JPL UFO

There have been many scenarios about how revelations of intelligent civilizations visiting Earth will occur. This speculation about how our first meeting with other civilizations will unfold, runs from the total destruction of every terrestrial lifeform to the raising of our “vibration” that leads us into a magnificent future. These scenarios tell us as more about who is making the prediction than how this process will actually take place. Most of these predictions skip over the work that must be done to first understand what we are dealing with. Especially from the elusive civilizations that have not made a verified diplomatic overture during their 80+ year presence. Second, these predictions skip over the amount of preparation needed to coordinate with governments across the globe and explain things to the public. These tasks require detailed preparation. Yet, collectively, our knowledge only has Earth-based examples where humanity is the dominant species.[1] This limitation on our perspective is complicated by the lack of knowledge our elected leaders possess about our past interactions with visiting non-terrestrial civilizations. This lack of knowledge has been a deliberate policy that leaves our federal representatives unprepared for what is to come. It is one reason why Congress has adopted multiple UAP-specific legislative rounds including many provisions requiring historical study. Since this is our first rodeo, planning for formal contact requires knowledge of our shared history with non-terrestrial visitors to help establish a good planning process going forward. It also requires a process where our elected leaders and the public have the time to come to grips with these revelations.

To properly plan, we also need to understand how our actions are perceived by those who have an interest in the outcome. As with any foreign relationship, diplomacy has three audiences in two separate realms, internal and external. First is the internal domestic audience. In this case, human civilization must understand and support the effort. This will require an informed world population that has enough information to generally support the steps we take. Gaining world-wide acceptance begins at home in each country. The second audience consists of the non-terrestrial civilizations that already have a presence on Earth. They know our joint history. If our civilian diplomatic corps does not know this history, it will be a strong indicator that we are not ready to become a reliable diplomatic partner. Finally, the third interest comes externally from other civilizations who do not yet have a presence here. Our lack of preparedness could influence the actions of non-terrestrial civilizations that have the capability to travel to our planet, possibly to our detriment. Our planning must consider the reactions from each of these three separate and distinct audiences. Each audience will have a different perspective about our actions and will react accordingly. If we do not start gathering facts about past interactions with the non-terrestrial presence, we risk being perceived as an untrustworthy diplomatic partner who does not or cannot understand our shared history. For the citizens of Earth, the trustworthiness of our world governments will require transparency about our past interactions to convince them of the soundness of our plans for regular contact.  

For each of these audiences, learning about the past is a baseline that increases our chances of success. At this initial phase, our world leaders must learn as much as they can about our visitors and the recent history of their interactions with humanity, both positive and negative. What we learn about those civilizations will help address challenges that arise when attempting to open diplomatic relations. This requires a frank assessment within our governments as to the knowledge we already hold about these illusive visitors. Without a baseline understanding of what has occurred at least since World War II, world leaders will be at a severe disadvantage with each other and with those whom we are trying to establish beneficial relations.

Eventually, each country will need to address these planning issues and determine the best ways to work with other nations and inform their citizens. For now, the world seems to be waiting for the United States to take the lead. Building on the progress that has been made since the 2017 release of the three naval videos, FLIR, Gimbal, and GOFAST, Congress has quickly taking up this mantle with remarkable unity. Because of its national security aspects, most of this work is currently performed behind the scenes. What will be needed is a sustained effort to understand UAP, and our history with the phenomenon, coupled with a plan to introduce to the public what we learn with the least disruption possible. Until these steps are taken, we are unlikely to make progress with any diplomatic initiatives. We must lay the groundwork to entice these visitors  to change their behavior and participate in formal diplomatic relations.  

Planning for the revelations that lead to full disclosure and its associated implications must begin with our federal elected officials. Based on our history and the current impediments to understanding, a process using a bottom-up approach through federal agencies and service branches will not fully reveal the information in our possession. While there will always be matters that properly remain classified, delegating supervisory responsibilities to the agencies and service branches that improperly withhold information from Congress will lower public trust in the accuracy of their recommendations. Yet, the planning process will require significant staff assistance to address a myriad of issues.  Clear lines of responsibility must be drawn to assure the public that our elected leaders will receive a fair picture of our shared past. The ultimate recommendations must emerge without hidden agendas or continued control of any valuable UAP materials remaining in the hands of shadowy commercial interests. From outward signs, much of this work has already begun.

