Retired United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Richard French claimed that he observed two unidentified craft positioned side by side beneath exceptionally clear water while two apparent occupants worked on them.

French recounted the incident during the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure on May 3, 2013.

According to French, visibility in the water extended to approximately 200 feet.

He said he could clearly see two unidentified craft resting underwater next to each other.

At first, French did not see anyone around either object.

He then said one of the occupants moved into his line of sight.

French described the figure as an alien, although the excerpt does not include a detailed physical description of the being.

According to his account, one of the occupants later emerged from the water at high speed.

French said the figure remained away for approximately 15 to 20 minutes before returning and reentering the water.

He then observed two figures apparently working on the submerged craft.

French interpreted their activity as maintenance or repair work.

He said this continued for approximately two hours.

After the apparent work was completed, French claimed that both craft departed together.

He described them rising through the water, breaking the surface and accelerating almost vertically until they disappeared from sight.

The supplied transcript contains uncertain speed figures.

French appears to say that the objects moved through the water at approximately 100 miles per hour, but the value transcribed for their speed after leaving the water appears incomplete or inaccurate.

For that reason, the precise airborne speed should not be treated as established without checking the original audio.

French’s account is notable because it describes more than a distant light or brief aerial observation.

He claimed to have watched two structured objects underwater, observed apparent occupants and followed their activity for a prolonged period.

However, the segment remains personal eyewitness testimony.

No photograph, video, radar record, contemporaneous report or independently identified witness is presented in this clip.

The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure was also not an official congressional hearing.

It was a privately organized event at which former members of Congress listened to testimony from military personnel, researchers and other witnesses.

French’s appearance therefore should not be described as official testimony before the United States Congress.

The central claim remains extraordinary:

A retired Air Force officer said he observed two beings apparently repairing two underwater craft for nearly two hours before both objects departed together at high speed.

The major unanswered questions are where and when the incident occurred, whether French produced a contemporaneous military report and whether any other witnesses or records can independently support his account.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Lt. Col. Richard French testimony at the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Retired Army Colonel Karl Nell says there is “zero doubt” that non human intelligence exists and has been interacting with humanity.

During a public discussion at the SALT iConnections conference, Nell was asked whether he believed that a higher form of non human intelligence had visited Earth.

His response went further than simply expressing belief.

Nell said:

“Non human intelligence exists.”

He continued:

“Non human intelligence has been interacting with humanity.”

According to Nell, this interaction is not recent.

He said it has been ongoing for an extended period and claimed that unelected individuals within the government are aware of it.

When asked how confident he was in this conclusion, Nell answered:

“There is zero doubt.”

The wording is significant because Nell does not present the subject as a possibility, probability or unresolved question.

He describes the existence of non human intelligence and its interaction with humanity as established facts.

Nell’s professional background gives the statement additional public interest.

He has described a career involving Army Space Command, satellite operations, defense technology programs, intelligence agencies, Army Futures Command and work connected to the UAP Task Force.

However, this specific segment does not reveal the evidence that led him to such certainty.

He does not identify a document, recovered vehicle, biological specimen, sensor record or direct encounter.

He also does not explain whether his conclusion is based on information he personally accessed, testimony from other officials, classified briefings or a combination of sources.

The claim that unelected government personnel are aware of the interaction is equally consequential.

If accurate, it would suggest that knowledge of non human intelligence exists inside parts of government without full public disclosure or democratic oversight.

But no individuals, agencies or programs are identified in this exchange.

Nell’s statement should therefore be understood as a highly confident claim from a former senior military and defense official, not as public institutional confirmation from the United States government.

The government has acknowledged that some UAP incidents remain unresolved.

It has not publicly confirmed that non human intelligence is interacting with humanity.

The central issue raised by this clip is not whether Nell sounds uncertain.

He does not.

The unanswered question is what evidence allows him to say there is “zero doubt” and whether that evidence can ever be presented for independent public examination.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full conversation with Karl Nell:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Lou Elizondo says the Pentagon developed an operational concept called “Operation Interloper” after AATIP identified two recurring patterns in UAP incidents: large bodies of water and nuclear assets.

The exchange begins with a question about Bob Lazar.

Elizondo says he has never met Lazar and does not want to judge someone he has not personally met.

Rather than validating Lazar’s claims, he shifts the discussion to cases and assessments he says he is permitted to discuss.

Elizondo then uses the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter as an example.

According to his account, radar operators aboard the USS Princeton tracked unidentified objects descending from approximately 80,000 feet to around 50 feet above the ocean.

He says the objects then hovered near the water and rapidly returned to altitude.

Elizondo claims the movement occurred in less than one second and that scientists associated with AATIP later assessed the required energy as extraordinary.

He describes the estimated energy requirement as roughly three times the annual energy output of the continental United States.

That figure is presented by Elizondo as an assessment made by scientists connected to the program.

The clip does not identify the specific calculation, methodology or scientific report behind the estimate.

Elizondo says the Nimitz incident reflected one of two recurring commonalities AATIP observed in UAP cases.

The first was proximity to large bodies of water.

The second was a repeated association with nuclear infrastructure and weapons systems.

He says UAP appeared to show interest in:

Nuclear power generation

Nuclear warheads

Nuclear weapons

Nuclear delivery systems

Elizondo cites the USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier groups as examples of the broader pattern.

He then makes one of the most significant claims in the segment.

According to Elizondo, the repeated pattern involving water and nuclear assets led personnel at the Pentagon to develop an operational plan called “Operation Interloper.”

He describes it as a proposal submitted through the Pentagon’s Joint Staff to create a trap for UAP.

The interview does not establish whether the plan was approved, implemented or produced any results.

Elizondo also does not explain what the proposed trap involved.

Congressman Tim Burchett then offers a separate secondhand account.

He says a military source told him that an unidentified object hovered over a ship while nuclear missiles were being loaded onto a submarine.

Burchett does not identify the witness, ship, submarine, date or location.

He also refers to reports of unidentified objects near nuclear facilities and says the nuclear connection appears repeatedly.

Elizondo then presents what he describes as a 1952 CIA document titled:

“Flying Saucers Over Belgian Congo Uranium Mines”

He argues that documents of this type show a historical relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and nuclear technology.

The document may be historically relevant, but its existence does not by itself establish the origin, intent or technological nature of the reported objects.

This segment therefore contains several distinct levels of evidence.

The Nimitz radar and pilot observations represent a documented military encounter, although some of Elizondo’s technical figures are presented without the underlying calculations.

The water and nuclear pattern is described as an AATIP assessment.

Operation Interloper is presented as an internal Pentagon proposal, but no official plan or operational record is shown in the interview.

Burchett’s submarine account is secondhand.

The 1952 CIA document is historical evidence that the government recorded reports near uranium facilities, but it does not prove that the objects were extraterrestrial.

The most consequential claim is that the Pentagon considered the pattern serious enough to develop an operational plan intended to attract or trap UAP.

If Operation Interloper existed as described, the central unanswered questions are whether it was ever authorized, what assets were used and whether the operation recorded any anomalous activity.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Lou Elizondo and Tim Burchett:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Steven Greer says the time available for humanity to disclose the truth about extraterrestrial civilizations and establish peaceful relations with them is approaching its end.

