The Army Built a Nuclear-Powered ‘City’ Beneath Greenland’s Ice. It Was a Test for Something Bigger

Project Iceworm envisioned 2,500 miles of tunnels under Greenland's ice. Camp Century was the first step, until the ice itself got in the way.

A woman walks with her dogs on a beach in Nuuk, Greenland, on March 4, 2025.

(AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka, File)

The abandoned base’s structures now sit at least 100 feet below the surface. The radar gave a different perspective of a place the Army once called home: a settlement carved into the ice, complete with living quarters and nuclear energy for the base.

The ambitions for the base went beyond the simple housing of soldiers in Greenland. It helped to test whether the Army could build something much larger and more complex: a concealed network capable of supporting up to 600 nuclear missiles that could strike the Soviet Union.

A Township Inside the Ice

Construction began in 1959. Army engineers excavated trenches, covered them with steel arches and snow, and installed prefabricated buildings inside.

Airspace around the buildings helped limit melting. The resulting settlement could accommodate roughly 200 soldiers. Its main passage, appropriately called “Main Street,” stretched more than 1,000 feet.

Getting supplies was a mission of its own. According to a study from 2016 that was published in Geophysical Research Letters, the Army supported Camp Century through hauling supplies across an over-snow trail that came directly from Thule Air Base, which is now known as Pituffik Space Base.

The camp was built 26 feet into the ice sheet’s upper layer of compacting snow. Soldiers lived inside the same snow that held the base up, which made the snow itself central to the experiment.

A U.S. nuclear test in the Pacific during the Cold War era. Images like this underscore the stakes that inspired the Golden Rule’s 1958 anti-nuclear voyage and its renewed mission today.

A Reactor Beneath The Snow

Power came from the Army’s PM-2A nuclear reactor. Installing it meant moving hundreds of tons of equipment into an environment where extreme cold could make metal brittle.

The reactor began operating in 1960 and ran for approximately 33 months before the Army deactivated and removed it, according to the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

Camp Century itself was publicly promoted. The Army produced a film showcasing its research community, and scientists conducted genuine investigations into Greenland’s ice.

The reactor and the missile proposal served their own purposes. The nuclear power components kept the installation operating, while Project Iceworm looked at the details of how an expanded version of that installation could support a potential nuclear weapons force.

Showing how personnel could live and work was just a step toward evaluating this larger ambition. The American Geophysical Union says that this camp was just a proof of concept for the nuclear missile deployment system.

The Bigger Plan: Project Iceworm

The Arctic offered an important strategic advantage during the Cold War: it provided the shortest route between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Project Iceworm envisioned approximately 2,500 miles of tunnels capable of supporting up to 600 nuclear missiles. U.S. officials kept the missile program secret from the Danish government, even though Denmark had approved Camp Century, according to the American Geophysical Union.

The key to the plan was concealment. Moving missiles through an extensive underground network could make their locations difficult for an adversary to target and track. Army planners hoped this would confuse the enemy enough to keep American retaliatory efforts alive.

Army engineers also installed an experimental railway beneath the snow as an early demonstration of the concept. In 1962, the Army proposed the project to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The proposed area of construction covered around 50,000 square miles in Greenland. Camp Century was just a small experiment compared with the base that the original engineers had in mind.

Ice Was A Problem

The environment ultimately undermined the idea. Greenland’s ice sheet moves and deforms. At Camp Century, that behavior threatened the tunnels that a much larger missile system would also depend on.

The Atomic Heritage Foundation identifies the unstable ice as the most important technical obstacle to Iceworm.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected the proposal in 1963. Year-round operations at the base ended in 1964, while seasonal activity continued until the base was abandoned in 1967. The missiles were never deployed.

The test installation survived longer than the weapons proposal, but the Army left its infrastructure behind in a deteriorating tunnel network.

The Danish navy's inspection ship HDMS Vaedderen sails off Nuuk, Greenland, on Sunday, Jan. 18, 2026.

(Mads Claus Rasmussen/Ritzau Scanpix via AP)

Materials The Army Left Behind

Abandonment rested on an assumption that accumulating snow would keep the site buried indefinitely.

