Strategic Speculation

How a speculative framework for addressing UAP secrecy may bring the UFO community together while making us more effective.

In my last post “The Trouble with Tic Tac Technology”, I speculated wildly and irresponsibly about nation-state capabilities and the ultimate origins of T³. I also discussed why disclosure is a process worthy of our attention and participation. While some have unfairly characterized disclosure advocates as UFO enthusiasts who sit around waiting for the government to tell them things, I have found this not to be the case. Most serious and respected researchers on this topic are actively participating in the process of disclosure (though they may define the term in different ways). Those who suggest government secrecy regarding UAP is of no consequence to a serious examination of the subject ignore two important factors:

1. Government claims about UAP have historically defined if and how the subject gets any serious attention from credible institutions and academia (and subsequently the mainstream media).
2. Government capabilities to track UAP and USOs are far beyond what is currently possible for civilians.

Even if you don’t particularly care about the first point, the second is a matter of pragmatism. You’re still going to want access to government data sets. Greater transparency alone may not get you the access you would like, but it certainly can’t hurt. It’s difficult to ask for something which the government insists doesn’t exist. I am a fan of taking the research into our own hands. I am very encouraged by what I see happening in spaces like Sky Hub (I’m planning to build) and SCU. But it’s not a stretch to suggest our efforts to understand this phenomenon would be improved by greater access (any access) to government data that we can get.

In Defense of Speculation

If you’ve followed me for any amount of time whatsoever, you will know I am no stranger to speculation. I have been known to speculate wildly and irresponsibly about all aspects of this strange phenomenon we find ourselves obsessed with. Speculation is a loaded term in the UFO community these days and for good reason: it has contributed to unnecessary strife and fractures that may never be able to fully heal.

The UFO community isn’t really a “community” at all… at least not one that anyone who isn’t a sadist would want to be a part of.

If you doubt the truth of that statement, take a moment to post something (on whichever platform you choose) that goes slightly against the grain. If you run in a “skeptical” circle you may post something in praise of TTSA or lend some credence to a claim from Bob Lazar or Philip Corso. If you run in more “open-minded” circles, try giving a subtle nod to a mundane explanation for a particular case. Then wait. You’ll be having one of those “Wait are we in an argument right now?!” moments with people you have otherwise friendly interactions with all of the time. It’s tempting to write off such occurrences as the result of irresponsible speculation. Because if this is the case then the solution is simple: Just speculate less. And this is exactly the approach some have taken and (of course) demanded of others if they intend to be taken seriously.

I argue the root cause of strife within the community lies not in our speculation, but in what we do with it. We all speculate. Perhaps our speculation is grounded in skeptical concepts we selectively deploy like Occam’s razor. But no matter our method, the result is generally the same: We reach conclusions which support a narrative we already believed to be true. So the key issue then is not speculation. It is certainty. Certainty is what causes division and strife: certainty that aliens walk among us, certainty that the government is responsible, certainty that the whole subject is better left to psychologists, certainty that our own logic is sound and reliable.

I argue that speculation can (and should) be a good thing. It is borne out of curiosity and hope that answers are out there if one knows where to look (and what to ask). There are many who rightfully call for a more scientific approach to the phenomenon. I argue that speculation is essential for just such an approach. Scientists speculate regularly. What are hypotheses if not informed speculation about questions for which we don’t have answers? The key is in the testing. Scientists, if their aim is an earnest pursuit of the truth, test their speculation and let the data guide their conclusions. We in the UFO community tend to welcome scientists into our fellowship with open arms. What frustrates us are scientists who are too certain about this subject to “ask the question” with any seriousness. Again, the issues we face have much more to do with certainty than with speculation.

A Better Way Forward

So how can we participate together in the process of disclosure when we all have differing ideas about just what it is the government is hiding? The issue is compounded by the fact the government seems to employ layers upon layers of secrecy regarding this subject. At the end of the day, what we all need is the truth. If we could abandon all preconceived notions and preferred narratives, it would probably lead to better research and a friendlier community. However, I’m not sure that’s a realistic prospect. Asking each individual to approach this subject like a computer may work on a temporary basis, but not for the long haul. The sunk cost fallacy is a strong foe indeed. I propose a better approach is to develop a speculative framework composed of progressive narratives- allowing us to focus our efforts on logical next steps while side-stepping (but not abandoning) preferred narratives. Below I am posting an initial draft for just such a framework.

Each step represents a speculative narrative regarding government involvement with UAP. It is clear by now that the government hasn’t been forthright (to say the least) about their involvement with this subject. The first narrative was the company line for many years (one that some continue to espouse today). However, this is now demonstrably false. Thus it is our first layer of UAP secrecy. Each (speculative) narrative must be evaluated on its own merits. Does it amount to the full truth or is it just another layer of secrecy?