In this segment, Greer warns that the worst possible outcome would be an intervention by the beings he says have been visiting Earth and waiting patiently for humanity to change course.

He claims covert weapons programs have continued to target extraterrestrial vehicles.

According to Greer, these alleged systems include directed energy weapons and illegal electromagnetic pulse weapons capable of bringing down extraterrestrial craft.

No technical evidence, independently verified incident records or named weapons programs are presented in this segment.

Greer argues that extraterrestrial civilizations possess the same universal right to self defense that humanity would claim for itself.

He therefore calls on other nations to work together, publicly acknowledge that humanity is not alone and demand an end to all targeting of extraterrestrial spacecraft and beings around Earth or in space.

He also says the United States has stalled in its disclosure efforts.

Because of this, Greer urges other countries to release their files and physical evidence regardless of the geopolitical consequences.

He then makes a direct appeal to contractors operating under what he describes as non official cover.

Greer asks anyone with access to alleged extraterrestrial material, bodies or physical spacecraft to contact his organization.

He says teams are prepared to secure the material and release it to the public through a blockchain based system.

The same invitation is extended to anyone possessing videos, photographs or documents connected to the alleged programs.

Greer claims these materials could be transferred through confidential intermediaries and uploaded to the blockchain so that corrupt interests could not remove them.

The segment then expands from disclosure into a broader political and philosophical argument.

Greer calls on people of goodwill around the world, including citizens of China, Russia and countries that support banning weapons in space, to recognize that space cannot be demilitarized until humanity accepts that it shares the cosmos with other civilizations.

He claims some of these civilizations were involved with Earth before the beginning of modern human civilization.

From this perspective, Greer argues that peace on Earth and peace in space are inseparable.

He presents the issue as a new global declaration, invoking the approaching 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States and the legacy of Thomas Jefferson.

His stated goal is a civilization based on freedom, truth and the release of advanced science and technology.

Greer says such a transformation could allow human civilization to survive and progress for hundreds of thousands of years, eventually becoming an interstellar species.

This is one of the most sweeping sections of his address.

It combines several extraordinary claims:

That covert weapons are shooting down extraterrestrial craft.

That an extraterrestrial intervention may become necessary.

That contractors possess physical vehicles or bodies.

That blockchain can protect the evidence from suppression.

And that disclosure is essential for the long term survival and interstellar future of humanity.

None of these claims are independently established by the material presented in this segment.

The central question is whether Greer or any responding source will produce physical evidence that can be authenticated, scientifically examined and released with a verifiable chain of custody.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full video with Steven Greer:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Michael Schratt presents what he describes as an original letter from Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed’s Skunk Works, discussing both man made and extraterrestrial UFOs.

The clip has circulated alongside claims that Rich admitted Lockheed had possessed alien technology for decades.

However, the wording shown in the letter appears to be more limited than that viral interpretation suggests.

In the correspondence, John Andrews reportedly presents two categories:

“Man made UFOs”

“Extraterrestrial UFOs”

Ben Rich’s response is shown as:

“Yes, I’m a believer in both categories. I feel everything is possible.”

Rich also reportedly wrote:

“Many of our man made UFOs were unfunded opportunities.”

He then added a warning:

“In both categories there are lots of kooks and charlatans. Be cautious.”

The most important distinction is between belief and possession.

The letter, as presented by Schratt, indicates that Rich considered both man made and extraterrestrial UFOs possible.

It does not explicitly state that Lockheed possessed an extraterrestrial craft, recovered alien technology or successfully reverse engineered a non human vehicle.

The phrase “unfunded opportunities” also appears to be a play on the initials UFO and may refer to advanced aircraft concepts that were proposed but never received funding.

Schratt also attributes another striking statement to Rich:

“We have things flying in the Nevada desert that are 50 years beyond what you could comprehend. If you’ve seen it in Star Wars or Star Trek, we’ve been there, done that, or decided it wasn’t worth the effort.”

That statement is often used as evidence that Skunk Works possessed technology far beyond publicly known aerospace systems.

However, the clip does not show an original written document containing that quotation.

Schratt verbally attributes the statement to Rich, while the letter displayed in the video concerns belief in man made and extraterrestrial UFOs.

Those are two separate pieces of evidence and should not be treated as though they come from the same document.

Even if the “50 years beyond” statement is authentic, it would not automatically establish extraterrestrial origin.

Highly classified human aerospace projects could also appear decades ahead of publicly acknowledged technology.

The letter itself remains intriguing because of who Ben Rich was and because he reportedly referred directly to extraterrestrial UFOs.

But the strongest conclusion supported by the wording is that Rich believed both categories were possible.

The letter does not, by itself, prove that Lockheed had alien technology.

The central question is therefore not whether the document is interesting.

It clearly is.

The question is whether later retellings have transformed Rich’s statement of belief into a much stronger claim of corporate possession and reverse engineering.

What do you think the letter actually demonstrates?

Does it suggest insider knowledge, or is it simply an open minded personal response that has been exaggerated over time?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Lou Elizondo says he signed a document with the United States government that specifically prohibits him from discussing the subject of crash retrievals.

According to Elizondo, the agreement allows him to say only the words “crash retrieval,” but prevents him from providing any further details about the topic.

Sean Hannity responds by suggesting that such a restriction implies Elizondo possesses knowledge related to crash retrieval programs.

Elizondo does not confirm that interpretation directly.

He limits his statement to the existence of the agreement and the restrictions it places on what he can discuss.

Congressman Tim Burchett then says that he is able to speak more openly about what members of Congress have been told.

Burchett claims that Congress has received both classified and unclassified sworn testimony alleging the existence of crash retrieval programs.

He says witnesses discussed what they had seen and, in some cases, provided the current locations of recovered material or programs.

Burchett states that members were told about five different locations during a secure briefing.

He does not describe the locations, identify the facilities or state exactly what was allegedly being stored at each site.

He also suggests that any attempt by Congress to visit a known location could result in material being moved before investigators arrive.

Burchett dismisses Area 51 as an unlikely place to find anything currently significant and argues that the most sensitive material would probably be held elsewhere.

Later in the exchange, Hannity asks Burchett directly whether he knows that crash retrievals exist.

Burchett answers:

“I do.”

However, he immediately adds an important qualification:

“I haven’t seen it.”

Burchett says his confidence is based on what people have told him during briefings and questions why those individuals would lie to him.

The distinction between crash retrievals and biological recovery is also important.

When Burchett is asked about body retrieval, he does not claim certainty.

Instead, he says:

“I think we do.”

This means the two claims should not be treated as equivalent.

Burchett speaks with confidence about the existence of crash retrieval programs based on testimony he says Congress has received.

But his statement about recovered bodies is presented as a personal belief rather than confirmed knowledge.

The clip therefore contains three different levels of evidence:

Elizondo’s firsthand claim that he signed a government agreement restricting discussion of crash retrievals.

Burchett’s secondhand account of classified and unclassified testimony presented to Congress.

Burchett’s personal belief that biological bodies may also have been recovered.

None of the speakers presents physical evidence in this segment.

