Witness testimony isn’t enough in UAP cases

Nothing spoils a good story like the arrival of an eyewitness. Mark Twain

I’ll start with a dull but necessary introduction. Witness testimony is an established part of law court proceedings and can even be sufficient to convict unless rebutted. However, eyewitness statements are known to be notoriously unreliable - or, at least, fallible - and therefore usually need to be supported by more “concrete” forensic evidence such as traces of DNA or fingerprints found at the crime scene, video recordings, and similar. It’s been shown that a bystander’s testimony can be distorted by poor viewing conditions, brief exposure to an event, and personal biases. Furthermore, someone’s memory and testament can be contaminated after the event by erroneous information and misleading questions. Memory distortion and confabulation is a psychological effect that can be thought of as “honestly lying”.

We’ve been reporting cases of US Navy pilots encountering unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The witnesses in these instances are high-calibre military fighter pilots, trained to rapidly and reliably assess potential enemy targets. Commander David Fravor was at the peak of his career, a real-life Top Gun, and what he says he saw is supported by the other aviators in his flight who also observed the UAP for a five-minute period. So their testimonies can’t easily be dismissed. But what makes the difference here is the fact that sophisticated military technology recorded what they witnessed. In short, we can say with confidence that “something” was encountered.

F/A-18F Super Hornet Credit: US Navy

It’s easy to casually dismiss the testimonies of all those who have claimed to have seen a UFO or UAP during the past 75 years or so. And it’s true that a lot of these “strange things” have been misidentifications of various known phenomena, or just hoaxes. British astronaut Tim Peake saw three lights “flying in formation” whilst aboard the International Space Station, so he called over Jeff Williams (his NASA crewmate) who was “equally perplexed”. And then a fourth light came into view, all still in formation. They eventually realised the lights were closer than first thought and that liquid was leaking out of the Russian Progress cargo vehicle, instantly crystallising. As Tim Peake explained: “It turned out to be Russian urine.”

Once the misidentifications and hoaxes are excluded, what remains is a minority of individuals who seem to be reliably describing something unusual and unknown. A few have been military pilots, backed up by what radar operators have seen on their screens. Years ago, I knew a British Royal Air Force C-130 Hercules pilot who encountered an unknown craft displaying superior technology.

Stories like this are undoubtedly interesting, but they’re just that: stories. Hard data, which can be objectively analysed, has been absent in almost all instances. Mainstream science has ignored the subject - a situation not helped by institutional prejudice, the fear of ridicule, and silly conspiracy claims from the UFO fringe element.

Sometimes, it’s hard not to be fascinated. Take the case of 60+ children at a rural school in Ruwa, Zimbabwe and what they claimed to have seen in 1994. It was morning recess and the schoolchildren were playing outside when an unknown craft apparently descended, surrounded by several smaller objects. Two humanoid beings got out and “floated” or “hopped” across the grass towards the children. Several children reported receiving mental images or warnings of environmental disaster. Dozens of drawings made afterwards, like the one below, suggest they were recalling a real event. All the teachers had been attending a meeting inside the school at the time, so they saw nothing. However, despite initial scepticism, they believed the pupils. A Harvard University child psychiatrist talked extensively with the youngsters and was convinced by their truthfulness, as was a hardened BBC reporter. Some have tried to explain the incident away as “mass hysteria”, but that’s a tough one to swallow. The children, now adults, remain adamant that what they experienced was real. But there’s no hard data to corroborate their story.

After 75 years of little more than “I saw…”/“We saw...” - and the emergence of “believers” versus “debunkers” - we need a radically different approach. We need hard evidence in the form of objective data that can be analysed.

My colleague, Cal, has looked into the subject of military satellites and ground-based radar systems such as NORAD - much of which, for obvious reasons, is shrouded in secrecy. We could be wrong, but it seems that surveillance technology is programmed to look for specific known targets - such as heat signatures from launches and propulsion systems which, for example, would indicate an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Very little is known about UAP, but the Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared Camera (ATFLIR) data have shown some of these unknown objects as being “cold”, with no detectable propulsion system or exhaust. Are the world’s leading military surveillance systems (excluding what’s on board naval ships and fighter jets) set up to detect an advanced or completely different technology that doesn’t have conventional propulsion? If we’re not actively looking for UAP, could we be missing them? (Update: Christopher Mellon stated on 5th June “In an average year, NORAD tracks hundred of unknowns.”)

Is the same true with how we track satellites and the many thousands of space debris or junk as they orbit the Earth? The Space Surveillance Network is operated by the United States Space Force. If UAP are visiting us from elsewhere, why are we not seeing unknown objects or craft entering our atmosphere from space? Or, if they are perhaps noticed (sometimes or often), are they merely dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders as “anomalies” - not within the job description framework or specifications? These questions must be asked and properly addressed.

Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Credit: Sgt. 1st Class Gail Braymen

If the US authorities conclude that some or all of these unknown craft are advanced technology developed by an adversarial country like China or Russia, there will presumably now be a dash to catch up by tweaking existing radars and satellites to monitor exactly what’s going on. But John Brennan, former director of the CIA, and Senator Martin Heinrich are suggesting that at least some of what is being seen is too far advanced for it to be human. If the Pentagon concludes this is the case, then it would be prudent to set up a suitable global surveillance system to locate, track, and identify different types of UAP. At very least, we must be able to detect the presence of UAP entering our atmosphere from space, travelling within our airspace, and possibly even moving underneath our oceans. It shouldn’t be too difficult to obtain sharp photographic images, for the purpose of identifying different shaped/sized UAP - which, in itself, might yield clues as to what is happening.

Such an ambitious project would probably fall within the responsibility of leading government militaries - although private enterprise, harnessing the best technologies and scientific minds, could also achieve the necessary results. It would involve a cost, but money is always made available for a necessary defence initiative. And we need answers to what is looking like a very big question. We need detailed data, to whatever degree it’s possible to obtain at this point. As we have argued elsewhere, our own psychological immaturity will be the limiting factor. But, meanwhile, a rigorous intelligence-gathering project is within our capability.

One final point. If UAP are craft from beyond our planet, then we’re faced with the unknown. It would be wise to remain open to any and all possibilities until we know something for definite. But my strong suggestion - and this is a calculated assumption based on extrapolation of known psychological potential, before any facts about the origins of UAP are established - is that we don’t need to worry. UAP have never shown any hostile intent, so far as I know. If they’re advanced craft from elsewhere, it’s likely that such a civilisation will be well ahead of ours. Most important of all is that “their” psychology will most probably be way ahead of our own. Their motivations will be very different, not limited by the self-orientated mindset that typifies current human behaviour. If there’s anything for us to fear, it’s ourselves. We are the dangerous and dysfunctional species, as demonstrated by repeated actions towards our own kind. One day, we’ll realise that Homo sapiens is an emerging intelligence - but far from being advanced.

Written by Iain Scott, 25th May 2021