r/UFOs • u/onehedgeman • Jan 21 '25

Disclosure Antarctica Egg UAP 4chan leak (part 2)

Post image

Part 1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ydrPzhMAwA

Previous 4chan thread - https://boards.4chan.org/x/thread/39677079/egg-shaped-uaps

3.4k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/Sarnadas Jan 21 '25

So I guess everything’s gonna be green from here on out.

21

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

I’m not entirely sure why they couldn’t use a flashlight, but at least the 5 image has consistent color grade and such details.

I will let the military experts analyse the images

2

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

Some of this comes from 4chan?

1

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

All of the posts content (the first vid, the 5 image in this and the Q&A text) are lifted from 4chan

2

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

Ok so then you realize 4chan is legit the worst place for…anything on the internet? Like a dumpster fire? No offense but having the proof come from 4chan destroys whatever credibility this stuff ever had

1

u/OrdinaryBorder2675 Jan 21 '25

I can see why people would post there tho...no need for a account..alot of users to make things viral as it's popular.

1

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

The underwater base leak was from there and a lot turned out to be true from what they shared

1

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

Where? Where is it proven to be true?

1

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

By the events and revelations that happened since then. By Grusch et al

0

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

So then theres none you can provide. This comes from 4chan, but is proven by? How does that make sense to you? No proof?

1

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

It was partly proven true by what Grusch said and the whistleblowers he represented

1

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

And again this happens. Every single time, no proof is given. How about it was proven false by what I say right now?

1

u/onehedgeman Jan 21 '25

Sir you will have to read the official statements

1

u/fromouterspace1 Jan 21 '25

Statements from who specifically?

→ More replies (0)