EDIT: Video seems to be taken in Mexico. Possibly broadcasted by an Italian company? Looking into it.

Source: Currently looking into the original source of the video seen here, as well as the first time it may have been posted online. I found this saved in my video archive from late 2024 and remember being intrigued, but there was also a lot going on at the time. Anyone else have any additional information?

There are some incredible pictures of the specimens in the report submitted by the University of Ica to the Peruvian government.

Just saw this in a video that referenced Robert Plot an Oxford University professor in 1686 that wrote a paper about crop circles. 3:09 in the video. Looks like the same UAP from Nuremberg 1561 over a century earlier.

https://youtu.be/x2BQyZorSQc?si=QxMrhPQELs7NH0gO

Credit: Jaime Maussan.

Part 14 of a series reassessing the documentary record behind the 1933 Magenta narrative.

TL;DR

• The 1947 sources establish a debris recovery, a “flying disc” announcement and a same-day balloon explanation.
• They describe balloon-and-reflector material, without reporting bodies or an intact spacecraft.
• A 1974 suppression account predates Marcel’s public disclosures.
• The later case rests on participants’ unusual-material, shipment and secrecy testimony.
• Randle’s interviews preserve evidence worth testing alongside the official explanation, including written secrecy statements; several other witnesses failed documentary checks.

Earlier in the series:

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

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

Part 13 - The 1946 Swedish Ghost Rockets and the Peenemunde Hypothesis

Roswell anchors many later recovery claims in this series. This first of three posts establishes the 1947 record, the development of the retrieval narrative and the retained material-and-secrecy testimony. Part 15 examines the official investigations and later proof claims. Part 16 follows shipment, custody, program and sample evidence.

Book references use page positions counted from the opening page of the supplied editions, matching the case indexes. Government reports retain printed pagination unless a scan position is specified.

1. 8 July 1947: the announcement

Around noon on Tuesday 8 July 1947, the public information office of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell Army Air Field issued a release. As carried by the Associated Press (Los Angeles Herald-Express, 8 July 1947):

“The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th (atomic) bomb group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the co-operation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff’s office of Chaves County. The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell some time last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the sheriff’s office, who in turn notified Major Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th bomb group intelligence office. Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at the rancher’s home. It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air Field and subsequently flown by Major Marcel to higher headquarters.”

Other papers carried variants: the Sacramento Bee has “loaned” rather than “flown” (AP, 8 July), and the United Press version gets the sheriff’s name wrong. The Roswell Daily Record rewrote it for its front page, “RAAF CAPTURES FLYING SAUCER ON RANCH IN ROSWELL REGION,” noting that “no details of flying disk are revealed” (Roswell Daily Record, 8 July).

The release was written by Lieutenant Walter Haut. That Colonel William Blanchard, the base commander, ordered it comes from Haut’s later accounts. In 1947 Blanchard was reported as refusing to comment, and then as “on leave.”

2. The same evening: Fort Worth

By evening the material was at Eighth Air Force headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas. An early ABC radio bulletin said Brigadier General Roger Ramey was having it shipped to Wright Field in Ohio (ABC, 8 July). Later that night the Eighth Air Force announced it was “a weather balloon and its kite,” and the Wright Field flight was canceled. AP quoted Ramey (Galveston Daily News, 9 July):

“I don’t say these devices are what people have called disks… There is no such gadget (as the disk) known to the army — at least this far down the line.”

Warrant Officer Irving Newton, a forecaster at the Fort Worth weather station, identified the debris; the Chicago Tribune quoted him: “That’s what’s left of a ray wind [Rawin] target.” Photographers from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram took pictures of Ramey, his chief of staff Colonel Thomas DuBose and Major Marcel with the material, now held by the University of Texas at Arlington (Ramey with debris; Marcel). One photograph shows a paper in Ramey’s hand; what it says is disputed, and the next post takes it up.

The Roswell Daily Record ran the reversal on 9 July under “Gen. Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer”: a “bundle of tinfoil, broken wood beams and rubber remnants of a balloon” (Roswell Daily Record, 9 July). The New York Times headline was “‘Disk’ Near Bomb Test Site Is Just a Weather Balloon” (New York Times, 9 July).

3. The rancher’s own account

On 9 July the Roswell Daily Record printed an interview with the rancher, W. W. “Mac” Brazel, under the headline “Harassed Rancher Who Located ‘Saucer’ Sorry He Told About It” (transcription and scan). It is the principal contemporary published account from the rancher who discovered the material. The newspaper scan matters: the transcription on the same page drops part of the bundle description.

• When: “on June 14 he and 8-year old son Vernon were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house” when they came upon “a large area of bright wreckage.”
• What: “rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.” “Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction.”
• How much: the rubber was “scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.” The tinfoil, paper, tape and sticks made “a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick”; the rubber made a separate bundle about 18–20 inches long and eight inches thick. “In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.”
• His judgment: he “had previously found two weather observation balloons on the ranch,” and said: “I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon.”
• Afterward: “if I find anything else besides a bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say anything about it.”