Researchers later questioned that assumption. A 2016 study examined how warming could eventually expose infrastructure and waste, including diesel fuel, sewage, chemical contaminants and low-level radioactive material.

Its projections suggested the site could begin losing more surface snow and ice than it gained around 2090 under a high-emissions scenario. That was a possible transition toward eventual exposure, rather than a fixed date when the entire camp would emerge.

NASA's 2024 imagery gave a clearer view of the buried structures. Earlier radar surveys had detected and shown the camp, but the newer instrument revealed individual features in much greater detail for viewers.

The scientists were trying to test ways to map ice sheets, not look for an Army base under the ice. The imagery brought back hidden secrets from a different age: a nuclear-powered settlement that 

RELATED TOPICS

{ https://www.military.com/ }

A Strange Radio Signal in The Far Reaches of The Milky Way Is Behaving Like Nothing Else in The Galaxy

Radio telescopes beneath the Milky Way. Astronomers have discovered a mysterious radio source in our galaxy that has been changing for decades.

(000ne/E+/Getty Images)

Many things scattered throughout the Milky Way flicker, glow, and pulse in idiosyncratic ways.

From the staccato static of a pulsar to the sudden eruption and slow fade of light from a nova, astronomers have a good handle on the various transient changes cosmic objects undergo.

It would be a mistake, however, to think the catalog of sidereal shenanigans is complete.

And astronomers have now observed an object behaving in ways that no one has ever seen before.

It's called VT J1906+0849, located out beyond the Milky Way's outer Norma-Cygnus spiral arm, and changing in blazing radio light.

The hinky part? Whatever is powering the object seems to operate on a timescale of decades.

"The source," astronomers write in a paper led by Jessie Miller of the California Institute of Technology, "is a distant Galactic synchrotron transient that has remained radio-bright for approximately two decades while exhibiting an evolving spectral turnover frequency and little apparent expansion."

Most changing objects astronomers detect in the night sky transform on relatively short timescales, from milliseconds to months. This has a lot to do with technology – the way we observe the sky, and how long we've been doing it in detail.

In the 1990s, many large-scale surveys began looking more closely at the whole sky, and in the years since, many others have joined the party.

VT J1906+0849 first came to astronomers' attention in data collected in 2017 as part of the Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS). There, at least 49,000 light-years from Earth, out beyond the galaxy's spiral arm, was the brightest radio transient the survey had discovered.

At around 70 millijanskies, it was an extraordinarily bright radio transient, especially at such a great distance.

That, naturally, raised questions: What the heck was it, and had it been overlooked in previous survey data?

Thus began the scurry so familiar to astronomers – looking for other observations that covered the same patch of the sky, then seeing what their source looked like in those observations.

There were several radio surveys that had covered the same patch of sky prior to the 2017 VLASS observation.

The location of VT J1906+0849 in radio observations from 1996 (left), 2005 (middle), and 2017 (right). The mysterious source is absent in the earliest image, but appears in later observations.

(Miller et al., ApJ, 2026)

In 1996… there was absolutely nothing to be seen at the site in data collected as part of the NRAO VLA Sky Survey.

But by 2005, that had started to change.

Over the course of several surveys that observed the object between 2006 and 2013, it showed an overall brightening – reaching a peak of around 200 millijanskies in 2014.

The 2017 detection seemed to have caught VT J1906+0849 as it was fading from that peak, but the overall light curve was so weird that the only sensible course of action was to see what it would do next.

The researchers obtained follow-up observations in 2019, 2024, and 2026, with additional observations in 2025 that managed to include VT J1906+0849's corner of the sky. And for a while, it looked as though VT J1906+0849 was winding down. The 2019 and 2024 observations showed it growing progressively fainter.

Then, in late 2025, it went PSYCH.

The changing radio brightness of VT J1906+0849 over several decades, measured at different frequencies. The source brightened dramatically, faded, and then began brightening again in late 2025.

(Miller et al., ApJ, 2026)

In data obtained using the Very Large Array, astronomers observed VT J1906+0849 growing brighter once again.

So far, so weird. But that's not even the weirdest thing.

Astronomers can infer a lot about a radio source by studying how brightly it shines at different wavelengths on the radio spectrum.

