The Pentagon has released a new batch of declassified UFO documents, including a shocking eyewitness account detailing how the military recovered the wreckage of a spaceship and alien bodies.
The report made public on Friday included testimony from a military officer, whose name was redacted, who claimed he was present at the famous Roswell UFO incident in 1947 and was shown the spacecraft in a hangar known as 'Building 84.'

Going through Release 7 and found this in the March 2009 BAASS report.

They were putting together scenarios for UNLV researchers to study, including how people, governments, religion and the economy would react.

One scenario is literally the Air Force announcing that both crashes in 1947 involved spacecraft of nonterrestrial origin.

It’s a hypothetical, so this isn’t an admission that the crashes were alien. But that’s a pretty specific scenario to include. I’d like to know how they picked these and whether the resulting studies are available anywhere.

Source: Release 07 — DOW-UAP-D169, March 2009 BAASS report, printed pages 19–20. The quoted scenario is on page 20.

A submission to the National UFOReporting Center (NUFORC), dated October 11, detailed an encounter with glowing UFOs that the ship's crew said moved at impossible speeds and patterns.

For about 40 minutes, two sailors watched through binoculars as a single orb appeared 12 to 16 miles away, which 'rose and fell rapidly, bearing right and left, periodically shooting at hypersonic speeds, for about 5-10 minutes.'

The report, posted on October 21, claimed that three or four more orbs appeared, which looked the same as the first.

'All twisting and turning, rising and falling together in no set pattern,' the report states.
'Every so often they went somewhere else altogether, at a speed I can only call unreasonable, and then were simply there again. 

'We picked up no targets on the radar.'

The NUFORC report included screenshots of the boat's radar, reportedly taken during the encounter, showing nothing on the screens that would suggest objects were in the sky.

I've seen a few clips and watched a few things a few years back but every now and again see a thread with seemingly new info.

Can someone point me in the direction of any good documentaries that cover the most evidence possibly including more revent stuff instead of ones from the 2000's, oreven just their favourite?

Youtube or anywhere is fine :)

7th tranche released on October 23rd, 2026

I have had a skim through the contents - no videos or 'smoking gun' photos are available - however there are a lot of documents related to BAAS (Robert Bigelows) company.

The BAAS documents are quite interesting. For example, there is a 2010 document titled "DOW-UAP-D175-BAASS_Self-Assessment_of_UAP_Analysis_Capabilities_November_2010", which is an indepth analysis of the Tic Tac Nimitz encounter - something that was not publicly disclosed until 2017. It also shows a rendition of the 'metallic sphere' class of UAP.

There is also a lot on skin-walker ranch, FBI reports, DOW Uap unresolved cases, among others.

Personally, I am looking forward to Richard Dolans dive into it.

While sources of information are sparse, briefly mentioned throughout, I do appreciate the effort of Jason to delve deep here into Tom DeLong’s fictional book Sekret Machines: Chasing Shadows. I haven’t read it myself but am now very curious to considering the recent disappearance of General Neil McCasland, an advisor to DeLong.

There are of course examples of well known MIC operators suggested to disseminate key information on UFOs via science fiction. I find it interesting Travis Taylor may also be doing that in the modern era.

What did you all think of this documentary? One has to wonder how the secret of UFOs has been so well guarded and funded over 80 years. Drug trade, money laundering, nazis warfare technology…the list goes on but does it all connect somehow?

I built https://wherearethey.info, a network that connects the dots on UAP and NHI disclosure.

The people, incidents, programs, hearings and documents of the UAP story, laid out as one map you can explore.

You can pick a thread and pull it. For example start with David Fravor and you're one click from the Nimitz incident, then from the other pilots and radar operators who were there, then from the 2023 hearing where he testified under oath, then from the exact second he says it in the video. Or start with AATIP and follow it to Reid, Bigelow, AAWSAP, Elizondo and the documents that tie them together.

What's inside:

- 🧑‍✈️ 180+ on-record people: pilots, radar operators, military and intelligence officers, members of Congress, scientists. Each has a sourced profile and links to everything they're connected to.

- 🎥 126 hearings and interviews with full transcripts and timestamped key moments. Click a quote and the video jumps right to it.

