*** UAP THREAD ***

859,117 Views | 7554 Replies | Last: 31 sec ago by Redstone
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great analysis from UFO Joe, as always (in parenthesis throughout)...


Quote:

"'Any information that is received that sheds light on the UAP mystery will ultimately be made public,' the official said."

(If this actually happens, it would be HUGE!)

"The official said the next tranche of files will be made available 'very soon.'"

(This is all excellent news but I wouldn't get too excited just yet. I'l break down the entire article in ( ) below.)

"Long-hidden UFO information at center of Trump push to free former officials

"Former employees can now share information with AARO or the PURSUE task force without fear of violating agreements"

By Morgan Phillips Fox News
Published July 21, 2026 11:43am EDT

"EXCLUSIVE: President Donald Trump has directed federal agencies to waive prior nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) for former government employees and contractors cooperating with unidentified anomalous phenomena investigations, Fox News Digital has learned.

"President Trump recently directed the Department of War and the intelligence community to allow former government employees or contractors, that have relevant information about the disclosure of UAP, to come forward to meet with designated government representatives AARO or the President's UAP task force, 'PURSUE' and have their prior NDAs abrogated," a senior administration official said, with AARO referring to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, the Pentagon office established to investigate UFOs and other unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs).

(Will that be enough to make hesitant whistleblowers feel safe/comfortable enough to come forward behind the scenes? @TheDylanBorland, @SunOfAbramelin? What are you hearing? Are they still waiting for an Executive Order?

And since when is PURSUE the President's task force? H/T: @SilvaRecord for making a point of that.)


"Another senior administration official emphasized the move was not a 'declassification directive' and only allowed employees to come forward through government channels."

(In other words, Dr. Eric Davis (and possibly, Dr. Hal Puthoff), who said he would spill his guts IN PUBLIC if his NDAs were waived by POTUS, still CANNOT do that. Same with Dylan Borland. And I believe Matthew Brown would also share all, if he's allowed.

I want alleged firsthand folks (like TRW's Mary Elizabeth Elliot, her co-workers, and the folks who worked with the late Jim Ryder, senior VP of Lockheed, on their C/R program(s)) coming forward, even if it's only behind the scenes for now. But it all means nothing unless they can share what they know with the world. But hey, this seems like a big step forward so let's see what happens and hope it doesn't take forever.

If information is about phenomena of unknown origin, it all needs to be declassified ASAP, unless it's about propulsion/energy that can be used for a weapon.)


"Officials say years of congressional inquiries, whistleblower allegations and newly declassified records have raised questions about whether additional witnesses have remained silent because they believed prior nondisclosure agreements prevented them from cooperating with government investigations.

(That, and they're worried about their safety.)

"'People who believe that they have information have expressed reluctance in coming forward,' the official said. 'We are eliminating that source of reluctance.'"

(Are they? Is this enough? Only time will tell.)

"Like other government employees and defense contractors with access to classified information or sensitive national security programs, many witnesses would have signed nondisclosure agreements as a condition of receiving security clearances or access to restricted information. Those agreements generally prohibit unauthorized disclosure of classified or otherwise protected information and typically remain in effect even after an individual leaves government service.

"Former officials and contractors who disclose protected information without authorization risk losing security clearances, facing civil penalties or, in some circumstances, criminal prosecution if classified information is improperly disclosed."

(And, in some cases, they were threatened with death via the Espionage Act. Let's not forget that.)

"Under the new process, former government employees and contractors who believe they possess relevant UAP information would first meet with designated officials at the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) or the president's UAP task force, PURSUE, who hold the appropriate security clearances. During those authorized discussions, any applicable nondisclosure agreements could be waived, allowing witnesses to share information without fear of violating prior agreements."

(Again, this is only behind the scenes and in a secure setting. Hopefully, Kosloski (head of AARO) can now part his hair without approval from the DOD. Thanks to @jjamescfox for that one. Who makes up PURSUE? Do we know that? Again...that's the President's task force?)

"Information provided through the process would be reviewed through the administration's existing declassification procedures."

(Are they going to argue that the UAP Disclosure Act and Panel of Nine are redundant?)

"Any information that is received that sheds light on the UAP mystery will ultimately be made public," the official said."

(If that actually happens, it would be huge. Let's see. )

"The official said the administration does not know whether potential witnesses actually possess significant new information, but wants to remove any perceived legal barriers so investigators can determine whether previously undisclosed information exists."

(If AARO and PURSUE decide that certain witnesses can't provide "significant new information" that sheds light on the UAP mystery, will they let those folks share all that they know with the public so WE can decide if it's credible and avoid the accusations of cover-up?)


