New incursions by unknown flying objects over protected facilities in Sweden

The geopolitical situation with the Russian-Ukraine war and Sweden's Nato membership makes it challenging to decipher the nature of the unidentified flying objects.

Two years ago, simultaneous incursions occurred by unidentified flying objects over at least three Swedish nuclear facilities. A similar simultaneous incursion by unidentified flying objects happened on the 9th of March 2024 in the south of Sweden.

What happened on the 9th of March 2024 and where?

According to the Swedish newspaper, Sydsvenskan, “several drones have been observed during the evening and night to Saturday on several locations in Skane” (“Skåne” is the most south region of Sweden). The news media company, TV4 Nyheterna, reports that “according to information given to TV4 Nyheterna, several big drones have been observed on several locations in Skane”. Some of those locations were the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck (closed since 2005 and today a protected facility), and Malmö Airport (Malmö is the biggest city in the south of Sweden, and the third biggest in Sweden). Other locations were the “drones” — or UFOs — were observed was in Svedala and Ystad (see the map below).

Several big “drones” were observed in several locations in the most south region of Sweden on the evening of the 8th of March and night to the 9th of March 2024. Most notable of those locations are the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck and Malmö Airport.

Both the Sydsvenskan and TV4 Nyheterna report that the police and defence department are working together with the investigation of the simultaneous incursions by several “big drones” over protected facilities/areas like Barsebäck and Malmö Airport. A spokesperson for the police of Region South, Sara Andersson, tells the Sydsvenskan that these kinds of simultaneous observations and incursions are “relatively unusual”.

Some further information is given by the same spokesperson for the police of Region South to the public news service channel, SVT Nyheter: “We are going to begin with analysing the material we have recorded and see what that analysis gives us.” In the same article by STV Nyheter, an academic at the college of the defence department, states that the recent incursions are likely connected to Sweden’s membership in Nato.

Similarities and differences between the incursions in 2022 and 2024

A rough overview of some of the similarities and differences between the incursions in January 2022 and March 2024 can be described as follows, and beginning with the similarities:

Both years involve multiple unidentified flying objects — “big drones” — simultaneously flying over civilian and protected facilities/areas (nuclear facilities, airport). For both years, it seems like the UFOs or the “big drones” either want to be detected or do not care if detected. For both years, the UFOs are flying over civilian facilities and areas rather than military ones. In both years, the simultaneous incursions or fly overs occurred during a tumultuous geopolitical situation or development. Both years, the incursions happened close to large bodies of water. Also, there is recorded material (footage) of some of the UFOs or drones from both years.

The main difference between the incursions in 2022 and 2024 is the geographical one. In January 2022, the simultaneous incursions occurred over a large geographical area (south of Sweden, on the east and west coast) compared to March 2024 (restricted to a relatively small area on the south coast of Sweden). Another difference is that the media reporting of the incursions is even more scarce this year than in 2022. A third, and perhaps an important, difference is that this year’s incursions involved a civilian airport.

What conclusions can we infer from the incursions of 2022 and 2024?

I am afraid we cannot draw any conclusions with a high degree of certainty. The publicly available information is too thin, incomplete. Which makes any inferences or interpretations of the nature and intent of the UFOs or “big drones” fraught with uncertainties and risk of errors. You could make an equally reasonable case for the incursions of 2022 and 2024 being caused by “genuine” UFOs or by a foreign military power. The characteristics of the incursions in 2022 and 2024 fit both explanations. Of course, some high-quality evidence — for instance, the “recorded material” — could at least eliminate one or the other explanation.

Update, 10th of March

During the Saturday evening on the 9th of March, the police got calls for more sightings of unknown flying objects in the area around the closed nuclear facility, Barsebäck, according to the Swedish newspaper, Expressen. Witnesses are telling about fighter jets circling the area (that is, seeking the unknown flying objects, and also showing military presence and capability). What I find strange and annoying with both the articles from earlier today (above) and this recent one, is the lack of reporting of the witnesses’ perception of the objects. How would the witnesses describe the unknown flying objects? For example, did the objects make any sound or not?

Regardless of who is the behind the “big drones” or UFOs, they seem sure of not getting caught and the intention seems to be “poke the hornet’s nest and study the effects”.

Take care

J T

Debunkers and (blind) believers of the UFO phenomenon: what´s the difference?

The text below is one of my first articles on the UFO issue on Medium.com (the article was first published on 12th September, 2018). I republish the article on this blog, because I think its content, or message, is 1) still relevant, and 2) can apply to other subjects, issues, etc. 