Elected leaders in the legislative and executive branches will need to coordinate more closely than they do under today’s highly adversarial separation of powers model. More direct supervisory and policy-making responsibilities must reside in the hands of elected legislators and the President. While other issues will continue along our typical partisan pathways, the stakes surrounding these revelations need bipartisanship to gain acceptance from a broad swath of the public. Choosing a partisan path for these revelations risk stoking fears and causing disruption. While most of the work will be delegated to military branches and agencies, more hands on supervision by White House staff and congressional oversight committees will help keep the service branches and involved agencies within the bounds of new policies, laws and regulations. Considering the history of UAP policy decisions made without the involvement of our elected officials, a bipartisan political consensus on a general course of action will significantly increase the chances that the public will support the process.  

Most of this early process will look the same as the normal legislative oversight model. The difference should include more coordination between the administration and the legislative branch to make sure there is a diligent effort by civilian agencies and the military to follow this new direction. Increased bipartisan congressional responsibility will boost support from the party not controlling the White House.

Much of this process could remain the same. White House or State Department staff could still give regular briefings about the progress of various investigatory, diplomatic and other implementing programs. Congressional oversight committees and their subcommittees would still have open and closed hearings on issues where they have subject matter responsibility. However, the purpose of many of these hearings would be to delve into the day-to-day management of the UAP issue, working under an administration/legislative oversight shared management approach. This means more shared responsibility between Congress and the White House in the implementation of policy.  There will need to be a robust feedback loop between congressional oversight committees and the White House to make sure that both are receiving the same level of cooperation from the bureaucracy. Regardless of which party holds the White House, the legislators from the other party must be comfortable with the information they are receiving and the direction the process is taking.

One must assume that there will be some policy disagreements along the way. Considering that the performance characteristics of true UAP show the capability to harm us, whether they have a demonstrated intent to harm will be the most likely early disagreement. A true and complete history of post-World War II interactions is vital to resolving this question. Incomplete information will skew the results of this inquiry towards confrontation.

If there is a breakdown in the consensus between the legislative and executive, Congress has the ability to approve legislative changes to match its concerns. The normal legislative process, especially in cases of policy disagreements, will still be important. However, both political parties need to realize that departures from a unified approach will reduce the chances for a broad public consensus. This means that, if possible, initial disagreements should be worked out behind closed doors.

As divisions arise, they will probably not break down along party lines. The disagreement will be between those who have been exposed to new information that sets them apart from those who are not yet privy to this evidence. These divides will be similar to committee members who first saw the naval videos and had heard from the pilots about these extraordinary events. This firsthand knowledge reshaped their perspective literally overnight. Other legislators who lack this knowledge will not have the same perspective. So, it is very likely that policy disagreements may be based on what is learned and by whom, not by party affiliation. Much of the knowledge gained will challenge basic assumptions which may cause differing reactions among our elected leaders. The information may lead some to reject data that does not fit in with their pre-existing notions about our world. A key element of a shared governance approach will be to ensure that, as new information is discovered, it must be shared among elected officials in a coordinated manner. From party leadership, appropriate oversight committees  and eventually to rank and file membership, a briefing process must follow a consistent pattern on both sides of the aisle.  

Regardless of who is President, there will always be an opposing party. Shared responsibilities between the legislative branch and the executive will lower the chances of partisan bickering. No political party has a pre-existing platform on UAP and their implications. The more people learn, the more their views evolve. At each stage, new information must flow from leadership and the appropriate oversight committees to the general membership using the same process for the party in power and the opposition party. Trying to take partisan advantage of this issue is about as risky as any issue can be. While the occasional parochial issue may succeed over this broad subject matter, it will be hard to ignore, in the long run, what they learn. Since this falls outside past learned experiences, it is far safer to join a large consensus following where the facts and the phenomenon lead. For both personal and very public reasons, this consensus will give political cover that should insulate rank and file members on both sides of the aisle. A legislator is unlikely to be attacked if they are on the same side of an issue as the vast majority of the opposition. There will be strength in numbers for both sides who will still be defined by longstanding partisan divisions on other subjects. A strong bipartisan consensus takes the UAP disclosure issue off the partisan table. Sticking together is a much safer political option than trying to take partisan advantage.

