A 1990s apocalyptic script about staged revelation, synthetic “sky shows,” and manufactured UAP crises
Project Blue Beam is best understood as a modern apocalyptic narrative about how a future global “revelation” could be staged using advanced communications, optics, and psychological influence. Its core allegation is that a coalition of powerful institutions (often named as NASA and the United Nations in early tellings) could simulate religious and “off-world” events, then leverage mass shock to consolidate political authority and establish a new global belief system. (Internet Archive)
In UAP culture, “Blue Beam” has become a flexible explanatory frame that people reach for when they suspect that public attention toward anomalous objects is being steered, or when they fear that dramatic “disclosure” headlines might be theater. In recent years it has repeatedly resurfaced in response to viral aerial videos, drone waves, and periods of low institutional trust. (Reuters)
What Project Blue Beam claims
The most circulated versions of Project Blue Beam trace to Serge Monast, a Canadian author and lecturer whose name is closely associated with the concept in the 1990s. (Internet Archive)
A widely shared text attributed to Monast describes “four steps”:
- Step 1: “Engineered earthquakes” and hoaxed archaeological “discoveries” intended to discredit foundational religious doctrines. (Internet Archive)
- Step 2: A global “space show” using three-dimensional optical projections and sound, tailored to regional religious expectations. (Internet Archive)
- Step 3: “Telepathic” or mind-internal messaging using ELF/VLF-style framing and satellite delivery, making individuals believe their deity is speaking from within. (Internet Archive)
- Step 4: “Universal supernatural manifestations,” including (in some variants) a simulated “alien invasion,” a synthetic “rapture,” and mass panic to eliminate opposition and justify a new political order. (Internet Archive)
Even at face value, Blue Beam is not one single claim. It is a bundle of claims about:
- Institutions (who is doing it, and how coordinated they are)
- Tools (holograms, lasers, satellites, broadcast systems, neuro-influence)
- Outcomes (religious replacement, governance consolidation, disarmament)
- Timelines (often shifting, sometimes tied to round-number years)
Those components can be assessed separately.
Origins and cultural seedbed
Serge Monast and the “script” format
Monast’s biographical details are frequently repeated online with inconsistencies, but an authoritative library authority record places his death in December 1996. (Data BnF)
The widely circulated “Blue Beam” text itself is important because it shows the structure of the story: not a single incident report, but a scenario plan. It reads like a staged sequence, complete with psychological preparation via popular media and escalating phases of spectacle. (Internet Archive)
Why the Reagan “alien threat” quote matters in Blue Beam lore
Some tellings connect Blue Beam’s conceptual spark to Ronald Reagan’s 1987 United Nations speech, where he mused that a shared “alien threat from outside this world” could dissolve geopolitical differences. (Reagan Library)
In Blue Beam culture, this line is treated less as rhetorical flourish and more as an inadvertent “tell” that global unity might be catalyzed by an externalized nonhuman threat. Whether or not that interpretation is warranted, it helps explain why the Blue Beam narrative binds itself so tightly to UAP imagery as a unifying fear object.
“Blue Beam” vs. “Blue Book”
A persistent confusion point is the name itself. “Blue Beam” is often assumed to be connected to (or a successor of) the U.S. Air Force’s UAP investigation program historically called Project Blue Book. The Guardian has noted that the name is likely derived from Blue Book. (The Guardian)
That naming proximity matters because it gives the narrative an “official echo” even where no documentary connection exists.
The Four Steps in detail
Below is the most common “four steps” outline, following the widely circulated text attributed to Monast. These are not verified stages of a real program. They are the narrative’s internal architecture.
Step 1: Engineered quakes and curated “discoveries”
The text describes artificially created earthquakes at precise locations, paired with “discoveries” meant to demonstrate that religious doctrines were “misinterpreted.” (Internet Archive)
This step is less about geology than about epistemic demolition: remove confidence in inherited stories, then supply a replacement narrative.
Step 2: The “space show” tailored to belief
The second step describes three-dimensional projections and audio, distributed globally with different imagery by region, matching predominant faith expectations. (Internet Archive)
This is the most famous piece of Blue Beam because it maps cleanly onto a pop-culture idea: “holograms in the sky.”
