The Johny Webb Show

https://johnywebb.com

This episode dives into a high-stakes report of a British Airways crew's near-miss with an unidentified object over London, and examines how it compares to more conventional aerial phenomena. We also explore the latest UAP declassifications from the US Department of Defense and revisit Britain's earliest official study into unexplained aerial sightings.

• A British Airways crew reports a terrifying near-miss with an unknown object, deemed "highest risk" by aviation authorities.

• We contrast this serious incident with a drone that halted a football match, highlighting the challenges of identification.

• New declassified US UAP files reveal "black triangle" sightings and ongoing efforts to model their physics.

• Uncover Britain's very first official UFO study, the "Flying Saucer Working Party" from the 1950s.

Here is the full transcript:

Good evening, and welcome to The UK Desk from The Johny Webb Show: the week in British UFO and UAP reporting, with the paperwork in one hand and a healthy scepticism in the other. I'm Nigel, and with me as ever...

[MAGS] ...is Mags. Evening, Nigel.

[NIGEL] Evening, Mags. This week, we're discussing the British Airways crew report of a near-miss with an unknown object, plus Britain's first official UFO study. That's our lead article, available in full on johnywebb.com. Let's start with this week's news from Britain.

[MAGS] Right, a British Airways crew flying in from New York, getting ready to land in London, reported an object passing incredibly close to their aircraft. Fifty feet from the wing, according to the report. That's not a small margin when you're flying at thirty-five thousand feet.

[NIGEL] Indeed. Aerospace Global News and London Business News reported on it, and Inshorts added that the Airprox Board, which investigates these sorts of incidents, placed it in the highest risk category. For an object to be that close, with that potential for disaster, that’s an extremely serious rating.

[MAGS] Highest risk category... but what was it? The pilot described it as being "the size of four toasters". Now, I'm not sure how helpful that is, Nigel, but it gives you a mental image of *something* solid, I suppose. And it certainly wasn't on their flight plan.

[NIGEL] It's a specific visual description, Mags, and it's what was reported. The fact it's gone to the Airprox Board and received that highest risk category rating means the aviation authorities are taking it very seriously. It's an investigation that will require careful examination, as the article states, given the proximity and the potential safety implications. That part is on the record.

[MAGS] Absolutely. And you can just imagine the crew's reaction, seeing something like that out of the window. Not a bird, not another plane. Something the size of four toasters just zipping past the wing of your passenger jet. They're trained observers. It's a highly credible report.

[NIGEL] Precisely. While such reports often have prosaic explanations, the details described warrant careful examination. We will be keeping an eye on the outcome of that investigation.

[MAGS] And then, back down to earth, quite literally, this week, a Carabao Cup match was temporarily stopped because of a drone hovering over the stadium.

[NIGEL] Yes, police intervened. The report notes it as a clear example of how modern drone technology can sometimes be mistaken for, or complicate, reports of unexplained aerial phenomena, particularly when operating in restricted airspace.

[MAGS] Well, that's a drone, love. And an expensive one, probably, to be flying over a stadium. But it highlights the issue, doesn't it? If someone who isn't familiar with drones sees something like that, especially at night or from a distance, it could easily be reported as something far more exotic. It's a perfectly logical explanation, in this instance.

[NIGEL] It is, and it serves as a useful contrast to the British Airways report, where the object was clearly not identified as a drone, and was at an altitude where a civilian drone would not typically be operating. The Airprox Board's highest risk category indicates that.

[MAGS] A drone at thirty-five thousand feet would be quite something. And it wouldn't be "the size of four toasters" from that distance, either.

[NIGEL] Moving beyond these shores now, the United States Department of Defense has continued its programme of declassifying documents relating to UAPs. MeriTalk confirmed the release of a seventh batch of files.

[MAGS] Ah, the Americans again. Always releasing something. We don't see quite the same level of openness here in the UK, do we?

[NIGEL] No, not on the same schedule, at least. Fox News and Cleveland.com were among the outlets reporting on the contents. The Independent highlighted details of a "black triangle" observed over a sensitive US site.

[MAGS] A black triangle. That's a classic shape, isn't it? Always comes up in the reports.

[NIGEL] IFLScience added that these files detailed a "matte black triangular shape" over US airspace. There were also reports from SMBtech of a Pentagon contractor modelling the physics of military-documented UAP and USO phenomena.

[MAGS] Modelling the physics? That's quite a leap from just declassifying reports. They're clearly trying to figure out what these things *are*, not just logging that they exist.