The main point of the article below is that a clearer understanding of the UFO phenomenon, requires both an intellectual and an ethical virtue (which the philosopher Miranda Fricker calls "epistemic justice"). The intellectual virtue pertains to a sensitivity to relevant information in a situation, discussion, argument, and so on. But that is not sufficient for social interactions. You need to combine the intellectual virtue with a respect for and curiosity of the human before you. 

Internalising and putting into action the idea of "epistemic justice" in different social situations is a complex task. But when done well -- or even good enough -- the application of both intellectual and ethical virtues in discussions about different aspects of the UFO issue, can raise the quality of our understanding about the subject in question and about ourselves. Now to the article:

Debunkers and believers of the UFO phenomenon: What is the difference?

Or how opposing factions in the ufo-community could relate to each other in a way that furthers everyone's understanding of the UFO issue.

I think there is a vital distinction between being a sound skeptic of the UFO phenomena and an unsound skeptic. The latter mindset, you will find in individuals called “debunkers”. What do I mean by an “unsound skeptic” or a “debunker”? In a general sense, I am referring to individuals who seem to have a stable pattern of being unable or unwilling to relate to other people’s perspectives and change their opinion in the face of facts to the contrary. To be fair, that definition can fit us all from time to time, but the key phrase above is “a stable pattern” of rigid cognition and close-mindedness.

Photo by Emiliano Bar on Unsplash

How can you have an open and reciprocal discourse on the UFO phenomena with a debunker or a blind believer (a similar stable pattern of rigid cognition and close-mindedness, but in the opposite direction) in UFOs? In the following, we will explore one viable approach that might increase the chance of a constructive conversation with a debunker or a blind believer of the UFO phenomena. That approach is about validating and respecting the human behind the rigid thinking (ethical virtue) as much as evaluating what is being said (intellectual virtue). I hope and think that the approach will be intelligible along the way, since this text does not have an obvious structure.

But first, we have to examine another distinction, specifically the crucial difference between being a blind believer of the UFO phenomena and, what I call, a clear-eyed believer. As we shall see, being a sound skeptic and a clear-eyed believer is essentially the same, and they are the opposite of being a debunker or blind believer. 

The important thing to keep in mind is that regardless of being a sound/unsound skeptic or clear-eyed/blind believer, we are all human beings, perceiving shadows on Plato’s cave wall.

Photo by Dany Fly on Unsplash

How do you recognise a sound skeptic (clear-eyed believer) and differentiate that mindset from an unsound skeptic (blind believer)? Let me borrow a definition from the astronomer, Bernard Haisch, on being a (sound) skeptic:

Skeptic — One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.(https://sites.google.com/view/ufoskepticorg/home)

Not everyone interested in the truth of the UFO phenomena has an academic background or is familiar with the scientific method. Nor is it necessary for internalising the mindset of a sound skeptic or a clear-eyed believer. Everyone can learn and practice how to “show willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs…”

I know, showing a willingness and consider alternative views and opinions without prejudice based on prior beliefs can be a hard challenge to manifest in actions. I fail at it more often than I am likely aware of. Nonetheless, I think it is crucial to our pursuit of the truth of the UFO phenomena, that all of us try to be open-minded to opinions and perspectives that differ from our own.

To be open-minded and show willingness to consider alternative explanations does not mean that you have to agree with or let yourself be persuaded by an alternative view.

Believe it or not, we humans can hold two distinct lines of thoughts in our head simultaneously and entertain them both without agreeing with any of them. A claim allegedly made by the philosopher Aristotle.

Humans are complex. All of us have a past and experiences that shaped the way we view ourselves, reality, and other people. What you perceive as interesting, valuable, meaningful, threatening, etc., in your surroundings is a complex interaction between your genetic disposition and the environment (or contextual factors in any situation and time).

So, the first requirement in becoming a sound skeptic is self-awareness: what assumptions and beliefs do I hold, where do they come from (up bringing, education, etc.), how do they direct my perception, and influence my worldview, values, and behaviour?

People can, and do, change their worldview, values, etc., and sometimes in profound ways. What I have discovered through my work, which is also backed up by the scientific literature (psychology, social psychology, sociology, etc.), is that the quality of the relationship between two individuals is the most salient factor for a positive or desired change to occur in one or both of the individuals. How? It comes down to curiosity, courage, humility, and imagination.

Photo by kyler trautner on Unsplash

First, I cannot change another person’s viewpoint and opinion on a topic with (only) facts and logic. We humans do not work that way. Emotions are, for evolutionary reasons, stronger and more persuasive than reason and rationality.