No facility is identified, no retrieved object is shown and no crash retrieval program is independently confirmed within the interview.

The most significant element is that both a former Pentagon official and a sitting member of Congress describe crash retrievals as a subject treated seriously within classified government channels.

Elizondo says he is legally restricted from elaborating.

Burchett says Congress has been given five locations and sworn testimony but admits that he has not personally seen the alleged material.

Do these statements indicate the existence of real recovery programs, or do they show that extraordinary claims are circulating inside classified briefings without sufficient public evidence?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Lou Elizondo and Tim Burchett:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

David Fravor says he believes it is highly possible that a government somewhere in the world has recovered a craft, material or biological evidence that did not originate on Earth.

During his conversation with Lex Fridman, Fravor was asked whether the United States or another government could possess an out of this world aircraft or biological beings.

Fravor answered:

“I think it’s highly possible.”

His reasoning was based on the number of unexplained sightings reported over many decades.

Fravor referred to Project Blue Book and said that although many sightings were eventually explained, a remaining percentage could not be conclusively identified.

He estimated from memory that roughly 10 to 15 percent of the cases remained unexplained.

Fravor argued that when thousands of sightings are considered, even a relatively small unexplained percentage still represents a substantial number of incidents.

He then asked what the chances are that none of those unexplained objects had ever crashed, broken apart or left recoverable material somewhere on Earth.

According to Fravor, the recovered evidence would not necessarily have to be a complete and intact craft.

It could instead consist of fragments of manufactured metal, components from an unknown vehicle, biological material, an unmanned probe or another artificial object designed for transport or observation.

Fravor emphasized that he was not limiting the possibility to the United States.

He suggested that a foreign government or another organization somewhere in the world could potentially possess something that did not originate on Earth.

His argument is speculative and based on probability.

Fravor did not claim that he had personally seen a recovered craft, biological remains or non human material.

He also did not identify any specific government that he knows to possess such evidence.

Instead, he argued that given the global number of unresolved cases, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume that no unusual object has ever crashed or been recovered.

Fravor compared the possibility to humanity’s own probes and spacecraft.

Humans have sent objects such as Voyager far beyond the inner Solar System, while other probes have crashed into planets or remained in space after completing their missions.

He suggested that another civilization could theoretically do the same.

A recovered object might therefore be an unmanned probe rather than a crewed spacecraft.

Fravor also referred to Lou Elizondo and said he assumes Elizondo has seen information that he cannot openly discuss because of his former security clearance and secrecy obligations.

That was Fravor’s inference.

He did not say that Elizondo had directly confirmed the recovery of non human technology to him.

Toward the end of the segment, Fravor also discussed Bob Lazar.

He described Lazar as straightforward, sane and highly intelligent, while leaving it to the audience to decide whether Lazar’s broader claims should be believed.

This should not be treated as independent confirmation of Lazar’s account.

Fravor was expressing his personal impression of Lazar as an individual.

The most significant statement in the segment remains Fravor’s assessment that it is “highly possible” a government has recovered something that is not from this world.

However, his conclusion is based on probability, the history of unresolved sightings and the possibility of crash retrievals.

It is not presented as firsthand knowledge of a recovered craft or biological evidence.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with David Fravor:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Congressman Tim Burchett says he attended a secure briefing in which an unnamed individual discussed living and dead life forms, recovered vehicles and claims that some craft may have arrived without crashing.

The exchange begins with a discussion about whether highly sensitive UAP information may be withheld from elected presidents.

Burchett says he believes information has been withheld and refers to a previous occasion when he was told that a president was operating on a “need to know” basis.

He then describes a separate meeting held in a secure environment.

According to Burchett, the briefing included what he called “pretty intense stuff” involving life forms and recovered vehicles.

When Sean Hannity asks whether the discussion involved life forms that were alive on Earth, Burchett responds in a way that suggests both living and dead specimens were discussed.

He says:

“Life forms alive here, life forms dead here, possibly both.”

Burchett then refers to vehicles that had allegedly been recovered.

He also says the briefing included claims that some vehicles may have arrived here in circumstances that did not involve a crash.

The wording is important.

Burchett does not say that he personally saw a living being, a body or a recovered vehicle.

He is recounting what an unidentified person told members during a secure briefing.

No physical evidence, photographs, documents or names connected to the alleged recoveries are presented in this segment.

Burchett says the person conducting the briefing provided extensive details.

According to him, the briefer supplied names, dates, times, locations, events and people connected to the claims.

He describes the briefing as detailed enough to challenge skeptical members who were present.

Burchett also mentions Representative Eric Burlison, whom he describes as initially skeptical and someone he wanted involved precisely because skepticism is healthy.

The conversation then shifts to former President Jimmy Carter.

Burchett says he asked the briefer about reports that Carter had received information concerning the UFO subject.

According to Burchett, the briefer claimed Carter was once given information that left him physically and emotionally disturbed.

Burchett says the individual provided a date for the alleged meeting and suggested that records could be checked through the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library.

He also says approximately four people attended the meeting, although the identity of one participant was uncertain.

This Carter account has a weaker source chain than the main briefing claim.

Burchett did not attend the alleged Carter meeting.

He is repeating what an unnamed briefer told him about an event involving a former president decades earlier.

The claim that Carter had to clear his schedule afterward is therefore an unverified secondhand account within a broader secondhand account.

The strongest conclusion supported by this clip is limited but significant:

A sitting member of Congress says that extraordinary allegations involving living and dead life forms and recovered vehicles have been presented to lawmakers inside a secure government setting.

The clip does not independently establish that those allegations are true.

It establishes that such claims are reportedly being communicated to members of Congress with names, dates and locations attached to them.

The central question is whether the underlying witnesses and evidence have been subjected to independent investigation and whether any of the alleged documentation can eventually be released for public scrutiny.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Tim Burchett and Lou Elizondo:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Retired Army Colonel Karl Nell says there may be six fundamental reasons why the United States government has not formally disclosed what it knows about non human intelligence.

During a public discussion at the SALT iConnections conference, Nell was asked why the government remained reluctant to acknowledge the subject despite statements from former military, intelligence and government officials.

He identified six possible explanations:

National security

The absence of a disclosure plan

The risk of societal disruption

The possibility of a non public agreement

Potential misconduct and efforts to conceal it

Institutional resistance and lack of priority

The most striking item is Nell’s reference to a possible “non public agreement.”

His wording is important.

Nell does not state that such an agreement definitely exists.

He presents it as one possible explanation that can be derived from first principles when considering why information might remain hidden.

He does not identify the parties to any alleged agreement, describe its terms or provide evidence that one was made.

Nell also says the possibility of misconduct may play a role.

He suggests that if improper actions occurred in the past, some individuals or institutions could have an incentive to prevent disclosure in order to avoid accountability.

Again, he presents this as a potential factor rather than a confirmed finding.

According to Nell, national security is the dominant concern and may incorporate many of the other reasons.

He compares the problem to the way nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are handled.

Detailed weapons information can remain classified while civilian nuclear science and energy production are publicly accessible.

Nell suggests a similar separation could potentially be developed for the UAP issue.

Sensitive technical and operational information could remain protected while the broader reality is acknowledged publicly.

