Man who recorded ‘best ever UFO footage’ answered question about video being fake

He's sure it wasn't just a scrap of something going by.

Published 17:41 26 May 2025 

Joe Harker

A man who recorded the 'best ever UFO footage' has explained why he doesn't think what he saw was fake.

There are plenty of people who are convinced they've seen a UFO hurtling through the sky, and some even manage to get video evidence of their sightings.

Some of the claims people make aren't hard to debunk, others take a lot more explaining.

One of the clearest pieces of footage of a sighting was taken by someone who was up in that very sky themselves and became convinced they'd had a close encounter of the third kind.

The footage was dubbed 'one of the greatest UAP (UFO) evidences of all time' by ufologist Jaime Maussan, who has been caught with fake aliens in the past.

However, truth is in the eye of the beholder so you might as well give it a look and learn why the person who filmed it thinks it's genuine.

What do you suppose it is?

(X/Jorge Arteaga)

Where did the footage come from?

The video was taken by pilot Jorge A. Arteaga, who was flying in the skies above Antioquia, Colombia, when he spotted something peculiar moving through the sky.

Within just a few seconds, a strange square-like object can be seen flying past Arteaga's plane and goes whizzing off in another direction.

The bloke claimed that he and his co-pilot had seen the object hovering in the air between the cities of Medellín and Santa Fe before it suddenly gained speed and moved towards them.

Arteaga claimed that the pair had wanted to keep following this strange sight before it suddenly started heading right for them.

However, Arteaga was able to get some footage on his phone which he's claimed as proof that he had a bona fide daylight encounter with a UFO.

Check it out:

Why is Arteaga sure it's a UFO?

This is the big question that anyone is going to ask when someone says they've caught a UFO on camera.

There are all sorts of objects in the sky which might just be a balloon or a scrap of something else floating about in the wind.

However, the pilot said that since his plane was at 12,500 feet there's no chance it could just have been a balloon.

Arteaga claimed it would be too cold and turbulent at that height for something like a balloon to survive in the skies, so he reckons it must have been a UFO.

On top of that, the pilot claimed the thing he saw was 'something totally unknown without means of propulsion' and he thought it moved in an 'intelligent' manner.

You may believe what you like, but the man who saw and filmed it is pretty convinced he laid eyes on a UFO that day.

• Featured Image Credit: X/Jorge Arteaga

'Best ever UFO footage' caught on camera had it's authenticity '100%' confirmed

Could this be the closest we've come to proving the existence of aliens?

Published 20:29 4 Jul 2024

Brenna Cooper

Captured in brought daylight, the mysterious, square-like object shoots out of the clouds and past Arteaga's cockpit in a matter of seconds.

He was able to quickly grab his camera and record the object - which appeared to be light in colour and pointed at one end - as it flew towards him before quickly speeding off.

Arteaga would later claim that he and his co-pilot had spotted the item floating in the air between the cities of Medellín and Santa Fe, before it drastically picked up speed and beelined towards them.

The pair had originally wanted to follow the UFO, but later abandoned the search after it suddenly began to hurtle towards them.

A birthday balloon? A rogue Wii Fit board? Or aliens?

(X/Jorge Arteaga)

Now I know what you're thinking, surely it's just another runaway balloon or random piece of debris?

Not according to Arteaga, who claimed that it would have been too cold or turbulent for a balloon to survive, adding that they were flying 12,500 feet in the air at the time.

And it seems that Arteaga has the backing of controversial ufologist Jaime Maussan, who later authenticated.

As for what happens during a 'UFO authentication' process we're not sure, but the pair would later sit down for an interview about the video, which Maussan later shared on his social media account.

"We are facing one of the greatest UAP (UFO) evidences of all time; captured by the Captain Pilot Aviator @JorgeArteagaG," he wrote on X, alongside a clip from their chat.

UFO or flying supermarket carrier bag?

(X/Jorge Arteaga)

Maussan went on to add that Arteaga had told him the object moved with 'something totally unknown without means of propulsion with movements that he considers intelligent.'

He also added that he'd cross-referenced the footage with Pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had agreed the clip showed a UFO, also known as a UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena).

Whether or not you believe the clip is a UFO or a floating piece of rubbish depends on what your stance on aliens is.

Perhaps it's one to bookmark and ask aliens about when they finally decide to invade us.

• Featured Image Credit: X/Jorge Arteaga

Joe Rogan addressed 'best ever UFO footage' caught on camera that had authenticity '100%' confirmed

The podcast host said the mysterious object 'looked like it's from another f***ing world'

Published 18:06 12 Feb 2025

Olivia Burke

At this stage in the game, we've all seen the clip of what is supposedly the 'best ever UFO footage ever' caught on camera more times than we care to count.

But not everyone has heard what Joe Rogan had to say about it.

Although his passion for the subject might have fooled you into thinking he's an extraterrestrial expert, the 57-year-old is actually just an enthusiast.

He's invited a plethora of guests on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, to discuss the topic, while previously saying he is '100% convinced' that aliens have visited Earth.

The UFC commentator even chewed the fat with President Donald Trump about the prospect of little green men coming down from space in November last year.

So when footage of a UFO, which was pretty hard to argue against, went viral a few years ago, Rogan obviously wanted to put his twopence in.

Take a look at the clip for yourself here:

In June last year, Rogan welcomed America's Got Talent judge Howie Mandel, 69, onto his podcast and just couldn't resist showing him the video.

Explaining that people were calling it 'some of the most compelling UFO video ever' recorded, Rogan went on to say that he'd been unable to think up an explanation for it.

"They freeze framed it, it looks like a flying disc," he told Mandel about the strange object in the sky. "I mean, what in the f**k is that?"

Rogan's guest claimed that he had previously encountered a UFO himself, while suggesting that the flying object in the clip was travelling at a similar speed.

