Rep. Luna Requests UAP Video, With a List of Names.
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
I hope they won't be released publicly all at once, all kinds of spurious claims would propagate before even a quarter of the videos would be properly analyzed.
Nemon
Senior Member.
It seems to me that at least some of them have already been properly analyzed – for example 17. F‑18 FLIR UAP. Unfortunately, the case files are not clearly identifiable. Are they perhaps referring to an AARO cataloging system?
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Most of the videos seem to be from the last 5-6 years, so I would assume some of these are from late generation sensors systems. Maybe the type of stuff AARO or the DoD would keep classified or at least not publicly shared. Videos like TicTak from 20 year old systems might be different from sharing what's in current front line use.
Some of these names are rather vague. It may be difficult to identify what actual item they are asking for.
Of course that may be intentional, hoping that they will get many items that 'sort of' match the description.
Although I would suspect that they already have clipped or edited versions of all of these from some source or another and are hoping that the "official" version will be more revealing.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
You joke, but Rep Anna Paulina Luna stands out in the US Congress as being unusually friendly to Russian officials and has taken them on personal tours of the US Capitol, and has served as a conduit for Russian intel to inject documents into Congress.
I am guessing Corbell and/or Grusch are involved in creating these lists. Corbell has long had one or more sources in the military who has access to a secure file server and has been leaking short re-recorded clips to him along with whatever interpretation that person came up with about it. Grusch himself was one of Corbell's anonymous sources before he went public, and Grusch now works for Burlison.
It seems like many or most of the recent "leaked" videos were recorded off of screens with cell phones or other devices, obscuring some key data for the sleuths here while the leaker tries to avoid leaving direct fingerprints from downloading files.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Aye, I was only partially joking..
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
One would not need a degree to join the USAF, though they would be an enlisted person and not an officer. It depends on the person's situation. Some join to learn transferable skills like working on aircraft, or some join to earn collage money. One of our son's high school friends was a sharp kid, but his home life made collage a challenge. He joined the Air Force out of high school and quickly moved up as a translator and intell person, though not an officer. All officers must have a BA/BS or better.
Luna served in the Air National Guard as an enlisted person and latter earned a BS afterwards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Paulina_LunaExternal Quote:
Any US citizen can run for office. And win.
Jay Y
Member
Nemon
Senior Member.
I'm trying to sketch a basic framework for how to think about the different UAP data holdings and catalogues that might sit behind Luna's list, before we jump to specific case‑matches.
Recent official and semi‑official material paints a UAP data landscape that looks much more like a patchwork than a clean, unified catalogue. The AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1 explicitly describes scattered, incomplete historical records and data‑quality issues, even while it dismisses many of the stronger crash‑retrieval claims:
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/...RO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF
On top of that, AARO's later UAP Workshop paper on "Narrative Data, Infrastructures, and Analysis" talks in some detail about the coexistence of historical case files, contemporary narrative reports, and various sensor data streams (radar, FLIR, FMV, flight data, etc.), all split across different databases with inconsistent metadata, classification barriers, and plain missing records (Nimitz being the stock example):
https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information Papers/2025_UAP_Workshop_Paper.pdf
What we do not have, though, is any explicit mapping from these internal systems to Luna's titles and numbers. There is no public indication that "17. F‑18 FLIR UAP" corresponds to a specific AARO case ID, or that the naming scheme in the letter is a direct export of an AARO taxonomy as opposed to a mixed list of call‑signs, operational labels, and intelligence report identifiers. From what is publicly available, the "case files" behind the list are simply not uniquely identifiable.
Against that background, it seems more cautious to treat Luna's list as a pointer into a larger, fragmented internal case landscape, rather than as something we can cleanly line up with known AARO case numbers or specific leaked videos at this stage.
At the same time, the fact that Luna submitted this numbered list as a formal request to Secretary Hegseth strongly suggests that these labels do correspond to identifiable cases in some internal DoD/IC system – otherwise the Department could hardly action the request in a meaningful way – but from the outside we simply cannot see which underlying catalogue or schema they map onto, or how directly it overlaps with AARO's own case identifiers. Am I getting that right?
Recent official and semi‑official material paints a UAP data landscape that looks much more like a patchwork than a clean, unified catalogue. The AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1 explicitly describes scattered, incomplete historical records and data‑quality issues, even while it dismisses many of the stronger crash‑retrieval claims:
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/...RO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF
On top of that, AARO's later UAP Workshop paper on "Narrative Data, Infrastructures, and Analysis" talks in some detail about the coexistence of historical case files, contemporary narrative reports, and various sensor data streams (radar, FLIR, FMV, flight data, etc.), all split across different databases with inconsistent metadata, classification barriers, and plain missing records (Nimitz being the stock example):
https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information Papers/2025_UAP_Workshop_Paper.pdf
External Quote:
That picture seems broadly compatible with the idea that several of the cases on Luna's list could already have been analyzed in detail somewhere inside this ecosystem, even if only a small subset has ever surfaced publicly – and even if no single office (including AARO) actually has a perfectly consolidated, queryable "master catalogue".External Quote:
What we do not have, though, is any explicit mapping from these internal systems to Luna's titles and numbers. There is no public indication that "17. F‑18 FLIR UAP" corresponds to a specific AARO case ID, or that the naming scheme in the letter is a direct export of an AARO taxonomy as opposed to a mixed list of call‑signs, operational labels, and intelligence report identifiers. From what is publicly available, the "case files" behind the list are simply not uniquely identifiable.
Against that background, it seems more cautious to treat Luna's list as a pointer into a larger, fragmented internal case landscape, rather than as something we can cleanly line up with known AARO case numbers or specific leaked videos at this stage.
At the same time, the fact that Luna submitted this numbered list as a formal request to Secretary Hegseth strongly suggests that these labels do correspond to identifiable cases in some internal DoD/IC system – otherwise the Department could hardly action the request in a meaningful way – but from the outside we simply cannot see which underlying catalogue or schema they map onto, or how directly it overlaps with AARO's own case identifiers. Am I getting that right?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Possibly. But I don't think we can assume That Rep. Luna or whichever member if her staff or circle of UFO friends compiled the list would know or care about that. It may, for example, correspond only to some list and labeling system in a UFO-proponent's database, not a useful list of case names to providec DoD but the only one Luna and company have for cases they heard about somewhere.
It may be that DoD will run into just that problem, and not becable to link the list to cases they might havevon file. It may even be that therevis little or no intent to create a list that would mean anything to DoD, the act of submitting the demand may be more for purposes of publicly being seen to be submitting demands, and it is even possible that a nonresponsive answer or no answer is the goal, so cries of "cover up!" can be made.
I don't think we can assume these ulterior motives are the case. But I also don't think we can rule out that possibility.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Maybe. But if we look at the big 3 from the whole NYT/AATIP/TTSA reveal, we get a mashup of names with limited context. GIMBAL, GO FAST and TICTAK are the names we know them by and may be the names used internally, but by who? As has been noted before, the name GIMBAL seems to indicate whoever had it or named it, understood it was the result of a rotating gimbal system.
Given the amount of sensors mounted on the huge amount of military hardware spread over the world, often under multiple different command chains, there is likely all kinds of anomalous looking videos floating around in this ecosystem. Most of it is not correlated or cataloged. It's in different command chains, different theaters and different sections of the DoD, DHS, the intell world and all kinds of places.
In theory, these are supposed to be forwarded to AARO for analysis, but that assumes whoever has a given video thinks it's a UAP worthy of sending to AARO. Or, there are likely some, like Grusch, who completely distrust AARO, and don't forward anything to them.
Recall also from Kirkpatrick's interviews, he mentioned a number of times the existence of internal file sharing sites where everything from strange looking sensor videos to out right hoaxes were shared among UFO enthusiast in government. Anything on these sites can be referred to as "government files", as the enthusiasts use government system for this.
As @Kyle Ferriter noted up thread, Luna and Burlison are closely connected to Grusch, Corbel, Knapp and other UFO people. A lot of the titles of the requested videos sound like how a bunch of UFO enthusiasts would refer to them amongst themselves or even as potential titles for potential YoutTube/X releases. "Dude! Did you see the 2 UAPs over the Gulf of Arabia from the Hackney 6? Radical!".
As @jarlrmai said, there is a bit of a fishing expedition to all of this as well. Someone provided Luna with a list of supposed UAP videos and she's seeing what's out there. ANY file not turned over, regardless of its existence or security concerns, is a chance to cry "Cover-up!". Of course, that results in some rather radical Republican congressional people accusing some rather radical Republican Department heads of engaging in a cover-up, so it could at least be entertaining. I suspect Luna, Burlison and Hegseth will put on a veneer of cooperation, blaming the "deep state" and/or the contractors for delaying the release of anything of consequence.
Nemon
Senior Member.
With "TICTAC" actually being the one we know als FLIR1 by Chad Underwood recorded by the ATFLIR‑Pod mounted to his F/A‑18F.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Yeah, my bad. I went to check, but my internet was on and off this morning, so I just posted. Still, it's just a descriptor of the video source, a FLIR system, and doesn't seem to be any kind of officially cataloged video from a collection of UAP encounters. It's just a FLIR video.
These names are too short, too generic in some cases, for them to come from a single government database. The need to have unique identifiable names when you have large numbers of reports on the same topic should be obvious.
I think this is the most likely explanation. That would explain why #13 and #14 read the same, in that other database there was a longer name that was clipped, perhaps to remove a submitters name or something like that.
Them only releasing a portion of the list could easily be spun into support for that 'massive conspiracy' to blind the public from the "TRUTH"..
I think this is the most likely explanation. That would explain why #13 and #14 read the same, in that other database there was a longer name that was clipped, perhaps to remove a submitters name or something like that.
But does Luna WANT the DoD to respond in a meaningful way?
Them only releasing a portion of the list could easily be spun into support for that 'massive conspiracy' to blind the public from the "TRUTH"..
Similar threads
Trending content
-
Thread 'Reported drones over Fort Lesley McNair and possible DC counter-UAS laser deployment'- Kyle Ferriter
Replies: 2 -
-
-
-