Q: Do UFOs exist?

A: Yes. The way humanity interprets the word ‘fact’ is for the observation to be independently verified by a community which often includes evidence and supporting material. For UFOs, multiple governments, agencies such as NASA and key scientist/astronaut/military personnel have independently affirmed the existence of UFOs. Famously multiple presidents of the US have been quoted to acknowledge them as well.

Note: Be wary, as with enough scrutiny almost any claim can be reduced and dissected to the point where almost any ‘fact’ can be questioned, UFOs are no different. Using the term ‘fact’ in a society of subjective sentient beings is a logical slippery slope. But we can certainly say, as far as the word and loose interpretation of the word ‘fact’ goes, it is a fact that UFO’s exist.

Q: Do aliens exist?

A: Almost certainly, the majority of the scientific community agrees it would be astronomically unlikely for terrestrial life to exist in isolation. Despite significant observations of life living in seemingly impossible inhospitable environments on earth, critics rightfully question “if life is abundant, why have we not seen it yet”.

Q: Are the UFOs we see due to alien visitation?

A: The strategy to answer questions which don’t have scientific consensus is to logically consider it with the information we do have, making the fewest assumptions with the available facts. As with the case of the visitation hypothesis, we can consider many angles and reach a logically sound position.

Most of you know that out of a sample of 100 reported sightings, only a handful are truly anomalous, the vast majority being misreported as known origin. Of the handful left we can say these are anomalous genuine UAPs. Of these, we must first consider the least assumptions and first look to whether they are anomalous in nature, but human in origin.

Before we can do that we need to briefly discuss the credibility of witness testimony. Society places a significant credibility with witness testimony. People’s lives can be judged based on the testimony of a witness, such as in the case of a murder trial. Indeed the vast majority of our entire scientific understanding is based on experimental data and whilst such data is often from instruments and computers there is often a human element. Ultimately a human witnesses the experiment and records the measurements and readings. Many things can affect the credibility of a witness testimony and of particular significance are independent witnesses reporting the same observation. As is the case with the scientific methodology and ‘reproduced experiments’.

To Ufologists, a large component of lore and supplementary evidence to the existence of UAPs is built on witness testimony. We should consider events such as Rendlesham Forest where a sighting was reported by multiple expert, trained military personnel who are specifically trained in identifying even advanced aircraft and weather phenomena. A report based on multiple trained, sane personnel with consistent observations to the description of a UAP sighting is what we would call a water tight witness testimony. Such a testimony would be ruled true in any court for a petty crime or murder scandal for example.

However, on the topic of “NHI” our sample size of witness testimony is lower than the case for UAPs. The cases of multiple, credible witnesses coming forward with testimony for the case of NHI are less and I struggle to think of a good example. (Please drop any in the comments).

However, in the case of supposed NHI visitations we do have a colourful array of high ranking officials and representatives of military or government who have disclosed personally that they knew of NHI visitations.

Robert Dean Paul Hellyer

In these cases the credibility is more individually focused on the trustworthiness of the person rather than a coherent multiple sighting event. We must consider such testimony carefully for there are many logical explanations for such testimony being false.

For example, David Grusch is a high profile contemporary whistle-blower who has claimed the existence of NHI. Using purely logic and removing any emotional or subjective intuition we can consider at least one likely explanation for his testimony. It’s very possible that Grusch is operating as per a larger more convoluted Psy-Ops on behalf of the government. We know he is a very diligent patriot with a pristine record and presents as the perfect soldier to take one for the team and blow his career and personal circumstances to lie under oath and rattle off something he’s been asked to say for some greater agenda to serve his country. Such agendas we can only speculate on, but domestic manipulation of the public as well as cold-war game theory plays against adversary countries such as China. Obviously such a hypothesis is fantastical and imaginative. But so is the NHI visitation hypothesis and a global conspiracy. For those versed in the US’s history of Psy-ops, particularly in the case of the CIA and NSA – such an operation involving Grusch as a false agent is absolutely consistent with some of their previous endeavours.

Disclaimer: I am not disproving Grusch, my personal opinion is he is likely telling the truth. But I am allowed my personal opinion and my personal opinion is you cannot guarantee his legitimacy without the application of some element of faith. I have always been extremely careful whenever faith is introduced to objective deductions. I hope we all are. I don’t operate with beliefs so I can’t answer whether I believe in Grusch or not. But I can consider both sides as a matter of consistent statistical likelihood and it’s much healthier for me to assume both possibilities going forward rather than feeling the very precarious and human desire to conclude. Again I hope this is something that is common practice amongst my peers.

So answering the question of NHI having operated the UAPs we know to exist is ongoing. So far we have explored the very likely idea that life exists outside the earth. We have also considered witness testimony and found that whilst witness testimony is credible in many scenarios, it’s particularly problematic to be relied on in this case. Of course Grusch is not the only one who’s claimed NHI visitations but our analysis on him is applicable to others.

There is good hope for the Alien hypothesis, but first more bad news. If we believe Grusch and similar witness testimony (in Grusch’s case he’s not a direct witness). We must also consider that these same witnesses also claim a US government UAP project. Depending on the witnesses and whistle-blower testimony, we either have a reverse engineering capacity of UAPs to even a downright working production of UAPs ourselves. So when we consider the handful of genuine anomalous sightings for every 100 reports, when we apply further statistical analysis, we now need to account for the likelihood such sighting (especially near air force bases or military facilities) may just be human operating UAP experiments.

Obviously we have a paradox “you can’t refute the NHI origin hypothesis by saying they’re humans, if humans only have the technology because we reverse engineered it” and that is true so let’s be clear. Using statistics and logic we may say that a truly anomalous sighting may be humans operating craft. But we may also say that craft may have been inspired by a NHI origin.