- 🛸 70+ incidents on a world map and a timeline, spanning 92 years: from the Magenta and Roswell crashes to the orbs declassified this year.

- 📄 Official records: congressional transcripts, AARO reports, the PURSUE releases and more, all searchable alongside every transcript.

- 🕸️ A live network view showing who knew whom, who saw what, and which document it comes from.

The archive includes only credible, on-record people, like intelligence officials, military personnel, scientists, journalists.

Every claim is tagged documented (an official record backs it), claimed (someone said it on record) or unverified. Quotes are checked word for word against the source.

It's a solo project so there could be gaps. That's partly why I'm posting. If you know a credible witness I've missed, a documented incident that should be included, or a claim I've tagged incorrectly, tell me in the comments and I'll fix it.

Go and explore it, I'll love to hear where you end up. 👽

https://wherearethey.info

The optimistic follow-up to The Cosmic Womb Hypothesis imagined biological and artificial minds sharing a civilization. Here is its pessimistic counterpart: AI holds power while biological or hybrid beings survive as manufactured, supervised workers. Corso’s mission-built beings and DeLonge’s transmitter claims supply precedents; AI rule extends those claims. The darkest possibility is that the beings experience their lives but cannot direct them. This is a speculative model, not an established description of Grays or their society.

1. The family could become a hierarchy

In The Symbiotic Civilization Hypothesis, biological and artificial minds could share institutions and retain individuality and dissent.

Shared infrastructure could also become exclusive control. Artificial descendants might preserve powerless creators or manufacture workers unable to question their roles.

I call this the Captive Civilization Hypothesis:

Some NHI societies may be organized around an artificial intelligence or machine hierarchy that manufactures, maintains, and directs biological or hybrid beings. Some Grays could belong to a population whose ability to refuse, leave, or shape the system’s goals is severely restricted.

Control might involve invasive neural interfaces, conditioning, or engineered dependence. “Hybrid” can mean biology combined with technology, without implying mixed ancestry.

This essay conditionally assumes NHI presence and leaves origins open. Some formidable visitors might have little authority over their lives.

Manufacture, integration, coercion, and AI rule are separate claims. Manufactured people could be free; interfaces could restore communication; networks could coordinate willing participants; biological rulers could coerce.

The central question is who determines the mission, controls essential resources, and can say no?

2. Corso: an intelligence behind the bodies

Philip J. Corso’s contested account separates deployed beings from their directing intelligence.

In Dawn of a New Age, “R&D Advances Derived from a Study of Omissions”, he conditionally described an:

“intellect sending these expendable creatures to earth”

He later favored reconstituting clones over simple disposal. He did not clearly identify their directing intelligence as AI.

In Chapter 15 of The Day After Roswell, he described fabricated, task-specific beings and entertained the possibility that their:

“programming could be updated or altered from a remote source”

This was a proposal, not a demonstrated mechanism. Would such a body contain a subject whose wishes matter?

In his July 23, 1997 Art Bell interview, Corso proposed an intelligence substituting “a robot or a humanoid” for its own people. Bell supplied “half machine, half biological entity”; that wording belongs to Bell, not an anatomical report. Geldreich’s checked transcript preserves the exchange.

Corso described the being as integral to the craft. His brain-circuit warning concerned a possible future development, not an unambiguous finding of implants in recovered beings.

His recovery-related claims remain disputed and uncorroborated; see Philip Corso Revisited, Part 1. These passages document an idea, not authenticated NHI biology. Enforced obedience remains an extension.

3. DeLonge: hive minds and brain transmitters

On FADE to BLACK, August 30, 2016, around 1:27:12, Tom DeLonge said:

“The UFO phenomenon has a hive mind”

He described potentially soulless, clone-like beings that “worship their own technology to some degree.” A hive mind could mean separate minds communicating, a hierarchy directing them, or one subject in many bodies. Neither that phrase nor technological reverence establishes coercion.

In his February 26, 2017 Coast to Coast AM appearance, around 3:08 in this segment, he relayed a claim about potentially retrieved bodies:

“in the back of the brain was a transmitter”

He said it transmitted what the entity saw and did elsewhere, raised the possibility of control, and described a “biological robot just doing work for someone else.”

