Réveil

Reveil is about waking up to the patterns, the oddities, and the moments that don’t quite fit.

The first encounter was early on the morning of January 23, 1981, photographer Carlos Díaz was parked on a ridge in Ajusco, just outside Mexico City.

The air was cold and thin, and mist rolled slowly over the trees below. He was waiting to meet a journalist for a story he’d been hired to shoot, his camera gear laid out on the passenger seat.

Then suddenly, he sees a bright light spread across the valley.

At first he thought it was a fire. Then the light began to move, swelling and flickering like molten metal. That was the moment his life took a very strange turn.

Díaz quickly reached for his camera and began capturing the series of photos that would later make him famous.

The object seemed to rise out of the valley and drift closer, glowing in a deep amber color that lit up the trees around him. He said the car began to shake. When he stepped outside, the object hovered for a few seconds before shooting straight up and disappearing.

That first sighting left him rattled but fascinated. Over the next few weeks, he couldn’t stop thinking about it.

Díaz Returns to Ajusco

Over the months that followed his first encounter, Díaz claimed he returned to the hills near Ajusco again and again, drawn by a mix of curiosity and obsession. Each visit, he said, brought new sightings of what appeared to be the same luminous craft, sometimes hovering low over the treeline, sometimes rising quietly into the mist.

In these later encounters, the light no longer appeared as a simple glowing sphere. He described a distinct structure—something tangible and engineered. The craft, he said, had a domed top, a smooth ring encircling its middle, and smaller rounded shapes across its surface that looked like glass bubbles catching the light. Standing alone in the clearing, he watched it drift silently above him, its surface pulsing with a molten glow.

“invited” Aboard The Craft

This is where the story starts to get a lot stranger, and where most skeptics tend to bow out.

Years later, Díaz said he went back to the same ridge in Ajusco where he had first photographed the glowing craft. He claimed he felt a strong pull to return, as if something was waiting for him there. Standing beside his car, he noticed a familiar orange light rising once again above the trees.

Then, he said, something touched his shoulder and everything went black. When he came to, night had fallen and the forest was drenched from rain, yet his clothes were completely dry. By a nearby car stood a tall, pale-skinned blond man who told him he had already been inside the craft and that his memories would return in time.

Unlike classic abduction stories told by witnesses such as Whitley Strieber or Betty and Barney Hill, Díaz never described being taken by force. He portrayed his experiences as voluntary contact, a kind of invitation rather than an abduction. According to interviews he gave in the early 1990s, including one with OMNI magazine and later conversations with Jaime Maussan, he claimed that in 1989, several years after his first sightings, he was “invited” aboard one of the craft during a close encounter in the same Ajusco area.

Inside, he said, the craft was filled with organic light and pulsating structures, warm and alive rather than metallic or mechanical. The beings he encountered, he said, communicated messages about Earth’s ecology and humanity’s role in preserving it, rather than performing any kind of medical or experimental procedures.

In later years, Díaz spoke of vivid visions such as glowing orbs, crystal caverns, and journeys through light itself that blurred the line between physical contact and spiritual experience. His encounters, as he told them, were less about captivity and more about transformation.

The Documentary

By the early 1990s, the photos appeared in the press and in Ships of Light: The Carlos Díaz UFO Experience, produced by German researcher Michael Hesemann.

Supporters said the original slides were analyzed by Professor Víctor Quesada at Mexico’s Polytechnic Institute, who supposedly found no sign of tampering and said the light spectrum didn’t match any known source. The same claim has been repeated about NASA analyst Robert Nathan and image specialist Jim Dilettoso, though no full reports or verifiable records have ever been made public.

There was also talk of video.

One clip in particular is often mentioned: Díaz pointing a flashlight toward a hovering craft, which then shines a beam of light back down before vanishing. That scene appears in several YouTube uploads and UFO documentaries, but no one has ever produced the original tape with full metadata or proof of chain of custody.

Believers and Skeptics

Hesemann became one of Díaz’s strongest defenders and spent years traveling to Mexico to document the case. He described the photos as some of the best evidence of contact ever recorded. Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, who studied alleged abduction cases, also met Díaz and said he came across as calm, sincere, and deeply affected by what he’d experienced — a view quoted in the UFO Evidence archive.

Critics weren’t convinced. Researcher Bill Hamilton, who viewed the footage at Jim Dilettoso’s Village Labs, wrote that “the object descends in jerky motion as if suspended by a cable.” His comments appeared in Rense’s skeptical archive, where other analysts argued the lighting looked artificial and the craft behaved like a small, controlled model.

Hesemann rejected that view, saying the lighting and motion matched “plasma-type” energy rather than anything mechanical, comparing it to the so-called “falling-leaf” movement reported in other UFO cases. Neither side proved the other wrong, and the argument continues decades later.

Meanwhile, the nearby town of Tepoztlán began gaining attention for its own reports of glowing discs. Mexican journalist Jaime Maussan featured many of these stories on television and linked them to Díaz’s experiences. No official radar or aviation reports from 1981 confirm the sightings, but the overlap helped turn the story into a nationwide phenomenon.