The article says Brazel was brought to the paper by W. E. Whitmore of radio station KGFL, and that after Sheriff George Wilcox called the base, “Maj. Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him home.”

The dates do not fit neatly together. The interview places discovery on 14 June, a family collection on 4 July, and his visit to the sheriff on “Monday,” 7 July. The original announcement instead says the object landed “last week.” These are contemporary reported dates, not a chronology we can silently harmonize. Brazel also said he had not seen the object fall or seen it intact. His estimate of its original shape was a reconstruction.

His objection deserves to stay in the account. Brazel explicitly distinguished this material from two weather balloons he had previously found. That does not identify Mogul: familiarity with two balloons cannot establish which other apparatus he encountered. His inventory is compatible with balloon and radar-reflector components, while his own conclusion was that it differed from his previous finds. The article also reports eyelets, a paper fin, and no engine-like metal or propeller. Those observations are more useful for identification than converting his uncertainty into either an extraterrestrial verdict or a precise launch number.

4. The government’s own 1947 papers

The General Accounting Office’s 1995 search located two records originating in 1947 concerning the incident (GAO/NSIAD-95-187, pp. 1–5 and appendices I–II). That is a finding about a particular search, not proof that only two government records survive anywhere. The contemporary newspapers and photographs remain evidence as well.

The FBI teletype, 8 July 1947, 6:17 p.m. The Dallas field office reported a call from Eighth Air Force headquarters (FBI Vault; transcription):

“The disc is hexagonal in shape and was suspended from a ballon by cable, which ballon was approximately twenty feet in diameter. [Redacted] further advised that the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector, but that telephonic conversation between their office and Wright Field had not [crossed-out text] borne out this belief. Disc and balloon being transported to Wright Field by special plane for examination.”

The copy reproduced by GAO, printed p. 14, has crossed-out text between “not” and “borne out”; that mark should not be confused with the blacked-out identifying information elsewhere. The surviving sentence records an unresolved exchange, not a finding that Wright Field had identified an alien object.

The FBI was relaying an Eighth Air Force telephone report, rather than inspecting the material. Its message ends with no further FBI investigation being conducted. It preserves the state of the information reaching Dallas at 6:17 p.m., including a planned shipment; it is not a receipt proving delivery to Ohio.

The base history, July 1947. The combined history of the 509th Bomb Group and Roswell Army Air Field for July records (transcription):

“The Office of Public Information was kept quite busy during the month answering inquiries on the ‘flying disc’, which was reported to be in possession of the 509th Bomb Group. The object turned out to be a radar tracking balloon.”

This establishes the base’s recorded conclusion. It is an administrative history, not a laboratory report identifying a recovered sample. Nor are the FBI message and base history two independent physical examinations: both record information within the military’s account of the recovery.

The broader UFO correspondence. General Twining’s 23 September 1947 letter on “flying discs” does not mention Roswell and expressly notes the lack of crash-recovered exhibits available for the assessment. The Air Staff’s 28 October collection memo likewise supplies no Roswell recovery account. These documents matter because of their proximity to the event and their subject, but their silence cannot demonstrate what every compartment possessed. The Air Force’s 1994 report says Roswell was not referred to in Sign, Grudge or Blue Book (report). That wording is too absolute. Randle identifies a 10 July 1947 newspaper clipping in another case’s Blue Book file, reporting a “blistering rebuke” over the Roswell announcement (Project Blue Book—Exposed, 1997, p. 8; The Best of Project Blue Book, 2020, p. 7). The defensible distinction is between a reference to Roswell and an identified Roswell investigative case file. The clipping establishes the former; it does not supply the latter.

A difficult follow-up in 1948. In Roswell Revisited (2007), pp. 108–110, Randle reproduces Howard McCoy’s March 1948 Scientific Advisory Board remarks expressing a desire to recover a crashed object, and his November statement that physical evidence was lacking. McCoy headed Air Materiel Command’s intelligence division. Randle recognized the difficulty of reconciling these internal statements with a Roswell retrieval. A compartment excluding McCoy is a possible answer, but needs evidence of its own. These are affirmative statements about missing evidence, rather than mere failure to mention Roswell.

5. The seeds of the later story

A few 1947 items became important later.

• Pressure on the base. A wire story on 9 July said Haut had reportedly been “shut up by two blistering phone calls from Washington,” that Blanchard was “on leave,” and that Marcel had reportedly told Brazel the object had “nothing to do with Army of Navy [sic] as far as I can tell” (Middletown Times Herald, 9 July).
• Brazel’s reluctance. His “sorry he told about it” interview shows a man under attention and unhappy about it.
• Wright Field. The FBI teletype and the ABC bulletin both have the material heading to Wright Field, even though the AP stories say the flight was canceled.

