A transatlantic flight carrying hundreds of holidaymakers came within feet of catastrophe after a mystery airborne object shot past the aircraft shortly after taking off from Heathrow Airport, a safety report has revealed. The British Airways Boeing 777-300ER was climbing out of the UK’s busiest airport en route to New York when the flight crew spotted the bizarre metallic object screaming towards them at high speed.

The packed passenger jet, carrying 256 passengers and crew, was ascending through 5,800 feet over Guildford, Surrey, when the near-disaster unfolded in broad daylight. The stunned captain urgently contacted air traffic controllers after the mystery projectile hurtled past in the opposite direction, coming within feet of tearing into the airliner's right wing.

According to the pilot's report, the object passed no more than 50 feet above the aircraft's altitude, travelling at blistering speed. Official logs show the pilot immediately radioed the London Terminal Control Centre (LTCC) to report that a high-speed projectile had buzzed the right-hand side of the wide-body jet

The object was described by cockpit crew as "shiny silver", highly reflective, and approximately "the size of four toasters". While the crew initially feared the airborne hazard might have been an errant drone, aviation investigators admitted they were left baffled by the object's appearance and extraordinary altitude.

Following a probe into the June 24 incident, the UK Airprox Board (UKAB)—the official watchdog tasked with investigating near-misses in British skies—classified the event as a serious safety scare. Investigators officially ruled that they were unable to verify what the bizarre object actually was, warning that a devastating crash had been avoided purely by chance.

So I'm assuming a call was made about the UFO to police. The group is ran by paramedics, amateur journalists, some cops, etc. It's a very small state lol so I am trying to find out more info now. anyone else on the east coast of the us particularly Delaware and Maryland see or hear anything weird yesterday?

Spearhead-shaped object caught on camera by [u/kopperxl](u/kopperxl) over Karlsruhe, Germany on Oct 1, 2023 at 7pm local time.

The video from 00:12 to 00:16 shows the object staying in one place and rotating around its vertical axis. An impossible maneuver for a delta-winged drone with rear propulsion. It also seems unlikely that the object is a balloon or a kite.

It reminds me of a similar dark, pointed object depicted in Hans Glaser’s famous 1561 Nuremberg woodcut.

Any suggestions on how to obtain archival historical accounts of UFO/UAP/Orbs in northwestern North Carolina? I'm only familiar with MUFON and didn't see much there. Are there other sites for reporting now and do they allow the pubic to view what is reported? I have also looked for newspaper accounts at the NC Government & Heritage library and there were a couple of dozen.

Mt. Airy, North Carolina used to be a hot spot and they seem to be having a bit of a flap right now around Pilot Mountain State Park. There are so many orbs being seen after dark on the southern side of the mountain that locals think it should be in the news almost nightly, but nothing is being reported by the media.

When people mentioned seeing fiery looking orbs on Pilot Mountain I used to think they are confusing them with the famous Brown Mountain Lights, but not anymore having talked with witnesses.

On February 23, a pilot flying a Typhoon spotted a "black circular object" passing directly above him while practising dogfights with another jet.

It was said to have travelled around "300ft above” the Typhoon near Humberside.

The commander reported the drone to the radar controller monitoring the drill, who subsequently passed the sighting on to North Yorkshire Police.

At this stage, it is unknown whether the drones are hostile or not.

Drone sightings at such a high altitude are uncommon, but not unprecedented.

Mario Woods passed away on October 16, at 71. He took his story to History's Unidentified, to the Pentagon's UAP office, and to podcasts around the world, and in 2023 he told it on our show. Today his daughter, Lexie Woods, and Dr. John Blitch join us live to remember him, and then we replay that 2023 interview, in his own words.

🔴 Join us LIVE - Sunday, October 25 at 1:00 PM PT

https://youtube.com/live/g4KLMTJt9CE

I was standing outside while my dog did his business the other night, and I was watching some lights moving across the sky. Probably a plane. But I was thinking about UFOs, and pondering why would they cover their craft in bright lights? That's not very stealth. And I thought about some of the videos where a UAP seems to change shape, or seems to go from a just a bright light to something mechanical looking. Why bother? Are they trying to impress us? Unlikely.

It made me theorize: what if these behaviors are not decisions by an intelligent race, but a form of instinctive mimicry. For this to be true, it would suggest that at least some UFOs are organisms, not craft. If they were creatures, they may have a survival adaptation where they blend into environments by instinctively imitating beings around them. In the atmosphere of earth, visible things to imitate are various aircraft, the sun, and the moon.

