Coming soon: Our second scientific paper – UAP and the demarcation problem


25 July 2023    5 minute read

UAP Bridge is a project run predominantly by me – a former academic scientist  now in the corporate world. (I use “we” in my articles because it is the norm in academic texts). Although I have the relevant qualifications (PhD, MS, MS, BS), my academic career is highly unremarkable, and I can nearly guarantee that you won’t have heard of me. 

I was a die-hard empirical skeptic until the late 2010s, when two things happened: 

First, I semi-accidentally spent a year strategically leading what turned out to be a significant corporate counterintelligence project. As a scientist and engineer, this was a complete paradigm shift, and served as a rough introduction to the world of strategic intelligence –and the day-to-day reality of working against sophisticated and covert strategic adversaries. The main realisation I had was that with this type of problem, practically all of my scientific and engineering assumptions and approaches were wrong (in most cases, worse than wrong: actively unhelpful).

Second, I read the 2017 NYT article that discussed the 2004 Nimitz UAP event. This was the first “fringe science” account that I felt I could not explain in my existing scientific worldview. I spent a month researching it in depth, and discussing it with the smartest people I knew. They couldn’t explain it either. At this point, I looked for alternative hypotheses, which, guided by my short stint in intelligence, lead me to the simple idea that UAP might represent ET acting as a covert strategic adversary (i.e., as an ET intelligence actor). 

So I asked the question: If ET were acting like an intelligence agency, would science be likely to identify it as such? I have spent the last 5 years researching this topic. I dived deep into the history, nature, investigatory methods and game theory of covert intelligence, the practice of deception, stage magic, illusion; UAP sightings, the philosophy of the scientific method, criminal investigation frameworks, critical analysis, the historical method, perceptive and cognitive biases – all of which would be relevant to form an educated opinion on the question. 

The journey has been interesting. It lead me to propose strategically covert ET as a solution to the Fermi Paradox, and also suggested a novel solution to the demarcation problem, which is the key problem that tells us what science is and isn’t.

And as for the answer? No, in my opinion, science would extremely unlikely to be able to detect an ET intelligence actor. Mostly because the existence of such actors (who understand your investigations and actively manipulate them) is incompatible with central assumptions of the scientific method, which labels them as conspiracy and effectively rejects them in principle.

This raises two implications. First, that the outright rejection by science as UAP as covert ET (or similar non human intelligence) may be premature. 

Second, this assumption is problematic, because intelligence agencies (whether ET or not) absolutely exist, and so this approach seems to be incompatible with a whole set of problems where such groups are reasonably likely to be involved. Therefore, using these core assumptions of the scientific method could systematically lead to incorrect answers. 

This insight formed the basis of a hypothesis for how UAP could indeed be ET covert strategic actors, how science could have missed it for 75 years, help to explain some of the more puzzling aspects of the UAP phenomena (e.g. why it is often absurd – because it may have been built to be), and suggested a solution to the question of what science actually is.  

With the recent activity in the US Senate, events have somewhat gotten ahead of me. I’m publishing some of my research now, as it seems the time is right. 

I hope that the work will be judged on the quality of research and logic, not on my (not very impressive) academic credentials. That said, over time I may reach out to respected people in the field to confirm my credentials in various ways, as I do realise this is important. At some point I would like to publish these papers openly in the scientific literature, but until the taboo around the topic has subsided, I cannot risk my job for this.

Ultimately, my primary concern is the preservation and advancement of science, particularly in a world where UAP is indeed evidence of a strategically covert ET adversary. In that world, it is possible to imagine public sentiment turning against science, for instance,  with questions like, “How could we trust scientists when they overlooked and mocked this for 75 years?” or “Were they complicit in the coverup?”

Even if that possibility is small, I believe the risk to science of an existential crisis, similar to that the Church experienced after the Heliocentric model shook its foundations, is real. And so I believe it is worth exploring the logic that underpins the scientific method to understand how science could possibly have been wrong – so that should this turn out to be true, science has a logical explanation for what happened, and can learn and move on, instead of being left twisting in the wind, wondering what happened.  Those are the key questions I have tried to contribute to in some small way with my research.

Does that mean I think there is an alien conspiracy? Honestly, I don’t know. I don’t have sufficient evidence to decide one way or another. But I do think it is a significant possibility, and something that deserves serious research and analysis. 

Join Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles and content directly to your inbox. (You will get one short email every 2-3 weeks.)