Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell engagement report
@JeremyCorbell - 309K followers on X
Measured over 10 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 5, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 406 interactions against 309K followers, an engagement rate of 0.132%. Measured over 10 original posts, its engagement rate beats 66% of 6,874 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 50K times each, and 0.817% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 16.1% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.7 post a day over the last 30 days, though only 27% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 00:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 10 posts sampled, 50% carry an image or video and 90% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 5.3K interactions, about 13x its own typical post.
Measured over 10 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on September 5, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell's engagement rate beats 66% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (6,874 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 7 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 41% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.132%, Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell sits above the 50th percentile of the 67,112 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.1% to 0.5%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.002% |
| 25th percentile | 0.016% |
| 50th percentile | 0.1% |
| 75th percentile | 0.5% |
| 90th percentile | 2.09% |
| 99th percentile | 117.8% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 00:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 50% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 90% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 50% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 90% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 284 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 5, 202613x their median
🚨BREAKING🚨: There are reports of cell phone footage inside the US government of black triangle UFOs, filmed from under a hundred feet away. Footage clear enough to end the debate about evidence overnight. The whistleblower saying so stood beneath one himself, and his conclusion under oath is that the craft was not human made and not ours. Dylan Borland (@TheDylanBorland) was an Air Force geospatial intelligence analyst whose literal job was identifying aircraft from sensor data; one morning at Langley Air Force Base he watched a hundred-foot black triangle hover silently over him, its hull wrapped in a golden transparent plasma that moved like a lava lamp. The air filled with static and the smell of a lightning storm, his phone overheated in his pocket, and the craft shot from a hover to thirty thousand feet in roughly two seconds. The man trained to identify anything in the sky could not identify it. AARO, the Pentagon's own UFO office, gave the game away. It logged his sighting as unclassified while burying everything else he described inside a special access program, and that's the tell: a secret American aircraft would have made the sighting itself classified, and they didn't classify it. The craft was never ours. Borland says the same office then falsified his file, sending the intelligence community's top oversight body a report he never signed, the basis for a treason accusation that carries the death penalty. After Dylan's sightings, while working at BAE systems (often-mentioned as one of the inheritors of non-human technology in books like Imminent), Dylan came into contact with personnel cleared to a broader legacy UFO program. And from there, he went on an intensive search: combing through all material he could about UFOs, non-human intelligence and programs related to both. Then came the reprisals: his clearance was strangled through paperwork tricks; a VA program strapped him to a polygraph while air horns blasted every time he miscounted backward from a hundred. Borland says they have other ways of making you doubt your own mind, from government documents describing the ability to implant false memories without drugs to a VA doctor who quietly admitted to him she was CIA. At the center of it is Project Rubik's Cube, a program Borland is legally barred from even acknowledging. Involved in the program is an apparent "pyramid-shaped power source" of non-human origin, apparently more sensitive than the UFO craft itself. Langley's most secret airspace has been penetrated at will before Borland's sighting. For seventeen straight nights in late 2023, swarms of drones nobody could identify flew over the base while the Pentagon publicly admitted it had no idea what they were and no way to stop them. Borland, who was working counter-WMD intelligence at the time, says the swarms weren't wandering, they made straight for the two most sensitive targets on the base: the hangars holding the Air Force's stealth fighters, and the NASA facilities next door. The cover-up is still running. For years, employees at NASA's Langley facilities had tagged photos of labyrinths and hieroglyph-like markings on Google Maps, and one by one those images are being scrubbed off the internet. What Borland walked away believing is bigger than any single UFO sighting: that our own government no longer thinks humans are the ones in charge. Full conversation live now. Big thanks to the legends Jeremy Corbell (@JeremyCorbell) and George Knapp (@g_knapp) for breaking this story.