So far the answer is skewed slightly towards the likelihood of the NHI hypothesis to be false. However there is a very compelling element to the facts that critics of the NHI hypothesis struggle with.

We have a very clear and comprehensive record of UAPs in history which predates a reasonable likelihood of us having the technology at that time. Obviously the endeavours of the ancient astronaut hypothesis is colourful, fantastical and well refuted. But amongst the popularly scrutinized theory there are strong elements of logical significance. Almost all religions and teachings of native indigenous people overwhelming talk of people coming from the sky in craft, appearing different in their looks, possessing knowledge and technology and interacting with early humans. Such stories are controversial of course but enough of them exist to merit consideration.

But much more relevant to us in this argument is the existence of the Project Bluebook and the incidents which inspired its necessity. For those that aren’t aware it’s common knowledge to Ufologists as the allied investigations into apparently very common UAP reports known as foo fighters observed by pilots during the word war.

Our logic tells us that if any global human power at the time had that capability we would have used it. The reason for that is because as soon as we had the atomic bomb capability we used that. It’s absurd to assume that a human government was responsible for the UAPs in the bluebook but didn’t use them, but would use an atom bomb. It’s absurd but we must remember, history is littered with absurd events that did happen. So we don’t rule it out, but it more or less provides a significant and compelling argument to the NHI hypothesis for UAPs. In simple terms, they existed before we could have created them. We deduce that, because if we had UAP tech we would have used it before needing to rely on atom bombs.

Ultimately if you want an answer it has two parts; a pragmatic answer and then a severe personal caveat.

Part one: Pragmatism

For any truly anomalous sighting, it very well may be of human origin dabbling in potential NHI tech. It also may be of NHI origin. We don’t have clear enough evidence to know. Whilst US military officials claim they don’t have the tech or that their adversaries don’t, belief of that position requires faith as they do not provide a logical argument for their hypothesis. But if we look back at the sightings throughout history it becomes more and more likely the sightings were of NHI origin.

Part two: Caveat

My personal caveat is that some FAQ’s shouldn’t have conclusive answers. Our scientific method which underpins our most prestigious and rigorous institution of science in the world; does not always conclude. Sometimes a question has multiple likely answers and it will take more information to reduce those to one answer. I emphatically preach this is an attitude we employ as Ufologists as ultimately we are a community of speculators and researchers. So let’s leave faith at the door.

Q: Why can supposed advanced beings master interdimensional/intergalactic space traversal but then crash land on earth like amateurs?

A: This question usually has a very loaded and dangerous assumption which I don’t think we can make without careful consideration. The question implies that UFOs crash landing is as problematic to NHI as it would be to us. If a military pilot crashes a plane, they may die and as an asset they are worth hundreds of millions to the government, big loss. Additionally the plane they used is extremely expensive too and may have trade secrets. For us, a pilot crash landing is a huge net loss in life and assets. When we consider the idea of UAP crash landing we are applying our human bias on them.

Firstly, the UAP may be being operated by AI, biological artificial intelligence, pilotless etc. Even if there’s a biologic body inside it’s very possible the actual sentient pilot was operating the body remotely the same way we operate robots remotely. The biological body left behind may be like a robot we left on the moon which we used remotely to navigate the lunar landscape. Our operators don’t die if the robot is broken.

Additionally, the craft itself is likely not a multi billion dollar craft. It’s probably extremely cheaply made with the avenue of advanced technology. The 4chan whistle-blower (whether you believe them or not) introduced a logically sound idea that a craft was in the sea making purpose built UAPs all the time and sending them on missions. The “mother craft” just mines the materials it needs from our sea floor and pops out a UAP, it’s probably entirely automated.

Little fiction here but it paints a story which is good to consider. Imagine a un manned probe lands in the sea after having identified using photo spectrometry that our planet has certain elements. It lands and the AI finds a spot in the sea away from detention and starts mining for a probe craft. It mines and creates a probe craft. The probe craft goes out and does some recon and then either makes new craft for whatever but eventually instigates a protocol which fires up the organic biological ‘pilots’ which are either artificial purpose built intelligence or biological vehicles operated by remote consciousness which a sentient life form will operate from afar. Then these guys go and crash whether it’s a magnetic anomaly or something else and the NHI doesn’t really care and are hardly inconvenienced.

It’s possible to encapsulate or hide or lock the main functions of their technology upon crashing in the same way that our advanced technology may self destruct if crash landed in a foreign land. There’s also speculation that some secret key is needed to operate them.

That is all fiction, but it paints a compelling alternative to us just projecting our bias on the crash hypothesis.

Remember, to a civilization that in theory has automated its outreach reconnaissance, the most pristine system design for their drones and vehicles isn’t to somehow guarantee 100% crash proof technology. But instead it’s to assume crashes will happen and make sure they’re not damaging nor give away their tech too much.

Q: Can we simulate or ‘fake’ UFO’s in the sky?

A: Yes to an extent. Using lasers we have technology to create lights that can move. However radar is another matter.

Q: Why haven’t we had material evidence of UAP’s released to the public?

A: Grusch has kind of answered this by saying that destabilisation factors are too great.

And for those interested, this post comprehensively considers this angle and attempts to explain in layman terms why disclosure is so complicated for a government and what those reasons mean.

Q: Is there an alternative to official disclosure and catastrophic disclosure?

A: Yes, I believe there’s a route forward that a community such as this one can start making progress on. With the introduction to a pragmatic disclosure which has a simple goal; remove the ‘valid’ reasons that disclosure is being hidden and it will no longer be hidden.