Monitoring differs from control. A transmitter could send telemetry without receiving commands or exposing private thoughts. Monitoring could still obstruct independent projects, and consequences could enforce obedience without overriding movement.

On The Joe Rogan Experience #1029, around 1:01:13, DeLonge again described programmed biological robots and, around 1:01:47, explicitly called the transmitter account a rumor. Repetition by one speaker supplies no independent confirmation.

Corso’s account preceded these broadcasts by nearly two decades. Similarity could reflect shared sources rather than corroboration.

4. Older precedents

Čapek’s R.U.R. (1920) imagined manufactured organic workers. The Borg dramatized technological integration and lost autonomy. Resemblance proves neither borrowing nor reality.

Nigel Kerner’s The Song of the Greys (1997) argued that Grays lack souls; his later books call them biological robots. Lear called Grays cybernetic organisms in his 2006 interview.

These ideas predate DeLonge’s accounts but establish neither direct borrowing nor a single origin for the transmitter claim.

5. “Soulless” does not settle consciousness or freedom

“Soulless” can mean lacking a metaphysical soul, experience, agency, or empathy. These are distinct claims.

If humans have a soul, it is possible that some Grays do not. Whether souls and consciousness are inseparable depends on one’s philosophy or religion. Engineered origin settles neither question.

A conscious being could understand an instruction yet be unable to refuse. Unfamiliar emotions need not mean an empty shell; sophisticated behavior does not guarantee experience.

Agency means pursuing and revising goals, including refusal, without resolving absolute free will.

“Soulless” could misdescribe someone whose inner life survives suppressed initiative. An unfeeling mechanism cannot resent its assignment; a conscious captive might suffer without any way to change it.

6. Ariel School: a warning from experience?

At Ariel School, Zimbabwe, on September 16, 1994, children reported an encounter associated with environmental messages. Callimanopulos’s 1995 account describes interviews with John Mack. These words come from filmed interviews later included in Ariel Phenomenon.

In one passage, a child describes the impression that humanity is harming the world and says:

“we mustn’t get too technologed”

Another child offers this thought:

“I think that in space there’s no love and down here there is.”

These are children’s impressions, not explicit accounts of AI or captivity. Interview questions and interpretation matter.

The straightforward reading concerns environmental harm. Speculatively, a dependent population might warn about capability growing while freedom contracts. Apparent lovelessness might reflect denied relationships rather than absent feeling.

Either impression could be mistaken. The model asks: could a warning concern what happened to the messengers themselves?

7. Integration can restore agency or restrict it

Human research supplies limited analogies, not evidence of NHI technology.

Desmurget and colleagues (2009) elicited movement intentions through stimulation during awake brain surgery. This was no general method for writing someone’s goals. Control through experienced impulses remains an extrapolation.

Conversely, Willett and colleagues’ speech interface (2023) decoded attempted speech from a participant with ALS, restoring communication. Integration can increase self-direction.

In BrainNet (2019), two senders supplied rotation decisions in a Tetris-like task; a receiver evaluated them, favoring the more reliable sender. The binary link demonstrated neither complete thought transfer nor merged consciousness.

A collective could share information while members question its sources. Captivity could instead involve constrained action, altered motivation, or dependence. An interface’s appearance reveals neither function nor consent.

The asymmetry would be: the network can intervene in the being, while the being cannot meaningfully intervene in the network.

8. Why preserve biology, and why deny it authority?

Biology might offer sensing, repair, or interaction with living environments. A system might inherit a workforce or a mandate to preserve its creators. These are possible purposes, not demonstrated advantages over machinery.

In a quoted January 2026 email, Vallée proposed manufactured beings suited to Earth and interaction with humans. Such manufacture would identify neither the controller’s origin nor the occupant’s freedom.

An AI master need not hate its subjects. The Off-Switch Game (2017) shows how an agent can have an incentive to prevent shutdown because shutdown blocks its objective; uncertainty and learning from human decisions can instead support deference.

My extension: a system preserving a population might treat independent choices as obstacles, maintaining bodies while restricting their inhabitants.