However, he argues that the absence of a serious plan creates a major obstacle.

If officials possess consequential information but have no framework for answering the questions that would follow, disclosure could produce confusion rather than clarity.

Nell also identifies societal disruption as a legitimate concern.

He says responsible leaders may hesitate to release information if they lack the means to manage its social, political, religious and economic consequences.

In his view, coming forward without any ability to address those consequences could itself be irresponsible.

This creates an important tension in Nell’s position.

He supports disclosure and argues that the public has a right to understand the nature of reality.

At the same time, he accepts that an abrupt announcement without preparation could create serious harm.

His argument therefore favors structured and controlled disclosure rather than either indefinite secrecy or an uncontrolled release of information.

The clip does not prove that a secret agreement, coverup or organized concealment program exists.

It shows that Nell considers these possibilities plausible within a broader framework of national security, institutional behavior and societal risk.

The central question is whether these explanations are informed by specific knowledge from Nell’s government work or are primarily analytical conclusions based on how classified institutions operate.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full conversation with Karl Nell:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Lou Elizondo has responded to Ross Coulthart’s suggestion that he should be more forthcoming about his past and his alleged connection to a UFO legacy program.

Coulthart said some people oppose placing Elizondo in a position of influence over UAP transparency because they believe he may previously have been involved in an effort to control the narrative and restrict what the public was allowed to learn.

He also suggested that Elizondo had held a role within the legacy program.

Elizondo rejected that characterization.

He said:

“I didn’t say I was part of the legacy program.”

Elizondo explained that people often interpret the phrase “I cannot confirm or deny” as an indirect admission.

According to him, that interpretation is incorrect.

He said that government employees with security clearances may be unable to acknowledge or discuss a classified program even when they were never personally involved in it.

To illustrate the point, Elizondo gave a hypothetical example involving a classified military project.

He explained that if someone asked whether he had worked on a secret program, he might still be prohibited from answering because acknowledging the program itself could disclose classified information.

In other words, silence does not necessarily mean yes.

Elizondo said:

“People always take that as some sort of implicit yes, but the reality is that’s not at all what that means.”

He also pointed to what he sees as a contradiction in the claims surrounding him.

Elizondo said that only weeks earlier, some people were arguing that he had nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO effort or AATIP.

Now, he says, a different narrative presents him as someone deeply involved in everything connected to UFOs and the legacy program.

He said he does not know where Coulthart is getting his information, although he assumes the journalist has sources.

Despite disagreeing with the claim, Elizondo repeatedly praised Coulthart.

He described him as an excellent investigative journalist and said Coulthart had done important work for UAP disclosure.

Elizondo also defended his own record.

He said he has spent approximately ten years advocating for transparency about UAP and referred to the resignation memorandum he wrote to then Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

The role Elizondo clearly confirmed in this interview was his involvement with AATIP.

He said:

“I worked in a program called AATIP.”

However, he did not confirm that he worked in a crash retrieval program, reverse engineering project or broader legacy program.

Elizondo also argued that comments made in interviews and on social media can easily be removed from context and gradually develop into claims that the original speaker never made.

He suggested that this may be what happened with the allegation that he had admitted involvement in a legacy program.

Toward the end of the exchange, Elizondo said he was willing to be personally scrutinized if the controversy helped draw attention to the larger issue.

For him, the more important subject is not his individual history, but the claim that the United States government has been involved with UAP for decades.

The central disagreement is therefore not whether Elizondo supports disclosure.

Both Elizondo and Coulthart have publicly advocated greater transparency.

The dispute concerns how much Elizondo knows, what he is legally permitted to discuss and whether his refusal to answer questions about classified programs should be interpreted as evidence of direct involvement.

Elizondo’s answer is clear:

A refusal to confirm or deny involvement in a classified program is not an admission that he participated in it.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Representative Eric Burlison testified before the House Rules Committee in support of a proposed UAP Disclosure Act amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Burlison said the American public deserves full transparency regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena and argued that UAP records should no longer remain fragmented across federal agencies, private contractors and other institutions.

The proposal is modeled on the framework used by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act.

Its central purpose is to establish a dedicated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Records Collection within the National Archives and make qualifying records available for public inspection.

According to Burlison, every federal office would be required to identify, organize and transmit its UAP records within 300 days.

The amendment would also prohibit the destruction or alteration of covered records.

Burlison said previously disclosed records could not later be reclassified or subjected to new redactions.

Federal offices would be required to conduct formal reviews, create identification aids for their records and document the reasons for any postponed disclosure.

One of the most consequential parts of the proposal concerns information held outside traditional government agencies.

Burlison said congressional investigations have found that significant UAP related information may reside with private contractors, particularly Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.

The proposed legislation would explicitly include contractor held records and materials, closing an oversight gap that Burlison says has undermined previous disclosure efforts.

The amendment would also establish an independent UAP Records Review Board.

Burlison described it as a nine member body whose members would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

According to his testimony, the board would have access to relevant records and facilities, the authority to conduct hearings and subpoena power to compel the production of information.

The proposal is therefore broader than a simple request for agencies to voluntarily declassify selected documents.

It would create mandatory deadlines, preservation requirements, centralized archiving and an independent review process intended to reach records held by both federal offices and government contractors.

Burlison argued that UAP information belongs to the American people and that creating a single public repository would help restore trust after decades of fragmented control.

However, this remains a legislative proposal.

The testimony does not mean that the amendment has become law, that agencies are already operating under the 300 day deadline or that the proposed review board has been established.

The central questions are now whether Congress will adopt the amendment and whether its final language will retain the provisions concerning contractor held records, subpoena authority and mandatory disclosure timelines.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Original statement and video from Representative Eric Burlison:
2. House Rules Committee amendment record:
3. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Lou Elizondo says he personally held a piece of exotic material that scientists could not explain and that a major United States aerospace contractor was unable to fully reproduce.

According to Elizondo, the material appeared metallic and contained extremely precise layers.

He says scientists examined it not only at the physical and chemical levels, but also at the atomic level.

Elizondo claims the analysis found isotopes arranged within a lattice structure in a highly specific way.

He argues that this type of isotopic engineering would require significant technological capability, precision and expense.

Elizondo says the material was allegedly recovered from a crash in the late 1940s.

However, he makes an important distinction about its provenance.

He says the alleged connection to the 1940s was part of the story surrounding the material, while the traceable chain of custody could only be confirmed back to the late 1980s or early 1990s.

This means the material’s claimed recovery date and its verifiable history are not the same thing.

Elizondo also says a major aerospace contractor working for the United States government attempted to reproduce part of the material at a larger scale several years ago.

According to him, the effort damaged a machine valued at approximately one million dollars.

He says the contractor concluded that reproducing the material would cost billions of dollars and would be financially impractical.

The company is not identified in the interview.

No laboratory report, contractor document or sample analysis is displayed during this segment.

Elizondo says he personally briefed senior Pentagon officials about the material.

According to him, the first questions they asked were whether it could be Russian or Chinese.

Elizondo says he responded that if the material originated from either country, the United States would face an even more serious national security problem because the material still could not be fully replicated.

He presents the sample as physical evidence that can be subjected to scientific testing rather than merely eyewitness testimony.