In response, Rogan said: "But you have to take into consideration that this plane is moving in a specific direction and the UFO is moving in the opposite direction.

"So it looks much faster than it actually is. Even if that was like a mylar balloon...if you're passing it that fast...I mean, I don't know what you're getting there.

"That to me looks like it's from another f***ing world."

He explained that he was unsure whether it was merely a 'distortion' in the footage which made him think this, or because the flying object was actually alien-related.

"That looks very distinct," Rogan went on. "It's so fascinating, man. I mean if I was a cynic I'd say, 'Oh, it's a f***ing balloon'. But it is weird, because it's not moving that fast if the plane is moving."

At the time, Rogan wasn't too sure if the clip was even legit or not - however, pilot Jorge A. Arteaga later came out to confirm it was in fact authentic.

Arteaga was swooping through the skies above Antioquia, Colombia, when he spotted the object emerging through the clouds and zooming past the cockpit of the small plane he was flying.

The quick-thinking pilot incredibly juggled his controls with his camera to capture the extraordinary moment, as he and his co-pilot watched in awe.

Arteaga said that the object had initially been stationary, before appearing to float in the air between Medellín and Santa Fe.

He claimed it then drastically picked up speed and beelined towards them, resulting in him manoeuvring the plane to follow the UFO.

Arteaga insisted that it didn't look or behave like a balloon, drone or plane - but he didn't manage to track it down.

After starting to 'hunt' the flying object, the dad is said to have become alarmed when it started moving towards the plane, seeing him abandon the search in fear.

He reckons that it would have been too cold and too turbulent for it to be a balloon, as he says it would have popped or blown away at 12,500 feet in the air while that close to another aircraft - but the jury's still out on what exactly it was.

Ufologist Jaime Maussan - who famously unveiled the two 'alien corpses' in Mexico last year - also threw his weight behind the claims, insisting the footage was genuine.

Sharing a snippet of their chat in a post on X, Maussan captioned the clip: "We are facing one of the greatest UAP (UFO) evidences of all time; captured by the Captain Pilot Aviator @JorgeArteagaG."

He also thanked retired Pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves for analysing and validating the clip alongside him, which brought them both to the conclusion that it was a 'UAP anomalous object' - AKA, a UFO.

Maussan said that Arteaga told him that the object in the video is 'something totally unknown without means of propulsion with movements that he considers intelligent.'

• Featured Image Credit: X/Jorge Arteaga

{ https://www.ladbible.com/ }

Danie Franco/Unsplash

Sightings of UFOs may challenge our entire worldview, but the facts are too compelling to ignore, and they’re not going away. So, it’s time to wash off the sticky stigma and engage in serious discussion about the evidence, and its implications. 

Most UFO sightings are attributable to man-made objects like experimental aircraft or satellites, innocent misidentifications of Venus and other celestial objects, or outright hoaxes. However, we now know that in a minority of cases, there appears to be something else going on: something quite extraordinary and beyond our current comprehension. 

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there are objects of unknown origin, evidently under intelligent control, which behave in ways that seem to challenge our understanding of physics. These objects don’t just “fly” without any apparent lift surfaces or means of propulsion; according to some military testimony, they would appear to be the fastest technological objects on Earth, capable of accelerating so quickly that they should create sonic booms, superheat the air around them into a glowing plasma, and instantly kill any occupants on board. 

Instead, they silently maneuver with perfect agility through the atmosphere and, according to some eyewitness reports, underwater, as if basic rules of inertia and friction simply don’t apply to them. 

There’s general acknowledgment that these phenomena have been documented in America since at least the late 1940s, and probably much earlier. Hence, many longtime UFO advocates, as well as those newer to the subject, are now asking why it has taken 70 years for government offices to openly regard UFOs as a subject of serious inquiry. This is a question that deserves a lengthy public discussion. 

Today, serious researchers are beginning–sometimes grudgingly–to admit that UFOs (or UAPs if you prefer the rebranded version) are a valid area of study, and pockets of scientific enthusiasm are emerging. After the New York Times made the revelation of a secret Pentagon UFO study their front page story, the Department of Defense subsequently admitted that leaked UFO videos were in fact real (and that it has others it’s not showing us). Since that time, a NASA UFO research initiative headed by Princeton’s former chair of astronomy has been launched, former Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb’s Galileo Project wants to determine if the strange phenomena are extraterrestrial. The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office is now investigating UFO phenomena across all the branches of the military; the US Navy has revised its protocols to counter stigmas against UFO reporting and encourage sighting reports by pilots (like this one); and there have been briefings in the US Senate and House regarding the more than 650 sightings now being studied by AARO, marking an almost singular point of bipartisanship in a traditionally fractured Congress.

This explosion of interest and influx of expertise, credibility, and funding into UFO research will create a flow of ideas between old-hat UFO researchers and establishment newcomers to the subject. As some scientific communities shift to incorporate the nascently-legitimate subject of UFO research, they may have to accommodate elements of the other’s conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and research agendas, and this will require questioning old assumptions about what sort of evidence actually exists and how to interpret it. Likewise, it is the perfect moment for UFO-interested folks to pause and evaluate their own assumptions about the subject, many of which seem to have been in place since the very beginning of the Flying Saucer craze that in 1947 began simultaneously in both America and Canada. As career researchers and academics (like me) join the conversation, the contours of the conversation itself will inevitably shift–I think for the better. 

How I Came to the Subject, and What I Noticed as a Newcomer

My own journey down the UFO rabbit hole began one day early in 2019. As I flipped through a catalog from Oxford University Press, one title, in particular, jumped out at me: American Cosmic: UFOs, Religion, Technology by Diana Walsh Pasulka, a tenured professor of religion at the University of North Carolina. What surprised me most was that the blurb in the catalog suggested the author thought that it was not merely the UFO believers that were interesting, but that the phenomenon itself was worth serious attention. I promptly ordered a copy, and once it arrived I spent the next few days absorbed in the most bizarre piece of nonfiction I’d ever read. 

