Why global UFO disclosure is necessary

Introduction

There are two distinct challenges inherent to a global UFO/UAP disclosure:

• The ontological acknowledgement: That the UFO phenomenon is real and that some UFOs/UAP are not made by human hands. That is, we are not alone. Most of the world has not reached an ontological acknowledgement that some UFOs/UAP do not originate from Earth.

• The meaning-making (or existential) conversation: The implications of the ontological acknowledgement for humanity, civilization, science, religion, and our self-understanding. At this level of understanding, we go beyond "Are UFOs real?" and start reflecting on "Who is behind some UFOs/UAP?", "Why are They are?", and how should we relate to this new baseline reality?

The latest attempt at some kind of UFO/UAP transparency by the US government is encouraging and should be recognised. At the same time, the PURSUE-initiative has at least two problems for a genuine UFO/UAP-conversation on a global level.

First, the war.gov/ufo website is US-centric, military, and the result of a US president who divides people rather than unites them (that is just a description of the current reality). Second, I worry the website's content will mostly interest people who are already curious about the UFO/UAP issue. I am aware, however, that it is too early to draw any certain conclusions about the effects of the data on people's perception of the UFO/UAP issue.

Why global disclosure is necessary

Most of the world’s nations are still far behind the USA regarding political engagement and media coverage of the UFO/UAP topic. It is encouraging that the war.gov/ufo website has had over one billion views since the launch on 8 May. Nevertheless, I believe we will soon discover that the world needs courageous institutions and authorities who take the bull by the horns and make the ontological acknowledgement to the world. 

There is no way around the first challenge, if there truly is an institutional willingness to disclose the truth about the UFO phenomenon. And with a global UFO disclosure, I am referring to a joint statement delivered by relevant and trusted officials/authorities (preferably with some representatives from science and religion). It should be an "everybody watches and listens-moment." 

However, it is of the greatest importance how the ontological acknowledgement is framed, delivered, by whom, and in what context/setting. The form will be as important as the information. Those are the variables that wise officials and authorities can control. 

My recommendation would be a mix of a centralised statement made to the world (e.g., from the United Nations) and nationally adapted statements (the same content, but made by national/local representatives in the native language and in appropriate settings).

And the variables should be controlled wisely because how the second challenge will play out depends partly on how the world responds to the ontological acknowledgement.

We do not want people to get afraid, panic, or jump to conclusions by the ontological acknowledgement. 

Rather - and here is the core challenge - the ontological acknowledgement should open uncertainty, not close it, facilitate curiosity and scepticism. So, whoever delivers the ontological acknowledgement to the world has to walk a delicate balancing act between clarity (what we know and what we do not know) and manageability (people have to experience some reassurance and safety). 

The general message in the ontological acknowledgement should be something like, "We confirm the phenomenon is real, we do not know what it is, and that question now belongs to all of humanity."

That framing is the difference between a disclosure that triggers panic or dogmatic closure (e.g., "They" are demons, extraterrestrials, etc.), and one that catalyses an open, global reflection on UFOs/UAP. 

Now, we might find ourselves in a proto-ontological acknowledgement with the recent PURSUE-initiative. Again, we have to give the initiative some time before we can evaluate its effects on UFO disclosure.

However, if we want a global meaning-making (existential) conversation about UFOs/UAP, then it is my conviction that the first challenge - an ontological acknowledgement on a global level - will be necessary. The first challenge is unavoidable, assuming our institutions want to tell the truth about the UFO/UAP issue.

A lot of people's trust in our institutions and authorities would be restored if they raised to the challenge of an ontological acknowledgement. I am afraid that a US government website on UFOs/UAP will not do the job. Instead, the US government, together with other governments and relevant actors, should consider what, how, who, where, etc., to deliver the ontological acknowledgement on a global level.

The following meaning-making conversation cannot be controlled. And, in my opinion, it should not be controlled or steered. What our institutions and authorities can and should do is to facilitate people's sense of coherence regarding the knowns and unknowns about the UFO/UAP issue. 

That is why it is crucial to tackle the ontological acknowledgement-challenge wisely. How the world will respond to such an acknowledgement is very hard to predict: the response will probably be heterogenous among individuals, nations, cultures, etc., which will act as an "ontological shock-absorption", i.e., a good thing for people's wellbeing and societal order, at least on an aggregated level.

Historically, the implications of paradigm shifting events have been dealt by people after the fact. For example, the detonations of atomic bombs introduced the reality of "existential risk", and humanity is still wrestling with the implications. 

My point being: It is time for the relevant authorities and institutions to show courage and have some trust in how humanity will handle the truth of the UFO/UAP issue. The PURSUE-initiative is a step in the right direction, but I am afraid it will not lead to an ontological acknowledgement and a meaning-making conversation on a global level.

There will never be a right timing for the ontological acknowledgement. But I believe the current world order and trajectory would change for the better with a shift in global consciousness about what the baseline reality is.

The last mentioned is the most central reason for a global UFO disclosure: People have a right to know the truth about our reality, and it is not up to some elitists to decide whether the UFO issue is important for humanity or whether people can handle the truth.

I have intentionally left out some very real and difficult dilemmas and implications regarding UFO disclosure. For instance, the potential race to weaponise UFO technology. As I have said many times before, the biggest problem with disclosure is the complex and contradictory human nature. 

However, the two challenges of UFO disclosure presented above do not involve going into detail about the UFO/UAP issue. At least not initially. 

What I am arguing for is a straightforward, but wisely framed message that UFOs are real, "they" are here, but we do not know "their" nature or intent (or that different NHI have different intentions). And that the world now has to have a conversation about where we go from here, what we should do, and how we should comprehend and manage this new reality. 

The crucial aspect of such an ontological acknowledgement is to facilitate people's capabilities to endure and cope with uncertainty. At a minimum, there has to be some official reassurance that humanity is not facing an immediate threat. If there is an immediate threat, then the stronger the reason for humanity to know what is going on. 

I think, maybe naively, such a simple, clear, and honest ontological acknowledgement could lead to a constructive and uniting meaning-making conversation on a global level.