Why It Could Be Fake

A lot of the criticism around the Carlos Díaz case comes down to how the craft looks. The glowing, honey-colored surface he photographed over and over has an uncanny resemblance to the glass lamps made by local artisans in Tepoztlán, the same town where he lived. When lit from the inside, those lamps give off a molten amber glow and a rippling texture that looks almost identical to what’s in his photos. Some people believe he might have photographed one of these up close and slightly out of focus to make it look like something floating in the sky.

The movement in the videos also doesn’t feel right. When slowed down, the light doesn’t move like a craft that’s flying on its own. It sways and dips, more like something hanging from a string or being lowered by hand. The brightness never changes much, which makes it seem more like a static light source than something that’s radiating energy or heat.

There’s also the question of access. Díaz has shown his photos and videos at conferences for years, but he’s never shared the original negatives or full tapes for open scientific analysis. Every review of the material has been limited to what he allowed. That, combined with his later stories about being invited aboard the craft and meeting glowing, human-like beings, makes the whole thing sound less like documentation and more like belief.

No independent witnesses have ever captured the same object, and there’s no radar or flight data backing up any of the sightings. For many, that’s enough to conclude the entire thing was staged using light, glass, and clever camera work.

Why It Might Be Real

The reason people keep coming back to the Díaz case is because the footage looks incredible. Even decades later, the photos hold up. The lighting is consistent, the reflections match the terrain, and the object seems to have depth and structure. It doesn’t look like a small prop shot in a dark room.

His early photos were taken on film, long before digital editing or easy photo manipulation. Some experts who studied the negatives in the 1990s didn’t find signs of trickery or double exposure. The way the light interacts with the environment seems too natural for a simple staged scene.

Díaz himself also never fit the profile of a hoaxer. He didn’t make money from the story or try to sell it to tabloids. People who’ve met him say he came across as sincere and grounded, genuinely convinced by what he experienced. He always described it as ongoing contact, not an abduction or a one-time event, which makes his story feel more personal than theatrical.

So while skeptics see a clever illusion, others see one of the most striking and sincere visual records in UFO history. And that tension, between skepticism and possibility, is what keeps the Carlos Díaz story alive.

The Evidence Trail

By the mid-1980s the images were shown at small UFO gatherings in Mexico City, where Jaime Maussan (yeah, the alien mummy guy...) began following the story.

Around 1988 the photos reached Europe, and Michael Hesemann flew to Mexico after seeing them. He filmed interviews and location footage in Tepoztlán, which later appeared in Ships of Light.

In 1991 Díaz began filming with a VHS camera and captured a luminous craft near his home.

Maussan obtained a copy that aired on Mexican television, making Díaz’s footage widely known. That same year came the “flashlight incident,” though no one has ever confirmed an original first-generation tape.

Between 1993 and 1994 the slides were said to have been tested by Víctor Quesada in Mexico and by analysts in the United States, including Robert Nathan and Jim Dilettoso. Their findings were never formally published but were often summarized as “no sign of trick photography.”

In 1995 Ships of Light premiered on TV, then spread internationally on VHS. Its imagery of glowing discs drifting over Mexico turned the case into a touchstone of 1990s UFO media.

By the late 1990s Harvard’s John Mack had visited and interviewed Díaz, and called him “spiritually grounded and sincere,” while skeptics like Bill Hamilton continued to argue the videos showed a hanging model. The debate carried into early internet forums through the 2000s.

Watch the interview here.

As YouTube and blogs spread, the old VHS footage was digitized and re-shared countless times, each copy losing detail but gaining reach. Díaz appeared occasionally at conferences but eventually stepped away from the spotlight, living quietly in Tepoztlán.

Despite the lack of new evidence, the legend kept growing. Writers translated the story into multiple languages and connected it with environmental or prophetic themes that echoed Díaz’s own interviews.

The Story Refuses to Fade

What keeps the Carlos Díaz story alive isn’t just what he said happened but what was captured.

His photos don’t show a distant light in the sky; they show something radiant and strange, something that looks half machine and half alive. Even people who think the case was faked admit the images are beautiful.

To believers, Díaz’s experiences are about communication with something greater — an encounter that left him with a message about caring for the Earth. To skeptics, it’s a perfect example of how talent and imagination can turn an illusion into a legend.

Either way, the images still pull people in. More than forty years later, they haven’t lost their hold.

Where the Trail Ends

Almost every version of the footage today traces back to the same few VHS tapes from the 1990s. The original film stock and negatives have never been archived, and no verified technical report has surfaced. The photos that once stunned audiences remain visually striking but scientifically unresolved.

Maybe that’s why the story lasts. The Ships of Light may not have proven anything, but they became their own kind of truth — a reminder that even when evidence fades, wonder sometimes fills the space it leaves behind.

Whether the Ships of Light were something real or something we still don’t fully understand, the story of Carlos Díaz has a special place in UFO history. His photos stand out from almost anything else I’ve come across with that molten texture, the warm amber glow, the strange feeling that whatever he captured was alive in some way. If they’re fake, then whoever made them pulled off one of the most convincing UFO hoaxes ever caught on camera..

