The Holloman AFB Landing: Reconstructing the Alleged Military Film and Its Three Nonhuman Visitors

Historical

According to astrophysicist Dr. Eric Davis, former President George H.W. Bush once told him something extraordinary during a private telephone conversation.

They were discussing the purported military film of a UFO landing at Holloman Air Force Base. Davis says Bush rejected the frequently repeated claim that the event occurred around 1970 or 1971:

"Bush confirmed to me that's false. It happened in '64 and in the month of April that year."

Eric Davis discussing his conversation with George H.W. Bush

According to Davis, Bush learned about the incident after President Gerald Ford appointed him director of the CIA in 1976. Bush was allegedly told that a military helicopter crew had been redirected from White Sands to Holloman and filmed the event on 16mm film.

Bush reportedly asked to see the footage and accompanying reports. A Pentagon liaison officer allegedly refused, telling the CIA director that he lacked the necessary need-to-know authorization and would require presidential approval.

Jacques Vallée later recorded another version of Davis's conversation with Bush. When Davis asked whether the footage might have shown a training exercise or special operation, Bush allegedly answered:

"It was 'the real thing.' There was a secret project, and the security was 'obscene.'"

Excerpt from Vallée's journal about the Bush–Davis conversations

There is no recording of this phone call, and Bush never confirmed it publicly. The story rests on Davis's recollection.

It also introduces one of the most important unresolved questions in the Holloman story: Was this an unexpected event that military photographers captured opportunistically, or a planned meeting for which officials were already waiting?

The surviving accounts point in both directions.

The foundational 1988 testimony

On October 14, 1988, Robert Emenegger and Paul Shartle appeared on the television special UFO Cover-Up? Live.

Emenegger and Allan Sandler had produced the 1974 documentary UFOs: Past, Present, and Future. They claimed that the Department of Defense initially promised them authentic footage of a landing at Holloman, then withdrew it shortly before their documentary was completed.

Shartle was introduced as the former security manager and chief of requirements for the audiovisual program at Norton Air Force Base. Unlike Emenegger, Shartle claimed that he had personally watched the film.

When host Mike Farrell asked what he saw, Shartle began:

"I saw footage of three disc-shaped crafts."

Paul Shartle and Robert Emenegger's 1988 interview

Shartle said one craft landed while the other two flew away. The descending object oscillated all the way to the ground, making it appear as though it might be experiencing trouble.

Despite the unstable-looking descent, it completed a controlled landing on three pods. A sliding door opened, a ramp extended, and three occupants emerged.

The beings were human-sized, with odd gray complexions and pronounced noses. They wore tight-fitting jumpsuits and thin headpieces that appeared to be communications equipment. They carried handheld devices that Shartle had been told were translators.

Shartle said the Holloman base commander and another Air Force officer went out to meet them. When Farrell asked whether he had actually seen the beings on the film, Shartle answered yes.

The basic 1988 sequence

Three disc-shaped craft approached Holloman.
Two departed.
One oscillated during its descent.
It landed on three pods.
A sliding door and ramp opened.
Three human-sized, gray occupants emerged.
They carried translator-like devices.
The base commander and another Air Force officer met them.

Shartle did not say what happened after the initial meeting, how long the visitors remained, or why they had come.

The acceleration test: Shartle's unique explanation

Shartle said his superiors eventually described the film as theatrical footage purchased by the Air Force for a training production.

He questioned that explanation because maintaining records of audiovisual purchases was part of his job, yet he had no record of the Air Force purchasing this film.

He then supplied an important detail about why cameras were operating:

"The people who were shooting that day were Air Force personnel. Lucky for us...they were doing an acceleration test."

Watch Shartle discuss the acceleration test

This is probably the best practical explanation for how trained Air Force photographers could have captured the event in detail. Holloman operated a major high-speed test track where acceleration experiments were documented with specialized cameras and professional crews.

However, the acceleration-test explanation appears only in Shartle's 1988 telling.

Neither the 1974 documentary nor Vallée's 1974 diary explicitly says that the cameras were present for an acceleration test. Those accounts mention military filming but leave its original purpose ambiguous.

The Bush account points in a somewhat different direction. If a helicopter was redirected from White Sands after the event began, its involvement appears improvised rather than prearranged. That does not prove the landing itself was unexpected, but it suggests that at least one camera crew was not initially waiting to record it.

Meanwhile, later accounts describe senior military officers, intelligence representatives, or generals already positioned to meet the visitors. Those versions imply that someone at Holloman knew they were coming.

The sources may therefore preserve different pieces of the same operation, or they may be competing explanations created at different times.