In the case of VT J1906+0849, the radio emission rises to a peak at a particular frequency before dropping off again. But that peak doesn't behave.

In 2019, it was at around 1.9 gigahertz. By 2024, it had shifted down to around 0.8 gigahertz. But by 2026, it had climbed back up to around 2.2 gigahertz. (The spectral peaks for 2014 and 2025 were not well constrained, but both appeared to occur at substantially higher frequencies.)

It's not unusual for a brightness peak to move, but it usually does so in a specific way for specific radiation. The researchers believe this object's radio-wave emission comes from energetic charged particles moving through magnetic fields via synchrotron radiation.

If the source were simply an expanding cloud of material, as is often the case for synchrotron emission, its changing radio spectrum would be expected to follow a more predictable pattern, with the peak shifting toward lower frequencies as the cloud spread out.

But VT J1906+0849 doesn't seem to be spreading out much.

In spite of the dramatic changes in its brightness and radio spectrum, the researchers found little evidence that the source had expanded over several years of observations.

And the sudden shift back toward higher frequencies suggests something rather more complicated than a cloud of energetic particles simply cooling and dispersing.

Combined with the rebrightening, the clues suggest that, whatever VT J1906+0849 is doing, it's an ongoing process.

There are several possibilities, but three are particularly interesting.

The location of VT J1906+0849 as seen at optical (top row), near-infrared (J, H, and K), and mid-infrared (remaining panels) wavelengths. These observations help astronomers investigate what might be producing the mysterious radio emission. 

(Miller et al., ApJ, 2026)

One thing that can brighten and then fade over time is an explosion such as a nova – but the ejected material should show signatures of expansion, even if the timescale made sense, which it does not.

Another option is a pulsar-powered nebula, but the dancing frequency peak is too chaotic.

That just leaves the third option, and it's a common suspect in many cosmic mysteries: A black hole doing snacking crimes. Or a black hole or neutron star accreting material from a binary companion, if you want to be all straitlaced about it.

If it is a compact object having a nosh, however, it's doing a remarkably good job of concealing the evidence. Observations using NASA's Swift telescope failed to detect a hint of the powerful X-rays expected from such an accreting system.

But a non-detection doesn't necessarily mean a non-emission. And there's another object in the Milky Way that might offer a final, crucial clue.

SS 433 is an object located around 18,000 light-years from Earth, and it's extremely guilty of weirdness. It's thought to consist of either a black hole or a neutron star, orbiting with a companion star every 13 days.

But the really interesting thing about SS 433 is what happens to the material being pulled away from the companion star.

Some of it falls onto the compact object, but much of it is flung back into space as powerful jets and a dense wind from the disk of material swirling around the central object.

That wind can also obscure the X-rays produced by the accretion process, hiding some of the evidence of what is happening at the heart of the system.

The researchers think something similar might be happening with VT J1906+0849.

If a compact object is continuously launching a jet of energetic particles into a dense surrounding wind, the interaction could produce the strange, changing radio emission while preventing the emitting material from expanding freely.

It could also explain the missing X-rays. And there's another clue: infrared observations of VT J1906+0849 revealed evidence of gas moving at around 2,000 kilometers per second, consistent with a powerful outflow.

It's a compelling possibility, but far from a confirmed identification. More observations will be needed to determine whether VT J1906+0849 really is a younger relative of SS 433, or something even stranger.

Still, it's a satisfying answer to a strange sequence of problems, and a message to microquasars everywhere. You might think you got away with it… but astronomers are wising up to your game.

"VT J1906+0849," they write, "highlights the potential for wide-field radio surveys to uncover a population of obscured Galactic accretors that are difficult to identify at other wavelengths."

Mwahahaha.

The research has been published in The Astrophysical Journal.

RELATED

{ https://www.sciencealert.com/ }

Details of New Jersey’s 2024 Drone Outbreak Still Remain Largely Unexplained

Nighttime drone and aircraft sightings across New Jersey in late 2024 prompted thousands of reports and a federal investigation into unidentified objects in the sky.

TRENTON, NJ – Nearly two years after mysterious lights and suspected drones filled New Jersey’s night skies, the federal government has offered an explanation for the sightings that alarmed residents, frustrated local officials and sparked nationwide attention. But despite thousands of reports and months of public debate, investigators never provided a complete, sighting-by-sighting account of what people witnessed.