[NIGEL] It certainly underscores the considerable official interest in these aerial observations in the US context. There are ongoing efforts there to understand and document unexplained encounters. It suggests a more proactive approach than what we've historically seen in Britain, which brings us rather neatly to our 'From the files' case this week.

[MAGS] Ah, the archives. Your domain, Nigel.

[NIGEL] Indeed. This week, we revisit the Flying Saucer Working Party, which operated from nineteen fifty to nineteen fifty-one. Britain's earliest official attempt to analyse aerial phenomena.

[MAGS] So, this was when all the 'flying saucer' reports were really starting to pick up, after the war. People were seeing things, the newspapers were full of it.

[NIGEL] Precisely. Public reports of "flying saucers" gained significant traction in the late nineteen forties, fuelled by international media coverage and numerous domestic sightings. The British government faced increasing pressure to address the phenomenon. In nineteen fifty, the Ministry of Defence established this discreet group, the Flying Saucer Working Party, tasked with a scientific and technical assessment of these reports.

[MAGS] A "discreet group," of course. Wouldn't want anyone getting too excited.

[NIGEL] The initiative marked Britain's first official, coordinated attempt to systematically understand the nature of these aerial observations. It was formed with representatives from the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Air Ministry – specifically the Directorate of Scientific Intelligence and the Air Ministry Scientific Advisor – and other defence scientific branches.

[MAGS] So, all the top brass and scientists, then. Not just the local bobby taking down a witness statement.

[NIGEL] Its remit was clearly defined: to review all available evidence, assess the likelihood of the sightings representing foreign aircraft, and consider if any indicated previously unknown natural phenomena. They meticulously examined reports from both within the UK and those originating from other nations, applying a methodical and sceptical approach to each case, prioritising those with multiple witnesses or corroborating data.

[MAGS] "Methodical and sceptical." That's the British way, isn't it? But what did they actually find after all that meticulous work?

[NIGEL] After approximately a year of internal review and analysis, the Working Party presented its final conclusions in June nineteen fifty-one. The report determined that all reported sightings could, with sufficient confidence, be attributed to either misidentification of conventional aircraft, meteorological balloons, rare atmospheric phenomena such as mirages or ball lightning, or psychological factors including hoaxes and errors in observation.

[MAGS] So, basically, they decided it was all balloons, dodgy weather, or people making things up. That must have been quite disheartening for the people who had genuinely seen something strange. Especially the "highly credible witnesses" the report acknowledged.

[NIGEL] They did acknowledge that, Mags. The report noted that some highly credible witnesses, including pilots and experienced observers, had reported perplexing events. But it concluded that the available data was consistently insufficient to suggest anything truly anomalous or extraterrestrial.

[MAGS] "Consistently insufficient." That's a very polite way of saying "we don't have enough to go on, so we're going with the prosaic explanations."

[NIGEL] Crucially, the group found no evidence whatsoever of any hostile or unknown foreign aircraft operating surreptitiously over the UK, nor any indication of technological breakthroughs beyond conventional human capabilities that might explain the more unusual reports.

[MAGS] And yet, there's that famous, often-quoted phrase from their conclusions, that it was "not impossible" that some observations could be unexplained. That feels like a little crack in their certainty, doesn't it? A tiny window for something genuinely unknown.

[NIGEL] The report considered that "not impossible" phrase largely as a cautious concession to the limits of absolute certainty, rather than an endorsement of exotic theories. It was about what couldn't be definitively disproven, rather than what *was* proven. The main thrust of their findings was firmly towards conventional explanations.

[MAGS] So, they looked at everything, concluded it was mostly mundane, and then basically said, "Right, job done. Nothing to see here, move along."

[NIGEL] The Working Party ultimately recommended that no further extensive investigations were necessary. They concluded that the significant effort required was simply not justified by the quality or consistency of the evidence presented.

[MAGS] So, basically, it wasn't worth the money. Even if some people *had* seen something genuinely odd, from their perspective, the overall pattern didn't warrant spending more on it. That must have been a bit of a kick in the teeth for anyone hoping for real answers.

[NIGEL] This initial assessment largely set the tone for subsequent official British policy on the subject for decades. It established a position of cautious scepticism, which concluded that while some events were puzzling, they did not represent a threat to national security or a genuine unknown requiring dedicated and ongoing research.

