In recent weeks, the topic of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) and advanced non-human technology has been catapulted to the forefront of our cultural attention. The historic UAP hearing at the US Congress has given it a whole new level of legitimacy, and for good reason: this time the whistleblower is not an “anonymous senior official” shot in silhouette with a distorted voice, but someone who… a name, credentials, a history, willing to appear on camera and make statements under oath, and with corroborating witnesses.
Pilots with impeccable qualifications report phenomena that seem to violate the known laws of physics, and their observations are confirmed by instrumentation. In the entire cultural history of UFOs, we haven’t seen anything like this before, despite the continued lack of a proverbial smoking gun. What should I think about this?
More than ten years ago I wrote a book:Meaning in absurdity– discussing abnormal phenomena such as UAPs. Those who read that book know that I view UAPs and so-called “alien abduction” phenomena as largely psychological. As an idealist, when I say that something is psychological, I do not mean that it is unreal, because under idealism everything is ultimately psychological. But I viewed these phenomena, at least in large part, as the result of our own “subconscious” projections onto elements of the world. On this view, UAPs are actually real, but “dressed in the clothes” of our own projections. Their core is independent of our human psychology, but their physical presentation is not.
One might argue that an implication of this view is that the physical phase of phenomena is necessarily unstable, fluid, not immutable or permanent, but erratic and impossible to pin down, like the lights of Hessdalen. And this is why the claim that humans have managed to restore, store, disassemble, and even attempt to reverse engineer craft not made by humans would force me to put my view into a new perspective places. Although their mental phase is self-evident, I did not expect the phenomena to have such a stable physical phase.
Which of course begs the question: are the allegations even true? I feel quite comfortable saying that what the pilots are reporting is true. They have experienced these phenomena themselves – unlike the intelligence officer, who has not observed anything directly – and their observations are consistent with instrumentation measurements. The number of witnesses is also overwhelming. So it is perfectly safe to say that there is something – something controlled by a deliberate agency – that is behaving in a way that seems to contradict the laws of physics as we understand them. This in itself is spectacular, but not really new, if you’ve been paying attention.
What is new is the weight of the claim that the US defense establishment has several of these vessels in its possession. And this forces me to reconsider the view that phenomena always have a short-lived, fluid physical phase. Can we trust such a serious accusation?
The honest answer is: I don’t know. I am impressed by the circumstances of the case; I am struck by the willingness of those involved to redouble their efforts under oath; and by their diligence in following due process. This is all new and inspires some confidence. Yet they did not present a smoking gun. So all I can say is that I now take the accusation more seriously than before.
I think it is clear – as I argued in Meaning in Absurdity – that these phenomena have been present since the beginning of recorded history, and probably much earlier than that. It is therefore, in my opinion, unreasonable to think that UAPs are conducting any kind of survey or mapping of our planet and species; such a mission would have been completed long ago and would not require the recurring, frequent visits of UAPs that we are witnessing.
If UAPs are to some extent mental projections of ourselves, their repeated visits simply reflect ourselves, and so will continue to return as long as we are ourselves. There is no deep mystery here. But if it’s solid, concrete technology that’s bringing life here from other planets, dimensions, or realities, then we have to ask: what keeps them coming? What are they trying to do? Potential planetary studies cannot explain the visits, for the reasons stated above.
Now allow me to say something you don’t want to hear. Do I think we have a right to know the truth about UAPs?
Well, if by ‘right’ you mean legal good, I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer. Only an American lawyer can answer the question along these lines, but there should be a definitive, non-polemical answer. On the other hand, if by “right” we mean ethically right, my answer is: it depends. I would like to believe that I, like everyone else, have an additional right – who doesn’t like rights? – mainly because I am very curious about the phenomena. But I am too committed to the truth to let my preferences dictate my opinion on the matter. I don’t think there is a trivial matter here; our potential ‘rights’ are not self-evident.
Over the past eighteen months we have watched the overwhelming level of evil, carnage and destruction that a totalitarian regime in Europe is unleashing on the continent. Now imagine a Russia with powerful beam weapons, gravity drives and invisibility cloaks – that would mean the end of democracy, personal freedoms and our way of life. So no, I don’t think it is at all self-evident that we have the right to know everything there is to know about the phenomena. In fact, I am enthusiastically inclined to believe that this is not the case. Any information that is made public is also made available to those who want to destroy our way of life; Unfortunately, there is simply no way out.
That’s not to say that some level of carefully edited disclosure wouldn’t be helpful. The mere suspicion that we may not be alone in this universe has already brought Democrats and Republicans together; imagine what disclosure would do to bring humanity together. There is a lot to be gained from it; so much that it is hardly imaginable. And that is why I think there should be transparency.
But it must be done responsibly; not because we are psychologically unstable children who need to be protected from the truth, but because the world is full of criminal regimes that use every technical tool at their disposal to exploit everyone else and restrict freedoms. Let us not be naive here and think that disclosure will lead to all of us, including Putin and his minions, holding hands and singing the Kumbaya. The only reason we still enjoy the freedoms and the way of life we lead is our ability to use superior military force when threatened. And if the phenomena have shown anything beyond any doubt about the intentions of non-human intelligences, it is that they will not protect us from ourselves.
If properly disclosed, it could significantly advance our culture, science, and civilization as a whole, in almost unimaginable ways. It can open entirely new horizons for human life and aspirations. But we must guard against irresponsible revelations and the demonization of a defense establishment that, whatever else is true, ultimately protects our freedoms and way of life.