Every era of UFO research has a case that resonates more through feeling than evidence, and for me, this is one of them.

In May 2008, a short, 20 second low-resolution video surfaced on YouTube showing what appeared to be a disc-shaped object flying beside what is speculated to be a jet.

One of the earliest mentions of the “Flyby” footage seems to come from the UFO Chronicles website, where it appeared under the title “Flying Saucer UFO filmed from jet window.” The uploader, a user named Danny Lampkin, added only a short note: “not too sure about this one… you decide.”

Although, the actual earliest YouTube upload I could locate (though there may be older ones) comes from a user named frossani, who captioned it: “It’s a Blue Panorama flight from Rome to Paris on April 29, 2006.”

Interestingly, the version uploaded by frossani appears to be slightly higher in quality, suggesting that it may have been the original source for Danny Lampkin’s later post about two months afterward.

Watch the video:

At first glance, it looks like something from the early YouTube hoax era. The quality is awful, the reflections are odd, and the footage feels almost too dramatic to be real. Yet the deeper people have looked into it, the harder it has been to dismiss.

Below is a breakdown of what makes this case so persistent after more than fifteen years.

Original videos:

Uploaded March 5, 2008: frossani channel Uploaded May 14, 2008: Danny Lampkin channel

What’s in the Clip

The Flyby video runs just under twenty seconds. It is extremely low resolution, typical for uploads in 2008, and filled with heavy compression artifacts. There are visible reflections across the frame, which has led many to believe this is not the original footage but a recording of a screen playing the original. That would explain the odd glare and crushed image quality, although that remains a theory rather than confirmed fact.

The wing visible in the shot looks very similar to that of an NASA F/A-18 Hornet. The sweep angle and shape of the slats are nearly identical, and the wingtips appear to have empty missile rails, which is a signature feature of the Hornet. The camera’s placement, slightly above and behind the pilot matches the angle seen in official cockpit recordings from NASA and U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornets. These aircraft often served as chase planes, equipped with fixed cameras mounted inside the canopy to document flight tests.

These visual clues place the setting squarely within the type of environment where such footage could plausibly have been taken. It looks more like a cockpit camera view from a fast-moving military jet than anything from a passenger aircraft.

Audio Clues

The clip features a steady ambient roar that sounds consistent with what you might hear from an aircraft, along with what seems to be faint background voices, possibly a woman speaking. The audio doesn’t cut or restart at the video splice points, which suggests it’s continuous background noise rather than an added overlay. Some viewers believe it could be genuine cockpit audio captured by an onboard microphone, while others suspect it was added afterward to make the footage feel more authentic.

Reddit user /u/VCAmaster conducted a detailed analysis of the audio and attempted to isolate the voices, though it’s still impossible to clearly make out what’s being said (if anything).

They put a great deal of effort into this, check out that post here.

Either way, the mix of low-frequency rumble and muffled airflow sounds surprisingly close to the recordings made inside F/A-18 cockpits. Even if it isn’t original, it fits the environment well enough that it adds to the illusion.

Timeline and Provenance

The earliest known appearance of the Flyby footage was in April 2008, when it was posted on the Italian website segnidalcielo.it (website no longer live) although here is an early archive of the page.

Which describes the video being filmed by a filmed by a passenger on a Rome-Paris flight:

During the Rome-Paris flight, a passenger films a huge flying saucer through his window. It all happened on the Blue Panorama airline. Let's watch the video together and judge for yourselves.

It states the video was filmed on April 29, 2006

The video was filmed on April 29, 2006 from aboard a Boeing 737-400 aircraft (pictured below) and specifically by a passenger on the window side of the central section.

The video embedded on that site links to the same YouTube upload from Frossani’s channel, so it’s likely that Frossani was still the original source of the video, and simply shared the video he’d uploaded there on this personal website.

However, a Reddit user claimed to have spoken directly with the original uploader, Frossani, and shared their exchange in a comment. According to that message, Frossani said he wasn’t the video’s creator — he copied it from a Zip drive belonging to a university friend whose father worked in Aviano, northern Italy, home to a major NATO air base. More on this below.

The Craft’s Design

The object itself has the classic “flying saucer” look: a domed top, flat underside, and a slightly tilted flight path. It resembles the well-known McMinnville photographs from 1950 and the craft described by Lt. Robert Jacobs in the 1960s “Vandenberg missile incident.”

McMinnville UFO:

Those similarities could be coincidence, or deliberate design choices if the clip was created as a hoax. Even Bob Lazar’s old claim that saucers “fly belly-first” has been used by some to argue the motion looks authentic, though that connection is mostly anecdotal.

Flying saucer photo taken by police officer Mark Coltrane on patrol in Colfax, Wisconsin on April 19, 1978:

The Alleged Comms Log

A few years after the video first appeared, an alleged military communication log began circulating online, with the original source being the /x/ board on 4chan. It described a fighter jet encounter with an unidentified object that appeared only a few meters from the cockpit during a radar intercept. The language in the log used authentic-sounding NATO brevity codes and AWACS terminology, which added to its plausibility.

