Fernando Longo @FernandoFLongo

IMPORTANT: The first formal US government assessment of UAP concluded that they have a non-human origin. Anyone who (unlike, e.g., @michaelshermer @MiddleOfMayhem @MickWest) actually reads the first several hundred Project Sign case files could easily reach the same conclusion.

@michaelshermer, this is a remarkably strange standard for someone who claims to value scientific investigation. You reduce an entire evidentiary process to a single theatrical demand: “Tell us exactly where the aliens and their spacecraft are.” That is not how any serious investigation works. Protected reporting mechanisms exist to collect information that can be tested: documents, sensor records, radar data, program names, locations, witnesses, operational details and other evidence capable of corroboration or falsification. Investigators then reconstruct the case from those pieces. Instead, you skip every intermediate step and demand the final answer before the investigation has even begun. By that logic, an accident investigator should ignore the flight recorder, radar data, maintenance records and witness interviews and simply ask, “Which bolt failed?” No serious investigator works that way. Ironically, the more often you write about evidence, the less interested you appear in the process by which evidence is actually built. A conclusion is not the starting point of an investigation. It is the last thing earned. When someone demands the verdict before the evidence has even been assembled, they are no longer testing a hypothesis. They are protecting a conclusion. A UAP advisory council deserves members whose first instinct is to build investigations, not bypass them; to define the limits of their own expertise, not expand it; and to let conclusions emerge from evidence rather than demand them in advance. Until that standard is met, the problem is no longer the quality of the evidence—it is the quality of the advice.

Michael Shermer @michaelshermer

2 days ago

Why are UAPers still talking about taking polygraph tests, oath swearing, promising disclosure will come one day? The restrictions have been lifted by POTUS himself. Stop talking about disclosure & tell the government where, exactly, the aliens & their spaceships are located.

46 6 106 11K 5

🔥BREAKING: The Pentagon @DoW_AARO office begins phase one of a new ad campaign aimed at UAP whistleblowers who have not come forward.

For someone who repeatedly reminds everyone that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, this is a surprisingly unscientific standard. The purpose of a protected reporting process is to collect information that can be investigated, verified, corroborated or falsified. It is not designed to begin by producing the most extraordinary possible conclusion on demand. Instead of asking whether new testimony, documents, program names, locations, sensor records or operational evidence might emerge through the proper channels, the question suddenly becomes: "Where are the alien spacecraft?" That is not skepticism. It is moving the evidentiary goalposts. If the process produces nothing, then say so after it has been tested. If it produces leads, investigate them. If those leads collapse under scrutiny, conclude exactly that. If they survive scrutiny, follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is how investigation works. Demanding the final answer before allowing the investigation to begin is not scientific rigor. It is simply another way of ensuring that no amount of evidence will ever be considered sufficient. The irony is difficult to miss. The same people who insist that investigations must follow the evidence are often the first to dismiss a new investigative mechanism because it has not already delivered the conclusion they demand. That is not methodological skepticism. It is skepticism that has become attached to a predetermined destination rather than to a disciplined process. A scientific advisor should not be remembered for how many conclusions he prevented. He should be remembered for how many investigations he allowed to reach their conclusion without prejudging them. x.com/michaelshermer…

Michael Shermer @michaelshermer

2 days ago

It's time for real disclosure UAPers. Tell the government exactly where the aliens and their spaceships are located. Some UAP whistleblowers claim they know people who know where they are. It is now okay to disclose the location(s).

44 5 101 11K 4

Friends, we're taking the chase to the skies in our new episode of The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch this Tuesday @HISTORY 9/8c @hulu, Live or catch it next day on Amazon. Helicopter pursuit of UAPs above the Triangle leads to a truly terrifying encounter. The unknown is reacting.

🔥 NEW: UAP whistleblower Matthew Brown joins us on why @DoW_AARO under Dr. Jon Kosloski is a catch and kill operation built to entrap whistleblowers, and how the officer who interviewed him at @ODNIgov "mapped to 3 of the 5 indicators of insider threats and appeared to be unstable on multiple occasions." That officer was promoted. He now runs whistleblower intake at the ICIG under @DepDNILukas. ↓ Link below