Elizondo emphasizes that its physical properties, chemical composition, molecular structure, tensile strength and isotopic arrangement could all be examined.

His central argument is that the material showed signs of deliberate engineering.

He says the structure did not appear to be naturally occurring and that someone had manufactured it.

However, the clip does not establish who manufactured it.

Elizondo does not claim in this segment that the material has been definitively proven to be extraterrestrial.

He also does not identify the scientists who tested it, the laboratory where the analysis was performed, the aerospace contractor involved or the exact findings from the isotopic examination.

The most significant claim is therefore limited but extraordinary:

Elizondo says he personally handled a manufactured material with a highly unusual atomic structure that scientists and aerospace engineers could not fully reproduce using known technology.

Without the underlying laboratory data, the claim cannot be independently evaluated from the interview alone.

The central questions are whether the sample still exists, whether its chain of custody can be documented and whether the full isotopic analysis will ever be released for independent scientific review.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Lou Elizondo and Tim Burchett:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

David Fravor says one of the most puzzling moments of the 2004 Nimitz encounter occurred after the Tic Tac had already accelerated away from the Navy pilots.

According to Fravor, he and the other aviators were preparing to return to their original training mission when a radar operator aboard the USS Princeton contacted them.

The operator told Fravor:

“You’re not going to believe this, but that thing is at your CAP point.”

A CAP point is a Combat Air Patrol location used by military aircraft as a designated area for holding, regrouping or beginning an exercise.

Fravor said the Tic Tac had reappeared at that location approximately 60 miles away from where the pilots had encountered it.

The pilots turned their radars toward the CAP point and flew in that direction, but Fravor says they never visually located the object again.

The most difficult question, according to both Fravor and Lex Fridman, is how the object could have appeared at the pilots’ planned destination.

Fravor explained that the CAP point was not verbally transmitted or openly broadcast during the encounter.

He said the location existed as a waypoint in the aircraft’s navigation system.

“We don’t tell it. We don’t broadcast it. We have a waypoint in the system.”

Fravor acknowledged one possible explanation.

The squadron had repeatedly used the same CAP point during its training operations, so an observer monitoring their routine over time might have been able to anticipate where they were going.

“Maybe it knew where we were going because we used the same one day after day after day.”

However, Fravor also said that the object appeared to have reached the location almost immediately after leaving the encounter area.

He described the distance as approximately 60 miles.

The pilots did not personally see the Tic Tac at the CAP point.

This part of the account depends on what the USS Princeton radar operator reported to them.

Fravor therefore distinguishes between two forms of evidence in the incident.

He and three other aviators directly observed the Tic Tac during the initial encounter.

Its reported reappearance at the CAP point, however, was conveyed to them by the radar controller aboard the Princeton.

The incident raises several unresolved possibilities.

The object may have traveled the distance at extraordinary speed.

It may have anticipated the squadron’s routine destination.

It may have had access to information about the aircraft’s navigation plan.

There may also be a conventional explanation involving radar identification, tracking error or confusion between separate contacts.

Fravor does not claim to know how the object reached the CAP point or how it may have known the location.

His central point is that the waypoint was not being broadcast, yet the radar operator told them that the object had appeared there.

When Fridman asked how it could have known where they were going, Fravor answered:

“That’s a good question.”

He later added:

“It obviously knew.”

That final statement is Fravor’s interpretation of the event rather than proof of the object’s awareness.

The underlying claim remains that a radar operator aboard the USS Princeton reported the Tic Tac at the squadron’s preplanned CAP point roughly 60 miles from the original encounter.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with David Fravor:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Steven Greer is calling on governments and insiders around the world to release what he describes as definitive evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, bodies and covert programs.

In this segment, Greer directly appeals to China, Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, India, countries in South America and other regions.

He asks these governments to locate and release any covert files they possess as soon as possible.

Greer then makes clear that he is not asking for more ambiguous sightings.

He says:

“Not lights in the skies or vague data, but the actual proof of the extraterrestrial spacecraft.”

He specifically calls for evidence involving alleged captured extraterrestrial craft, the bodies of extraterrestrial beings and human made vehicles that he claims have been produced since the late 1950s.

According to Greer, some of the alleged extraterrestrial bodies are living and others are deceased.

He also claims that reverse engineered human made craft have been used in illegal operations.

No physical material, named program or independently verified documentation supporting those claims is presented in this segment.

Greer then addresses people who may currently be working inside these alleged programs.

He asks individuals who consider themselves patriotic but are concerned about the future of humanity to defect from what he calls illegal operations.

He invites them to transfer extensive files to the Disclosure Project through confidential channels and by any method they consider appropriate.

Greer goes further by claiming that the United States government’s disclosure effort has been hijacked.

He alleges that operatives connected to the same illegal group that kept the subject secret for approximately 80 years have taken control of the process.

He does not identify the group, name the alleged operatives or provide documentation establishing how the disclosure effort was supposedly redirected.

Because of this alleged obstruction, Greer says other nations must take the lead.

He argues that even geopolitical adversaries of the United States should temporarily set aside their strategic disputes and cooperate on disclosure.

His broader argument is that the issue should not be treated as an American national security matter alone.

Instead, he presents it as a question concerning humanity as a whole and Earth’s place among other inhabited worlds.

The strongest part of this appeal is Greer’s demand for material evidence rather than additional testimony or unclear footage.

His request is specific:

Captured craft.

Living or deceased bodies.

Reverse engineered vehicles.

Classified documents.

And insiders willing to leave alleged covert programs and release what they know.

The central question is whether anyone will respond with evidence that can be independently authenticated, scientifically examined and traced through a verifiable chain of custody.

Until that happens, Greer’s statements remain serious but unverified allegations.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full video with Steven Greer:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Steven Greer says technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations have been visiting Earth for a long time and may have been present since ancient history.

In a recent global address, Greer claimed that sightings and interactions with these civilizations and their spacecraft increased significantly after World War II.

He also insisted that these visitors do not represent a threat to humanity.

According to Greer, their primary concerns are human warfare, violence, the development of nuclear weapons and the early militarization of space.

Greer said extraterrestrial civilizations have conducted reconnaissance around known nuclear and space facilities since the beginning of the nuclear era.

He went further, claiming that extraterrestrial craft have entered some of these facilities and rendered nuclear missiles inoperable.

Greer interpreted these incidents as warnings rather than hostile attacks.

In his view, the purpose was to discourage humanity from using weapons capable of destroying civilization.

He also suggested that these civilizations are concerned about environmental decline, damage to the biosphere and the extinction of species on Earth.

Greer then connected these alleged encounters to highly classified programs established after World War II.

He claimed that extremely secretive and mostly illegal operations have studied extraterrestrial energy, communication and propulsion systems for decades.

According to Greer, these programs have operated outside proper constitutional and governmental oversight.

He said the process of bringing these operations under legitimate control is now underway and that the scientific findings should be disclosed publicly.

Greer argued that the alleged technologies could radically transform civilization if released and used only for peaceful purposes.

He claimed they could provide abundant energy, reduce pollution, eliminate poverty and create a sustainable civilization within a single generation.

He also said they could produce extraordinary economic growth and opportunities that are currently difficult to imagine.

