X SOURCE REVIEW — SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

Americans for Safe Aerospace's September 3 post identifies a concrete research lead: Kevin Campbell, described as a former Defense Information Systems Agency contractor, says he watched a spherical object on a live MQ-9 feed over East Asia. ASA pairs that account with a call to preserve and analyze the underlying footage. This review returns to that earlier post; it does not announce a newly released military recording. Read the exact ASA post.

Keep the account attached to its source

The wording describes what Campbell says he observed. It does not establish the object's identity, measured performance or origin. The post links a Safe Aerospace Podcast conversation with Ryan Graves. Its written text was read directly for this article, but the attached clip was not playable and the full episode has not been independently audited here.

September 9 coverage by International Business Times UK also attributes an MQ-9 sensor-feed account to Campbell and the Graves interview. That confirms the account circulated in published reporting. It is not an independent witness or a second sensor observation. Repetition across publications should therefore not be counted as separate physical corroboration. Read the attributed interview coverage.

Preservation is a practical, testable request

Editorial assessment: The strongest next step would be an accountable search for the original recording and associated records. Investigators would need enough information to establish which platform and sensor produced it, when it was recorded, how the file moved between systems and whether it was edited or re-encoded. A later copy without that context could leave many of the same questions open.

Useful supporting material would include sensor mode and calibration, viewing geometry, platform motion, timing information and any simultaneous radar or other observations. These are proposed investigative requirements. This article has not established that those records survive, who presently holds them, or that a released PURSUE clip corresponds to Campbell's account.

What readers can conclude now

NASA's UAP guidance says limited high-quality observations prevent firm scientific conclusions. That general principle supports the emphasis on obtaining usable data; it does not validate Campbell's particular account. Read NASA’s UAP methodology guidance.

The post is editorially useful because its request has a verifiable outcome: records can be located, their provenance documented and their limitations reported. Until then, the defensible description remains an attributed witness account paired with a preservation request. Neither a dramatic interpretation nor a dismissal can replace examination of the underlying material.

Hero image: original AI-generated editorial illustration; it is not a photograph, sensor recording, or reconstruction of the reported event.