Over the past few weeks, the topic of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) and advanced non-human technology has come to the forefront of our cultural attention. The historic UAP hearing in the U.S. Congress has given the case a whole fresh level of legitimacy, and for good reason: this time, the whistleblower is not an “anonymous high-level official” with a distorted voice, but someone with a name, credentials, a track record, willing to speak before on camera and testify under oath and in the presence of corroborating witnesses.
Pilots with impeccable credentials report phenomena that appear to violate known laws of physics, and their observations are confirmed by instruments. Throughout the history of UFO culture, we have never seen anything like this before, despite the continued lack of the proverbial smoking gun. So what do I think about all this?
Over ten years ago I wrote a book:Meaning in absurdity—discussing anomalous phenomena such as UAP. Those who have read this book know that I view UAP and so-called “alien abduction” phenomena as largely psychological phenomena. As an idealist, when I say that something is psychological, I do not mean that it is unrealistic, because in idealism everything is ultimately psychological. But I considered these phenomena, at least largely, to be the result of our own “subconscious” projections onto elements of the world. According to this view, UAPs are indeed real, but “dressed in the robes” of our own projections. Their core is independent of our human psychology, but their physical appearance is not.
It may be argued that a consequence of this view is that the physical phase of phenomena is necessarily unstable, fluid, not immutable or lasting, but variable and impossible to determine, like Hessdalen's lights. And that's why the allegation that human beings managed to recover, store, dismantle, and even attempt to recreate a non-man-made ship, if true, would force me to look at it from a fresh perspective. Although their mental phase is obvious, I did not expect these phenomena to have such a stable physical phase.
Which, of course, raises the question: Are the allegations even true? I feel quite comfortable in saying that what the pilots are reporting is true. They experienced these phenomena themselves – unlike the intelligence official who did not directly observe anything – and their observations coincide with the measurements from the instrumentation. The number of witnesses is also overwhelming. So it's protected to say that there is something – something controlled by an intentional agent – that behaves in a way that seems to defy the laws of physics as we understand it. That in itself is spectacular, but not entirely fresh if you've been paying attention.
What is fresh is the gravity of the accusation that the American defense establishment is in possession of several such units. And this forces me to reconsider the idea that phenomena always have an ephemeral, fluid physical phase. Can we trust such a grave allegation?
The straightforward 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 testify under oath; and by their caution in following a lawful process. This is all fresh and inspires some confidence. However, they presented no smoking gun. So all I can say is that I take this accusation more seriously now than before.
I think it is clear – as I argued in Meaning in Absurdity – that these phenomena have been with us since the beginning of recorded history, and probably much earlier. Therefore, in my opinion, it is unwise to think of UAP as carrying out some kind of research or mapping of our planet and species; any such mission would have been completed long ago and would not require repeated, recurrent visits to the UAPs that we are witnessing.
If UAPs are, to some extent, our own mental projections, then their repeated visits simply reflect us and will therefore continue to repeat themselves as long as we are ourselves. There is no deep mystery here. But if they are solid, concrete technology bringing life from other planets, dimensions, or realities here, then we must ask ourselves: what keeps them coming? What are they trying to do? Potential planetary studies cannot explain these visits for the above reasons.
Now let me tell you something you won't want to hear. Do I think we have the right to know the truth about UAPs?
Well, if by “law” you mean law, then I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. Only an American lawyer can answer this question in this sense, but there should be a definitive, non-polemical answer. On the other hand, if by “law” we mean ethical law, my answer is: it depends. I'd love to believe that I, like everyone else, have an additional right – who doesn't like rights? – especially because I am very curious about these phenomena. But I am too attached to the truth to let my preferences dictate my opinion on this matter. I don't think this is a negligible case; our potential “rights” are not obvious.
Over the last 18 months, we have seen the overwhelming level of evil, carnage and destruction that Europe's totalitarian regime is wreaking on the continent. Now imagine Russia with high-energy weapons, gravity drives and an invisibility cloak – it would be the end of democracy, personal freedoms and our way of life. So no, I don't think it's obvious that we have a right to know everything there is to know about phenomena. In fact, I am enthusiastically inclined to believe that this is not the case. Any information made public is also made available to those who want to destroy our way of life; Unfortunately, there is no way around this.
That's not to say that some level of carefully redacted disclosure wouldn't be useful. The mere suspicion that we may not be alone in the universe has already brought Democrats and Republicans together; imagine the impact disclosure would have on uniting humanity. There is much to gain from this; so much so that it's challenging to imagine. Therefore, I believe that information should be disclosed.
However, this must be done responsibly; not because we are mentally unstable children who need to be protected from the truth, but because the world is full of criminal regimes that would employ every technical means at their disposal to exploit and limit the freedom of everyone else. Let's not be naive to think that releasing information will cause all of us, including Putin and his cronies, to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The only reason we continue to enjoy the freedom and lifestyle we lead is our ability to employ overwhelming military force in the face of threat. And if these phenomena have demonstrated beyond any doubt the intentions of non-human intelligences, they will not save us from ourselves.
Information disclosure, if done properly, has the potential to significantly advance our culture, science, and civilization in general, in almost unimaginable ways. It can open completely fresh horizons for human life and aspirations. However, we should guard against irresponsible disclosures and demonizing the defense establishment that, regardless of its truth, ultimately protects our freedoms and way of life.
Image Source: Pixabay.com