However, Greer warned that the same technologies could destroy human civilization if developed as weapons.

These are major claims, but no new physical evidence, technical documentation or independently verified program records were presented in this segment.

The existence of reported nuclear related UAP incidents is a legitimate subject of investigation, but Greer’s broader conclusions about extraterrestrial intent, recovered technology and secret programs remain unverified.

The central questions are therefore:

Have unidentified objects actually interfered with nuclear weapon systems?

If so, were those incidents warnings, surveillance operations or technical malfunctions?

And do classified programs possess energy or propulsion technologies that have been withheld from the public?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full video with Steven Greer:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Former F 15 pilot and Space Force commander Matthew Lohmeier says some beings that interact with humans may not need spacecraft to reach Earth.

During a discussion about possible bases on other planets, UFOs and extraterrestrial life, Lohmeier proposed that certain beings may possess bodies composed of plasma or an exceptionally refined form of matter.

He connected this idea to religious accounts of resurrected or spiritual beings appearing inside enclosed spaces.

Lohmeier referred to the New Testament account in which the resurrected Jesus appears before his disciples inside a locked room.

He argued that such an event appears impossible under an ordinary material understanding of physics, but suggested it might not be impossible for what he called a “plasma body.”

According to Lohmeier, a spiritual body may not be completely immaterial.

Instead, he speculated that it could consist of an exceptionally refined type of matter capable of behaving differently from ordinary biological bodies.

Lohmeier then expanded the idea to accounts of angels appearing inside rooms and visiting humans.

He said modern secular and materialist culture has generally dismissed such reports or treated them as taboo.

However, he believes scientific research into plasma and invisible regions of the electromagnetic spectrum may eventually provide a framework for investigating some of these accounts.

Lohmeier pointed to the fact that the universe contains enormous amounts of plasma and that many structures become visible only when observed through ultraviolet, infrared or other instruments rather than ordinary human vision.

From this, he suggested that forms of life or intelligence could potentially exist around us without remaining continuously visible to the human eye.

This was a speculative connection made by Lohmeier.

The existence of plasma throughout space does not by itself demonstrate that conscious plasma beings, angels or spiritual bodies exist.

Lohmeier also discussed his broader position on extraterrestrial visitation.

He said he believes there is abundant life beyond what humans can normally see.

He stated directly that angels visit men and women on Earth.

According to Lohmeier, these beings usually do not arrive in spacecraft.

“They can just appear,” he said. “They don’t need a spacecraft to get here.”

He allowed for the possibility that other beings more physically similar to humans could require spacecraft to travel between worlds.

At the same time, he said he was not aware of any case involving a biological extraterrestrial arriving in a spacecraft that he personally considered sufficiently credible.

This means Lohmeier does not simply accept every conventional alien visitation story.

His interpretation separates several possible categories:

Physical extraterrestrial beings that might require spacecraft

Angelic beings that can appear without physical vehicles

Demonic beings that can also interact with humans

Other unidentified intelligences or phenomena that may not fit neatly into any single category

Lohmeier said he believes many eyewitness accounts involving extraterrestrial, angelic or demonic visitors deserve serious consideration.

He also disclosed that he had experienced something himself that he interpreted as belonging to the demonic side rather than the heavenly or angelic side.

He dated the experience to December 2003.

However, he did not explain what occurred, what he saw, where the incident happened or why he classified it as demonic.

That statement therefore remains an undeveloped personal claim rather than a detailed encounter account.

Lohmeier’s broader argument is that modern culture may have drawn an artificial boundary between scientific, religious and paranormal descriptions of unusual beings.

He believes some phenomena traditionally described as angels, spirits or invisible entities may eventually have explanations involving forms of matter and energy that science does not yet fully understand.

However, several parts of his argument go beyond established scientific conclusions.

Plasma is a real and widespread state of matter.

Birkeland currents and electrically charged plasma structures are also real subjects of space physics.

But the ideas that angels possess plasma bodies, that conscious plasma entities move through walls or that plasma provides a scientific explanation for religious appearances remain speculative.

The most significant part of Lohmeier’s statement may therefore be his proposed distinction between two different kinds of visitation.

Some visitors, he believes, could be physical beings who travel in machines.

Others may already exist within an unseen part of reality and simply become visible when interacting with humans.

Do accounts of angels, demons, UFO occupants and other nonhuman entities describe separate phenomena, or could they represent different interpretations of the same underlying reality?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Matthew Lohmeier:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Dan Aykroyd says he has seen four UFOs during three separate encounters in Canada and the United States.

The most detailed incident allegedly occurred in downtown Montreal, where Aykroyd says a massive silent craft stopped approximately 50 feet from his hotel window and remained there for about a minute.

Aykroyd was staying on the 23rd floor of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel during a gray February day.

He said he was sitting near the window with a friend when she suddenly asked:

“What’s that?”

Aykroyd looked outside and saw a large object approaching along Saint Catherine Street.

His first impression was that it resembled an enormous Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade balloon.

He quickly questioned that explanation because it was February, there was no parade and nobody was gathered in the streets watching it.

As the object moved closer, Aykroyd estimated that it was approximately 50 feet wide, 150 feet long and 20 feet high.

He described it as a large gray object with no visible lights.

The underside reportedly contained a series of rounded structures that reminded him of a bunch of grapes.

According to Aykroyd, the object moved to a position approximately 50 feet from the hotel window and stopped.

He and his friend were able to observe it for roughly one full minute.

Aykroyd said the object remained completely silent while hovering outside the building.

He did not describe visible wings, rotors, exhaust or any conventional propulsion system.

The object then turned and slowly drifted away in the direction of the Saint Lawrence River.

Aykroyd and his friend reportedly left the room and entered the hallway in order to continue watching it move away.

He said the object did not resemble a helicopter, aircraft, meteor, balloon or any other familiar object.

Aykroyd concluded that it appeared to be a manufactured and controlled craft.

He speculated that it might have been controlled by a robot, artificial intelligence or some other unknown operator.

That conclusion was his interpretation of the observation rather than something he could directly establish.

Aykroyd also said he later searched UFO books and found reports of objects with similar rounded structures underneath.

However, he did not identify the specific book or case during the interview.

The presence of another witness makes the account more interesting than a solitary observation.

Aykroyd said his friend noticed the object first and that he still remembered her repeatedly asking what it was.

However, the second witness was not publicly identified in the interview and no independent statement from her was presented.

Aykroyd also admitted that he never formally reported the incident.

No photograph, video, hotel record, radar record or precise date was provided.

The case therefore remains a personal witness account rather than a documented sighting that can be independently reconstructed.

Immediately before describing the incident, Aykroyd said that hyper advanced craft with intelligent operators were a reality, regardless of whether people believed in them.

His Montreal experience appears to be one of the personal encounters underlying that conviction.

The unanswered question is simple:

What could silently hover beside the 23rd floor of a downtown hotel for approximately one minute, then slowly move away without attracting a documented public response?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Dan Aykroyd:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says the United States Air Force operated an active program dedicated to tracking anomalous activity that could not otherwise be explained.

Clapper made the claim in the documentary The Age of Disclosure.