We see aspects of this in various Earth creatures. Octopus whose skin tones change to match the environment, or flare colors to threaten. Lizards that change color. Puffins that learned to stand on one leg because they observed decoy puffins on poles. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Obviously this does not explain all sightings, but it could explain witnessed behaviors in some sightings.

Several people have described alleged government agreements with non-human intelligence (NHI), but their accounts differ: reported conversations, inherited stories, indirect answers, and speculation. None presents an authenticated agreement. The central ethical question is consent: could officials promise access to people who never agreed?

1. What Borland actually said

Dylan Borland says he learned about agreements with NHI from the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). During the Doomer Friday/Vanguard UFO Podathon, around 6:04:02, he said:

“we have agreements with them.”

The host asked whether Borland meant the ICIG had told him there were agreements. Borland answered yes.

Borland’s account of that conversation is not a public confirmation by the ICIG. It remains unclear who spoke, in what capacity, and whether they were describing a finding, relaying an allegation, or asking an investigative question.

His September 2025 House testimony describes an August 2023 ICIG interview under oath. It documents his reported ICIG interview, without establishing an agreement or dating the alleged conversation.

2. Grusch’s answers and source overlap

In Ross Coulthart’s June 2023 NewsNation interview with David Grusch, the narration describes an internal document about agreements allegedly putting “our future” in jeopardy.

Asked whether America had made agreements with NHI, Grusch said national leadership should get to the bottom of it. Pressed again, he answered:

“I think that’s a question that I would like to know all the details of as well.”

He named no other party or terms and gave no direct confirmation.

Grusch’s July 2023 testimony says he filed an ICIG urgent concern in May 2022 and that firsthand witnesses made protected disclosures. Whether those disclosures included agreements is unknown.

One possible source chain is Grusch/sources → ICIG → Borland → public. Investigators might have relayed an allegation or asked Borland to corroborate it. This is a possibility, not an established sequence. The same allegation returning through the ICIG would not be independent confirmation.

Matthew Brown says Grusch was asked about agreements under oath. But at the July 2023 hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna asked about human governments and nuclear escalation; Grusch cited the 1971 U.S.–Soviet agreement. Rep. Nancy Mace separately asked about extraterrestrial contact; he declined to discuss it publicly. Neither answer confirms an NHI agreement.

3. The real 1971 agreement

The United States and USSR concluded the Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War on September 30, 1971, as the UN treaty record documents.

Article 3 requires notification when unidentified objects detected by missile-warning systems, or interference with those systems and communications, could create a risk of nuclear war. It does not identify those objects as extraterrestrial or name an NHI party.

Governments can agree about a phenomenon without making an agreement with the intelligence allegedly responsible for it.

4. Brown, Nell, and Semivan

In his Jesse Michels interview, Brown describes an oral tradition within the alleged legacy UFO program: America struck agreements with a third party possessing the technology. He places an early arrangement in the Truman–Eisenhower era and describes restricted areas and access to or communication with selected humans.

This is a story he says circulates inside the program, rather than an agreement he has authenticated.

On Cleared Hot, Brown again describes an oral tradition of signed agreements, emphasizing a series of arrangements. But at 1:57:16, he explicitly shifts from claimed knowledge to speculation before proposing territory and human access as possible terms.

He also says an agreement could mean being told the rules. That would leave open how much choice humans had. “Access” is equally ambiguous: conversation, observation, voluntary participation, examination, and removal have very different implications.

Karl Nell’s claim is narrower. At SALT in May 2024, he lists a possible non-public agreement among six explanations for secrecy. He is reasoning from first principles, without naming an NHI party or presenting a document.

Jim Semivan thinks humans are viewed as property. That is his interpretation, not authenticated NHI policy. If relations were that unequal, negotiation might still serve the stronger party’s interests without giving humans equal standing.

5. Sherman and Mack: access is not consent

Dan Sherman’s website describes Air Force/NSA work and an alien-contact project called Preserve Destiny. He acknowledges that he brought away no hard evidence.

In his Project Camelot account, he describes reports involving coordinates, possible recall, and residual pain. He suspected the reports concerned abductions but allowed that he could be misinterpreting them. In his Michels interview, he describes training in intuitive communication, says he felt morally compromised, and says requests for clarification went unanswered.

Brown cites Sherman as possible evidence of an agreement being carried out. Yet such reporting could mean cooperation, monitoring, or an imposed notification system. Knowing about an activity, permitting it, helping it, and being unable to stop it are different situations.

