Receipts, not rumors: The specific UAP records Trump should release first
No, we probably won't learn about a treaty with Zeta Reticuli, but it would be nice to know what we do know
President Donald Trump has said he’s going to declassify data and documents about unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). If you aren’t a whacko like me, you still know these things as “UFOs.”1
The general response to this announcement has been cynicism. There won’t be anything there, folks say. Anything useful will be redacted. It’s all a psy-op to take attention off his ICE and Epstein controversies.
Maybe so, but I’m cautiously optimistic that there could be substantial-if-not-definitive revelations. Will they be conclusive? Will they be enough to expand the Overton Window on UAP significantly? No and no.
Could they shed light on some longstanding questions. Yes.
At a minimum, declassification has the potential to reveal that the United States government has actually engaged in disinformation campaigns around phenomena that can’t be readily explained. We may not learn why it has done so, but we could verify that it has done so.
That alone would be signal.
But we also might see some evidence that gives the conversation more credibility and expands the audience for serious discussion.
And then, going further, if declassification shows substantial evidence of further smoke, even if we don’t know where the fire is coming from, that would still be progress toward transparency, toward leveling with the public.
Here are some meaningful revelations that could come from declassification
Documentation around the 2004 Tic-Tac incident outside of San Diego.
In 2017, the New York Times released a bombshell report, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program.” The report explored a revelation from a defunct military program called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP).
That revelation: A 2004 video of a flying object, recorded from two different fighter jets operating from the USS Nimitz. The object had no wings and no visible means of propulsion, yet it seemed capable of impossible speed in any direction, including no speed at all — it could hover in the air.
The account also seems to suggest that the object was interacting with something under the surface of the ocean — though that was less discussed at the time. It has become more important since.
One 2019 analysis estimated the energy required for observed speeds would have been well beyond anything we can currently muster — for a vehicle or, for that matter, a large city.
Can we get access to the metadata on those videos? Can we see the complete videos?
Can we get an unedited video?
What about documentation of investigations into the incident after it happened?
Can we see any recordings from the radar systems?
Are there after-action reports? All together, as I understand it, government operations throw off a lot of records. It’s hard for me to believe that Navy pilots capture video from a fighter and that’s all the military has from that incident. What about deck logs? Mission logs? Debriefing presentations?
Similar questions could be asked about the 2013 “Go-Fast” incident which not only showed very high speeds but movement between air and water (“transmedium travel” — in the lingo).
Also about the 2019 infrared video of an object documented from the deck of the USS Omaha that appears to disappear into the water.
More videos like “go-fast” and the “tic-tac.”
The story has long been that the Air Force and Navy have lots more unreleased footage. If more were unclassified, that would be signal.
What we haven’t been shown is simultaneous readings from non-video forms of detection, such as radar, LIDAR and satellites.
What’s interesting to see in these videos is the behavior of vehicles. Are they changing direction suddenly? Can they hover? Can they move between water and air as if there is no real difference?
Do they exhibit a means of propulsion?
Do they seem capable of changing their observability? Are they partially transparent? Do they blink in and out of visibility?
What are the objects able to do when observed from multiple kinds of detection? Can they spoof some but not others? Do they seem to exhibit awareness of advanced detection?
Declassification of old Navy range fouler logs, with fewer redactions.
Navy pilots file logs when operations or exercises are interrupted by unexpected encounters.
It’s understandable that many of these logs would remain classified, because we don’t want adversaries to know about just where we perform exercises or what we are doing.
But it seems likely that classification must have some kind of shelf-life. Reasonable declassification of old logs, including the site and details about what was observed, could help to reveal patterns without jeopardizing national security.
Are there characters or types of craft that are frequently seen?
Do the craft interact with military personnel — such as playing cat and mouse games with it? Or do they appear to want to evade the craft?
Do the craft disappear inexplicably (change observably) or do they escape into space or the sea?
Do they behave differently in different parts of the globe?
What percentage of range fouler reports are disposed of with satisfactory explanations?
Federal involvement in messaging around the Phoenix Lights incident of 1997.
Two separate incidents occurred the same night in Phoenix. One showed a moving object or objects. Some accounts said it was gigantic and moving weirdly slowly.
The other showed hovering lights, in formation.
Various explanations have been put forward, but hundreds (maybe thousands) of people saw them. They might have been military exercises, but it would be helpful to see more substantive evidence of that.
Why was the military conducting exercises slowly, over a major city? In full view of the public? Without explaining it?
After the event, the governor did a press conference mocking the sighting. He’s no longer so dismissive, however (see the link in the first bullet).
Are there records of the Federal government’s analysis of the sighting?
Is there proof that it was really a military exercise? (“Operations Snowbird”)
Reports on investigations into the Malmstrom nuclear site incident
In 1967, a nuclear site in Montana, saw all of its ICBMs go offline at once, while an orb floated outside — according to staff on site who have discussed the incident since.
In 1968, another incident, one lasting three hours, occurred over a similar base in North Dakota. This led to dozens of now released pages of reports from observers detailing their encounter.
Have there been similar incidents around nuclear bases in subsequent decades? What kinds of reports were undertaken?
Has there been further interaction between control systems for nuclear bases and externally observed crafts?
Have updates to control systems been able to minimize these external interventions?
If this was, in fact, a test of an early form of electromagnetic pulse, can we see further documentation? It was, after all, 60 years ago now.
Documentation of technical assistance between the U.S. government and others on unexplained phenomena.
We know similar incidents are occurring around the world. Declassification should reveal the degree to which U.S. authorities are comparing notes and providing technical assistance in assessing observations.
It would also be helpful to know how much technical assistance includes providing messaging recommendations around these incidents.
Incidents that could have international implications include the 1980 Rendlesham Forest Incident, in which U.S. military personnel were present for an encounter in the United Kingdom. USAF personnel made direct observations of the craft over two nights, with one of them claiming to have actually touched the vehicle.
Similarly, the 1966 Westall incident, in which 52 different people in Australia claimed to have seen a flying saucer flying low to the ground right above them.
Is the U.S. government providing technical analysis on recovered material from sites outside our borders that appear to have engineering or fabrication that is not replicable in terrestrial factories?
Does the U.S. government provide technical assistance around messaging or debunking encounters to the public?
Documentation of contracts with defense companies to study anomalous phenomena.
Has classified information been shared with private industry?
Have military researchers taken public work and brought that to private companies?
Are private companies lobbying or pressuring the government to keep materials under their review classified, most likely to preserve monopoly over advanced research?
How has operating procedure changed over time across defense and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Transportation?
How do manuals dictate that reports on anomalous matters should be handled?
What have personnel been instructed to report and when? Have those instructions changed?
Who is responsible for processing and assessing these reports?
Is there a chain of custody for media around UFOs? Can we see documentation for the provenance of materials like the Nimitz and Omaha incidents?
Can we see audit logs of who accessed or modified materials that have been released? How have they been modified?
Federal Aviation Administration
What has ground control seen?
What reports are commercial pilots making?
What instruction has the FAA given to commercial operators around what pilots may or may not disclose? Does the FAA have active programs around intake and analysis of anomalous observations? Is that program classified?
Drones
What criteria is used to dismiss an incursion as a drone? Does the operator need to be identified? Is visual confirmation sufficient? Are observations determined as drones simply because they exhibit characteristics that could be explainable by drones?
What criteria is used to say that a given incursion is definitely not a drone?
Has an analysis been done on UAP observations and the rise of drone technology? Has frequency of incursions increased as known drone technology has improved? To what degree?
What was the tipping point for drones? At what point did drone observation become so frequent that it is difficult to rule out for any incursion?
Crucially, the flip side of that last question, how many observations were made before drones could offer a reasonable-if-not-conclusive explanation?
Disinformation around top secret development of technology?
Has the U.S. engaged in disinformation directed at the American people in order to cover up the development of top secret technology? If so, to what extent has this technique been used?
Has “flying saucer” or “UFO” rumor mongering been used to mask what was, in fact, American research and development of top secret vehicles?
Can some of these campaigns and procedures now be declassified and discussed, now that the technology they were used to protect is now well known and understood?
Why does this matter?
If the incidents above really do point to a pattern of inexplicable visitations by an exceptional technology, I have little doubt that national security officials don’t trust the public with their findings. It should not be up to them.
If, instead, the government declassifies a lot of documents that all collectively turn out to be a nothing burger, collectively, it won’t change anything. The believers will see it as a further coverup. The skeptics will shrug once again.
If the incidents are real, the government probably does not have a good explanation for them. The government probably doesn’t even know if they are all one source. That isn’t a good enough reason to keep them classified.
We will get no definitive answer on where these vehicles are coming from.
Not important. What’s important is dispelling the notion that it’s silly to discuss observations like these.
However it is important that we as a society start to deal rationally with the prospect of contact with extraterrestrial visitors. This is no longer crazy fringe stuff.
Let’s return to that 2019 evaluation of the observations outside of San Diego. If that analysis is anywhere in the neighborhood of right, then we can feel reasonably confident that whatever was seen in 2004 was not another country’s technology.
U.S. aircraft are the best in the world, but they aren’t wildly better. They aren’t orders of magnitude better. The SR-71 Blackbird is roughly the baseline for aircraft around the world. Russia and China have similar craft that are slower, but not only maybe 30% slower.
Slow enough that we have air superiority? For sure.
But are our aircraft so much better that they could literally fly circles around theirs? No.
If these observations are right, the craft represent several step changes in superiority beyond any known technology.
We have not seen, so far, craft of any kind that can fly without airfoils (wings or rotors) that produce lift.
We have not seen, so far, craft of any kind without detectable means of propulsion.
We have not seen — even in unmanned craft — the ability to zigzag or instantly stop and start in the air.
We have not been able to cross the sound barrier without causing a sonic boom.
We cannot, generally, rapidly move between air and under the surface of water.
It’s normal for one country to be well ahead of another country technologically. It is not, however, normal for one country to be so far ahead that the steps in between are illegible.
The gist
I am cautiously optimistic that there will be appreciable smoke in whatever Sec. Pete Hegseth’s team releases, because Trump likes to put on a show.
What does he get from a milquetoast release? Nothing.
He’ll want to get our attention. Is this thoughtful? No. Will I take it? Yes.
The fact that definitive answers on extraterrestrial observation of our nation are unlikely is no reason to suppose that declassification would be meaningless. Even with redactions and incomplete declassification, there’s quite a bit that could be released, resetting the discourse on this topic — and I’ve given plenty of examples along those lines above.
If sufficient materials were provided, both documenting unexplainable phenomena and documenting official uncertainty about these observations, it should start the process of changing the public’s openness to taking the topic seriously.
Look. It’s a big universe out there. It’s crazy to think we’re alone. Even Obama has said so.
That 2017 New York Times story shifted the discussion. It’s true that if you raise the topic of UFOs at your average Applebee’s happy hour, you will likely still be laughed at. But we’re seeing more and more people deeply involved in defense and aeronautics come out and confirm this as a salient issue.
It’s time for terrestrial nations to have diplomatic policy around extraterrestrial contact. That policy should be developed in the open, with feedback from the public. If it’s a waste of time — fine. It shouldn’t cost much. This is a rich world, we can afford to have some conversations, write some reports, hold some meetings and make a plan.
If we never use it, no big deal.
But further declassification of material around the unexplained would be a material step toward preparing the public and generalist policymakers to engage in this conversation.
It is overdue.
Note: Skeptics frequently argue that extraterrestrial life doesn’t exist because, if it did, we should be able to see it in space. The problem with this objection is that it assumes the universe is smaller and older than it is. Deeper down, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of light.
To go deeper into these misconceptions, check out this podcast:
Officials like to call them “UAP” now for stated and unstated reasons. Unstated: “UFO” is a stigmatized word. If they say something else, it doesn’t cause the general public to start laughing. Stated: More accounts are coming out that they aren’t just flying. They also seem to be going into the water.