The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 – a dive into the viable explanations

This is the second of a multi-part Explanations series, which will take into account the verifiable facts surrounding the chosen event, and implement the Four Viable Explanations framework in order to reduce the plausible explanations to a more manageable number.

To be clear – at this point in time it is not publicly known which (combination) of the Four Viable Explanations best describes the reality of the phenomenon. Furthermore, the point of this post is not to definitively prove any one explanation over another, instead it is to establish a common framework of analysis and pose a set of questions that might enable a more nuanced and structured discourse going forward.

The subject of this post is the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023:

Link to full document (PDF) here.

Link to my summary here.

Background

• On July 13, 2023 – the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 (UAPDA) was submitted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorisation Act FY24
• The UAPDA is supported by a bipartisan group of senior Senators, spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)
• The overall stated intentions of the UAPDA are to centralise and declassify information related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), increase public transparency around the government's knowledge of UAP, and further open avenues for scientific research on the topic
• The legislation states it is necessary "because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified"
• A full summary of the key takeaways and definitions in the UAPDA can be found here. I would highly recommend checking this out before reading any further.
• One of the most important things to note is this: the UAPDA takes specific care to concretely define what the term UAP means. The definition used throughout the text specifically distinguishes UAP from prosaic objects, as well as 'temporarily non-attributed objects'. That is to say – any reference to a UAP, or UAP-related record, is referring to the class of objects that are designated as such only when the available data explicitly rules out any other potential explanation involving "current physics".

Framework Analysis:

Let's attempt to parse the UAPDA through each lens of the 4 viable explanations framework individually, to present a case for each potential claim on its own. In so doing, I hope to illuminate a set of questions that we (as relatively uninformed armchair analysts) can use to better frame the discussions going forward.

Systematic Error:

1. System anomalies and trained human observer errors have led to such a large volume of related records that a substantial number of DoD/Intelligence Community members have been sufficiently motivated to escalate the issue to authorities such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and others). These records are all, in fact, related to prosaic objects / phenomena / sensor errors, not UAP.
2. Credible members of the DoD/Intelligence Community have come to the conclusion that there are long-standing UAP Crash Retrieval/Reverse Engineering programs operating without any legislative oversight. Their conviction in this belief is so high, they have decided to escalate this issue to their superiors and the appropriate authorities. This belief could be characterised as some sort of collective delusion and/or sustained psychotic episode.

Proponents of this explanation should ask themselves the following:

• Why does the UAPDA define and use extremely specific language, such as "Non-Human Intelligence", or "technologies of unknown origin"?
• Why does the UAPDA specifically define UAP so as to distinguish it from objects with prosaic attribution, as well as 'temporarily non-attributed objects'?
• What credible testimony/evidence have the sponsors of this legislation been privy to that convinces them that UAP are more than just systematic errors?
• How can we investigate this further to establish if this is all a collective delusion?

Systematic Deception:

1. A co-ordinated group of government insiders are collectively engaging in a campaign to convince the broader public that UAP represent a Non-Human Intelligence-related phenomenon

Proponents of this explanation should ask themselves the following:

• What would the motivations of such a campaign be?
• How long has this campaign been going on?
• Who is in on it? Members of the IC? Members of the US Senate/Congress?
• What steps should/could we take to investigate this further?
• How far will this deception go?

Real Human Secret Technology:

1. A co-ordinated group of government insiders are leveraging Systematic Deception (see above) to cover up the existence of Real Human Secret Technology
2. Or, a variety of members of the IC and legislative branch have become aware of highly advanced Real Human Secret Technology programs that have flouted proper oversight procedures, and are vying to rectify this without divulging the specifics of said programs. A decision has been made to utilise UAP/NHI as a smokescreen.

Proponents of this explanation should ask themselves the following:

• Why would the UAPDA take such specific care to distinguish between UAP and any known prosaic (even highly advanced) technology platforms? How can we square this with the claims presented above?
• Why would the UAPDA overtly reference Non-Human Intelligence, if this is simply about gaining oversight over secret human programs?
• Why would a cover-up make use of the UFO/NHI topic as a smokescreen? Surely this raises more attention than necessary?
• Why would the US Government feel the need to establish 'eminent domain' over highly advanced technology platforms that they already own?

Real Non-Human Technology:

1. The language in the legislation can be taken at face value, insofar as the Senators who drafted it have been credibly briefed on the existence of UAP-related records that have been improperly classified and/or escaped mandatory declassification protocols.
2. Furthermore, they have reason to believe in the existence of long-standing UAP crash retrieval & reverse engineering program(s) that may be in the possession of exotic technologies & materials.

Proponents of this explanation should ask themselves the following:

• Why now?
• What's next?
• How can we ensure greater transparency going forward?

Closing remarks

While the UAPDA has yet to be finalised and entered into law as part of the FY24 NDAA, the very act of its creation is at a minimum...eyebrow-raising. The political weight of the sponsors behind it are also noteworthy (e.g. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer).

In the course of this post, I have tried to lay out a few different ways to parse it based on the Four Viable Explanations framework. As you may have noticed, the quadrants (while collectively exhaustive) are not mutually-exclusive. That means the true explanation could (and realistically does) lie in a combination of the claims I've presented above.

While it's crucial to approach this topic with a critical mind, it's equally important to remain open to all possibilities. As the discourse on UAPs continues to evolve, one can only hope for more transparency, clarity, and understanding. Whichever explanation resonates most with you, remember that the goal is to foster informed and constructive discussions. Until the next installment in this series, keep questioning, stay curious, and keep pushing for transparency!