The 1974 documentary's reconstruction

Fourteen years before Shartle's interview, Emenegger and Sandler included a dramatized Holloman sequence in UFOs: Past, Present, and Future.

They presented it as something that might happen in the future or might already have happened. Emenegger maintained that the details came from the military footage and briefings promised to his production team.

In the documentary, radar detects three unidentified objects approaching Holloman. The base attempts to communicate with them. A red alert is issued, fighters are launched, and a helicopter with a professional photographer records the approach. Cameras on the ground also capture the event.

The documentary never explains why the ground cameras were available. It does not mention an acceleration test, but it also does not say they were positioned for a planned landing.

Its depiction contains mixed signals. The failed attempt at communication, red alert, and fighter response suggest an unexpected intrusion. The organized filming and rapid reception of the occupants suggest that the base was unusually prepared.

One object separates from the formation. It hovers silently approximately ten feet above the ground before landing on three extended pads.

Three occupants emerge:

"Perhaps short, by our standards. With an odd blue-grey complexion, eyes set far apart, a large pronounced nose..."

Watch UFOs: Past, Present, and Future

The commander and two scientists step forward. Some form of communication is established, and the group enters an office in the base's King One area.

The documentary does not explain who the visitors were, where they came from, or what they wanted.

Jacques Vallée's 1974 diary

Jacques Vallée recorded a more elaborate version in a diary entry dated July 21, 1974, later published in Forbidden Science, Volume II.

Vallée wrote that Emenegger had been unable to find anyone at Holloman who remembered the event. What remained was a rumor that a helicopter filmed three objects in 1971, one of which landed.

His entry does not say why the helicopter was filming or whether the landing was expected. Unlike the 1988 account, it does not mention an acceleration test. Unlike the Bush version, it does not say the helicopter was redirected from somewhere else.

The three occupants supposedly had blue-green skin, large "Assyrian" noses, and round eyes compared to ping-pong balls with central openings. They wore twisted, rope-like head coverings. One allegedly had a wire in an ear and carried a vertical staff with a spiral antenna.

These details resemble Shartle's account. The pronounced noses become "Assyrian" noses. The communications headpieces become rope-like hats and an ear wire. The handheld translator becomes a staff with a spiral antenna.

Vallée's version then goes much further:

"They remained there two or three years, allegedly 'helping the United States decode space messages from another Alien civilization.'"

Read the referenced Forbidden Science, Volume II, pg. 260

The visitors were supposedly taken first to Building 830 and then Building 930 on Mars Avenue. A biologist named Alfred Lorenzo allegedly worked with them.

This transforms the incident from a brief meeting into a multi-year classified exchange program.

Vallée did not endorse the story. After recording it, he concluded:

"None of this makes any sense."

His skepticism is essential. Vallée preserved some of the story's most extraordinary details, but described them as rumor and considered Emenegger's proposed sequence a bluff.

Allan Sandler's alleged viewing

Filmmaker James Fox says Allan Sandler eventually admitted that Shartle had privately shown him the film while Emenegger was absent.

According to Fox, Sandler saw three discs approaching from the distance while escorted by military jets. When they reached Holloman, two peeled away. The third wobbled down like a falling leaf, closely matching Shartle's description of an oscillating descent.

The jet escort could imply that the military had gained control of an unexpected situation, or that the arrival was coordinated in advance. Sandler's account does not settle the question.

Sandler reportedly said the craft's hull appeared seamless, but a door opened and produced a ramp or staircase.

The first two occupants descended and took positions beside the entrance:

"Two beings with tight-fitting suits on got out, walked, and then stood on either side of the staircase."

James Fox recounting Sandler's description

A third figure followed. Fox described this apparent leader as having a very large nose, tiny or slit-like mouth, enormous vertically slit eyes, elaborate head regalia, and a device interpreted as a translator:

"Very large noses, slits for mouths, and their eyes were almost like a vertical slit, like a cat's eye."

James Fox's 2023 retelling

The principal visitor met personnel from the base. The group entered a jeep or small convoy and drove away while the craft remained behind. According to Sandler's reported recollection, the film ended there.

Sandler apparently suspected a training production or advanced human vehicle. Shartle and Emenegger believed the footage showed something genuinely otherworldly.