Federal officials say the 2024 drone mystery involved legal aircraft, authorized drone flights and mistaken sightings, but questions remain about what residents saw in the night sky.

Nobody has ever said who owned and operated those drones, what they were testing, and why it was isolated to New Jersey.

The unusual activity began drawing widespread attention in November 2024, when residents across New Jersey reported seeing illuminated objects moving overhead after dark. Reports spread through Morris, Somerset, Ocean, Monmouth and other counties, with witnesses describing everything from small drones to aircraft that appeared unusually large, often times in waves of multiple aircraft.

Videos circulated across social media, prompting calls for answers from police departments, municipal officials and members of Congress. Some residents questioned whether the objects were conducting surveillance, while others worried about potential threats to aviation and public safety.

By December 2024, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Defense were examining thousands of reports. Their findings pointed largely toward ordinary aircraft, legally operated drones and objects in the night sky that had been mistaken for something unusual.

Federal Investigators Found No Evidence of a Coordinated Drone Threat

In a joint federal assessment released in December 2024, officials said they had reviewed more than 5,000 reports and found no evidence of a widespread security threat. Investigators identified a combination of commercial aircraft, private planes, helicopters, authorized drones and celestial objects.

Federal agencies said they had “not identified anything anomalous” in the reports examined. They also reported finding no evidence that the sightings represented a foreign surveillance operation or an immediate national security danger.

The findings did not establish that every reported object was imaginary or that no drones were operating over New Jersey. Instead, investigators concluded that the available evidence did not support claims of a coordinated fleet of mysterious aircraft operating across the state.

That distinction became important as residents continued sharing videos and eyewitness accounts. Federal officials could explain many sightings through ordinary aviation activity, but they did not publicly identify the aircraft or objects involved in every individual report.

FAA-Authorized Flights Added Another Twist to the Mystery

In January 2025, the White House offered additional information about the drone activity, stating that some flights had been authorized by the FAA for research and other purposes. The administration also pointed to recreational drone operators and the misidentification of conventional aircraft.

That explanation raised another question for New Jersey residents: If some operations were authorized, why had local officials and the public struggled to obtain clear answers while the sightings were occurring?

The communication problems became part of the controversy. Local officials had repeatedly requested more detailed information during the height of the sightings, while federal agencies maintained that investigators had not uncovered a broader threat.

Online discussions continued well after the initial reports faded. Aviation enthusiasts and social media users examined whether experimental electric aircraft, including electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicles such as the Pivotal BlackFly, could explain some observations.

However, no publicly established federal finding identified the BlackFly or a particular private contractor as the source of the widespread New Jersey sightings. Claims involving experimental aircraft remained separate from the government’s documented conclusions.

Two Years Later, Some Questions Still Have No Public Answer

By October 2026, the central federal explanation remained that the sightings were largely a mixture of routine aviation, authorized drone activity and mistaken identifications. Investigators had not publicly established that a coordinated group of unidentified drones was operating over New Jersey.

What remains missing is a comprehensive public accounting of the individual sightings that fueled the original concern. The government has not released a complete list matching every widely circulated video or eyewitness report to a specific aircraft, drone operator or astronomical object.

For residents who watched unfamiliar lights overhead in late 2024, the official findings provide an explanation for the broader wave of reports, but not necessarily for each personal experience.

The New Jersey drone mystery ultimately produced thousands of reports, a multiagency federal investigation and widespread criticism of government communication. Federal officials found no evidence of an extraordinary or coordinated security threat, but the absence of a complete public record of individual sightings means some questions about specific incidents remain unanswered.

RELATED

{  https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/  }

UFO Expert Says Government Hides 'Mantis-Type' Aliens and Keeps Dead Bodies in a Military Institute

Davis said the alleged records also indicate recovered bodies were transferred to an unidentified military medical institute, while stressing uncertainty about the beings' true nature

UFO expert Dr Eric Davis alleges classified records describe four alien types and bodies held by an unnamed military institute. (Image is for illustrative purposes)

PHOTO AI Generated/ChatGPT

UFO expert and astrophysicist Dr Eric Davis claimed that classified government records describe at least four types of beings and that recovered bodies were transferred to an unnamed military medical institute.

