William Mills Tompkins was a real person with an unusual modelmaking career and a published trail of claims about extraterrestrial involvement in human affairs. That is a different finding from proving that reptilian beings control humanity or that the Moon is their artificial command centre.
The original lead was a Hidden Facts Facebook photo post, not a video. Its portrait-and-alien collage presents a credential-heavy story about a former Navy insider. The post was captured in September; its source URL and research were recovered from that session for this review. The original local image package is no longer available. We link the original post rather than presenting a reconstructed image as recovered evidence.
Start with the person—not the credential bundle
The contemporary San Diego Union-Tribune obituary gives Tompkins’s life dates as May 29, 1923–August 21, 2017. A new upload bearing his name therefore cannot be a new interview recorded with him today. It may be an old recording, a compilation or someone else discussing his work. [1]
The Miniature Engineering Craftsmanship Museum documents his detailed ship models and says 76 went on permanent display in May 2014. Its biography describes employment at Douglas Aircraft and includes a February 1953 newspaper account identifying him as an engineer there. That is meaningful support for a conventional aerospace and modelmaking background. The museum is not the San Diego Air & Space Museum; the two should not be conflated. [2]
The same biography also repeats claims about secret extraterrestrial work. An institution hosting a biography does not independently authenticate every assertion in it. No service file, pilot qualification record or authenticated extraterrestrial-program assignment was obtained for this review. Descriptions of Navy flying experience or intelligence work must remain attributed to the biographical source rather than presented as independently checked personnel facts.
The distinction matters because the viral argument depends heavily on authority: if someone worked around important aircraft and military projects, viewers may infer that his account of aliens has acquired official standing. Real employment and real technical skill do not establish a separate extraordinary claim.
A memoir and interview trail, not a verified deathbed confession
Tompkins’s Selected by Extraterrestrials appeared in 2015 through CreateSpace, ISBN 9781515217466. A book catalogue establishes the identity of a published work; promotional descriptions of its contents are not an audit of the events it describes. The catalogue’s inaccurate suggestion that he died in October 2017 should not override the contemporary August obituary. [1,3]
An interview index on WilliamTompkins.org lists discussions with Robert Wood in 2016 and further interviews in 2017. The site is a legacy/enthusiast source, useful for tracing recordings—not a declassified government archive. The memoir and earlier interviews show that the broad story circulated before his death. They do not establish a unique final confession or deathbed revelation. [4]
Project Camelot’s November 7, 2024 page is explicitly a repost. Its description attributes claims about Reptilians, Dracos and extraterrestrial infiltration of NASA to Tompkins. This is evidence of the allegation’s public circulation, not independent corroboration of an alliance or control structure. The site's characterization of the material as sanctioned disclosure is not equivalent to a retrieved Navy authorization. [5]
The Facebook post’s precise hollow-Moon wording has not been matched to an authenticated passage in a full original interview. We therefore do not place that sentence in quotation marks as Tompkins’s verified words. A responsible source trail distinguishes the witness’s recording, a host’s summary and a later social caption.
What does the Moon evidence actually support?
The hollow-Moon claim is not simply a question of whether to trust a witness. It makes a claim about a physical object for which scientists have several kinds of measurements.
A 2023 Nature paper, The lunar solid inner core and the mantle overturn, combines geophysical, geodesic and thermodynamic constraints to support a solid lunar inner core within a liquid outer core. The publisher’s abstract and CNRS’s institutional summary describe modelling constrained by observations—not a photograph taken inside the Moon. [6,7]
That evidence is incompatible with treating the Moon as a largely empty artificial shell merely because an impact produced long-lasting vibrations. NASA’s lunar-seismology material describes natural moonquakes as well as impact-related events. Its historical seismic report covers a substantial catalogue, not one theatrical experiment. [8,9]
The popular phrase “rings like a bell” describes a vibrational response. It does not establish that the vibrating body has the structure of a household bell. Rock properties, scattering and dissipation affect how a seismic signal travels and how long it persists. Moving from an evocative analogy to an artificial command centre skips the measurements and the competing physical explanations.
Scientific models can be revised. Uncertainty over details of the lunar interior is not affirmative evidence for a particular alternative, much less for who operates it. An artificial-base hypothesis would need its own observations and a demonstration that it explains the existing evidence better.
What would change the assessment?
For the biographical claims: authenticated service and employment records tied to the specific assignments, not merely another retelling. For the alleged secret program: independently corroborated operational records, provenance and verifiable witnesses. For the Moon claim: reproducible physical measurements and a model that survives comparison with the seismic, gravitational and rotational evidence.
None of those standards requires ridicule of Tompkins or his audience. They require keeping different kinds of evidence separate. A model collection can demonstrate craftsmanship. An interview can demonstrate what someone alleged. Neither, on its own, proves reptilian control of Earth.
The supported story is a real person, a real published claim trail and an unresolved evidentiary gap. The sweeping extraterrestrial claims remain unproven; the hollow-Moon interpretation conflicts with the scientific evidence reviewed here.
Original source and reading trail
- Original Facebook share supplied for review · Resolved static photo post. Source of the social claim; not an authenticated alien photograph.
- 1. San Diego Union-Tribune obituary, published August 24, 2017. Used for life dates, not private family information.
- 2. Miniature Engineering Craftsmanship Museum biography. Model collection and public career; extraordinary biographical assertions require separate verification.
- 3. Book catalogue. Bibliographic information, not factual certification.
- 4. Legacy interview index · Jordan Sather/MUFON interview. Claim trail; not independent proof.
- 5. Project Camelot repost, November 7, 2024.
- 6. Briaud and colleagues, Nature (2023), abstract reviewed; no claim of full paywalled-paper access.
- 7. CNRS: The Moon’s heart revealed for the first time.
- 8. NASA: Moonquakes.
- 9. NASA Technical Reports Server: lunar seismic report, abstract-level historical reference.