u/Pure-Contact7322

Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell made a series of extraordinary claims about extraterrestrial visitation, recovered craft and a clandestine group that he believed had concealed the information from both the public and senior government officials.

Mitchell was the sixth person to walk on the Moon and served as the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14.

In this interview, he said that military, intelligence, government and contractor personnel with direct experience had been prevented from speaking publicly by strict security classifications.

He suggested that although the original events had occurred many years earlier, some witnesses still believed they remained bound by security restrictions.

Mitchell then stated:

“There have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered.”

He did not present these claims as something he personally witnessed during his NASA missions.

His conclusions were based primarily on information he said he had received from military, intelligence, government and contractor sources whom he considered credible and directly involved.

Mitchell claimed that knowledge of the alleged recoveries was controlled by a group whose exact identity and present relationship with the government were unclear.

According to him, the people involved may no longer have been formally associated with the government, although he believed they had been connected to it in the past.

He said the group had attempted to conceal the information or prevent it from being widely distributed.

When asked who controlled the knowledge, Mitchell replied that he could not identify the individuals.

However, he said the available information pointed toward what he called a “clandestine group.”

Mitchell described this alleged organization as having a quasi governmental affiliation and access to certain government facilities.

At the same time, he claimed it operated secretly and did not appear to be subject to ordinary high level government control.

He concluded the segment by repeating his belief that extraterrestrial visitation had occurred and might still be continuing.

The distinction between direct and indirect testimony is important.

Mitchell was not claiming that he personally saw recovered bodies or inspected a crashed extraterrestrial vehicle.

He was publicly endorsing information that he said had been provided by people with military, intelligence and government connections.

No physical material, authenticated recovery documentation or publicly available chain of custody was presented in this interview.

The significance of the statement comes from Mitchell’s background and the certainty with which he expressed his conclusions.

A decorated military pilot and Apollo astronaut was publicly asserting that extraterrestrial vehicles had crashed, material and bodies had been recovered and the information was controlled by a clandestine organization operating beyond normal government oversight.

The central unresolved questions are who Mitchell’s sources were, what direct access they possessed and whether any recoverable records or physical evidence exist to substantiate the claims.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Watch the full Edgar Mitchell testimony:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

During a Senate floor discussion on the UAP Disclosure Act, Senator Mike Rounds described two major provisions that were removed from the final defense legislation.

The first was the creation of a government wide review board composed of expert citizens appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

That board would have reviewed classified UAP records and recommended which documents should be released immediately and which should remain temporarily withheld.

The second rejected provision was even more striking.

Rounds said the proposed legislation would have required the government, as a transparency measure, to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may previously have been transferred to private entities.

He said such material could have been placed outside normal government oversight and thereby hidden from Congress and the American public.

Rounds stated:

“A requirement, as a transparency measure, for the government to obtain any recovered UAP material or biological remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and thereby hidden from Congress and the American people.”

The wording is important.

Rounds did not confirm that private companies possess recovered UAP vehicles, fragments or biological remains.

He was describing a proposed legal mechanism designed to address the possibility that such material had been transferred to private organizations and placed beyond effective congressional oversight.

The provision was part of the broader UAP Disclosure Act developed by Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds.

The proposal was modeled in part on the review process created for the release of records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Its purpose was to establish an independent system for collecting, reviewing and releasing UAP records across the federal government.

The strongest elements of that proposal did not survive the final legislative process.

The independent review board was rejected.

The provision addressing recovered UAP material and biological remains held by private entities was also removed.

Rounds argued that without these measures, Congress lacked sufficient oversight and was failing to meet its responsibility to determine whether relevant information had been withheld.

This statement does not establish that non human technology or biological remains have been recovered.

What it does show is that senior U.S. senators considered the possibility serious enough to write specific language into a major disclosure bill.

The unresolved question is why lawmakers believed a provision covering privately held UAP material and biological remains was necessary, and what information or testimony led them to include it in the original legislation.

Click below to access the sources and related material:

1. Watch the full Senate discussion featuring Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds:
2. Atlas of Mystery post on X:

I come from a farming family who are still farming in the UK, so I have some insight into the value of crops and the also the likelihood of a typical UK farmer allowing artists to destroy their crops for artistic purposes.

Crops circles have been appearing every year in the UK for decades and approximately 90% of these are in Wiltshire. The crop circles are reported to appear without the farmers knowledge or permission and are detrimental to their livelihood.

If an artist was to pay a farmer for the damaged crop for a single crop circle, depending on the size, it would cost about £1000-£2000. That is just for the damage. Farmers are quite territorial with their land, and I find it highly unlikely that a farmer would want a group of artists, whom he is not familiar with, destroying his crop on his land for the cost of the damage alone . Farmers are profit driven, so it’s likely that the cost to create one would have to be higher - possibly £1500-£3000.

There have been minimal reports of artists offering money to farmers so that they can create crop circles - the vast majority are created without consent. In fact, farmers will often have to charge an entry fee for people wishing to visit or study the crop circles just so that they can recover a small fraction of the financial loss. I read recently that in the last 10 years, it has been estimated that £1.5 million worth of damage was inflicted on farmers due to these crop circle creations.

I personally find it unlikely that independent artists would have the financial resources to create dozens of these every single year with no opportunity to profit from their anonymous artwork. It doesn’t make sense.

If, however, these crop circles are indeed created by artists without the farmers permission, they are committing criminal damage on a mass scale, every single year, FOR DECADES, without ever getting caught, charged or prosecuted. This also doesn’t make sense.

Personally, I find it unlikely that dozens of extremely large, highly geometric and symmetrical crop circles are being created by anonymous artists, at night, every single year, for no financial gain or personal fame whatsoever and at the risk of going to jail.

In my opinion, crop circles remain a mysterious phenomena and should be taken seriously. If they are a message from NHI, we should take it seriously and pay attention. If they are created by artists inflicting thousands of pounds worth of damage in multiple fields every year, the police should be taking it seriously.

Here is an old interview from UK farmers regarding crop circles:

https://youtu.be/C84-znjOXH4?is=IMzLCnjTKp50bas1

Wouldn't upload last time for some reason*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that Howard Lutnick with the FIFA president?

The two companies will combine Nvidia’s Nemotron open models with Palantir’s software to let agencies train and deploy AI in secure, air-gapped environments.

Dr. Steven Greer released a four-page letter dated June 29, 2026, addressed to President Trump, members of Congress, intelligence officials, military leadership, and other senior government officials.

The letter itself doesn't contain new evidence, but it makes some very significant claims. Greer states that The Disclosure Project intends to solicit and publicly release what he describes as hard evidence related to UAPs, reverse-engineering programs, and alleged illegal covert operations unless the U.S. government responds within 60 days (by August 29, 2026).

Among the claims made in the letter:

• Over 800 whistleblowers have been debriefed over the past 35 years.
• Evidence has allegedly already been provided to members of Congress and a confidential task force.
• He argues that certain alleged UAP programs have operated outside constitutional authority and therefore are not entitled to national security protections.
• He says additional evidence—including alleged documentation, biological evidence, and information on reverse-engineered craft—could be released publicly if no official response is received.

Whether you agree with Greer or not, this appears to be one of the strongest public statements he's made about an upcoming disclosure timeline.

I've attached screenshots of the full letter so everyone can read it for themselves. Curious what everyone thinks—is this simply another deadline, or do you think this one is different?

When bodycam footage from a February city council meeting in Claremore, Oklahoma, surfaced online, it didn't show a brawl or a threat. It showed a man asking if he could hand over documents. Then an officer's voice, flat and final: "Arrest him." [Darren Blanchard](https://www.404media.co/bodycam-footage-video-claremore-oklahoma-data-center-meeting/) had committed the offense of speaking slightly past a **three-minute** public-comment timer — at a meeting about a **270-to-300-acre** [data center campus](https://www.gadgetreview.com/openai-and-partners-launch-500-billion-stargate-project) proposed for his community. What a trespass charge over a few extra seconds reveals about how towns handle dissent when big infrastructure money arrives is worth your attention.

**Three Minutes, One Arrest, One Bodycam**

*Getting the footage was its own story — and the arrest sequence it captured raises questions that won't disappear.*

At the [February 17](https://www.businessinsider.com/data-center-meeting-claremore-oklahoma-man-arrested-beale-infrastructure-ai-2026-2) Claremore City Council meeting, residents packed the room to address Project Mustang. Blanchard exceeded the comment limit. Officers told him to leave. The bodycam captured him asking to present documents before handcuffs went on. Getting that footage wasn't straightforward — a local requester was initially quoted **$1,750** for the video, then ultimately paid $120.
Here's what the footage and reporting reveal:

Blanchard asked to submit documents before being arrested; the bodycam captures the officer's order in real time.

His legal team reportedly filed a motion to dismiss and requested the city attorney recuse himself, citing the attorney's presence as a witness at the meeting — a claim not yet independently verified in court filings.

The city's initial $1,750 price tag for bodycam footage dropped to $120 to obtain.

Blanchard has said publicly the arrest amounts to retaliation for [protected speech](https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/us-operatives-built-surveillance-app-143659700.html) and has chilled community participation.

**What Project Mustang Actually Is**

*Behind the arrest is a 300-acre data center proposal that many residents say they learned about too late to meaningfully shape.*

[**Project Mustang**](https://cleanview.co/data-centers/oklahoma/2161/beale-project-mustang), developed by Beale Infrastructure, is planned as a multi-building data center campus in Claremore Industrial Park, with Phase 1 targeting **2028**. City officials say it advances through standard economic-development channels and won't raise local taxes or utility rates, with some infrastructure costs covered by the developer. Project Mustang's terms — acreage, incentives, utility impacts — were substantially set before any public comment session was scheduled.

Residents disagree with that framing. They cite unanswered questions about water consumption, power demand, farmland loss, and [tax incentives](https://www.gadgetreview.com/evil-tech-scandals-failures-that-took-advantage-millions-people)negotiated before meaningful public input happened. Officials call it economic development. Opponents call it a high-impact industrial project with costs still unaccounted for.

**The Right to Speak — And What It Costs**

*Whether a few extra seconds at a public podium justifies a trespass arrest is a legal question — but it's also a civic one.*

**Public-comment periods** exist for one reason: letting residents address elected officials directly. Whether exceeding a timer by seconds justifies a trespass arrest sits in genuinely contested legal territory.

Blanchard's team requesting the city attorney's recusal adds another layer — the official weighing the charge witnessed the arrest firsthand.

Project Mustang may or may not get built. Public-comment clocks will keep running at council meetings nationwide. What happened in Claremore on February 17 is on tape now, and that tape has a way of traveling further than any press release.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/arrest-him-moment-police-handcuffed-152948000.html

This analysis was performed using an autonomous agentic AI workflow with GPT-5.5.

I analyzed a short video currently circulating online, reportedly connected to a “psionic calling” / Skywatcher-related discussion. I am not presenting this as proof of an interdimensional entity, non-human intelligence, or anything biological.

This is strictly a forensic image/video analysis of a weak secondary source.

Source analyzed:

MP4
Codec: H.264
Resolution: 640×360
Duration: 19.46 seconds
Frame rate: 30 fps
Frames analyzed: 584
Approximate bitrate: 191 kb/s

So the source is heavily compressed, low-resolution visible-light video. There is no RAW sensor data, no thermal, no infrared, no radar, no metadata chain of custody, and no multi-sensor confirmation.

The question I tested was narrower:

Does the central object behave like random compression noise / background variation / single-frame pareidolia, or does it contain a persistent visual structure?

Image 1 — Frame stacking / persistence test

I stacked the frame sequence to check whether the object persists spatially or dissolves into random noise.

Result:

The central luminous structure remains visible and organized in the same region of the frame. It does not behave like random dispersed background noise.

This does not prove what the object is, but it weakens the “single-frame pareidolia” explanation.

Image 2 — Frame-to-frame difference analysis

I compared consecutive frames to see whether the object behaves like chaotic H.264 block artifacts.

Result:

There are strong internal brightness, bloom, halo and texture changes, which are expected in a very dark low-bitrate video. However, the central region remains present and spatially organized across the sequence.

It is not just one isolated frame.

Image 3 — Optical flow / motion vector analysis

This is where the claim must remain cautious.

Optical flow shows more activity around the central object than in the background, but I do not see a clean independent motion vector consistent with a solid object moving through the scene.

Most detected motion appears internal: brightness fluctuation, halo deformation, bloom, texture shift and compression-related change.

So I would not claim strong independent physical motion from this video alone.

Image 4 — Visible spectral / HSV / spatial FFT analysis

I separated the video into several visible-image representations:

RGB channels
Luminance
HSV
Local contrast
Edge detection
Spatial FFT

Result:

The central structure survives in luminance and contrast-enhanced views. It is not only a green/yellow color artifact.

The spatial FFT shows strong low-frequency energy from the luminous central mass, plus high-frequency components consistent with compression, noise and burned edges.

This is not thermal or infrared spectroscopy. It is spatial frequency analysis of the visible video.

Image 5 — PCA / morphological persistence

I applied PCA to the region of interest containing the object to test whether a persistent spatial signature exists despite H.264 compression.

Results:

PC1 explains 24.5% of the variance.
PC2 explains 15.8%.
The first 5 components explain 54.7%.
The first 10 components explain 67.2%.

Mean correlation between the object ROI and the average object signature:

0.969 ± 0.040

Mean correlation between consecutive frames:

0.992

Interpretation:

The central region contains a highly consistent visual signature across the sequence. It does not behave like random flicker or chaotic compression noise.

This supports morphological persistence, but does not classify the source.

Image 6 — Autoencoder / unsupervised anomaly detection

I trained an autoencoder on background patches from the same video, excluding the central object region.

The model learned the normal background behavior of this video:

darkness
low-light noise
compression blocks
H.264 variation
non-object texture

Then I passed the object region through the same model.

Results:

Mean background reconstruction error: 0.0001218
Background standard deviation: 0.0001756
Object-region reconstruction error: 0.147296

Approximate z-score versus the trained background distribution:

838

Interpretation:

The object region is extremely outside the learned background distribution.

This means it does not behave like normal dark background, random noise or ordinary compression variation in this video.

However, an autoencoder cannot tell us what the object is.

It can only tell us that the region is statistically anomalous compared to the background it learned.

It cannot distinguish between a physical object, optical bloom, lens reflection, out-of-focus light source, plasma-like emission, hoax element, UAP, or something genuinely unknown.

What I think can be claimed:

There is a persistent visual/informational anomaly in the central region of the video.

The anomaly is not well explained as random background noise.

The anomaly is not dependent on a single frame.

PCA supports morphological persistence.

The autoencoder shows extreme statistical separation from the background.

What I do NOT think can be claimed from this video alone:

That it is an interdimensional entity.

That it is biological.

That it is non-human intelligence.

That it has confirmed 3D structure.

That it has thermal, infrared, RF or radar signatures.

That it shows a clean independent motion vector.

My technical conclusion:

This video contains a persistent and statistically anomalous visual structure, separable from the background and not well explained as simple random noise or ordinary compression variation.

The source remains unclassified.

The next meaningful test would be cross-correlation with other clips from the same session or similar sessions. If the same PCA/autoencoder signature appears across independent clips, then we may be looking at a recurring visual fingerprint of the phenomenon.

For now, I would call this a strong anomaly inside a weak source.