Sunday Story: The UAP Series Part 5 - The Implications

Thank you for joining us along this journey where we’ve done a bit of a deep dive into the UAP issue. Our regular readers will know we’ve been following this topic for some time, because all indicators point to this being one of the most disruptive events in human history - no matter what the reason. This week’s Sunday Story ties it all together to explain exactly why this is so disruptive.

In the first part, we talked about how we came to this issue. In the second, we talked about how even if it’s all a hoax and entirely made up, it’ll be quite disruptive. If this is all a hoax, it means multiple administrations in multiple democratic countries are, at the very least, complicit with a multi-decade-long hoax on the people they are elected to represent. That’s a bit big, so let’s break this down more simply:

Let’s say you have a boss. Your boss wants to know how you have spent your departmental budget. You are supposed to be spending $10,000 per month on professional development for your team, but instead, you decide to only spend $1,000 and pocket the remainder as extra cash. You engage in this behaviour with 16 different bosses. Some of them know about it, and choose to ignore it. Some of them don’t even know - you actually just lie to them about how you spend the money, overemphasizing the importance of professional development and totally lying about the outcomes of the investment, and so they don’t dig in any further.

But, some of your coworkers are aware of this, and have chosen to go public. Now, your boss, your bosses boss, and the auditors at your external accounting agency, and even the police are involved in looking into your departmental budgets. It’s virtually a certainty that they are going to find out about your lies.

What do you think will happen to a person in this situation? What will happen to the bosses that turned a blind eye? What will happen to you for your fraud? What do you think SHOULD happen?

Because essentially, that’s the situation we see playing out in the USA if this is all a hoax. Not that long ago, we impeached a president for not telling the truth about a sexual interaction he had with an intern. While our standards and expectations appear to have slipped a bit in recent years, we still generally expect our political leaders to be good, honest people, and when it turns out they aren’t, we tend to get very upset and make rash decisions - like electing people who promise change.

The effect of this is likely to be a rapid increase in voter apathy - why vote if they are all corrupt liars, right? - and voter apathy means that the small but motivated groups can sway elections in a significant way. This exposes our systems to increased disruption by foreign actors, or in a more organic way, can usher in fascist or revolutionary governments that are not known for their ability to bring stability to dynamic situations.

Image of the UAP shot down over the Yukon in February 2024, image obtained via FOIA request by Daniel Otis, CTV.

The nature of the Polycrisis in which we find ourselves is that we are in the definition of a “Complex System”. We’ve written about this concept before, but essentially this is based on well-supported scholarship in risk management, and the idea is this: As a system gets more complex, cause and effect become harder to predict and measure, and a minor disruption in one part of the system is more likely to cascade into system failure as a system gets more complex. Our international relations are highly complex right now - American/NATO interests are coming up against Russia, China, India, and Brazil, and while we refer to these nations as the BRIC block, their interests are not as aligned as NATOs, and thus a relationship breakdown with one (say, India) can cascade into a massive global conflict (such as exacerbating conflict between China and India, thus fomenting a great conflict with Pakistan and India). When people get reactive, we tend to make choices that are not logical or well thought out, and reactive choices can result in reactive leaders. Reactive leaders increase instability, and increasing instability increases disruption.

If this isn’t all a hoax, it’s massively disruptive too. Right now, NATO holds the balance of power in the world - there’s no nation or group of nations that can go against the NATO alliance with a realistic chance of victory, except in the realm of nuclear weapons, which have proliferated amongst major nations like the USA, Russia, and China. Nuclear weapons, however, have created a global stalemate known as Mutually Assured Destruction - essentially, if America were to launch it’s nuclear weapons, the Russians would be able to launch theirs in retaliation before the American bombs landed. The result is the end of life on earth as we know it. This is not a surprise - we’ve known about the doomsday potential of nuclear weapons for some time, and scientists have been warning us about this risk for as long as it’s existed.

However, MAD is based on a balance of power that has been largely unchanged since the 1960s - a rocket with a nuclear payload can only go so fast, and it’s the travel time that allows the rockets to be detected, and a retaliatory strike launched, before the initial volley lands. But imagine for a moment that someone has figured out how to deliver a nuclear payload using a UAP.

Remember, these things can go really fast. If we take some of the speeds that have been observed and calculated, we see figures like “5,000g of acceleration” being thrown around. If we can take a quick detour into math mode here, 5,000g of acceleration means that an object is accelerating at 147,000 meters per second after just 3 seconds. If it doesn’t accelerate any more past that initial 3-second burst, it means its top speed is over 500,000 kilometres per hour.

This means it can go from Washington to Moscow in 56 seconds.

That means this technology is incredibly destabilizing to the balance of power that exists in the world today. Whoever straps a nuke to a UAP first will have a decisive advantage in the context of MAD, and would be able to eliminate an adversary’s strike capabilities before they were able to retaliate. This development throws international relations game theory out the window - we simply do not know what would happen. And given that China and Russia are also allegedly running their own programs related to this technology, there’s no guarantee that the NATO sphere will win what whistleblowers refer to as a ‘secret arms race’. 

The above two scenarios are the most disruptive on the global scene since WWII, and one of the many reasons we need to be taking this issue seriously. But as we’ve said before, if it’s not a big lie, and it’s not an American secret program, and it’s not an adversary’s secret program, then who’s is it?

In this scenario, it means that another intelligent species - not human - has created craft that can outperform anything in our inventory of military tools. This means they are at least as smart as us, and the implications here for disruption are profound.

First there’s the impact on everyday people when faced with the fact that we are not alone. This is a significant shift in a person’s reality, and the phenomenon of “Ontological Shock” is very real as a measurable period of psychological distress that occurs when a person is forced to adjust what they know to be true in a sudden fashion. There’s a question of how religions will respond - though some would argue they are being proactive, given that the Catholic Church for the first time in decades issued guidance to Catholics on how the Church will respond to anomalous encounters, and the general sense from theologians is that the existence of aliens is not as challenging to their faith systems as one might initially think.

There are a number of other effects that can be speculated on; economic, health, patents, the limits of human potential - all of these and more are areas that will need to be fundamentally reconsidered in the context of this transformative technology brought to us by a non-human intelligence. The impact of this was best summed up by Colonel Karl Nell at the 2024 Sol Symposium in his UAP “Hillberg Problem” presentation, which is a tip-of-the-iceberg summary of the many domains of problems that the UAP issue represents, and it’s grounds for a series on it’s own in the near future, but there’s another area that is intensely disruptive (or transformative) that we should be paying attention to.

We hesitate on whether to include this in this weeks piece, but it’s important. There seems to be little to no debate about the reality of craft flying around, however where they come from (as this post demonstrates) is a big question. If - and, I must emphasize the ’if’ because we should all remain open minded on this issue - but if this ends up being non-human intelligence, then there’s a whole category of people that our society has been teasing, denigrating, gaslighting, and making fun of for decades. You cannot spend any time on the UAP topic without also talking about people who have had encounters with these craft. And there are tens of thousands of them.

Whether they claim to have seen a craft fly nearby them, or claim to have had communication from Non-human intelligences or even claim to be abducted by these creatures, a huge number of people identify as “Experiencers”, the catch-all term for humans who claim to have had interactions with non-human intelligences. Our experience in this field has been eye opening. As professional leadership consultants, we’ve been talking about the UAP issue with seriousness ands respect for a while now. And as a result of that, we’ve had countless people come forward to share their experiences with us. In fact, 8 times out of 10, when we talk about this topic with people in an inclusive and respectful way, we find that someone volunteers their Experiencer story. There are a lot of people who identify as experiencers - but they do so privately, and you might never know about it.

The reason for this is largely because of the immense stigma surrounding this topic. Experiencers learn quickly not to share their story in today’s society - they are ridiculed, not believed, accused of having mental health issues, have their sobriety and sanity questioned, and are often outright accused of lying. Many face career-ending barriers once these labels get attached, especially in professional contexts like pilots, doctors, or scientists.

As a leader, the people who you are responsible for are Experiencers. Your neighbours are Experiencers. You might yourself be an experiencer.

And right now, almost nobody will believe you.

That means Experiencers are forced to suffer in silence - not all have bad experiences, to be clear, but even if it's a good experience the stigma makes sharing it risky.

As this topic becomes more mainstream, it’s reasonable to expect the normalization of being an Experiencer too. Since engaging in this work, we find the parallels between Experiencers and survivors of other traumatic incidents like sexual violence to be strong. The barriers - belief, support, blame, and more - are very similar. When a survivor chooses to disclose a traumatic incident, they are making an incredibly vulnerable choice - they are exposing themselves to not only reliving the difficult experience, but risking that experience being looked on as a tall tale or fabrication, or for their own character to be questioned. The same is true for Experiencers.

What is also true is that how the leader responds to these folks makes a world of difference on their sense of wellbeing and support. A trained leader will respond with belief, support, and understanding - not judgement or questions. But there’s gap; most leaders are not trained for trauma disclosures.

That means that as this topic gains mainstream legitimacy, a bunch of Experiencers will be taking a risk, and because of that gap, that risk is going to backfire for many. Imagine showing up to work on a Monday morning after the President has announced this reality - half of your people will be calling in sick because of ontological shock. The other half will be telling you about their experiences with NHI, and how you respond to that will either leave them feeling included and supported or isolated and ridiculed.

That sure does seem disruptive, doesn’t it?

But with the right approach, your environment can be one where these folks process their shock. Your leadership can create safety for Experiencers to acknowledge what happened to them without fear. You can create a transformative context, not a disruptive one.

This is just scratching the surface of the elements of disruption if the NHI hypothesis is the correct one. If NHI are the explanation, then we must give space to everything NHI adjacent - including Experiencers! - but it doesn’t stop there. How long have NHI been present? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Have they been observing the human story since the beginning? Were they involved in it somehow? What if there are more than one species of NHI, some benevolent some malevolent? What do they want with us?

We are approaching the limit of this piece, but those final questions above are just the frost on the tip of the iceberg. This topic runs deep, and no matter which of the above ends up being true, the disruptive potential is significant.

So what do you do as a leader? It’s simple, but not easy.

As JFK said, “The best time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining”, and it still is - though clouds are gathering. As a leader, that means now is the time to start creating spaces with your leadership where people are able to transform instead of experiencing disruption. This is possible in war zones, so it’s definitely possible in your office, and the secret is to lead from a place of transparent values.

In short: Clearly identify your core leadership values for your context. Refer to them when making decisions. Be transparent about which values you are using when making a decision. Your people will start to predict your decisions, because of your consistent application of values, and thus feel safer and less vulnerable to surprises. When people feel safer, they process challenges better, and instead of experiencing disruption, they tend to be able to prepare for the change and use the energy of change to get to the next level.

It’s simple, but not easy. We’re here to help. Contact us today to Disclosure-proof your organization.

Thanks for reading, and we’ll see you next Sunday.