Politicians who break away from a broad based consensus risk taking the blame for obstacles. A President who tries to take exclusive control of the process risks legislative backlash that will break apart any broad based consensus. Considering that congressional progress has been made on a bipartisan basis, normal party loyalty cannot be expected in this unique circumstance. Members who break away cannot rely on their party against a large bipartisan coalition existing on the national security committees. Injecting partisanship into this process will have long term negative implications.

Due to the sheer number of people involved, the House of Representatives will be the most likely source of dissention. House members come from a wider variety of districts and generally hold more diverse views. While those in favor of disclosure routinely call for more transparency, some secrecy may actually help move the process along. Right now, there are twelve committees in Congress who are “appropriate committees” to receive classified briefings about UAP. These committees make up a substantial portion of congressional membership. So a related task will be to keep other members in the loop without violating the confidentiality of the investigation.  

 Some secrecy will give Congress a chance to digest the information they are receiving without the normal political back and forth under the glare of media interest. This information starts in the national security committees where members are almost in unanimous agreement. Other members who aren’t on these cleared committees are still unaware of the specifics of these efforts. For them, the UAP portions of legislation that were brought forward in the last three years left many of them in a dilemma. If they do not have the information necessary to understand the significance of the UAP provisions, they must trust the judgement of the cleared committees or vote against an entire defense or intelligence bill. They could propose an amendment to strip these bills of their UAP provisions. However, this would pit them against members of their own party whom they regularly trust for guidance because of their subject matter expertise gained in classified settings. This type of trust is necessary since no member ever has enough knowledge of all subjects before Congress. Picking a fight because you are unsure of the evidence supporting the need for legislation could have a ripple effect. It would harm any member’s ability to gain approval for matters within their own particular expertise. Breaking off from a bipartisan consensus during the investigation phase will cause the particular member to be isolated by those intimately involved in the process. Discipline will likely be needed to prevent premature and uncoordinated disclosure of still classified evidence. The membership must understand that following an agreed process will result in fuller disclosure in the long run as long as both party’s stick to the same process. This will be a difficult process, especially in our social media age. The high probability of sanctioning members who violate security oaths or disclose sensitive information before consensus is reached should be an option that everyone understands going into the process.

There will come a point where national security committees arrive at conclusions about UAP origins and intentions. When this point is reached, classified briefings will need to be held with rank and file members to give them a general understanding of the evidentiary foundation for each conclusion. Classified briefings would need to be held on an individual basis or in small groups. Rank and file members who receive these briefings will need time to digest the broader implications of what they have learned. Revelations that may be difficult to process but cannot be unlearned. While unanimity will never be achieved, a careful behind the scenes briefing process will give Congress the best chance to present a nearly unified front to the public. Once a broad-based consensus is reached, Congress, with the help of the White House, can begin implementing a process that informs the citizenry of the revelatory information needed for understanding UAP and their broader implications. How this next stage in the process should unfold will be the subject of the next blog in this series.      

[1] In this proposed series of blogs about potential Disclosure revelations, the author intends to make several assumptions based on the commonalities found in descriptions by people who have had interactions with non-human intelligences (NHI). Collectively, these individuals call themselves “abductees”, “contactees”, or “experiencers”. For consistency sake, these blogs will use the term “experiencer,” popularized by the late Harvard psychiatry professor John Mack. Physical traits, mental abilities, use of advanced technology, and consistent “messages” received by these experiencers will form a baseline to help establish how our interactions should be conducted with non-terrestrial advanced civilizations. These common assumptions are based on examples of behavior witnessed by experiencers on a global basis that are unlikely to be influenced by local cultural or political variations. Individual claims of special knowledge from non-human entities about the intentions or motives of NHI will not be considered.