A follow-up for American AlchemyAleksei Beliankin · 6 September 2026

The Korean video.
The Baltic sonar.

Jesse, the Korean clip reminded me of the Baltic shape.
Here is the comparison I would put on screen—and what I would ask next.

Compare the images ↓

6 story families9 supplied posts traced3 terrestrial image locationsNot a count of verified craft.

01 / The visual question

Does the notch
survive the comparison?

A rounded shape, open-looking on one side. Switch between the full frame, the replay enlargement and two different sonar views.

The source video itself switches to an enlarged replay. This is useful for examining the claimed outline, not a new observation or our enhancement. Its processing history was not recovered.
xxxdonutzxxx / WorldPix; reposted by John Greenewald Jr. ↗

Ocean X survey-image reproduction. Acoustic return, not an optical photograph; the boundary is poorly resolved here.
Ocean X; reproduction via Expressen / Wikipedia ↗

What I see: an open-looking interruption in selected Korean frames, and a less clearly resolved boundary in the Baltic side scan. It is a resemblance to investigate, not an established identical structure.

What would move it forward: consecutive camera-original frames, the sonar acquisition data and a comparison that does not rely on a drawing. The supplied Baltic collage ↗ mixes a labelled reconstruction with sonar imagery.

Open the Baltic field record ↗

02 / Another record worth asking about

Ocean X reported higher
readings on its anchors.

This does not come from the later interview. An expedition update from 2 April 2012 describes readings on anchors that had been on the bottom 2–3 km from the circle.

The post omits the detector, calibration and time basis. I would ask for that measurement record before comparing it with radiation reports at the ranch.

Read the expedition update ↗

03 / Follow each source chain

Six stories.
Six different things to check.

Open a card for the source images, video where available, publication history and the next useful question.

The Korean horseshoe clip

The original upload is 63 seconds long. A recovered 62.74-second repost includes a small object against blue sky, followed by enlarged replay views. Its changing outline is more informative than a single screenshot.

The later enlargement is part of the circulating edit, not extra camera detail. A notch in a low-resolution image does not yet establish a physical cut-out. Camera video and acoustic sonar also form images differently. No shared dimensions, material or equipment effects have been established.

Who holds the camera-original file? Can we compare consecutive unprocessed frames, camera motion and the Baltic survey data before deciding that the outlines really match?

Original Busan upload · xxxdonutzxxx ↗ · Challenge Reality · supplied comparison ↗ · John Greenewald Jr. · longer repost ↗ · MBC · contemporary Korean coverage ↗ · Korea Times · passenger-plane version ↗ · TechEBlog · contemporary original-ID embed ↗ · Metabunk · uploader-provenance investigation ↗

The building-around-a-craft story

In his original January interview, Eric Burlison describes a reported overseas object and withholds the location. In the February interview, Steven Greer—not Burlison—asserts a source-linked story about mountains outside Seoul.

These are relayed allegations, not a field inspection. The plotted site has not been verified as the alleged facility. No evidence links this story to the 2012 clip, so the map pin is not promoted into our base map.

Are Greer and Burlison describing the same facility, from independent firsthand sources? What shareable record distinguishes it from the building that Burlison says is wrong?

UFO mania · supplied location claim ↗ · UAPWixy · supplied montage ↗ · Aliens Last Night · original Burlison interview ↗ · Burlison's own Newsmax upload ↗ · Korean aviation information · Yangju VOR/DME ↗

The lunar-image paper

Zhilyaev, Petukhov and Pokhvala describe 20-frame-per-second telescope recordings, calibration and MATLAB processing. Their figures include false-colour views and reconstructed shapes. Roemmele's supplied attachment is Figure 1, a still—not the observing video.

No raw-video repository, calibration package, reproduction code or lunar site coordinates were located. The earlier November 2025 manuscript gives different September 7 times from the March paper; whether these are different runs or a correction remains unresolved.

Can the authors release the original sequences and processing settings, explain the differing timestamps, and show which features survive independent reprocessing?

Brian Roemmele · supplied lunar thread ↗ · Zhilyaev et al. · UFO Dynamics on the Moon ↗ · Earlier manuscript · UFOs on the Moon ↗

A dark feature in the inland ice

The archived September 2015 article names Degterev and gives a coordinate. Earlier June coverage already discussed the image. The attached photograph shows a narrow dark feature; it does not resolve material or an interior.