Step 3: “Artificial talk” and inner-voice messaging
The third step, as circulated, frames satellite-delivered ELF/VLF signals as a way to produce mind-internal experiences, persuading each person that their own deity is communicating. (Internet Archive)
This is where Blue Beam crosses from spectacle into claims about neuro-influence at scale.
Step 4: The capstone crisis
The fourth step is described as “universal supernatural manifestations,” with three orientations that include:
- A simulated “alien invasion” to provoke nuclear response and subsequent disarmament
- A simulated “rapture” narrative
- A composite of “electronic and supernatural forces” channeled through networks and devices (Internet Archive)
This is the part of Blue Beam that most strongly fuses UAP imagery with apocalyptic religion and political consolidation.
Key evidence
When people ask for “key evidence” for Project Blue Beam, they often mean “evidence that it exists as a real operational program.” The available record looks different:
1) Primary-source “evidence” is mainly the Monast-attributed text and derivative retellings
The most concrete artifact is the text itself, which lays out the four steps and the intended psychological effects. (Internet Archive)
But a text describing an alleged program is not the same as:
- budgets or contracts,
- named facilities,
- technical demonstrations,
- whistleblowers with checkable credentials and documentation, or
- a paper trail consistent with large-scale multinational coordination.
2) No publicly verified NASA or UN documentation supports an actual “Project Blue Beam”
Despite the narrative’s frequent naming of NASA and the UN, credible public documentation of such a program has not been produced in the way real aerospace or defense programs typically leak into public visibility over time (contracts, procurement traces, audits, subcontractor footprints).
A rigorous evaluation therefore classifies the “NASA program exists” component as uncorroborated.
3) Blue Beam is frequently used as a lens for miscaptioned or simulated UAP media
A Reuters fact-check is illustrative: a clip misrepresented online as UAP footage was actually generated in a flight simulation game, and online discussion invoked “Project Blue Beam” as an explanation for why “the government” would push fake UAP imagery. (Reuters)
This shows something important: in contemporary usage, “Blue Beam” often functions as a default explanation for perceived media manipulation, even when a simpler explanation exists (mislabeling, edits, simulations).
4) The narrative borrows plausibility from real historical precedents of information management and staged-incident planning, but those precedents do not substantiate Blue Beam itself
Two examples often cited in adjacent discussions:
- Operation Northwoods (1962) is a declassified Pentagon/JCS planning document proposing provocations to justify intervention in Cuba. (National Security Archive)
- The CIA’s Robertson Panel-era documentation reflects concern that public interest in “flying saucers” could be exploited, and it discusses education or “debunking” efforts to reduce public reaction and vulnerability to propaganda. (CIA)
These show that states can plan deception and perception-management. They do not show that a sky-hologram messiah project exists. They explain why some audiences treat a staged UAP spectacle as psychologically plausible.
5) The technical building blocks exist in limited forms, but Blue Beam’s implied scale is the gap
Blue Beam’s “hologram sky show” is often described as if it were already solved engineering. The real world shows partial components:
- Research demonstrates aerial/volumetric graphics using focused femtosecond lasers that create luminous points in air, with reported workspaces on the order of cubic centimeters in at least one experimental system. (displaydaily.com)
- Related research discusses voxel generation and re-projection methods for aerial imagery, but these are still constrained systems, not city-scale sky theater. (Nature)
- Atmospheric scattering and attenuation degrade crisp long-range optical projection through real air, which is a basic physical constraint on “clean holograms across a skyline.” (sciencedirect.com)
So, the “key evidence” on technology is not proof of Blue Beam. It is evidence that some optical and perceptual effects exist, while the narrative’s implied global scale is not demonstrated in public technical literature.
Technical reality check: what is plausible, what is not
This section does not argue that institutions cannot stage aerial spectacles. They can. The question is whether Blue Beam’s specific package is realistic as commonly described.
“Holograms in the sky”
A true free space “hologram” visible from many angles in open air is not the same as:
- projecting onto clouds or haze,
- using drones as light sources,
- using lasers to create small plasma voxels, or
- using augmented reality via personal devices.
The optical environment matters. Light moving through the atmosphere is deflected and attenuated by particulates, degrading image clarity and contrast. (sciencedirect.com)
The most feasible “mass sky display” methods in practice tend to be:
- drones carrying lights in coordinated formations,
- projection onto surfaces (clouds, haze, screens, building facades),
- broadcast media (the “sky show” happens on screens, not in the sky).
