Brock Press

There is a lot of sloppy thinking around this topic. Skeptics are probably the sloppiest with comments like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Well, I don't know why an "extraordinary claim" would require MORE proof than a "less extraordinary claim". Either there is proof or there isn't.

The question is, "What consititutes proof?". Could the inability to collect voluminous amounts of solid data on UAP/UFO actually be an indicator of the presence of a ET incursion? Is it possible that some phenomena can be verified by a general lack of information beyond the report itself? The one thing that the scientific method may not be equal to is testing the presence of a nonhuman intelligence operating unfamiliar technology. Perhaps someone else needs to be making the decisions in this regard.

I will elaborate.

The issue with this problem of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAP is compounded by a confusion about information and science. There are plenty of serious decisions made that are based upon information that is not scientifically verifiable. Some types of acceptable conclusions are arrived at through logical and critical analysis but are simply not testable. And some phenomena, like alien incursions, for example, might be more verifiable because of the difficulty in documenting them. It stands to reason that alien incursions by a technically superior intelligence that is manifesting infrequently and globally are extremely difficult to test through scientific means, even if it happened right in front of a bunch of scientists.

How do intelligence organizations determine if information is actionable and correct when they don't scientifically test their conclusions? Obviously they are correct about their actions and decisions quite often and move forward with whatever actions are necessary. Would an intelligence analysis of the UAP matter come to a different conclusion than the scientific community? Would it be wrong for the intelligence-type analysis to conclude from data collected that something was afoot even though the science community could not find enough info to put to a test?

Further, not all ufo are objects, some are reported as simply lights so that the term ufo is not only incorrect but misleading.

Many aspects of our natural world were first engaged with an observation. Gorilla's, for example, were poopoo'd as fever dreams, native superstitions, etc.... it wasn't till one arrived in London that the Royal Society concluded their existance, to the chagrin of a lot of smartalecky science guys who were so confident that they could reason out the issue from an armchair.

The skeptics conveniently overlook research like that of the French gov and their study of UAP which has lasted since 1966, or the Chilean and Peruvian govs and their ongoing studies. The opinions of these orgs deserve our attention.

I don't know what UAP are but it is interesting that since the AF declared that they were all explainable as conventional phenomena the British gov has released a study called "UAP in British Airspace" and it states, under no uncertain terms that "UAP undoubtedly exist" and may represent a "threat to aviation". Interesting that they chose a less pejoritive term and its the same one we use...

Go to Hessdalenproject.com as well for a twenty year instrumented study on UAP that manifest there.

Our best guess, through our work at NARCAP is that there are probably a number of atmospheric phenomena that are not well documented. Which gives us pause to ask the question "How thorough was the AF in its investigations if it didn't catch these phenomena?" because simple logic points out that if the study couldn't resolve rare phenomena that we are documenting (and at relatively little expense) and which have been around all along, then how could they claim with any certainty that no ufo represents an extraterrestrial incursion?

We don't know if there are ET incursions amongst the UAP we study but the shear wieght of reports from pilots and aircontrollers and supporting radar data regarding unusual objects as well as lights with seemingly intelligent qualities certainly keeps us from discounting the possibilities outright.

Ted Roe
Exec. Director
NARCAP