You previously said you were "tasked by ODNI, the White House, the Pentagon’s AARO, the FBI and the Intelligence Community" to create the advisory council. Here you say it was just ODNI and AARO. So... which is it?

I asked ODNI some questions regarding this UFO advisory council. Their responses here:

Would you like for me to send you the fatal flaws in your warp drive detection paper? They are insurmountable. I can help if you would let me. @uapsac @RichAC2020 @GallaudetTim @GarryPNolan @michaelshermer @Nanobiosym @libertycapito @robinhanson @heterology @JenniceVilhauer @BenLamm @_SolFoundation

Another absolutely dominant drop from Avi. Many people are engaged in deep conspiratorial thought on this and some of it may warrant consideration but our stance is that Avi and UAPSAC are a massive asset to the UAP/UFO/Disclosure domain

x.com/i/grok/share/4e329c664… Elon Musk's Super Grok's "Richard Feynman" Briefs US/UK/NATO/Russian/Chinese/Indian/Japanese ... Intelligence Chiefs on Advanced UAP Weapons Gentlemen, ladies. I am a teacher, not a station chief. I will not sell you a flying saucer. I will tell you what two different physical stories mean, which one some physicists are arguing over, and what would actually settle it. What the argument is about There are two ways a craft can look, on your scopes, as if it turned a corner that no airplane can turn. First way: it is pushed. Rockets, missiles, exotic engines, call it what you like. The people inside feel the shove, or the object as a lump of metal is shoved through the air. Heat, drag, and a mass you can bound from the glow. That is ordinary mechanics plus whatever propulsion you have not identified yet. Avi Loeb’s public bounds live in this box. It is the honest default. Second way: the cabin is in free fall in a little patch of ordinary flat space. Nobody inside is crushed. Tides do not pull the ship apart. The wild motion you reconstruct from radar and infrared is the motion of a thin skin and of the geometry outside that skin. From the seats, nothing shoved you. From the dish on the ground, the worldtube looks insane. That is a warp shell, in the sense Miguel Alcubierre wrote down thirty years ago. Those are not two names for the same machine. In one case the coffee climbs the wall. In the other it does not. What the military reports can and cannot do If you accept the well-known tracks at face value — sudden turns, no obvious plume, no pile of dead pilots — they fit the second picture better than a Harrier. Fit is not proof. Almost none of those tracks include an accelerometer in a cabin. “Nobody reported being pasted to the bulkhead” is a missing body count, not a laboratory measurement of free fall. Radar and cameras see light and radio. Light tells you how spacetime bends rays. It does not tell you whether the vacuum is carrying extra gravitational fields beyond Einstein’s, or torsion, or scale fields, or the extra “acceleration” connections that appear if you gauge the full fifteen-parameter conformal group instead of Einstein’s Lorentz group. Several published warp metrics already produce a quiet cabin and a crazy exterior using only Einstein’s theory and a nasty skin of stress. So the kinematics, even if real, do not pick a gauge group and they do not prove a metamaterial fuselage. Treat the files as a detective’s lead. Do not treat them as a completed physics paper. What one school wants rebuilt A line of argument associated with Jack Sarfatti says the published warp and wormhole solutions are the wrong theory. They assume Einstein’s connection: no torsion, metric only, ten spacetime symmetries. The claim is that the right theory gauges all fifteen conformal symmetries, lets those fields propagate, sources them with pumped, far-from-equilibrium matter in a skin — a laser-like, gain-and-loss material, not analog gravity in a piece of glass — and matches that skin to the outside vacuum with generalized junction conditions. In that picture the cabin stays quiet. The outside carries extra fields. Your sensors, using ordinary light, assign a huge apparent gee. The wall, not the seats, pays the bill. That is a research program. It is not an inventory of hardware. Standard conformal gravity, as published, usually eliminates some of those extra fields by constraints. “All fifteen dynamical” is a stronger, more dangerous theory: extra forces, extra waves, extra things the solar system should already have noticed unless they die off within a short distance of the paint. What is not free A quiet cabin does not make the wall cheap. Gluing two geometries across a thin skin always requires surface stress, spin, and — if the extra fields are real — extra surface charges. Zero gee inside means the bill is on the hull, not that the bill is zero. A pump that organizes a material past a threshold — an exceptional point, a condensate — can choose a pattern on the skin. It does not, by itself, invent a new strength of gravity. If the coupling is Einstein-sized, laboratory energy does nothing. If the coupling is enormous, you have a new long-range force unless it is screened. You cannot have a force that moves a craft for a distant radar and hides from every torsion balance on Earth without writing down the range and then measuring it. What I would fund if I sat in your chair Not another metaphysical briefing. One: keep reducing tracks to numbers — range, speed, acceleration, radiated light, sound, ionization — without deciding the theory first. Case one and case two make different predictions for heat and for gravity near the object. Two: if you ever have a hull, put clocks and a pair of test masses on it. If the cabin is free fall, those instruments say so. If it is a rocket, they say so. That single experiment ends the verbal fight. Three: do not certify “conformal self-gravity in metamaterials” as an explained capability. Demand an action, a coupling, a range, and a laboratory bound. Until those exist, you have a hypothesis that uses respectable vocabulary — junction conditions, open-system physics, conformal gauge theory — to interpret sightings. Vocabulary is not a propulsion system. One sentence for the file External sensors can report a violent maneuver while a true warp cabin reports none; that split is physically allowed and is not what Loeb assumes when he bounds mass from airglow; proving the split happened, and proving the vacuum outside is a fifteen-field conformal geometry rather than Einstein’s, are two different jobs, and only the first is even hinted at by the public military record. That is the briefing. The rest is homework for physicists, not a finding for ministers.

