Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Felon]

When I said real I meant real as all evidence I have seen they are military officers that worked where they said they worked. Had the security clearance they said they had and did the jobs in the departments the said they did. Real deal as in the ones who say they are whistle-blowers are actually part of the whistle-blowers program.

Ok great.

So we can both agree that this guy was a military officer, had security clearance, whatever - no problem with that.

How does that help us substantiate or support the claim he makes, about a red cube the size of a football field, hovering over a US base?

 

[edscdk]

if anything its von neumann probes sent out to all stars to watch for life and report back. I don't see FTL being a thing

 

[Pottsey]

Ok great.
325
So we can both agree that this guy was a military officer, had security clearance, whatever - no problem with that.

How does that help us substantiate or support the claim he makes, about a red cube the size of a football field, hovering over a US base?

When 1 person says they spotted something its much less reliable then if multiple people spot something that makes the evidence more reliable.

If those people are trained professionals who are trained to watch out for threats that makes it even more reliable. If more teams of people spot the object that’s even better, if 3rd party contractor's also spot the object, then it gains even more reliability. If the security guards are sent out and also spot it then that adds to the reliability. If more patrols spot it again adds to the reliability.

After a point they declare an emergency and an armed response force is sent out. Again more reliability. If all this is entered into the official air force records stuff like patrol X reports Y and armed respond force sent it adds more reliability and shows something really happened and wasn’t a story made up at a later date.

There is enough supporting evidence pointing to that its not 1 person making up a fake story after the event on behest of the usually suspects. There have been enough background checks to show these people are not fake and not making up the story after the event. So as you failed to show any evidence again, I am going with your claims are false and disproven.

My point is these are secure restricted airspace and these events are serious national security concerns not jokes to be dismissed out of hand like you are doing. What if that was a revival nation stealth craft or other form of revival nation UAP doing recon?

 

[Felon]

When 1 person says they spotted something its much less reliable then if multiple people spot something that makes the evidence more reliable.

Ok.

In the case of the red hovering cube, the claimant says that six other people witnessed it, however there’s no evidence that any of them have ever gone on the record, come forward, have been interviewed or even exist.

It is an uncorroborated account from a single person.

So all you’re left with, is a single person making an untestable anecdotal claim, without evidence other than their own words.

 

[aardvark]

how many people work at this US base?
A massive cube floats over it and no one took a picture, or told anyone else?

 

[Pottsey]

how many people work at this US base?
A massive cube floats over it and no one took a picture, or told anyone else?

It was reported not only did they did tell other people but other groups like the contractors also reported the same event. It was officially reported up the chain of command and in the official Air Force files. Those records got passed onto AARO and the FBI. One person said the craft looked more like a triangle, another looked more like a cube. Stealth craft depending on viewing angle can look like a cube or triangle and are as wide as football field. Now I cannot conclusively prove its a stealth craft but that doesn't matter as the overall point is that UAPs are entering restricted airspace and its a national security concern that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Ok.

In the case of the red hovering cube, the claimant says that six other people witnessed it, however there’s no evidence that any of them have ever gone on the record, come forward, have been interviewed or even exist.

It is an uncorroborated account from a single person.

So all you’re left with, is a single person making an untestable anecdotal claim, without evidence other than their own words.

How is it an uncorroborated account from a single person when others corroborated it and the base files corroborated it? Files which got handed over. Even if you somehow ignore the base files and other people its still enough to disprove your wild claims and show that you are wrong about calling them fakes working for the usual suspects.

At least 34 highly ranked and experienced officers corroborated the overall events of UAP from an unknown source invading restricted military airspace. If you include the navy that accounts goes up into the 100's. Only a handful stood up and testified but as per my previous quote showed there are more in the background who are corroborating the events they even listed the names of some of the other who corroborated the events.

Anyway this has run its course. You claims as is so often the case have fallen apart and been dismissed as nonsense. You have had ample chance to post evidence and yet again you failed to provide any evidence to backup your wild claims.

 

[Felon]

How is it an uncorroborated account from a single person when others corroborated it and the base files corroborated it? Files which got handed over. Even if you somehow ignore the base files and other people its still enough to disprove your wild claims and show that you are wrong about calling them fakes working for the usual suspects.

Lets see what ChatGPT thinks;

In Jeffrey Nuccetelli’s story about the “hovering red square/cube” over Vandenberg AFB, were any other witnesses ever identified?

ChatGPT said:​

No — at least not in any publicly verifiable way.

Here’s the situation:

• Nuccetelli’s testimony (2025):
  He told Congress that six other service members were direct eyewitnesses to the “Red Square” event at Vandenberg AFB in 2003.
• Public record:
  • None of those six have been publicly named.
  • No independent journalist, researcher, or oversight body has presented sworn statements, interviews, or documentation from them.
  • No official record (declassified report, FOIA release, etc.) has surfaced that identifies these supposed witnesses.
• Official response:
  • Nuccetelli himself admitted AARO told him that the relevant records were destroyed by the Air Force.
  • The Pentagon has not confirmed the existence of additional witnesses tied to this specific case.

---

Conclusion:
The existence of “other witnesses” remains only a claim by Nuccetelli. As of now, no other individuals have been publicly identified as corroborating eyewitnesses to the hovering red square/cube at Vandenberg AFB.

:shrugs:

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Lets see what ChatGPT thinks;



:shrugs:

Yes—Jeffrey Nuccetelli’s account of the “hovering red square” over Vandenberg Air Force Base wasn’t a solo claim. According to his congressional testimony, multiple witnesses were involved:

The October 14, 2003 Incident​

• Primary sighting: Boeing contractors reported a massive glowing red square silently hovering over two missile defense sites.
• Additional witnesses: Nuccetelli stated that six other service members provided him with information about various UAP sightings at Vandenberg between 2003 and 2005.
• Documentation: The event was reportedly documented in official military files held by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and the FBI.

Nuccetelli’s Role​

• He personally witnessed one of the incidents and investigated others as they occurred.
• He described speaking with five shaken witnesses during a separate triangular craft sighting, which adds further credibility to the broader pattern of UAP activity at the base.

So yes, Nuccetelli wasn’t alone—his story is backed by multiple firsthand accounts, some of which were reportedly suppressed or met with intimidation tactics.

Want to dig into how these sightings were handled by command or what AARO’s files might contain?

 

[Pottsey]

Here's what I got when I used AI. Bold done by the AI not myself.

While Nuccetelli confirmed that official Air Force records exist, they are currently held by AARO and the FBI and have not yet been declassified. However, the fact that they were referenced in a public congressional hearing means they are acknowledged and traceable.

Nuccetelli’s opening statement from the September 9, 2025 UAP hearing is publicly available in PDF format. It details:

• Five separate UAP incidents between 2003–2005 at Vandenberg AFB.
• Multiple witnesses for each event.
• Reports filed and passed up the chain of command.
• Specific mention of the “Vandenberg Red Square” incident, which is now documented and held by AARO and the FBI.

You can read his full statement in the official witness transcript.

EDIT: Looks like Jeff Nuccetelli isn’t the only person from that base to file a report. Former First Lieutenant of the US Air Force Robert Jacobs reported a UAP circled a dummy warhead during a test flight at the same base. Along with Salas, Schindele, Jacobs and other Air Force veterans who had made similar claims.

 

[Felon]

<snip>

Yeah you have to be careful what you ask it, if you simply ask it a vague question - it'll just give you a high level answer based on top level search results, to get an accurate answer you have to get it to drill deeper, for example;

Was Jeffrey Nuccetelis account of the hovering red square over vandenburg airforce base a solo claim?

ChatGPT said:​

I couldn’t find credible evidence that Jeffrey Nuccetelli’s “hovering red square” claim over Vandenberg was a sole claim — in fact, he asserts there were multiple witnesses.

Which is fair, however how you ask the question is important, with regard to the accuracy of the response, for example if you ask a more specific question, you get a more specific answer.

In Jeffrey Nuccetelli’s story about the “hovering red square/cube” over Vandenberg AFB, were any other witnesses ever identified?

ChatGPT said:​

I couldn’t find any publicly identified, verifiable names of the other witnesses beyond what Nuccetelli has broadly described. The claims include “contractors,” “senior patrolman,” “technical sergeant,” etc., but they have not, to my knowledge, been named in open reporting or testimony in a way that has withstood third-party verification.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Yeah you have to be careful what you ask it, if you simply ask it a vague question - it'll just give you a high level answer based on top level search results, to get an accurate answer you have to get it to drill deeper, for example;

I asked it exactly the same question you asked it at the top of your reply to Pottsey:

In Jeffrey Nuccetelli’s story about the “hovering red square/cube” over Vandenberg AFB, were any other witnesses ever identified?

 

[ICDP]

Christ when will people learn AI sucks. It literally relies on (trained) the absolute pile of crap that exists on the internet.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Christ when will people learn AI sucks. It literally relies on (trained) the absolute pile of crap that exists on the internet.

No it doesn't, some of it is absolutely superb.

 

[ICDP]

Not if the utter turgid muck you posted above is what you consider superb.

The fact the bunch of you keep getting very different answer should be the big ******* clue here.

 

[mrk]

So 3I/Atlas them "comet" or comete? It's doing some weird stuff as it nears Mars on its way past us and then whizz past the Sun.

End of times await!

 

[koolpc]

So 3I/Atlas them "comet" or comete? It's doing some weird stuff as it nears Mars on its way past us and then whizz past the Sun.

End of times await!

Funny you should say that:

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Not if the utter turgid muck you posted above is what you consider superb.

The fact the bunch of you keep getting very different answer should be the big ******* clue here.

Oh dear
If you had used a tiny bit of your brain you would have worked out i was taking the pee out of Felon by putting the exact same search into another AA tool.
Whooshed over your tiny brain like a UAP.

 

[mrk]

Funny you should say that:

I am dubious, but also curious.

 

[koolpc]

I am dubious, but also curious.

Myself included.

 

[ICDP]

Oh dear
If you had used a tiny bit of your brain you would have worked out i was taking the pee out of Felon by putting the exact same search into another AA tool.
Whooshed over your tiny brain like a UAP.

And yet you proved my exact point before going on to say AI can be superb.

The absolute irony of calling anyone else stupid.