World UFOs

🔥 A hot topic on @Polymarket The market “Trump declassifies UFO files in 2025” is on track to resolve YES — even though the Trump administration hasn’t declassified anything. SO No UFO disclosure… but the market still resolves “YES”? What is going on? UMA, the decentralized oracle that settles Polymarket disputes, is now in final review, and the market still trades around 96%. Here’s the quick breakdown 👇 --------------------------------------------- Understanding UMA, disputes, and whether whales can influence outcomes Prediction markets need a neutral referee. On Polymarket, that’s UMA, a decentralized oracle that decides outcomes when there’s disagreement. How it works: Anyone can propose a resolution by staking $750 If unchallenged for 2 hours → it becomes final If disputed, the challenger posts another $750, and the case escalates During escalation, there’s a 24–48h debate period. Evidence is shared in UMA’s Discord. Arguments fly. Anyone can contribute. Then, UMA token holders vote — a decentralized jury deciding the final outcome. Possible results: ✔️ Proposer wins ✔️ Disputer wins ✔️ “Too Early” ✔️ “Unknown / 50-50” ------------------------------- Now, the UFO example A proposer submitted “YES”, claiming that AARO (a DoD office) released “newly declassified” UAP files in September 2025 — and that this counts as meeting the market rules. The debate exploded: YES side: – AARO labeled the files “newly declassified” – Release happened under the Trump administration – Files relate to UAP/UFO phenomena NO side: – Routine DoD release, not initiated by Trump – Does not satisfy “Trump administration declassifies” – Not clearly tied to extraterrestrial life The proposal was disputed twice. Now UMA is in final review. --------------------------------------- Can this be manipulated? Yes and no. Whales holding large amounts of UMA can influence the result — and some have already signaled support for “YES.” But influencing a vote requires staking real tokens and taking real economic risk. If UMA begins resolving markets unfairly, the token's credibility (and price) collapses. So the system is decentralized and incentive-aligned… …but not completely immune to whale power dynamics. docs.polymarket.com

According ot multiple sources "Age of Disclosure" is finally coming to Prime Video by November/December 2025. (via tomsguide.com)

BRAVO to @billmaher and @VanJones68 for a *SUPERB* discussion on UAP: Jones: "I am into it!" "I would do wall-to-wall coverage of these generals [having to] say 'There is weird stuff we don't know what [it] is.'" Maher: "It looks like we're, at very least, under surveillance."

CONGRESSIONAL UAP UPDATE: UAP DISCLOSURE ACT AGAIN FALLS BY THE WAYSIDE On Sept. 29, 2025, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) said on the Senate floor that the Senate Democratic leadership had not yet responded to "a second managers' package" that all Republican senators had already approved for the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, S. 2296). "Second managers' package" refers to a proposed list of amendments that, with agreement from both parties, would be added to the NDAA without separate floor votes. I confirmed today that the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act (UAPDA)(Senate Amendment 3111) did NOT make it into this proposed managers' amendment package. Thus, it appears that the UAPDA did not achieve consensus support or acquiescence on the Republican side. I do not know the details regarding the impediment(s). Since the House of Representatives already passed its version of NDAA (H.R. 3838) on Sept. 10 with no UAP language, this means that the UAPDA will not be enacted as part of this year's final NDAA. (S. 2296 contains a couple of other modest UAP-related provisions, and two others are found in the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the bill; I reported in detail on the bill language and report language on July 16 and July 19, respectively.) In 2023 the UAPDA cleared the Senate as part of a consensus managers' package (with no separate vote), but it did not survive negotiations in conference committee with the House. In 2024 the UAPDA was not included in the package that Senate NDAA managers carried to negotiations with the House. Douglas Dean Johnson