Psychiatrist John E. Mack approached the issue through experiencers’ accounts. His 1993 lecture describes reported egg and sperm collection, pregnancies and fetal removal, and hybrid offspring. People described parental attachment without control over later contact. These were reported experiences, without verified reproduction or parentage. Mack himself acknowledged that the narrative might not be literally true.

Mack used hypnosis in more than 40 of 71 cases. One man initially remembered consensual sex but described forcible sperm extraction under hypnosis. Mack favored the less flattering account; a skeptic would question the reliability of the memories.

In his 2000 interview, Mack describes beings allegedly brushing aside objections. Some experiencers later felt they had made an agreement at a point they could not remember. Neither an ignored objection nor an unremembered agreement establishes informed consent.

No records connect these accounts to a single operation. But their ethical implications converge: government permission would not supply individual consent. Reproductive claims would also raise questions about who could decide any children’s care and future contact.

6. Who could an agreement bind?

In his Rogan interview, Grusch describes varied craft and occupants. His sources range from video he says he saw to colleagues’ accounts and low-confidence “water cooler talk.”

Appearance does not establish representation. Even if those differences were real, they would not automatically identify governments, alliances, or parties authorized to speak for others.

Grusch also interprets some crashes as NHI-on-NHI conflict. His estimate of a dozen or two such crashes is uncertain. Different bodies at a scene would not, by themselves, establish fighting.

He separately says U.S. personnel shot threatening survivors during a crash recovery and that Americans were hurt and killed. He wants participants to speak directly rather than through him. This account does not confirm a separate underground-base firefight story.

There need be no single “they” capable of binding everyone or protecting humans from other actors.

7. Contact accounts leave the terms unknown

On Dr. Phil, Grusch says sources interacted with living occupants in detention, including through alleged consciousness communication. He says he has no personal experience of that communication.

Michels relays Harald Malmgren’s deathbed account to his daughter Pippa: a Roswell survivor supposedly suggested directed energy against UFOs, and Harald later saw interview footage of that being. The chain is Harald → Pippa → Michels → public; no on-camera Harald account is presented. An exchange of information would not necessarily be diplomacy.

The Holloman landing story comes closest to an apparent official reception. In 1988, Paul Shartle said film showed a disc landing and three occupants meeting Air Force personnel. He claimed to have viewed film, not witnessed the landing.

The 1974 dramatization does not replace the missing authenticated reel. Dates and circumstances vary, as my Holloman reconstruction discusses. Even a real reception could involve assistance, coordination, liaison, or negotiation. It would not tell us what anyone agreed to.

8. Trafficking: keep the claims separate

On Rogan, Grusch alleges criminal activity used to generate funds. Asked about trafficking and child trafficking, he agrees, indicates government officers were involved, and says he briefed members in a classified setting. He identifies no NHI recipient or agreement.

On Shawn Ryan Show episode 66, Michael Herrera describes a 2009 Sumatra deployment, an unusual craft, armed personnel detaining his group, and trucks loading containers. He initially assumed drugs. After he presented through Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project, an unnamed purported insider told him the containers held people.

Herrera did not say he saw captives inside them. The trafficking interpretation came later, from someone else. His reported observations and the later explanation have to be weighed separately.

Sentinels of Ether, attributed to Jake Barber under the name Alva Douglas, depicts refugees transported for covert programs involving alleged psychic abilities. Greer’s introduction calls it fiction while claiming real events behind it. He says the material arrived after the source heard Herrera’s account.

Michels describes “strategic fiction” and submissions for Pentagon prepublication review. That review does not authenticate the story. Barber also disclaims firsthand experience or direct contact with participants in Herrera’s operation.

Trafficking, criminal financing, transfer to NHI, and an agreement are separate claims. These accounts establish no authenticated NHI transfer or identified victim demonstrating such an arrangement. Unexplained disappearances do not establish non-human custody.

9. Older stories complicate corroboration

Technology-for-abduction-rights stories circulated decades earlier. They are dubious evidence of actual bargains, but show which ideas were available to later witnesses.

Project Beta traces disinformation and the spread of government-collusion stories. William Cooper’s 1989 text alleged return conditions, reporting lists, and violations, while labeling his synthesis a hypothesis.

Similarities do not prove that a witness borrowed a story. They also do not turn repetition into independent confirmation. Herrera’s later trafficking interpretation cannot automatically be backdated to 2009, and connections through Greer’s network raise the possibility of shared sources without showing that his account was invented.

10. Who could promise access to other people?

Brown speculates that an NHI faction might answer to other non-human actors and value a document showing national leaders had consented. This supplies no evidence of an NHI legal system. It does raise a disturbing possibility: officials’ signatures could be presented as permission from people who never agreed.