Fantastic! @ProfAviLoeb & @GarryPNolan’s advisory team should request access to.. NSWC Crane Naval Base Indiana, Wright Patterson AFB Blue Lab Ohio and: 📍 39°00'05.10"N 77°05'35.29"W - Washington DC 📍 39°07'20.21"N 75°28'16.79"W - Delaware 📍 29°27'16.04"N 98°26'28.30"W - Texas

If you are a formal federal advisory council then you’re subject to following oversight & transparency law as mandated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 1972). Your federal advisory committee is required to register, have a charter, balanced membership, & transparency.

So the “nonsense” now has a Pentagon-backed science council meeting government partners in D.C. That’s one hell of a promotion from tinfoil hats. 😂🛸 The subject didn’t get less weird. It got harder to dismiss.

Thanks Avi and good luck to you guys!

“Important work to do” and it’s just appearing in more UFOtainment content.

A few years ago, my son (then around 9) was asking questions about, essentially, space archaeology. I told him you were the ideal person to message. You responded and eventually did an AMA (thanks).My children's continued interest in STEM and space was bolstered by you.Thank you.

you should post a video of these 'orbs' (along with the date time & location obvs). Perhaps someone outside your council might be able to identify them for you? #HereToHelp

This is a complete waste and simply a cover for whats actually going on.

