The anticipated release of a government report about UFOs (or UAPs) later this month has created a lot of public discussion about what might be included in that report, and perhaps more importantly, what might be excluded.  But in the end, the government does not know, nor can it, what the UAPs really are, or are not, because they are a paradox.  

Briefly stated, a paradox occurs when two statements of supposed facts are perceived to contradict each other.  The UAP paradox is that the UAPs behave as if they wished to avoid detection, yet they get detected anyway.  Why is that a paradox?  Because, any technology that is capable of the reported flight characteristics of the UAPs, capabilities that exceed anything earthly we know about, and indeed, can seem to violate the known laws of physics, must surely be capable of stealth technology vastly exceeding ours — and ours is fairly good, and getting better, despite having been first developed in its present form only in recent decades.

In short, if the UAPs are the product of advanced technology, as they seem to be, then either they wish to hide or not.  If they wish to hide, we should never, ever, be able to detect them.  If they do not wish to hide, we should see them frequently, under conditions of irrefutable evidence.  The paradox is that they do neither.  They hide, and then they don't hide.  What could be the explanation for that?  

I consider the hypothesis of alien spacecraft in our skies plausible but lacking sufficient evidence to persuade an honest skeptic.  Indeed, I consider it even less plausible that UAPs are the product of earthly technology because that also presents a paradox.   

That paradox is this:  any nation (or organization) that possesses the technology to do what the UAPs are reported to do would have in its hands such power, such force, such a threat that no one could oppose it.  Yet we see no evidence of any nation wielding such power, an inaction that would be highly implausible were they to have it.  

Another paradox is that the development and manufacture of such technology would require enormous scientific infrastructure.  By that, I mean that if someone has developed inertial drive, or anti-gravity, or some equally advanced expertise, the scientific principles underlying such advancements would surely have affected other areas of science and technology.  We would already have such exotic things as flying cars, indestructible materials, ten-mile-high buildings, and so forth.  We would not be struggling along with helicopters on Mars.  

UAPs are an unsolved paradox — indeed, many layers of them.  The mystery is more convoluted than any science fiction novel.  Buck Rogers would have defeated them by now, but the reality is that a super-advanced technology could have been deployed long ago to conquer our planet or destroy it, and with the ease of a bulldozer plowing up a nest of ants.  Instead, whatever this is, it seems to dither at the edges, saying now you see me, now you don't, catch me if you can, but beware if you do.  

None of that seems to make sense, and any competent government report will have to acknowledge these paradoxes.  

Will the government do that?  Will the government say we are not competent to protect you from whatever is in our skies?  If it does, will the public ask, then why are we paying you?  That's why the report will offer nothing of use.

Image via Needpix.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.