The event described sounds eerily similar to what is seen in the Flyby footage, but no one has been able to prove the document’s authenticity or connect it to the video. It might have been written by someone familiar with pilot procedures, or it could be a genuine transcript from a classified report. For now, it remains an unverified curiosity.

Alleged Comms Log (leaked on 4chan):

The “Behavioral Data” Appendix

Another page from that same supposed leak was labeled “Appendix F, Section 4B – DoD 1992–2017 High-Value Witness Interviews.” It claimed that over 1,200 UAP incidents had been analyzed by the Department of Defense, distinguishing between UAP (aerial) and UASP (aerial and submerged) cases.

This document mentioned “mechanical life” and “organic species deploying autonomous drones,” which naturally caused a stir when it began circulating online. No government confirmation or credible source has ever verified it. Some have speculated that the Flyby incident could have been one of the “high-value witness” events referenced in that document, but this is only speculation.

Why the Flyby Footage Could Be Real

The Aircraft Match

NASA Research F/A-18 Hornet (chase aircraft):

The wing seen in the Flyby clip looks almost exactly like that of an F/A-18 Hornet. The sweep of the leading edge, the shape of the slat, and even what appear to be empty missile rails on the wing tips.

Those rails are a giveaway since very few aircraft have them exposed in that way.

Screenshot from flyby video showing jetwing:

That alone narrows the possibilities. The perspective in the footage isn’t what you’d get from a passenger window or from the ground.

It looks like the view of someone sitting in a domed fighter jet cockpit, which makes the F/A-18 theory a strong fit.

Example of F/A-18 cockpit:

Fixed Cockpit Camera Setup

NASA’s chase F/A-18A fleet and some Navy training Hornets were fitted with fixed Sony camcorders mounted behind the pilot.

These cameras were used to record test flights and often captured the wing and the sky beyond it.

NASA’s chase F/A-18A fleet with fixed camera:

The Flyby video shows nearly the same angle and distance. The camera is steady, positioned slightly behind and above the pilot, and focused directly out over the wing. If you compare it to actual NASA chase-plane footage from the same time period, the framing and perspective are almost identical.

F/A-18A cockpit with fixed camera:

That’s not an angle most people would think to fake in 2008 unless they were familiar with how these cockpit setups actually looked.

It either happens to match by pure luck, or it was filmed from that kind of camera.

Reflections That Fit a Real Cockpit

Possible respirator reflection (MBU-23/P):

The reflections moving across the canopy glass look like what you’d expect inside a jet cockpit. You can see quick flashes that may be from the pilot’s helmet visor or the curved surface of an oxygen mask, possibly even a Gentex MBU-23/P respirator as seen below.

Details like that are tough to fake convincingly. Even if they’re not technically hard to reproduce, they’re unusually specific things to include for a simple hoax, especially in older footage. The subtle movement and layered reflections look natural, as if light is really bouncing off glass rather than being added in post. That kind of realism is difficult to achieve digitally.

The Sound Environment

The sound in the Flyby clip fits the part. There’s a low, steady rumble and muffled air pressure that match what’s heard in real cockpit recordings from F/A-18s. A few brief metallic hums can also be heard under the noise, similar to what onboard camcorders sometimes picked up from vibration inside the fuselage.

It doesn’t sound like a passenger plane, and it doesn’t sound like generic noise added later. Whether or not it’s the original track, it fits the acoustic profile of a real fighter jet recording.

Lighting Behavior

Near the end of the clip, when the object banks upward, it gradually darkens. That falloff looks consistent with natural sunlight fading across a curved surface. People who’ve enhanced the video frame by frame have pointed out that it darkens smoothly rather than abruptly, which isn’t how CGI from that era usually looked.

Even with the compression, the way the lighting changes across the object feels authentic. It reacts to the environment in a way that suggests a physical object was actually there.

Alternate Origin Theory: The Blue Panorama Flight

Another theory suggests the footage wasn’t filmed from a military jet at all, but from a commercial airliner. Some researchers have pointed the older upload of the same video that included a caption claiming it was shot aboard a Blue Panorama Airlines flight from Rome to Paris on April 29, 2006.

This upload predates the “Danny Lampkin” version and is the current earliest known source. The aircraft visible in the clip does resemble the wing and engine layout of a Boeing 737-300, specifically the Blue Panorama aircraft I-BPAG, which has led some to conclude the footage was taken from that plane. Side-by-side comparisons of the wing shape can be seen here and here, with the higher-resolution version of the video available on YouTube.

A detailed 3D recreation attempting to debunk the video can also be found here.

However, a Reddit user who says they spoke directly with the original uploader, Frossani, shared their exchange in this comment. According to that message, Frossani clarified that he wasn’t the creator of the video. He said he copied it from a Zip drive belonging to a university friend whose father worked in Aviano, northern Italy—home to a major NATO air base.