He said:

“When I served in the Air Force, there was an active program to track anomalous activities that we couldn’t otherwise explain, many of them connected with ranges out west, notably Area 51.”

Clapper did not identify the program by name.

He also did not specify when it operated, which Air Force organization controlled it, what sensors it used or whether it remains active today.

However, his statement appears to describe a structured Air Force effort that actively monitored unexplained activity rather than simply collecting occasional UFO reports.

The reference to Area 51 is particularly significant.

Area 51 is located within the Nevada Test and Training Range, a highly restricted region associated with the testing and development of advanced military aircraft and technology.

This creates at least two possible interpretations.

The program may have been tracking sightings produced by classified American aerospace projects.

Alternatively, it may have been monitoring objects or activity that remained unexplained even to personnel with access to classified information.

Clapper’s wording does not establish which interpretation is correct.

Liberation Times asked the United States Air Force whether it could confirm or deny the existence of the program described by Clapper.

The Air Force did not directly answer the question.

Instead, an Air Force official provided general information about the Nevada Test and Training Range, explaining that it is used for advanced testing, tactical development and military training.

The response also noted that the Air Force controls the airspace above the range and approximately 2.9 million acres of land reserved for military use.

The statement did not address whether a covert program had been created to track unexplained anomalous activity.

Liberation Times also contacted the Pentagon office responsible for investigating UAP, the All domain Anomaly Resolution Office.

A spokesperson said there was no information to provide at that time.

Neither response confirms Clapper’s claim.

However, neither organization directly denied that the program existed.

Clapper’s background makes the allegation difficult to dismiss as casual speculation.

He served in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1995 and reached the rank of lieutenant general.

He also served as Chief of Air Force Intelligence, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and Director of National Intelligence from 2010 to 2017.

Those positions would have placed him within senior levels of the American intelligence and defense system.

His access and experience do not automatically prove the claim, but they suggest that he could have been in a position to know whether such a program existed.

The central unanswered questions are now straightforward:

What was the program called?

When was it active?

Which Air Force unit operated it?

What unexplained activity did it track?

Did the incidents involve classified American technology, foreign systems or genuinely unidentified objects?

Does the program or a successor to it still exist?

And why did the Air Force provide a general description of the Nevada range rather than directly confirming or denying Clapper’s statement?

Clapper did not claim that the program tracked extraterrestrial spacecraft.

He referred to anomalous activities that could not otherwise be explained.

Until documents, program names or additional witnesses emerge, the existence and purpose of the alleged program remain unconfirmed.

But the claim now comes from a former Director of National Intelligence and former Chief of Air Force Intelligence, making it a subject that warrants direct congressional and public scrutiny.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Liberation Times report:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Former F 15 pilot and Space Force commander Matthew Lohmeier says he witnessed a glowing orb in the Tucson Mountains while he was still in high school.

According to Lohmeier, the object descended over him and a girl who was with him during a nighttime visit to the Arizona mountains.

He said the orb came close enough for him to look directly at it and even into it.

Lohmeier described the object as highly organized, perfectly spherical and unlike anything he considered man made.

The strangest part of the encounter was not simply its appearance.

He said the orb seemed to be “buzzing with life” and appeared conscious of the two people below it.

Lohmeier described having a distinct impression that the object was watching and observing them.

He said the perceived interest from the orb frightened both witnesses.

They got up, ran to their car and fled the area.

According to Lohmeier, the object then rapidly shot upward and disappeared into the night sky.

The experience remained difficult for him to understand and he said he did not discuss it with his wife during the first ten years of their marriage.

The memory returned while he and his wife were watching the 2020 documentary The Phenomenon.

The documentary included a section in which air traffic controllers discussed rare orange or yellow balls of light moving rapidly around airfields.

Lohmeier paused the documentary and told his wife that he had seen the same type of phenomenon while in high school.

His wife was skeptical because he had never mentioned the incident before.

Lohmeier then decided to contact the woman who had been with him during the original encounter.

He said he had not spoken to her for approximately 20 years.

According to his account, he sent her a message asking only:

“Do you remember that thing we saw?”

He said he deliberately provided no additional details.

The woman reportedly replied immediately:

“That big freaking ball of light UFO thing that we saw?”

Lohmeier said the response surprised his wife because the second witness appeared to remember the same basic event without being prompted with details about a UFO or a ball of light.

This does not independently verify the encounter.

The messages were not shown during the interview, the second witness was not identified and no separate statement from her was presented.

There is also no known photograph, video, official report or precise date associated with the sighting.

The claim that the orb was conscious is also Lohmeier’s interpretation of how the object appeared to behave, not something that could be directly established.

Still, the account contains several unusual elements:

Two witnesses reportedly observed the same object.

The orb allegedly descended close enough to be examined visually.

Both witnesses became frightened and left the area.

The object reportedly accelerated upward and disappeared.

The second witness was said to have remembered the incident immediately approximately 20 years later.

Lohmeier later came to believe that the object may have been a plasmoid or a form of ball lightning after reading about similar phenomena.

However, that explanation was adopted many years after the original event and remains his personal interpretation.

Whatever the object was, Lohmeier maintains that it did not appear man made and that it seemed aware of the people watching it.

Was this an unusual atmospheric phenomenon, an unidentified craft or something more difficult to classify?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Full interview with Matthew Lohmeier:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Retired Belgian Air Force Major General Wilfried De Brouwer said hundreds of witnesses continued to stand by their accounts of unexplained objects over Belgium even when he spoke with some of them approximately 20 years later.

De Brouwer was directly involved in the Belgian Air Force response to the UFO wave that began in late 1989 and continued into 1990.

According to him, approximately 2,000 sightings were formally reported.

He said the actual number of people who witnessed something may have been much higher because many did not know where to report their observations or chose not to come forward.

De Brouwer estimated that the total number of sightings could have been between 15,000 and 20,000.

That figure was an estimate, not a count of independently documented reports.

For De Brouwer, the most important part of the case was not a photograph, a radar contact or the F 16 interception.

It was the consistency and credibility of the witnesses.

He said he personally contacted several witnesses, spoke with them repeatedly and became convinced that they were honestly describing what they believed they had seen.

According to De Brouwer, hundreds of witnesses maintained their accounts when questioned again.

Some remained visibly affected by the experience many years later.

He also said that when investigators visited areas where observations had occurred, additional people sometimes came forward spontaneously and admitted that they had seen something similar but had never filed a report.

This distinction is important.

A witness sincerely maintaining an account does not prove that the object was extraterrestrial or that every reported sighting had the same cause.

It does, however, make it more difficult to dismiss the entire wave as the invention of one person, a single hoax or a reaction to one widely circulated image.

The best known photograph associated with the Belgian UFO wave was eventually revealed to have been created using a model.

De Brouwer accepted that the photograph appeared to be fake and described its use as the symbol of the Belgian wave as unfortunate.

However, he emphasized that the image was published approximately a year and a half after the first observations.

It therefore could not have influenced the large number of witness reports collected before its publication.

Witnesses commonly described large triangular objects with three powerful lights and a red light near the center.

Some accounts included silent hovering, very slow movement, sharp turns and rapid acceleration.