Comparing the descriptions of the visitors

1974 documentary: Three beings, possibly short, with blue-gray skin, widely spaced eyes, and large noses. They wore tight jumpsuits and rope-like headpieces.
Vallée's 1974 diary: Three beings with blue-green skin, "Assyrian" noses, and round eyes with central openings. They wore rope-like hats; one had an ear wire and carried a staff with a spiral antenna.
Paul Shartle, 1988: Three human-sized beings with an unusual gray complexion and pronounced noses. They wore tight jumpsuits and thin communications headpieces and carried handheld translators.
Allan Sandler through James Fox: Three beings. Two suited attendants stood beside the staircase while an apparent leader descended. The leader had a large nose, tiny or slit-like mouth, enormous vertically slit eyes, elaborate head regalia, and a translator-like device.
Daniel Sheehan through Edgar Mitchell: One principal being was emphasized, described as a nearly six-foot "tall white." No detailed clothing description was provided.
Modern narrated reconstruction: One approximately six-foot being was emphasized, but its appearance and clothing were not described in comparable detail.

The earliest accounts broadly converge on three humanoids with gray-to-blue-green skin, pronounced noses, fitted clothing, unusual headgear, and communications equipment.

The later "tall white" description is harder to reconcile. It may refer only to the principal visitor while omitting two attendants, or it may represent the blending of different stories.

Who met the visitors?

The composition of the human reception party changes between accounts:

Shartle, 1988: The Holloman base commander and another Air Force officer.
1974 documentary: The commander and two scientists.
Sandler through Fox: An unspecified group of base personnel who left with the visitors in a jeep convoy.
Daniel Sheehan through Edgar Mitchell: Two high-ranking uniformed Air Force officers and two civilians presumed to be CIA.
Modern narrated reconstruction: Three general officers already waiting on the tarmac.

Sheehan acknowledged that he had not seen the film. He said Edgar Mitchell described it to him through someone whose best friend allegedly saw it.

Sheehan's reception party consisted of:

"Two high-ranking United States Air Force officers in uniform and two civilians, almost certainly CIA..."

Daniel Sheehan discussing the alleged meeting

The presence of a local commander could represent a rapid response to an unexpected landing. Two senior officers and two suspected CIA representatives would be harder to explain as coincidence. Three generals already waiting would make the encounter look explicitly scheduled.

No source publicly identifies these alleged participants by name.

Was the encounter planned or unexpected?

The accounts can be arranged along a spectrum:

Paul Shartle, 1988: The cameras were available because Air Force personnel happened to be filming an acceleration test. This is the clearest explanation for an opportunistically recorded event. Shartle does not say whether the reception party had advance warning.
The 1974 documentary: The situation begins like an unexpected intrusion. Radar detects unknown objects, attempted communication fails, a red alert is issued, and fighters launch. However, the base rapidly films the landing and sends out a commander and two scientists. The documentary leaves the level of advance knowledge ambiguous.
Vallée's 1974 diary: A helicopter records three objects, but nothing establishes why it was present or whether anyone expected the landing.
Eric Davis through George H.W. Bush: A helicopter crew is redirected from White Sands to Holloman. This suggests that the filming opportunity arose after the event was detected. It does not establish whether officials at Holloman had separately anticipated the arrival.
Allan Sandler through James Fox: Military jets escort the objects and base personnel meet the occupants. This could describe either a controlled response to an unexpected arrival or a coordinated reception.
Daniel Sheehan through Edgar Mitchell: Two high-ranking officers and two presumed CIA representatives meet the visitor and conduct an extended telepathic discussion inside a hangar. This strongly suggests preparation.
Modern narrated reconstruction: Three generals are already standing on the tarmac waiting. This is the clearest planned-meeting version, but also a late and unsourced reconstruction rather than direct testimony.

It is possible the arrival was unexpected to the camera crews but anticipated by a small compartment inside the government. It is also possible that later storytellers transformed a rapid military response into a scheduled diplomatic meeting.

The sources do not allow us to choose confidently between those possibilities.

Comparing the alleged filming operation

Paul Shartle, 1988: Air Force camera crews were filming an acceleration test. This is the most concrete explanation for why professional ground cameras were operating, but it appears only in Shartle's version.
1974 documentary: A professional photographer filmed from a helicopter while additional camera crews recorded from the ground. The documentary does not explain why those crews were available.
Vallée's 1974 diary: A helicopter reportedly filmed three objects, one of which landed. Whether the helicopter was already nearby or deliberately dispatched is unstated.
Allan Sandler through James Fox: Military footage allegedly captured the approach, separation, landing, and occupants, but Sandler did not specify why the cameras were present.
Eric Davis through George H.W. Bush: A helicopter crew was reportedly redirected from White Sands to Holloman. This implies an improvised aerial response rather than a helicopter pre-positioned for the meeting.
Later three-camera account: The event was reportedly filmed from two ground positions and one helicopter. The source of that coordination remains unclear.

Shartle's acceleration-test account is the strongest practical explanation for the ground footage, but it should not be retroactively inserted into every version. The earlier accounts are ambiguous, and the Bush story offers a separate explanation for the helicopter footage.