@michaelshermer Reading 500 books on UFOs may demonstrate commitment to the subject. It does not explain why, after all that reading, your public methodology still so often begins where a proper investigation should end. Again and again, the pattern is the same. A complex case is reduced to a familiar label before a complete reconstruction exists. Witnesses become “misperception,” unexplained observations become “balloons,” “flares” or “sensor artifacts,” and underdetermined records are treated as though they had already been technically resolved. Five hundred books should reinforce one lesson above all others: the history of this subject is full of premature certainty on every side. That is precisely why methodology matters more than accumulated reading. The purpose of a scientific advisor is not to demonstrate how much literature he has consumed. It is to demonstrate disciplined restraint when the evidence is incomplete. The real question is therefore not how many books sit on your shelf. It is why, after reading so many of them, you still appear more comfortable assigning labels than reconstructing cases. Knowledge is not measured by the number of books you have read. It is measured by the number of conclusions you are willing to postpone until the evidence has earned them. If your role on a scientific council is to help investigate unresolved cases, then your greatest contribution should not be your familiarity with the literature. It should be your ability to resist reaching conclusions before the investigation does. Because a library can teach you the history of a mystery. It cannot investigate one. x.com/michaelshermer…

Michael Shermer @michaelshermer

6 days ago

I've read ~ 500 books on UFOs/UAPs @BordleyStephen & have an entire bookcase of them in my office. Plus a dozen podcast episodes with authors of new UFO books: skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme…

34 4 41 12K 1

BOMBSHELL: Self proclaimed ”UFO Expert” @michaelshermer admits he has incredibly poor reading comprehension!!

Michael Shermer @michaelshermer

6 days ago

I've read ~ 500 books on UFOs/UAPs @BordleyStephen & have an entire bookcase of them in my office. Plus a dozen podcast episodes with authors of new UFO books: skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme… skeptic.com/michael-sherme…

34 4 41 12K 1

NEW: Preliminary guidance from ODNI waives any NDAs “prohibiting disclosure to the President,” a clear nod to the allegation that presidents have not been informed of certain UAP/UFO activities. All intelligence agencies must assign a point person and “inform their workforce.”

Rep. Eric Burlison @RepEricBurlison

5 days ago

Today, I'm releasing preliminary implementation guidance shared by the Trump administration regarding President Trump's UAP NDA directive. If you have questions about the directive, or believe it may apply to you, I encourage you to contact my office or another Member of

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

222 607 3K 417K 319

A Thought Experiment Imagine, purely as a thought experiment, that tomorrow an independent scientific council announced that the evidence supports not only the existence of extraterrestrial life, but also the presence of non-human vehicles operating in Earth’s atmosphere. Imagine that the conclusion was based on authenticated multisensor data, independent technical review, documented chain of custody and formal confirmation by the United States Government. Whether you think that day will ever come is beside the point. The interesting question is not what the announcement would say. The interesting question is how people would react to it. For years, many of the most recognizable public skeptics have reminded us that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree with that principle. They have also argued that witnesses can be mistaken, sensors can fail and ordinary explanations should always be examined first. I agree with that too. But suppose, just for a moment, that the evidentiary standard they themselves have demanded was finally met. Would they simply acknowledge that the evidence had changed and update their conclusions accordingly? Or would they immediately begin questioning the scientists, the laboratories, the review panels, the chain of custody, the government, the witnesses and every institution whose standards they had previously invoked? That is the experiment. Real skepticism is not tested when the evidence is weak. It is tested when the evidence becomes strong enough to challenge conclusions that have become part of someone’s public identity. If the required standard of proof keeps moving every time the previous one is satisfied, then the issue was never the quality of the evidence. The issue was protecting the conclusion. The same principle applies in the opposite direction. Anyone who refuses to abandon an extraordinary hypothesis after decisive evidence demonstrates a conventional explanation has failed exactly the same test. Scientific integrity is not measured by which conclusion you defend. It is measured by whether you are willing to let the evidence replace it. That is why I have never argued that any particular UAP case proves extraterrestrial technology. My position has always been much simpler: preserve the evidence before it is lost, authenticate its provenance, recover the original data, reconstruct the event, test every plausible hypothesis and allow the conclusion to emerge only after the investigation has earned it. If tomorrow the evidence supported an ordinary explanation, I would accept it. If tomorrow the evidence supported something extraordinary, I would accept that too. My commitment is not to a destination. It is to the method that determines the destination. Perhaps that is the real question for all of us. When the evidence changes, do we change with it, or do we simply invent a new reason why the conclusion we have defended for years can never be wrong? Because the moment we become more committed to protecting our conclusion than to following the evidence, we stop practicing skepticism. We begin practicing belief.

@MickWest @GarryPNolan Sorry, my mistake.

Ex-DNI Clapper allegedly led a limited UFO disclosure effort (AATIP/2017 NYT story/2016 Clinton campaign). I don’t know if that is true, but it’s interesting that per ex-NSA director Rogers, Clapper made a highly unusual ask of Rogers in 2016 to gather all of NSA’s UAP material.