- Aug 12, 20269.8x their median
UFO/UAP whistleblower David Grusch claims to have seen highly classified videos and photos of recovered UFOs and their nonhuman occupants (aliens!). He and other UAP whistleblowers request immunity from @POTUS so they can share with the American People. I’m calling on every influencer, podcaster, reporter and politician to ask @POTUS to make this happen! THE TIME FOR DISCLOSURE IS NOW. @elonmusk, @benshapiro, @danawhite, @andrewschulz, @TheoVon, @shellenberger, @JeremyCorbell, @rosscoulthart, @NEWSMAX, @FoxNews, @CNN, @ABC, @senatorrounds, @SecPompeo, @SenGillibrand, @SecRubio
- Jun 24, 20269.7x their median
We told MIT Lincoln Labs we know the exact video file you are holding, by name, and we want it. They admitted it exists and agreed to turn it over. That is what happens when you stop asking politely and start naming names.
- Jun 20, 20263.7x their median
Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board? As has been widely reported, the US government has asked Professor Avi Loeb, of the Department of Astronomy at Harvard University (see the main announcement at the end of this posting), to create a UAP Advisory Council. The members of this advisory group span a range of disciplines from astronomy, psychology, physics, biology, data analytics, psychology, entrepreneurs, and more. I am thrilled to have been invited alongside a notable list of scientists, academics, entrepreneurs, and others. What follows are my personal thoughts and are not any official position of the UAP Advisory Council. Dr. Loeb has already elaborated on the formation of this Council, along with his views through postings on his blog and in public interviews. Importantly, no one on the Council has been asked to sign any non-disclosure agreements. We are told that we are free to discuss matters that come before the Board, but without attribution of the source (Chatham House rules). By the same token, I am not obligated to answer any questions either. I plan to treat this effort like I do my day job in cancer immunology—not talking publicly about results until I am sure the answer is as close to correct as I can determine. So, how did this Advisory Council come to be? Well, one answer is simple—through the dedicated action of thousands of individuals across decades, the coming forward of credible military and government officials in public testimony (sometimes under oath), the work of members of Congress and the Senate, along with testimonials of public witnesses, and much more. Collectively, those actions have led to the extraordinary and courageous decision by President Donald J. Trump and his administration to release to the public US government-owned UAP-related files and information as vetted by a UAP Governance Board and other government agencies. As publicly announced, our group will report to the UAP Governing Board, which is under the direction of the Executive Branch. Many people have openly wondered, “Why create a new Board when elements of the government or even commercial institutions already (allegedly) know the answer?” The UAP Advisory Council doesn't have any funding, and we don’t have subpoena power. We are all volunteers. We advise. Given that, there are some straightforward answers to the criticisms and commentary I have seen. First, appreciate that the complexity of what UAP might represent is not definable in a single technological or cultural framework. It is so complex that even I, who have been steeped in the matter for over 15 years, have a hard time encompassing the breadth of explanations from “it’s real, and it’s here” to “it’s all misidentification”. My mind spins trying to make sense of it all. What is clear is that the data released so far is not enough. The anecdotes are not enough. Sure, interesting videos, but where’s the metadata? What are the parameters of how the data was collected? Why are there extreme redactions of files and data? Why the incredible pushback? Where are the alleged retrieved technologies? There’s simply not enough to convince me when I put on my serious scientist’s hat. Yet what I do know is that the question of what it might be will not go away while the data remains locked up. The answers to what any data might mean will require a comprehensive effort across disciplines that expand well beyond “nuts and bolts” science. Hence, the broad makeup of the team that comprises the UAP Advisory Council. Every person on the Board is, I believe, devoted to taking a logical and deeply skeptical approach to this matter. We will let the data guide us and cross-check each other. For me, despite my widely known bias that I think there’s something deeper to the matter than misidentification, I remain like any scientist a trained sceptic at heart. I am terrified of making a mistake, but I’ve yet to reach a formal conclusion despite my public musings. I can believe a thing might be true, but as a scientist, I must believe enough in the possibility of an idea being true to justify my time and effort to prove it to myself— and more so to prove it to colleagues or the lay public. There is data that, when contextualized as a hypothesis, becomes evidence that invites us to wonder whether the answer to “Are