According to News Nation, Davis stated that he had seen evidence and records, which he described as classified and not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. He expressed uncertainty about the nature of the beings, particularly those whose appearance he compared with insects and reptiles.

UFO Expert Describes Four Alleged Types

'There's a minimum of four that we know of. And I've seen the evidence, and I've seen the records.'

The four categories Davis identified were Greys, Nordics, Insectoids, also described as Mantis-type beings, and Reptilians. His reference to a minimum of four left open the possibility of other categories, without identifying any additional types.

Davis compared the Greys with beings depicted in the final scene of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The film reference illustrated the appearance he was describing rather than establishing evidence for the beings' existence.

'They variously are described as the Greys, like what everybody saw in Close Encounters of the Third Kind at the end of that movie in the final scene.'

He described Nordics as very tall, human-like individuals with Caucasian features. These descriptions formed part of his claims about the records he had reviewed.

UFO Expert Explains Mantis-Type Comparison

Davis described the third category in terms of its resemblance to insects, including praying mantises, while distinguishing appearance from identity.

'There's the beings that resemble or look like insects, like a praying mantis-type insect, but they're not an insect.'

He suggested that people encountering something unfamiliar and shocking might compare it with familiar things to make sense of what they were seeing. In that explanation, an insect-like appearance could lead to an insectoid description without establishing the being's true nature.

The same uncertainty accompanied his description of Reptilians. Davis referred to their apparent body structure but cautioned against treating the label as a definitive identification.

'There's the reptilians for the same case, in that their morphology, body structure looks like a reptilian. And they may not be reptilian.'

His descriptions therefore relied on comparisons with recognisable forms, alongside qualifications about what those comparisons could establish.

UFO Expert Claims Military Institute Received Bodies

When questioned about where the government kept recovered bodies, Davis stated that he did not know. He nevertheless claimed that the bodies had been transferred to a military-linked medical institution rather than a private organisation.

'Given to a military institute, a medical institute, and it's classified. And that institute has been in existence since the Civil War.'

Davis did not identify the institution by name. His claim about its historical origins was accompanied by an assertion that its structure and location had subsequently altered.

He claimed that the institute was divided into two or three separate components during the first Obama administration and relocated to different military medical facilities. Those assertions concern an earlier period, rather than a dated announcement of a current transfer.

According to Davis, the original organisation no longer existed in its previous form, while the location of the alleged recovered bodies remained something he could not identify.

RELATED

{ https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/science }

Pilots Entering Thunderstorm Encounter Cylindrical UFO And Fear Collision

On August 16, 2026, Two pilots flying a private jet charter encountered a cylindrical-shaped UFO as they were about to enter a thunderstorm near Tiffin, Ohio. They described the object as highly reflective and pill-shaped. It was oriented vertically and appeared to have a metallic surface without seams or any flight control appendages. When the object was first sighted, the witnesses say that it appeared to emerge from the wall of storm clouds directly ahead and was on a direct collision course with their jet. Eventually, the object passed on a parallel course on their left and came as close as two miles. Alarmed by the unexpected airspace intrusion at 41,000 ft, the crew made a report to the Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).

CGI recreation based on witness descriptions

The incident follows years of hundreds of similar UFO reports, where witnesses often describe the unidentified objects as “pill” or “tic-tac” shaped. In many cases, the objects are seen in vertical orientation, emerging from water, and coming in close proximity to the aircraft. In the August sighting, the air traffic controller referred the pilots to NUFORC, where they made a report. NUFORC investigator Ben Hansen followed up on the report and spoke to the crew’s captain, obtained FAA radar data, and the ATC radio communication. The incident currently remains unexplained.

What We Know

The most prosaic explanations have been explored. The object was not detected by FAA radar, nor by the jet’s onboard TCAS. While NUFORC has been unable to definitively rule out the possibility the object was a balloon, there have been no database matches with planned balloon launches, nor was the FAA notified of launch conflicts as is standard for safety protocols. Coupled with the witness’s estimate that the object was at least 30 feet in height and uniformly shaped without tapering at the top or bottom, it presents some challenges to the balloon theory.