A proposed speculative framework for addressing UAP secrecy (SFAUS):

1. The US MIC knows nothing about and has no interest in UAP
2. The US MIC knows the phenomenon is real but doesn’t study it
3. The US MIC knows the phenomenon is real and studies it on an occasional basis with little to no funding. The findings are inconclusive.
4. The US MIC has always studied UAP and are confident it represents non-human tech, but other than that they’ve got nothing.
5. The US MIC has materials (small bits and pieces) from UAP that are odd, but we don’t know what to do with them
6. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program, but it’s gone nowhere because we don’t understand what to do with it
7. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program. It’s been successful. They possess some of the capabilities of UAP, but not all.
8. The US MIC has wreckage and a reverse engineering program. It’s been successful. They possess all of the capabilities of UAP.
9. The US MIC possesses direct evidence of a non-human intelligent source for UAP
10. The US MIC is in communication and cooperation with a non-human intelligent source for UAP

***The US MIC refers to the United States Military Industrial Complex. This framework is not meant to suggest the US MIC operates as a cohesive whole. It is likely that some of these layers may be true for one small group (or groups) within the US MIC but not for all. It is also normal for small groups within the US MIC (especially USAPs) to operate in complete isolation from other groups whose involvement might lead to unwanted oversight.***

Each person will have their own thoughts about this framework. Our knee jerk reaction to such a framework will likely be to judge what we think the final step is… to find our own preferred narrative on the list. For some, it may go too far. For others, not far enough. Some may think that step 6 represents the full truth… the core secret all preceding layers are meant to protect. For others, step 4 might be a bridge too far. The goal (at this time) is not to have a framework everyone agrees with. The most important part is identifying where we are NOW, reflecting on where we’ve been, and figuring out what’s next.

Asking the Right Questions

Luis Elizondo has made it a habit of encouraging anyone who will listen to “ask the question”. Recently I heard Bob McGwier say that the most vital part of any scientific endeavor is “asking the RIGHT questions” (paraphrase). Asking the right questions is fairly vital to the scientific method. In fact, it’s the first step. I believe a framework like the one I’m proposing is a good way to keep us focused on asking the right questions regarding UAP secrecy. I argue it is better for us to focus our efforts towards the next logical narrative in the framework than to try to pry out secrets even admirals can’t get their hands on.

We are currently in step 3 of this process. We have progressed from step 1 through step 3 in approximately 3 years since the release of the bombshell December 2017 article in the New York Times. This level may seem insignificant to some. But it’s definitely better than where we were 3 years ago and took hard work from researchers and advocates from all corners of our community. Our progression thus far proves we are indeed participating in a process of disclosure. We are at our best when we work together towards a common goal. In this case that goal ought to be gathering evidence for the next logical narrative (4). We may not agree on where the journey ends but it makes sense to travel together for as long as possible.

A Framework for Categorizing Evidence of UAP Secrecy

The speculative framework for addressing UAP secrecy (SFAUS) also has utility as a means for categorizing and analyzing evidence. It works as a simple filing system, with a “drawer” for evidence in support of each narrative in the framework. For instance, you would file the December 2017 NYT articles (and subsequent follow-ups) in the drawer for narrative 3. Datapoints involving the hotly contested Wilson docs would go with narrative 6. Any documents or compelling testimony alleging the recovery of alien bodies would lend credence to narrative 9. The idea is to categorize every bit of data we have on government involvement with UAP in a drawer, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of proof.

We are generally prone to only considering evidence serious/substantial if it rises to the level of proof. But again, we don’t know what the truth actually is. If we eventually are able to prove that narrative 6 is true… it’s not a stretch to predict that the very same people who say the Wilson docs are a nothing-burger will no longer be so confident in their assessment. Not every case is won with smoking guns. Not every criminal is caught red-handed. A culmination of evidence can, if there is enough of it, amount to proof. We have to get away from the bad habit of disregarding data that doesn’t amount to “bombshell proof” in a vacuum. Some data points, while mundane in a vacuum, may prove compelling in the proper context with other data points.

The ultimate goal for using SFAUS to categorize evidence is to provide researchers, journalists, and content creators with a quick and easy resource to find all of the relevant documents and facts regarding the narratives they find themselves researching. In addition, it serves as a place for researchers new to the subject to immerse themselves in the available evidence and to determine where further research is needed. I also envision SFAUS as a mechanism for facilitating peer review and organization. If an individual wanted to get in contact with someone researching a particular area they ought to be able to find out with SFAUS.

Final Notes

If you haven’t figured it out yet, SFAUS is probably best realized as an organized searchable web archive. The framework itself is just a draft. I envision it as a crowd-sourced living framework that would (and should) change as new evidence emerges, new research is completed and the process of disclosure unfolds. It probably already needs some changes and input from like minded individuals is welcomed. I ask you to keep in mind my earlier point that the point of the framework isn’t to make it line up with the truth or a particular preferred narrative but to provide a visualization of where we are now, and where we will probably go next (if we go anywhere at all). Here is a bullet point review of the benefits of SFAUS:

The Benefits of SFAUS:

1. It facilitates strategic speculation while discouraging certainty
2. It allows us to cooperate together towards a common goal by focusing on logical next steps rather than preferred narratives
3. It’s a visual reminder of where we are in the process of disclosure
4. It provides an organizational system for evidence regarding UAP secrecy
5. It provides a valuable resource for new comers, established researchers, authors, journalists and other content creators to quickly access the available evidence for UAP secrecy
6. It provides researchers with a place to connect, communicate, determine new areas of research and possibly a mechanism for peer review

If nothing else, I hope this will create some interesting dialogue and get us thinking about how we can take an active part in the process of disclosure. My platform is tiny and I doubt very many people will read this post or feel compelled to offer any feedback. But if you are reading this and find it at all compelling, please share it with your circle and give me your thoughts.