Contemporary reporting attributes a crevasse/shadow reading to BAS specialist Andrew Fleming. This is a more specific technical alternative to test, not a newly obtained BAS report: the original interview was blocked and an attributed republication was reviewed. The satellite product ID and independently dated repeat views remain missing.

Does the same feature persist in independently dated imagery, and how do its outline and shadow change with illumination and ice movement?

Daily Star · supplied dark-feature post ↗ · Daily Star · archived original article ↗ · Yahoo · earlier coverage of the dark feature ↗ · Andrew Fleming interpretation · attributed republication ↗

The object at the water's edge

The bright feature and surrounding coast already appear in 2021 coverage. The 2024 post recirculates the same scene. The official island gazetteer establishes the geographic name, not what the bright feature is.

The January 2011 image date is reported secondhand. No source satellite product, original resolution or independently dated comparison image was recovered. A bright patch and shadow do not by themselves establish metal or a three-dimensional craft.

Can we obtain the historical imagery metadata and a second dated view of precisely the same shoreline? That is a practical way to test persistence, shape and scale.

528vibes · supplied coastal image ↗ · SCAR / AADC · Two Hummock Island ↗ · Conspiracy Depot · source presentation ↗ · Lars A. Fischinger · June 2021 account ↗ · Jake Carter · June 2021 coverage ↗

The long trail across the ice

Geologist Dave Petley published the wider scene in March 2018 and interpreted the endpoint as a block moving over snow or ice from a landslide deposit. He left the precise detachment sequence unresolved.

The 2025 montage inserts space illustrations and Oumuamua animation. Those are not satellite views of this feature. Petley's analysis is an image-based geological interpretation, not reported field sampling.

Can dated views show whether the endpoint moved, and does the complete trail connect to the slope failure? Show the wide image before comparing the shape to a craft.

CNviolations · supplied South Georgia montage ↗ · Daily Express · supplied 2018 post ↗ · Dave Petley · wider-scene analysis ↗ · Secureteam10 · original South Georgia presentation ↗

04 / Get the geography right

Three places.
Not one “South Pole” story.

The inland dark feature, Two Hummock coastline and South Georgia ice trail are separate locations. Select a pin or a name.

Pins identify locations in the image claims, not confirmed craft. Airborne Korea is not a stable site; the building location is unverified; no lunar coordinates are supplied.

Loading geographic context…

05 / What this adds to your next episode

Three visuals.
Three better questions.

Show the versions.

“Does the same notch appear in the original frames and another sonar pass—or only in the versions we circulate?”

Korea × Baltic ↑

Show the wider scene.

“Before we call this a landing track, where does the trail begin—and what does the slope above it look like?”

Show what processing changes.

“Which features survive independent reprocessing—and is there a simultaneous recording from another observing site?”

These would be additional visual and research questions before an interview—or an annotated follow-up afterwards. They are not claims that Jesse missed a proven connection.

One supplied map was satire. Here is its original context.

Satirical Antarctica map from Cool Antarctica, including deliberately fictional features

The P. Ziaee post points back to a map whose original publisher explicitly says the claims are made up. Its security penguins and plywood mountain barrier are deliberate jokes. I kept the source chain, but did not turn its symbols into base coordinates.

Read the original explanation ↗

Image: Cool Antarctica; circulated in the supplied post. Source excerpt, original rights reserved. Historical/extremist symbol appears as part of the source's satirical depiction, not endorsement.

The research shelf

Read it, watch it,
check the chain.

Exact X post metadata retrieved through public FxTwitter mirrors; direct X access was unreliable. Selected downloaded images and video frames were visually reviewed. Public auto-captions support the Burlison timings; they were not newly audio-verified. Original camera files and lunar observing videos were not acquired.

Source excerpts retain their original copyrights and credits. No permissive reuse licence was established. They are not included in the site's CC BY dataset licence. Full acquired repost videos stay in the private research archive; public playback uses the original publisher's embed or link.

Six dossiers & source ledger · JSON ↓Back to the 34-location comparison ↗

Korea Times · passenger-plane version

Kim Eun-ji, 31 July 2012; reported passenger-plane story, without a named passenger or flight.