Why This Case Matters

• Amid hundreds of pilot reports per year that involve concerns of collision with unknown objects, the UAP/UFO subject needs to be taken more seriously by agencies such as the FAA. While NUFORC gladly assists by accepting the FAA’s reports (it’s still listed in the federal regulations as a civilian agency where reports should be made), there is no indication in this case that the FAA escalated the concerning sighting to other agencies for a parallel investigation.
• While entertaining, in the audio recording the controller jokes to the pilots about making a NUFORC report and he states, “Make sure you include what color the alien was.” Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding UFO reporting is still very strong and the ridicule factor makes many pilots hesitant to say anything.
• No matter whether the object eventually has a prosaic explanation or not, it was unknown and within controlled airspace. Traveling at a speed of several hundred mph, a jet colliding with a weather balloon can take out a plane’s engine. A high-altitude balloon operated by foreign adversaries (such as those involved in the Chinese spy balloon incidents in 2023) also places the U.S. at national security risk when such UAP sightings aren’t escalated for government investigation.
• The latest Department of War UFO file releases have consisted almost entirely of military encounters. This current case is one example of hundreds of civilian pilot reports. It highlights the fact that UAP activity may be more frequently observed by civilian aviators, but they rarely have the sophisticated camera systems and sensors to adequately record it.

Case File and Media

Full Report:

• https://nuforc.org/sighting/?id=200250

2-minute video (includes radar playback, radio communications, and recreation photos of the event): https://vimeo.com/1238537411/3742d38ba7

The audio recordings and radar data were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The photographs taken by the crew were released for use by their consent to have them placed on NUFORC’s website.

Ben Hansen, 10/24/26

{ https://nuforc.org/posts/ }

Matthew Brown Raises a Mind-Controlled UFO Theory—and a Human Breeding Claim

By Ivan Petricevic

Conceptual illustration of a hypothetical mental interface; not a depiction of demonstrated technology.

 Illustration: Curiosmos.

In this report

1. Where Brown’s account changes into a theory
2. The government really did investigate psychic abilities
3. What a mental interface would have to do

Could operating an unfamiliar craft depend on the person sitting inside it? Matthew Brown has raised that possibility in an interview that connects alleged UFO programmes, consciousness and the idea of selecting people for an inherited ability.

The suggestion is extraordinary. Brown discusses the possibility that a covert effort could cultivate people capable of interacting mentally with unusual technology. In the relevant passages, however, he presents suspicion and speculation—not a breeding programme he says he personally witnessed.

Where Brown’s account changes into a theory

Brown’s August 2026 interview with Jesse Michels ranges across alleged secret programmes and stories Brown says circulate within that world. The automated transcript makes an important distinction visible: some passages describe accounts he says he encountered; others explore what he thinks might explain them.

Near the discussion of inherited abilities, Brown wonders whether selection over several generations could be involved. Turning that into a flat statement that the Pentagon breeds UFO pilots would erase the uncertainty in his own account.

His discussion of historical agreements also relies on what he describes as an oral tradition. A story passed between people, an agreement someone has read and an operation someone has observed are three different starting points. Reporting them as a single body of established knowledge would conceal how each claim reached him.

The government really did investigate psychic abilities

There is a documented historical connection between US intelligence and research into unusual mental abilities. According to the CIA’s own account, its remote-viewing research began in 1972. Responsibility moved to the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1977; the programme later returned to the CIA for review in 1995.

Remote viewing concerned attempts to obtain information about distant targets. It was not a demonstrated method of piloting a craft. The CIA says its review found the information too vague and inconsistent to provide the specific intelligence needed, and the programme ended.

That history gives Brown’s discussion a real point of comparison. It shows that agencies explored unusual claims about perception. It does not supply a missing link between those experiments and the selection of people to operate recovered technology.

What a mental interface would have to do

A craft controlled through an operator’s thoughts could mean several very different things. Defining the mechanism is part of turning a UAP account into a testable question. It might use sensors to translate measurable biological signals into commands. Brown’s discussion goes much further, invoking abilities whose proposed connection to the technology has not been demonstrated publicly.