UAP James @UAPJames

2 years ago

Former DNI James Clapper requested all of the NSA’s UFO files in 2016, says former NSA Director Mike Rogers. “There are phenomena occurring out there that both are visible and that we can’t explain.” #ufox #ufotwitter

40 212 897 133K 183

The Nimitz encounter deserves something better than blind belief, but it also deserves far more than the casual dismissal of the people who were actually there. In November 2004, Commander David Fravor, Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich and other military personnel encountered something they could not identify during routine operations. Their accounts were part of a wider context that reportedly included unusual radar contacts aboard the USS Princeton and a later infrared recording obtained by Chad Underwood. None of this proves non-human technology, antigravity or impossible acceleration. The publicly released FLIR1 video cannot establish those claims by itself, and the complete radar tracks, aircraft telemetry, sensor metadata, communications and classified recordings have never been made public. That limitation must apply equally to everyone. Mick West did not possess those data and did not produce a complete, data-driven reconstruction of the encounter. He proposed conventional possibilities based on limited public fragments and assumptions about distance, perspective and relative motion. Those possibilities may be discussed as hypotheses, but they are not findings derived from the full evidence. A balloon, distant aircraft, bird or perspective error does not become an explanation merely because such things exist. An explanation must account for the testimony of multiple aviators, the reported disturbance in the water, the object’s apparent response to Fravor’s maneuver, the Princeton radar context and Underwood’s later recording. The aviators may have been mistaken. Human perception is not infallible. But no public analysis has demonstrated that they were mistaken or established what ordinary object they allegedly observed. Fravor later testified under oath before Congress. That does not prove the object’s origin, but it is not meaningless. He placed his name, career and legal responsibility behind an account he had repeated consistently for years. Dietrich, Underwood and others also accepted public scrutiny they had no obligation to endure. Respecting these witnesses does not require accepting every interpretation. It requires recognizing the difference between critically examining testimony and belittling the people who provided it. The honest conclusion remains limited but important: multiple credible military witnesses encountered something they could not identify, and the public evidence remains insufficient to determine exactly what it was. That is not proof of non-human intelligence. But neither is missing data permission to invent an ordinary object, insert it into the encounter and declare the witnesses mistaken. They deserve better from science, government and everyone who claims to care about the truth.

A pattern is not proof. But neither is “coincidence” a method of investigation. When scientists working near the same forbidden frontiers—advanced propulsion, anomalous materials, consciousness, gravity, and the manipulation of space-time—die, disappear, or leave behind fragmented warnings, the intellectually honest response is neither immediate belief nor reflexive ridicule. The real question is not whether every tragedy proves the existence of a hidden program. It is whether the cases share an institutional architecture. Did they work with the same laboratories, contractors, security structures, funding channels, technologies, or intermediaries? Did any death or disappearance interrupt a chain of custody, a disclosure effort, a transfer of material, or an experiment? Were records removed, projects renamed, access revoked, or colleagues silenced afterward? Without those links, we have separate tragedies surrounded by speculation. With them, we may have evidence of a system. The greatest mistake would be to romanticize the dead as martyrs of a theory they may never have endorsed. The second greatest would be to dismiss every unresolved case because the conclusion appears too extraordinary. Science does not ask us to choose between credulity and denial. It asks us to preserve the records, reconstruct the timelines, identify the common nodes, and allow the hypothesis to fail. If nothing connects these scientists, a serious investigation will protect their memory from mythology. But if the same names, companies, programs, locations, and technologies repeatedly appear around them, then the mystery is no longer simply how they died. It is what they were approaching before the chain was broken. The dead cannot testify. But contracts, access logs, laboratory records, medical files, correspondence, and unfinished research still can.