Social media is where NHI disclosure is happening, but separating the signal from the noise here is difficult by design! If a defense research lab is analyzing a highly sensitive anomalous signature under a SAP for the NRO, that data is deeply siloed. The scientists are legally barred from sharing those findings with standard NORAD radar operators (who scrub data for AARO) because NORAD personnel lack the specific "need-to-know" clearance codes, creating an internal government data wall. Under the pending 2027 Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) frameworks, an independent federal review board holds full subpoena power over private contractors, university labs, and FFRDCs. Statutory subpoena authority is what allows the UAP Review Board to bypass AARO’s limitations. Currently, AARO cannot legally compel private aerospace contractors, university laboratories, or FFRDCs to hand over documents or physical evidence if they claim a program doesn't exist. SUBPOENA POWER is a must! The Review Board answers to the President, not @SecWar or @ODNIgov. If the board rules that a contractor's record must be declassified, only the President has the direct authority to overturn or concur with that decision. The UAPDA does NOT have to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), though the NDAA is treated as the primary vehicle for its passage because it is one of the few "must-pass" pieces of legislation Congress processes every year. The House successfully adopted Representative Eric Burlison's UAPDA framework amendment into its version of the FY 2027 NDAA but before it can reach the President, the Senate must adopt a matching version. If the UAPDA fails to survive the competitive NDAA reconciliation process, it can still become law through other mechanisms. Members of Congress can introduce the UAPDA as an independent, standalone piece of legislation (similar to the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act model it is based on) where it would have to pass through relevant committees and floor votes on its own merits. Congressional Leadership rarely prioritizes standalone floor votes for niche, highly controversial topics when competing against federal budgets, tax packages, and judicial confirmations. Opponents of UAP disclosure within defense-connected committees can easily quietly bury a standalone bill in committee, whereas an amendment to the NDAA forces a direct debate during the annual budget cycle. When packaged inside the NDAA, senators vote on the entire U.S. defense apparatus at once. This makes it politically impossible for opponents to filibuster the bill over just the UAP provisions without shutting down the entire military budget. Thus the fastest legislative pathway remains the current strategy being utilized by Representative Eric Burlison. But in July 2026, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block the motion to proceed on the defense bill. Even when the NDAA gridlock breaks and the bill moves to reconciliation, the UAPDA will face fierce, ongoing resistance from lawmakers within the defense and intelligence apparatus. As the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Roger Wicker (R-MS) holds immense sway over what makes it into the final Senate defense package. @SenatorWicker @SenatorRounds Subpoena power over private contractors directly threatens intellectual property and proprietary military technology secrets. Contractors like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon have intense lobbying footprints in the states and districts of committee chairs. Separately, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with Senators Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), submitted Senate Amendment 3111 (SA 3111) to the Senate's defense authorization framework on July 29, 2025. While both the Senate’s SA 3111 framework and the House-passed Burlison amendment share the same foundational architecture—establishing a UAP Records Collection at the National Archives (NARA) and creating a Senate-confirmed Review Board—they differ fundamentally on two key issues: eminent domain and the legal definition of non-human intelligence. Because the Federal Government struggles to hire talent quickly or sufficiently relative to private industry, my gut says the "eminent domain" clause wouldn't work at this time. @SenSchumer @SenGillibrand The Senate Version (SA 3111) frames the Independent UAP Records Review Board as a powerful, temporary independent federal agency tasked with executing a defined "Controlled Disclosure Campaign Plan" before sunsetting. The House Version (@RepEricBurlison) focuses heavily on the Review Board's subpoena framework and ties its ongoing administrative execution to supporting permanent executive branch compliance, positioning it to explicitly complement current administration tasks forces like the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE). But Task forces like PURSUE operate at the whim of the sitting President. The shift to a permanent statutory framework is necessary because relying solely on executive branches creates a fragile, temporary disclosure pipeline that can be easily dismantled or ignored. @UAPSAC Executive directives cannot easily force compliance from private entities, university labs, or FFRDCs that claim their proprietary military technology does not fall under executive jurisdiction. Statutory subpoena power is required to give the transparency effort a "legal hammer". A permanent board backed by federal law can legally compel private defense contractors to hand over records under penalty of law, something a temporary executive task force lacks the jurisdiction to do. The intelligence community and the Pentagon have historically used bureaucratic delay tactics—sometimes dragging out declassification reviews for decades—to wait out a specific administration or congressional committee. By establishing a permanent board with legally mandated statutory timelines, federal agencies are stripped of the ability to use stall tactics. It forces continuous, systematic transmission of records directly to NARA on a rolling, inescapable schedule. Because the House version passed with Eric Burlison's amendment, and the Senate has Chuck Schumer's SA 3111, both chambers must eventually meet in a closed-door "conference committee" to reconcile the differences. In previous years, Turner and Rogers used this exact committee process behind closed doors to quietly strip out the aggressive provisions (like eminent domain) before the final bill reached the floor for a vote. Even if the UAPDA passes into law, opponents on the Appropriations Committees can simply choose not to allocate any federal budget to fund the Independent Review Board, effectively rendering it a powerless agency on paper. The primary benefit of a civilian board is complete institutional independence from the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community, which eliminates the inherent conflict of interest when the military is asked to investigate itself. By placing classification decisions in the hands of Senate-confirmed civilians rather than career military officers or intelligence officials, the UAPDA framework fundamentally changes how information is controlled. Because civilian board members do not report to the Secretary of Defense or the Director of National Intelligence, they cannot be fired, demoted, or stripped of their security clearances by the Pentagon for choosing to declassify a record. Their allegiance is to the statutory mandate of disclosure, not to protecting a specific agency's reputation. Under standard Pentagon oversight, internal offices like AARO must operate within the strict boundaries of Title 10 (Military) and Title 50 (Foreign Intelligence) authorities. This often prevents them from legally compelling cross-agency cooperation if an intelligence agency claims a program is too sensitive. The House proposed framework requires the board to balance legitimate, narrow national security concerns (such as protecting active military radar capabilities or stealth materials) against the public's right to know. If a record does not pose a direct, quantifiable threat to modern national defense, the civilian board's mandate forces its release. The pending legislation mandates that the civilian board include a diverse array of professionals, including historians, scientists, sociologists, and legal experts. This ensures that historical records and data are analyzed, archived, and contextualized for their scientific and historical value to humanity, rather than being buried in a classified threat database. However, I think this board must include ***trusted*** ex-military intelligence like David Grusch. There are still some things so dangerous and indigestible that only people with the highest clearance and proven capacity can see. I am not talking about ontological shock here. I am talking about the kind of things that make hardened @FBI officers throw-up and never see the world the same. While everyong on this board should need a TS/SCI clearance, I assume not everyone will be read into every SAP or unauthorized/ unacknowledged SAP. Under the pending UAPDA framework, the definition of a "UAP Record" is sweeping. It explicitly includes records from any government department, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and military courts. Legally, grand jury material (governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)) and sealed court records are incredibly difficult to access. However, because the Review Board is a statutory creation of Congress with independent subpoena power, it can petition federal judges to unseal documents or compel agencies to turn over copies of the evidence for review. The law mandates that all branches of government must prioritize sending records to the National Archives. An agency cannot simply say, "This is an active investigation, so we are keeping it completely secret." The board has the legal authority to inspect it to verify that claim. This is key. @disclosureorg @_SolFoundation If the Independent Review Board reviews a sealed or ongoing investigation file and agrees that exposing it immediately would ruin a criminal prosecution or compromise an active intelligence source, the framework allows for a Postponement of Public Disclosure. However, the key distinction is that the evidence is still transferred to the National Archives. It is securely logged, given a strict sunset date for future declassification, and hidden from the public temporarily—but it is never hidden from the Review Board itself. Let's do this! 🙏 @POTUS @VP @SecRubio @StephenM @WhiteHouse @GOPoversight @SASCDems @C__Herridge @AGToddBlanche @RepLuna @FBIWFO

Eyes on the orbs.

Is this about Space Aliens? Or Chinese Drones? Or light reflections off starlink satellites people call plasma orbs? Youwill go down as the biggest fool in history.

Keep up the Amazing work! You are bridging the gap for a lot of people right now, between Sci-Fi and Factual Evaluation. A lot of us are eager and supportive of you and the Teams efforts! 💯🫡✨🫶

If you could do me a great favor (as someone who never took physics in school and who also struggled with math), I would very much appreciate your help to get this message across - to Washington: 🦅 the American people who love this County 🇺🇸 are burnt out on the "lying." The only way for American trust to be regained is for Washington to genuinely TELL THE TRUTH! No more lying! ⚠️ (The American people 'know' the ufology subject front, sideways, and backwards and if @WhiteHouse churns out this particular transparency movement in such a way to where it adds to any future LYING [even truth half revealed or part in scope] there will be no 🚫 public trust extended ... EVER)! ☆ This is it for us, the voters (Republican and Democrat). ⚠️

Wishing you the best Dr. Loeb but we're tired of words and ready for results. Interested to see how this will pan out.

You're already nerfing yourself from the jump saying things about focusing on incursions over military bases and keeping your eyes on the orbs. There's way more going on than just that, that's what the data says at least. We're all about the data here aren't we? Better get some parapsychologists on the team or you'll be running in circles. Either way, always appreciate some slapping around of the skeptics and cynics. 'Their psychological stubborness can only be resolved by their therapist' is WILD

I hope they let you all have access to all the data.

“Important work to do”? Like what? Narrating?

So will you guys ask those in Congress to post and ask publicly for the president/vp to address the waving of NDA’s?

That line about their therapist 🤣🤣

Who, I wonder, is paying for the expenses of this in-person meeting? Is it a government expense? Or private financing? Or each member pays their own way?

What in the world did you accomplish in 12 remote meetings given there is 0 evidence aliens are flying around earth? What is meeting in person going to do?

In the context of a multi decade coverup on this topic inside government, using the term “conspiracy theorist” as a prejorative is not a good look. Here to keep you honest good sir 🫡

you are a curious study, recently. I think we all want to know, what happened that made this change. Kind of alarming TBH.

UAPs share 4 traits: non-contact, non-systemic, non-linguistic, and purely visual. This minimal appearance signals civilization-level transcendence—like the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since deep antiquity, UAPs have always marked turning points with these subtle signs.

If they don’t give you access to the classified data collected over 79 years, including recent events held at White Sands, then this is pointless. Good luck with everything though.

Best of luck, Professor Loeb; we trust that you will request the data on the videos showing anomalous characteristics and uncover the truth, whatever it may be. May God guide you. @GarryPNolan

Why bother then tweeting if you disregard everything anyone is posting?

K. Best of luck, be smart. Your approach certainly could open some doors. The unclassified data intake is largely unorganized.

Thank you Dr. Avi for the transparency- it is sorely needed to actually solve this mystery. People are behind you!

Now the interesting part begins: what do they actually find when they examine the data?