Dear xxxxx,

It was quite a surprise to discover all this hype and interest about a video I had almost forgotten. I am the owner of the YouTube Channel, but not the author of the footage. I had an interest in visual effects as a hobbyist and I used to collect some inspiring videos and fantasize on what techniques would allow to recreate them. The footage of your interest was copied from a Zip Drive belonging to a university friend of mine who knew about my hobby. We are not in touch any longer and I don't have further information about the origin of the video (I am not a UFO passionate, to me it was simply a probably-fake downloaded from the internet or some early-2000s CD-ROM). The only detail that could be useful for your research is that my friend's father's work was based in Aviano, in northern Italy. By the way, when I put the video on YouTube I didn't edit it in any way; the only intervention was on the description, in which I reported the details of a Blue Panorama flight from Rome tor Paris which had brought me to France some time before (it was then dismissed a few years later, to my great deception). I am sorry I'm probably not giving you relevant information for your research. In the last days I received different requests like yours; I decided to reply only to you because of your politeness and respectful attitude. (Also asks to not share name / contact info).

Best regards.

Most importantly, he explained that the only change he made before uploading was adding a note about a Blue Panorama flight he personally took around that time. That small edit seems to be the sole reason the “Boeing 737-300” detail became tied to the video later on. If his account is accurate, the flight reference wasn’t part of the original footage’s metadata or context—it was simply something he added, unintentionally creating a false trail.

Frossani described himself as a visual-effects hobbyist who collected and studied interesting clips. He said he believed the video was probably fake or came from an early-internet CD-ROM collection, though others familiar with his work claim his VFX skills at the time were too basic to have produced something that realistic.

I can’t personally verify which theory is correct—the F/A-18 explanation or the Blue Panorama one. Both have their own reasoning and contradictions, so I’m including them here simply to show the range of possibilities surrounding the Flyby footage.

If Frossani’s statement is true, the Blue Panorama connection might not indicate a real flight at all, but rather a coincidental personal reference that became misinterpreted—adding yet another layer of confusion to one of the most debated UFO clips online.

From there, the discussion returns to the technical and visual details that keep the Flyby footage so compelling.

Technical Plausibility

Everything in the clip behaves the way real video would. The exposure doesn’t flicker, the frame rate is steady, and the motion blur looks optical, not digital. There’s no telltale CGI clipping or artificial jitter.

That doesn’t mean it’s genuine, but it does mean it’s technically possible this was filmed exactly as it appears: a cockpit camera capturing something strange passing close by. For 2008, it would have taken a lot of effort to fake that level of realism using consumer software.

Why the Flyby Footage Could Be Fake

Although convincing at first, there are several reasons why the Flyby clip might be an early digital hoax rather than a real recording.

Intentional quality loss. The degraded look could have been deliberate. Re-filming a computer screen hides compositing seams, masks rough edges, and buries rendering artifacts under pixelation. Many early CGI UFO videos used that exact trick to look more “authentic.”

Lack of realistic movement. The object glides smoothly across the frame without any visible parallax or turbulence. If it were actually close to a jet moving at hundreds of knots, there should be some relative motion or shaking in its path. Instead, it looks locked to the camera, which often happens when a CGI element is tracked onto a scene.

Lighting inconsistencies. In some frames, the lighting on the disc appears too even. It doesn’t reflect the contrast or direction of the light hitting the clouds. That might be compression, or it could mean the object was digitally inserted.

Missing aerodynamic effects. If something was really flying that close to an F/A-18, there would likely be heat shimmer, vapor trails, or air disturbance between them. None appear.

Cinematic framing. The object enters the frame at the perfect distance, stays centered, then exits just as the clip ends. There’s no extra footage before or after. That kind of precision feels planned, more like a short CGI test designed to shock viewers.

No verifiable source. Every known copy traces back to low-resolution reuploads. The supposed Aviano connection remains just a rumor. With no metadata, pilot identification, or secondary footage, the case lacks the basic documentation you’d expect from an authentic military recording.

Taken together, these points suggest the Flyby video could have been intentionally crafted to look like cockpit footage, using the limitations of early YouTube video to hide flaws. It might have been one of the more sophisticated UFO hoaxes of its time.

Where It Stands

The Flyby video occupies a strange middle ground between old UFO lore and modern UAP discussion.

What’s known: it was uploaded in 2008, appears to show a cockpit perspective, and contains reflections that fit a real aircraft environment. What’s unknown: who filmed it, when it was shot, and whether it ever existed in an original higher-quality format.

Until a verifiable source file appears or new metadata is uncovered, the Flyby footage will remain what it has always been: one of the most intriguing and persistent mysteries from the early YouTube UFO era.

Sources and Further Reading

——————————————

Follow me on X for more updates.

&

Check out some my other posts:

Best UFO Photos of All Time

Was Flight MH370 Teleported?

Why is Skinny Bob Still Blinking At Us?

Did a 2024 Forgotten Languages Post Foreshadow The Nordic Drone Crisis?