The UFO enthusiasts Pasulka spent the most time with–two men she dubbed “James” and “Tyler” to preserve their anonymity–were both experiencers of the phenomenon. However, they weren’t tinfoil-hat-waring obsessives; they were scientists and academics, and not long after her book was published, a prodigious Stanford biomedical scientist named Garry Nolan revealed that he was the man referred to in the text as “James”. Around the same time, members of Reddit, by perusing the Vatican archive visitors’ log for the days Pasulka and “Tyler” visited,  discovered that the latter appears to have been Timothy Taylor, founder of Endius. 

Screenshot from the Vatican Observatory 2017 Annual Report

(Vatican Observatory).

What I found as I slipped into the deep end of the pool of UFO research was that, first, there is no shallow end. It’s deep ends everywhere you go, and once you clear away the debris of obvious hoaxes and non-evidential sightings, every drop in the pool–that is, every case warranting sustained attention–is a little ocean with its own perplexing depths where nothing is what it at first seems to be. The important facts of each case are often so embedded in the commentaries and interpretations that have grown around them that it’s difficult to consider them separately from the belief systems of the UFO community itself.

Questioning Common Sense With Relation  to UFOs

Like all communities defined by a belief system, over time the most important beliefs become accepted so widely that they eventually feel too obvious even to mention. It’s similar to the way we don’t ever point out that murder isn’t nice; beliefs like these are accepted so widely and deeply that they pass out of consciousness altogether to some deeper place, where they operate out of sight. 

We are born into an atmosphere of these powerful but unspoken beliefs, and we adopt them not by reasoning about the evidence for or against them; rather, we simply accept them as part of the foundation of beliefs that we need in order to do any reasoning at all. If reasoning were a game of chess, these beliefs wouldn’t be pieces in the game or moves made by players: they’d be the board. 

These beliefs–the ones paradoxically so obvious that they’re invisible–are what some people in my field call ideology. The word is sometimes used pejoratively, but the fact is that everyone has an ideology. Questioning a person’s foundational beliefs can be so uncomfortable that it feels like an existential threat, and we respond defensively, even violently. Likewise, if we encounter any idea that flatly contradicts our foundational beliefs, it will seem patently false and absurd. 

Fig 2. Aerial perspective, by Johann Zahn, Oculus artificialis teledioptricus sive telescopium, 1702, public domain.

We can be confident today that this particular phenomenon isn’t real, but arguably stranger phenomena are now well-established realities. From robots controlled entirely by brain waves to machines that can render our dreams in visible images, technologies are allowing the contents of our minds to have a powerful presence in the world outside our heads. None of this even mentions theories of reality that totally throw into question the distinction between the “internal” and “external” world–ideas like the Simulation Hypothesis and holographic theories of the universe. 

It may also be worth considering whether some of these phenomena could be terrestrial, but nonhuman, in origin. Given that the US military suggests that at least some UFOs can travel underwater, that 70% of the Earth is ocean and that 95% of it is totally unexplored, the idea that these things are from here seems more plausible when we consider just how little of here we’ve actually mapped.. And while it seems unlikely that any intelligent, technological society arose before Homo Sapiens arrived on the scene, if such a civilization had arisen, we might not even be able to tell, because, while the Earth has been habitable for 40-600 million years, the geologic record itself only goes back 1.8 to 2.6 million. Entertaining these possibilities or creating new ones will, however, require abandoning the assumption that ETH is the only real game in town.

Another alternative to the ETH put forward by one of the most credentialed and intellectually rigorous UFO investigators out there, Jacques Vallée, is that reality itself has within it some fundamental mechanism for disrupting our certainty about the world. This mechanism, he theorizes, kicks in at opportune moments to manifest weirdness that is calculated, often humorously, to mystify us into wonder or incomprehension. For Vallée, who calls his theory the “Control System Hypothesis”, reality itself may be a trickster whose purpose is to nudge our collective consciousness in ways that encourage society to develop in particular ways.

As bizarre as this idea sounds, it’s not one that Vallée brought into his research into UFOs, but rather a notion he began to formulate after decades of flying around the world, personally investigating reported encounters and interviewing experiencers. By his own account, he was initially persuaded by the ETH, but case by case, he became convinced that the details simply didn’t add up to an extraterrestrial explanation. He found that, when experiencers were allowed to describe the details of their encounters as they experienced them, rather than simply responding to standard data-collection questions about the size and shape of craft, number, and arrangement of lights, etc., these sane, intelligent experiencers who shunned publicity and sought no personal gain, recalled details that are flatly absurd. The occupants of UFOs disembark for no other apparent reason than to argue with witnesses about what the time is, or to offer bystanders pancakes. Such encounters seem intentionally surreal to Vallée as if they were constructed in order to mystify experiencers with their absurdity. 

Another category of (quasi) encounters with UFOs that is rife with the absurd is the category of reported alien abductions. Abduction reports often describe beings who, despite obviously possessing ultra-sophisticated technology, inflict pseudo-medical “examinations” upon abductees using tools and methods that would be laughable for their medieval silliness if they weren’t so traumatizing for those who report these experiences. 

The bizarre details of abduction encounters make them easy to dismiss out of hand, but it’s probably a mistake to ignore these reports. Pulitzer Prize-winner and then-chair of psychiatry at Harvard, John Mack, spent over a decade conducting hundreds of hours of interviews with self-identified abductees. In the end, he published collaborations with other psychiatrists,  and several related books in which he reached three firm conclusions: 1) the people he interviewed were not crazy, 2) they were not lying, and 3) the only thing they seemed to have in common was the fact that they reported being abducted. Simply put, these sane, otherwise normal people really believed these things had happened to them.

