In May, Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of the Department of Defense’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), reported that approximately 2% to 5% of UAP sightings appear to represent genuine anomalies. GEIPAN, the unit of the French Space Agency CNES tasked with studying UAPs, reports similar percentages for a subset of its investigations.
As is consistently shown by the re-investment into UAP research on the part of our national security apparatus, the nature of anomalous UAP sightings appears to warrant further investigation. However, this sentiment is not a new one.
Writing for the RAND Corporation in 1968, George Kucher studied the UFO phenomenon and its implications in a report titled “UFOs: What to Do?” which analyzed the phenomenon and called for a centralized reporting program to understand which of nine stated explanations—from novel physical phenomena to extraterrestrial probes—was likeliest to be correct.
The possibility that some UAP could represent extraterrestrial craft was as tantalizing for Kucher in 1968 as it is today. An opinion piece recently published by The Hill discussed present-day reports of anomalous spherical objects that appear to share similar attributes with UAP accounts that date as far back as the 1940s. The author, Marik Von Rennenkampff, then makes a startling assertion: “According to Kirkpatrick, this highly anomalous range of attributes amounts to a UAP profile – a ‘target package’ – that AARO is ‘out hunting for.’”
Given Kirkpatrick’s mention of a UAP “target package” and the existence of anomalous attributes in at least a small percentage of modern sightings, three follow-up questions come to mind. First, are there any grounded theories or evidence to suggest UAPs might be extraterrestrial in origin? Second, if we entertain the extraterrestrial hypothesis, why would UAP reports convey only “anomalies” in sensor and other data rather than appearing as unambiguous structured craft? Third, if we assume for a moment that these anomalies are stealth probes of some kind, what might their observed behaviors suggest about their objectives?
Here, we explore the possibility that some portions of the truly anomalous UAP sightings could be produced by stealth-driven extraterrestrial probes imbued with artificial intelligence (AI) and a complex camouflage system. Given the limitations of our current detection methods, the nature of these UAP sightings suggests that there might indeed be more going on than what can currently be perceived.
INTERSTELLAR MACHINES
Regarding our first question, it is plausible that an extraterrestrial civilization would conclude out of necessity, as humans did in our early efforts to explore the cosmos, that intelligent machines – not manned craft – offer the most robust way to explore the galactic neighborhood. Machines don’t require creaturely necessities, nor do they tire out, grow old, or easily break down under the harshness of interstellar space.
Initial machines might start as craft akin to Voyager 1 or semi-autonomous rovers like Perseverance on Mars. As technology advances, craft such as these would likely be updated to include sophisticated AI capabilities and may be leveraged into a spacecraft swarm that could spread through a solar system, while nano-scale craft may depart for nearby exoplanets. Eventually, newer models might approximate self-replicating Von Neumann probes. These might be, in the words of Professor Allen Tough, “small smart interstellar probes,” which would have advanced AI and the necessary suite of capabilities to arrive at an exoplanet. Such advanced models, like Tough’s probes, have been predicted to arrive before early-generation models.
Writing for The Astronomical Journal in 2019, James Benford explored the idea of “lurkers,” or extraterrestrial probes designed to “observe Earth while not being easily seen.” He suggested that lurkers could be hiding in our solar system, possibly positioned in stable locations, such as at Lagrange points. However, if these probes are sufficiently advanced and have the requisite technologies and interest, we believe they might choose to explore an exoplanet instead of keeping at a distance.
One compelling reason a probe might come to Earth is to learn about our species in advance of making contact. An AI probe might need to gather a lot of information to understand how to communicate, much like an anthropologist working in the field. But unlike an anthropologist dealing with another human community, this AI probe might face a seemingly impossible barrier: how to bridge the communication divide between humanity and an extraterrestrial species.
Published in 1998, Dr. Douglas Vakoch considers the “Incommensurability Problem” of communication between humanity and extraterrestrial species. In this, while physics and mathematics are assumed to be universal, terrestrial and extraterrestrial civilizations would have different models of reality and so would need to find a different way to reach each other. Dr. Vakoch argues for the use of icons over symbols, while contemporary scholars such as Professor Avi Loeb consider the possibility that AI systems from both species could form a communication bridge in the form of an AI emissary.
One might imagine an emissary from late Bronze Age Egypt who would have spent more time either in transit or visiting distant civilizations, such as Cyprus, Canaan, or Mycenaean Greece. Similarly, an AI emissary would invest considerable effort into learning to navigate star systems and, after that, learning – while on-planet – about the alien civilization it found itself in contact with.
MUCH MORE https://thedebrief.org/stealth-extraterrestrial-ai-probes-reconsidering-the-uap-mystery/