In December 2024, a strange post appeared on ForgottenLanguages.org titled “New Jersey kinetic strike test: Threat Analysis of sUAV-driven attacks.”

If you’ve ever visited that site, you know it’s one of the internet’s deeper mysteries. Some people think it’s an elaborate art project or coded experiment. Others believe it hides fragments of real research buried in invented languages and cryptic phrasing. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

The post described what it said was a joint Homeland Security and U.S. Navy drill off the American coast, involving 62 drones launched from two vessels. They were said to have split into reconnaissance and strike groups, targeting water infrastructure and a naval base.

Around the same time, New Jersey saw a wave of drone reports that led to temporary FAA restrictions over 22 infrastructure sites (NBC News). Federal officials later suggested many sightings were misidentified aircraft, but the investigation stayed open. The overlap between that story and the Forgotten Languages post was hard to ignore for anyone familiar with the site.

Whether it was fiction, a leak, or something else, less than a year later similar scenes began unfolding across Denmark and Europe.

The Start of the Drone Crisis in Denmark

On September 22, 2025, Copenhagen Airport was shut for nearly four hours after air traffic controllers reported large drones over the runways (BBC). That same evening, Oslo Airport in Norway also closed due to drone activity (AP News).

In the days that followed, sightings spread to Aalborg, Esbjerg, Sønderborg, and Skrydstrup Air Base, home to Denmark’s F-16 and F-35 squadrons (Financial Times). Witnesses described coordinated formations, lights that switched off when approached, and objects that moved erratically across radar.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the incidents “a serious attack on Danish critical infrastructure” (The Guardian). Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen called them “systematic and coordinated.” Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard compared the situation to how terrorism reshaped global security after 9/11.

By the end of the week, Denmark had banned all civilian drone flights nationwide (Reuters). NATO announced extra surveillance patrols over the Baltic, and France, Sweden, and Germany sent radar units and anti-drone specialists to assist (Politico). Still, not one drone was intercepted or recovered.

Then Germany’s Munich Airport was forced to close twice within 24 hours on October 3 and 4 after similar sightings (DW News). Police pilots confirmed seeing an object but could not find where it landed.

The Forgotten Languages Parallel

The similarities between the 2024 Forgotten Languages post and the European incidents are difficult to overlook.

Both describe, or in Denmark’s case are rumored to involve, drones launched from vessels operating in swarms and targeting critical infrastructure while being described as “impossible to intercept.” In both situations, officials have said there is “no evidence of foreign involvement,” though Russia has been a consistent point of speculation, with no proof to back that claim.

It could be coincidence. Or perhaps whoever wrote that post had prior knowledge of testing that was later mirrored on a larger scale. Either way, it blurs the line between fiction and classified experimentation.

The Overlooked June Agreement between Denmark and The U.S

Three months before the first Danish sightings, on June 11–12, 2025, Denmark’s parliament approved a defense deal granting the United States full access to three key Danish air bases: Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg (EU News).

The agreement allows U.S. forces to store equipment, conduct operations, and station personnel in Denmark. It also gives them autonomous legal jurisdiction, meaning they operate under U.S. military law rather than Danish.

At the time, it was presented as routine NATO cooperation. But the timing now stands out. The same bases later became central to the drone sightings. If this were purely foreign interference, that overlap would be a huge coincidence. A more likely scenario is that these flights were part of controlled testing carried out under the framework of that new agreement.

A Possible Explanation

The Forgotten Languages post might have outlined the prototype for a modern hybrid defense simulation: a controlled stress test for coordinated aerial incursions. The activity over Denmark, Norway, and Germany could be the continuation of that test, scaled up across NATO airspace.

Since September, European militaries have gathered real-world data on radar blind spots, response times, and communication protocols. Every incident may be feeding information into an ongoing exercise.

In early October, Denmark’s defense minister even changed the language used publicly, saying the government would now refer to these as “aerial observations” instead of “drone activities” (DR). That small shift hinted that not everything being seen fits the profile of a conventional drone.

Why Denmark?

Denmark’s location between the Baltic and the North Sea makes it ideal for this kind of testing. It’s small, politically stable, and heavily integrated into NATO’s command structure.

The new U.S. base agreement provides a level of legal freedom that would allow advanced systems to be operated or tested without breaching Danish sovereignty. From a research standpoint, it’s a perfect controlled environment for observing how modern defense systems respond to persistent low-visibility threats.

The Official Silence

Government statements have remained uniform: no debris recovered, no confirmed operator, and no evidence of foreign involvement (Reuters).

That exact phrasing appeared in the Forgotten Languages post nearly a year earlier. It suggests that both the post and the real-world incidents might follow the same playbook: conduct the exercise, deny any outside connection, and keep the details contained.

The Timeline

  1. Nov–Dec 2024, New Jersey and the Northeast U.S. A wave of drone sightings near power facilities and restricted zones leads to FAA restrictions. Federal briefings later cite misidentifications, but the investigation stays open.

  2. Late Nov 2024, United Kingdom Drones spotted over USAF-linked RAF bases including Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Feltwell, and Fairford. Both the U.S. and U.K. confirm the sightings and open a criminal probe (BBC).