You may, at this point, decide that we have strayed too far from respectable scientific speculation; Mack’s colleagues at Harvard suspected the same of him, and, in an attempt to oust him and formally discredit the incredible conclusions he drew, they descended upon his work with a formal investigation, the first Harvard had ever conducted upon one of its own faculty members. Their investigation alleged that Mack had committed gross professional irresponsibility by  “communicat[ing], in any way whatsoever, to a person who has reported a ‘close encounter’ with an extraterrestrial life form that this experience might well have been real”. For fourteen months the team of Harvard professors pored over piles of Mack’s notes, data, and recorded interviews before they were finally forced to conclude that, despite a few methodological criticisms, there was no basis to deny the credibility of his work. Harvard subsequently declared that Mack–a man who publicly argued for the reality of abduction cases– was, and always had been, a member of Harvard’s faculty in good standing and that his scholarship was worthy of one of the greatest universities in the world.

Mack openly acknowledged  that the abduction phenomenon is “some kind of psychological, spiritual experience” that is “both literally and physically happening”, and speculated that the events were “originating, perhaps, in another dimension.” He never made the surreal absurdities of abduction encounters a focal point of his study, but he left us with good reasons to believe these experiences were genuine–absurdities and all–which means the absurdity at the heart of many UFO and abduction encounters still requires an explanation. Vallée’s hypothesis seems, to a degree, like an attempt to address some of the questions raised by Mack’s research.

A totally different approach to understanding the incredible and sometimes absurd facts of the UFO phenomenon–an approach I call the “missing concepts” view–would be to consider that, if UFOs are the work of other intelligent beings, they are almost certainly the product of beings who have forms of experience, conceptual categories, and kinds of activities, and aims that would be incomprehensibly foreign to us. Our current relationship to the phenomena may then be akin to a race of intelligent, but totally blind aliens who have found and are trying to understand a human-made kaleidoscope. UFO phenomena, in other words, may be conceptually incomprehensible to us both in how they work, and what their basic purpose is. Our mental toolbox may be missing some of the essential concepts that are necessary for describing the phenomena, even at a rudimentary level, the way intelligent beings without a concept of visual experience simply can’t theorize their way to a good explanation of a kaleidoscope. 

Each of these hypotheses—Vallee’s “control system”, the possibility that some are exotic but natural intelligence-mimicking phenomena, that they’re somehow of terrestrial origin, or that UFOs are currently conceptually incomprehensible–all deserve consideration alongside the ETH, and we should be trying to design many other new hypotheses too, along with empirical tests to eliminate them if they don’t fit the evidence. The standard assumption that any legitimate UFOs are extraterrestrial craft shouldn’t simply be discarded, but it should be tested alongside these other hypotheses.

2. Assumption Two: The Unity of The Phenomena of UFOs

The second assumption that seems to underlie nearly every conversation about UFOs is the belief that these unexplained phenomena are each individual manifestations of a single root phenomenon; that they’re all ultimately the same kind of thing and so, whatever the explanation may be, we only need one explanation. Like all assumptions, this is rarely stated, but I’ve yet to come across anyone who wants to distinguish between types of UFOs for the purpose of attributing unrelated causes to them.

It may be tempting to assume that we should prefer a single explanation for a host of weird phenomena to multiple explanations because in doing so we satisfy Occam’s Razor–the dictum that we should always prefer simpler explanations to more complex ones. But Occam’s Razor is so widely misunderstood, so limited in its useful applicability, and so easily misapplied that it may be best to just avoid trying to satisfy it at all. Point in fact, conspiracy theories are almost always perfectly obedient to Occam’s Razor, because they propose to explain nearly everything as the product of a single cause. After all, positing one Jewish space laser is, in a real sense, a simpler explanation for California’s wildfires than a combination of worldwide climate change factors and specific conditions on the ground in California.

When we’re trying to explain a collection of distinct phenomena spread across space and time, each with its own unique, noteworthy features, the best default assumption is that there are multiple distinct causes at play. The body of documented UFO phenomena includes glowing orbs, military encounters with craft-like objects, accounts of human and humanoid creatures, massive air battles among flying objects of wildly varying descriptions, and celestial apparitions, to name a few. This raises a serious methodological question: how do we draw the boundaries to define UFOs in the first place? How, for instance, are we to distinguish in every case between religious or mystical encounters–like the 1917 events at Fatima, Portugal–and more “normal” UFO encounters, with which they share some important features? This question becomes even more complex when we consider that experiencers can interpret the same details very differently depending on their worldview.

What is needed is for us to develop a rigorous, standardized taxonomy of the different kinds of encounters according to both empirical and subjective elements, and then to consider, for each type, which explanation fits with and explains the data best. There’s no good reason to assume, in the face of so much perplexing evidence, that there’s really only one kind of weird thing going on. 

3. Assumption Three: The Consistency of The Government

Another idea joined at the hip of nearly every discussion about UFOs is the belief that The Government (usually the US) has probably already solved the mystery, and they’re playing dumb. The reasoning is clear: how could a technological superpower with a military spanning the globe not know what’s behind these phenomena, especially given the serious national security implications of strange objects in our airspace? 

The heart of this suspicion is an assumption that the government–and here it’s more like The Government–is unified enough that it can harbor within itself a kind of secret society that spans its various branches and bureaus and operates effectively, and in secret. However, take a cursory glance at any major government project (and here, again, I am thinking especially of the US Government); whether it’s an interstate system, national healthcare, public education, taxation, natural disaster response, or even passing an annual budget, one will quickly conclude that our governments very often lack the unity required for accomplish even their most fundamental tasks. 