By the Chatham House Rules I suggested and was accepted by the White House Science Advisory Council for study of UAP (on which I am a member and Chaired by Professor Avi Loeb, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University), we are allowed to talk about issues brought forward to the council without attribution (unless we are willing to attribute to ourselves). The interview by Jamer Erdman III (as relayed on X by @UAPJames) was brought up in the chat that was reported widely online. For balance, I added the comments that are counter to those of Erdman and made online by others, most notably Chris Sharp of Liberation Times @ChrisUKSharp (x.com/ChrisUKSharp/s…) and @SunOfAbramelin (And anyway, this is supposed to be a science council where we analyze the words completely, and he presents no data, only anecdote, and yet we’re supposed to believe him more than others who come forward with stories and multiple corroborations.). Here are my comments on the Council Chat, which, under Chatham House rules, I am allowed to report my own thoughts and words. "James Erdman has, according to Chris Sharp, the editor of Liberation Times, a source often quoted here, as: “James Erdman was part of an investigation which was rocked by claims of whistleblower intimidation, false allegations and efforts to discredit those who came forward regarding UAP.” In that piece, he has called whistleblowers grifters. I don’t know of a single person who has come forward and been accused of being a grifter who has made a single penny. I do know that there are some people on this council who are paid up to $40,000 a speech. I’ve never asked for a penny, yet I’ve been called a grifter many times. I find it disheartening that, at its best, people brought in to lead an investigation would call others who have come forward as whistleblowers in the protection of their country “grifters”. I find it disheartening that it's best for the people brought in to lead an investigation to call others who have come forward as whistleblowers in the protection of their country “grifters”. There are multiple sides to every story. And certainly, James Erdman deserves a far closer look than taking his words at face value. And anyway, this is supposed to be a science council where we analyze completely the words and he presents no data, only anecdote and yet we’re supposed to believe him more than others who come forward with stories and multiple corroboration’s. Forewarned: By Chatham house rules I am allowed to talk publicly about my own thoughts and commentaries, though only the ideas of others and not attributed to sources. I am not taking Erding's comments lightly, give them full weight in consideration, but they need full scrutiny at the level of documentation and science, including those allegations made about his role(s) in prior investigations. I need data before I accept his "stories and anecdotes" give what I consider to be access journalism. Count me suspicious of Erdman. I will seek balance on that Council.

Christopher Sharp @ChrisUKSharp

a week ago

James Erdman was part of an investigation which was rocked by claims of whistleblower intimidation, false allegations and efforts to discredit those who came forward regarding UAP. liberationtimes.com/home/director-…

9 46 242 103K 24

Dr. @GarryPNolan has built something increasingly rare: a reputation that rests on decades of scientific excellence rather than public opinion. Hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, dozens of patents, leadership in biotechnology, and a willingness to examine difficult questions without abandoning scientific rigor. Whether one agrees with every hypothesis is secondary. What deserves respect is the commitment to evidence, intellectual honesty, and curiosity. Thank you for setting that example.

UAP 𓂀 Luigi 👁️⃤ 🇺🇸 κρυπτός W.👽MJ12 SOM1-01🫈 @UAPLuigi

a week ago

Dr Garry Nolan (@GarryPNolan) is the real deal, he's an immunologist, Stanford professor, & patent holder. 👨‍🔬🧬 He has published over 300 white papers and has over 40 patents, and has founded/ co-founded a plethora of biotech companies & he is a personal hero of mine. Dr Nolan

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

2 5 18 6K 0

Get some! A new series debunking Professional debunkers. Mick West is the first focus in this series. Empirical facts provided, rather than unfalsifiable debunker counter claims. @rosscoulthart @g_knapp @GoodTroubleShow @geofflawrence77 open.substack.com/pub/unquestion…

On November 24, 2025, we confronted Lue Elizondo about his past work with CIA Ground Branch in SAC, James Lacatski in the Legacy Program pulling Lue out of his CI/Tech Protection function in the program into AAWSAP, and Lue forming the AATIP cover program with James Clapper in the Obama White House. Nobody noticed. youtu.be/l5C4GBaBMcY @StephenM @realDonaldTrump @realannapaulina @RepEricBurlison @JDVance @SecRubio @SecWar @DoW_AARO @rosscoulthart @UAPGERB @LueElizondo

Dr Garry Nolan (@GarryPNolan) is the real deal, he's an immunologist, Stanford professor, & patent holder. 👨‍🔬🧬 He has published over 300 white papers and has over 40 patents, and has founded/ co-founded a plethora of biotech companies & he is a personal hero of mine. Dr Nolan works at Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Pathology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. You’re very welcome Dr Nolan. I’ve been a big fan of yours for quite some time. I have four sisters that are also teachers in my family 🙋‍♀️😎🤘🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (#uap #ufo #uapx)

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Garry P. Nolan @GarryPNolan

a week ago

@UAPLuigi @RobHeatherly1 Thx for that

1 0 4 2K 0

The NJ incident is far from resolved. John Malaska recovered & analyzed data from almost every police precinct in NJ. We discuss what he found 👇

Americans for Safe Aerospace @SafeAerospace

a week ago

What really happened during New Jersey’s 2024 drone wave? Ryan Graves sits down with AI researcher John Malaska, who analyzed nearly 13,000 public records to uncover what police, state agencies, and witnesses were reporting. Premieres TODAY at 2PM EST youtu.be/3m2RopLgP-c?si…

7 23 116 48K 66