I grew up in rural NWPA, surrounded in forest. I took an early interest in cryprozoology and sharks and have read many books on various crypto subjects such as Bigfoot and Megalodon over the years. I am not a professional writer or a journalist, but I do the best I can. I have a quirky, obscurely dry and sometimes sarcastic sense of humor than can get me in trouble. Some love me and some hate me, but I am who I am.

While making my rounds this morning I came across a video that caught my attention. As much as I don’t want to believe the subject is real, it’s difficult to Pfft! it away.

The Youtube video was brought to us by StephenHannardADGUK and is in fact so good, I have to applaud this gentleman’s talent or admit that it is a real craft. Furthermore, I defy anyone to find more than two (difficult to find) red flags in the entire video.

This all leads to the question, is it for real? Logic and experience would tell me no but come on, admit it, this is good! Hollywood good in fact.

Stephen titles it: “UFO Scout Ship Lands In New Mexico? 2012 HD”, so you can see, he’s not actually claiming authenticity. Admittedly, the untrained eye (and even the trained eye) would be hard pressed to call it a hoax out of anything other than forced opinion. to further clarify, Stephen gives the following description:

Possible leaked footage of a UFO arriving then landing at an unknown location in New Mexico. Could be one of ours, CGI, or could be the real deal. As Always You Decide.

This is what Stephen says about his quest:

I am Stephen Hannard, Founder of the Alien Disclosure Group UK, one of the biggest and most successful disclosure based websites in Europe. I am also the Co-Director of Cosmic Disclosure Productions, a company set up in 2004 to finance and produce short videos and full documentaries concerning the Extraterrestrial, and Paranormal Issue.

Please Note: This channel is designed to educate, inform and hopefully make you smile too. The ADG are 100% non-profit, we are not a Youtube partner or have a Google adsense account.

Now for the moment you’ve all been waiting for! Stephen’s video showing an alleged UFO landing in New Mexico:

So, what did you think? Is this good or what? However, I can’t help but wonder if Stephen is hinting at something when he says he “hopes to make people smile.”

I think we can all agree that video technology is getting to the point where a live clear shot is almost worthless as proof of something. Furthermore, these advanced technologies will become more and more user friendly, ending up in the hands of amateurs. Authenticating video evidence will be all but impossible with Joe Hoaxer’s creating crap all over the world.

Getting back to the subject, while everything inside you wants to call Stephen’s video a hoax, that slightest hint of doubt is all that’s needed to make it successful….as well as a real possibility.

Thanks to StephenHannardADGUK for this remarkable video.

See Stephen’s Alien Disclosure website here

  • Ophu

    I hate to say this, because it looks so good, but I think the car wouldn’t have stopped in time. So I’m going to have to call CGI on this one.

    Of course, I could be wrong. ūüėź

  • Lisa

    If it were to be real, it looks more like a possible US military aircraft prototype to me (even though its quite large).

  • Dale123

    there is a u.s air force star on it

  • The Oshmar

    I’ll lean towards an american drone like the X-47B


    Like the one we’ve already covered here ūüėČ

  • Digicom

    As much as I would like for this to be real, there are several telltale signs pointing to CGI. First, the “tunnel scene” at the beginning of the footage is clearly CGI. Just pause the footage at any point while the car is in the tunnel and you’ll see what I mean. Also, take a look at the background scenery as the car exits the tunnel and watch it “morph” from a brightly lit countryside into the overcast hilly background that we see at the beginning of the clip.

  • John Galt

    Good Evening, Everyone.

    1.¬† The means of propulsion are not evident on this vehicle; pointing to¬†technology beyond our understanding of modern physics.¬† There are no heat plumes, no exhaust trails, no vents.¬† Red Flag #1.¬† Physics demands an equal and opposite reaction, even if its a propulsion system that runs on anti-gravity.¬†¬†Occam’s Razor:¬† The most logical answer is usually the¬†correct one; which means this¬†is a CGI powered craft.¬†
    2.¬† There is a military star on the “vehicle”; which points to human origin.¬† The star is used by both the Air Force and the U.S. Navy.¬† But there are rules on how to use it…and it should be used in conjunction with an identification of the service (USAF or USN).¬† Here its used incorrectly – which means¬†our CGI artist either didn’t do his research, or didn’t think that trained observers would be watching.
    3.¬† The car and the craft stop at the same time, and at no point is focus lost, or is the camera juggled…as a matter of fact, I am amazed at the smoothness of the whole shot – as if the camera were mounted.
    4.¬† The white light that strobes at the aft end of the craft..they’re called “smacks”.¬† We always had the hardest time telling our pilots to turn them off when they were spinning on deck.¬† But they are anti-collision lights; which means they are supposed to be turned on BEFORE landing; not during approach and final.
    5.  No other vehicles on the road?  No recovery team on the ground?  Where in New Mexico?  Key pieces of data are missing; intentionally I think.