"'You don't know what you don't know,' the official said."

"The official said the focus is on incidents that remain unexplained, rather than known foreign technology, classified U.S. programs or natural phenomena."

(Good, then that should allow for all of this information (testimony) to be made public, even if AARO and PURSUE deem it not credible. Correct?)

"The latest directive builds on the Trump administration's broader effort to declassify decades of government records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena. Previous releases have included FBI and Pentagon records describing unexplained sightings reported by military personnel, law enforcement and astronauts, including accounts of glowing 'mother orbs' that witnesses said released smaller objects near a sensitive U.S. national security site, mysterious orange spheres observed during military operations, and Apollo-era transcripts in which astronauts described unexplained lights and 'jagged, angular fragments' drifting outside their spacecraft.

"The latest tranche of UAP records included expanded details and imagery from a 2015 incident involving an unidentified object over the Pantex nuclear weapons facility in Texas, along with newly declassified infrared footage showing a mysterious six-pointed star-shaped object tracked by a U.S. military sensor over the Yellow Sea on Jan. 1, 2025.

"The official said the next tranche of files will be made available 'very soon.'

"The directive follows years of complaints from some lawmakers and whistleblowers that former officials with firsthand knowledge were reluctant to come forward because of secrecy obligations.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in 2023 that multiple individuals with firsthand knowledge had approached the committee but were hesitant to speak publicly because of potential repercussions.

"'Some of these people still work in the government and frankly, a lot of them are very fearful fearful of their jobs, fearful of their clearances, fearful of their career, and some, frankly, are fearful of harm coming to them,' he said on News Nation in June 2023."

(That excellent interview with Rubio was conducted by @JoeKhalilTV and I transcribed it all. Read it here: )

"'Grant immunity to anyone who has already come forward, and everyone who will come forward. Open the door and let them speak,' Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., demanded during a June 9 press conference on Capitol Hill.

"Public interest in UAPs accelerated in 2017 after The New York Times revealed the Pentagon had quietly operated a secret program to investigate unexplained aerial encounters and published Navy cockpit videos showing objects exhibiting unusual flight characteristics.

"Since then, Congress has held multiple bipartisan hearings on the issue, lawmakers have pressed intelligence agencies for greater transparency, and former intelligence officer David Grusch's allegations that the government had concealed information about UAP programs renewed calls for additional disclosure, despite the government's denial of his central claims.

"During the same event, former Air Force intelligence officer Grusch renewed his allegations that secret UAP programs had operated outside normal congressional oversight, calling it 'a real fraud, waste and abuse issue' and claiming his investigation uncovered 'slush funds to the tune of billions of dollars per annum for these activities.'

"The Pentagon has disputed Grusch's central claims, and AARO has said its investigations found no verified evidence of extraterrestrial technology or credible evidence that the government has secretly recovered or reverse-engineered craft of non-human origin."

watty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A few quick thoughts, scattershot

-I could see this leading to something more informative coming out, absolutely.

-I could see this leading to literally nothing, whether due to the technicality of "well, the NDA issue is gone but the info itself is still classified" or other reasons.

-I could see this leading to a lot of people coming out and saying more things, and ultimately nothing being advanced because it's all still just words and that aren't backed by physical/hard evidence.

-I am not really swayed by claims of people fearing for their lives or livelihoods. That's just as "trust me bro" as any claims of recovered crafts or life or sensor data.

-Let's say that there is something real being hidden. And that the worthless releases over the last few months are intentionally worthless, to give the appearance of disclosure while not actually disclosing anything. If that is all the case, then I could see this "you're free to speak now" stuff being more of the same. More chance for the gov to be like, "see, we are FOR disclosure" when really they aren't and it's all just performative.

-Let's say there is something real, and a lot of the people in gov are legit trying to get it disclosed (as opposed to just enjoying the fact that they seem important for being insiders). This could be progress, but also a lot of people, myself included, would say that disclosure hasn't happened until hard evidence is presented. Words, even from high ranking people, aren't disclosure IMHO. So I think for the people in this camp, ultimately there's a high likelihood that this could lead to... more talking and more claims a more arguments from authority, but a frustrating lack of any proof.

-On the flip side, let's say there isn't any truth to any of the claims. This could also be the government knowing it's not true, but keeping the story in the news as a diversion, etc. That would of course be super annoying but also unprovable. No one that is a skeptic can ever prove themselves right, as you can't prove a negative.

