X INTELLIGENCE — OCTOBER 25, 2026

In an October 13 X post, Avi Loeb described inviting former UAP Task Force director Jay Stratton to speak with the UAP Science Advisory Council. Loeb said Stratton had not responded and asked why a television appearance took priority. The statement is worth revisiting after October 20 reporting renewed attention to the dispute: it identifies a particular proposed transfer of information, not just a broad disagreement about belief.

The exact post and its scope

Loeb's written post recounts a Fox News exchange in which Stratton affirmed government possession of non-human craft. Loeb then asks for evidence supporting a link between UAP and non-human technology. UFOsoldier directly checked the text at the exact URL embedded above; the page identifies it as an edited October 13 post.

The invitation and lack of response are Loeb's account. The post does not display the correspondence, establish whether it reached its intended recipient, or explain any access or scheduling constraints. It therefore cannot establish Stratton's motive. The attached video did not play in our source view, so this report relies on the written statement rather than claiming an independent review of that clip.

What later reporting corroborates

IBTimes UK's October 20 coverage also reported Loeb's evidence demand and his account of an unanswered invitation. It did not include a reply from Stratton addressing that request. This corroborates the public dispute's reporting trail; it is not independent confirmation of the private communications or the underlying recovery allegations.

NASA's published UAP study supplies a separate methodological reference: its remit includes identifying useful existing data and determining what should be collected next. It does not adjudicate this exchange or certify either participant's claims.

A process question with an observable answer

Our assessment is that the productive next question is whether an evidence briefing occurred, what material was presented, and what reviewers were permitted to test. A dated acknowledgment, a scoped briefing or a releasable description of the evidence would be more informative than treating silence on social media as proof for either side.

For physical material, the scientific questions would include provenance, custody, controls and independent analysis. For documents or imagery, authenticity and the original collection context would matter. Those are proposed evaluation criteria, not a claim that the council already possesses such material.

The exact post documents Loeb's challenge. It does not prove non-human craft, and it does not disprove them. As of the sources reviewed for this article, the public record supports an unresolved request for evidence and an incomplete account of the response.

Hero: original AI-generated laboratory illustration; no actual recovered material, council facility or experimental finding is depicted.