The UAP Convergence

🎃 HALLOWEEN SPECIAL: Ghosts—The Dead, the Demonic, or Something Outside Time? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• What if some ghosts aren’t spirits of the dead at all—but living people from another time? From Civil War hauntings to recorded voices and unexplained apparitions, I examine six competing explanations—including the possibility of temporal overlap. Read my investigation at The UAP Convergence: theuapconvergence.substack.c…

🎃 HALLOWEEN SPECIAL: Ghosts—The Dead, the Demonic, or Something Outside Time? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• What if some ghosts aren’t spirits of the dead at all—but living people from another time? From Civil War hauntings to recorded voices and unexplained apparitions, I examine six competing explanations—including the possibility of temporal overlap. Read my investigation at The UAP Convergence: theuapconvergence.substack.c…

29 Days Later: Who Has Grusch’s Crash-Retrieval Video? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• On September 30, David Grusch told Joe Rogan he had viewed footage of deceased, pale blue-skinned, humanlike beings at an alleged crash site. Rep. Eric Burlison subsequently said the footage is reportedly held by a private contractor unwilling to cooperate. As of October 26, he confirmed his office was still pursuing it. But several questions remain unanswered: • How long has Burlison known about this footage—before or only after the Rogan interview? • Did Grusch identify the contractor to Burlison, or merely describe the recording? • If the contractor is known, what specific obstacle is preventing congressional investigators from obtaining it? Nearly a month after Grusch’s public disclosure, no footage, contractor identity, or independently verifiable evidence has been released. This is a specific investigative lead involving a former intelligence official and a sitting congressman. It deserves sustained follow-up.

29 Days Later: Who Has Grusch’s Crash-Retrieval Video? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• On September 30, David Grusch told Joe Rogan he had viewed footage of deceased, pale blue-skinned, humanlike beings at an alleged crash site. Rep. Eric Burlison subsequently said the footage is reportedly held by a private contractor unwilling to cooperate. As of October 26, he confirmed his office was still pursuing it. But several questions remain unanswered: • How long has Burlison known about this footage—before or only after the Rogan interview? • Did Grusch identify the contractor to Burlison, or merely describe the recording? • If the contractor is known, what specific obstacle is preventing congressional investigators from obtaining it? Nearly a month after Grusch’s public disclosure, no footage, contractor identity, or independently verifiable evidence has been released. This is a specific investigative lead involving a former intelligence official and a sitting congressman. It deserves sustained follow-up.

Poltergeists at Skinwalker Ranch? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The Pentagon funded a program to investigate advanced aerospace technology. So why was its contractor investigating poltergeists at Skinwalker Ranch? Under the AAWSAP contract, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies examined reports of paranormal activity alongside alleged UFO phenomena. How did investigations of hauntings, strange entities, and other paranormal activity fit into a program ostensibly focused on advanced aerospace systems? And what does that tell us about what the Pentagon was actually investigating? I examine the evidence in my latest article for The UAP Convergence: “Was the Pentagon Testing for Poltergeists Instead of UFOs?” Read the full investigation below. substack.com/@theuapconverge…

Poltergeists at Skinwalker Ranch? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The Pentagon funded a program to investigate advanced aerospace technology. So why was its contractor investigating poltergeists at Skinwalker Ranch? Under the AAWSAP contract, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies examined reports of paranormal activity alongside alleged UFO phenomena. How did investigations of hauntings, strange entities, and other paranormal activity fit into a program ostensibly focused on advanced aerospace systems? And what does that tell us about what the Pentagon was actually investigating? I examine the evidence in my latest article for The UAP Convergence: “Was the Pentagon Testing for Poltergeists Instead of UFOs?” Read the full investigation below. substack.com/@theuapconverge…

SKINWALKER RANCH: WAS THE PENTAGON TESTING FOR GHOSTS INSTEAD OF UFOs? Newly released government-contractor documents reveal an extraordinary experiment conducted at Skinwalker Ranch in 2009. Investigators working for Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), under a Pentagon-funded aerospace research program, devised experiments involving mathematical puzzles placed inside locked containers. The keys to one proposed experiment were to remain in Las Vegas. Another involved boxes containing the Fibonacci sequence, reportedly positioned at two locations on the ranch. The objective? To determine whether an unknown intelligence would recognize the challenge and physically rearrange the pieces. Think about that. This wasn’t an experiment measuring UFO propulsion, radar signatures, or advanced aerospace technology. It was an attempt to communicate with something unseen by challenging it to solve a mathematical puzzle. The approach bears a striking resemblance to experiments conducted decades earlier by parapsychologists investigating alleged poltergeist activity. But it raises some fascinating questions. Who designed these experiments? Where were the scientific controls? Why would an unknown intelligence cooperate with investigators? And what happened when the boxes were recovered? The newly released reports document the experiment but do not provide a verified outcome. I’m examining the original BAASS records, the historical precedents, and the implications for understanding what the Pentagon’s contractor was actually investigating. 👉🏼 Coming soon to The UAP Convergence: "Skinwalker Ranch: Was the Pentagon Testing for Poltergeists Instead of UFOs?" A document-based investigation into locked puzzles, unseen intelligence, and the unanswered questions behind one of AAWSAP’s strangest experiments.

SKINWALKER RANCH: WAS THE PENTAGON TESTING FOR GHOSTS INSTEAD OF UFOs? Newly released government-contractor documents reveal an extraordinary experiment conducted at Skinwalker Ranch in 2009. Investigators working for Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), under a Pentagon-funded aerospace research program, devised experiments involving mathematical puzzles placed inside locked containers. The keys to one proposed experiment were to remain in Las Vegas. Another involved boxes containing the Fibonacci sequence, reportedly positioned at two locations on the ranch. The objective? To determine whether an unknown intelligence would recognize the challenge and physically rearrange the pieces. Think about that. This wasn’t an experiment measuring UFO propulsion, radar signatures, or advanced aerospace technology. It was an attempt to communicate with something unseen by challenging it to solve a mathematical puzzle. The approach bears a striking resemblance to experiments conducted decades earlier by parapsychologists investigating alleged poltergeist activity. But it raises some fascinating questions. Who designed these experiments? Where were the scientific controls? Why would an unknown intelligence cooperate with investigators? And what happened when the boxes were recovered? The newly released reports document the experiment but do not provide a verified outcome. I’m examining the original BAASS records, the historical precedents, and the implications for understanding what the Pentagon’s contractor was actually investigating. 👉🏼 Coming soon to The UAP Convergence: "Skinwalker Ranch: Was the Pentagon Testing for Poltergeists Instead of UFOs?" A document-based investigation into locked puzzles, unseen intelligence, and the unanswered questions behind one of AAWSAP’s strangest experiments.

The Pentagon officially released Bigelow’s 141-page Tic Tac study. What did investigators actually discover? ••••••••••••••• The Pentagon’s Tic Tac study reveals extraordinary flight estimates—but where are the original Navy radar recordings? My latest article examines PURSUE's 7th Tranche release of Bigelow's Tic-Tac study conducted by BAASS for the Defense Intelligence Agency. theuapconvergence.substack.c…

The Pentagon officially released Bigelow’s 141-page Tic Tac study. What did investigators actually discover? ••••••••••••••• The Pentagon’s Tic Tac study reveals extraordinary flight estimates—but where are the original Navy radar recordings? My latest article examines PURSUE's 7th Tranche release of Bigelow's Tic-Tac study conducted by BAASS for the Defense Intelligence Agency. theuapconvergence.substack.c…

JACQUES VALLÉE BUILT A UFO DATABASE WITH 234,000 REPORTS. JAY STRATTON USED IT. WHERE IS IT NOW? The Pentagon’s latest UAP document release has revealed something more interesting than administrative paperwork. Project Capella. Under the Defense Intelligence Agency’s AAWSAP program, legendary UFO researcher and computer scientist Jacques Vallée helped develop a massive UFO research database. A March 2009 BAASS report lists approximately 234,364 UFO reports, assembled from historical and contemporary collections, including Project Blue Book, MUFON, UFOCAT, and NIDS. These were database entries—not 234,364 verified unexplained encounters. But here’s where the story gets interesting. In a September 2026 interview with Ross Coulthart, Vallée discussed his role in developing the data warehouse. He explained that its initial phase was completed, while more advanced analytical work was never fully implemented. Then, during an October 21 WEAPONIZED interview, former UAP Task Force director Jay Stratton confirmed that he obtained a copy of Vallée’s database and used it as a starting resource for subsequent government investigations. Think about that. The database was developed, delivered, and subsequently used by another government UAP investigative effort. Yet the public still hasn’t been given access to the underlying collection. Where is Project Capella today? Does the Defense Intelligence Agency still possess the original database? Does the government retain Stratton’s copy? Were its contents expanded, analyzed, or incorporated into later UAP investigations? And perhaps most importantly, what did investigators learn from it? The latest government release documents the existence and development of this substantial research resource. But releasing project descriptions is not the same as releasing the underlying data or analytical findings. Its contents may include duplicates, conventional explanations, and reports of varying reliability. That is precisely why access for independent researchers would be valuable. After decades of government UAP investigations, shouldn’t we be able to examine the research databases taxpayers helped fund? We know Project Capella existed. We have firsthand testimony that it was used. Now let’s see what became of it. The UAP Convergence REFERENCES DOW-UAP-D167, Project Capella, December 2008. DOW-UAP-D169, BAASS Monthly Report, March 2009. Jacques Vallée interview with Ross Coulthart, September 2026. WEAPONIZED, October 21, 2026, Jay Stratton interview, approximately 34:21–34:46. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document release, Tranche 7, October 23, 2026.

JACQUES VALLÉE BUILT A UFO DATABASE WITH 234,000 REPORTS. JAY STRATTON USED IT. WHERE IS IT NOW? The Pentagon’s latest UAP document release has revealed something more interesting than administrative paperwork. Project Capella. Under the Defense Intelligence Agency’s AAWSAP program, legendary UFO researcher and computer scientist Jacques Vallée helped develop a massive UFO research database. A March 2009 BAASS report lists approximately 234,364 UFO reports, assembled from historical and contemporary collections, including Project Blue Book, MUFON, UFOCAT, and NIDS. These were database entries—not 234,364 verified unexplained encounters. But here’s where the story gets interesting. In a September 2026 interview with Ross Coulthart, Vallée discussed his role in developing the data warehouse. He explained that its initial phase was completed, while more advanced analytical work was never fully implemented. Then, during an October 21 WEAPONIZED interview, former UAP Task Force director Jay Stratton confirmed that he obtained a copy of Vallée’s database and used it as a starting resource for subsequent government investigations. Think about that. The database was developed, delivered, and subsequently used by another government UAP investigative effort. Yet the public still hasn’t been given access to the underlying collection. Where is Project Capella today? Does the Defense Intelligence Agency still possess the original database? Does the government retain Stratton’s copy? Were its contents expanded, analyzed, or incorporated into later UAP investigations? And perhaps most importantly, what did investigators learn from it? The latest government release documents the existence and development of this substantial research resource. But releasing project descriptions is not the same as releasing the underlying data or analytical findings. Its contents may include duplicates, conventional explanations, and reports of varying reliability. That is precisely why access for independent researchers would be valuable. After decades of government UAP investigations, shouldn’t we be able to examine the research databases taxpayers helped fund? We know Project Capella existed. We have firsthand testimony that it was used. Now let’s see what became of it. The UAP Convergence REFERENCES DOW-UAP-D167, Project Capella, December 2008. DOW-UAP-D169, BAASS Monthly Report, March 2009. Jacques Vallée interview with Ross Coulthart, September 2026. WEAPONIZED, October 21, 2026, Jay Stratton interview, approximately 34:21–34:46. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document release, Tranche 7, October 23, 2026.

WHERE ARE THE NAVY’S USO REPORTS? Seven tranches of government UAP files have now been released under PURSUE, including the latest on October 23. Yet detailed historical reports of unidentified submerged objects (USOs) and possible underwater facilities remain conspicuously underrepresented in the public releases. Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet has discussed Navy witnesses reporting objects entering and leaving the ocean, extraordinary underwater sonar contacts, and intelligence suggesting recurring activity in several ocean regions. More recently, on Joe Rogan’s September 30 podcast, David Grusch described what he believes are enormous underwater operational facilities, some spanning multiple city blocks, where objects reportedly come and go. These remain extraordinary, unverified claims. But Navy encounters with unidentified objects are hardly new. Consider the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42), which accumulated multiple reports: 1950–53: A sailor near Guantánamo Bay reported a bright object repeatedly accelerating, stopping, and changing direction. September 20, 1952: During NATO’s Operation Mainbrace, a silvery spherical object was observed and photographed. A balloon explanation was offered. July 25–26, 1956: Near Rio de Janeiro, Chief Warrant Officer John Hau reported a cigar-shaped object with white lights, apparently tracked by shipboard radar, that rapidly departed. July 26, 1956: Radar technician Lee Treadwell described two illuminated discs hovering above one another. One reportedly released a luminous object toward the other before both departed at tremendous speed. September–October 1958: Chester Grusinski reported a glowing cigar-shaped craft, approximately 75–100 feet long, approaching the carrier near Cuba. He claimed to see silhouettes through its windows. [see illustration] January 10, 1961: Shipboard radar reportedly tracked an extremely fast target. Project Blue Book attributed it to a missile test. These are historical reports, not proof of nonhuman technology. Nor are they confirmed underwater encounters. But they demonstrate how far back the Navy’s reported anomalous encounters extend. If there are credible Navy records of objects operating beneath the oceans, why are we not seeing more of them in the disclosure process? And if the underwater facilities described by Grusch exist, what evidence has been collected, and who controls it? The UAP Convergence —

WHERE ARE THE NAVY’S USO REPORTS? Seven tranches of government UAP files have now been released under PURSUE, including the latest on October 23. Yet detailed historical reports of unidentified submerged objects (USOs) and possible underwater facilities remain conspicuously underrepresented in the public releases. Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet has discussed Navy witnesses reporting objects entering and leaving the ocean, extraordinary underwater sonar contacts, and intelligence suggesting recurring activity in several ocean regions. More recently, on Joe Rogan’s September 30 podcast, David Grusch described what he believes are enormous underwater operational facilities, some spanning multiple city blocks, where objects reportedly come and go. These remain extraordinary, unverified claims. But Navy encounters with unidentified objects are hardly new. Consider the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42), which accumulated multiple reports: 1950–53: A sailor near Guantánamo Bay reported a bright object repeatedly accelerating, stopping, and changing direction. September 20, 1952: During NATO’s Operation Mainbrace, a silvery spherical object was observed and photographed. A balloon explanation was offered. July 25–26, 1956: Near Rio de Janeiro, Chief Warrant Officer John Hau reported a cigar-shaped object with white lights, apparently tracked by shipboard radar, that rapidly departed. July 26, 1956: Radar technician Lee Treadwell described two illuminated discs hovering above one another. One reportedly released a luminous object toward the other before both departed at tremendous speed. September–October 1958: Chester Grusinski reported a glowing cigar-shaped craft, approximately 75–100 feet long, approaching the carrier near Cuba. He claimed to see silhouettes through its windows. [see illustration] January 10, 1961: Shipboard radar reportedly tracked an extremely fast target. Project Blue Book attributed it to a missile test. These are historical reports, not proof of nonhuman technology. Nor are they confirmed underwater encounters. But they demonstrate how far back the Navy’s reported anomalous encounters extend. If there are credible Navy records of objects operating beneath the oceans, why are we not seeing more of them in the disclosure process? And if the underwater facilities described by Grusch exist, what evidence has been collected, and who controls it? The UAP Convergence —

THE GOVERNMENT RELEASED MORE SKINWALKER RANCH FILES. BUT WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE? About two weeks ago, we reported that Robert Bigelow had announced that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had located an inventory of records associated with the government’s AAWSAP investigation. That was potentially significant news. For years, Bigelow and others involved in the program have described extraordinary investigations involving unidentified aerial phenomena, unusual creatures, and other apparently anomalous activity. Now, in the government’s seventh UAP document release, additional AAWSAP/BAASS records have appeared. But there’s a problem. Much of what has been released consists of administrative paperwork: contract details, project schedules, reporting requirements, progress reports, and other documentation explaining how the program was organized and managed. That may be government transparency, but it’s not the kind of disclosure most people have been waiting for. People aren’t particularly interested in how contractors were paid or when their reports were due. They want to know what investigators actually discovered. One newly released April 2010 Skinwalker Ranch investigation report does contain field observations and laboratory results. Hair samples associated with reports of unusual creatures were identified as ordinary animals, including dogs and a raccoon. Electromagnetic measurements were also documented, although the report does not establish an extraordinary source. Those findings are worth examining. But they hardly represent the compelling scientific evidence that many have anticipated. So here’s the question. Are these releases part of the larger AAWSAP records collection that Bigelow said the DIA had located, or is that material still awaiting release? We shouldn’t assume the government has released everything it possesses. Nor should we assume that unreleased files necessarily contain extraordinary evidence. But after years of remarkable claims, the public deserves more than administrative paperwork. We need the actual investigative reports, photographs, recordings, instrument readings, laboratory analyses, and supporting data—whatever those results ultimately show. Disclosure should tell us not merely what the government paid to investigate, but what its investigators found. The UAP Convergence REFERENCES Robert Bigelow interview with George Knapp, October 7, 2026, discussing the DIA’s reported discovery of an AAWSAP document inventory. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document releases, Tranches 6 and 7, October 2026. DOW-UAP-D174, Utah Ranch Investigation Report, April 2010. AARO, Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, Volume I, March 2024.

THE GOVERNMENT RELEASED MORE SKINWALKER RANCH FILES. BUT WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE? About two weeks ago, we reported that Robert Bigelow had announced that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had located an inventory of records associated with the government’s AAWSAP investigation. That was potentially significant news. For years, Bigelow and others involved in the program have described extraordinary investigations involving unidentified aerial phenomena, unusual creatures, and other apparently anomalous activity. Now, in the government’s seventh UAP document release, additional AAWSAP/BAASS records have appeared. But there’s a problem. Much of what has been released consists of administrative paperwork: contract details, project schedules, reporting requirements, progress reports, and other documentation explaining how the program was organized and managed. That may be government transparency, but it’s not the kind of disclosure most people have been waiting for. People aren’t particularly interested in how contractors were paid or when their reports were due. They want to know what investigators actually discovered. One newly released April 2010 Skinwalker Ranch investigation report does contain field observations and laboratory results. Hair samples associated with reports of unusual creatures were identified as ordinary animals, including dogs and a raccoon. Electromagnetic measurements were also documented, although the report does not establish an extraordinary source. Those findings are worth examining. But they hardly represent the compelling scientific evidence that many have anticipated. So here’s the question. Are these releases part of the larger AAWSAP records collection that Bigelow said the DIA had located, or is that material still awaiting release? We shouldn’t assume the government has released everything it possesses. Nor should we assume that unreleased files necessarily contain extraordinary evidence. But after years of remarkable claims, the public deserves more than administrative paperwork. We need the actual investigative reports, photographs, recordings, instrument readings, laboratory analyses, and supporting data—whatever those results ultimately show. Disclosure should tell us not merely what the government paid to investigate, but what its investigators found. The UAP Convergence REFERENCES Robert Bigelow interview with George Knapp, October 7, 2026, discussing the DIA’s reported discovery of an AAWSAP document inventory. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document releases, Tranches 6 and 7, October 2026. DOW-UAP-D174, Utah Ranch Investigation Report, April 2010. AARO, Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, Volume I, March 2024.

A 15-FOOT BLACK TRIANGLE NEAR A SENSITIVE U.S. FACILITY. BUT WHO BUILT IT? Newly released FBI and Pentagon records describe an extraordinary 2026 encounter involving three federal agents observing a small, matte-black triangular craft near a sensitive government observation site. The object reportedly measured just 9–15 feet across, 6–9 feet long, and only 1–2 feet thick. Its surface appeared seamless, with no visible cockpit, control surfaces, exhaust, or propulsion components. According to AARO’s report, the craft rose vertically approximately 200–300 feet above a ridgeline, hovered motionless for about 20 seconds, then accelerated into a rapid, banking descent through a canyon. The entire maneuver was reportedly silent. A handheld thermal instrument detected the object but revealed no concentrated engine heat or exhaust signature. What caught my attention was its unusually small size. Many historical triangular UAP reports, including those from the Belgian UFO wave, describe considerably larger craft, often displaying prominent lights at their corners. This one was small, black, featureless, and apparently unilluminated. Could we be looking at different technologies—and perhaps different operators? Consider another possibility: What if some smaller triangular UAP are advanced human-engineered surveillance platforms? If American adversaries have developed exotic propulsion technology, whether independently or through attempts to reverse-engineer alleged recovered nonhuman technology, such vehicles could offer extraordinary reconnaissance capabilities. They might collect intelligence near sensitive installations, test American detection systems, or deliberately create uncertainty among military personnel. An adversary wouldn’t necessarily need to attack an installation. Demonstrating an ability to penetrate its security undetected could itself serve a strategic purpose. Such vehicles might also operate autonomously or through remote communications, without pilots physically aboard. But we must distinguish observation from explanation. The witnesses compared the object’s apparent speed to a fighter jet, yet AARO explicitly states that no instrumented speed measurement was obtained. There’s also an important discrepancy: the FBI report describes approximately three seconds as the total sighting duration, while AARO describes roughly 30 seconds of ascent and hovering before a two-to-three-second departure. Neither report establishes antigravity propulsion, foreign manufacture, or nonhuman origin. Nevertheless, the encounter raises an intriguing possibility: Could some small triangular UAP represent exotic human technology, while the much larger triangles reported for decades belong to an entirely different category? We recently published a more extensive investigation into triangular UAP, comparing historical sightings, reported flight characteristics, and possible propulsion explanations. Read my investigation at The UAP Convergence on Substack. substack.com/@theuapconverge… REFERENCES Federal Bureau of Investigation, Unidentified Aerial Object Observation Report, FD-302, FBI-UAP-D043 (2026), pp. 1–2. All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Witness Debrief: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Observation, DOW-UAP-D176 (2026), pp. 1–3. TriangleSketch.pdf, nine-page visual reconstruction accompanying the released case materials. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document release, October 23, 2026.

A 15-FOOT BLACK TRIANGLE NEAR A SENSITIVE U.S. FACILITY. BUT WHO BUILT IT? Newly released FBI and Pentagon records describe an extraordinary 2026 encounter involving three federal agents observing a small, matte-black triangular craft near a sensitive government observation site. The object reportedly measured just 9–15 feet across, 6–9 feet long, and only 1–2 feet thick. Its surface appeared seamless, with no visible cockpit, control surfaces, exhaust, or propulsion components. According to AARO’s report, the craft rose vertically approximately 200–300 feet above a ridgeline, hovered motionless for about 20 seconds, then accelerated into a rapid, banking descent through a canyon. The entire maneuver was reportedly silent. A handheld thermal instrument detected the object but revealed no concentrated engine heat or exhaust signature. What caught my attention was its unusually small size. Many historical triangular UAP reports, including those from the Belgian UFO wave, describe considerably larger craft, often displaying prominent lights at their corners. This one was small, black, featureless, and apparently unilluminated. Could we be looking at different technologies—and perhaps different operators? Consider another possibility: What if some smaller triangular UAP are advanced human-engineered surveillance platforms? If American adversaries have developed exotic propulsion technology, whether independently or through attempts to reverse-engineer alleged recovered nonhuman technology, such vehicles could offer extraordinary reconnaissance capabilities. They might collect intelligence near sensitive installations, test American detection systems, or deliberately create uncertainty among military personnel. An adversary wouldn’t necessarily need to attack an installation. Demonstrating an ability to penetrate its security undetected could itself serve a strategic purpose. Such vehicles might also operate autonomously or through remote communications, without pilots physically aboard. But we must distinguish observation from explanation. The witnesses compared the object’s apparent speed to a fighter jet, yet AARO explicitly states that no instrumented speed measurement was obtained. There’s also an important discrepancy: the FBI report describes approximately three seconds as the total sighting duration, while AARO describes roughly 30 seconds of ascent and hovering before a two-to-three-second departure. Neither report establishes antigravity propulsion, foreign manufacture, or nonhuman origin. Nevertheless, the encounter raises an intriguing possibility: Could some small triangular UAP represent exotic human technology, while the much larger triangles reported for decades belong to an entirely different category? We recently published a more extensive investigation into triangular UAP, comparing historical sightings, reported flight characteristics, and possible propulsion explanations. Read my investigation at The UAP Convergence on Substack. substack.com/@theuapconverge… REFERENCES Federal Bureau of Investigation, Unidentified Aerial Object Observation Report, FD-302, FBI-UAP-D043 (2026), pp. 1–2. All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Witness Debrief: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Observation, DOW-UAP-D176 (2026), pp. 1–3. TriangleSketch.pdf, nine-page visual reconstruction accompanying the released case materials. Department of Defense, PURSUE UAP document release, October 23, 2026.

ELIZONDO SAYS TWO CIA OFFICERS LEAKED GRUSCH’S INFORMATION. BUT WHO ACTUALLY RELEASED IT? In this video, Luis Elizondo makes a remarkable allegation about what happened after David Grusch testified before Congress in July 2023. Elizondo claims that two CIA officers apparently leaked Grusch’s medical information and attempted to use his PTSD against him. But the documented story is more complicated. On August 9, 2023, The Intercept published information from police incident reports obtained through a Virginia FOIA request to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office. The records were supplied by the sheriff’s office—not demonstrably leaked to the journalist by CIA officers. However, journalist Ken Klippenstein subsequently acknowledged that intelligence-community contacts had encouraged him to investigate Grusch’s encounters with law enforcement. So who were those contacts? Were they CIA officers? And did they deliberately direct a journalist toward sensitive personal information to undermine a congressional whistleblower? Grusch sued the sheriff’s office over the release. His lawsuit was dismissed at the trial-court level in 2025, and he appealed. Now consider Jay Stratton’s warnings about bad actors, misinformation, and efforts to undermine the credibility of UAP witnesses. Elizondo’s allegation deserves examination—not automatic acceptance or dismissal. A journalist obtaining police records through a public-records request is one documented event. Intelligence personnel potentially directing that journalist toward damaging personal information is another. The question is not merely who released the records. It’s who wanted them exposed—and why. The UAP Convergence

ELIZONDO SAYS TWO CIA OFFICERS LEAKED GRUSCH’S INFORMATION. BUT WHO ACTUALLY RELEASED IT? In this video, Luis Elizondo makes a remarkable allegation about what happened after David Grusch testified before Congress in July 2023. Elizondo claims that two CIA officers apparently leaked Grusch’s medical information and attempted to use his PTSD against him. But the documented story is more complicated. On August 9, 2023, The Intercept published information from police incident reports obtained through a Virginia FOIA request to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office. The records were supplied by the sheriff’s office—not demonstrably leaked to the journalist by CIA officers. However, journalist Ken Klippenstein subsequently acknowledged that intelligence-community contacts had encouraged him to investigate Grusch’s encounters with law enforcement. So who were those contacts? Were they CIA officers? And did they deliberately direct a journalist toward sensitive personal information to undermine a congressional whistleblower? Grusch sued the sheriff’s office over the release. His lawsuit was dismissed at the trial-court level in 2025, and he appealed. Now consider Jay Stratton’s warnings about bad actors, misinformation, and efforts to undermine the credibility of UAP witnesses. Elizondo’s allegation deserves examination—not automatic acceptance or dismissal. A journalist obtaining police records through a public-records request is one documented event. Intelligence personnel potentially directing that journalist toward damaging personal information is another. The question is not merely who released the records. It’s who wanted them exposed—and why.