Blue Beam’s cultural image of omnidirectional, city-scale 3D apparitions remains unproven in open scientific or engineering literature.
“Voice in your head” broadcasting
With our current scientific understanding there is a real, well-documented phenomenon commonly called the microwave auditory effect: pulsed microwave energy can produce perceived sounds described as buzzing or clicking, as reported in classic work by Frey and in later reviews. (ヒロコ財団)
However, moving from “auditory clicks/buzzes are possible under certain exposure conditions” to “satellites can deliver individualized deity-voices into billions of minds” is a major leap. The biological effect is real; the Blue Beam scale and personalization claim is not established by the medical and biophysics literature cited in public sources. (ヒロコ財団)
Psychological operations without sci-fi hardware
Ironically, Blue Beam’s social impact can be achieved without its most extravagant claims. A modern “manufactured revelation” could be attempted using:
- coordinated drone waves,
- selective release of ambiguous videos,
- synthetic audio/video (deepfakes),
- algorithmic amplification, and
- crisis framing.
That pathway requires far less exotic physics than a planetary hologram theater. This helps explain why Blue Beam persists even when its technical claims are challenged: its psychological plot can be re-implemented with new tools each decade.
Blue Beam and UAP discourse: the collision of two explanatory instincts
UAP history contains two competing instincts:
- The anomaly instinct: enduring, credible UAP reports across eras and cultures indicate a genuine phenomenon that is not reducible to prosaic causes. (This is where UAPedia’s broader editorial gravity tends to sit.)
- The stagecraft instinct: states and institutions can manage narratives, seed confusion, and sometimes stage events, so apparent “revelations” may be choreographed.
Blue Beam is the most theatrical expression of the second instinct. It becomes problematic when it is used as a universal solvent that dissolves every UAP case into “they faked it,” including cases with serious multi-witness, multi-sensor, or historically deep patterns.
A careful UAP research posture can hold two ideas at once:
- staged aerial events and disinformation exist in history,
- but they do not automatically explain the full UAP record.
Timeline
The timeline below distinguishes between: (a) cultural/ideational roots, (b) publication milestones, and (c) modern resurgences.
| Date | Event | Relevance to Project Blue Beam |
| 1953 (declassified later) | CIA Robertson Panel-era documentation discusses “debunking”/education to reduce public reaction to “flying saucers” | Shows institutional interest in managing public perception around UAP reports, feeding the plausibility of later narrative frameworks. (CIA) |
| 1962-03-13 | Operation Northwoods planning memo produced by U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff | Demonstrates that staged-incident proposals have existed in declassified history, often cited as “proof that planners can imagine provocations,” though unrelated to Blue Beam’s specific claims. (National Security Archive) |
| 1987-09-21 | Reagan UN speech referencing an “alien threat from outside this world” as unifying | A rhetorical seed frequently interpreted in Blue Beam lore as foreshadowing a unifying external threat narrative. (Reagan Library) |
| 1994 | Monast-associated “Project Blue Beam” text circulates, describing four steps including quakes, a global “space show,” and mind-internal messaging | The canonical “script” formulation and source for the commonly repeated four-step structure. (Internet Archive) |
| 1996-12 | Death of Serge Monast (date varies across secondary sources; library authority record lists 05-12-1996) | Becomes part of the surrounding legend ecology; later retellings often treat his death as suspicious, without public verification of that claim. (Data BnF) |
| 2023-08 | Reuters fact-check notes Blue Beam invoked online as a reason “government falsifies UAP footage,” in a case where a clip was from a simulation game | Illustrates how “Blue Beam” functions today as a meme for media distrust, often triggered by viral UAP clips. (Reuters) |
| 2024-12 | Drone wave discourse in the U.S. Northeast includes renewed “Project Blue Beam” chatter | Demonstrates the narrative’s periodic resurgence during ambiguous aerial events. (The Guardian) |
What would count as strong evidence if Project Blue Beam were real?
