Some pointers on sending your reps personalized emails about UAP concerns

I just got done writing personalized emails to my representatives about UFOs which ended up being a very minimal effort. I thought I’d share a relatively simple formula on what worked for me in case it’s helpful anyone else. It essentially boils down to: wikipedia + chatgpt.

To start I researched my reps on wikipedia and made notes of what committees they’re on. I thought about ways UAP relates to their committee’s jurisdiction, which ended up being the primary focus of each email. I feel like this is a pragmatic way to approach contacting them, as it gives them actionable feedback that relates to their specific role in congress.

For example, one of my senators is chair of the Senate Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over funding scientific research as well as transportation — so in my email I focussed on funding scientific research on UAP along with transportation safety concerns since it’s officially reported that UAP fly in our airspace with impunity. I also mentioned broader issues in all the emails, like DoD/IC accountability and transparency which I believe is in the interest of all congressional reps (at least hypothetically, though some of them I’m not so sure).

I also researched their general political background and agendas (which are usually conveniently listed in the first few paragraphs of their wiki page) and thanked them for their work. I think if you agree with their political philosophy, it’s worth briefly thanking them as it shows you pay attention and gives them credit for their work. If UAP is relatable to their political agenda in any way, even better. If you don’t agree with them, best to just leave it out completely and just politely keep the focus on UAP. I feel like one political advantage we have on the topic of UAP is that it’s mostly bipartisan and not a controversial/dividing topic. You won’t offend or piss off your rep by writing them about UAP, unlike other political issues.

After I wrote out a draft, I fed it to chatgpt for some feedback. In my case it not only refined my email to make me sound smart and professional, but it also gave me good ideas on what to focus on based on the committees they serve on and their background. I was surprised with how legitimate and organized the revisions made my ideas seem haha. If anyone ends up using LLMs, be careful as they have the tendency to hallucinate or can have weird errors of their own (didn’t really experience that on my end). I read through it to make sure I understood and agreed with the whole email, so that it correctly represented me and my concerns.

Last note I think worth mentioning is I was sure to cite past/existing legislation (especially the original Senate-passed UAPDA), as a lot has already been done regarding the legitimacy of the issue and highlighting that there are glaring problems that need to be addressed. I used language that’s already defined and used in congress like UAP and non-human-intelligence etc, while avoiding terms like UFO, aliens, ET and so on. I tried to keep it very high level and stuck to only citing verifiable sources and information. The goal was to just get them interested in it politically and not go on a deep dive.

I hope people find this is helpful! Last summer I wrote my reps and feel like I did a poor job representing myself. I ended up only hearing back from 1/3 of them which is something I guess, but I wonder if I would have had a better outcome had I done a better job. Regardless of the results this time around, I feel a lot better about it so I thought I’d share what worked for me. I’ll update the thread if I hear back from my reps.

TL/DR:

Use wikipedia to briefly research each rep’s committee jurisdiction and if possible focus on relating that with your concerns on UAP If you agree with their political background and agenda, make a mention of it and thank them for it. If not, disregard their trash politics entirely and focus solely on UAP. Refine your draft with an LLM to refine it and make it more professional, while also being cautious hallucinations and errors. Be polite and respectful. Don’t dive into areas of speculation, focus on what has been verified by past legislation and official sources (which is A LOT!)