UFOpedia

borland-project-rubiks-cube-corbell-20260516

5 min read

Dylan Borland on Project Rubik’s Cube (Corbell interview clip)

  • Interviewee: Dylan Borland (UAP whistleblower)
  • Interviewer: Jeremy Corbell
  • Uploader: Wakamex (YouTube channel)
  • Date: May 16, 2026
  • URL: https://youtu.be/pK5CyEzQn7g
  • Duration: 2:18
  • Retrieved: 2026-05-16 via youtube-transcript-api

The key exchange (from the video description)

Corbell: “Have you ever testified to ICIG about a UAP programme containing UAP called Project Rubik’s Cube?”

Dylan Borland: “I am not in a SCIF. I am not going to jail. I can neither confirm nor deny but if you want me to answer that question, ask for amnesty for the whistleblowers, as Congress and the Executive Branch should give it to us, and I’ll answer that question”

Significance

This is the first public reference to an alleged UAP program code-named “Project Rubik’s Cube.” Borland’s response (neither confirms nor denies, demands whistleblower amnesty before he answers) is the standard whistleblower hedge for classified material. He’s signaling that:

  1. The question itself is sensitive enough that he can’t answer in an unclassified interview
  2. He has testified to ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) on this topic — Borland is a verified ICIG complainant per existing infobase sources
  3. The codename “Project Rubik’s Cube” is now publicly attached to a UAP program by a known whistleblower

The hedge pattern matters because Borland in this same clip explicitly notes he has NOT gone through DOPSR (Department of Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review), unlike Lacatski, Elizondo, Stratton, etc. Anything classified that he says without that approval would be a federal crime. The neither-confirm-nor-deny is therefore not coy ambiguity — it’s a forced hedge with legal teeth.

The pattern also matters because it links to the Skip Atwater clip from August 2025 (separately archived) in which Atwater describes an alien using a Rubik’s cube as the metaphor to explain interstellar travel. The Rubik’s cube reference appearing across two unrelated UAP witnesses (Borland whistleblowing 2024-2026; Atwater from the Stargate program 1970s-90s) is either:

  • A genuine shared reference (a codename derived from an actual program insight)
  • Coincidence (Rubik’s cube is a common cultural metaphor)
  • One person’s account inspiring the codename or the other person’s account
  • A deliberate seeded reference by someone

Without more, this is not dispositive. But it’s a striking semantic connection that the Sentinel Network or other open-source intel might investigate.

Full transcript

[00:00] Congress, I still haven’t gone through [00:01] DOS, sir. Everything I have said is [00:03] completely nonapproved. I am speaking at [00:06] will of myself and not on behalf of any [00:08] agency or the United States Air Force, [00:10] DoD, DU. Everything I am talking about, [00:13] I have never been approved to speak. [00:15] Dobster is a process where uh say a [00:18] witness or say you’re you’ve been an [00:20] intelligence guy work for CIA or [00:22] something you want to write a book you [00:24] have to submit that to a process any [00:26] agency which has uh information and [00:29] programs or assets that are mentioned in [00:31] that book you have to go through the [00:32] dots of process and all of them take get [00:34] to take a shot at what you write what [00:36] you say you’re not writing a book but [00:38] you are being careful about what you can [00:40] say in public [00:41] >> yeah and I I think this is this goes [00:43] back to the other whistleblowers most of [00:44] them have gone through some form of [00:46] approval. Um, I have been playing this [00:49] so safe that even if I get into a space, [00:51] which goes back to the weaponized [00:54] interview, where we were redacting [00:55] things that are publicly known, but I [00:57] don’t want to put people in danger and I [00:58] don’t have approval. Um, but that is [01:01] correct. Uh, you are supposed to [01:04] anything that might broach that subject [01:07] or your time in the government, you are [01:08] supposed to get approval. [01:10] >> Did you have to do that to to appear [01:11] before Congress? Uh, I thought I did, [01:13] but we did not have time. I was given [01:15] six days notice. [01:16] >> Yeah, let me talk about that because I [01:18] set that up. So, so first of all, like [01:19] someone like Matt Brown, he he used uh [01:22] uh the State Department to get through [01:24] the adoption process. Uh Dr. James [01:26] Latsky, George’s friend, he ran the UFO [01:29] program for the Defense Intelligence [01:30] Agency. He came on our show a bunch of [01:32] times. He hasn’t done a bunch of shows. [01:35] He went through Doppster to be able to [01:37] tell George, “We have a nonhuman [01:40] intelligence UFO in a holding base and [01:42] we breached the whole of it.” That’s a [01:45] gigantic admission. That is disclosure [01:48] of of a non-human intelligence grab, [01:50] right? [01:51] >> Yes. And it took um we co-wrote a book [01:53] called Skin Markers at the Pentagon. It [01:55] took 14 months to get through the doctor [01:57] process. We thought it would never end. [01:58] I think Jay Stratton, who was in charge [02:01] of the UAB task force, was part of OAP [02:03] and ATP. He’s still waiting. It’s been a [02:06] year and a half, two years, [02:07] >> and it’s it’s it’s Lou Alzando. It’s J [02:09] Strand. They all got to push through, [02:11] right, to to the adoption process. But [02:13] Dylan is kind of freeballing it. Dylan [02:15] saying and he is, you know, he’s

Graph View

Backlinks