[MAGS] A policy of "cautious scepticism," which is another way of saying "we'll keep an eye on it, but we're not going to spend a fortune chasing flying saucers." That's classic British pragmatism, isn't it? Focus on the immediate, tangible threats.

[NIGEL] It is. The Working Party's report remains a foundational document in the history of official British engagement with the UFO phenomenon, illustrating an early, formal attempt to apply a stringent scientific and defence-oriented lens to a perplexing public interest subject. And you can read all about it in full, with every source linked, on johnywebb.com.

[MAGS] It's fascinating how different that approach is to what the US is doing now, isn't it? Seventy years on, and they're still modelling the physics.

[NIGEL] Indeed. A contrast worth noting.

[NIGEL] That's The UK Desk for this week. The full briefing, with every story linked to its source, is on johnywebb.com. Keep watching the skies, and keep the receipts. Good night.

[MAGS] And if you've seen something odd over your bit of Britain, write it down while it's fresh. Night, all.

Read the page and watch the videos: https://johnywebb.com/page.php?p=robbert-van-den-broeke

This episode takes a deep dive into the fascinating Robbert van den Broeke case from Holland, a medium known for unusual crop circles and alleged "spiritual presences." We examine the documented events surrounding a mysterious biological sample found in a field, its surprising lab identification, and the ongoing questions it raises.

• Explore the claims of Dutch medium Robbert van den Broeke, known for crop circles and alleged energetic presences.

• Discover how a mysterious organic sample from a Dutch field was independently identified by the Natural History Museum.

• Unpack the surprising laboratory finding: the material was positively identified as common octopus.

• Consider the crucial distinction between *what* the sample was and the unanswered question of *how* it appeared in an inland location.

• Review the evidence and discussions, separating documented facts from narrative claims and predictions.

Here is the full transcript:

Good evening, and welcome to The UK Desk from The Johny Webb Show: the week in British UFO and UAP reporting, with the paperwork in one hand and a healthy scepticism in the other. I'm Nigel, and with me as ever...

[MAGS] ...is Mags. And this week, Nigel, we're doing something a bit different. No MOD files, no aerial photographs from the Highlands. We're heading over to Holland.

[NIGEL] Indeed. This week, we're taking a deep dive into a very particular case, one that has been discussed and debated in paranormal circles for quite some time, and which Johny Webb has recently documented on johnywebb.com. The page is called 'Johny Webb and Robbert van den Broeke', and you'll find it in the site menu under 'Robbert'.

[MAGS] Right. So for those who don't know, Robbert van den Broeke is a Dutch medium. He's been a known figure in Holland for about twenty years now. On his own website, he says he's observed a great many crop circles throughout his life and that he also photographs what he describes as spiritual or energetic presences that visit him.

[NIGEL] That's his account, yes. And it's an account that has drawn both support and considerable scepticism over the years. Our purpose here is not to adjudicate, but to lay out the documented events and the various claims. The story, as presented on Johny Webb's site, begins in 2015.

[MAGS] That's when Robbert says some rather unusual, tentacle-like material first appeared at a field site near Breda, which is an airport field site. And it's important to say here, Nigel, that this is Robbert's account of finding it. It hasn't been independently confirmed.

[NIGEL] Exactly. The origin story of the material is an important distinction. Fast forward a few years to June seventeenth, two thousand eighteen. A crop formation appeared in a field in Holland. Robbert claims he was told beforehand that this formation would come. He and a filmmaker, Wm Gazecki, then went to the site.

[MAGS] That's the thing about predictions, isn't it? If someone says something will happen, and then it does, that's interesting. But it's only really checkable if there's a clear, dated record of the prediction *before* the event. Otherwise, it's just a story told after the fact.

[NIGEL] Precisely. The stronger the record of the advance notice, the more weight it carries. And this particular event in June two thousand eighteen is the subject of the first video on the Johny Webb page, which is titled 'Crop Circles Formations In Holland, 06-17-2018, Predicted Beforehand by Robbert Van Den Broeke'. It's the uploader's framing, of course, that it was 'predicted beforehand'. The video itself shows the formation.

[MAGS] So, Johny Webb enters the picture around this time, in two thousand eighteen. He spends several days with Robbert, around Breda and Hoeven. He arrives, as the record shows, curious rather than already convinced, which is the right way to approach these things. He walks the fields, he films what he sees, and crucially, he brings home samples of that material Robbert had described earlier, so an independent laboratory could say what it was.