How long did the visitors remain?

The accounts divide into two incompatible versions.

In the short-visit version, the visitors enter the King One area or a nearby hangar, communicate with military representatives, and return to their craft.

Sheehan says the principal being communicated telepathically with two officers and two civilians "for some time" before leaving.

In Vallée's version, the three beings were transferred between Buildings 830 and 930 and remained at Holloman for two or three years. Their purpose was allegedly to help the United States decode messages from another alien civilization.

Shartle's testimony does not resolve this. His public description stops when the Air Force representatives meet the occupants.

When did the landing supposedly occur?

The date is also disputed:

Emenegger's original account placed the event about three years before 1973, suggesting 1970 or 1971.
Vallée's 1974 diary refers to a 1971 rumor.
Clifford Stone's Snowbird document allegedly gives April 24, 1964.
James Fox places it near the April 1964 Socorro encounter.
Eric Davis says George H.W. Bush identified April 1964.
Daniel Sheehan gives April 26, 1964.

Stone's date is notable because April 24, 1964 was also the date of police officer Lonnie Zamora's famous Socorro landing encounter, approximately one hundred miles from Holloman.

The incidents could have been connected. Alternatively, the uncertain Holloman chronology may have become attached to Socorro's established date.

Stone said Senator Pete Domenici's office helped him question the NSA about the Snowbird material in 1987. The agency reportedly refused to confirm or deny it on national-security grounds. That response did not authenticate the document.

Clifford Stone's 1992 presentation

Rice University's Clifford Stone archival collection

What happened to the film?

Emenegger said the Holloman footage was intended to be the finale of UFOs: Past, Present, and Future. The Pentagon had reportedly cooperated throughout production, providing access to military installations, officials, and records.

Then the film was withdrawn.

The filmmakers replaced it with illustrations and presented the sequence as hypothetical. Emenegger nevertheless said what he saw and heard convinced him that the UFO phenomenon was real.

The surviving few seconds of distant footage in the documentary remain disputed. Some researchers believe they came from the genuine Holloman film. Others argue that the object is an ordinary aircraft or part of the dramatization.

The most defensible reconstruction

The sources support a basic sequence, but not a single explanation for how or why it happened.

Three disc-shaped craft allegedly approached Holloman. Two departed while the third oscillated downward, hovered briefly, and landed on three pods.

A door opened and a ramp extended. Three human-sized, gray humanoids emerged wearing tight jumpsuits and communications-like headgear. They carried translator-like devices.

Air Force personnel met them. Two occupants may have remained beside the ramp while a third approached the reception party.

Military cameras allegedly recorded the event, but their presence is explained differently:

Shartle says ground crews were filming an acceleration test.
The 1974 documentary and Vallée mention cameras without establishing why they were present.
The Bush account says a helicopter was redirected from White Sands.
Later accounts imply that senior officials were already prepared for a scheduled meeting.

These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. An arrival could have been anticipated by senior officials while remaining unknown to the camera crews. The acceleration test could have provided unexpected ground coverage while a helicopter was redirected after the approach began.

But that combined scenario is an inference, not something any single source describes.

The film reportedly entered the Air Force audiovisual system, where Shartle watched it and allegedly showed it to Sandler. It was then promised to Emenegger and Sandler before being withdrawn from their documentary.

Decades later, according to Davis, George H.W. Bush said the event occurred in April 1964 and unsuccessfully requested access to the film after becoming CIA director.

Where the case stands

The Holloman landing has not been proven.

No authenticated film has surfaced. No named photographer, radar operator, base commander, scientist, or member of the reception party has publicly confirmed the event. The date, filming circumstances, participants, and duration remain contradictory.

But the story is not based entirely on an anonymous rumor.

Shartle publicly claimed he watched the film. He identified the camera operators as Air Force personnel and uniquely explained that they were filming an acceleration test. Emenegger said the footage was promised and then confiscated. Sandler allegedly admitted seeing it. Davis says George H.W. Bush knew about it and unsuccessfully requested access.

If they were telling the truth, the missing Holloman reel would not show another distant light. It would show three craft approaching a United States military installation, one landing, three nonhuman occupants emerging, and Air Force representatives meeting them.

Whether those cameras captured an unexpected arrival or a prearranged contact event remains one of the central mysteries of the case.

What do you think happened at Holloman?

A genuine but unexpected landing? A scheduled meeting known only to a small compartment? A classified aerospace test? A canceled disclosure effort? Or a sophisticated disinformation operation?

Posted Sep 12, 2026, 2:30 AM UTC