Through night-vision goggles, Logan Labby says he saw a large, silent V-shaped object over Schriever Air Force Base. When he lowered the goggles, he could no longer see it
ILLUSTRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION // NOT EVIDENCE

Reported Encounter at Schriever Air Force Base

Former U.S. Air Force Security Forces Airman First Class Logan Labby has described a 2008 encounter involving an unidentified object over Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. Speaking with host Ryan Graves on The Safe Aerospace Podcast, Labby said the incident occurred during a night-shift patrol sometime in the spring or summer, between approximately 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. The base is associated with satellite and space operations, making the reported location particularly significant from a national-security perspective.

Labby said he and two fellow personnel observed the object using Generation 3 night-vision goggles. He described it as a large, V-shaped craft approximately the size of a football field, with two sharp sections meeting at a point and no visible cockpit or central fuselage. According to his account, six or seven large, circular lights were visible along the underside. The lights appeared steady, like streetlights, but did not illuminate the ground or surrounding area.

An Object Visible Only Through Night Vision

The object was reportedly hovering or moving slowly at an estimated altitude of about 1,000 feet. Labby emphasized that it produced no audible sound, despite its alleged size and proximity to the ground. He said the lack of noise was one of the most striking aspects of the encounter, because a conventional aircraft of comparable dimensions would ordinarily be expected to generate substantial propulsion or aerodynamic noise.

Labby also reported that the object could not be seen with the unaided eye. When he lowered the night-vision goggles, the sky appeared empty; when he looked through them again, the object was visible. He said the two other members of the patrol, including a staff sergeant serving as patrol leader and another law-enforcement patrolman, were also able to view the object through the goggles and reacted with surprise. The account, however, has not been independently verified, and no sensor records, photographs, or official incident report have been made public.

Delayed Reporting and FBI Interview

Despite the object’s reported position over a sensitive military installation, Labby said the group did not formally report the incident at the time. He attributed the decision to the stigma surrounding UFO reports in 2008 and concerns that discussing the event could affect their reputations or security clearances. Labby later characterized the decision as a “security failure,” arguing that an unidentified object had passed over what he described as “priority level one resources.”

He eventually came forward after watching congressional testimony from Graves, former intelligence official David Grusch, and retired Navy Commander David Fravor. Labby submitted his account through the Americans for Safe Aerospace website, the organization founded by Graves, and was subsequently interviewed by investigator Kason Best. Labby said the FBI later conducted a roughly 45-minute interview, which he described as professional and “pleasant.” He said investigators did not dismiss his account despite the approximately 15-year delay.

Broader UAP Reporting

Graves, a former Navy pilot, said during the podcast that Americans for Safe Aerospace has received what he characterized as a “flood of reports” in recent months. He argued that reducing the stigma associated with UAP reporting is necessary to encourage pilots and service members to provide timely information that can be evaluated through aviation-safety and national-security channels.

Labby’s testimony remains an individual account supported, according to his statement, by two additional witnesses. It does not establish the object’s origin, technology, or nature. The reported sighting also has not been connected publicly to any known aircraft, classified program, atmospheric phenomenon, or other verified explanation. Further assessment would require contemporaneous records, corroborating sensor data, or independent testimony.