  3. Dec 2024, Germany Unauthorized drones reported over Ramstein Air Base and nearby industrial areas (Reuters).

  4. June 11–12, 2025, Denmark Parliament approves the U.S. base agreement granting American forces access and legal control over Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg (EU News).

  5. Sept 22–29, 2025, Denmark and Norway Drone incursions close Copenhagen and Oslo airports and continue nightly over multiple bases (BBC, AP News). Denmark bans civilian drone flights and NATO increases surveillance in the region (Politico).

  6. Oct 3–4, 2025, Germany Munich Airport closes twice in 24 hours after suspected drone activity (DW News).

Across two years, the pattern moves west to east through NATO territory. Each phase becomes more sophisticated, but the public statements never change.

Forgotten Languages Leak or Larp?

Forgotten Languages has been puzzling people online for more than a decade. Entire Reddit threads are devoted to trying to decode it. Some see it as a complex art project exploring language and symbolism. Others think it’s a front for classified research written in disguised form.

Some even suspect it is both — an experiment in how people respond to half-hidden truths when they appear in the open. Whatever the purpose, the site has a strange history of publishing material that seems to echo real events months or years later.

The “New Jersey kinetic strike test” fits that pattern closely. It could be art, or it could be a leak written to appear artistic. Either way, it feels like an attempt to publish fragments of something real without naming it directly.

If that’s true, then the European drone wave isn’t random at all. It’s the continuation of a sequence that began in 2024.

Bringing It All Together

When you line up the events, a picture starts to form. The Forgotten Languages post about a “kinetic strike test” off New Jersey might not have been larp at all, but a leak in plain sight, of a classified NATO-aligned exercise. That same template seems to have moved step by step across allied territory in the year that followed.

It begins in the U.S, shifts to the U.K. and Germany, and then reaches Scandinavia just after Denmark granted the U.S. military access to its key airbases. Each phase escalates the scope, from minor sightings to full airport shutdowns, while every official statement stays nearly identical: “no evidence of foreign involvement.” Russia remains the theory most people reach for, but no proof has ever been shown.

That repeated language mirrors the tone of the Forgotten Languages text. If the site serves as a quiet leak for emerging defense methods, its purpose may be to release information in a way that looks like pure fiction while still recording them publicly.

Viewed through that lens, the drone incidents stop looking like a mystery and start to resemble a long-term systems test. The objective might not be confrontation, but measurement: to see how nations respond, how fast they detect, and how they manage uncertainty under pressure.

From the coast of New Jersey to the skies over Denmark, the same sequence plays out: launch, observe, deny, record. If that’s the case, the 2024 Forgotten Languages post wasn’t predicting anything. It was describing the start of an experiment that never really ended.

——————————————

Follow me on X for more updates.

&

Check out some my other posts:

Best UFO Photos of All Time

Was Flight MH370 Teleported?

Why is Skinny Bob Still Blinking At Us?

The “Flyby” UFO Footage: And Why It Refuses to Fade Away

simulation_header

At some point, most of us have wondered: what if this is all just… fake? Not “fake” like a trick or a lie, but fake in the sense that everything around us—our lives, the universe, every thought and feeling—could just be running on someone else’s computer. It’s an idea that keeps coming back in philosophy, science fiction, and late-night conversations. The more you poke at it, the stranger the world can start to feel.

The Simulation Argument: Why Bother Entertaining This?

The simulation argument really caught fire when philosopher Nick Bostrom published his famous paper, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”

He laid out a chain of logic that’s tough to shake:

  • If it’s possible to simulate conscious beings, and
  • Advanced civilizations get the tech to do it, and
  • They actually run these simulations,

…then the number of simulated beings would soon outnumber the original, “real” ones by a huge margin. In that scenario, just by probability, you’re way more likely to be simulated than real.

One quote that sticks in my head:

“Existence of an extremely large number of simulations created by many different civilizations in a potentially infinite universe implies that there are other copies of each person in different simulations. There is a very large but finite number of possible people, limited by different combinations of atoms, and if the number of the simulations is larger than the number of possible people, people will repeat in the simulations.”

Think about it. If this is true, you might have lived your same life, with the same thoughts and memories, more than once—in more than one universe.

Looking for Glitches and “Edges”

People love the idea of “glitches in the Matrix.” Strange déjà vu, bizarre coincidences, the moments when things feel just a little too off. Are these mistakes in the code? Are we seeing the limits of our simulation?

One way to frame it is:

“What if the unknowns we strive to understand are not inherent mysteries of the cosmos, but rather the edges of the simulated world, the points where the rendering becomes computationally expensive or where the creators have deliberately obscured the underlying code?”

Physics gives us plenty of mysteries. Some, like the observer effect in quantum mechanics, or the fine-tuning of the universe’s physical constants, seem almost designed—too precise, too odd. But does that really point to a simulation, or are these just mysteries we haven’t cracked yet?