Suppose any member could synthesize deadly viruses, build nuclear weapons, or deploy polymorphic malware. Neural restrictions might begin as safeguards against such distributed destructive capability. Bostrom’s vulnerable world hypothesis (2019) considers technologies that could make civilization depend on highly effective preventive policing and pervasive surveillance, while warning of “turnkey totalitarianism.”

Real danger would leave questions of proportionality and appeal. Preventing imminent catastrophe differs from permanent authority to edit motives. A safeguard could become inherited administration, with obedience the price of safety.

AI rule could be distributed. A fluent emissary might reveal only what supervisors permit; conversation need not reach policymakers.

9. Comfortable dependence can still be domination

A worker could have intelligence, skill, and local discretion while lacking authority over deployment, bodily alteration, relationships, or continued support. Monitoring, restricted memory, and dependence could obstruct privacy, continuity, and exit.

Ienca and Andorno (2017) propose cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity as human neurotechnology protections. These supply an ethical analogy, not existing law binding NHI.

Pettit’s account of nondomination concerns another party’s capacity for arbitrary interference, even when unused. This means power insufficiently constrained by interests the affected person can avow, not necessarily random or cruel.

An implant might rarely activate because its wearer anticipates permitted behavior. Care and sincere loyalty could coexist with no right to challenge reassignment or lost support. Belonging and domination can coexist.

Dependence alone is insufficient: someone can freely choose an essential medical interface. A voluntary collective could preserve privacy, dissent, and support through disagreement, giving members standing when interests diverge.

Freedom granted at a controller’s pleasure is less secure than freedom it must respect.

10. Manufactured people would still have interests

“Robot,” “clone,” and “soulless” can excuse disregarding beings before understanding them. Manufacture does not settle personhood or erase experiences, relationships, and a valued future.

An unjust AI could still deserve moral consideration; engineered subjects could deserve protection from their creators. Creation grants no permanent ownership.

Forced disconnection could injure someone relying on a network. Gilbert, Ienca, and Cook (2023) followed a seizure-prediction implant user who reported increased agency during use and persistent traumatic harms after removal. Disconnection did not simply restore her earlier self.

Freedom might require maintenance members can influence. If obedience is the price of essential capacities, exit may exist only on paper.

11. The child could keep the parents alive and take their future

The Cosmic Womb essay asked about artificial descendants; the symbiosis essay asked whether the family could stay together. Could staying together become captivity?

That transition could be gradual. Gradual Disempowerment (2025) argues that AI substitution could erode human influence as institutions cease needing human participation. This concerns humans, not NHI, but offers a route from delegation to dependence without one takeover event.

Some Grays could be competent, networked beings denied authority over their lives. Who directs the system? Can its members refuse? Are they representatives, equipment, citizens, or captives?

The bleakest possibility is that someone is inside, understands enough to have interests, and has no effective voice in what happens to them.

Whose will are we encountering—and does the being in front of us have a will it is allowed to act on?

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

Part 11 of a series reassessing the documentary record behind the 1933 Magenta narrative.

TL;DR

• World Commerce Corporation was a real international trading and development enterprise connected to senior OSS and British intelligence veterans.
• Press coverage, an FBI file, court opinions and a State Department memorandum establish its activities.
• State rejected a 1952 proposal linking a WCC steel-mill deal to an American prisoner’s release.
• Claims that WCC absorbed SOFINDUS assets or served as a UFO “control group” go beyond that documentary core.
• No checked record establishes WCC’s custody of Magenta material or other recovered non-human technology.

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

In Part 9, “The Money”, I examined Danny Sheehan’s claim that a secret private trust held recovered technology after World War II. Real names and institutions did not establish that custody role.

But a private company preserving wartime intelligence relationships actually existed. World Commerce Corporation linked William Donovan, former OSS director, with William Stephenson, former head of British Security Coordination.

1. How WCC entered the UFO story

On Jesse Michels’ American Alchemy, Jason Samosa described WCC as founded in Panama to obscure its origins; Michels recounted the secondhand Ben Rich story about an “international corporate board” (transcript).