-Either way, here's hoping that this somehow leads to formerly classified stuff getting declassified. If there's sensor data and much better video and more names/dates/locations/etc, let's see it. The more the better. Fingers crossed.
Teddy Perkins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who's going to get the Eric Davis interview first?
Houston Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Houston Lee said:



Quote:

EXCLUSIVE: President Trump has directed the Department of War and the intelligence community to waive nondisclosure agreements for former government employees and contractors who want to cooperate with federal UAP investigators.

The directive follows years of complaints from lawmakers and whistleblowers that people with firsthand knowledge were too afraid to talk. A new tranche of UAP files is expected "very soon."





MORE ON THIS....

Quote:

Here's how the process works: Former employees or contractors who believe they have relevant UAP information first meet with officials at the Pentagon's AARO or the PURSUE task force who hold appropriate security clearances. During those authorized discussions, applicable NDAs can be waived allowing witnesses to share what they know without legal risk.

A senior official stressed this is not a blanket declassification directive. Information provided goes through existing declassification review. But the administration made clear: what sheds light on the mystery will reach the public.

The backdrop: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in 2023 that multiple people with firsthand knowledge approached the committee but wouldn't speak publicly.

"Some of these people still work in the government and frankly, a lot of them are very fearful fearful of their jobs, fearful of their clearances, fearful of their career, and some, frankly, are fearful of harm coming to them," Rubio said.

Previous declassified records have already described glowing "mother orbs" releasing smaller objects near sensitive U.S. national security sites, mysterious orange spheres observed during military operations, and Apollo-era transcripts where astronauts described "jagged, angular fragments" drifting outside their spacecraft. The next tranche is coming "very soon," according to officials.




G Martin 87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My concern with wiping away the NDA restrictions is that the signal-to-noise ratio will decrease even lower than it is now. Discerning credibility may not be any easier because people naturally assume that NDAs only exist to hide The Truth(tm). We're still going to have to exercise some responsible skepticism.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To be clear, none of these whistleblowers can come forward publicly yet. That's not what this action does. It still has to be "through government channels." This is for individuals who would have otherwise risked losing clearances, going to prison, etc, for doing so. They're now free to talk privately, in a secure environment, but not publicly. The next step after this one would then be the public release/declassification of the information in their whistleblower reports, according to the article.
watty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So basically, talk in the closed door hearings we hear about? And other less well-known settings?
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Click through for solid summaries and explanations

Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rubio seems to be the good guy here

…….

Quote:

Here's how the process works: Former employees or contractors who believe they have relevant UAP information first meet with officials at the Pentagon's AARO or the PURSUE task force who hold appropriate security clearances. During those authorized discussions, applicable NDAs can be waived allowing witnesses to share what they know without legal risk.


Quote:

A senior official stressed this is not a blanket declassification directive. Information provided goes through existing declassification review. But the administration made clear: what sheds light on the mystery will reach the public.
Teddy Perkins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Redstone heat check.

donkeykick90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My body is ready
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Alberino is seriously the best information gatekeeper (who can read or listen to it all?) for we the interested ….

Affirms the Nicene Creed
Informed very well read
Much first-hand experience
Legit sourcing
Excellent communication skills
watty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

ALBERINO: "A team of Marines in Afghanistan stormed a cave hunting for Taliban, but they were instead met by an enormous giant who killed them all."

ROGAN: "WHAT?! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So the giant just got away?"

ALBERINO: "They then deployed another unit to go look for that team. When the team got to the cave that giant was in the middle of eating the dead soldiers."

ROGAN: "You can't be serious. So what did the giant do to this unit?"

ALBERINO: "This new unit went in fully prepared so they were able to successfully kill the giant."

ROGAN: "Did you ever try to find records of who was there and what casualties were reported?"

ALBERINO: "It's very difficult to get that kind of information."

ROGAN: "I'm sure."

ALBERINO: "The Pentagon released a bizarre statement years ago saying that the giant Kandahar incident never happened."

ROGAN: "The Pentagon actually said this? That makes me feel sketchy."

ALBERINO: "The pilot told me they weighed the giant before loading him on the plane. He got measured at 10-12 feet tall and 1,100 pounds."

ROGAN: "1,100 pounds? That can't be a human. Who else have you spoken with about this?"

ALBERINO: "I asked a commander about the Kandahar giant. The blood rushed out of his face and he points to his phone because he thought they might be listening.

His wife then whispered to me that he's not allowed to talk about that."

ROGAN: "Ohhh my god."

