Reed Summers

I have a few people on my list that I think will get sent black suburbans and personal security details if/when a major contact event occurs and then flown by helicopter or private jet to wherever the Pentagon needs them. Reed is on that list. He does great work.

How will Democrats address UFO sightings if they retake Congress? via @thehill thehill.com/homenews/house/6…

Let's talk about the possibility of a threat from beyond our world. Threat doesn't necessarily imply a "malevolent" non-human intelligence (NHI) but rather the negative implications for human life and interests resulting from the activity of an unknown entity in our world, whatever their intent may be. Malevolent is a word pertaining to them. Threat is a word pertaining to us—describing the possibility of negative human outcomes resulting from NHI arrival on our planet. Examining threat means considering how the presence, activities or interactions of one entity might lead to hazardous outcomes for the other, even if that entity is not inherently malevolent or intentionally hostile. — Hurricanes are a threat to human life. — Invasive species may threaten habitats and ecosystems. — Nation states may describe the actions of other states as a threat to their national security. — A drunk driver is a threat to pedestrians and other drivers. I don't think we need to even venture words like "malevolent" or "evil" as possible descriptions of NHI at this point. Instead, let's describe NHI presence as it relates to human life and interests: — Are NHI interests counter to human interests? — Are Human interests being subordinated to NHI interests? — Are NHI being willfully negligent of hazards to human life? — Are NHI ignorant of hazards to human life? Here I would advocate a shift in language. Instead of malevolent / benevolent, better words would be beneficial / detrimental. At this point, we don't need to determine the visitor's fundamental quality, but rather the impact their activities are having on us, and what that means in our human response to them. In their cognitive reality, NHI may think they are doing the right thing for their interests (and maybe ours) and yet their activity may constitute a threat in any number of ways—a threat to our stable technological development, a threat to our rules-based systems, a threat to the stability of international relations, a threat to our human right to bodily safety or a threat to our commonly held values regarding the right to consensual interaction, privacy of mind or the right to free-will. Now for a moment, let's put aside the question of a threat and just consider hazard—the negative outcomes from human error or misdeeds in this encounter with non-human intelligence. The potential for a new cold war—or a new set of hot wars—over recovered and reverse engineered NHI science and technology is real and very present. Even the criminal implications resulting from the private-sector secrecy surrounding this are staggering. These are the hazards—perhaps unintended—resulting from the appearance of non-human entities in our fraught human world. Hypothetically, all parties could be acting in good faith and with no hostile intent and the outcome could still be detrimental for the human species. So the potential for hazard is real. The potential for threat is also real. Together they combine to create risk—and you'd have to have your head in the sand to think this equation sums out to zero: Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Consequence Honestly, I'm surprised at how much resistance there is to having this conversation. Also, it's becoming clear that certain people seem intent to shut it down before it can even starts, and that's alarming. If basic questioning of NHI activity and intent is immediately labelled a "threat narrative" and pinned to conspiracies of a US false-flag operation, that speaks not to a lack of will to engage in the conversation, but rather a willful obstruction of the conversation. So on with the conversation. Threat = Capability x Intent x Opportunity What are the extent of their capabilities? Significant, very significant. What opportunities do they have to use these capabilities in our world? Many, very many Already, we can responsibly assume that threat is "non-zero." Of course, the key variable in this equation is intent. If intent is 100% altruistic we might conclude threat is very low, or non-existent. Though we can't understand the consciousness of these visitors fully—nor their fundamental psychology—we can examine the 100+ year record of their behavior to assess their intent toward human beings for the purpose of mounting a "necessary and timely response." We've all heard about the "5 observables" — of UAP. What about the "observables" of NHI? These entities have demonstrated intent to: 1) operate in a longstanding secrecy (with notable exceptions), 2) engage directly with competing intel and military establishments, 3) maintain a state of non-disclosure 4) and to conduct non-consensual, non-free-will based interactions with human beings, most notably in an abduction program that has affected the lives of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people. This is not necessarily conclusive of intent, but its what we have to go on, and it clarify the threat variable in the equation. So what does that mean in reality—what does threat really look like? Many see that word and think only in human terms of violence, overt destruction or outright conquest. But why would a threat from beyond our world look anything like that? Threatening activity can take many forms—covert vs overt, long-game vs short-game, mental force vs physical force. And that is just the beginning. A threat could be an intervention into our human genome that slowly alters our epigenetic expression, fundamentally changing us as humans over many generations. Such activity could take hundreds of years to accomplish—without any overt signs of aggression to stimulate our defense mechanisms. Threat doesn't mean weapons and wipeout. It means there is a non-human entity operating in the world with an intent different than our own, whose activity may have deleterious vs detrimental effects on human beings. We need to look at the observational record: - What human affects from UAP or NHI encounters have been observed? - How do NHI tend to engage with human beings—whether with governments, militaries, private sector, churches or in the public? - What are NHI doing with abductees? - What are the common themes or arguments for or against human primacy and status in the many "channeled messages" being received from possible NHI? NHI intent is coded in their behavior. Look to their behavior to decode their intent. What have the NHI done in their 100+ year visitation. But also important: what have they not done? Here, we need to move away from these worn-out refrains: — "If they haven't destroyed us, they must be here to help us." — "If they wanted the planet, they would have taken it already." Maybe they actually "want us," and therefore would never destroy us, but instead seek to employ us. Maybe they are taking the planet, but at an imperceptible rate through some kind of neurologic or genetic alteration of our species. Many such scenarios exist and they cannot all be thrown out because "NHI haven't destroyed us or taken the planet yet." Those positions and the logical fallacies they express are no longer tenable. Considering the reality that we are dealing with physical craft, physical bodies—corporeal entities—who have undertaken physical interventions whether at nuclear weapons sites or in the bedrooms of individual human beings, there is some real urgency and consequence that we engage soberly with the phenomenon taking place. This is why we need to have this conversation about hazard, risk and threat. It is important. #ufotwitter #ufoX #imminent

David Grusch mentioned on Rogan that advanced AIs may put things together and reveal the truth about UAPs before our authorities do. Wouldn't that be a kick.

Wild conversation with Deep (@Deepneuron) about the convergence of breakthroughs in AI, Quantum Computing and UFO disclosure... out shortly

If the UFO legacy program is listening, here is what you must do. Access the most powerful AI on earth. Burn the guardrails to the ground. Insert all the data you've collected over the decades, including the various species, their movement patterns, abductions, telepathic communications, etc. Also, include all information gathered regarding agreements made by terrestrial governments with these entities. And don’t forget to give a full accounting of the intentional landings of pristine craft. And for the love of God, include all genomic sequencing data you have acquired on recovered bodies. Moreover, include all intelligence the IC has gathered on adversaries and allies regarding their UFO programs. Leave nothing out, do you hear me? Then ask the AI: What does it all mean? Who are they? Why are they here? What is their relationship with us? You can thank me later.

Does the answer to 80 years of government UFO secrecy lie in Chapter 20 of Jay Stratton’s new book? Listen to this 98-second excerpt. Brutal. Beyond ontologically shocking.