This is just the nature of the beast: a large group comprising various ideologies tasked with pursuing multiple complexes and often competing goals is always at the risk of fracturing from internal stress, at which point it may be unable to accomplish even its day-to-day duties. Any system constantly fighting the tides of such internal stresses is almost certainly incapable of perpetrating a coordinated, decades-long, system-wide coverup of the most important truths humanity has ever known.  If we consider that there are also thousands of dogged and competent journalists sniffing for corruption, ethically motivated insiders ready to blow the whistle, and hundreds of other governments with their own messy innards and competing interests, it is possible, at most, to believe that single incidents–maybe even massively important ones–could be concealed if they fell under the purview of a single office or bureau, but the possibility that large numbers of people across multiple, often-quarrelsome governments have cooperatively succeeded at suppressing monumental truths about our place in the universe for decades seems vanishingly small. 

We would be better off avoiding attributing such awesome power and competence to our governments, and instead, adopt a more nuanced conception of governments that sees them not as unified wholes, but as loose collections of bureaus that cooperate or share information with one another when it serves their individual interests, but often operate with disregard or outright antagonism toward one another. A more accurate picture of the situation would then emerge, one in which the UFO phenomenon is a very large jigsaw puzzle of which each government likely only possesses a few pieces, which are then scattered across that government’s chain of island-like bureaus and offices, which are not particularly cooperative with each other, and so may not even acknowledge that they have any of the pieces, or that the puzzle is even real.

{ https://thedebrief.org/category/space/ }

The Event Horizon Telescope's Next Feat? Multi-Color Pictures of Black Holes

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

What The Strange Habits Of An Octopus Can Teach Us About Alien Intelligence

Studying cephalopods can teach you a lot about the nature of intelligence.

by The Conversation and Rachel Blaser

 

Mark Chivers/Moment/Getty Images

{ https://www.inverse.com/ }

15 Years Later, Earth’s Most Advanced Planetary Defense System Ends In A Fiery Reentry

NEOWISE contributed to planetary defense efforts with its research to catalog near-Earth objects.

by Toshi Hirabayashi, Yaeji Kim and The Conversation

NASA Neowise

The NASA project NEOWISE, which has given astronomers a detailed view of near-Earth objects – some of which could strike the Earth — ended its mission and burned on reentering the atmosphere after over a decade.

On a clear night, the sky is full of bright objects — from stars, large planets, and galaxies to tiny asteroids flying near Earth. These asteroids are commonly known as near-Earth objects, and they come in a wide variety of sizes. Some are tens of kilometers across or larger, while others are only tens of meters or smaller.

On occasion, near-Earth objects smash into Earth at a high speed — roughly 10 miles per second (16 kilometers per second) or faster. That’s about 15 times as fast as a rifle’s muzzle speed. An impact at that speed can easily damage the planet’s surface and anything on it.

Impacts from large near-Earth objects are generally rare over a typical human lifetime. But they’re more frequent on a geological timescale of millions to billions of years. The best example may be a 6-mile-wide (10-kilometer-wide) asteroid that crashed into Earth, killed the dinosaurs and created Chicxulub crater about 65 million years ago.

Smaller impacts are very common on Earth, as there are more small near-Earth objects. An international community effort called planetary defense protects humans from these space intruders by cataloging and monitoring as many near-Earth objects as possible, including those closely approaching Earth. Researchers call the near-Earth objects that could collide with the surface potentially hazardous objects.

NASA began its NEOWISE mission in December 2013. This mission’s primary focus was to use the space telescope from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer to closely detect and characterize near-Earth objects such as asteroids and comets.

NEOWISE contributed to planetary defense efforts with its research to catalog near-Earth objects. Over the past decade, it helped planetary defenders like us and our colleagues study near-Earth objects.

NASA’s NEOWISE mission, the spacecraft for which is shown here, surveyed for near-Earth objects.

NASA/JPL-Caltech

Detecting near-Earth objects

NEOWISE was a game-changing mission, as it revolutionized how to survey near-Earth objects.

The NEOWISE mission continued to use the spacecraft from NASA’s WISE mission, which ran from late 2009 to 2011 and conducted an all-sky infrared survey to detect not only near-Earth objects but also distant objects such as galaxies.

The spacecraft orbited Earth from north to south, passing over the poles, and it was in a Sun-synchronous orbit, where it could see the Sun in the same direction over time. This position allowed it to scan all of the sky efficiently.

The spacecraft could survey astronomical and planetary objects by detecting the signatures they emitted in the mid-infrared range.

Humans’ eyes can sense visible light, which is electromagnetic radiation between 400 and 700 nanometers. When we look at stars in the sky with the naked eye, we see their visible light components.

However, mid-infrared light contains waves between 3 and 30 micrometers and is invisible to human eyes.

When heated, an object stores that heat as thermal energy. Unless the object is thermally insulated, it releases that energy continuously as electromagnetic energy, in the mid-infrared range.

This process, known as thermal emission, happens to near-Earth objects after the Sun heats them up. The smaller an asteroid, the fainter its thermal emission. The NEOWISE spacecraft could sense thermal emissions from near-Earth objects at a high level of sensitivity – meaning it could detect small asteroids.

But asteroids aren’t the only objects that emit heat. The spacecraft’s sensors could pick up heat emissions from other sources too — including the spacecraft itself.

To make sure heat from the spacecraft wasn’t hindering the search, the WISE/NEOWISE spacecraft was designed so that it could actively cool itself using then-state-of-the-art solid hydrogen cryogenic cooling systems.

Operation Phases

Since the spacecraft’s equipment needed to be very sensitive to detect faraway objects for WISE, it used solid hydrogen, which is extremely cold, to cool itself down and avoid any noise that could mess with the instruments’ sensitivity. Eventually, the coolant ran out, but not until WISE had successfully completed its science goals.