But if emotions often override facts and logic, how is it even possible to practise “dispassionate reasoning?” It is hard to do and even scientists themselves fail at it.

So maybe to convince or persuade with facts is the wrong tactic? What would happen in the conversation if I showed a genuine interest in the human in front of me, and tried to understand where she or he was coming from?

What would happen if I attempted to, for a moment, walk around in the other person’s world and see it from their unique perspective, without confusing the other person’s world and perspective with my own?

Would that be threatening to you? If yes, ask yourself “why?” If no, why not try it?

Remember that Bernard Haisch’s definition of a sound skeptic is an ideal. As I have already said, it is easier said than done to be and behave as a sound skeptic consistently. It is human to fail. The important thing is to keep trying and learning from the mistakes along the way (that is how your self-awareness widens and deepens).

I am a believer. Hopefully, what I call a clear-eyed believer — the same as a sound skeptic — in the reality of the UFO phenomena. I am also very aware of the fact that what I do not know is always going to be so much greater than what I know. That is both frustrating and exciting. Exciting, because it means there is so much more for me to explore, discover, and learn.

However, it does not mean that my lack of knowledge and understanding gives me the right to fill that void with whatever I wish or believe to be true.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The very least I can do, is to clarify to myself and others what I fill that void with, and make a clear distinction to myself and others between what I believe, wish, assume, and what I with high certainty and integrity can say that I know. Regarding the UFO phenomena, the volume of what we do not know is certainly far much greater than the volume of what we can say that we know. I believe that will always be the case regarding our knowledge and understanding of the UFO phenomena.

The quote below by Bernard Haisch is taken from the same website as the first quote above. Something for all of us to keep in mind and to practice:

To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science. Do your homework!

What I would like to add to the two quotes from Haisch, and to further explain my suggested approach to a more constructive interaction between opposing factions in the UFO community, is the following.

Besides looking at the evidence, engage in dispassionate reasoning, show willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, you also have to see the human who is expressing an opinion, presenting an argument, and so on.

To come closer to the truth, or get a clearer and more accurate picture of an issue, you have to not only understand a person’s reasoning (or lack thereof), but also the person behind the reasoning (or lack thereof). Why does this person think as he or she does? What experiences have shaped this person’s worldview? What values and fears lie behind the person’s perspective on an issue? And how has the person acquired those values, beliefs, fears, etc.?

In order to get to know a person, to better understand where they are coming from, you have to be curious, humble and patient. Also, you need to have some courage to ask questions that address a person’s values, dreams, fears, and hopes. And you need to have the willingness to share some of your own. Most of all, you need to use your imagination to walk around in another person’s world, and, for a moment, perceive reality through their eyes.

By that approach, we lower the risk of destructive/disrespectful opposition, and of pride and vanity obscuring the truth. By showing a willingness to both consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs (intellectual virtue), and see the human in a nonjudgmental way (ethical virtue), we increase the motivation of both parties focusing on and seeking the unbiased truth.

Why is the aforementioned important?

First, because everyone wants to be seen and listened to as a dignified and capable human. It is that simple, but also very easy to forget.

Second, the search for the truth of, in this case, the UFO phenomena, is both an individual and a social/collective process. We all have to make our individual effort to make up our respective minds of what to think or not about the different aspects of the UFO phenomena. But no single individual can reach the truth, or get a more clear and accurate picture of “the Phenomena”, all by themselves. For that, we need other people. We need each other. We need a plurality of perspectives.

Third, since clearer answers to and a deeper understanding of the UFO phenomena require a collective effort, we need more collaboration and respectful disagreement than division and affective polarisation. That can only be achieved by recognising each other’s dignity and competence as human beings (ethical virtue).

Remember, you can seldom convince a debunker or a blind believer with logic and facts alone. No matter the quality and quantity of the evidence you present, no matter how nuanced and grounded you present the facts, the debunker/blind believer will most times not consider the evidence/facts/argument in an open-minded manner.

Thus, make a choice. You can try to non judgementally listen to and understand the human with an opposing or different opinion than your own. Perhaps the two of you can have a meaningful and respectful interaction despite detrimental opposite opinions? It is plausible.

If meaningful interaction is not possible, then to keep your self-respect and peace of mind, end the interaction politely. Why waste your valuable time and energy on futile arguing and feeling frustrated?

Instead, learn and teach in social contexts where the search for the truth is the highest goal and the common ground we share as imperfect humans is most valuable.

Take care

J T