We Alone?” might be sitting right in front of us, but we choose to ignore it or let others tell us it should be ignored. Remember, data is only evidence towards supporting a conclusion when you pose a question (hypothesis) around what the data means. But evidence is not a conclusion. Evidence is what you put in front of a jury, where the data has been sufficiently scrubbed of doubt to allow one to decide what it means. So, back to “Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board?” Well, we all want objective, and even subjective, expertise to interpret whatever data comes our way. Even if tomorrow a saucer landed in Times Square, we would still need a swath of expertise to interpret what opens the door, how it got here, and what might be the intent. Better to be prepared, in my opinion. We obviously risk that this is a misdirection from some essential truth or that we might be being used in some elaborate disinformation campaign. We are also aware that we might be in for the possibility that there is simply nothing there but elaborate stories and misidentifications. But I can tell you this—the risk is worth it. We have come further than ever before to open the door (or Pandora’s Box) to a potentially incredible opportunity. “Are we alone?” might be answered as “We are one of many.” Coming to know what others might have already learned about the nature of reality is, for me, well worth the effort to ask the question. One way or the other, I believe humanity can handle the answer. https://t.co/QZEUu6AZAa
- Aug 5, 20263.3x their median
On the first episode of the Bigelow Podcast, George Knapp and Robert Bigelow go deep into the conversation of UFO’s, ET’s and the topic of disclosure. Watch the full episode on YouTube. 🚀 LINK IN BIO 🚀 #ufo #disclosure https://t.co/JTKovne7AW
- Jun 18, 20263.1x their median
Whitley Strieber says he's watched Non-Human Intelligence extract a human soul - 'like an oyster from its shell.' And it's happened to him too. @G_Knapp and I get into it with @WhitleyStrieber - and what he has witnessed. New WEAPONIZED launches 5PM PT https://t.co/wcAAW3SzxK
- Jun 13, 20262.3x their median
It’s simple. How you can help UFO whistleblowers? Just read and then share this article with family and friends. You can do that. Right now. 🛸🥋🪖🐺⏰ SHARE : https://t.co/MrE90UlbzI https://t.co/IMv4GQROP6
- Sep 2, 20262.2x their median
WEAPONIZED returns from the wilderness! A New Wave of UFO News - Why They’re Spying on Whistleblowers. With a broad view and deep dive into an astonishing flood of UFO-UAP related news… @G_Knapp and I get into it all 🛸 Launches HIGH-NOON PT here https://t.co/NmQ4EHoLXc GO GO UFO!!!
- Jul 24, 20262.1x their median
New article is UP! Catch and Kill: How to Advance Disclosure Without Falling Into Deep-State Traps https://t.co/nqDIJy8BxG https://t.co/4AlEgRfD5A
- Aug 6, 20261.9x their median
My latest Substack is live. I examine unacknowledgment—the deep state’s preferred tactic for suppressing inconvenient truths, isolating whistleblowers, and deciding which claims are allowed into public debate. Which whistleblowers are never named? Who is never invited to the table? Which reports are never cited? Which allegations are never addressed? Which subjects—and which facts—are curiously omitted? The emerging UAP narrative is being shaped right now, and this is one of the tools they’re using to do it. https://t.co/QyHOp4Hgew 🇺🇸🦉
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell X accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for X accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 406 interactions against 309K followers, an engagement rate of 0.132%. Measured over 10 original posts, its engagement rate beats 66% of 6,874 tracked accounts of a similar size, which puts it in the middle of its size range rather than at either end. Posts are seen about 50K times each, and 0.817% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 16.1% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.7 post a day over the last 30 days, though only 27% of days saw any activity at all. Most posts go out around 00:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 10 posts sampled, 50% carry an image or video and 90% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 5.3K interactions, about 13x its own typical post.
- What is Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell's engagement rate on X?
- Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell (@JeremyCorbell) has an engagement rate of 0.132%, based on the median interactions across 10 original posts from the last 30 days against 308,910 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.132%, Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell sits above the 50th percentile of the 67,112 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @JeremyCorbell have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 66% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (6,874 accounts), which puts it in the middle of its size range group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @JeremyCorbell post?
- Most posts go out around 00:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 0.7 posts per day across the measured window.