The public response extended beyond the base. A United Press dispatch of 9 July 1947 reported an Army and Navy campaign to stop flying-disc rumors, alongside the Roswell balloon explanation and a reported Washington rebuke (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, p. 1). Randle treats the timing as consequential (Understanding Roswell, pp. 315–316). The dispatch documents what was reported about the campaign; it does not establish that officials were suppressing knowledge of a recovered nonhuman craft.

These are contemporary reports worth preserving. The “blistering phone calls” are a wire story’s attributed report, rather than a surviving Washington directive. Brazel’s annoyance establishes his reaction to the publicity; by itself it does not document imprisonment or threats. The shipment references establish a reported plan. None supplies a contemporary account of bodies or an intact spacecraft.

Mogul in 1947. The Air Force’s 1994 explanation is that the debris came from Project Mogul, a classified New York University program launching trains of balloons with radar reflectors and acoustic sensors from Alamogordo to detect Soviet nuclear tests. The Air Force identified a 4 June launch, usually called “Flight 4,” as the likely source. Crary’s published journal records both a weather cancellation and a sonobuoy flown on a balloon cluster that day. The disputed step is identifying the cluster’s configuration and linking it to Brazel’s field. The next post examines the published journal and supporting interviews, rather than treating a retrospective flight identification as an observed fact from 1947.

6. Before the 1978 revival

Roswell did not vanish completely between 1947 and 1978. Ted Bloecher discussed it under “Hoaxes and Mistakes” in his 1967 *Report on the UFO Wave of 1947*, pp. I-13–I-14 (report; passage reproduced). He treated it as a publicity fiasco involving balloon equipment, while allowing the possibility of a secret balloon experiment. That is a pre-Mogul-disclosure suggestion, not evidence that he knew of a recovered spacecraft.

A recovery-and-suppression story was also in print by 1974. Randle reproduces an unnamed radio employee’s account from Saga’s UFO Report: a station manager allegedly saw metallic material being loaded for Wright-Patterson, and a message interrupted her attempted transmission with “Do not continue this transmission!” The account was later attributed to Lydia Sleppy. This publication predates Marcel’s public disclosures, giving the suppression allegation an earlier reporting history than the modern investigation (Understanding Roswell, 2022, pp. 316–319).

In Randle’s 5 February 1993 interview, Sleppy attributed the interruption to the FBI but could not identify an office. She described McBoyle as her source for the recovery and expressly denied that he mentioned bodies. The 1974 publication preserves an earlier allegation, not the original teletype or an authenticated FBI order. It should neither be erased by a claim that everything began in 1978 nor promoted into a contemporary record of the event.

The important change in 1978 was the renewed investigation of Marcel’s claim that the debris was extraordinary, followed by the attachment of body stories to the recovery. An earlier mention of Roswell is not necessarily an earlier version of that developed narrative.

The same distinction prevents a common documentary shortcut. The 22 March 1950 Guy Hottel memo reports a second- or third-hand story about three saucers and bodies in New Mexico; it does not name Roswell. The FBI’s own explanation says the Bureau never investigated that claim and has no reason to connect it to Roswell. The series’ Aztec post examines the separate history behind that material. Its existence does not fill the missing 1947 Roswell body record.

7. Early reporting and the retrieval narrative, 1974–1995

The table tracks milestones in the modern investigation and publication history. An interview date, first publication and later recollection of an earlier conversation are different things. These entries are not a claim to have established the first occasion on which anyone privately told a crash story.

8. What the construction shows

Some foundational body accounts came through intermediaries. Barnett’s story reached the modern Roswell investigation through friends after his death, and Henderson’s through his family after his. Those accounts cannot be treated as recorded interviews with the men themselves. Randle later cited the absence of an extraordinary event from Barnett’s wife’s 1947 diary as a reason to reject that dating (his assessment). That is relevant negative evidence, not a diary entry demonstrating that no event occurred.

Retellings are not necessarily independent witnesses. Stringfield, Friedman and Pratt interviewing Marcel produced several records of one participant’s testimony. They did not produce three independent recoveries. The Pratt transcript, headed 8 December 1979, also distinguishes what Marcel handled from what he later heard about another discovery to the west. Pratt’s bracketed annotation suggests earlier interviewers had told Marcel the Barnett story. The annotation is Pratt’s interpretation, but Marcel himself says he has no direct knowledge of the other find. His account cannot independently corroborate that second site.

The sites multiplied and moved. The bodies have been placed on the Plains of San Agustin, two miles east of the debris, two miles southeast, 35 miles north, and on Pine Lodge Road. The number of craft went from one to two. Brazel’s reported discovery date is 14 June; later reconstructions use dates including 2, 4 and 5 July. These are competing chronologies and locations. They should not be combined into a single accumulating body of confirmation.

Several witnesses who supplied detailed craft-and-body narratives failed important checks. That does not dispose of every late witness. It does require removing the failed accounts from reconstructions that once depended on them.

• Gerald Anderson. The decisive problem is documentary rather than a disputed recollection of the desert. Friedman and Berliner publicly withdrew confidence in his testimony in the January 1993 MUFON UFO Journal, no. 297, citing his admission that he had falsified a document. Randle reproduces their statement and describes the investigators’ dispute (2019 account). That withdrawal does not prove that every separate body story was invented; it removes Anderson as reliable support for this one.
• Frank Kaufmann. After his death, Rodeghier gained access to his office and papers with other investigators. Comparing his original military qualification record with the version he had supplied exposed substantial alterations. Randle and Rodeghier published the evidence, including reproduced documents, in “Frank Kaufmann Reconsidered,” International UFO Reporter, Fall 2002, pp. 8–9, 17–22 (article). Their conclusion was that his testimony could not be trusted. This is a documented collapse of supposed corroboration, not simply a disagreement over interpretation.
• Jim Ragsdale. His versions changed substantially. Randle, who had helped bring the account into the literature, later rejected it as invented (Randle, 2015). His narrative should not remain in a witness count as if that reassessment never happened.
• Glenn Dennis. Separate his claimed experiences—telephone inquiries and a hospital visit—from what a nurse allegedly told him about bodies. The latter is secondhand. The Air Force’s 1997 report reproduces a Dennis interview in appendix C, pp. 197–212, alongside its hospital-personnel research (Case Closed). Failure to identify the nurse is a serious obstacle to checking her account. It does not, by itself, establish that every interaction Dennis described was fabricated.

Marcel is the strongest documented recovery participant behind the extraordinary-debris claim. He was undeniably involved: the 1947 press names him and the Fort Worth photographs show him. In the Pratt interview he describes unusually resistant material and marked, wood-like members, and gives an extraterrestrial interpretation. He reports no personal observation of bodies.

His testimony deserves more than dismissal by association with Kaufmann or Anderson. It also needs to be read in full. His reported resistance to bending and burning is stronger evidence of perceived strangeness than the mere presence of foil and sticks. Yet these are remembered observations without an authenticated sample, laboratory result or contemporary test record. His confidence in the origin is an inference from those observations.

The biography still needs scrutiny. Robert Todd’s service-record critique became a major objection to Marcel’s credibility. Randle’s 5 April 2007 assessment also acknowledges serious discrepancies: he reports two Air Medals awarded for aerial service, rather than five for shooting down five enemy aircraft, and finds no support for the degree claim in Pratt’s notes. Randle distinguishes possible informal flying experience from qualification as a military pilot. He also notes that the original Pratt tape was reused and is unavailable for checking the transcript. These discrepancies require scrutiny without erasing Marcel’s documented role or identifying the recovered material.

There are differences between his early retellings. In Stringfield’s 1978 account, Marcel says he told the press it was a weather balloon to end the inquiries. In Pratt’s transcript, he emphasizes the public information officer’s initiative and Ramey’s instructions. That discrepancy concerns the handling of publicity; it does not erase his documented presence or establish the composition of the material.

The interview’s presentation can create an apparent change of testimony. Randle documents how The Roswell Incident paired a heavily cropped Marcel photograph with a fuller Ramey–DuBose picture, making the displayed debris look different. He also reports Moore circulating a revised transcript that changed one photograph to two after another image became known. That particular change belongs to the researcher’s transcript, rather than establishing that Marcel independently changed his account. Full-frame images show the same balloon-and-reflector material. The editing issue protects against an unfair credibility charge; it does not establish that a substitution occurred (Roswell in the 21st Century, 2016, pp. 193–198).

Material and secrecy testimony

Randle’s original interviews add evidence that the failed witnesses cannot dispose of. Kevin Randle helped conduct the investigation, rather than merely summarizing it afterward. Understanding Roswell (2022) prints interview transcripts and notes that let us examine both the favorable testimony and the qualifications. Three examples bear directly on the material and the government response:

• Lewis “Bill” Rickett, counterintelligence. In Schmitt’s 13 February 1990 interview, Rickett described handling stiff, lightweight material he could not bend, and recalled military police at the site. That is a claimed material observation by another serviceman, beyond Marcel’s interpretation. But Rickett remembered less debris than Marcel, described a much smaller area, and corrected the suggestion of an explosion. His account of specialists being unable to identify the material was information received later. Randle also notes that Rickett had seen Unsolved Mysteries. The full transcript supports an unusual-material and security claim more directly than a settled reconstruction of either site (Understanding Roswell, pp. 199–205).
• Edwin Easley, provost marshal. Randle’s recorded 11 January 1990 interview preserves Easley saying, “I’ve been sworn to secrecy.” Randle also reports a copy of an envelope on which Easley wrote that secrecy prevented him from giving Friedman information about the 1947 incident north of Roswell. That written statement is useful support for the secrecy claim. The stronger exchange—Easley reportedly saying an extraterrestrial interpretation was “not the wrong path”—comes from Randle’s unrecorded follow-up notes, dated 2 February 1990 in the 2022 book. Easley’s recorded interview also rejects another witness’s claim that he was at the site. We have a substantive secrecy question, with the crucial extraterrestrial inference less securely preserved (Understanding Roswell, pp. 148–155).
• Patrick Saunders, base adjutant. Randle reproduces an inscription beside a printed “Damage Control” account of altered files and personnel records: “Here’s the truth and I still haven’t told anybody anything! Pat”. This is an attributable written endorsement associated with an officer responsible for administration. It is stronger than an anonymous story that an officer privately agreed. It remains a later annotation to a published narrative, rather than a 1947 order specifying which files were altered. Randle’s report of his initial interview with Saunders was much less affirmative (Understanding Roswell, pp. 135–138, especially the reproduction on p. 136).

Bill Brazel supplies both a material claim and an alleged recovery of the remaining fragments. In the taped 19 February 1989 interview, he described pieces collected after the cleanup: woodlike material he could not cut and foil that unfolded after creasing. His father reportedly identified them with his earlier find. Bill then described uniformed men, led by an officer he tentatively remembered as Armstrong, taking his cigar box of fragments and asking him not to discuss them. His wording matters: he denied outright confiscation but described pressure to surrender the pieces. He also rejected the claim that his father was detained for eight days, recalling a shorter, agreed stay. Both qualifications belong beside the secrecy allegation (Understanding Roswell, pp. 86–93; Crash, pp. 71–72). This gives Tadolini’s account a specific source and an alleged explanation for the missing material.

Another material handler strengthens the question about the report’s selection of testimony. Sally Strickland Tadolini’s 27 September 1993 affidavit says Bill Brazel passed around material she handled as a child. Randle reproduces her description of crumpling it repeatedly and watching it flatten without wrinkles. He contrasts that paragraph with the Air Force summary’s quotation of its foil-, satin- and leather-like appearance (Crash, 2010, pp. 71–73; affidavit transcription). Her claimed direct observation concerns its behavior; its identification as material from the original recovery comes through Bill. This is a specific challenge to a selective summary, with no surviving sample to test. It should not be reduced to a generic recollection of foil.

Frankie Rowe adds a different claimed handling episode and a direct intimidation allegation. Her 22 November 1993 affidavit says a state trooper displayed material at the fire station that unfolded after crumpling; she said she touched it. Her report of bodies comes through her father, firefighter Dan Dwyer. Randle’s follow-up with J. L. Smith distinguishes Dwyer’s alleged trip in his own car from a fire-department dispatch (Understanding Roswell, pp. 64–66, 330). In her separate account of the military visit to her home, Rowe described questioning about the metal and threats against her and her parents (Roswell in the 21st Century, pp. 145–146). These are named claims about physical material and suppression, with the body observation explicitly secondhand. The affidavit preserves the allegations; it does not independently verify the trooper’s attribution or identify the men who threatened her.

There is also a body witness who should not disappear into the failures. In Crash (2010), pp. 92–93, Randle describes his own interview with Sergeant Thomas Gonzales, after accounts reached him through John Price and Don Ecker. Gonzales reportedly described a craft more like an airfoil than a saucer and small bodies distinct from the later “gray” image. Randle says his yearbook photograph confirms service at the base and that Gonzales’s son dated hearing the story to the 1960s. That places a named claimed eyewitness behind this strand; it does not produce a recording from the 1960s or a contemporary body record. Randle also acknowledges that Gonzales was elderly and that his own questioning was more forceful than necessary. This testimony deserves examination on its own terms, rather than rejection through Kaufmann or Anderson.

The shipment and onward-custody accounts require their own comparison; Part 16 brings DuBose, Porter and Exon together.

Finally, the Alien Autopsy film belongs in the history of Roswell’s promotion, not its 1947 documentation. In 2006 Santilli described the released film as a reconstruction of allegedly deteriorated footage; special-effects artist John Humphreys acknowledged making its alien body (contemporary account of their admissions). Calling it a “restoration” does not authenticate the claimed original. The film shown in 1995 cannot serve as a surviving 1947 autopsy record.

9. What the record carries

The contemporary sources establish the recovery, announcement, reversal, balloon-and-reflector descriptions, an unresolved Wright Field exchange and efforts to end publicity. They do not document bodies, an intact extraterrestrial craft or a second recovery site.

The later testimony raises additional material, shipment and secrecy questions. Each needs its own source history. That applies equally to Majestic documents: repeating details already in Roswell books supplies no independent confirmation without earlier provenance or verifiable new information.

10. Scorecard

11. Records that could settle more of it

The priorities are receiving-end copies of Roswell’s destroyed messages; original DuBose, Easley and Exon interview records; the original annotated Saunders pages; and a sample or examination record with a verifiable route from the ranch. Part 15 tests Mogul and the official witness inquiry; Part 16 examines custody, programs and later material claims.

The 1947 record is a debris recovery, a public announcement and a reversal. The later literature adds bodies, intact craft, different sites and competing dates. Some accounts come from genuine participants; others have failed documentary checks. The strongest unresolved case rests on identifiable participants’ material and secrecy claims. Part 15 tests the official explanations and later proof claims; Part 16 follows custody, programs and physical-material evidence.

Corrections will be logged publicly. Surviving message copies, contemporary examination records and original interview materials could narrow the remaining questions.

Next in the series: Part 15 — Roswell, Part Two: The Official Investigations and Later Proof Claims

We have all heard of the concept of ancient aliens that built and shaped our human civilisations

I do not believe this to be true at all but what if we are those ancient aliens

People also ask where are all the aliens the universe is vast so where are they

And in almost any media involving aliens their is a precusor super smart alien civilisation

So what if humanity is that civilisation what if the reason we’ve not discovered any aliens is because we’re the first and other aliens will be shaped by exploring the ruins of our once great civilisation

In 1996, Michael Wolf published The Catchers of Heaven: A Trilogy, a book centered on his claims of working inside classified U.S. government programs involving extraterrestrials.

The front and back covers included two photographs that Wolf claimed showed genuine extraterrestrials.

The being on the front cover was identified as KLT, pronounced “Kolta,” a Zeta Grey whom Wolf described as a friend and the extraterrestrial he encountered most frequently.

The man pictured on the rear cover was identified by Wolf as Anon “Prince” Sa Ra, a human-looking Pleiadian extraterrestrial and friend of Wolf’s.

Years after Wolf’s death, a third alleged photograph surfaced through French engineer Philippe de la Messuzière, who described Wolf as a friend and claimed to have met Kolta at Wolf’s apartment.

Allow me to share with you an experience I had some time ago with aliens/transdimensional beings.

I was sitting at night in front of my house watching the stars. All of a sudden my forehead started vibrating. After 2 seconds vibrating an hologram image started appearing in front of me. A white emeraldish light appeared 3 meters in front of me with 3 or 4 human like figures but dressed in high noble code (as weird as it may look they were dressing something like Whis from Dragon Ball). I couldn't recognize them.

What I felt at that moment was overwhelming to an extent I ended with a panic attack (which made them leave). First I felt the sense of nobility and divinity they transmitted was overwhelming. It was pure and pristine. I felt like a total pig. The energy they projected completely crashed my ego. In a brief moment, that's how long it lasted unfortunately, a huge chunk of my ego got dissolved. Those beings projected a field that made all the skeletons I hide in my closet come out to an extent I stopped working. The feeling was visceral in my body. Some kind of traditional hologram humans may have created cannot project that kind of presence only image. You actually feel their presence in your body. It's intense. I would say in spiritual terms, it's a vibration much much much higher than humans are. It was overwhelming high to an extent I was not able to handle. I started having a panic attack. They recognized it and telepathically said to me, something along the lines, I cannot remember the precise exact words, "We are leaving because we are causing you distress and you are not yet capable of interacting with us". And the hologram vanished. I received their message. I have that capacity.

Let me try to explain the telepathic experience.

Can you all hear your voice in your head when you think right? The voice that speaks to you in your head "the oven?? Did I turn it off??" when you get in the bus. In that same space their voice materializes automatically and you can hear it as you can hear yours. How to send messages to them? I don't know, i didn't got there. Maybe they could hear my thinking too? Maybe I needed to mentally project my mental speech to them? I don't know. Next time if I have the chance to do it I'll try it and figure out if I can do the same.

I was left like a vegetable for a few seconds after they left until I got back to myself and started trying to figure out what happened. Was it some form of project blue beam?? Can't be, this experience was beyond intense and overwhelmingly distinct in quality to whatever I've ever experienced in my life. A simple man-made hologram or projection cannot cast such overwhelming presence of divinity. Or can it?? If humans mastered this level ever.... Seems totally impossible. It's visceral in your body. It completely crashes your ego. You feel completely exposed, and you are. In front of such intelligence and power you cannot hide anything. I'm ashamed of things I did, specially sexual stuff I paid for. This all came to the surface. I felt a pig. I was exposed. Without a word being said and it was terrifying. Can they read your mind the same way they can project their voice into it? I don't know but I felt totally seen. I thought I was at peace with myself and my past but I wasn't. That moment those shadows came all back. I felt the feeling in my body viscerally that something really divine was there not just a simple representation.

I'm from Portugal and there is a well know story here of something similar happening. It was the apparition of the virgin mary to the young shepherds (children at the time) multiple times in the same place, Cova da Iria near Fátima. It gave birth to the largest sanctuary in Portugal. What she told them was confirmed after. The last one that died a couple years ago was sister Lúcia. Not all of them were able to communicate with the virgin. I don't know precisely but some where only able to see her. Go check the story of the three shepherds of Fatima and see for yourselves their testimonials.

In my case I can assure you it was not her. It was 3 or 4 completely unknown individuals. Were these the good aliens? Are there opposite aliens that look and feel exactly differently? Completely terrifying by such evil? I don't know but I wonder. My experience isn't enough to confirm that. I assure you, many adults cannot handle such experience without having a panic attack only someone who have completely dissolved their ego or are completely innocent like children. And here goes my theory.

What if the virgin appeared to the three shepherds because they were children and innocent so their ego didn't interfere in the appearance and communication. That's why she chose them and that's why a human can endure such experiences if there is no ego. In my case there was and still have that's why I don't think any regular adult can endure such experience gracefully. It's terrifying. Your ego feels completely seen and exposed.

But this I figured out is also medicine. This kind of presence I assure you dissolves the human ego by just being. This could be a mechanism of ego dissolution. If more people became able to stand their presence their egos would completely dissolve very easily. But I found very difficult to sustain such presence. Their presence can completely transform a person or group of people in very little time. It's like approaching cold iron to a torch. The iron will warm up. I wish I could have a similar experience some day and I become capable of enduring it and be able to communicate both ways.

This was heavily redacted but can be traced to being from Walter Haut. It's been in the public domain before (and referenced in a book) but here's some extra context and information and a copy of the affidavit itself.

In July of 2019 the U.S Navy Caught this Object.
Off the Coast of San Diego California.
This Footage was not shown to the public for almost 2 years.
But on May 14 2021 an investigative film maker named Jeremy Corbell leaked it online.
And to this day in my opinion this is one of the most compelling ufo videos.
And one of my favorite ufo videos.

For me, the credibility of UFO experiencers, whistle blowers, and journalists erodes over time. As we see more of these individuals, a certain ick creeps in where I start to think "this guy might be full of crap".

Here's the thing, if someone I had great respect for gathered hard data and presented results, I would perhaps believe them at first. As that individual became a "true believer" and sank into the community, I am afraid that some of the shine would come off of them.

Think Gary Nolan or Ari Loeb. I am hopeful that they will produce hard evidence, but worried that I will start to doubt them over time - especially if they start rambling on about consciousness and such.

Thoughts?

This is probably known in UFO folklore but I've written it up because it's in the 7th Tranche release in the same BAASS report that covered a Roswell alien affidavit and MoD report on the USAF firing 24 rockets at a UFO over England.

The phenomenon may involve forms of intelligence so far beyond our comprehension that we can’t even recognize what we’re dealing with.

Simultaneously creating exactly that kind of intelligence ourselves.

The irony is almost absurd.

Hello all, wanted to share a site a friend of mine runs: https://uapwire.com/

UAP Wire indexes the government's PURSUE releases of UAP/UFO files — AARO, FBI, BAASS, NHI references, and Utah (Skinwalker) Ranch records. The latest batch on the front page is Release 07 from Oct 23, 2026, covering documents D155–D181.

What I like about it:

- The documents themselves are unmodified copies from the public release, with page tags referring to the originals

- The headlines are editorial summaries, so you can scan for something interesting and then click straight through to the source PDF/page

- It pulls out specific, checkable details sighting maps, witness drawings, staff logs, signal readings, contractor plans instead of just rehashing the same few stories

-Updates and more information from past drops are going to be added.

It's an independent publication, not affiliated with any government agency, and it links back to war.gov/ufo as the source.

Worth a bookmark if you're the type who'd rather read the files than take someone else's word for what's in them.

If aliens exist, how do they monitor this Aliens subreddit? In particular:

• I do not know if non-human intelligence exists, but it seems many credible people lately are saying they exist on Earth
• If they exist, it seems plausible that some of them know about the human internet, such as this subreddit
• Sometimes people post in comments that "the aliens are talking to many of us who have been chosen" and similar. I am not knowingly someone chosen in that way.
  • Occasionally if I commented that I am, I was probably making it up or experiencing wishful thinking.
  • Can anyone for whom it is not wishful thinking, who really is in contact, ask the non-humans if they ever use Reddit?
• If the non-human intelligence does not use Reddit, is this because they refuse to interface with humans in communication?
  • According to testimony, it would seem they do not refuse to communication with humans
  • If they do not refuse to communication with humans at large, but do refuse to use Reddit, is this a life lesson that we as humans should learn about Reddit and what does NHI say about this to anyone who does have contact?

I'm curious because it suddenly occurred to me that because there are no NHI on social media, it might mean that this kind of social media is not safe for use even if you are a superhuman intelligence. I think if that is true, it might be important to realize. I might have been forgetting this, if I knew.

Ive been thinking about this for a while and I want your guys opinions and thoughts of this :)

This video was captured in January 2025 by US Central Command over an undisclosed location in the Middle East. This video was released as part of the 5th batch of declassified UAP files. According to the Immaculate Constellation report, spheres/orbs are the most common UAP morphology recorded.

I'm copying this from a comment I made on another post. I hope that's ok, mods. Pretty sure I've followed the rules here. If not my bad. I suck at reddit lol just thought this might start an interesting conversation since I guess abduction stories have "fallen off" and the ones we get are from folks that highly sensationalize them. Anyways...

There's not a whole lot to tell because I don't remember much and the weird bits happened after but sure lol don't recall anything from the second incident but it'll make sense in a sec why I think it happened twice lol I'll try to keep it as concise as possible:

I wear an eye mask while sleeping and woke up sitting on the edge of my bed with it still on. Could tell my room was lit up brightly (waaaay brighter than if it was day time or the light was on) and had the feeling there were at least three other "people" around me. One on left/right and in front of me.

Had a weird mix of emotions that are a bit difficult to explain but I'll try my best.

Some fear (didn't want to take the mask off to see who was in the room with me but was being reassured I didn't have to look but I did have to "go" with them). I was crying because I didn't want this to be happening.

Think I felt a hand touch my right shoulder because I sort of remember a sensation of too thin fingers on it.

Then it was morning. Thought it was a weird AF dream or some sleep paralysis thing (occasionally have SP but it's been over half a decade since the last episode). Realized I wasn't wearing the eye mask anymore which isn't all that strange because sometimes it comes off.

When I say I tore my room and entire house apart looking for it I freaking mean it lol went so far as to dig through my garage bins and even the dumpster outside in case it was random sleep walking thing (which I've never had). No dice.

When I went to shower I noticed a weird red mark on my chest about the size of a dime. Looking at it made me feel weird like I remembered something being inserted into my chest there.

Didn't think much about the mark until a few days (maybe a weekish) later when I was at the doctor and asked him about it. At first he thought it was just a random blemish but turns out it's a lot like the kind of scar you'd get from those surgeries where they make a tiny incision before using a scoped instrument to repair something.

It's right over where the aorta connects to my heart. Which is interesting because I have a heart condition and if ya didn't GAF about my ribs being in the way, that's where you'd have direct access to a problem area for me.

Doctor was a bit a baffled because I've never had surgery but since I didn't tell him about the nighttime stuff he settled on my skin just doing weird shit lol

A couple weeks later my dermatologist was equally confused but she didn't have much to say other than it's not something to be worried about unless it gets bigger or something.

This is important because about half a year later I woke up with another spot that's nearly identical a half inch below it.

Went back to the dermatologist to get a biopsy and all that crap done. Nothing to it other than unexplained scar tissue.

The truly bizarre thing about it all is that my heart condition (of which I don't feel comfortable sharing too many details about, sorry! Same about pictures of the spots. Gonna have to go full trust here lol) is degenerative and terminal unless some huge breakthrough happens and it should have progressed further by now. It's still progressing but slower than it should be.

My cardiologist chalks it up to me doing all (well most lol) of the things I'm supposed to in order to keep my heart going as long as possible.

I can't help but feel like I had some help, though.

Edit: OMFG forgot a detail that brings us to 'today" lmao sorry just barely finishing my morning coffee. As of about a monthish ago I noticed a tiny bump behind my right ear that seemingly popped up out of nowhere. Another scar tissue thing of which the biopsy came back clean.

Idk y'all it could be a wild string of coincidences of things that aren't connected at all but like... Maybe? Lol

Don't like talking about it because I HATE discussing my health shit and I can't mention one without mentioning the other lol

Edit 2: also had some unexplained stuff happen when I was a kiddo in the 90s that makes me think: "hmm 🤔" but that's a story for another time that I'll probably never tell on here 😂😬

Pentagon’s latest UFO file release has reportedly revived a long-standing Roswell mystery. The release included Walter Haut's eyewitness account of the alleged UFO crash that reportedly occurred near Roswell, New Mexico, in July 1947.News Nation revealed that in 1947, Haut worked as the public information officer at the Roswell Army Air Field. There he issued a press release to announce that the government had recovered a flying disc.

Soon afterward, the military changed its explanation and declared that a weather balloon had crashed instead. However, in an affidavit dated December 26, 2002, Haut revealed what he claimed he had actually witnessed during the incident.A few days earlier, TV host Dr. Phil McGraw also opened up in an American Thought Leaders interview about 50 crashed alien aircraft and revealed that these retained spacecraft were made of metallurgical substances.