The practical question would be whether an operator could produce a repeatable response under conditions that exclude ordinary controls and information cues. An observer would need to know what command was intended, what the machine did and whether the result occurred reliably with different operators.

A claim about inherited ability adds another layer. Success by one person would not establish inheritance. Researchers would have to define the ability, measure it consistently and examine how it occurs across families while accounting for training and shared circumstances.

Brown’s speculation is interesting because it shifts the imagined problem from rebuilding hardware to understanding an operator. Perhaps the difficult part of an unfamiliar machine would be its interface. But the interview does not provide a working demonstration or records of a breeding operation. Keeping that boundary visible lets readers explore the idea without mistaking a proposed explanation for an observed programme.

RELATED

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/uap/   }

Steven Greer Put His UFO Disclosure Demand in Writing. Here Is What the Letter Says

By Ivan Petricevic

Editorial illustration accompanying the report on Greer’s letter; the papers shown are not the document.

Illustration: Curiosmos.

In this report

1. A promise to seek material
2. Different releases would answer different questions
3. The deadline and the follow-up

Steven Greer put a deadline on his demand for UFO disclosure: August 29, 2026. In a letter dated June 29, he outlined a proposed effort to obtain and release material concerning alleged craft, bodies and secret operations if the government did not respond.

The deadline has now passed. It joins a longer history of disclosure promises and public records. The document remains worth reading because its wording is more specific—and in places more conditional—than the headlines announcing it.

A promise to seek material

The four-page letter, posted on Greer’s website, describes what he calls Unacknowledged National Operational Disclosure, or UNOD. It alleges hidden activities involving unusual craft and biological material.

The letter says that, unless the government contradicts its position by the deadline, the effort will solicit further hard evidence and release material. The promise to solicit evidence matters. It is not the same as attaching a complete, independently examined collection to the letter.

Greer also presents his position on protection from national-security prosecution. That is his assertion in the document, not an official finding that the proposed activity has government approval. The recipient’s silence would not, by itself, authenticate the alleged objects or endorse the account.

Different releases would answer different questions

An account from someone who says they worked on a craft would add testimony. A document with a verifiable origin could establish what an organisation recorded. A physical sample, examined independently and accompanied by a traceable history, could support a different kind of inquiry.

Those materials should not be counted as equivalent simply because they are described as evidence. A witness could be accurately describing a document whose contents are mistaken. A genuine document could record an unverified report. A real specimen could still have an ordinary origin.

For the biological claims, a useful release would explain where the material came from, who handled it and what tests were performed. For a craft claim, the operating data, examination methods and access given to independent investigators would matter as much as photographs.

RELATED

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/uap/   }

Eric Weinstein Says Officials Sought His Help With UFO Disclosure

 By Ivan Petricevic

Editorial illustration of public communication and alleged disclosure outreach; not a photograph of an actual meeting.

 Illustration: Curiosmos.

In this report

1. The approach Weinstein describes
2. The story was already drawing records requests in 2022
3. Preparing an audience is not the same as presenting a finding

Eric Weinstein says people presenting themselves as connected to government approached him about helping the public understand a major UFO disclosure. According to his account, similar approaches involved Sam Harris and Lex Fridman.

The account sits within the broader debate about UFO disclosure. The idea is easy to picture: before an announcement of enormous consequences, officials seek people with large audiences who can help explain it. Weinstein’s account raises that possibility. It does not identify the material such an announcement would reveal.

The approach Weinstein describes

In a May 2026 interview, Weinstein describes contacts he considered official and discussions about communicating a potential disclosure. The automated transcript records him naming Harris and Fridman while discussing the approaches.

He also describes uncertainty about what might sit behind secret programmes. His account does not establish that he saw extraterrestrial craft or personally encountered an anomalous being. He explicitly discusses the information as secondary.

That makes the communications themselves the most concrete part of the story. Who approached him, what authority did they represent and what exactly did they ask him to do? A documented approach could be investigated even before the wider claim about its purpose was resolved.

The story was already drawing records requests in 2022

An official May 2022 freedom-of-information request log from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence includes a request concerning UFO or UAP-related communications involving Weinstein and Harris.

The entry is a record of someone requesting information. It is not a release of the requested emails and does not confirm that the alleged outreach occurred. Its narrower significance is chronological: the subject was already being pursued through public-records requests in 2022.

That matters when a newly circulated interview is framed as a new government initiative. Weinstein describes a history of contacts. The date a claim reaches a fresh audience should not silently become the date of the alleged event.

Preparing an audience is not the same as presenting a finding

If officials were planning a difficult announcement, speaking with prominent communicators could be a sensible preparatory step. But preparations can concern several possible outcomes, including information whose interpretation remains uncertain.

A discussion about disclosure would therefore need to be read alongside its stated purpose. Was someone discussing verified material, a possible future announcement, an investigation or an exercise? A message inviting participation might establish an approach while leaving that question open.

The same caution applies to the word official. An individual’s credentials, the institution they represent and their authority to make a particular request are separate facts. Confirming one would not automatically confirm the others.

The most useful documents would preserve the language of the approaches rather than summarise them years later. Dates, invitations and written descriptions of the proposed role could show whether different people were contacted for the same initiative or for unrelated conversations.

Weinstein has offered a communication story inside the broader UFO story. Following that trail could be productive: communications often leave records that a claim about hidden hardware does not. The 2022 request log supplies a dated starting point for that inquiry, while the interview supplies Weinstein’s account of what he believes the contacts meant.

The Strategic Government Plan to Mediate a Massive UFO Disclosure - Joe Rogan and Eric Weinstein

UFO Cover-Up Analyst: The Alien Programs You're Told Don't Exist! | Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein: The UFO Narrative Was Forced On Us

Eric Davis & Eric Weinstein Expose The UFO Problem | Pax River, Portals & Withheld Videos

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/uap/ }

{

Glowing UFO Lights Up Sky Over Utah, Object Coming Out of It! Nov 4, 2026, UAP Sighting News.

Date of sighting: Nov 5, 2026

Location of sighting: Beryl, Utah, USA

Source:

• https://www.facebook.com/groups/480529323240713/permalink/1763254644968168/ 

 

Guys I lived in Utah for a few years and can honestly say that UFOs are all over the place in that state. I would estimate there are 3-4X the sightings compared to other US states. This sighting here shows a glowing light during sunrise, but it wasn't the moon, she caught the moon in a different position. This is a UFO in early morning trying to sneak out before people wake up. Awesome catch and defiantly aliens. Whats it doing? Thats obvious...one photo clearly shows a huge object on 3-4 thick leges that looks like its being delivered to an underground base, probably about 5-6 miles below the city of Beryle. Even aliens need supplies. 

Scott C. Waring - UFO Sightings Daily 

 

Eyewitness states: 

Does anyone know what was in the sky this morning around 5am looks like over Newcastle or cedar?

 

{ https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

Tomorrow In UFO History: Nov 9, 1979....Dechmont Woods Alien Assault: Forest Worker Dragged by Robotic Entities To UFO! UAP Sighting News.

Original drawing approved by eyewitness. 

Date of event: November 9, 1979
Location of event: Livingston, Scotland, UK

This is 100% proof that aliens are actively exploring remote areas of Earth and are not afraid to use physical force on humans.

A respected forester named Robert Taylor was out checking trees when he walked right into a 20-foot dark grey, metallic craft hovering silently in a clearing. It was trying to use a camouflage mechanism to blend into the forest, changing its transparency right before his eyes!

Suddenly, two smaller, robotic-looking sphere entities rolled out from under the main ship. They made a distinct plopping sound and rushed straight for him. These entities actually attached themselves to Taylor's trousers and began dragging him toward the main craft. He described a suffocating, acrid smell like burning brake linings just before he blacked out.

When he woke up, the crafts were gone, but the physical evidence left behind was undeniable. Local police investigated the area and found distinct ladder-like tracks and 40 angled holes punched into the dirt. Forensic teams even analyzed the tears in Taylor's trousers where the entities grabbed him.

Folks, this wasn't a hallucination. The police treated it as a criminal assault by entities unknown. This is a classic, undeniable close encounter showing alien technology at work right on our own soil.

Scott C. Waring - UFO Sightings Daily

RELATED

{ https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }