Daniel Lavelle went “alien-chasing” within the US and wrote a ebook about it. The late Nick Pope referred to as it a “massively entertaining, gonzo-style examination of UFOs, ufology and ufologists”. In his Guardian article (The Pentagon launched its UFO movies – so I went to the US to chase aliens. That is what I discovered, 22 April), Lavelle concludes: “In fact, there isn’t a shred of proof that aliens have visited our planet – and it’s extremely unlikely that there ever shall be”.
After that, he trots out the previous story about interstellar distances and propulsion know-how – as if the extraterrestrial speculation have been the one play on the town.
Whereas I’ve some extent of sympathy for his views on the disclosure circus within the US and the truth that the speaking heads there all the time appear to be the identical folks with the identical fairly imprecise statements missing stable first-hand fairly than rumour proof, I can’t however wonder if a have a look at severe analysis and real-life coverage developments the world over might need led to a distinct view.
One 12 months in the past, a symposium on the seek for extraterrestrial intelligence (Seti) and unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) analysis at Durham Legislation College – a top-50 establishment within the QS World College Rankings by topic of 2026 – introduced collectively researchers from a number of nations and led to the adoption of the Declaration on Seti and UAP Analysis, now obtainable in 21 languages and endorsed by over 460 folks from all walks of life throughout the globe.
Politics and academia take the topic very critically now. Perhaps the time for gonzo-style approaches needs to be over. If the story about non-human intelligence on Earth is actual, it’s no laughing matter.
Prof Michael Bohlander
Chair in world legislation and Seti coverage, Durham Legislation College
Your article on unidentified anomalous phenomena presents a dreadfully slim view of a topic that has moved far past “reflections” and “misidentifications”. By framing the phenomenon via a blatantly sceptical lens, Danielle Lavelle ignores vital public data and high-level testimony that outline the fashionable debate.
The declare that Luis Elizondo had no official position within the Pentagon’s Superior Aerospace Risk Identification Program (AATIP) is straight contradicted by a 2021 letter from the late senator Harry Reid, who confirmed Elizondo’s management as a “matter of report”. Disregarding this means a reliance on a documented Pentagon disinformation marketing campaign fairly than the testimony of the senator who really secured AATIP’s funding.
Equally regarding is the omission of nationwide safety information cited by officers like Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, who has publicly famous repeated cases of unidentified craft working over restricted nuclear services. To counsel skilled navy pilots just like the commander and high gun graduate David Fravor or Ryan Graves – skilled observers utilizing multi-sensor information – have been merely chasing reflections is an insult to their skilled experience and the radar-visual affirmation that accompanied these occasions.
As somebody who has personally witnessed and recorded objects displaying physics defying flight traits, I discover this cherrypicking of details deeply offensive. The Guardian ought to try for a balanced and never a biased sceptical account of what’s now a proper matter of congressional and worldwide concern.
Identify and deal with equipped
Daniel Lavelle’s dismissal of unidentified anomalous phenomena proof as “nonsense” suggests a selective analysis course of that prioritises social scepticism over technical information. Whereas Lavelle focuses on “little inexperienced males”, the scientific and army communities are centered on physics.
Lavelle asserts there isn’t a “shred of proof”, but he fails to handle the work of Dr Garry Nolan at Stanford. Dr Nolan’s evaluation of recovered supplies – particularly magnesium-bismuth layers with anomalous isotopic ratios – provides a fabric problem to the “climate balloon” narrative. Moreover, the “trans-medium” capabilities documented by the US navy – objects getting into the water at excessive speeds with out splash marks – stay unexplained by present aerospace know-how.
To counsel that figures just like the late Senator Harry Reid or seasoned naval pilots are merely “confused” ignores the multi-sensor information (radar, forward-looking infrared and visible) that corroborated these encounters. Past the science, Lavelle’s dismissive tone ignores a big constitutional disaster. The continued lack of transparency surrounding these programmes is a disservice to democracy. When the nationwide safety state operates with out oversight, hiding data from the general public and Congress, it undermines the very foundations of an knowledgeable citizens.
Peter Sherman
San Francisco, California, US
Leave a Reply