👽🔥New Blumenthal: Bodies & Craft👽🔥 "We've gotten many accounts from people...who have intelligence credentials. They say...they put their hands on craft. They have, in some cases, seen alien bodies." ~RB, Award-Winning NYT Reporter from 1964 to 2009 Q: "Do you think the USG - or defense contractors - is in possession of craft, not of this Earth?" RB: "Yes, I think the accounts are credible." ~This interview was uploaded to YT two days ago~ H/T: @Neil__Goodman ~ Marco Vig: "You had published, probably, the most sensational line in New York Times history. It was a quote by astrophysicist, Eric W. Davis. And he said he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department agency, as recently as March, about retrievals from off-world vehicles not made on this Earth. Have you spoken to, either on background, off-the-record, with firsthand witnesses for the United States government and other defense contractors, who have said that they themselves have seen a UFO or a non-human, so-called biologic?" @ralphblu: "Um. Yes, to answer your question directly, we have. @lesliekean and I have talked to a lot of people. We don't always write about it because it doesn't reach the standard of proof and disclosure that we require, and the New York Times requires, particularly in terms of named sources. And we were pretty, you know, insistent on quoting named sources and not anonymous sources because they don't carry the same weight. "And, you know, the one thing we're proudest of in our 2017 article and our subsequent reporting, especially for The Times, is that it was all on the record. You know, we didn't have unnamed sources that you can't verify. We quoted, you know, top intelligence people with their names and their credentials, their bona fides, so people know whether to trust them or not. "So to answer your question, yes, we've gotten many accounts from people who say...who claim to be in the know, they have intelligence credentials. They say they have seen craft with their own eyes, they put their hands on craft. They have, in some cases, seen alien bodies, but not to the point where we can verify that information. So, we don't report on it. "In some cases, we find them credible, in other cases, we cannot assess their credibility because we lack certain evidence. Now, in the case of the military experts that we like to quote, we do find them credible because we have their, you know, their credibility on record. We have the awards they've won, their military record, which is why we like to quote military experts and people in the government and Pentagon officials more than we like to quote random people. "Because the Pentagon people and the pilots, for example, who we've quoted, have a proven record of credibility. I mean, the government would not entrust mentally unstable people with multi-million dollar equipment to fly, you know, these fighter jets. So people like Dave Fravor, you know, have a built in credibility, yes. But we assess everyone's credibility separately. "So, before we'll take anyone's account, like David Grusch, who was a witness before Congress, who had a very sensational account of work he did on UAP, and things he says he knew about UAP, including, he says, alien bodies. That, again, he didn't have the proof, physical proof, of these bodies, but he says that they were found, that they existed in wreckage of UFOs. And given his record of credibility in the military, his statements ought to be taken seriously, we found. So that's the answer. We check out everybody we quote, and certain people who we do quote have very high levels of credibility." ~Most Important Grusch Quote~ Q: Have they actually seen the vehicles? Grusch: "The individuals I interviewed that I directed to the Inspector General? Yes, they have the firsthand experiences, yes." (Have any of those folks claimed that they touched a craft or saw a body with their own eyes, in person?) x.com/TheUfoJoe/stat… ~ Marco: "Do you think the United States government - or defense contractors - is in possession of craft, not of this Earth?" Blumenthal: "We have been told that. So, yes, I think the accounts are credible. You know, one of the problems is that the Freedom of Information Act, which allows journalists and the public to request government records, does not apply to private corporations. So, I can't go to Lockheed and say, you know, 'Can you disclose this and this record about a, supposed, you know, UFO that you retrieved or that you've been given possession of?' "I can make that request of the government, not always, you know, successfully, but at least they are...the Freedom of Information Law, FOIA, does apply to the government, it doesn't apply to private industry. So I've collected a lot of accounts that companies, aerospace companies, are the ultimate repository of some of this off-world material. But you cannot confirm it. You know, you cannot prove it."

🇩🇰 The Prime Minister of Denmark just addressed the nation, admitting she does not know what the UFOs invading the country are. China—or non-human intelligences—pitting us against each other? We’ve seen them trigger missile launches in the USSR, perhaps to blame the U.S.

DRONE Video 22/09/2025 of alleged drone over Copenhagen Airport. DENMARK. H/T @ChrisUKSharp 🙏 Source: nrk.no/urix/droner-st…

Below is the video I revealed in our @GOPoversight UAP hearing today, made available to the public for the first time. October 30th, 2024: MQ-9 Reaper allegedly tracking orb off coast of Yemen. Greenlight given to engage, missile appears to be ineffective against the target. **Footage presented as received from a whistleblower. Independent review is ongoing.**

VARIANT VERSIONS OF THE UAP DISCLOSURE ACT ARE NOW "ELIGIBLE" FOR ACTION IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER In the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Eric Burlison (R-MO) today (August 28, 2025) filed a version of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) at the House Rules Committee as a proposed amendment to the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 3838). This means that in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, variant versions of the UAPDA have been introduced and are "eligible" for approval by their respective houses in September. The version filed by Rep. Burlison today in most respects is substantively the same as the language previously seen in 2023 and 2024, creating a temporary federal agency and board that would gather UAP-related records and materials for orderly public disclosure. However, Burlison's amendment does NOT contain the opening 11 paragraphs of "findings, declarations, and purposes" that have been part of the earlier versions, and that remain part of the UAPDA version pending in the Senate. Those paragraphs contain some of the language that has excited the most commentary in ufological circles since initial unveiling of the UAPDA in July 2023. This includes five declarations beginning with the phrase "legislation is necessary because...," which include references to restoring "proper oversight over unidentified anomalous phenomena records by elected officials" and overriding overly rigid classification practices. Links to the complete current House and Senate versions of the UAPDA are included in the replies below. Rep. Burlison filing his amendment with the Rules Committee does NOT ensure that it will be voted on by the full House of Representatives. The House Rules Committee will decide in early September which amendments will be made "in order," meaning eligible for consideration on the House floor. So far, 938 amendments to H.R. 3838 have been filed at the Rules Committee, with more expected. Only a fraction of these will be made in order for consideration when the full House takes up H.R. 3838, which is likely to be the week of September 8. Of those amendments that the Rules Committee does make in order, some will be accepted without a vote by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) and other committee leaders. Some of the more controversial "in order" amendments will be accepted or rejected on separate roll call votes. I would expect that if the UAPDA becomes part of the House NDAA it will occur because the chairman accepts it, in which case it will be wrapped into a bloc of amendments that will be adopted by a voice vote. In other words, I would be surprised to see the Burlison UAPDA amendment receive a separate roll call vote. No amendment explicitly referring to UAP or UFOs has ever been the subject of a stand-alone roll call vote on the floor of either house of Congress. Also, contrary to some mythologies, the UAPDA language has never been the subject of a recorded vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee or in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The U.S. Senate will begin consideration of its version of NDAA (S. 2296) with an initial procedural vote on Tuesday, September 2 at 5:30 PM EDT. So far, 649 proposed amendments to S. 2296 have been filed, with more filings expected. Most of those amendments will never be voted on and will not become part of the bill. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) filed their version of the UAPDA as an amendment (SA 3111) to the Senate NDAA (S. 2296) on July 29, as I reported at the time. Once the Senate takes up S. 2296, I expect that agreements will be reached behind the scenes that will simply incorporate into the NDAA a list or lists of amendments, without separate debates or votes on the Senate floor. That is the way in which the UAPDA became part of the NDAA and cleared the Senate in July 2023 (no floor debate, no separate vote). As in the House, I would be surprised to see the UAPDA become the subject of any extended debate or a roll call vote on the Senate floor. If neither the House nor the Senate includes the UAPDA in the NDAA version that it passes in September, the UAPDA is dead. If the UAPDA makes it into the NDAA version passed by only one house, then it will be a matter for negotiation between House and Senate conferees, as it was in 2023, when core elements were dropped. However, if both the Schumer-Rounds AND Burlison amendments clear their respective houses, the likelihood of inclusion of the core provisions in the final enacted NDAA would increase very sharply-- but still not be guaranteed. Civic-book diagrams to the contrary notwithstanding, a conference committee can make changes either large or small, including complete rewrites in some cases. The version of H.R. 3838 approved by the House Armed Services Committee on July 9 does not contain any significant new UAP-related language. The version of S. 2296 approved the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 15 contains three very modest UAP-related provisions. In addition, the Senate committee's official report on the bill (Senate Report 119-39) contains two interesting directives pertaining to the operations of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). I have previously reported on both the UAP-related bill language and the UAP-related report language associated with the Senate bill (see the posts in my X timeline for July 16 and July 19, respectively). The complete text of the Burlison UAPDA amendment (no. 925 on the House Rules Committee list on amendments to H.R. 3838) can be downloaded through the link in the first reply. The complete text of the Schumer-Rounds UAPDA amendment (Senate Amendment 3111 to S. 2296) can be downloaded from the link in the second reply.

A press release from the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee says the panel is "investigating organized efforts, undertaken in violation of Wikipedia platform rules, to influence U.S. public opinion on important and sensitive topics by manipulating Wikipedia articles...to determine the role and methods of foreign individuals, those at academic institutions subsidized by United States taxpayer dollars, as well as Wikipedia’s awareness and response."

Immaculate Constellation author Matthew Brown: "The question was no longer whether UAP were real, but what they were, where they came from, what they wanted — and why so much of the truth remained locked away from humanity. It was evident that the full picture was reserved for a small, privileged caste; the rest of us are expected to remain ignorant." When it comes to UFO disclosure, I can honestly say we're at the point of no return. ↗️ sunofabramelin.substack.com/p/my-journey-t… #ufo #uap #ovni

🚨 REP. LUNA: "Based on our investigations ... there is definitely something that would rival what we know currently with physics ... They call them interdimensional beings ... It's really changing the way we understand the origins of life and the spiritual reality that we know."

Here is real progress in the #UAP disclosure arena - my letter to the White House Science Advisor on behalf of the Sol Foundation recommending UAP research become a national R&D priority. Even better if his office takes it onboard!

Skywatcher Community 🧵, The Skywatcher team is continuing to aggressively collect data and move through the process outlined in the Discovery Framework. We've now engaged multiple high-quality independent third-party groups to provide a thorough scientific analysis.

The UAP Disclosure Act has been filed by @SenSchumer @SenatorRounds and @SenGillibrand as possible inclusion into NDAA.

UAP HEARING DELAYED TO SEPTEMBER On June 26, @realannapaulina told @AskaPol_uaps her Federal Secrets Task Force would hold a public hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena "in July." An Oversight Committee aide today told me it will be in September. askapoluaps.com/p/public-uap-h…

@richgel999 Richard - if not advanced human propulsion tech, what do you think about the idea of the 2004 Nimitz TicTac being attributed to an advanced multi-sensor deception system such as Navy’s NEMESIS or previously disclosed Project Palladium?

The TicTak UAP is a vehicle capable of instant 5,000+ G's. Such a platform is so paradigm changing and revolutionary that the US would immediately be able to dominate the entire planet, the Moon, etc. It's not happening.

@AlchemyAmerican Maybe NEMESIS as opposed to an advanced propulsion technology? mysterywire.com/ufo/navys-neme…

Anyone have good evidence or sources for this?

@SicCoP1 Maybe an advanced spoofing system as opposed to a new propulsion technology. Something like the alleged NEMESIS program. mysterywire.com/ufo/navys-neme…

If we truly have cracked a new type of propulsion or made some kind of massive technological leap, we have wasted literally TRILLIONS of dollars over the decades on outdated stuff, including on things in development that won’t be out for more than 10 years. I doubt it.

💥Breaking News💥 Ross Coulthart : "I now know categorically that the tic-tac is Lockheed Martin technology." sentinelnews.substack.com/p/ross-coultha… ⬆️ #ufotwitter