaks, was one of the former officials he wanted to question. Facing mounting pressure from the investigation and deteriorating health, McCasland may have decided to take his own life.

Tuesday, 31 March 2026 will undoubtedly go down as a landmark date in the history of UFO investigation. In Washington D.C., Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, Chairwoman of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets and member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives, released a letter to Secretary Pete Hegseth calling for the declassification of numerous UAP videos.

This task force is a working group that was set up by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It was appointed to this role in 2025. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth holds the post of Secretary of Defence at the Department of War, the new name for the Pentagon.

But what exactly does this letter tell us? At first glance, this list of UAP incidents may seem puzzling, to say the least. However, it is a military classification system, specifically that of the US Army.

‘Administrative’ formats and codes

Some entries on the list seem to correspond to official report formats, which suggests an internal origin.

IIR (Intelligence Information Report): Several entries begin with ‘IIR’, such as IIR 1 666 SO151 23. This is a standardised report format. ‘IIR’ stands for ‘Intelligence Information Report’. It is an official document used to transmit raw information gathered by human intelligence (HUMINT). Its structure is standardised to facilitate integration into intelligence agency databases. In a technical context, ‘IIR’ can also stand for ‘Imaging Infrared’, a type of infrared sensor. Therefore, there is a possible double meaning depending on the context.

The reference ‘Administrative Revision: IIR 1777 J0032 22’ is even more explicit. It indicates that an existing IIR report has been updated or corrected for administrative reasons, which is a common practice in the management of sensitive documents.

In this context, both interpretations coexist: the numbered entries (’IIR 1 666 SO151 23’) are intelligence reports, while the ‘IIR 1 665 SO301 23/Eglin AFB’ entries in technical format refer to imaging infrared as a type of sensor. There is no ambiguity: these are two distinct uses within the same list.

Platform and Sensor Indicators

The list also includes specific technical terms that are integral to the U.S. military’s intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Aircraft and Units:

• MQ-9: Refers to the MQ-9 Reaper combat drone.

• F-18: Refers to the F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber.

• F-16C: A specific variant of the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter.

• EP-3: An electronic reconnaissance aircraft, the Lockheed EP-3.

• AFSOC: Air Force Special Operations Command, the U.S. Air Force’s special operations command.

• USCG: United States Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard.

• USAF ANG: United States Air Force Air National Guard, the Air National Guard.

• NGA: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

This agency was created in 2003 following the merger of the NIMA (National Imagery and Mapping Agency) into a DoD intelligence agency, alongside the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Its mission is to provide GEOINT (geospatial intelligence) to the armed forces.

Sensors and technologies:

FLIR: Forward-Looking Infrared, an infrared camera. Videos from FLIR are often referred to by this term (e.g., “F-18 FLIR UAP”).

AIM-9X: Refers to a specific model of air-to-air missile.

A letter that changes the game

The Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets is not asking for general reports, nor is it requesting courtesy briefings: it is demanding classified video files, identified one by one, along with their dates and the platforms on which they were captured. This surgical precision is in itself a political statement. The fact that the files mention “hi res”, that is, “high resolution”, twice is also an indication that elected officials will not be fooled by poor-quality images, such as those presented so far by the Department of War.

To understand the significance of this move, it must be placed within its institutional context. In a recent podcast (Fresh Freedom, episode 66), Congressman Eric Burlison revealed that he himself had had to hire David Grusch as a part-time consultant in his office, a whistleblower simply to guide him on where to look.

Sam Gerb, an independent researcher specialising in the structure of alleged UAP programmes, described the entire system as an incredibly complex puzzle, deliberately fragmented over the decades to resist any attempt at oversight. It is precisely this institutionalised opacity that the Luna letter is directed against.

The list of files requested is not random. It reveals a deliberate mapping of the most sensitive blind spots in the UAP dossier.

One of the videos on the list purports to show an F-16C fighter jet from the National Guard (call sign AESIR11) shooting down a UAP over Lake Huron on 12 February 2023 with an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. If this document confirms these claims, UFOs would no longer be a matter of observation or scientific curiosity. UFOs would be treated as hostile targets and subject to lethal force over North American territory. The Lake Huron incident did not occur in a combat zone. This trivialisation of geography is concerning in itself. Lake Huron is one of the five Great Lakes of North America, located north of Detroit and straddling the US–Canada border. The request submitted on 31 March 2026 does not specify whether the craft was shot down in US or Canadian airspace.

Several entries concern the ‘Hackney 6’ (or ‘Toxic 6’) unit, whose sightings increased between August and October 2020 in the Persian Gulf and beyond. There are also reports of unidentified submersible objects (USOs) and UAP formations over Iran, as well as infrared recordings of so-called ‘Tic Tac’ objects. This is not a catalogue of curiosities; it is the systematic creation of a signature database.

One request targets an NGA document dated 1 June 2010, several years before the New York Times made the subject public. This inclusion suggests that the working group knows, or believes it knows, that institutional awareness of UAPs goes back much further than official statements admit.

This directly aligns with Gerb’s interview comments: he stated that files from the Atomic Energy Commission (1954), the precursor to the Department of Energy, concluded that certain UFOs were of non-human or extraterrestrial origin. These archives, by design, cannot easily be declassified by any presidential executive order, as they fall under ‘born secret’ classification systems related to nuclear materials.

Born Secret

‘Born Secret’ is a legal concept specific to US law, introduced by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This means that certain information is automatically classified from the moment it is created, without the need for an official to mark it as such. In practice, if you work in a laboratory and discover something relating to special nuclear materials or the design of atomic weapons, that information is secret by default, even before anyone has read your report.

This differs structurally from Q-clearance, which is a security clearance, that is, the level of authorisation granted to a person to access sensitive nuclear data from the DOE. Q-clearance is the DOE equivalent of Top Secret. One pertains to the information itself, while the other is an access right granted to an individual.

The crucial point regarding UAPs is that a presidential executive order can declassify information that has been classified by the executive branch. However, the ‘born secret’ status of nuclear material is the responsibility of Congress (via the Atomic Energy Act), not the executive branch. Therefore, Trump cannot lift this classification by mere executive order; a law would be required. Gerb emphasised this point precisely because, if conclusions regarding the non-human origin of certain UAPs have been classified under this regime, they are beyond the reach of a standard executive order.

The report concerning UAPs observed near the Columbus, Ohio, airport (IIR 1 655 S0053 23) is particularly noteworthy: it places the phenomenon in the heart of U.S. civilian territory, within range of commercial air traffic. This expansion of the perceived threat is not without political significance.

The Central Role of Whistleblowers

The Luna Letter derives its legal and political authority from a hearing held on 9 September 2025 entitled ‘Restoring Public Trust Through Transparency on National Action Plans and the Protection of Whistleblowers’. For years, whistleblowers have been trying to brief the U.S. Congress, but have been met with officials seemingly intent on uncovering their sources rather than addressing the constitutional violations they report.

These testimonies echo Sam Gerber’s description in the interview of individuals whose pensions were threatened and others who reportedly received criminal threats if they spoke out. ‘There is a very broad structure of intimidation designed to prevent people from speaking out,’ he summarised. Burlison confirmed that the whistleblowers who have come forward so far are primarily peripheral security personnel, ‘the outer layers of the onion’, rather than members of the core programme.

The AARO in the Crosshairs

The working group has described the AARO’s previous responses as ‘inadequate’. This diplomatic phrasing conceals a more serious accusation.

In the interview, Gerb was less measured. He claimed that the AARO had been ‘hijacked’ from its inception by Ronald Moultrie, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI). He noted Moultrie’s strange decision to remove his ties to the MITRE Corporation, a federal research centre widely cited as a central player in the study of recovered non-human vehicles, from his official résumé. Gerb also pointed to Moultrie’s connections with the Battelle Memorial Institute, which has been accused of studying biological materials derived from these recoveries for decades.

The Luna request addresses this suspicion directly by bypassing the AARO’s narrative filter and requesting the videos themselves.

The structure of secrecy

One of the most valuable insights from the interview is Gerb’s description of the alleged architecture of the UAP programmes. This framework explains why a simple letter to the Secretary of Defence is not enough.