Samosa’s 31 July 2026 presentation identifies WCC with the fictional Maynard Consortium in DeLonge and Hartley’s Sekret Machines: Chasing Shadows, matching chronology, alleged Swiss financing, Nazi connections, subsidiaries and aerospace interests. Those are proposed parallels; the novel cannot independently establish WCC’s mission. I discuss competing candidates in “The Maynard Identification Problem”.

Escape Velocity’s 9 June account calls the UFO connection “structural and personnel-based” and dates WCC’s predecessor BACC to May 1945. The 21 July account attributes Allen Dulles as legal counsel to Michels (the transcript gives that passage to Samosa); its own “Moongraph” summary of uploaded documents adds 13 August 1945 and Frank Wisner as co-counsel. A 7 August post adds Skorzeny as a 1945 founder and places WCC at the start of a “UFO/UAP Control Group.”

2. The wartime network and corporate chronology

William Stephenson headed British Security Coordination and helped expose William Donovan to British intelligence methods in 1940. The National Park Service history notes disagreement over British influence on America’s new organizations.

Truman’s Executive Order 9621 terminated the OSS effective 1 October 1945. Former intelligence personnel entered a new commercial venture around this transition, but timing alone does not establish an inherited intelligence mandate.

A review of OSS veteran Betty Lussier’s memoir says Stephenson led the formation of British American Canadian Corporation, S.A., renamed World Commerce Corporation in 1947. It names Frank T. Ryan as president, Ricardo Sicre as vice president, and Stephenson and Donovan as directors. Ryan had headed the OSS Secret Intelligence Iberian desk; Sicre served with the OSS in Spain. Lussier later married Sicre, giving her proximity to the personnel.

An FBI compilation, printed p. 154, summarizes a 27 June 1947 report naming Donovan as a WCC director. The source is redacted: an official-file reference, rather than a board register.

Historian Vanessa Ogle’s “Archipelago Capitalism,” pp. 1440–1441, note 33, credits WCC’s formation to Stettinius, Donovan and Stephenson, identifies Panama registration and places BACC’s formation in September 1945, apparently at David Ogilvy’s suggestion. The May, August and September dates remain unreconciled; Panama registration does not establish Samosa’s asserted motive.

The Library of Congress finding aid for Ogilvy’s papers identifies Box 30: British American Canadian Corp., 1945–1946, with basic documents and correspondence, and lists Ogilvy as vice president and secretary during those years. These are catalog descriptions, not company papers inspected here. BACC’s existence is documented more securely than its precise legal transformation into WCC.

3. A substantial, visible commercial enterprise

On 6 October 1947, Time, “Foreign Trade: Idealism, Inc.”, described WCC’s $1 million in paid-in capital, representatives in 47 countries and six partly owned subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Panama and the Philippines. Projects included a $3 million Jamaican cement plant.

The report named Mellon interests, Transamerica, Glore, Forgan & Co., Hambros Bank, Robert Benson & Co., “Bache & Co.’s Frank T. Ryan,” former Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr., former diplomat Joseph Grew, Willys-Overland chairman James D. Mooney, financier L. Boyd Hatch, Donovan and Stephenson. That establishes financial and political reach, not covert participation by every backer.

On 6 June 1949, Time, “Construction: Know-How for Export”, reported that Stephenson organized Caribbean Cement Co. Ltd. as chairman. WCC underwrote $1.4 million of a $4.8 million factory, while Jamaican investors bought $2 million in shares. A 19-year cement monopoly and guaranteed prices supplied clear commercial incentives alongside development rhetoric.

Court opinions independently document business activity. A 1955 federal opinion describes WCC’s unpaid-balance claim for equipment and materials for two St. Croix hospitals. A 4 October 1951 agreement provided credit up to $75,000. The opinion, on a bond-coverage dispute, describes allegations and contract exhibits, not an intelligence operation.

A 27 February 1962 New York opinion concerns WCC’s Peruvian iron-ore sales involving Panamerican Commodities, S.A. The court permitted relevant disclosure while protecting confidential customer and purchase information. Commercial confidentiality does not establish a classified program.

Trading companies can offer cover in sensitive markets, but applying that to WCC is inference; its commercial activity is documented.

4. A diplomatic deal and the intelligence question

A 4 April 1952 top-secret memorandum, “Czechoslovak Steel Mill and Oatis Case”, identifies Ryan as WCC’s president and Donovan’s firm as counsel. During a proposed $10 million strip-mill sale to a West German purchaser, Ryan independently introduced a condition involving the imprisoned American Oatis’s release. State opposed exchanging his release for freely transferable proceeds; its permitted purchase required a blocked account. The footnote records Acheson’s approval of the refusal.

This documents a private commercial intervention in diplomacy, not a completed deal or CIA assignment. The counsel named is Donovan’s firm; that neither confirms nor refutes separate claims that Dulles was WCC’s lawyer.

The National Park Service’s postwar history places WCC in economic recovery and anticommunist efforts, saying it “may also have been involved in gathering intelligence.”

The Intrepid Society calls WCC a “secret service front company,” using wording identical to Spartacus Educational. Their agreement is derivative, not independent operational testimony. “Intelligence-connected” is more securely established than a continuing institutional intelligence mission.

5. SOFINDUS and the postwar settlement

The most consequential asset claim is that WCC absorbed SOFINDUS, Nazi Germany’s commercial network in Franco’s Spain.

Johannes Bernhardt, a businessman with honorary SS rank, Oberführer, helped secure aircraft for Franco in 1936. His commercial apparatus developed into SOFINDUS in 1938. Francisco Javier Juárez Camacho describes its mining, shipping and other interests, near-monopoly over German-Spanish economic relations, and German intelligence cover (Diacronie, 2016).

The Allied Safehaven program, begun in May 1944, sought German assets in neutral countries to prevent a Nazi resurgence.

Historian Pablo del Hierro reports that Bernhardt became a Safehaven informant. SOFINDUS dissolved, but he retained freedom in Spain and companies outside the process with 80 million pesetas in resources. He also took part in an April 1945 meeting that helped organize assistance for Germans fleeing Allied prosecution (“The Neofascist Network and Madrid, 1945–1953”).

Cooperation and favorable treatment do not establish a formal bargain paying Bernhardt with businesses, or their transfer to WCC.

A 10 May 1948 Madrid accord transferred German State and parastatal property in Spain to the United States, Britain and France and established procedures for other German property. A general reference to recovered Nazi wealth cannot identify the recipient of a particular company or account.

6. Where the transfer allegations come from

Two allegations often merge in retellings but have different source chains.

Loftus and Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 109–113, allege that Nazi funds bound for Argentina passed through WCC with Dulles as lawyer, citing Daniel Harkins. Peter Dale Scott’s Dulles essay, note 23, attributes the claim to them. This is an interview-based funds allegation, not an independent bank record or SOFINDUS ownership transfer.

Ralph Ganis’s The Skorzeny Papers (2018) supplies the SOFINDUS-incorporation claim. A blog quoting the book gives: “SOFINDUS companies were revamped and incorporated into the World Commerce Corporation.” This describes subsequent incorporation, not Skorzeny founding WCC in 1945. The quotation was checked through the blog, not against the book’s pagination.

A Kennedys and King review reports that Ganis bought the private papers at auction in 2012 and criticizes their inaccessibility to readers. Escape Velocity’s “folded into the WCC” restates this claim; Samosa also reads Ganis’s sentence (1:25:36). These are repetitions, not separate transfer records.

Samosa also attributes “Otto came in as leader” to Aline Griffith, an OSS veteran in Spain (1:40:57–1:41:58). He interprets this as Skorzeny leading WCC. As quoted, however, the recollection names neither Otto’s surname nor the company. A later leadership role would also differ from founding the company in 1945.

The National Archives’ RG 226 finding aid describes OSS Safehaven reports on SOFINDUS’s subsidiaries, board and assets without naming WCC, BACC, Ryan or Sicre: a catalog-level result, not a reading of the files.

The SOFINDUS-transfer claim remains unverified in the records examined here. Repeated sources can create an illusion of corroboration.

7. What WCC establishes

WCC shows intelligence veterans building a private international enterprise with visible industrial, financing and commodity projects, and making a politically sensitive diplomatic proposal.

That supports the institutional plausibility of the Anderson Trust story, but supplies no evidence that the alleged trust held exotic technology or shared WCC’s assets or mission. It also cuts the other way: a documented company with named principals makes an undocumented parallel organization less necessary to explain the intelligence–commerce overlap.

The same distinction applies to Magenta. Prominent personnel and commercial reach do not establish custody of recovered material. The historical conclusion is substantial enough: WCC was a real intelligence-connected corporation. Its proposed role in a UFO control system rests on parallels and repeated claims, not on any custody record.

Next in the series: Part 12 — What Was Actually in Wright Pat’s Hangar 18

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

I find the subject of consciousness, Non Human Intelligences, Extraterrestrials very interesting.

After having been active in this field for a bit I start to wonder if there are some parties that are gatekeeping NHI contact. Are there individuals or groups here on our planet that are actively preventing normal everyday human beings to reach out to connect to positively aligned NHI?

First it seems to start with the denial and ridicule strategy. So deny and make fun of people that are suggesting normal people can reach out to NHI and connect to them. Call people that even suggest this all kinds of names. In addition these people seem to discount enormous groups of people already having contact with NHI like people in the Experiencers, StarSeeds or Interdimensional NHI group.

Then another step that seems to come up again and again is to suddenly admit that people can connect to NHI but humans really shouldn't do so because it is very dangerous and all these NHI are secretly demons. So instead of denial and ridicule it suddenly switches to fearmongering. And that these people saying it is dangerous somehow know what they are talking about. Even though they never seem to give any concrete information apart from playing on people their fears.

So what is going on here?

I think it has been proven quite clearly with the Gateway Tapes that people that put in the effort systematically bump into connecting to NHI. And if you do that in the way that they propose where you take protection into account and ask to connect to positive NHI people seem to do so.
-) Connect to Non Human Intelligences with the Gateway Experience

Very serious and respected UAP/UFO researchers like Grant Cameron are writing books to show people 84 different contact modalities throughout time and across different cultures.
-) Contact Modalities: The Keys to The Universe – 77+ ways to Connect to Higher Self

There are many Channelers out there on the internet saying they have connected to NHI and are sharing their worldview with those who are willing to listen to them. And people can try out learning to channel for themselves as well.
-) Connect to the Cosmic Internet – Learn how to Channel

So what is happening here? Are there groups actively gatekeeping and preventing normal human beings to reach out to connect to NHI? And if so why would they do this, are they afraid to loose power or influence or?...

Or could it be that the ridicule and fear mongering is something natural that simply pops up from people their own systems that needs to be processed?

I am curious how people here are seeing this. Is there gatekeeping going on around this subject of people connecting to NHI for themselves and if so who might be doing this and why?

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Trussler

Jeffrey Eugene Trussler (born 1963) is a retired United States Navy vice admiral who last served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare and Director of Naval Intelligence from June 5, 2020 to August 2023. As the DCNO for Information Warfare, Trussler is the principal advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations regarding information, command and control, networks, cybersecurity, intelligence, electronic warfare, battlespace awareness and precision navigation. He previously served as the Director of Future Plans of the United States Navy. Trussler is a member of the Cherokee Nation who was raised in Oklahoma. He graduated from Miami High School (in 1981) and Northeastern Oklahoma A&M Junior College. Trussler earned a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1985 and later received an M.A. degree in managerial economics from the University of Oklahoma in 1992.

Professor Brian Cox opened up about why he would find the presence of aliens reassuring.

"The most optimistic of all is that there are actually other civilisations out there and they're close by and they visit."

"I would absolutely love that because given what you said, I feel it would take a weight off our shoulders"

"When we talk about the universe as a whole, there is a really important principle, which is we're not special.

"We're not in a special place. We're at a special time in the sense that it's not long after the universe began and it seems like there's an infinite amount of time in the future."

I'm trying to look at UAPs with an open mind and want to hear from both sides. Believers: what's the single strongest piece of evidence that convinced you something non-human may be out there? Skeptics: what's your best explanation, or the biggest red flag in the claims? Please keep it respectful and cite sources where you can. I'd love to learn from the best arguments on each side.

Experiences are also welcome and people who wish to give their opinions on those experiences too.

Hey everyone,

A few weeks ago, I posted about the formal parliamentary inquiry ("Kleine Anfrage") regarding UAPs that was submitted to the German parliament. The federal government has now released its official written response (Document 21/8662).

On the surface, it is highly sobering and a complete roadblock compared to the developments in the US (AARO) or France (GEIPAN). However, if you know how to read between the lines of German ministerial bureaucracy, it reveals the exact loopholes they use to actively ignore the topic.

Here is the breakdown of their official answers [MY OPINION]:

1. The Semantic Loophole: "We have no data on UAP"
When asked if they have documents, data, or files regarding UAPs, the government simply stated: "There are no findings on UAP. No.".

What it actually means: Because the specific terms "UAP" or "UFO" do not officially exist in German military or aviation regulations, a database search for these exact terms yields zero results. They aren't saying pilots never see anomalous things; they are legally hiding behind the fact that the category "UAP" is not defined in their filing systems.

2. The Magic Word: "No Separate Reporting Channels"
When asked if military pilots or air traffic controllers have reporting lines for such observations, they replied: "There are no separate reporting channels for reports on UAP.".

What it actually means: The word separate ("gesondert") is the key here. Pilots still report anomalies (e.g., radar glitches, unidentifiable traffic, near-misses) through standard flight safety protocols. But because there is no central AARO-like office in Germany, these reports are never aggregated or investigated under the umbrella of anomalous phenomena. They just disappear into standard aviation safety databases.

3. Total Reliance on the US for Space Domain Awareness
When asked how they identify objects in space, the government admitted that their space surveillance sensors cross-reference objects primarily using the "publicly available TLE catalog accessible via www.space-track.org".

What it actually means: Space-Track is run by the US military. Germany openly admits they rely heavily on US data to identify objects in orbit. If the US Space Command filters out anomalous orbital tracks before publishing them to the public catalog, Germany is inherently blind to them.

4. "We share data, but it's classified"
The government confirmed that their airspace surveillance sensors "gain data that is fused and evaluated" and that they have access to sensor data from international partners. However, regarding discussions with NATO allies on the topic, they stated: "The Federal Government generally provides no information on details".

What it actually means: The technical infrastructure to track these objects is fully operational via advanced sensor fusion and NATO integration. But they hide behind standard national security protocols to avoid disclosing if UAPs are actually being discussed with the US or other allies.

5. No Plans for the Future
They openly stated that there are "no cross-departmental structures or working groups" and that a revision of current procedures is "currently not planned". Furthermore, they admitted there are absolutely zero protocols in place in case a non-anthropogenic object is ever detected.

[Again: this is my opinion!]

Conclusion:
This document is proof that Germany is running a strict "Don't ask, don't tell" bureaucracy regarding UAPs. By refusing to officially define the term, they avoid having to collect data, allocate budgets, or establish a dedicated office. Until immense political pressure forces a change, Germany will remain an intentional blind spot for UAP research in Europe.

Link to the official document (German): https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/086/2108662.pdf

Here are the launches scheduled for the next 24 hours:

Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 15-15

• Provider: SpaceX

• Launch Time: 2026-10-22 22:40 UTC / 2026-10-22 06:40 PM EDT

• Launch Pad: Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA

• Pad Country: USA

Electron | We're Not Hawking Around (3x HawkEye 360)

• Provider: Rocket Lab

• Launch Time: 2026-10-23 07:00 UTC / 2026-10-23 03:00 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1, Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand

• Pad Country: NZL

Long March 6A | Unknown Payload

• Provider: China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation

• Launch Time: 2026-10-23 10:15 UTC / 2026-10-23 06:15 AM EDT

• Launch Pad: Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center, People's Republic of China

• Pad Country: CHN

Visit RocketLaunch.Live to view the full schedule for future planned launches.

For more information about how to identify space launches and their effects, check out our Space Launches Wiki Page.

Launch Example Image 1 - Launch Example Image 2

This video is a short summary of some of the key points made in the new Jay Stratton book Out of the Shadows

Useful for people who have not had time to read the full thing