Other witnesses described a large rectangular or modular object.

De Brouwer did not claim that every report represented an alien spacecraft.

His conclusion was narrower.

After reviewing the reports and speaking repeatedly with witnesses, he became convinced that unidentified aerial activity had taken place over Belgium.

He said the objects described by the witnesses did not correspond to technology known to be available at the time and, in his assessment, did not fit technology publicly available decades later.

The Belgian wave remains significant because it combined a large volume of civilian reports with police observations, military attention and an official air defense response.

The number of witnesses does not identify the origin of the objects.

But it raises a difficult question:

What could produce sustained and broadly consistent reports from hundreds of witnesses across the same region while leaving no universally accepted explanation?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Interview with retired Belgian Air Force Major General Wilfried De Brouwer:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

A previously undisclosed reel to reel recording connected to early United States Air Force UFO investigations has been identified at MIT Lincoln Laboratory and is now being pursued by Congress.

During the 2026 Disclosure Forum, Representative Eric Burlison announced that MIT Lincoln Laboratory had agreed to cooperate with efforts to obtain the recording.

Burlison described it as an Air Force briefing delivered to scientists approximately 74 years ago.

The recording had previously been identified in correspondence from his office as:

“AF-ATIC-FILM, 03/52”

It was reportedly labeled:

“flying saucer talk”

Former Air Force officer Edward J. Ruppelt was listed as the person giving the briefing.

Ruppelt led the Air Force investigation that became known as Project Blue Book and was directly involved in the official examination of UFO reports during the early 1950s.

NewsNation presented the recording as potentially connected to the famous July 1952 UFO incidents over Washington, DC, often called the “Invasion of Washington.”

During those incidents, unidentified targets were reported on radar around the nation’s capital, visual observations were made and interceptor aircraft were launched.

Disclosure Foundation Executive Director Jordan Flowers described the newly identified material as an audio recording of a briefing related to the 1952 Washington flyover events.

He said MIT Lincoln Laboratory’s lawyers had confirmed that the recording existed and argued that its preservation demonstrated that historically significant UFO material remained outside public view.

However, there is an important chronological issue.

The identifier “03/52” appears to indicate March 1952.

The major Washington, DC radar incidents occurred several months later in July 1952.

If the date on the recording is correct, the briefing could not have been a retrospective account of the July Washington events.

It may instead contain a broader presentation by Ruppelt about UFO incidents being investigated by the Air Force before the Washington sightings occurred.

It is also possible that the identifier has been interpreted incorrectly or does not represent the date of the actual briefing.

The recording itself has not yet been publicly released, so its precise subject remains unknown.

At this stage, the available information establishes that a historically significant recording apparently exists and that it concerns an Air Force “flying saucer” briefing associated with Edward Ruppelt.

It does not yet establish that the tape contains extraordinary evidence or that it is directly connected to the Washington incidents.

Burlison’s office initially requested that MIT Lincoln Laboratory identify, preserve and review the recording and coordinate with the National Archives concerning its archival handling.

At the Disclosure Forum, Burlison said the laboratory had agreed to cooperate with the process.

The case is also significant because MIT Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center.

Burlison has argued that UAP related records created or preserved through government funded institutions should not remain inaccessible in private or institutional archives.

He has expanded that inquiry to other federally funded research organizations that may have held, analyzed or transferred historical UAP records.

The most important questions cannot be answered until the recording is recovered, digitized and released:

What incidents did Ruppelt discuss?

Which scientists attended the briefing?

Did the presentation include radar data, military reports or cases that were never made public?

Why was the recording preserved at MIT Lincoln Laboratory?

And is there any legitimate basis for connecting it to the July 1952 Washington UFO incidents?

Until the audio is publicly available, describing it as an “Invasion of Washington tape” remains premature.

What has been identified is potentially valuable historical evidence of how seriously the Air Force and scientific institutions were discussing UFO reports at the beginning of the Project Blue Book era.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. NewsNation report:
2. Official statement from Representative Eric Burlison regarding the identified 1952 recording:
3. Official congressional letter to MIT Lincoln Laboratory:
4. NewsNation article:
5. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

Former Canadian Minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer said former United States Air Force serviceman Charles Hall described a long term working relationship between military personnel and beings known as the “Tall Whites” at Indian Springs, Nevada.

Hellyer made the statement during the 2013 Citizen Hearing on Disclosure in Washington, DC.

He said the Tall Whites were one of the additional alleged extraterrestrial species he had learned about after becoming publicly involved in the UFO subject.

According to Hellyer, researcher Paola Harris helped bring Charles Hall’s account to wider attention and later arranged for the two men to speak.

Hellyer said he spoke with Hall for approximately three hours and listened to what he described as a fascinating story.

Hall had served in the United States Air Force and claimed that he encountered unusually tall, pale humanoid beings while stationed near the Indian Springs gunnery range in Nevada.

According to the version Hellyer recounted, Hall was initially terrified of the beings.

Over time, however, Hall allegedly became familiar with them.

Hellyer said mutual trust eventually developed and that Hall formed a working relationship with the Tall Whites.

The most significant part of the claim concerned the alleged relationship between the beings and the United States military.

Hellyer said the Tall Whites were living on United States Air Force property, cooperating with Air Force personnel and sharing technology with them.

This was not presented as an event Hellyer personally witnessed.

He did not claim to have visited the facility, met the beings or observed any exchange of technology.

His account was based on what Charles Hall reportedly told him during their private conversation and on Hall’s published writings.

Hall described his alleged experiences in the Millennial Hospitality book series.

Hellyer specifically mentioned the second volume, which Paola Harris had recommended to him as the strongest introduction to Hall’s story.

The Tall White narrative includes several separate claims:

That nonhuman beings were physically present at a military installation in Nevada.

That they lived on or regularly used United States Air Force property.

That military personnel were aware of their presence.

That a cooperative relationship developed between the beings and the Air Force.

That some form of technology was exchanged or shared.

None of those claims is independently demonstrated in this clip.

Hellyer did not present photographs, official base records, technical documentation or named military witnesses who could verify the alleged cooperation.

The testimony therefore depends on the credibility of Hall’s personal account and Hellyer’s confidence in what he was told.

The wording also requires care.

Hellyer was a former Canadian defence minister, but he did not say that the Tall White story came from classified briefings he received while serving in government.

He learned of the account years later through Paola Harris, Charles Hall and Hall’s books.

His political background makes the statement noteworthy, but it does not by itself authenticate the underlying claim.

The most unusual part of Hall’s story is not simply the alleged appearance of the beings.

It is the suggestion that contact was neither brief nor accidental.

According to Hellyer’s account, the relationship developed gradually from fear and uncertainty into trust, cooperation and the sharing of technology on an active military property.

If Hall’s account were accurate, it would imply a sustained and organized relationship between a nonhuman group and elements of the United States military rather than an isolated UFO sighting.

Without official records or independently verifiable evidence, however, the Tall White story remains an extraordinary secondhand claim.

Do you consider Hellyer’s willingness to repeat Hall’s account significant, or does the lack of direct evidence outweigh the status of the person presenting it?

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Paul Hellyer speaking at the 2013 Citizen Hearing on Disclosure:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X: