Hey,

I'm a life-long abductee and I'm looking for a UFO/Abductee In-Person Group/Meetings located in Melbourne, Australia. Any one know of any group I could go along to?

The Fox News reporting says the NDAs are only waived when speaking to PURSUE/AARO/et. They also say this is not a declassification directive. Anything disclosed is still subject to declassification procedures. Does it still move the needle?

So Trump has opened up NDA protection. I expect to hear from Lue Elizondo et al. by the end of the day. He and others have expressed over and over again how they cannot divulge "all that that know" because of NDAs. We have heard that for years from him and many others. I can't wait to hear what they have to say now.

My guess? Crickets.

There seems to be a ton of momentum. We have rolling UFO files, Dr. Phil being used by the White House to help the public, rumors of speeches being given, tons of congressional pressure, now the NDAA, etc.

The Disclosure Foundation published a report titled "The Psychological Impact of UAP and NHI Disclosure: A Framework for Understanding Public Response and Preparedness." Six authors, all psychology PhDs, from institutions including Harvard, Cardiff, and Edinburgh. It's built around the February 19, 2026 directive ordering federal agencies to release UAP and NHI records, and the central argument is that disclosure is already unfolding in stages while no public health authority has planned for how the public will respond.

Hi all, I helped create this wiki encyclopedia website called ikwipedia (ikwipedia.org), it’s still a work in progress but I think from looking at the general range of subject matter you can see the idea. Is anyone else interested in contributing?

You can

- import articles from Wikipedia (if they exist there) and edit them
- generate articles and improve existing ones
- upload/automatically transcribe YouTube videos, webpages, etc.(there is a special page for this)
- upload short videos and images as exhibits for articles
- call out potentially answerable questions that are unanswered (makes a superscript but it’s a question mark instead of a citation reference — might be a helpful feature)
- contribute to an information resource that’s already getting a sizable number of views and has 1000+ articles.

Obviously, even with AI (the website has a library of thousands of sources — which you can add to), manual editing and specific prompts are still required to get the right tone and give each of the theories about a subject (“hoax”, “believer”, “soft disclosure”, “limited disclosure”, “psy op”, “real event, fabricated evidence”, etc.) a fair reading. But the more people that contribute different viewpoints while striving to be neutral, the more it can be a useful resource.

This is different from Wikipedia and other wikis in that, among other things, virtually any source can be cited, and sources can be color-coded depending on whether or not they could be used on Wikipedia (green if yes, other colors if no).

If you are interested in editing many pages at once (e.g., by mining sources for content, or to address recurring issues in articles), please contact me for assistance.

I hope to add “Featured article” and “Did you know?” sections to the top of the front page. Nominations welcome!

Feedback is also welcome.

(Attached video is from the article on the “alien interview” video broadcast in 1997.)

People been asking for a gofund me for Matthew Brown, Dylan Borland and other whistleblowers, and here’s a link created by Vanguard Enterprise (by Matthew Brown and Dylan Borland) for anyone to donate;

https://givebutter.com/vanguard-launch-campaign

Lets give hope and share our empathy 👽🫶💫

This is such an important initiative made by braves ones, and even if you only can make a small donation, I think it would mean the world to them. They sacrificed so extremely much by coming forward, and our support is the least we can give them. The sacrificed their career, safety, future and mental health just by coming forward with truths. They need us. And cyber-hugs of course. Lots of them

thank you reddit for all of the positive reviews over our new factual UAP database that pulls info from all relevant government agencies regarding UAP/UFOs.

we just finished up our https://uapledger.com/timeline now that includes all of the recent released videos from the July 10th Department of War release... 40 videos on our site are now ready for your viewing!!

disclosure is hereeeee!

p.s. this site is for us to have the truth in an easily readable / accessible form vs digging through pdfs on outdated government websites. if you have any idea on how to make this site even more useful, please leave a comment! again, i'm building this for US, so your insight goes a long ways.

Weird to be a year before or after the dc wave. I forget. Last image is a bonus.

This post is not about identifying the source of the blue lights on Apollo 17 photos, nor is it about the wider debate over similar blue lights reported or photographed on other Apollo missions.

I'm not arguing that the blue lights seen in those photographs were caused by Lunar Module control panel lights.

This post is about research methodology.

Specifically, it concerns:

• making categorical factual claims;
• relying on memory and expert opinion;
• and whether readily available primary sources should be checked before publicly stating that something is "absolutely, categorically" true.

In the Reality Check episode "Inside lunar triangle, STS-48 anomaly: The footage the Pentagon has not explained," Ross Coulthart and Dr Max Derakhshani, discuss an Apollo 17 photograph showing apparent blue "lights" photographed through the window of the Lunar Module.

Dr Derakhshani mentions a possible explanation offered by others (which he doesn't subscribe to): "It might be due to some internal reflection ...of something inside the lunar module because the photo was taken from ...within the lunar module through the window...if there was some blue lights on some dashboard inside the lunar module..."

Ross interjected and said: "I can cut you off there, I know there weren't. I've actually checked this when I was writing my book". One of the the things that I, um, wrote about was the blue lights on the lunar surface. And I asked people with a detailed knowledge of the lunar module whether there were any blue lights in the lunar module control panel, and there were not. ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY, NO BLUE LIGHTS."

X user Sixmorefeet (through whose post I became aware of this) contacted Ross, pointing him to NASA documentation indicating that the Lunar Module did in fact have blue Lunar Contact indicator lights. To his credit, Ross replied publicly that he had checked again with one of his knowledgeable contacts and acknowledged that there was a blue light in the Lunar Module.

The issue isn't whether the blue lights in the Apollo 17 photograph originated from the Lunar Contact indicators. The issue is that a claim presented as "absolutely, categorically" true was subsequently revised after further checking.

Everyone makes mistakes. That's not the point. The point is that the original statement wasn't presented as a recollection or opinion. It was presented as fact, based on previous research for a published book and discussions with knowledgeable people.

Having since checked the relevant NASA documentation myself, it appears that the Lunar Contact indicator lights were intentionally blue (to easily distinguish them from the other control panel lights) and were standard equipment on the Lunar Module.

The point isn't the blue lights. It's that an "absolutely, categorically" claim was later revised.

Shouldn't that have been the starting point before making a categorical factual claim?

It also raises a broader question: what other factual claims in past or future episodes are being accepted on the basis of non-public expert sources?

Edit: Link to X post: https://x.com/Twomorefeet1/status/2075278080680005843?s=20

A little about this story growing up as a child my grandfather would tell us crazy stories about UFOs and his friend Tommy being shot out the sky. Everett and another man were his wingman that day when he was shot down by a UFO, my grandfather, entailed it to us as being literally disintegrated before their eyes in mid air by a metallic ball that shot a laserbeam from it

I’ve been developing two connected experimental software systems through Akkadian Aerospace:
APLS — Acoustic Pilot Logic System
IPLS — Ion Propulsion and Levitation Software
The concept is to explore what a future control architecture might require if an aircraft used unconventional propulsion instead of ordinary propellers, turbines, or aerodynamic control surfaces.
APLS focuses on acoustic inputs, stabilization, navigation, feedback loops, and translating sensor data into flight-control commands.
IPLS focuses on modeling ion-thrust distribution, power demands, directional control, stabilization, and how multiple propulsion nodes could theoretically work together.
These are experimental simulation and control frameworks—not a claim that I have produced antigravity or a flight-ready ion aircraft. The purpose is to investigate the software, sensing, and control problems before compatible propulsion hardware exists.
The larger question is:
If tomorrow’s aircraft do not fly like today’s aircraft, what kind of software will be needed to control them?
Technical criticism is welcome. I’m especially interested in feedback concerning control theory, sensor fusion, ion propulsion, acoustic systems, stabilization, and simulation design.

Would anyone like to try it for free?
All addresses in this video rotated every 24 hours and are currently dead links*