A few days ago, while staying in Teton Village, Wyoming, a gentleman approached me because he had heard about my book, “Out of This World.” Over coffee, he described years spent investigating more than 100 reports of unidentified aerial phenomena tied to rocket launches along Florida’s Space Coast. Most proved explainable. A few did not.
Then he recounted a remarkable story involving a retired U.S. Navy officer who had served as a military mortician and claimed he had examined what he believed were the bodies of non-human beings. Rather than accepting or dismissing the account, I asked the questions any experienced analyst should ask: Where are the photographs? The laboratory reports? Who maintained the chain of custody? Can any of it be independently corroborated?
I asked him to reconnect with the retired officer and obtain answers. Until then, the account remains exactly what it is: an intriguing but unverified claim.
That conversation reminded me of something I learned over 24 years as an Army officer and another 22 years as a Pentagon strategist. The greatest danger in today’s UAP debate is not government secrecy. It is public certainty.
‘NON-HUMAN’ BODIES ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED FROM CRASHED UFO, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER CLAIMS
Some have already decided unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) prove extraterrestrial visitation. Others insist every report is nonsense or simple misidentification. Neither position reflects disciplined analysis. Good intelligence work begins neither with belief nor disbelief. It begins with evidence.
During my years in the Pentagon, I sat through countless briefings involving classified capabilities and intelligence assessments. Governments classify information to protect sources, preserve technological advantages and safeguard operations. Classification is not proof. Neither is testimony, however sincere. Evidence, not confidence, must remain our standard. Good analysts distinguish between what remains secret and what remains unexplained.
PENTAGON FILES REVEAL AGENTS’ REPORTS OF ‘ORBS LAUNCHING ORBS’ NEAR SENSITIVE US SECURITY SITE
That distinction matters because Washington has changed how it approaches this subject. The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office has released three batches of declassified case files this year, on May 8, May 22, and June 12. One report, dated June 5 and signed by AARO Director Jon Kosloski, documents an October 2023 incident in which law enforcement observed an orange “mother orb” releasing smaller red orbs. The Pentagon’s own case analysis states the case remains unresolved, with unrecognized technology among the possible explanations.
The documentary “The Age of Disclosure,” featuring Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several sitting members of Congress, became Amazon Prime’s best-selling documentary within 48 hours of its November release. Yet even Rubio, who appears in the film, has since said publicly he doesn’t “have any independent way to verify the things they said,” precisely the caution this debate requires.
QUESTIONS MOUNTING ABOUT EXISTENCE OF UAPS
Washington is no longer treating UAPs as an occasional curiosity. It is treating them as a continuing intelligence challenge. Military professionals should investigate unexplained events. Scientists should test competing hypotheses. Congress should insist on transparency whenever national security permits.
But there is a distinction America seems to be missing. Investigation is not interpretation. Governments can collect radar tracks, infrared imagery, pilot testimony and sensor data. None of those, by themselves, explain what these phenomena actually are.
That is why America is asking the wrong question. Most public discussion revolves around what the government may be hiding. Those are legitimate questions in a constitutional republic. Yet even if every classified document were released tomorrow, one far more important question would remain unanswered: What are these phenomena?
That question led me to spend more than a year researching government archives, military testimony, scientific literature, ancient history, comparative religion and biblical theology for “Out of This World.” My objective wasn’t to prove extraterrestrial life, nor to dismiss the phenomenon altogether, but to ask what intelligence analysts ask every day: Which explanation best fits the available evidence?
Human beings have wrestled with reports of unexplained aerial phenomena for centuries, and modern military pilots continue reporting encounters that challenge conventional explanation. Many incidents prove ordinary. A persistent minority do not. That continuity should produce humility, not certainty. Modern secular society increasingly assumes such events point toward extraterrestrial civilizations or undiscovered technology. That conclusion is not self-authenticating. It begins with an assumption, like any other.
That is why today’s debate is not fundamentally about unidentified flying objects. It is about how we determine what is true. Science explains observable phenomena remarkably well, but it cannot answer questions of ultimate meaning. Those questions lead us into philosophy, and ultimately, theology.
As an evangelical Christian, I believe Scripture offers an interpretive framework too often ignored in today’s discussion. Christians should be the last people to mock mysteries they cannot explain, because the Bible plainly teaches that reality extends beyond the material world. Scripture affirms the existence of angels, demons and spiritual deception.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Yet Christians should also be the last people to embrace extraordinary claims without compelling evidence. The Apostle Paul warned believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, ESV). That principle applies as much to extraordinary claims about UAPs as it does to any other claim about truth.
The government’s growing commitment to investigating UAPs deserves support. Serious questions deserve serious investigation. But investigation is not interpretation.
As I wait to learn whether the retired Navy mortician can answer the questions I posed, I am reminded that disciplined inquiry is always more valuable than confident speculation. Either way, my responsibility remains the same: ask better questions, demand better evidence and interpret both with humility. If the answers exist, evidence will eventually reveal them. If they do not, speculation never will.
That discipline served me throughout a lifetime in national security. It may be America’s best hope for separating fact from fiction as we confront one of the most intriguing mysteries of our time.