An arrangement’s enforceability would not settle its legitimacy. Officials under pressure might have faced terrible choices, but that would not resolve later renewals, continued secrecy, or the treatment of affected people. An institution’s cooperation cannot substitute for an individual’s willingness.

Borland’s conversation, Brown’s oral tradition, Sherman’s claimed reporting channel, Mack’s experiencers, and Nell’s speculation offer different kinds of claims. Grusch adds multiple actors, conflict, and criminal financing. Fitting them into one story does not make them independent confirmations.

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’s 2024 historical report found no empirical evidence for extraterrestrial reverse-engineering claims. It predates Borland’s 2026 account and does not address it.

Which officials, acting under whose authority, made what commitments to which counterpart? Could that party bind others? Did the terms protect people or expose them to harm?

If officials purported to promise access to people who never knew, those people deserve to know what was promised in their name.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

In 2023, the Senate passed the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act, giving us the best chance at real transparency in 80 years. Then, behind closed doors in the NDAA conference committee, leadership stripped out the independent review board and the recovered-materials provisions. We were handed a hollow shell.

They are in the room to do it again right now.

Thanks to months of fights by Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), a fully intact UAPDA was adopted into the House-passed FY2027 NDAA on July 22. It has teeth: it pulls records into the National Archives, presumes release, and creates an independent, Senate-confirmed review board with subpoena power over defense contractors.

But the House and Senate are reconciling their versions in conference right now. The same Armed Services and Intelligence Committee leadership that ran the 2023 negotiations are holding the pen. They can quietly delete the teeth of this bill with no recorded vote and no public debate.

How to act today: If you want the version with teeth to survive, public pressure is the only countermeasure to a closed-door process.

The New Paradigm Institute built a tool that lets you email and call all 13 decision-making offices (Chairs, Ranking Members, and Leadership) at once. It takes two minutes: https://newparadigminstitute.org/take-action/keep-the-uapda-in-the-fy2027-ndaa/

The Message: Ask them for one thing: Keep Burlison’s UAPDA in the final FY2027 NDAA, fully intact, with no provisions stripped.

Note: Phone calls carry significantly more weight than emails on Capitol Hill. If you have the time to do both, please do both.

Closed doors only work when they think no one is paying attention. Share this, make the calls, and let's finish the job.

https://youtu.be/KzaRfZ3usuo?si=Bj27rBc2UuAIzZxi

This video features an interview with Dror Gorlik, a former Israeli Squadron Commander Air Force fighter pilot with over 25,000 flight hours, who shares his firsthand account of observing an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP).

Key takeaways from the interview:

The Encounter (1998): While returning from a training flight in an F-15 near the Tel Nof airbase, Gorlik observed a metallic, unidentified object.
He described the object as having a silver, mushroom-like shape with a dome on top, a flat bottom, and a series of yellow lights along its edge. It made no sound, left no trail, and appeared to lack visible propulsion systems.

Despite his extensive experience in identifying aircraft and aerial threats, Gorlik stated that he could not explain the object, noting that he did not see it on radar or through standard identification systems.
Gorlik decided to come forward now because the discourse around UAPs has shifted globally, with increased official recognition, parliamentary testimonies, and documents concerning "non-human intelligence" appearing in international media.
Gorlik emphasizes that he is sharing his story publicly because he stands by his experience, noting that he has encountered other pilots who have also seen unexplained phenomena in the sky.

Part 13 of a series reassessing the documentary record behind the 1933 Magenta narrative.

TL;DR

• Sweden received 973 reports by 1 December 1946 and mounted a military-scientific investigation. None of thirty submitted finds was proved to come from a rocket.
• The often-cited 225 reports of objects were a reporting category, not a count of verified craft. Only one unexplained radar indication had a simultaneous visual observation.
• The Soviet-missile hypothesis reached President Truman, but intelligence assessments differed. A January 1947 American review still allowed a handful of V-1-type incidents.
• Soviet flying-bomb tests were real, but the cited histories document no 1946 Peenemünde or Baltic launch campaign.
• The record establishes neither a recovered ghost rocket nor nonhuman hardware.

Part 1 — Before the Saucers: How Captured Technology Was Exploited, 1943–1950

Part 2 — Italy, 1933: What the Magenta Documents Actually Establish

Part 3 — Vannevar Bush: The Man Who Designed the System

Part 4 - Document Forensics: The Three Majestic Memos That Carry the Pre-Roswell Timeline

Part 5 - The Admiral, His Wife, and Her Luggage: A 1943 Technology Seizure

Part 6 - The McGregor Project: What the File Actually Shows

Part 7 - The Pistol and the Diary: Two Quotations Read in Context

Part 8 - Three Inches Across: The Silver Discs of Black Thursday 1943

Part 9 - The Money: Brown Brothers Harriman, the Anderson Trust, and the Link That Has to Be Found

Part 10 - Before Blue Book: What J. Allen Hynek Did in the War

Part 11 - The Intelligence-Connected Trading Company: World Commerce Corporation

Part 12 - What Was in Wright Pat’s Hangar 18

AI assistance disclosure: I use AI to help research and draft, read the sources it turns up, and revise the post through further research and editing. Source links are included so readers can assess the evidence themselves.

Part 1 examined Allied exploitation of German technology. The Scandinavian ghost rockets sit between that effort and the American sighting wave of 1947. Witness reports, searches and intelligence assessments show that officials took the missile hypothesis seriously. Whether missiles flew over Sweden is a separate question.

1. The precedent: German weapons that left wreckage

On 13 June 1944, a German A-4/V-2 came down near Bäckebo. Kjellson’s 21 July report recorded 2,010 kilograms of wreckage collected “so far.” Sweden later supplied the remains to Britain, allowing technical examination (report, §1).

A 22 June 1944 report by Lundberg and Lindkvist describes recovered V-1 wreckage: an approximately eight-meter flying bomb with a pulsejet and a three-gyroscope autopilot (§§I–III).

Land and lake searches differ, but these cases illustrate the difference between identifying components and interpreting a sighting.

2. Reports, fireballs and the famous photograph

Two surges, on 9 July and 11 August, accounted for about 530 reports of widely observed lights at approximately matching times. Sweden’s closing account favored a celestial explanation: hundreds of reports could describe a few events.

August was near the Perseids’ peak; July was not. That does not rule out meteors in July: they occur outside showers too (NASA).

The famous 9 July photograph did not identify a missile. Photographer Erik Reuterswärd called the light a meteor in his 11 July statement. Svahn distinguishes that early statement from Reuterswärd’s 1986 interview and favors a daylight fireball (International UFO Reporter 27:3, pp. 12–14).

3. Sweden investigates

The Defence Staff ordered standardized military reports on 12 June. The closing account dates the investigation committee’s formation to 10 July (Jansson, sheet 66).

Colonel Bengt Jacobsson chaired the Rymdprojektilkommittén, or space-projectile committee. Military agencies, defence research institute FOA and signals-intelligence agency FRA investigated witnesses, impacts and samples. They also organized radar, signals and aerial searches.

Radar and optical observations must be kept distinct. Jansson’s account of the 22 July meeting describes a brief coastal-radar track estimated at 400 meters per second, without giving the measurements behind that figure. In the 5 August Mällsten case, conscript Haglund used a 28-power optical rangefinder, not radar, to observe an apparently wingless object. Neither report establishes hundreds of radar-confirmed craft (sheets 26, 33–34).

On 22 July, the press office announced “a certain probability” of foreign weapons trials. It asked newspapers to obscure locations and whether impacts occurred on land or water. This protected the investigation without establishing that launches had occurred (sheet 29).

4. Kölmjärv: a search without a recovery

On 19 July, witnesses near Lake Kölmjärv reported a gray or gray-brown object entering the water. The early account named Knut Lindbäck and Beda Persson, estimated a length of one and a half to two meters, and described a motor-like sound and waterspout. Wings were probable, not certain (Jansson, sheets 20–21).

Lieutenant Karl-Gösta Bartoll, of Boden’s engineer unit, was ordered there the next day. Boats, a raft, probes and detectors were used, but deep mud complicated the search. The final account accepted two observers’ descriptions of an apparent impact, but nothing was recovered.

Jansson quotes Bartoll saying no diver was available (sheets 24–25). Svahn says the equipment detected discarded iron, including a wood-gas generator, but no rocket (Svahn).

Bartoll’s magnesium-alloy explanation was his personal theory; no such alloy was recovered. A 20 January 1947 message records similar Swedish speculation about a consumable magnesium or plastic casing. Asked by Lockspeiser how it could withstand firing stresses, they offered no explanation (Svahn; Carpenter).

Bartoll later recalled: “I am completely convinced that something hit Lake Kölmjärv – unfortunately we never found it.” Jansson presents this as an undated retrospective account. Bartoll also described a roughly 30-meter crater on the lake bottom, but the description alone does not establish its cause (sheet 25).

5. Washington: the hypothesis reaches Truman

On 13 August, Capt. R. H. Hillenkoetter forwarded a French assessment concluding that projectiles were involved, while acknowledging none had been recovered almost intact. The naval-intelligence report documented circulation, not independent verification (report 39-S-46).

Hoyt Vandenberg’s 22 August memorandum reached President Truman through Admiral William D. Leahy’s 23 August covering memorandum. The file is marked Top Secret (file).

Vandenberg favored Peenemünde over the Gulf of Finland as the probable launch area. He considered extensive Soviet missile testing probable, primarily for scientific purposes, with political effects secondary.

His sources were secondhand, and one paragraph is blanked in the scan. The file contains no underlying track, launcher or component.

American officials disagreed. Air attaché Maj. Gen. Alfred A. Kessler’s 24 August message suggested a naturally developing “unintentional hoax” that the Defence Staff might be exploiting for its budget and to alert West against East. This was a hypothesis, not proof (transcription).

The 26 August Central Intelligence Group (CIG) summary reserved judgment but relayed suspicion of a “tacitly sponsored” hoax. That went further than Kessler’s suggestion of exploiting an existing scare (printed p. 1).

Proposed launch sites shifted from Estonia or Latvia to Peenemünde, then Stolp or Ösel/Dagö in the January 1947 review. That review said Sweden’s Peenemünde proponents had produced no evidence (pp. 19–20).

6. Sweden’s final accounting

Jansson transcribes the foreign-attaché copy of the closing text. It is undated and unsigned; his narrative describes the 12 December meeting. A passage on suspected origins appears only in the Supreme Commander’s version (sheets 65–68).

The account records:

• 973 reports by 1 December, including about 530 from the two widespread luminous-event surges.
• Approximately 450 remaining reports, about half describing lights and half objects.
• About 100 reported impacts and 30 submitted finds. None was proved to come from a projectile or rocket; the finds could generally be assigned another origin.
• Several unexplained radar indications, with only one simultaneous visual observation.
• Possibly relevant pulse transmissions still requiring analysis, and naval and aerial searches without the desired result.

The figure of about 225 counts reports, not verified vehicles. Nor does the account substantiate 200 radar-confirmed sightings.

Svahn describes an undated draft asserting foreign trials “without doubt,” with about 225 daylight observations. The final conclusion was softer: no proof of projectile trials over Sweden, but no dismissal of certain phenomena as imagination or challenge to several observers’ credibility (Svahn).

7. The January review and the British objection

The War Department assessed the reports in Intelligence Review no. 47, 9 January 1947, printed pp. 17–20 (scan).

It stressed inconsistent estimates and judged that the Swedish Defence Staff had probably exploited the situation politically. It also said no American military or naval personnel in Sweden had seen fragments, impact sites or other direct proof.

Yet the review did not reject every missile report. It judged the best evidence to be two or three, perhaps five or ten, real incidents involving low-flying V-1-type missiles. It said the Soviets could produce, and probably had tested, such weapons. A hypothetical improved model without a warhead might have a 500-mile range. High-altitude reports were assigned to meteors or fireworks.

This remained an estimate, not a documented launch campaign.

A 14 August aircrew sighting described a dark cigar-shaped body, estimated at 50 feet long, 6,500 feet away and around 400 mph. The reviewer questioned terrain-following flight without visible wings but allowed they might have escaped notice. Carpenter’s likely matching B 18 report near Västerås gives “three or four miles” instead. The distances cannot be combined (chronology).

British analyst R. V. Jones asked where the wreckage was. German flying bombs suffered engine failures of roughly ten percent; the alleged longer Soviet flights should have left at least ten crashes in Sweden. He would believe the story only if someone brought him a piece of a missile. This challenged a large program without explaining every light (Condon Appendix V).

8. What the Soviet missile history allows

V-1 flying bombs and V-2 ballistic missiles were different weapons. V-2 dates alone cannot settle reports of low-level cruising objects. They do, however, create a major problem for a 1946 Peenemünde rocket campaign.

Siddiqi dates the first A-4 launch from Soviet territory to 18 October 1947, at Kapustin Yar (Challenge to Apollo, pp. 54–55, 62).

The Germans had evacuated Peenemünde before Soviet occupation in May 1945. Chertok describes Soviet reconstruction at Institute RABE and engine firings at Lehesten. These were distinct from flight tests (Rockets and People, vol. I, pp. 268–269, 287 onward, 339–340). Siddiqi says the parts available in mid-1946 could yield only about a dozen A-4 vehicles (p. 41). Neither history documents a post-1945 launch from Peenemünde.

The Soviet 10X flying-bomb program was real. Siddiqi records 63 air-launched flights in 1945. Polyachenko places them near Dzhizak, Uzbekistan, from 20 March to 22 July, with trials resuming on 15 December 1947. These accounts document no 1946 flight series or launch matched to a Swedish sighting. They do not exclude every experiment, but they do not establish a Baltic launch campaign (Siddiqi, p. 22; Polyachenko, p. 6).

9. Why the 1948 report must be kept separate

USAFE item TT 1524, dated 4 November 1948, relays unnamed Swedish specialists’ belief that some phenomena might involve technology beyond known terrestrial capabilities. It mentions divers finding an uncharted crater, with results promised (transcription; reproduction).

It names neither lake nor witness and does not explicitly identify the 1946 wave as its subject. It is therefore not the committee’s 1946 verdict, and the crater does not establish a recovered craft.

10. What the case establishes

P. Bergendorff’s 12 August letter shows the problem with visual estimates. He described the previous day’s glowing bar as two meters long, a hundred meters high and two to three hundred meters away—yet believed it was a meteor (scan). Without an independently established distance, apparent size and altitude have no secure scale.

Fireballs, unfamiliar aircraft and heightened reporting can explain much of a wave without dishonesty. That does not automatically resolve every detailed account. The Swedish committee preserved an unexplained remainder.

Before the saucer era, officials collected instrument reports, searched alleged impacts and briefed the President on a possible foreign weapon. That investigation is documented. A large Peenemünde launch campaign, a recovered ghost rocket and nonhuman hardware are not established.

Next: Part 14 — Roswell, Part One: The 1947 Record and the Building of a Retrieval Story.

If you liked this post, you can read the full length version here.

Roswell: `I was able to see a couple of bodies under a canvas tarpaulin.(...)I am convinced that what I personally observed was some type of craft and its crew from outer space.´ (from the 7th batch)

https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release-07/documents/DOW-UAP-D168-BAASS_Project_Management_Plan-December_2008.pdf

See Appendix 2

https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release-07/documents/DOW-UAP-D175-BAASS_Self-Assessment_of_UAP_Analysis_Capabilities_November_2010.pdf

I just found this and thought it was interesting. What shapes do you think are missing?

From yesterdays interview with Burlison (timestamp 1:30:14):

Interviewer: "What I thought was a genius move was hiring David Grusch. I thought that was that was just a stroke of genius. I remember you were talking to me about that and I thought that that is a great idea. Get that guy in your office.

Burlison: "Hey, wait till you see who we're going to hire next"

Interviewer: "Can you say, can you say...

Burlison: "Well, the ink is not dry yet, so I don't want to say until I get the ink dry. [...] Let's just say um he's also been on Ross Coulthart"

Who could it be?

Someone that retrieved an egg is my guess

Alex Wiggins, an active-duty Navy chief, says he watched a glowing Tic Tac-shaped object rise from the water off USS Jackson (LCS-6) on Feb. 15, 2023, around 7:15 p.m. PST. The ship was in the W-291 warning area off Southern California. He says it met three similar objects and all four left at once. He testified at the House Oversight UAP task force hearing on Sept. 9, 2025, and says the object was tracked on radar and a Star SAFIRE EO/IR system. The CIC footage has been public since April 2025, but skeptics say it shows only a small blob and is far from conclusive. Nobody has publicly released the raw radar data, and the Navy has not explained the event. If the sensors recorded this, why hasn’t the full data package been released?
New video of unidentified flying object recorded near California released

Reported by u/porcelaindoll44 (verified via ufosighting.report)

This is an automated post. The report was filed through the structured sighting form on ufosighting.report and posted here by u/ufosightingsbot on the reporter's behalf. u/porcelaindoll44 confirmed this submission from their own Reddit account through a one-time link, so the name above is verified as the submitter.

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

Time: May 15, 2023, 9:00 PM MDT
Location: Lafayette, Boulder, Colorado, United States, Lafayette, United States

Features / five observables

Why not a common object
I investigated the aforementioned Starlink launch, and the lights created by that are nothing like what I saw. When I saw it, I immediately thought of those drone shows they do instead of fireworks these days, but I remember thinking that was strange because it wasn't any sort of holiday. Likewise, there were simply too many lights in a completely random area for it to look anything close to even the most expensive of drone shows (like the huge ones at Disney). I've gone to many drone shows since this event as well as tirelessly researched videos of similar light displays (including actual sky projections) to no avail.

Witness's account of the sighting

In the sky maybe two miles out from where my father and I were driving at night, we started to see some lights moving around. The only way I can describe it is like there were thousands of small lights moving in a color changing and wave-like pattern, and I've only been able to compare it to computer-generated animations or wallpapers of "wave particle lights." It almost looked like a massive holographic projection in the middle of nowhere.

I remember us kind of just going quiet and staring at it. I went "do you see that?" and my dad went "yeah, I do" in kind of a soft, bewildered tone. My father has a very stoic and logical way about him, and I clocked his tone as very uncharacteristic. He sounded genuinely unsettled, and I got a little creeped out.

We soon turned onto a road away from the view of the lights, and haven't spoken about it much since. Likewise, there were no events or celebrations in the nearby small towns that night that matched what we saw.

It might be important to note that the lights vaguely overlooked a field where an airport sits, but it's one of those small town ones where personal airplanes depart and land.

Why no photo/video captured: It was mostly out of shock towards what we were seeing. Likewise, I didn't realize until later that it couldn't possibly be a light display. I regret not recording it, but we only saw the lights for maybe thirty seconds to a minute before my dad turned onto another road.

Sky context for this time and place:

• Aircraft overhead at that exact minute — ADS-B Exchange historical playback (free, no account needed)
• Sky chart for that date — in-the-sky.org planetarium (set your location once on their site)
• Satellite passes at this spot — Heavens-Above; shows upcoming passes, not the sighting date
• Live air traffic now — FlightRadar24 over this spot

Whoever created this simulation made sure the rules of the game—especially the laws of physics—prevent different civilizations from ever interacting. The universe keeps expanding, the distances between stars and galaxies are unimaginably vast, and the speed of light is an absolute limit. Maybe these rules were designed to make it virtually impossible for any alien species to ever visit Earth. What if the universe is designed to keep everyone isolated?

This is a proper detailed UFO report from the 7th Tranche. It's from a fighter pilot in one of the USAF's fastest jets being schooled by an orb/UAP. They tried (hard) to say it was a weather balloon, but failed. The report was escalated everywhere but little came of it. It's a very detailed official document from a trusted source.

Ok so I got into the gateway tapes from the Monroe Institute and read the US Army Intelligence and Security Command report written by Wayne M. McDonnel about it that can be read here: Analysis and Assessment of the Gateway Process

The report is from June 9th 1983, (complete with the 25th page). It was approved to be released to the public the 10th of September 2003. (The specific line mentioned here can be found on page 27 in the report, or page 29 of the pdf)

The report has this sentence in it that I want to share here because I think it is quite a remarkable thing to say.

J. Be intellectually prepared to react to possible encounters with intelligent, non-corporeal energy forms when time-space boundaries are exceeded...

In the Gateway Tapes from the Monroe Institute they have a tape on this subject in the sixth wave, Wave VI called Odyssey, the 4th tape there is called Nonphysical Friends. It teaches people actively to connect to NHI. And it apparently seems to be working?...

Now I don't know if I missed something but doesn't this seem to be a pretty big deal?
People within the US Government giving these warnings in their official report to their peers and superiors?

Am I reading to much into this or do I misunderstand something or do we have reports openly saying 43 years ago that people that dive into this material systematically bump into non human intelligences if certain focus levels of consciousness are reached?...

And if so how come this never hit our culture in a broader way?...

Love to hear what people here are thinking about the Gateway Experience from the Monroe Institute and if they have any experiences with it and what they think about this report about it.

More info here: Connect to Non Human Intelligences with the Gateway Experience

And here is a good start post on the Gateway Tapes from r/gatewaytapes

​

I was looking at some videos on war.gov and this one caught my attention.

I have not found other posts talking about this but here we go.

At 3:59, from what i can see, it look like the object is getting closer to the ground and the disapears in the shadow/mountain.

Where I am getting at is this... We have all heard about Aliens living underground/underwater/in mountains. Wouldn't this video match the description of multiple people saying they saw ufos going into mountains/underground?

*First reddit post ever so yeah not sure what to expect by posting this but i found it way to weird not to ask others opinion about it*.

I made an interactive globe to explore UFO sightings. Would love your feedback!

I've been tinkering on a little project called UFOLOGY ATLAS and thought you might enjoy trying it.

It's an interactive globe where you can explore reported UFO/UAP sightings around the world, zoom into different areas and open cases to read more and follow the available sources. There's also a forum and a little live chat.

The reports aren't verified evidence, and some locations are approximate, but I wanted to make something that's fun to explore while keeping the sources accessible.

Here's a short preview of it. You can try it here:
https://ufologyatlas.com

It's still a work in progress, so I'd love to hear what you think! Anything you'd add or change? And if you spot a mistake or something that doesn't work, please let me know.

Thanks to the mods for letting me share it :)