Argument Concerning the Appearance of Humans Onboard UAP Craft
The ultimate origin of non-human intelligences (NHI) may be of secondary importance compared to the profound implications of their intentions and behaviors, which can be examined by studying their interactions with human beings. I propose that speculatively analyzing, with anecdotal empirical support, the ethical stakes involved when two species, one human and the other non-human, interact can raise profound questions about the role and purpose of human beings in NHI activities. An interesting feature of NHI and human interaction is that, sometimes, human beings will come into contact with other human beings amidst NHI activities. Considering how human beings and NHI interact in such activities may shed greater light on NHI intentions, particularly if one considers cases involving a human-like presence onboard unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) craft.
To illustrate why the ultimate origin of these beings may be less relevant as compared to the significance of how human beings are treated here on (or presumably near) Earth, consider the recurring reports of human beings being observed onboard UAP craft. The central question is not where these observed humans come from or their intrinsic nature but whether they represent a terrestrial human agenda or one aligned with NHI. In other words, the crucial question revolves around their purpose.
If the human beings observed onboard are of terrestrial origin—native to Earth—their visible presence during abduction events implies that the NHI are either indifferent to or intentional about allowing abductees to witness their presence. However, these onboard humans are not used to carry out the abductions, suggesting their presence is not designed to make the abduction appear human-sanctioned or coordinated. The onboard humans do not interact with the abductees, further implying that their visibility serves no direct purpose in facilitating the abduction process. Instead, their role seems pragmatically collaborative and independent of species-specific considerations.
Alternatively, if the humans observed onboard are clones created by NHI—such as the "greys" often described in abduction accounts—their absence from the abduction process raises significant questions. Why are these cloned humans not utilized to carry out abductions? Using human-like figures for abduction would likely be less traumatic for abductees, as the familiarity of a human form could reduce fear and increase compliance. Moreover, employing human clones could obscure the involvement of greys, creating a more clandestine operation. The failure to utilize human clones for such purposes appears illogical, especially if efficiency, secrecy, or minimizing trauma were primary objectives.
This leads to an important observation: the human or human-like figures onboard UAP craft are seemingly available for tasks related to abductions but are not employed in this capacity. Even if greys are the designated "workers" for such activities, human clones, if present, could still interact with abductees to provide reassurance or comfort—but they do not. The fact that greys remain the primary agents of abduction suggests there is a specific, perhaps intentional, rationale behind their involvement. Their use cannot simply be attributed to it being their "job." This contrasts with the observed presence of humans onboard the craft, whose roles appear entirely unrelated to abductions.
The presence of humans onboard UAP craft—whether terrestrial in origin, military personnel, or NHI-engineered clones—raises broader concerns. It suggests the existence of human participation in NHI activities that is wholly independent of the abduction phenomenon. This implication is troubling, as it indicates a level of collaboration or association between humans and NHI that remains opaque and unexamined.
If human beings have regularly been observed onboard UAP craft, yet grey aliens are nevertheless the primary agents in abductions, then perhaps the primary appearance of greys in abductions could serve a psychological purpose. Their alien, unsettling form could be used to intentionally instill fear and shock in abductees, as fear facilitates control and compliance. In that way, the visibility of human beings onboard the craft could be a deliberate strategy to add to abductee disorientation. By presenting contradictory information—such as the juxtaposition of familiar human figures with the unsettling presence of greys—the abductee's ability to process the experience logically is undermined, enhancing their manipulability.
This pattern of interaction underscores a broader theme: abduction experiences are marked by deception, disorientation, and control. Abductees are neither provided with transparent explanations nor offered comfort or clarity. Information, when given, is often false, misleading, or designed to sow confusion. The presence of other humans, cloned or otherwise, appears to reinforce these practices rather than alleviate them. Ultimately, the inclusion of human figures onboard UAP craft does not serve to ease the abductee’s experience but rather amplifies their fear and confusion, contributing to an environment of manipulation and obfuscation.
All in all, the presence of humans or human-like entities onboard UAP craft raises profound questions about their purpose and role in NHI activities. Whether these individuals are terrestrial humans, human clones, or a hybrid of the two, their apparent detachment from the abduction process and their ambiguous function within the broader context of NHI-human interactions warrant further scrutiny. Understanding this dynamic is essential to unraveling the larger implications of human and NHI encounters.
