Explore the accounts, documents and research behind UFOs and UAP.
We add newly reviewed sources as they are ready. Not all of our research is public yet.
381 sources so far
The Disclosure Foundation recaps Mellon’s views on data release and reported institutional contacts. It also relays an explicitly unverified officers’ account; original statements, records and the interview recording were not reviewed.
Complete supplied institutional recap; interview unreviewedLoeb says he invited John Birks to a council Zoom discussion about a dust-cloud hypothesis. Birks’ concessions and Hanson/Claude criticisms are relayed without original correspondence. Loeb expressly says public UAP data remains unresolved.
Supplied author text readNolan and colleagues analyze connectivity-based brain-region proxies in 170 psychosis and control participants. Figures help clarify reported associations while exposing caption errors; the study has no UAP-exposure group.
Paper text, figures and supplements readLoeb’s author-hosted Newsmax dialogue recounts advisory-council tasking and a request for data and possible materials. The discussion describes intended analysis, with the existence and delivery of materials still conditional.
Supplied author interview text readLoeb recalls an unnamed messenger visiting his home and subsequent conversations while assembling a council. He says he has not seen extraordinary evidence and allows the government may have nothing. The later host-only discussion says formal White House recognition is not yet established.
Supplied interview and host commentary readLoeb says multiple U.S. agencies tasked him with assembling a fifteen-member UAP science council. He specifies unclassified council data, a proposed higher governance board and an undecided meeting schedule. The original request and appointment records remain missing; his account does not establish classified access or material custody.
Complete supplied public essay text; official records unreviewedSharp attributes a statement about interagency UAP coordination to an unnamed ODNI official and prints selected charter excerpts. The article also connects Loeb’s science council to the board. These reported roles concern investigation and declassification coordination; they do not establish completed access to classified material or recovered technology.
Complete supplied article and offered images; official originals unreviewedLoeb reports tasking to form a science council and lists members in the current exposed post. He also gives his own television quotation and a secondary report summary. The account does not demonstrate a formal appointment, classified access or material receipt.
Supplied author text readAn exploratory oncology study examines antibody distribution and tissue organization in small, nested patient cohorts. Several nominal associations weaken after statistical correction or patient sensitivity checks. Alternate measurement on the same tissues adds a different method, without independent patient replication or proven clinical benefit.
Supplied manuscript, figures and supplement readIn Loeb’s transcript of his NewsNation interview, he describes government cooperation but says exact government holdings are unclear. Vargas raises unnamed insider and contractor-secrecy claims; Loeb welcomes future evidence. Conditional material access, motive inferences and the journalist’s questions remain distinct from demonstrated custody or official records.
Complete supplied author transcript; original interview AV unreviewedLoeb describes a first council meeting and repeats his account of government tasking. He states an unclassified-information limit and outlines prospective scientific review; original appointment and meeting records were not supplied.
Complete supplied author essay; tasking and meeting records missingLoeb says the shown objects do not establish extraterrestrial origin. An anonymous officer’s account is relayed testimony. His proposed cleared review board is a recommendation, with no appointment or access established.
Supplied semantic dialogue read; native recording unreviewedA curated public selection. Source review describes what was read; it does not establish that a claim is true. Our research approach