ALBERINO: "What I later learned is that it's not the single giant of Kandahar, it's the GIANTS. There's more than one."


no comment
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Alberino and LA Marzulli have legitimate sources, and they've been in the middle of implants / materials recovery / Leir - Kumburgaz photos (definitely look at that)

Look at LA M. on Confessionals YouTube show (he's not a great host, but L.A. is solid and a skilled talker, just be aware of evangelical overlay)

Point is, we really need guys like this for the oncoming ontological challenges
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Second, both have films where pilots / military personnel put themselves at serious risk. The stories both they and Alberino / LA tell, first and second hand, have been consistent.

A critic could argue anonymity is shady, and there's grifting here. And yet, level of detail is very high and they're indisputably sourced.
watty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have to ask, do you (or anyone here) believe the story I quoted above? I'm wanting to understand kind of what everyone's level of acceptance is when it comes to the various claims we are being fed. I think there is likely a wide spectrum of belief on this thread, no doubt, and I'm curious if that story is one that a lot of people, a few, or basically no one, believes.

Obviously I don't believe it, but regardless, for those of us trying to sift through what we think might be true vs what we assume is not true, it would help to know which stories are met with skepticism vs which stories are automatically believed, and why. But I'm not asking you to go through every single claim ever made on this thread. I'm just asking about this one particular story. Simply, do you believe it is literally true as quoted above?

Does that make sense? The man presenting this story to Rogan is being presented on this thread as someone who is absolutely trustworthy. So does that mean everything he says is to be believed? It kind of matters when it comes to discerning things in the overall bucket of this topic.

And don't get mad at me for asking. A couple people on this thread are the ones that do the vast majority of work keeping us informed to news on the topic. And that is appreciated. This thread is where I get a ton of my UAP news. But I don't want to insult any of you by assuming that if you post it, you automatically believe it's all true. I want you to be able to speak for yourselves and still keep bringing the news to this thread which is great. It would just be nice to know where people stand on some of these claims and to not get criticized for asking the question.
BigCityCold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I listened to the first part of that podcast last night and even Joe seemed skeptical. You can only hear so many people that fear for their life so much that they are silent before you start to discredit what they are hinting at. I want to believe and I try to give a listen to as much as I can from this threads cited sources, but I have lost faith n many of the "experts"to be any more than a grifter.

G Martin 87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
watty said:



Quote:

ALBERINO: "A team of Marines in Afghanistan stormed a cave hunting for Taliban, but they were instead met by an enormous giant who killed them all."

ROGAN: "WHAT?! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So the giant just got away?"

ALBERINO: "They then deployed another unit to go look for that team. When the team got to the cave that giant was in the middle of eating the dead soldiers."

ROGAN: "You can't be serious. So what did the giant do to this unit?"

ALBERINO: "This new unit went in fully prepared so they were able to successfully kill the giant."

ROGAN: "Did you ever try to find records of who was there and what casualties were reported?"

ALBERINO: "It's very difficult to get that kind of information."

ROGAN: "I'm sure."

ALBERINO: "The Pentagon released a bizarre statement years ago saying that the giant Kandahar incident never happened."

ROGAN: "The Pentagon actually said this? That makes me feel sketchy."

ALBERINO: "The pilot told me they weighed the giant before loading him on the plane. He got measured at 10-12 feet tall and 1,100 pounds."

ROGAN: "1,100 pounds? That can't be a human. Who else have you spoken with about this?"

ALBERINO: "I asked a commander about the Kandahar giant. The blood rushed out of his face and he points to his phone because he thought they might be listening.

His wife then whispered to me that he's not allowed to talk about that."

ROGAN: "Ohhh my god."

ALBERINO: "What I later learned is that it's not the single giant of Kandahar, it's the GIANTS. There's more than one."


no comment
I'll comment. This is an urban legend with zero credible evidence. The details of the story have changed over the past 24 years, depending on which podcaster features the story. (For example, in Alberino's version, the giant was loaded onto an airplane. In earlier versions, it was a helicopter. Now Alberino claims there were multiple giants rather than just one.) The story has been debunked by Snopes. The Pentagon stated in 2016 that there were no records of such an encounter, a missing patrol, or casualties from a battle with a giant. Of course, the lack of any corroborating evidence has instead become proof of a cover-up. I know that Alberino is held in high regard by some folks here, so I won't go further.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YES, I believe the story and I believe Alberino is trustworthy and highly competent in his work. He also has a members community as a way to make a living, so anyone saying "grifter!" - I get it.

Setting aside circumstantial evidence, IMO significant ….

foundational reason is anyone who takes their Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) faith seriously (I try, mostly fail) is OBLIGATED to believe in

- supernatural (God)
-preternatural (angel-ic / demon-ic)
- the non material can interact materially
- be open to the woo, which includes giants, and this is absolutely in our mysticism at a bare minimum (Anne Catherine Emmerich, get Angelico Press)

There are serious Protestants (Heiser, Tim A, many Blurry Creatures guests) who are much better than the Apostolic here, where demons! tends to be the default.