During the cryogenic phase when it was actively cooling itself, the spacecraft operated at a temperature of about -447 degrees Fahrenheit (-266 degrees Celsius), slightly higher than the universe’s temperature, which is about -454 degrees Fahrenheit (-270 degrees Celsius).

The cryogenic phase lasted from 2009 to 2011 until the spacecraft went into hibernation in 2011.

Following the hibernation period, NASA decided to reactivate the WISE spacecraft under the NEOWISE mission, with a more specialized focus on detecting near-Earth objects, which was still feasible even without the cryogenic cooling.

During this reactivation phase, the detectors didn’t need to be quite as sensitive, nor the spacecraft kept as cold as it was during the cryogenic cooling phase, since near-Earth objects are closer than WISE’s faraway targets.

The consequence of losing the active cooling was that two long-wave detectors out of the four on board became so hot that they could no longer function, limiting the craft’s capability.

Nevertheless, NEOWISE used its two operational detectors to continuously monitor both previously and newly detected near-Earth objects in detail.

NEOWISE’s legacy

As of February 2024, NEOWISE had taken more than 1.5 million infrared measurements of about 44,000 different objects in the solar system. These included about 1,600 discoveries of near-Earth objects. NEOWISE also provided detailed size estimates for more than 1,800 near-Earth objects.

Despite the mission’s contributions to science and planetary defense, it was decommissioned in August 2024. The spacecraft eventually started to fall toward Earth’s surface, until it reentered Earth’s atmosphere and burned up on Nov. 1, 2024.

NEOWISE’s contributions to hunting near-Earth objects gave scientists much deeper insights into the asteroids around Earth. It also gave scientists a better idea of what challenges they’ll need to overcome to detect faint objects.

So, did NEOWISE find all the near-Earth objects? The answer is no. Most scientists still believe that there are far more near-Earth objects out there that still need to be identified, particularly smaller ones.

An illustration of NEO Surveyor, which will continue to detect and catalog near-Earth objects once it is launched into space.

NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona

To carry on NEOWISE’s legacy, NASA is planning a mission called NEO Surveyor. NEO Surveyor will be a next-generation space telescope that can study small near-Earth asteroids in more detail, mainly to contribute to NASA’s planetary defense efforts. It will identify hundreds of thousands of near-Earth objects that are as small as about 33 feet (10 meters) across. The spacecraft’s launch is scheduled for 2027.

• This article was originally published on The Conversation by Toshi Hirabayashi at Georgia Institute of Technology and Yaeji Kim at University of Maryland. Read the original article here.

{ https://www.inverse.com/ }

How Good Is AI At Detecting Human Emotions? Too Good.

Identifying specific emotions has significant implications for everything from marketing to education and health care.

by Leo Paas, Ho Seok Ahn, Sanghyub John Lee and The Conversation

 

John Lund/Getty Images

Artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to permeate many facets of the human experience. AI is not just a tool for analysing data — it’s transforming the way we communicate, work and live. From ChatGP through to AI video generators, the lines between technology and parts of our lives have become increasingly blurred.

But do these technological advances mean AI can identify our feelings online?

In our new research, we examined whether AI could detect human emotions in posts on X (formerly Twitter).

Our research focused on how emotions expressed in use posts about certain non-profit organizations can influence actions such as the decision to make donations to them at a later point.

Using emotions to drive a response

Traditionally, researchers have relied on sentiment analysis, which categorizes messages as positive, negative, or neutral. While this method is simple and intuitive, it has limitations.

Human emotions are far more nuanced. For example, anger and disappointment are both negative emotions, but they can provoke very different reactions. Angry customers may react much more strongly than disappointed ones in a business context.

To address these limitations, we applied an AI model that could detect specific emotions — such as joy, anger, sadness, and disgust — expressed in tweets.

Our research found emotions expressed on X could serve as a representation of the public’s general sentiments about specific non-profit organizations. These feelings had a direct impact on donation behavior.

Detecting emotions

We used the “transformer transfer learning” model to detect emotions in text. Pre-trained on massive datasets by companies such as Google and Facebook, transformers are highly sophisticated AI algorithms that excel at understanding natural language (languages that have developed naturally as opposed to computer languages or code).

We fine-tuned the model on a combination of four self-reported emotion datasets (over 3.6 million sentences) and seven other datasets (over 60,000 sentences). This allowed us to map out a wide range of emotions expressed online.

For example, the model would detect joy as the dominant emotion when reading an X post such as,

• Starting our mornings in school is the best! All smiles at #purpose #kids.

Conversely, the model would pick up on sadness in a tweet saying,

• I feel I have lost part of myself. I lost Mum over a month ago, and Dad 13 years ago. I’m lost and scared.

The model achieved an impressive 84 percent accuracy in detecting emotions from text, a noteworthy accomplishment in the field of AI.

We then looked at tweets about two New Zealand-based organizations – the Fred Hollows Foundation and the University of Auckland. We found tweets expressing sadness were more likely to drive donations to the Fred Hollows Foundation, while anger was linked to an increase in donations to the University of Auckland.

Our new model was able to identify different emotions expressed in X posts.

BlackJack3D/Getty Images

Ethical questions as AI evolves

Identifying specific emotions has significant implications for sectors such as marketing, education, and health care.

Being able to identify people’s emotional responses in specific contexts online can support decision-makers in responding to their individual customers or their broader market. Each specific emotion being expressed in social media posts online requires a different reaction from a company or organization.

Our research demonstrated that different emotions lead to different outcomes when it comes to donations.

Knowing sadness in marketing messages can increase donations to non-profit organizations allows for more effective, emotionally resonant campaigns. Anger can motivate people to act in response to perceived injustice.

While the transformer transfer learning model excels at detecting emotions in text, the next major breakthrough will come from integrating it with other data sources, such as voice tone or facial expressions, to create a more complete emotional profile.

Imagine an AI that not only understands what you’re writing but also how you’re feeling. Clearly, such advances come with ethical challenges.

If AI can read our emotions, how do we ensure this capability is used responsibly? How do we protect privacy? These are crucial questions that must be addressed as the technology continues to evolve.

• This article was originally published on The Conversation by Sanghyub John Lee, Ho Seok Ahn and Leo Paas at the University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. Read the original article here.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://www.inverse.com/ }

A Strange, Old Asteroid Is Orbiting Our Sun — NASA’s New Psyche Mission Will Hunt For Its Origin

Psyche has a mysterious origin story, and NASA thinks it's imperative that we learn it.

by Doris Elín Urrutia

 

NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU

If a novel chronicled the Solar System’s history in a thousand or so pages (roughly the length of the Lord of the Rings trilogy), the scene NASA’s Psyche mission is trying to understand happens on page one.

Asteroid Psyche preserves the memory of the dramatic event that forged it. This dense, potentially metal-rich object is now tucked away amongst thousands of ordinary space rocks in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, some 2.5 billion miles away from Earth. NASA plans to send a robotic expedition to traverse this distance.

According to NASA, the Psyche mission is currently expected to take off no earlier than October 12th. A three-week launch window for lift-off from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, will remain open for delays.

NASA expects the spacecraft to complete its journey in August 2029. By that time, mission scientists hope that the asteroid’s enigmatic story, which began just 4 million years into the 4.6 billion-year existence of our Solar System, may finally begin to be told.

An illustration of the Psyche mission approaching asteroid Psyche in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. 

NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU

What is so special about asteroid Psyche?

NASA has commissioned a wave of space rock missions over the past several years. Before this, asteroid researchers traditionally relied solely on telescopes and the meteorites delivered from the great beyond, like natural postcards.

Meteorites are a valuable sample of the Solar System’s start because they preserve clues about the behavior of the material left over from planetary formation. Their method of shipping does sully these packages, however. As they careen and melt through Earth’s atmosphere, they change in significant ways. Nevertheless, meteorites are important. For instance, they suggest to astronomers that most asteroids are made of rock.

But there’s something odder about Psyche that has astronomers excited. For one, it rotates on its side. Second, some of the asteroid’s attributes, though hard to perceive clearly from Earth, suggest Psyche is dense and abundant in iron. If this is confirmed up close with the spacecraft’s three instruments, it would have “lots of interesting consequences,” Psyche mission co-investigator Simone Marchi tells Inverse.

“We have not seen any such object at close range before. All the asteroids that fly by, we think, are mostly made of rock. At least their surfaces are made of rock. So, having to deal with an object that potentially might be metal-rich would open up completely different scenarios in terms of formation and how this object came to be the way it is now.”

Where did Psyche come from?

Three to four million years into the Solar System’s long tenure — or 1/1,300 its current age — something extraordinary forged Psyche.

An artist's animation of a protoplanetary disk, which will eventually turn into a solar system.

Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Juvenile planets might have played a role. As disks of dust and gas swirled around our baby Sun, the material would clump together. The pieces eventually got bigger, but not big enough to be considered planets. Scientists call these planetesimals.

Psyche could be a rare relic from an explosive crash between two planetesimals, Psyche mission co-investigator Bill Bottke tells Inverse.

Planetesimals have enough mass that the denser materials pool to the center, and the lighter stuff sits on top. But since they are still growing, a crash would be powerful enough to melt and extract the core and form something like Psyche.

Another possibility, according to Bottke, is that some still unknown process placed certain materials in one part of the Solar System, and that Psyche formed in a metal-rich pocket. “At the moment, we don’t know which of those is the right solution. So this is where it gets exciting,” he says.

What will the mission find?

When the Psyche mission finally launches, its solar panel wings will unfurl to soak up energy for its journey to the asteroid belt. When deployed, the Psyche spacecraft will be roughly the size of a tennis court, according to NASA.

During its cruise, Psyche will use Mars’ gravity to speed up and put it on the right path. When it gets close to asteroid Psyche in six years, the mission will spend 100 days in an approach phase. Once in orbit around the asteroid, the mission will fly in four different orbits to map and study it. From its outermost orbit, the spacecraft will get the overall shape of the asteroid. Then, each progressively tighter orbit will examine the asteroid’s topography, how its mass is distributed, and map its elements.

Maybe then, Psyche will paint a picture of how our cosmic neighborhood began.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://www.inverse.com/ }

Newly Released Documents Shed Light on “UFO Whistleblower” David Grusch’s DOPSR Review

In a recent release of documents obtained via FOIA case 23-F-0946, new information has surfaced surrounding the media-nicknamed “UFO Whistleblower,” David Grusch. Grusch, who has claimed to have knowledge regarding “non-human intelligence”—believed by many to refer to extraterrestrial beings—had made headlines with his story, yet a crucial piece of the puzzle seemed elusive: his Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR)  submission that he, and the media, often references.

The Black Vault has extensively highlighted the absence of Grusch’s actual approved DOPSR submission. While Grusch remained tight-lipped, a FOIA request filed by The Black Vault has now shed light on the matter from the Department of Defense’s end. Although the recent release still leaves many questions unanswered due to significant redactions, it does provide a more comprehensive picture of how everything went down.

David Grusch

From the documents, it’s evident that Grusch submitted two DOPSR requests for review. The first, an “Interview Question Submission”, was sent on March 7, 2023. His second, a “future” interview question submission, was sent less than a month later on April 5, 2023. Both submissions received approval on April 4, 2023, and April 6, 2023, respectively. Strangely, the responses to Grusch’s interview questions, the most awaited details, were redacted under exemption (b)(6), shielding them from the public eye. This exemption, as stated in the FOIA response letter, protects information that, “…would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals.”

The internal correspondence within the DOD also adds a bit to the story. Security Review Specialist Michelle Whigham expressed concerns regarding vague references made by Grusch about certain “sensitive areas.” Her apprehension was clear in her message to her colleague, Don Kluzik, where she stated, “Although he does not divulge specific sensitive information, the author makes reference to sensitive areas. I just wanted you to review.” Kluzik stated in his response, “Vague references to sensitive areas like this are not a problem. If there had been something more substantial then further review would have been necessary.”

With the answers being redacted in the DOPSR paperwork that Grusch wrote for approval, it is only a guess on what “vague” references and locations they are referring to.

The released documents beg a more significant question: If the DOD has provided a portion of the material, albeit redacted, why hasn’t Grusch shown his requests in full? Such transparency would only bolster his credibility. But by the email exchange above within DOPSR, it seemed like nothing was of detailed note that caused any concern whatsoever, except for “vague” references to facilities which were no problem to them. What else was in the request?

To date, although Grusch’s DOPSR material was referenced in each of his news interviews, and at the UAP hearing, it has yet to be released by Grusch despite being fully cleared for “Open Publication” by DOPSR. Why he has not released it to date remains a mystery. Past attempts by The Black Vault in June of this year to contact Mr. Grusch’s attorney, Charles McCullough, specifically asking about the DOPSR material have remain unanswered.

• Note: The Black Vault will be filing an appeal to argue the redactions.

Document Archive

{ https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/ }

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.

Anomalous Phenomena

From this, we can try to answer our second question. If UAPs were truly of extraterrestrial origin, why would they show up as anomalies? Given the barriers of alienness, an AI probe would likely need significant time to observe us to train itself on our data, perhaps as it waited for us to create our own emissary. During this time, stealth capabilities would essentially promote its survival. Intentional obfuscation would help explain the anomalous nature of UAP sightings. We believe, given the large geographical range of sightings coupled with the lack of detections of obvious craft, that if some UAPs are truly of extraterrestrial origin, there might be several stealth extraterrestrial artificial intelligence probes (SEAPs) operating on our planet.

While our proposal might seem speculative, improvements in current technology by governments and private corporations suggest that similar advancements could exist elsewhere. Modern drones, enhanced with AI and surveillance technology, have the capability to identify and differentiate objects in real-time using high-resolution cameras and infrared sensors. These drones can recognize patterns of human activity, allowing them to use GPS data to navigate away from particular areas.

Advanced AI models assess threats as they occur and can react to certain devices and situations. When working together, drones can exchange information regarding observed locations and activities and, if detected, can use AI for evasive maneuvers and can adapt routes based on predictive data analysis. Many of these drones also feature designs that decrease their visibility or audibility, like anti-reflective surfaces, making them harder to detect.

Motives and Intent

This brings us to our final question: If SEAPs account for the truly anomalous UAP sightings, what do these accounts suggest about their objectives? While it’s speculative, if SEAPs do exist, one possibility could be that they operate for information gathering, as indicated by the intricacies observed in some UAP sightings. While there is no way to know what the purpose of this collection might be, we hope it is related to establishing peaceful cross-species communications at some future point.

If SEAPs are a contributing factor to UAP sightings, their operational approach might involve balancing stealth capabilities with data collection. This balance inherently comes with risks. Under these conditions, sightings may be a result of moments when a SEAP took a calculated risk to gather data. Extrapolating from this, one can imagine the SEAP would want to understand which regions of, say, the United States, maximize the opportunity for stealth while at the same time maximizing the total amount of information collected about the people and ecological systems nearby.

As future regional scientists, we think about how geography and human activity interact – and through this lens, SEAPs would certainly need to understand which regions would maximize both protection and opportunities. Case in point, a 2023 report by the RAND Corporation titled “Not the X-Files” conducted a spatial analysis of UAP sightings controlling for variables such as total population, population density, and percent of cloudy days. A key finding was that population density was negatively correlated with UAP sightings. While this could be interpreted in various ways, we believe that this fits with the SEAP theory and suggests a tradeoff between stealth and data-gathering.

In taking this a step further, we considered which regions in the continental United States might offer unparalleled security and viewing opportunities. Regions high in natural features that limit human incursion, such as large lakes, dense forests, rugged mountain terrain, and subterranean caverns, all with population centers nearby, would be favored by SEAPs. In viewing the RAND report’s cluster of UAP sightings, major regions that stand out include the Pacific Northwest, parts of Appalachia, the Front Range of the southern Rockies, and the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York, among others. Each of these regions has been a historical hotbed for sightings and has its own distinct pattern of UAP activity.

It’s challenging for us to imagine the strategies an advanced intelligence might employ, given that we’ve never encountered one. While it’s not a direct comparison, think of the way some creatures, like chameleons, use camouflage in their environments. Would a passing insect realize that there’s a more sophisticated being right beside it, or would it merely go about its business, unaware? The insect might not even recognize the difference. In the same way, given the unfamiliarity of an extraterrestrial, it might be presumptuous for us to assume we’d readily recognize or comprehend their presence on Earth.

Even after extensive research by both scientists and government agencies, some UAP sightings continue to defy explanation. Among the myriad of theories is the speculative idea of stealth-designed advanced extraterrestrial technology. Given the observations and theories discussed, further exploration of our SEAP hypothesis could provide additional insights into the UAP phenomenon. Researchers should consider the implications of truly advanced extraterrestrial technology operating on our planet and design a thorough, systematic framework to potentially gain deeper perspectives into the UAP question.

• Courtney Bower is a doctoral student in regional science at Cornell University.
• Elizabeth Redmond, who also attends Cornell, is a master’s student in regional science.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://thedebrief.org/category/tech/ }