    This is a CGI image, a very good one; but there are still holes in it.¬† If it was government, it would have been removed from the public domain by now.¬† There’s advertising all over it.

    For the Oshmar:  The X-47B UCAS (for the U.S. Navy, from Northrop Grumman) is nowhere near the size of the CGI image (as related to the buildings on its VSTOL like landing); the X-47B is Delta Winged as well, this CGI craft seems to be wingless.

    No.  This is CGI.  If I knew exactly where in New Mexico this was, we could check for filed flight plans, weather reports, FAA RADAR Logs Рbut, as always, the minor details, such as exact location, are always missing.  I want it to be real too Рbut in the end, the search for truth has to be tempered with wisdom, experience and objectivity.


  • david stark

    Hmm, good film.¬† I would say CGi on first instinct just by the minor and quick up and down motion of the object compared to the rest of the scene at the very beginning, and the close up details of one part of the craft, but not the rest at the end.¬† Didn’t see any¬†other red flags, care to fill us in on what you saw Scott?

    @ Digicom – the “morphing” as you call it was probably just an auto adjust to light feature on the camera, my cell camera does that all the time, and it’s an annoying feature in my book.¬† Our video of the Tree Tunnel in Kauai turned out with the same white flare as we exited.

  • Mick

    Very good CGI!! …but pretty obvious when you look at it. Some aspects seem VERY familiar, such as the top of the craft looking remarkably like the bridge from USS Enterprise.
    Also, it it were real, then it would have been all over the news by now…

  • Scott_McMan

    John, kudos to you!

    I only saw 2 of the 5 issues you list.

    However, just last week we had alleged CGI experts claiming that the Mammoth video was a bear with a fish when in actuality, the animal was placed into an existing video.

    I’m by no means doubting you John but I think you will agree that sometimes even “experts” are mistaken and that’s where we run into the problem of misidentifying authentic video.

    Truthfully, if there ever is such a clear and close video of a real ET craft for example, who’s going to believe and and how many experts are going to list red flags?

    You seem to be pretty savvy, do you think you would believe any video? Even without CGI skill we are preconditioned to reject anything that looks too good.

  • John Galt

    Thank you, Scott.¬† Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.¬† Let’s see if I can answer the questions you have given me.

    I COMPLETELY agree that “Experts” can be mistaken.¬† Some of the most famous examples:

    (a)  HMS (RMS?) Titanic
    (b)  Hurricane Katrina
    (c)  German Generals thinking that the Normandy invasion was an Amphibious feint
    (d)¬† The Milwaukee cops that let Jeffery Dhamer go after stopping him when his “boyfriend” escaped and went to them

    And those are the mistakes by “experts” that just came to mind.¬† I mean, we are human beings, after all; and we live in an uncertain world.¬† So yes, there will be mistakes.¬† But when the real thing happens (and note that I said “when”, not “if”), there will be other factors that will contribute to verifying its content.¬† I think that we are imbued with a natural sense of truth.¬† We’ll know it when its true.¬† We are also cursed with¬†Fox Mulder’s “I Want to Believe” Syndrome, and if we dont keep¬†our wits about¬†us, we’ll believe anything.¬† That’s dangerous.¬†

    Would I believe ANY video?  Absolutely not.  Will I beleive a video that I feel is real according to the standards that I (not anyone else, not Ghost Theory, Not Jerome Clark, not MUFON, not Brian Greene; but ME) have set for myself?




  • The Oshmar

    Sadly the videos blocked at work for me so all I have to go by at the moment is the screen shot =D

  • And, as usual, the videographer never goes to the landing site to check it out. Most spectacular event in history and the yahoos are just happy to stay in their cars, a mile away? No curiosity whatsoever? Hmmm…

  • Susoni

    CGI boo boo at 35 seconds to 36 seconds with the UFO reflected in the windows

  • bored of this shight

    good god…how long is this piece of crap video going to linger? ¬†its like a stale fart that wont go away

  • AlienDan