Because Blue Beam claims planetary scale and high complexity, the evidentiary bar is correspondingly high. Strong evidence would look like:
- procurement records (contracts, subcontractors, deliverables) consistent with long-range aerial display R&D at scale
- technical documentation showing operational capability beyond laboratory demonstrations
- insider testimony with verifiable employment history plus corroborating documents
- multi-source leaks that converge on the same program structure and timeline
To date, public Blue Beam discourse relies primarily on scenario-text circulation and inference rather than that kind of convergent evidentiary stack.
Claims Taxonomy
Below are the major Blue Beam claims treated as discrete claims, with UAPedia’s taxonomy applied.
Claim: “Project Blue Beam is a real NASA program with four
Classification: Legend (widely circulated narrative with no publicly verifiable program documentation). (Internet Archive)
Claim: “A global ‘sky show’ of religious/UAP imagery can be projected worldwide as 3D holograms visible to the public.”
Classification: Disputed (limited related technologies exist in laboratories, but global scale as described is not established in open literature). (displaydaily.com)
Claim: “Satellite-delivered signals can generate individualized inner-voice messages for entire populations.”
Classification: Disputed (microwave auditory effects are documented, but the individualized, global ‘deity voice’ scenario is not supported by the cited biomedical literature). (ヒロコ財団)
Claim: “Modern viral UAP clips are often ‘Blue Beam’ productions.”
Classification: Misidentification (many such attributions are post hoc and sometimes attach to miscaptioned or simulated footage). (Reuters)
Speculation labels
Hypothesis
Blue Beam persists because it is a portable myth-template: it explains institutional secrecy, religious anxiety, and media unreliability in one story, and it can update its “tech props” each decade (from satellites and lasers to drones and synthetic media). (University of California Press)
Witness Interpretation
During ambiguous drone waves or unclear official messaging, some observers interpret uncertainty itself as evidence of orchestration. The Guardian’s reporting on drone-related anxiety shows how quickly such interpretive frames spread in moments of collective attention. (The Guardian)
Researcher Opinion
Blue Beam should be treated as a cultural artifact inside UAP discourse, not as an established explanatory solution for UAP. It is more useful for studying belief, information trust, and narrative contagion than for explaining high-quality anomalous cases.
Having said that, there is evidence in the studies of consciousness that could produce some of the effects purported by the Blue Beam narrative in our article here.
References
Barkun, M. (2013). A culture of conspiracy: Apocalyptic visions in contemporary America (2nd ed.). University of California Press. (University of California Press)
Central Intelligence Agency. (1953). Report of meeting of scientific advisory panel on unidentified flying objects (declassified document). (CIA)
Frey, A. H. (1961). Auditory system response to radio frequency energy. Aerospace Medicine, 32, 1140–1142. (As cited in Lin’s review). (ヒロコ財団)
Frey, A. H. (1962). Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy. Journal of Applied Physiology, 17, 689–692. (As cited in Lin’s review). (ヒロコ財団)
Lin, J. C. (1978). Microwave auditory effects and applications (review). (ヒロコ財団)
Monast, S. (1994). Project Blue Beam; Revival of the fake alien invasion technology (widely circulated text). Internet Archive. (Internet Archive)
National Security Archive. (1962). Justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba (Operation Northwoods memorandum) (declassified PDF). George Washington University. (National Security Archive)
Ochiai, Y., Kumagai, K., Hoshi, T., Rekimoto, J., Hasegawa, S., & Hayasaki, Y. (2015). Fairy lights in femtoseconds: Aerial and volumetric graphics rendered by focused femtosecond laser combined with computational holographic fields (PDF). (displaydaily.com)
Reuters Fact Check. (2023, August 2). Fact check: Clip of UAP over Nevada created with simulation game. (Reuters)
Science. Atmospheric scattering (definition and overview). (sciencedirect.com)
Bibliothèque nationale de France. (n.d.). Serge Monast (1945–1996) authority record (PDF). (Data BnF)
The Guardian. (2024, December 17). New Jersey governor urges state to calm down as FBI looks into drone mystery. (The Guardian)
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. (1987, September 21). Address to the 42d session of the United Nations General Assembly. (Reagan Library)
SEO keywords
Project Blue Beam, Project Blue Beam timeline, Serge Monast, staged UAP event, fake alien invasion narrative, holograms in the sky, volumetric display lasers, microwave auditory effect, Frey effect, UAP disinformation narratives, UAP media miscaptioning, Operation Northwoods and UAP culture, Robertson Panel perception management