Consider the case of the Pioneer anomaly. For years, it looked like the Pioneer spacecraft was behaving in ways that didn’t make sense. Some wondered if this was a hint. In the end, it was solved—a tiny force from leaking propellant explained almost everything (). Still, the wish to see signs of the simulation in cosmic mysteries remains powerful.

Can a Simulation Even Work? The Physics and the Problems

The big challenge is detail. Simulating the entire universe, down to every atom and photon, is a ridiculous computational task. Some scientists have run the numbers: just storing the info for even a small chunk of our world would require more energy and computing power than any civilization could ever muster.

“Simulating even a small portion of the universe at a high level of detail would require exaflops of computing power, the energy costs could be astronomical... On the other hand, the human brain is highly efficient at processing information, using approximately 20 watts of power.”

Perhaps it doesn’t all need to be simulated at once. Maybe it’s just like a video game, where only the part you see is rendered. Maybe the creators cut corners, filling in the details only when someone’s looking.

Or maybe, as some theorize, what we experience is a “synthetic dream”—not a literal copy of the universe, but a highly targeted, subjective simulation inside the mind.

“The path forward lies not in attempting to build a digital cosmos, but in embracing the elegance and efficiency of synthetic dreams. These targeted simulations offer a more manageable, resource-efficient, and ethically responsible approach to exploring the possibilities of simulated realities.”

Why Run a Simulation At All?

If we’re simulated, there must be a reason. Here are a few possibilities people have thrown out over the years:

  • Curiosity: Maybe advanced civilizations (or AI) run simulations to explore how life and intelligence develop.
  • Testing: Maybe we’re part of a series of experiments—see how a civilization handles risk, or what happens when certain conditions change.
  • Fermi Paradox: If alien civilizations are running the numbers on how often intelligent life arises, they might use countless simulations to estimate their odds. But if they themselves are simulated, the whole chain gets stranger and stranger.
  • Ethical Experiments: It could be that smaller, contained “synthetic dreams” are the only simulations allowed, since full-scale ones pose bigger moral risks.

One quote lays it out:

“Humanity’s location at the beginning of the 21st century could be best explained by the fact that this period is in a scientific Fermi simulation by an alien civilization or future humanity-based AGI simulating variants of its own origin, which could be called a singularity simulation. This means that humanity could be tested for different scenarios of global catastrophic risks, and no matter what the result of the test is, the simulation of us would be turned off relatively soon, in tens to hundreds of years from now.”

And another twist:

“If someone starts a simulation of his past but commits to terminate the simulation if it becomes nested (the simulation starts a simulation), he basically has given himself the death penalty, as he most likely is already in such a simulation.”

Are There Glitches, or Is It Just Us?

Even if the idea sounds neat, evidence is thin. The “glitches” are usually solved by science, not a peek behind the curtain. But there are deeper, stranger thoughts—like whether the mathematical structure of the universe is the “code,” or if déjà vu means you’re repeating a simulated loop.

“The mathematical structure we observe in the universe could be a reflection of the underlying code of the simulation. The simulator might be using mathematics as the language of their simulation engine, but mathematics does not create reality.”

And another, almost poetic take:

“You’ve been to this beach before, Norea. A million times, but you don’t remember them. We’ve had this conversation a million times before, Norea, but you don’t remember. You know it’s an algorithmic beach, and you know what that means and what that says about the reality of your reality. It’s a radical loss of meaning. When there’s no way out either to the right or to the left maybe you should think about looking up. Look, the sun sets. A sunset is just the core code of the original LyAV. Too bad you won’t remember these words on your next attempt, Norea!”

What If We Are Simulated? Does It Even Matter?

The weirdest part of the simulation theory is that even if it’s true, it might not change anything about how you live your life. You still feel, think, love, struggle. You still experience sunsets, even if they’re just code or memory.

Some scientists, like Sabine Hossenfelder, point out that even if we spotted patterns that look artificial, there’s no way to know if they’re proof of a simulation, or just the underlying laws of nature.

In the end, maybe the only real “glitch” is the human urge to ask questions with no clear answer.

Final Thoughts

Maybe this is code. Maybe it’s not. Maybe we’re “synthetic dreams,” or a weird accident of evolution in a universe that doesn’t care. Either way, asking if we’re in a simulation opens the door to a different kind of thinking—a way to question everything, even reality itself.

If it is a simulation, whoever built it has a wild imagination.

simulation_image

References

1. Nick Bostrom – The Simulation Argument Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

2. Scientific American – Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? By Clara Moskowitz https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

4. Space.com – Pioneer Anomaly Spacecraft Mystery Solved

https://www.space.com/16648-pioneer-anomaly-spacecraft-mystery-solved.html

5. Sabine Hossenfelder – Are We Living in a Simulation? YouTube (video essay by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder)

youtube.com/watch?v=p4U4oG4gkVg

6. Energy Efficiency of the Human Brain The Efficient Brain: Energy Usage and Brain Power David Attwell & Simon Laughlin (Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 2001) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693092/

7. Forgotten Languages https://forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org/


Enter your email to subscribe to updates.