[NIGEL] And that's where we get to the most established part of this case. In June two thousand eighteen, Johny took part of one of those samples to the Natural History Museum in London. He simply asked them what it was, without telling them about any extraterrestrial idea or suggesting anything beyond a straightforward identification.

[MAGS] And that's a smart way to do it, isn't it? You go to an expert, you ask a plain question, you don't lead them. That way, you're getting an objective answer.

[NIGEL] Indeed. And the museum identified the sampled tissue. They stated it was common octopus, *Octopus vulgaris*, from a DNA barcode match. They specified that the identification was not preliminary, and on request, they sent the raw sequencing data. That result, the identification of the tissue, is absolutely on the record. It's established.

[MAGS] So, we know *what* it was. Common octopus. But that still leaves the biggest question, doesn't it? HOW did common octopus tissue come to be in a field well inland in Holland? The laboratory answered *what* it was, but they didn't answer *how* it got there. Nobody has independently established the origin story.

[NNIGEL] That part is still very much open, Mags. And it's critical to understand that distinction. The laboratory result is factual, but the narrative explaining how that biological material appeared in that specific location is not. This is also covered in the second video on the Johny Webb page, titled 'ET Evidence: Johny Webb Submits ET Tentacle Sample To London Natural History Museum'. Again, the title is the uploader's choice, but the video itself documents Johny taking the sample to the museum.

[MAGS] And that brings us to the next stages. Later on, Johny and Robbert talked the results through with researcher and author Grant Cameron. Johny also recorded his own testimony of his visit to Holland.

[NIGEL] Those discussions are captured in two further videos on the Johny Webb page. The third is 'Grant Cameron with Johny Webb, Robbert Van Den Broeke: Messages From ExtraTerrestrials', where the three discuss the museum results. And the fourth, which is a two-part series, is titled 'ET Contactee has Evidence That Proves ETs Exist! (Part 2)'. This fourth video is Johny's own testimony of the Holland visit.

[MAGS] Now, about that title for the fourth video... 'ET Contactee has Evidence That Proves ETs Exist!' That's a very strong claim to put in a title, isn't it?

[NIGEL] It is, Mags. And it's important to gently but firmly state that while the museum identified the sample as common octopus, the record does not, in fact, show proof of extraterrestrial existence. It's a claim made in the title, and we distinguish between the uploader's framing and what the actual evidence, in this case, the laboratory report, states.

[MAGS] Right. It's that distinction again. An experience can be real and deeply felt by the person who had it, but a laboratory result can still point somewhere very ordinary. And keeping those two things separate is the most honest way to hold a case like this.

[NIGEL] Indeed. And it's worth noting that Robbert van den Broeke's experiences have also drawn attention from a different perspective. The Dutch writer Constantia Oomen, who is a firm sceptic and has followed Robbert's activities since the mid-2000s, has published 'Behind the scenes' posts between two thousand fifteen and two thousand twenty, setting out why she doubts the phenomena. She offers a counter-narrative, essentially.

[MAGS] Which is fair enough, isn't it? If someone has followed a case for that long and has their reasons for scepticism, that's part of the wider conversation. There's Robbert's own account, there's the laboratory finding, and then there are the people who have looked at it for years and have questions.

[NIGEL] It creates a very full picture, Mags. We have Robbert's personal experiences, documented over two decades. We have the specific claim of material appearing, then the laboratory's definitive identification of that material as common octopus, an identification that is established fact. And then the still-unanswered question of how that material came to be inland. And we have the critical analysis from sceptics like Constantia Oomen.

[MAGS] It's a fascinating and complex story, one that truly brings together those two aspects we talk about on The UK Desk: the paperwork – the lab results, the documented timeline – and the people – Robbert's experiences, Johny Webb's investigation, and the ongoing debate around it all.

[NIGEL] It is. And as we always say, for an experience to be real to the person who had it is not in doubt, but a laboratory result can still point somewhere ordinary. Our job is to keep those two strands separate, to look at the evidence as it stands, and to invite you, the listener, to weigh it for yourselves.

[MAGS] Exactly. And to do that, you really need to go and watch the videos and read the page on Johny Webb's site. It really lays it all out, and you can see the discussions for yourself.

[NIGEL] That's The UK Desk for this week. The full briefing, with every story linked to its source, is on johnywebb.com. Keep watching the skies, and keep the receipts. Good night.

[MAGS] And if you've seen something odd over your bit of Britain, write it down while it's fresh. Night, all.