The giants in Afghanistan story, true or BS, is well within these parameters, especially if you spent about 10 hours or so listening to Marzulli/ Alberino and friends provide detail after detail, from all over the world, structures and testimony and much else.
G Martin 87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Redstone said:

The giants in Afghanistan story, true or BS, is well within these parameters, especially if you spent about 10 hours or so listening to Marzulli/ Alberino and friends provide detail after detail, from all over the world, structures and testimony and much else.
Your description above is literally what an urban legend is. After nearly a quarter of a century, the only thing anyone has are stories, repeated orally with some details that change in the retelling, and an absence of official accounts of any kind.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
0%
surfandturfsbisa96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find tales of giants (I'm an hour in) pretty tough to swallow. I do think there is a lot about past civilizations that we don't know, has been lost, and we are not being told, but I dunno about giants. There can only be so many successfully suppressed crazy conspiracies, and this skews as unbelievable to me. I have an open mind about this stuff, however, and have no stake in not believing. I just need more than the 'I heard from a guy' stories. At least with UFOs we have grainy pics.

The guy is a good story teller.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, there's two issues. First, what's your threshold of evidence? I think about Fritz Zimmerman, Alberino, various testimonies, vs. Kenneth L. Feder and Oxford U press, which hammers this - it's totally justified to be snobbish. Show me the skulls and bones, like show me the alien bodies.

If you are materialist minded, demanding that is rational. I'm not a materialist.

Therefore, giants are like fairies and gnomes and gods and aliens - there are plenty of lines of evidence, including some material, but fundamentally it's occultic (listen to Alberino explain that, it's terrifying)

Meaning, "hidden" AND also anti-Logos (John 1), embodied and also not necessarily, rebellious and inverting and trickster …. demon-ic (not necessarily demons).

Even as other mostly materialistic creations like us hominids can also exist elsewhere in the cosmos. If so, the case for giants is compelling, just as it is for Bigfoot.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is what Chat GPT says, so take it as you will:

Quote:

Where the story came from
One of the strongest indications that this is folklore rather than a documented event is that the story did not surface until years after the supposed incident.
The timeline looks roughly like this:
  • 2002: The alleged encounter is said to have occurred.
  • 2008: Author Stephen Quayle published LongWalkers: The Return of the Nephilim, which discusses hidden giants and Nephilim. While not presenting the full Kandahar story as it's known today, it helped popularize the idea of surviving biblical giants.
  • 2016: The modern version exploded in popularity after L.A. Marzulli interviewed an anonymous man who claimed to have heard the story from someone involved. This interview became the primary source from which nearly every later retelling derives.
Notably, there are no publicly identified eyewitnesses, no military documents, no photographs, and no independent evidence supporting the account.

I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy

edit: Further...
Quote:

Is it based on a real military incident?
Researchers have tried to identify whether the legend grew out of an actual combat event.
One commonly cited point is that there was a U.S. soldier named Dan who died in Kandahar in 2002. However, available military records indicate he died in an explosives-disposal accident, not after being speared by a giant. No official records describe a missing patrol or a firefight matching the legend.

An L of an Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"There's plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are KINDS of evidence."

-Lionel Hutz
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shouldn't be a surprise that ChatGPT is wrong factually.

Reference is 2016 documentary True Legends produced by Tim Alberino and Steve Quayle via GenSix Productions

pilot appears in silhouette, shows credentials, and gives the account

That's the origin.

If you consider it weak, fine I'm not arguing, although I believe the story. But let's be precise here, there is FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY, even if a fraud
watty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Red I do appreciate your direct answer, even if I don't share your belief.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

But let's be precise here, there is FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY, even if a fraud

Is it first hand when the supposed source is annonymous?
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, because in the High Strangeness topic it is extremely well established that serious consequences can exist for being public.

I admit it's weak here. But Alberino is one of about 5 sources I'll simp for, + others including the top shelf 3 of YouTube (Ramsay, Gerb, Michaels).
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Discretion is difficult. And complex. I passed along my copy of Imminent today because I got annoyed with Elizando's shadiness and hanging around Luciferians.

Does that mean he's a fraud? No, I think he's legit AND a shady actor alongside his good pal Clapper. Dody also - proven liar AND Mario Woods said he was ushered in on his encounter.

There are gradients here, and the mentioned just above set the bar high.
First Page Refresh
Page 216 of 216
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.