Within Nuclear UFOs
How Rumors Grow Around Real Incidents
Rumors can attach themselves to real incidents, especially when personnel are told little and records stay hidden.
On this page
- Why secrecy creates rumor space
- Separating hoax from misunderstanding
- How rumors alter later testimony
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Rumours grow around UFO cases at nuclear sites because secrecy leaves people with fragments: a light seen by guards, a technical fault, a sudden order not to talk, a missing file, a delayed debriefing, or a colleague’s dramatic retelling. In that gap, base gossip can turn a real incident into a larger legend. The key point is not that every nuclear-UFO story is a hoax, nor that every witness is unreliable. It is that many cases mix genuine events with later embellishment, misunderstanding, unofficial folklore and, in some instances, deliberate misinformation.
This matters because the nuclear setting raises the stakes. A rumour about a light near a missile field or weapons storage area is not just campfire storytelling; it can shape testimony, public trust, parliamentary questions and later historical interpretation. The careful question is therefore: what part of the story is anchored in records, what part rests on recollection, and what part appears only after years of retelling?
Why secrecy creates rumour space
Military secrecy does not merely hide information. It creates a social environment in which partial knowledge becomes highly valuable. Personnel may know that something unusual happened, but not why. They may be forbidden to discuss operational details. They may also infer that silence itself proves the event was extraordinary. In UFO cases linked to nuclear weapons, this dynamic is especially strong because the ordinary subject matter — missile readiness, weapons storage, radar coverage, test programmes and security alerts — is already restricted.
The historical UFO record shows how easily “unidentified” can be misunderstood. Project Blue Book, the US Air Force’s long-running UFO investigation, collected 12,618 sightings from 1947 to 1969, of which 701 remained categorised as unidentified. The National Archives’ summary records those numbers, while the Air Force’s own fact sheet states that there was no evidence that the “unidentified” sightings were extraterrestrial vehicles. The gap between “unidentified” and “alien” is exactly where rumour thrives. [National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…
The same mechanism appears in intelligence history. A CIA historical review describes how secrecy and awkward handling of UFO-related enquiries in the 1950s fuelled public suspicion. In one episode involving alleged flying-saucer radio signals, CIA and Air Force handling of the matter “added fuel” to the mystery around the Agency’s UFO role; in another, a refusal to confirm routine contacts over UFO photographs encouraged speculation that the CIA was deeply involved. The lesson for nuclear-UFO cases is direct: an institution may withhold information for ordinary security reasons, but witnesses and outsiders often interpret the withholding as evidence of a deeper hidden truth. [CIA]cia.govrole study UFOsCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90…
Modern official language still recognises this problem. In 2024, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, known as AARO, said many people had “sincerely misinterpreted real events” or mistaken sensitive US programmes for UAP-related activity because they were not cleared to know what the programmes actually were. That is not a blanket dismissal of all reports. It is an explanation of how genuine experiences can be misfiled in memory as UFO incidents when the true context is unavailable. [U.S. Department of War]war.govMedia Engagement With Acting AARO Director Tim Phillips on the Historical Record Report Volume 1 > U.S. Department of War > Transcript |…(https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3702219/media-engagement-with-acting-aaro-director-tim-phillips-on-the-historical-recor/)
The rumour pattern at Malmstrom
The Malmstrom Air Force Base case is the central example because it contains both a documented missile-system incident and a long-running UFO narrative. A declassified account of the Echo Flight malfunction says the missiles went into “No-Go” status almost simultaneously and that rumours of unidentified flying objects around the area at the time were “disproven”. That official wording does not erase later witness claims, but it does show that the rumour problem was already attached to the incident in the contemporary military record. [documents.theblackvault.com]documents.theblackvault.compdf14 Jun 2001 — Rpt, (S) "Report… Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during t he tiw~ of faul…
Decades later, affidavits and public testimony from former Malmstrom-area personnel became part of the UFO-nuclear debate. DocumentCloud’s collection describes affidavits from four Malmstrom Air Force Base airmen concerning alleged 1960s UFO visits to missile silos near Great Falls, released at a National Press Club event in 2010. This is important because the evidential centre of gravity shifts over time: the original technical event is one kind of evidence, while later affidavits are another. They may be sincere, but they are also filtered through memory, intervening UFO literature, public controversy and the knowledge that the case has become famous. [DocumentCloud]documentcloud.orgDocument Cloud Malmstrom UFO Testimonials | Document CloudDocument Cloud Malmstrom UFO Testimonials | Document Cloud
The case also illustrates why “hoax” is often too crude a word. A rumour can be false without being invented maliciously. A guard may see lights and report them accurately as lights. A launch officer may hear about missile faults and a strange object in the same duty cycle. A later researcher may connect those pieces into a stronger causal story. A witness, after years of silence, may interpret an ambiguous event through a framework that did not exist for them at the time. None of those steps requires a deliberate lie, yet each step can move the story further from what the records can support.
Recent reporting has added a further complication. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2025 that a Pentagon investigation found elements of US military UFO mythology were fuelled by fabricated evidence, false briefings and secrecy around classified weapons programmes, including claims connected to electromagnetic pulse testing and missile-site vulnerabilities. Because the full official follow-up report had not been publicly released in the same form as AARO’s 2024 historical report, this should be treated as significant but still developing evidence rather than as a complete public record. [The Wall Street Journal]wsj.commilitary deliberately spread disinformation about UFOs, contributing to decades of conspiracy theories. The probe, prompted by congressio…
Separating hoax from misunderstanding
A useful reading of nuclear-UFO cases separates three categories that are often blurred together.
A hoax involves deliberate fabrication. This may be a prank, a forged document, a staged photograph, or an invented briefing. AARO’s 2024 historical report gives examples of alleged documents and claims it judged inauthentic or misunderstood. It assessed an alleged 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on UFOs and the nuclear threat as not authentic, citing inconsistencies in formatting, language, coordination and intelligence-community tradecraft. It also described an “aliens observing” materials-test story as likely a misunderstanding of a real, non-UAP programme activity, where “alien” appears to have been a nickname associated with a test unit or location rather than extraterrestrial beings. [U.S. Department of War]war.govMedia Engagement With Acting AARO Director Tim Phillips on the Historical Record Report Volume 1 > U.S. Department of War > Transcript |…(https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-2024-0263-AARO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF)
A misunderstanding begins with a real event but assigns it the wrong meaning. AARO’s official imagery page shows how ordinary objects can remain puzzling until enough context is available: some cases are unresolved, while others are assessed as birds, balloons, aircraft-like objects or sensor-limited observations. This matters for military witnesses because a trained observer can accurately report what they saw on a screen or in the sky while still lacking the data needed to identify it. [AARO]aaro.milOfficial UAP ImageryAARO UAP Imagery…
Base gossip sits between the two. It is the informal network of stories that moves through barracks, guard posts, mess halls, families, veterans’ circles and later UFO conferences. It may preserve details that never reached official paperwork, but it can also attach dramatic explanations to ordinary scraps of information. In nuclear cases, gossip gains extra force because personnel know they are near restricted systems. A rumour that might sound absurd in a civilian setting can feel plausible on a base where classified projects, security drills and unexplained orders are normal parts of life.
The hard part is that these categories can overlap. A hoaxed photo can be shown to someone who sincerely believes it. A classified aircraft test can produce an honest sighting. A rumour begun as a joke can be repeated years later as a serious memory. A genuine incident can acquire false details without losing its real core.
Rendlesham and the power of later layers
Rendlesham Forest, near RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, shows how later layers can transform a case. The core event involved US Air Force personnel reporting strange lights in December 1980 near bases associated in public debate with nuclear weapons. The UK Ministry of Defence treated the matter as having no defence significance, while later UFO literature developed a much larger story involving landed craft, radiation readings, beams of light and possible effects near a weapons storage area.
The nuclear angle itself became tangled in official ambiguity. In a 1997 House of Lords exchange, the UK Government declined to confirm or deny where nuclear weapons were located, citing policy on such information. In the same exchange, when asked about reports that beams from an unidentified craft struck nuclear weapons stored in the RAF Woodbridge weapons storage area, the Government replied that there was no evidence to suggest the Ministry of Defence had received any such reports. [Hansard]hansard.parliament.ukHansard Raf Bentwaters And Woodbridg: Nuclear Weapons AllegatiHansard Raf Bentwaters And Woodbridg: Nuclear Weapons Allegati
That exchange captures the rumour mechanism almost perfectly. The Government’s refusal to confirm nuclear storage locations was normal policy, but it left room for people to read significance into the silence. At the same time, the specific claim about beams striking weapons lacked official evidence. The result is a case in which a real reported sighting, a sensitive military setting and a non-confirmation policy created fertile ground for escalating claims.
Sceptical analysis of Rendlesham has pointed to a mixture of possible ordinary triggers: a bright fireball, the Orford Ness lighthouse, bright stars, animal diggings interpreted as landing marks and confusion in night-time navigation. Ian Ridpath’s detailed work argues that the police evidence points to the lighthouse as a key source of the first-night lights, and broader summaries of the case note that some witness descriptions later grew beyond what was recorded in the earliest statements. [ianridpath.com]ianridpath.comRendlesham Forest UFORendlesham Forest UFO
The case has also attracted explicit hoax claims. The BBC reported in 2003 that a former US security policeman said he had created strange lights in the forest as a prank by using a modified police vehicle, although sceptical summaries note there is no clear evidence that this prank occurred on the relevant nights. That distinction matters. A hoax claim can itself become part of the rumour ecology: sometimes it explains a case; sometimes it becomes another unsupported story competing with the UFO version. [Wikipedia]WikipediaRendlesham Forest incidentRendlesham Forest incident
How rumours alter later testimony
Later testimony is not automatically worthless. Veterans may remember details that official records omit, and official records can be incomplete, sanitised or focused on technical rather than human observations. But memory is not a sealed archive. It changes when people compare stories, read books, attend conferences, watch documentaries, speak to investigators, or learn that their old workplace has become famous in UFO culture.
Three shifts are especially common in UFO-nuclear cases.
First, sequence becomes causation. A light is reported, then a technical fault occurs, or vice versa. In retelling, the two events become linked: the object caused the shutdown, the beam affected the weapons, the UFO was “interested” in the nuclear system. The records may support the sequence without supporting the cause.
Second, uncertainty becomes specificity. “A strange light” becomes “a structured craft”. “Something was classified” becomes “they covered up alien involvement”. “We were told not to talk” becomes “we were threatened because the truth was extraterrestrial”. These changes may feel natural to witnesses trying to make sense of fragments, but they raise evidential risk.
Third, social reinforcement hardens memory. Once a case becomes part of a recognised UFO-nuclear pattern, new testimony is interpreted in relation to other famous cases. Malmstrom, Rendlesham, Minot and other reports begin to echo one another. Similar language — beams, shutdowns, security teams, radiation, silencing — can reflect a real pattern, but it can also reflect the spread of a shared narrative template.
AARO’s 2024 report is relevant here because it documents how claims can circulate among interviewees and become mutually reinforcing without independent confirmation. It describes cases where people relayed claims about off-world craft, alien materials or secret programmes, but AARO either found denials from named people, mundane material explanations, or links to authentic non-UAP programmes. The value of that finding is not that it settles every nuclear case; it shows how rumour chains can look like corroboration when they are actually repetitions of the same unsupported claim. [U.S. Department of War]war.govMedia Engagement With Acting AARO Director Tim Phillips on the Historical Record Report Volume 1 > U.S. Department of War > Transcript |…(https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-2024-0263-AARO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF)
Why “debunked” can mislead too
The opposite error is to use the presence of rumour as a reason to dismiss everything. That is not careful analysis. Nuclear-UFO cases often begin with something real: a missile fault, a security alert, a light seen by multiple personnel, an official memo, a police call, a radar track, or a classified exercise. The fact that a rumour later attached itself to the incident does not prove the original event was imaginary.
This is why the strongest approach is layered rather than binary. A case can contain:
- a real operational event;
- a sincere but mistaken witness interpretation;
- missing or classified context;
- later embellishment;
- a prank or hoaxed element;
- media simplification;
- and unresolved details that remain genuinely uncertain.
Project Blue Book’s history is a reminder of this layered reality. The Air Force ended the programme after concluding that it had found no evidence of a national security threat or extraterrestrial vehicles, yet hundreds of cases remained officially “unidentified”. That combination — no alien proof, but not every case explained — is precisely the zone in which both sceptical overreach and UFO overreach can occur. [National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives…
Rendlesham also shows why official dismissal can deepen belief when it appears too narrow. Saying there was “no defence significance” may be technically accurate from a policy viewpoint, but it does not answer every witness question about what they saw. Conversely, witness conviction does not prove that beams struck nuclear weapons or that a landed craft was present. The case remains useful because it demonstrates how official minimalism and witness maximalism can feed each other for decades.
A practical credibility test for nuclear-UFO rumours
The most useful way to handle rumours in UFO cases around nuclear weapons is to ask what each claim depends on. A strong claim should not rest only on a late memory or a story heard from someone else on base. It should have some combination of contemporaneous documentation, multiple independent witnesses, technical records, chain-of-custody clarity, and a plausible account of what information was unavailable at the time.
A practical test looks like this:
- Date the first appearance of the claim. Was the detail recorded at the time, or did it emerge years later after books, documentaries or UFO conferences?
- Separate sighting from interpretation. “A red light was seen near the gate” is different from “a craft disabled missiles”. The first may be well supported while the second remains speculative.
- Check whether the nuclear detail is confirmed or inferred. A base may be associated with nuclear roles, but a specific claim about warheads, storage bunkers or weapons effects needs its own evidence.
- Look for non-UFO classified context. Secret aircraft, sensor tests, security exercises and weapons-system vulnerabilities can all generate silence without requiring an extraterrestrial explanation.
- Treat gossip as a lead, not a conclusion. Base stories can point investigators towards overlooked records or witnesses, but they are not themselves proof.
This test does not make the subject less interesting. It makes it more revealing. The most important question is often not “Was it aliens?” but “How did this particular story become the version people remember?”
What rumours reveal about the nuclear-UFO debate
Rumours, hoaxes and base gossip are not side issues in the nuclear-UFO debate. They are part of the evidence environment. They explain why some cases become larger over time, why official silence is interpreted as confirmation, why witnesses can be sincere but mistaken, and why institutions that mishandle secrecy can damage trust long after the original event.
The nuclear setting intensifies every part of that process. Personnel know they are guarding systems of extraordinary importance. They may also know that they are not cleared for everything happening around them. When something odd occurs, the absence of a clear explanation is not neutral; it becomes emotionally and institutionally charged. A rumour that attaches to a nuclear site can survive because it seems to fit the stakes.
The most balanced conclusion is that rumours neither prove nor disprove the UFO-nuclear connection. They change how the evidence must be read. A serious account has to preserve the difference between real incidents, sincere testimony, documented uncertainty, ordinary misidentification, deliberate fabrication and later folklore. Without that separation, nuclear-UFO history becomes either a mythology of alien intervention or a blanket dismissal of witnesses. The truth in many cases is more complicated: real events occurred, people were told too little, and stories grew in the space that secrecy left behind.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to How Rumors Grow Around Real Incidents. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me) Third Edition
Useful for understanding belief persistence.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufosSource snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National Archives...
-
Source: af.mil
Title: Air Force
Link: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104590/unidentified-flying-objects-and-air-force-project-blue-book/Source snippet
Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display...
-
Source: cia.gov
Title: role study UFOs
Link: https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/cia-role-study-UFOs.pdfSource snippet
CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90...
-
Source: war.gov
Title: U.S. Department of War
Link: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3702219/media-engagement-with-acting-aaro-director-tim-phillips-on-the-historical-recor/Source snippet
Media Engagement With Acting AARO Director Tim Phillips on the Historical Record Report Volume 1 > U.S. Department of War > Transcript |...
-
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Link: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/malmstromufo.pdfSource snippet
pdf14 Jun 2001 — Rpt, (S) "Report... Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during t he tiw~ of faul...
-
Source: documentcloud.org
Title: Document Cloud Malmstrom UFO Testimonials | Document Cloud
Link: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/9329-malmstrom-ufo-testimonials/ -
Source: media.defense.gov
Title: U.S. Department of War
Link: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-2024-0263-AARO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF -
Source: aaro.mil
Title: Official UAP Imagery
Link: https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery/Source snippet
AARO UAP Imagery...
-
Source: ianridpath.com
Title: Rendlesham Forest UFO
Link: https://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/police.html -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Rendlesham Forest incident
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Malmstrom UFO incident
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmstrom_UFO_incident -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Project Blue Book
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Condon Committee
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Yankee Blue
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Blue -
Source: Wikipedia
Title: UFO reports and disinformation
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_reports_and_disinformation -
Source: documents.theblackvault.com
Link: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/UK/defe-24-2005-1.pdf -
Source: cia.gov
Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88-01315R000300070004-1.pdf -
Source: cia.gov
Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88-01315r000300070001-4 -
Source: cia.gov
Title: cias role in the study of ufos 1947 1990
Link: https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/studies-in-intelligence-1997/cias-role-in-the-study-of-ufos-1947-1990/ -
Source: cia.gov
Title: the cias role in the study of ufos 1947 90
Link: https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-40-no-5/the-cias-role-in-the-study-of-ufos-1947-90/ -
Source: cia.gov
Title: CIA RDP81R00560R000100010001 0
Link: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0.pdf -
Source: ianridpath.com
Link: https://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham9.html -
Source: ianridpath.com
Link: https://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1b.html -
Source: ianridpath.com
Link: https://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/appendix.html -
Source: ianridpath.com
Link: https://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham1a.html -
Source: aaro.mil
Link: https://www.aaro.mil/ -
Source: aaro.mil
Link: https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information%20Papers/AARO_Declassification_Info_Paper_2025.pdf -
Source: war.gov
Title: dod examining unidentified anomalous phenomena
Link: https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3965403/dod-examining-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/ -
Source: archive.org
Link: https://archive.org/download/aliensinskies00unit/aliensinskies00unit.pdf -
Source: docs.house.gov
Title: HHRG 118 GO12 Wstate ShellenbergerM 20241113
Link: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO12/20241113/117721/HHRG-118-GO12-Wstate-ShellenbergerM-20241113.pdf -
Source: wsj.com
Link: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/ufo-us-disinformation-45376f7eSource snippet
military deliberately spread disinformation about UFOs, contributing to decades of conspiracy theories. The probe, prompted by congressio...
-
Source: hansard.[parliament]({{ ‘parliament/’ | relative_url }}). uk
Title: Hansard Raf Bentwaters And Woodbridg: Nuclear Weapons Allegati
Link: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1997-10-28/debates/829bc73d-7e53-4412-8ae6-0c1be8942f77/RafBentwatersAndWoodbridgNuclearWeaponsAllegations -
Source: nationalarchives.gov.uk
Link: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/explore-by-time-period/postwar/ufo-reports/ -
Source: cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Title: nationalarchives.gov.uk UF O files
Link: https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/ufo-transcript-aug-09.pdf -
Source: britannica.com
Title: Project Blue Book
Link: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Project-Blue-Book -
Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: uk Rendlesham Forest/Raf Bentwaters Incident
Link: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2001-01-30/debates/4bcdf841-b549-4781-a109-2e719ed75514/RendleshamForestRafBentwatersIncident -
Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Title: 20150511 FOI2015 03810 Rendlesham Redacted Final Response
Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f599240f0b6230268ef6d/20150511-FOI2015-03810-Rendlesham-Redacted-Final-Response.pdf -
Source: uapglobe.com
Title: rendlesham forest
Link: https://uapglobe.com/cases/rendlesham-forest
Additional References
-
Source: nypost.com
Link: https://nypost.com/2025/06/08/us-news/pentagon-secretly-planted-[area-51Source snippet
According to an investigation reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, a retired Air Force colonel admitted to spreading doctored UFO photos...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: AARO UAP Historical Report | Rich Hoffman
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPx_nXFXbmoSource snippet
Declassified: The Truth Behind the 1967 Malmstrom UFO Incident Declassified: The Truth Behind the 1967 Malmstrom UFO Incident History – D...
-
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFOs and Nukes, Live Stream with Robert Hastings
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6_Z6gJLUAcSource snippet
Mysterious Missile Malfunction | UFOs: Investigating The Unknown | National Geographic UK...
-
Source: nsa.gov
Link: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/ufo/usaf_fact_sheet_95_03.pdf -
Source: youtube.com
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvbQtdKRoTcSource snippet
What Disabled Missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base?...
-
Source: reddit.com
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/1g9mjfo/967_malmstrom_afb_ufo_incident_how_do_i_balance/ -
Source: facebook.com
Link: https://www.facebook.com/FOX5NY/posts/a-department-of-defense-review-reveals-the-us-military-used-fake-ufo-stories-to-/1249963363159613/ -
Source: facebook.com
Link: https://www.facebook.com/HISTORY/posts/a-surreal-event-outside-a-us-air-force-base-near-the-rendlesham-forest-in-englan/1202258311467143/ -
Source: abcnews.com
Link: https://abcnews.com/Technology/airmen-govt-clean-ufos/story?id=11738715 -
Source: liberationtimes.com
Link: https://www.liberationtimes.com/home/from-moscow-to-malmstrom-russian-style-disinformation-tactics-target-us-ufo-transparency-efforts
Topic Tree