He describes a four-tiered pyramid. At the top is a ‘UAP steering group’, now fragmented since Dick Cheney’s departure in 2009, which Grush reportedly described as the last to have had a centralised view of it. Below that are the programme administrations: The CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the NGA, the NRO, elements of the armed forces and, a lesser-known fact, the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office (the underwater equivalent of the NRO). Next come the FFRDCs (Federal Funded Research and Development Centres), non-profit institutions operated by contractors, national laboratories such as Sandia, Los Alamos or Lawrence Livermore, which provide the government with plausible distance while concentrating the industry’s best minds. Finally, at the bottom of the pyramid are the major defence contractors: Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics and RTX.

What makes the whole system so difficult to penetrate, according to Gerb, is that even within each level, the compartmentalization is such that the various subunits of the same special access program may be unaware of what their neighbors are doing. “No one has the full picture.”

This architecture also explains why the request for videos specifically targets the AARO and not a higher level: the AARO is supposed to aggregate data from the entire system. If whistleblowers claim that it possesses these videos, it is because this aggregation has, at least partially, worked. If the AARO does not have these videos, it has failed to do its job.

The Department of Energy: The Blind Spot

Gerb placed great emphasis on a player that is often overlooked: the Department of Energy (DOE). In his view, the DOE is ‘embedded at every level’ of the UAP recovery and exploitation programmes. It has its own intelligence agency (the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, or OICI), its own secure transport service (the Office of Secure Transportation, or OST), its own FFRDCs (the national laboratories), and ‘born-secret’ classification systems relating to nuclear materials that are, by design, immune to presidential executive orders.

This dimension is absent from the Luna list, which may be a strategic oversight or a deliberate omission for a later stage. Burlison himself acknowledged that targeting the DOE, the NNSA and the OST through sworn depositions could be ‘a very significant step’.

What will the response reveal?

The 14 April 2026 deadline frames the showdown. The two scenarios have asymmetrical effects.

If the Department of War complies, the publication of the videos, particularly the one from Lake Huron, will irrevocably change the nature of the debate. UAPs will no longer be the subject of scientific curiosity or speculation; they will become a documented operational reality, with all that this implies for the rules of engagement, NORAD protocols and the credibility of the whistleblowers who have exposed themselves.

If the Department refuses or delays, the structure of the refusal itself will become evidence. Each cited justification must apply on a file-by-file basis, creating a public catalogue of reasons why this data remains off-limits. In an information environment where insider accounts are increasingly well documented and cross-referenced; this is precisely the work of researchers like Gerb, the discrepancy between official denials and insider claims creates a narrative that the executive branch can no longer control.

As Burlison summarised, “I really believe it’s starting to unravel”. One of the most ingenious moves by US lawmakers was to recruit observers within the administration who could detect whether the requested files were being moved or removed from their hosting servers. This ensured that anyone attempting to withhold the files from lawmakers would be caught. However, it should not be forgotten that two letters were sent, one by Burlison and one by Luna. As of this writing, only Luna’s letter has been made public.

Do the requested videos actually exist in the described state?

We don’t know. The letter cites designations (IIR, video 0/1/2, etc.) that resemble actual formats. However, there is no guarantee that the corresponding files depict anomalous phenomena. An ‘IIR 1 666 SO151 23’ could be a routine report on an Iranian drone, a bird or a sensor artefact. Congress’s request concerns videos labelled UAP, but this label is administrative, not phenomenological.

The 14 April 2026 deadline is approaching. If the Pentagon refuses to release the videos, it will probably cite military classification or the protection of sources and methods. Transparency advocates will then interpret this refusal as confirmation of the footage’s exceptional nature. However, this is a classic bias: in the absence of access, the imagination fills the void. A refusal can also be a tactic to maintain narrative tension without ever providing the evidence.

Full letter

Dear Secretary Hegseth:

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets (Task Force) is continuing its investigation into Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). The continued lack of transparency surrounding these anomalies and the potential national security threat they pose is troubling. On September 9, 2025, the Task Force held a hearing focused on these concerns.1 Whistleblowers informed the Task Force that AARO possesses additional video records of potential UAP sightings. To continue its investigation, the Task Force requests certain video files related to UAP sightings.

The lack of disclosure regarding the very real threat posed by UAPs in and around U.S. restricted airspace is concerning. The Task Force has found responses from AARO, when questioned about UAP sightings and provided data, less than adequate.2 The presence of UAP in and around the sensitive airspaces of U.S. military installations poses a threat to the security of the armed forces and their readiness.

To assist the Task Force in its investigation of UAPs we request the following videos be delivered as soon as possible but no later than April 14, 2026:

1. 4 UAP formation – Iran, 8/26/22

2. Syrian UAP instant acceleration, 2021

3. UAP USO formation Wiley 2X Zinc

4. Cigar-shaped or fat spherical UAP, 10/15/22

5. Spherical UAP erratic movement remix (RUST), 2022

6. Spherical UAP over AFG in and out of clouds, 11/23/20

7. Spherical UAP pulsing over water Jacker 2X

8. Spherical UAP in clouds

9. Voodoo 4X (Cranberry) UAP

10. NGA UAP, 6/1/10

11. Spherical UAP Warlock 4X, 4/12/21  a. Video 0  b. Video 1  c. Video 2

12. AFSOC Kabul UAP, 2017

13. USCG C-144 UAP 2 Tic Tac IR hot, 4/24/24

14. USCG C-144 UAP 2 Tic Tac IR hot, 4/24/24

15. Multiple Spherical UAP USO near Sub. Cactus 1X in and out of water, 3/25/22

16. IIR 1 666 SO151 23 video footage of UAP captured by fifth generation aircraft, 1/20/23

17. F-18 FLIR UAP

18. IIR 1 665 SO301 23/Eglin AFB

19. USAF ANG F-16C (callsign AESIR11) shoots down UAP over Lake Huron with Aim-9X, 2/12/23

20. Administrative revision: IIR 1777 J0032 22 Kazakhstan – UAP in vicinity of Karaganda International Airport

21. IIR 1 655 S0053 23/ Several UAP in vicinity of Columbus OH airport

22. MQ-9 observer UAP in East China Sea, 1/5/23

23. Assault 1X (steel) HD_20220613, 6/13/22

24. EP-3 Observed UAP in the ECS, 6/9/21

25. Lightning (Lavender) observes UAP , 1/3/21

26. Hackney 6 (Toxic 6) observes and tracks UAP , 11/2/20  a. video 1  b. video 2

27. Toxic 6 (Mercury) observes 3 fast moving UAP , 10/29/20

28. Toxic 6 (Hackney 6) observes UAPs , 10/20/20

29. Greed observes UAP , 10/18/20

30. Greed observes UAP , 10/16/20

31. Mad Dog 31 observes UAP , 10/17/20

32. Regulator 73 observes UAP , 10/17/20

33. Toxic 6 (Hackney 6) observes UAP , 9/16/20

34. UAP on East Coast, 12/1/19

35. Toxic 6 UAP , 9/5/20

36. Toxic 6 UAP (Hackney6) observes UAP , 8/31/20  a. video 1  b. video 2

37. Hellhound 1X (Coffee) observes UAP , 8/24/20

38. Toxic 6 observes UAP in Persian Gulf, 8/21/20

39. Hackney 6 (Toxic 6) UAP observation, 8/8/20

40. Hackney 6 (MQ-9) Gulf of Arabia dual UAP , 5/5/20

41. Hackney 5X (mint) HD 2020-02-13, 2/13/20

42. Hackney 6 (MQ-9) UAP in Persian Gulf, 5/20/20

43. HH-11 UAPs , 7/3/18

44. Hi-Res: Hackney 4X observes UAP at 2135Z, 9/25/19

45. UFOs in formation over Persian Gulf

46. Hi-Res: Hackney 4X observes UAPs at 1715Z, 9/23/19

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X. To arrange for delivery of documents or to ask any related follow up questions, please contact the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Majority staff at (202) 225-5074. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Anna Paulina Luna

Chairwoman

Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets

cc: The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member

Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets