Data Canister: X-INV Final Report

From UFOpaedia
Revision as of 18:53, 4 October 2009 by Hobbes (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Data Canister 390
X-COM Archives
INV's final report on the nature of the 'Unknown Aerial Crafts'/'Unidentified Flying Objects'
Dated 11/27/1998

Introduction

For the past months several possibilities have been advanced to explain the nature of the sightings reported in the past year. INV's mission during that period has been to explore each of those possibilities, in order to achieve a satisfactory answer as to the origin of the UAC/UFO phenomena, and to determine their possible intentions, in case they are artificial manifestations of intelligent 'entities'. However one aspect must be clarified beforehand, as this theme is highly controversial within the scientific community. Although the media and public opinion have been associating the UACs with the 'UFO' folklore that has appeared on popular culture in the past decades, INV has approached the subject from the start with an independent view from such claims. Few in the scientific community acknowledge the possibility of 'craft transporting extraterrestrial life forms in faster than light travel'. This reticence, which was expressed by nearly all experts interviewed, has guided our approach, in order to isolate our research from preconceived notions that lacked scientific proof. Therefore we have chosen to analyze each reported incident independently, in order to detect patterns that might lead us into conclusions regarding the UACs/UFOs (therefore mentioned only as UACs to prevent preconceived notions regarding the UFO terminology).

Types of incidents

Our data retrieval operations implied a variety of sources:

  • Open source methods (news and other media reports).
  • ELINT (electronic intelligence), namely data collected by radar, IR, optical and other types of sensors.
  • Personal interviews with witnesses of UAC phenomena.
  • Physical evidence retrieved from UAC sites.
  • Attempts to achieve communication with the UACs, by radio, light and other means.

Where possible these methods were crossed to achieve confirmation of reports by several independent sources. Afterwards this allowed to classify the types of incidents into 4 main categories:

1) Simple observation of UAC phenomena. INV has confirmed several hundreds of those, with many more reports unconfirmed for lack of time/relevancy. Although several were later determined to be misinterpretations of natural occurrences or artificial (man-made) objects, the rate of confirmed UAC reports non-attributable to those causes largely exceeds any deviations for error.

2) Landings of UACs. Several dozen reports have been confirmed regarding UACs landing and departing from the ground. In those cases, the probability of confirmation sharply rises because there are no natural explanations.

3) Landing of UACs with sighting of its occupants. Although this category is distinguished from the previous one for statistical proposes, the pattern is that most landings (a 70% rate) are followed by observation of witnesses of 'entities' who are seen disembarking/embarking the UACs. However, in most of those sightings the only sources are witnesses, and in the cases where image and/or audio recordings were made, there are doubts concerning the authenticy of that data.

4) Landing of UACs with sighting and interaction of its occupants with witnesses. Those type of incidents represent the smallest minority of all cases investigated, but they are also the ones where there is more confirmation by several independent sources.

One particular notice regarding this classification: although it follows the pattern regularly used by 'UFO literature' to classify 'encounters', this was not the original intention at the beginning of the research but at the end it was adopted because the reports clearly fitted this logical classification.

Nature of the UACs

From this point on, the following sections of this document will present an analysis based on the cases reported. Unlike the investigations performed to confirmed the previous reports, INV has failed to confirm several of the hypothesis mentioned, with the exception of those regarding natural phenomena. However, the fact that the nature of most UACs cannot be proven does not mean that those hypotheses are wrong, merely that there wasn't enough data to present proven conclusions.

I) Natural origin. In some reports it has been determined that natural objects were the cause of sightings, namely astral bodies and other physical objects. However, this explanation was found to only apply to type 1 reports, with very few exceptions.

II) Artificial (Earth-made) origin. The lack of proper answers to the majority of the reports observed led to the advancement of the hypothesis that the UACs are a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's nations or groups. If confirmed, this proposition would explain most sightings as testing/deployment of such craft. However, it is nearly impossible to confirm this hypothesis due to the fact that no nation or a group has so far claimed ownership of the UACs, plus INV doesn't have the resources or mandate to gather intelligence into such top secret projects. Furthermore, the participation and collaboration on INV of the countries capable of mounting such an operation would not seem logic.

III) Artificial (non-Earth) origin. This is the most unorthodox explanation for the UACs but INV considers it to be the most logic, although it must be mentioned that there is no direct confirmation. There are several facts to consider regarding this hypothesis:

  • a) Recorded capabilities of the UACs, which have the ability to move from the surface to Earth's orbit and vice-versa, using velocities and maneuvering capabilities impossible to our current air and space craft. This implies a technological level in the areas of propulsion, aerodynamics and materials that would represent an engineering feat for any of Earth's nations.
  • b) Locations of the reports. If the source of the UACs was a single country it could be expected for it to follow a pattern, either by concentrating on a single area, or by pointing to a possible base of operations. Instead, UAC activity has been detected throughout the globe.
  • c) UAC activity. Again, if the nature of the UACs was military (as expected if a country developed such a system), its activities would follow traditional military missions. However, while it can be inducted that some of their missions might concern observation and surveillance, several others have a nature clearly different, namely the confirmed abductions of humans.
  • d) Descriptions of its occupants. Here there are several conflicting reports: in some cases witnesses describe clearly human shape figures while on others the descriptions largely vary, reporting 'entities' unlike anything seen on Earth. Also, all of the interviews conducted regard long range observation, with no cases of witnesses seeing the occupants at close sight.
  • e) Physical evidence left after landings. In several cases there were traces of radiation detected after a landing, although its origin and nature are undetermined. There were also 'burn marks' observed in trees and on the ground, and in some cases on steel and rock, which did not correspond to the effects of any known physical processes.

All of those remarks do not necessarily point towards a non-human origin of the UACs: it is well possible that they are merely the result of a technological breakthrough achieved by one of Earth's major nations, although if it existed it would a project so huge and massively funded that it would be surprising that it was not detected until now.

However, if hypothesis III is accepted, which INV considers being the most logical explanation, then it raises several new questions. Although they are mere conjectures, INV has tried to address them all on the next section.

Prospectives

Assuming that the nature of the UACs is of an artificial, non-Earth, nature then there are several points for which there are no present answers. All of the following ideas are highly speculative but if a single one is confirmed then it will have major implications regarding mankind.

1) Their origins.

Assuming an extraterrestrial nature then the problem turns to where those entities have originated. Our present data regarding the Solar System has established that Earth is the only planet where a civilization could have developed and reached the technological level demonstrated by the UACs. It is unconceivable that our planet supports another civilization besides mankind, which leads to the conclusion that the origin of those entities must be from outside the Solar System. However, this presents another problem, or at least reveals the primitive level of human technology regarding the UACs. Although it must be impossible for the observed craft to achieve faster than light travel (which is assumed to be the method of traveling between stars because of the distance and time involved) those entities must have discovered a way to do so. And if the UACs originate from a location outside the system then there must be another way for them to travel between stars. It is not unconceivable that there are other civilizations on the galaxy: the number of existing stars and the process by which planets and life are formed could very well be a common process. However, the question still remains on how they manage to cover the vast distances involved, although in this case we might be simply suffering from a lack of knowledge/imagination.

2) Their nature.

The question of how life and mankind appeared on Earth is still a matter of conjecture, since there is no physical evidence for the most part: the evolutionary path is filled with blank spots that the fossil record is unable to answer. The sightings of bipedal, human like life forms make it possible that humans might not have originated on this planet or that there once existed an ancient civilization on this planet that achieved interstellar travel. Although this possibility sounds preposterous it must be remembered that our knowledge of History is still a matter of controversy. And the non-Earth, but human origin of the UACs might sound unreal but it would also be the easiest way to engage such entities. However, there are indications that there might be more than 1 civilization involved. If that is the case then there are no limits to what the occupants of the UACs look like. As demonstrated by the variety of life forms present on Earth, life has a way of adapting and evolving according to its environment, and it might also be possible that those entities have achieved the knowledge to determine their own evolution.

3) Their intentions.

This is the most disturbing part that INV has come to face concerning the UACs. Although their activity has largely been assumed to be of observation, the UACs have never attempted to achieve communication or reply to our transmissions. Furthermore, in some reported cases there was clear indication of 'aggressive' behavior by the part of the UACs and their occupants, although in most incidents both adopted an evasion strategy to prevent further contact. It must be stressed that perceived 'intentions' can be a very relative term, as demonstrated by the cultural differences on Earth: the actions of one group can be seen as 'hostile' by another, although that was not their original objective. However, as several reports show, these entities seem to have a disregard for human life, expressed on the confirmed abductions and other 'aggressive' behavior observed (see report XIC-1039, in annex for further details). While this pattern of behavior can be attributed to self-defense by the part of those entities, their lack of communications does not correspond to a 'peaceful' contact between intelligent species. Another example of culture interaction on Earth might also give some indications on what might be expected: more technological cultures tend to absorve/erradicate lesser ones, without considerations of morality. INV's conclusions based on the existing data, although not confirmed, seems to point that this might be the present situation regarding the entities responsible for the UACs.

Recommendations

In order to establish a correct assessment of the nature of the UAC phenomena, INV therefore presents the following recommendations, as mandated by the United Nations Security Council.

- To immediately start conversations between its members in order to determine the response to the IAC/UFO phenomena, considering the conclusions presented on this report. - To continue the investigations of the IACs/UFOs, in order to gather more data regarding the origin, nature and intentions of the IACs/UFOs.

New York, November 27th, 1998

INV Steering Group

Hobbes @ Area 51