Our Wild Kosmos! Part 1: Non-Human Intelligences

One of the most fascinating and controversial aspects of UFOs is the topic of the non-human intelligences (NHIs) associated with them. The main questions being ones such as, “Who are piloting these craft?” “Where did they come from?” “What do they want?” “What are they?” and “Are they real?”

There is a culturally predominate view that all “aliens” are either a grotesque monster (e.g., the xenomorph) to be battled by the likes of Sigourney Weaver or some version of Whitley Strieber’s (1987) visitors— the Greys with their thin arms/legs, big head, and wraparound black eyes. In stark contrast, the contactee and experiencer literature indicates that there are at least three dozen major types of NHIs with hundreds of varieties occurring across these categories.

Humans Have Always Encountered NHIs

Since the 1990s, No products found. (e.g., 2016, 2017) has made it his life mission to compile all the reports of human encounters with humanoid entities ever documented. Over the last 30 years he has amassed a database of over 18,000 cases many of which have been published in his 15-book series Humanoid Encounters. Each volume presents the cases he has collected from a specific historical time period (e.g., 1 AD–1899, 2010–2015). On average, each is 300 pages so this results in approximately 4,500 pages of humanoid encounter reports. Keep in mind that these humanoid encounters compiled by Rosales do not include the wide range of non-humanoid encounters that have also occurred since time immemorial. These types of encounters often get categorized as cryptids (i.e., undocumented, mythic, or unusual animals) or are so strange that UFO researchers routinely do not know how to make sense of them, so they are often ignored entirely.

To make all this more confusing, Jacque Vallée, one of the most important figures in UFO research, pointed out in his classic and at the time quite controversial “Passport to Magonia” (1969) that there is much overlap between European faery lore and contemporary UFO encounters. This has led to a long list of people equating fairies and aliens as being the same beings just viewed through different cultural lenses.13 This same orientation has been used to support the “ancient alien” theory that we have been visited by NHIs from the stars for thousands of years but have viewed those encounters through the cultural frames of the times.14 Likewise, many descriptions of NHIs that appear to be made out of light or have indistinct energy bodies sound more like angels than aliens.

Developing a New Taxonomy of NHIs

So how do we know if a NHI is associated with a UFO or if they are extraterrestrial, a faery, a cryptid, an angel or some other kind of physical or incorporeal being? At what point do all sizes and shapes of non-human intelligences just blend into one big category of weirdness? There does seem to be a lot of overlap between these various kinds of NHIs, and it is not always easy to draw clear and distinct lines between them. This is one of the perplexing aspects of dealing with UFOs and why many “nuts and bolts” researchers stay way clear of the amorphous realm of consciousness and the high strangeness it lets in the door. In view of such complexities, I have developed a new approach to categorizing NHIs associated with UFOs that can also be used with NHIs associated with other contexts (e.g., cryptids, paranormal encounters, poltergeists). My approach is organized around answering four sets of key questions:

1. Where do they come from?
2. What do they look like?
3. What do they want? Why are they here?
4. What are they? Are they real?

	Example 1	Example 2	Example 3	Example 4
1. Domain	Galactic	Celestial	Galactic	Faerie
2a. Class	Humanoid	Humanoid	Non-Humanoid	Humanoid
2b. Type	Short Grey	Feline	Exotic	Sasquatch
2c. Variant	3 Fingers	9D Sirian	Brain-like Being	PNW Bigfoot
3. Perspective	Intruder	Observer	Neutral	Helper

To answer the first three questions, I have created the following three-layered/five-part taxonomy:

1. Domain: Where do they come from?
2. Appearance: What do they look like?
   • Class: body type (humanoid or non-humanoid)
   • Type: morphology (general body features)
   • Variant: phenotype (additional features and behaviors)
3. Perspective: What do they want? Why are they here?

One may or may not agree with my illustrative identifications for each level of Table 1. I do hope you agree, however, that it is useful to develop a taxonomy that can allow researchers and experiencers a better way of comparing and discussing NHIs. People are encouraged to use this taxonomy in ways that best suit their own needs.

Below I walk you briefly through the five-part taxonomy as presented in Table 1. Each section below is organized by the key questions associated with each of the three layers of the taxonomy: Domain, Appearance (Class, Type, and Variant), and Perspective. The goal here is to inspire new ways of thinking about and discussing NHIs. Once I have touched on each of these three layers of the taxonomy we can then turn our attention to the fourth set of questions: “What are they? Are they real?” At this point I will present the major hypothesis used to explain what NHIs are. This will set the stage for me to introduce the Mutual Enactment Hypothesis, which strives to integrate the best of all the other NHI hypotheses. So, let us start by taking a look at the three main domains or realms that NHIs come from.

WHERE DO THEY COME FROM?

Three Domains: Faerie, Galactic, and Celestial

A common approach to categorizing NHIs is to divide them based on their relationship to planets: are they connected to a single planet, multiple planets, or are they in some sense beyond planets. Another layer within this context that I consider is: are their bodies primarily physical, subtle, or causal in essence? For example, there are nature spirits, genii loci, and elementals that are endowed with bodies of subtle energy and are typically connected to the land or to natural processes of a particular planet. These beings live primarily in the etheric or subtle realms of Faerie and are referred to collectively as the Fae.

Next, some NHIs are from physical planets, or connected to multiple planets and have the time-space technologies to visit other planets and dimensions. These NHIs are associated with the gross or physical realm even if they can “dematerialize” in a blink of an eye (i.e., extraterrestrials), though in some cases they have a para-physical or subtle body and might be associated with other time-space dimensions (i.e., extradimensionals). These beings are referred to as Galactics to indicate that they come from other planets, use technology to explore or interact with multiple types of planets, or are associated with galactic time-space dimensions.

Finally, there are NHIs associated with higher frequencies of vibration (e.g., high subtle or causal energies) that often appear as light beings. They are referred to as Celestials to highlight that they live in realms beyond planets and dimensional realities. These Celestials include what are often considered angels and archangels as well as beings such as Gaia-Sophia. In short, the Fae are subtle beings connected to a single planet; the Galactics are a mix of physical, subtle, and sometimes causal beings connected to multiple planets or galactic realities; and the Celestials are causal or light beings who are not necessarily connected to any planets. Each of these is connected to a different ontological realm or domain: Faerie, Galactic, or Celestial.

As indicated in Table 2, four NHI researchers independently arrived at more or less the same three categories outlined above. An expanded cartography that includes at least these three domains is necessary when dealing with UFO phenomena, as it is not uncommon for more than just Galactics to be part of an encounter. As is the case with the rest of the taxonomy, these categories are not meant to be rigid or exclusive.
For example, there are reports of various types of Fae living on other planets (e.g., Sirian elves) who can connect with us here on Earth. Likewise, Celestials might be strongly associated with a single planet (e.g., Gaia). As a result, some types of NHIs might accurately represent or be connected to two or even all three domains.

Even though we might be inclined to associate only the Galactics with UFOs, the encounter literature shows us that even within a UFO context beings from all three domains (Fae, Galactics, and Celestials) can and do show up. This raises the question of the interconnections among NHIs associated with these three different domains. Within each domain, one can find humanoid and non-humanoid NHIs. This distinction is addressed in the second part of the taxonomy, which focuses on appearance (“What do they look like?”) through the three sublayers of Class, Type, and Variant.

	Fae This planet (Subtle Realm)	Galactics Other planets (Physical+ Realm)	Celestial Beyond planets (Casual Realm)
Graham Hancock (2006)	Fairies	Aliens	Spirits
Philip Imbrogno (2008)	Jinn	Extraterrestrials	Angels
Alex Rachel (2013)	Terrestrials	Extraterrestrials	Celestials
Vanessa Lamorte (2015)	Elementals	Galactics	Angelics

WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE?

Two Classes: Humanoid and Non-humanoid

After determining to which domain an NHI primarily belongs, the next step in the classification process is to identify if the NHI is humanoid or non-humanoid in terms of bodily shape. For the sake of clarity, let us differentiate both of these terms from hominid. Hominid is a scientific term referring to all the members of the Great Ape family, including chimpanzees, orangutans, mountain gorillas, extinct human species (e.g., Homo floresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis), and modern-day humans. It is worth noting that Sasquatches could be considered a hominid. Humanoid on the other hand is a more general term meaning shaped like a human, but not necessarily related to Great Apes or humans. The taxonomic term non-humanoid simply means any body shape that does not look like a human. In this section I present Table 3, which details 33 types of NHIs organized by class (e.g., humanoid) and type (e.g., Insectoids). Focusing on these two elements (i.e., class and type) in the taxonomy, I believe, provides the most useful metaview of the variety of NHIs found in the experiencer
(as well as occult and paranormal) literature.

Interestingly, most reported NHIs are humanoid. In other words, they look like us. If so, some have asked, does this mean that such humanoids are just projections of our own (sub)consciousness? After all, why would a vast and creative universe give rise primarily to intelligent beings having two legs, a torso, two arms with hands (with 3-6 digits) and a head? Is this not just another example of our anthropocentric narcissism?

There are good reasons, then, for being a bit suspicious that a vast majority of NHIs are described as humanoid. However, some NHI researchers point out that this body-structure might confer evolutionary advantages, including the ability to develop the spacefaring or time-traveling technology needed to visit distant worlds. Others highlight that this five-point body structure (two arms, two legs, and a head) is a sacred geometric template for intelligence, as represented by Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. Also, various accounts of galactic history indicate that Earth humans derive from various races of what could be considered galactic humans (e.g., Royal and Priest 2011). Hence, we might have various genetic connections with multiple types of humanoid NHIs.

The encounter literature does provide quite a few examples of non-humanoid types of NHIs. However, these often receive less attention, possibly because they are so foreign and “alien” to us that we unconsciously are drawn to those types of NHIs that look and act more like us. On the flip side, we might be more often visited by humanoid NHIs because they are drawn to interact with us because we are ourselves humanoid.

There are good reasons, then, for being a bit suspicious that a vast majority of NHIs are described as humanoid. However, some NHI researchers point out that this body-structure might confer evolutionary advantages, including the ability to develop the spacefaring or time-traveling technology needed to visit distant worlds. Others highlight that this five-point body structure (two arms, two legs, and a head) is a sacred geometric template for intelligence, as represented by Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. Also, various accounts of galactic history indicate that Earth humans derive from various races of what could be considered galactic humans (e.g., Royal and Priest 2011). Hence, we might have various genetic connections with multiple types of humanoid NHIs.

The encounter literature does provide quite a few examples of non-humanoid types of NHIs. However, these often receive less attention, possibly because they are so foreign and “alien” to us that we unconsciously are drawn to those types of NHIs that look and act more like us. On the flip side, we might be more often visited by humanoid NHIs because they are drawn to interact with us because we are ourselves humanoid.

Multiple Types

NHI authors and researchers tend to use the words species, race, and types interchangeably. In biology, species refers to animals that can reproduce with each other. Race is sometimes used to refer to a sub-group within a species (i.e., breeds). Thus, race generally points to differences in biology, whereas ethnicity points to differences in culture. Since any technical use of species, race, or ethnicity really requires an exobiological and exosociological understanding of NHIs that we currently lack, I will opt to use the more general term types to refer to differences in NHI morphology (i.e., the general shape and relationship between structures of the body).

For example, there are many descriptions in the encounter literature that indicate some Reptilians are bipedal cold-blooded lizards whereas others are described as bipedal warm-blooded mammals that have reptilian-like features. Thus, as you can see we really are not yet in a good position to say much about the biological (or energetic) differences between types of NHIs and the best we can do for now is refer to their morphology (e.g., are they tall or short, hairy or smooth skinned, human looking or resemble an animal).

In order to get an accurate sense of how many types of NHIs are encountered by humans in an UFO context I identified 12 sources that provide an overview of NHIs or that contained numerous examples of various types of NHI encounters. Appendix 2 provides an annotated bibliography of all 12 sources used for Table 3.

Sources arrived at their lists either through research and analysis of the UFO literature, channeling NHIs, or talking directly with experiencers. Some sources were systematic while others were more idiosyncratic. A few sources dated back to the mid-1990s and the rest have occurred since 2012 and as such are quite recent.

The authors and artists used to create Table 3 often devised their own systems of categorizing or organizing non-human intelligences (NHIs). Thus, they almost all use different labels or distinctions from each other, though there was a lot of overlap among the more commonly reported NHIs (i.e., the top five to eight types listed in Table 3) with more divergence in labels occurring among the less reported types.

I have done my best to create a general framework that can accommodate both the sources I have used here as well as additional sources not represented in the table. Some categories from the 12 sources used here overlapped with mine whereas others required that I translate their system into a more general set of distinctions. However, even these overlap a bit and sometimes a description of a NHI could be placed into more than one category. Thus, the goal of this table is to help illustrate the variety and distribution of NHIs found in the UFO literature from various sources (channeled, direct encounters and first-person testimony, and research). Though I can imagine that this table or a revised version could be useful for researching and understanding encounters with NHIs in other non-UFO contexts (e.g., folklore, psychedelics, cryptozoology, OBEs). There are several meta-patterns that emerge in Table 3 that are worth highlighting:

• Humanoid vs non-humanoid: There are 25 humanoid types and 8 non-humanoid types. Clearly, humanoid types are better represented in the literature and reports. Also, the totals of non-humanoid types are quite low compared to the humanoid category. This underscores the interesting questions raised in the section above around whether humans are actually encountering more humanoids or do we tend to project our likeness onto the unknown.
• The top five NHIs: For years there has been an informal consensus in UFO circles that the most common NHIs are Human-looking, Short and Tall Greys, Reptilians, and Insectoids. This analysis confirms that these likely are the most common NHIs encountered.
• The top five sources: The sources with the most types of NHIs represented included between 17 and 23 types of NHIs (out of 33). So even the sources with the most types of NHIs represented still only included ~50-70%. Thus, no single source provides a comprehensive overview of NHIs. However, these five sources do include 32 of the 33 types listed. This highlights the importance of working with multiple sources of NHI encounters to get a complete picture.
• The FREE research: The FREE research only had 12 NHI types represented, but as noted in the annotated bibliography (Appendix 2) they had a category of “other” which contained hundreds of types that did not fit in their other nine categories. This highlights that people are likely encountering a wider range of NHIs than is commonly recognized or even depicted in Table 3. Thus, expanded taxonomies of NHIs, such as the one provided here, are useful in providing a more accurate overview of encounters with NHIs. Though over time we may find that even this taxonomy needs to be expanded to fully represent the diversity of NHIs.

Now that I have identified 33 different types of NHIs, let us take a look at the kinds of variations that have been reported in the experiencer literature.

Hundreds of Variants

For the 33 types of NHIs presented in Table 3, there are many variations within each type. These variations can be understood as what each NHI looks like in terms of its phenotype (i.e., all measurable characteristics, including physical/energetic appearance and behavior) or where they came from. For example, there are lots of different types of Reptilians described based on what planets or star systems they come from or specific physical/energetic characteristics they have. So, while Reptilians is one of the 33 main types of NHIs within this category, there are likely dozens of variations and subgroups of this type.

Some of the more common planets and star systems mentioned in the experiencer literature include:

Alpha Centaur	Tau Ceti	Orion
Lyra	Andromeda	Alpha Draconis
Vega	Sirius A & B	Nibiru
Pleiades	Arcturus	Camelopardis
Procyon	Zeta Reticuli	Ummo

The planets or star systems associated with galactic NHIs is only one source of variation. Other notable NHI variations include:

• Emanuel Swedenborg’s No products found. (1758/2006) presents around a dozen non-physical ETs associated with planets in our solar system.
• Sergeant Clifford Stone (No products found., 2011, p. 91) talks about how his job as an empath for the military involved working out of a military issued book with 57 different NHI types described.
• Mary Rodwell in her No products found. (2016, p. 135) talks about there being over 165 types of Greys.
• David Wilcock in his No products found. (2016, p. 344) talks about his insider “Jacob” claiming that there are over 5,000 intelligent civilizations within a 1000-light-year radius from our solar system. Jacob claimed to have personally seen more than 400 different types of ETs at a total of about 200 different off-planet sites. He said some of these ETs were human or human-like, whereas others were humanoid.
• Jefferson Viscardi and Rob Gauthier in their No products found. (2013) describe in detail 12 galactic human races with heights ranging from 2.5 to 9.1 feet (with most around 6 feet) and lifespans ranging from 220 to 1,500 years of age (with most living around 1,000 years).
• Monica Szu-Whitney and Gary Whitney in No products found. (1999) present 24 denizens of hyperspace that look quite different than most depictions of NHIs.
• Falco Tarassaco’s No products found. (2019) presents 22 very unique ETs and EDs.
• Barbara Lamb (No products found., 2019) reports that through her work with experiencers, she is aware of 89 different types of NHIs.

The above examples are just a sampling of some of the sources that paint a bigger picture around the variety of NHIs. Clearly there exists a much wider diversity of NHIs within the UFO and experiencer literature than is often acknowledged. Given this variety of NHIs, what if anything can be said about what do they want in coming here to Earth or interacting with humans? Does the range of NHI interiors (motives and intentions)
match the diversity of their exteriors (behaviors and phenotypes)?

WHAT DO THEY WANT?

Four Perspectives: Intruder, Manipulator, Helper, Observer

So, what do all these NHIs, who are interacting with humans, want? Various researchers have categorized NHIs based on their moral orientation or perspectives towards human beings. For example, Michael Salla (2004) has developed an exopolitical schema based on four main perspectives, which I use here (Intruders, Manipulators, Helpers, Observers). Similarly, Richard Dolan and Bryce Zabel (2010) identify six answers to the question “What do they want?” Below I combine Salla’s and Dolan/Zabel’s approaches and build on it. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but to provide a general overview of some of the more common reasons
noted in the literature.

• Intruder
  • They want our natural resources (e.g., water, minerals, gold)
  • They want our biodiversity (e.g., plant and animal specimens)
  • They want human beings (e.g., abductions) to learn more about humans
  • They have motivations that we cannot conceptualize
• Manipulator
  • They want our DNA to augment their own genetic stock
  • They want to produce hybrids to take over Earth
  • They want to produce fear as a source of energetic food
  • They have controlled human society for a very long time and want to continue to do so
  • They have and continue to use humans for slave labor
  • They have motivations that we cannot conceptualize
• Helper
  • They want to support environmental protection
  • They want to prevent nuclear war
  • They want to catalyze human transformation and expand consciousness
  • They want to help humans become a galactic civilization
  • They want to help humans resist and overcome the negative NHIs
  • They are creating hybrids to build a bridge between humans and other galactic races
  • They have motivations that we cannot conceptualize
• Observer
  • They are patiently waiting and observing humanity as it matures
  • They are learning how polarities and evolution occur on Earth
  • They are not allowed to interfere due to some version of the Prime Directive
  • They find us to be one of the best shows in the galaxy (i.e., the zoo hypothesis)
  • They have motivations that we cannot conceptualize

Notice that in each category I include the possibility that “they have motivations that we cannot conceptualize.” This is to serve as a reminder that the perspectives of NHIs, even within each of the four basic orientations presented above, are likely to be quite foreign and “alien” to our own ways of thinking.

Now that we have examined the three layers of my proposed NHI taxonomy (Domain, Appearance, and Perspectives), let us take a look at the hypotheses researchers have developed over the years to explain what these NHIs are. This will help us begin to answer the questions “What are they?” and “Are they real?”

WHAT ARE THEY?

The 10 Most Common Hypotheses

There are at least 10 major camps of explanation for who or what these NHIs are that people keep encountering. Each of these hypotheses contain variations that often do not agree with each other. I am not trying to minimize the diversity of explanations but rather to provide a high-level overview of the major positions. Besides, I suspect this list presents more diversity than what many UFO/NHI researchers are used to seeing in
one place. Typically, I only see two or three of the following hypotheses acknowledged at any one time. These hypotheses are ordered loosely from the most well-known and/or popular to ones that are newer or less often cited in the literature. The 10 most common hypotheses include:

• The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH): NHIs are biological and/or artificial beings from other planets or star systems who have some form of interstellar travel that can manipulate time-space to cover vast distances. This includes the human-alien hybrids that have consistently been reported by abductees. This was the preferred explanation within UFOlogy from the 1940s through the 1970s and still remains the most popular view in public consciousness.
• The Extradimensional Hypothesis (EDH): NHIs are biological and/or energetic beings living in other dimensions or parallel worlds that are able to enter into our world through their own technology, their powers of consciousness, or through natural portals that open up between our worlds. A variation of this hypothesis is the Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis (UTH) advanced by John Keel (1975/2013), which sees NHIs as indigenous to Earth who are manipulating us from a different dimension. Mac Tonnies’ (2013) notion of cryptoterrestrials is a recent version of Keel’s position. A less nefarious version of this hypothesis is the Interterrestrial Hypothesis (ITH), which claims that there are NHIs living “inside” the Earth in other dimensions such as in the city of Telos under Mt. Shasta in California. The EDH has gained much favor since the 1970s as the ETH has for many failed to account for the more bizarre aspects of UFO phenomena.
• The Time Traveling Hypothesis (TTH): NHIs are actually humans from the future. Though they might not look exactly like us due to future evolutionary dynamics, genetic modification, and/or the destruction of our/their environment. Michael Masters’ (2019) recent work on extratempestrials is a good example of this approach. Greys are often viewed as being future versions of ourselves.
• The Dark Military Hypothesis (DMH): NHIs are actually the result of black ops and covert military programs using advanced technology to produce psychological manipulation and in some cases programmed life forms (PLFs) to stage abductions and generate certain types of experiences of UFOs. This hypothesis assumes that these military operations have been successful in acquiring or reverse engineering their own UFOs. Steven Greer (2006) often advances versions of this hypothesis to account for negative encounters with NHIs. His view is that all “real” ETs and EDs are benevolent.
• The Psychosocial Hypothesis (PSH): NHIs are the result of psychosocial dynamics such as mass hysteria, archetypal manifestations, and collective psi phenomena. This view also tends to emphasize the cultural frames used to interpret NHIs in different time periods (e.g., European faery encounters or Medieval angels and demons as aliens of yesteryear). This approach is most often associated with Carl Jung’s classic Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky (1959). David Clarke’s How UFOs Conquered the World (2015) is a good contemporary example of this perspective.
• The Earth Lights Hypothesis (ELH): NHIs are the result of tectonic strain, ley lines, water interacting with sandy soils, and other electromagnetic dynamics, which can produce various light-based phenomena (e.g., orbs, earth lights, spook lights, ghost lights) that can appear to be sentient or intelligent. This hypothesis emerged in the late 70s and early 1980s with Michael Persinger and Gyslaine Lafreniere’s (1977) research into space-time transients and Paul Devereux’s (1982, 1990) work around earth lights. Persinger’s Tectonic Strain Theory has been used account for luminous lights and their apparent intelligent movements.
• The Intrapsychic Hypothesis (IPH): NHIs are the result of different psychological processes (e.g., false memory, projection, trauma, hypnagogic sleep, altered states of consciousness, EMF-triggered hallucinations). This hypothesis is generally evoked to dismiss the notion of NHIs or reduce them to fantasy. Susan Clancy (2005) from Harvard University advocates this view. However, I believe that there are non-skeptical aspects of this hypothesis than can be used to better understand NHIs as “real” psychological, cultural, and even multidimensional ontological beings.18
• The Co-creative Hypothesis (CCH): NHIs are independent beings (either physical ETs or energetic EDs) but our experience of them and perception of how they appear is the result of a co-creative process informed by, 1) the NHIs ability to morph their appearance as they see fit to facilitate the encounter, 2) our own expectations and cultural frames, and 3) our unconscious cognitive biases of perception that kick in to help us make sense of paranormal stimuli that does not fit into our normal range of perception and meaning making. This hypothesis is associated with Greg Bishop (2016, 2017).
• The Artificial Intelligence Hypothesis (AIH): Some NHIs are actually programmed life forms (PLFs) or androids. For example, often the Short Greys are reported as being robot-like worker bees. Throughout the encounter literature there are reports of encounters with what appear to be robots or various forms of humanoid artificial intelligence. Likewise, UFOs have in some cases been described as unmanned drones or “living machines.”
• The Breakaway Civilization Hypothesis (BCH): Many NHIs, especially “human-looking” ones, are actually Earth humans or off-planet humans that have been part of an emerging breakaway civilization beginning potentially with the airship mystery of the late 1800s associated with Charles Dellschau and the Sonora Aero Club.19 This breakaway group is believed to have become spacefaring in the 1930s as the Nazi “Die Glocke” (the Bell) program paved the way for the emergence of secret space programs (SSPs). Others such as Michael Schratt (2020) point to October 1954 when the U.S. military allegedly made a breakthrough in anti-gravity technology, which then led to a bifurcation point resulting in a breakaway group building their own UFOs. As a result, many legitime UFOs sighted are potentially interstellar craft belonging to this group and their SSPs. Richard Dolan (2016), the noted UFO and national security state historian, has recently provided an overview of how a breakaway civilization could have emerged.

I believe that these various hypotheses are not incommensurable or nonexclusive with each other. They can all be accurate or helpful in describing different aspects of UFO phenomena. In some cases, more than one hypothesis might apply to any given occurrence or situation. If anything has become obvious over the last 80 years it is that UFOs and NHIs are not easily explained in their totality with a single theory or approach. Thus, over the last few years I have been developing what I call the Mutual Enactment Hypothesis (MEH).

A New Integrative Hypothesis of NHIs

From an Exo Studies perspective, each of the 10 hypotheses outlined above are recognized as being “true but partial.” They each shine a unique light on the complexity and multivalent nature of UFOs and the NHIs associated with them. For years I have been grappling with the mercurial manifestations of UFO phenomena in all of its anomalous and paranormal expressions. Different reports in the literature or experiences from people I talk with often seem best explained by one or two (sometimes three) of the 10 hypotheses. But none of the 10 (nor any combination of several of them) seem adequate for the majority of the expressions of the phenomena. This has consistently led me to the sense that all of the hypotheses are correct or partially correct depending on what is being examined or discussed. As a result, I have been exploring how to present a new hypothesis that is informed by the best aspects of the other 10 hypotheses. Here is a short summary of the Mutual Enactment Hypothesis (MEH) followed by a more expanded presentation:

The Mutual Enactment Hypothesis (MEH): NHIs are one of five major kinds of beings that contribute in mutually enacting ways to each other and the manifestation of the phenomena (i.e., UFO, anomalous, and paranormal occurrences). All five kinds of beings (i.e., humans, NHIs, earth lights, thought forms and archetypes) are influenced in numerous ways by electromagnetic energies. These five kinds of beings exist within an ontological matrix that includes at least three distinct axes/spectrums: stations (where did they originate and where are they currently located), sovereignty (how much free-will do they have), and substance (what types of matter/energy are their bodies made out of). A being’s location on all three spectrums determines its ontological status. This hypothesis is the result of a sustained meta-analysis of the other 10 hypotheses and provides a potential integration of the major insights and distinctions of each of them.

Within the context of the MEH, a being is any entity perceived and experienced by other beings as ontologically distinct from themselves regardless of which four ontological domains the being is originally or primarily associated. The four ontological domains include: the subjective domain with beings such as occult thought forms, the intersubjective domain with beings such as archetypal deities, the interobjective domain with beings such as naturally occurring earth lights, and the objective domain with beings such as humans, whales, and chimpanzees. These four domains can be presented either as Wilber’s (2006) four quadrants or along a spectrum from most interior to most exterior. As an ontological spectrum this forms the first axes of the ontological matrix: the ontological stations spectrum. The other two axes will be discussed in Part 2 below. While each being can be associated with one specific ontological domain it often has expressions and/or causal effects in all four domains. As will be discussed in Part 2 some beings can, under certain circumstances, shift their ontological station from one domain to another. In short, there are four major ontological stations from which a being can originate or inhabit. Within the objective domain (It-Beings) there are both humans and non-human intelligences (NHIs). Thus, the Mutual Enactment Hypothesis highlights the mutually enactive dynamics between:

• Humans (It-Beings): objective beings that live on Earth (and potentially off-planet).
• Non-human intelligences (It-Beings): objective beings that can be either physical (i.e., ETs) or paraphysical or energetic (i.e., EDs) and associated with either the Faerie, Galactic, or Celestial domains.
• Thought forms (I-Beings): intrapsychic beings that emerge in or from the minds of objective beings. However, these beings can, under certain circumstances, gain semi-independence or complete independent existence. For example, the creation of tulpas through the powers of concentration such as associated with occult practices.
• Archetypes (We-Beings): interpsychic beings that emerge from the collective minds of multiple objective beings but who like thought forms can under certain circumstances gain semi-independence or complete independent existence. For example, the creation of egregories through the power of focused or repeated cultural awareness.
• Earth lights (Its-Beings): interobjective beings that are produced by natural earth-based processes that involve electromagnetics such as tectonic plates grinding together or landscape features that contain or produce gravitational or magnetic anomalies. These beings are often called ghost lights, earth lights, spook lights, and will-o’-wisps. Many experiences of these luminous balls describe them as intelligent or sentient. Thus, similar to thought forms and archetypes these beings appear to be able to under certain circumstances to gain and display a level of semi-independence or potentially complete independence of observers. Also, many NHIs have been observed transforming into orbs or vice versa.

In short, all five kinds of beings outlined above contribute to and are informed by exo phenomena in various ways. The MEH is radically non-anthropocentric in that it takes seriously the perspectives of all five kinds of beings and developing reliable ways to account for or represent such perspectives. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of lines of enactment associated with various other hypotheses. As you can see, each of the other hypotheses holds a piece of the ontological puzzle and often emphasize a particular “line” of enactment.

Figure 1 also highlights how electromagnetic energies (EME) have the potential and often do contribute directly to the enactment of all five kinds of beings both in terms of what they perceive and how they are perceived by other beings. For example, research into the effects of EMEs on human beings indicates that they can increase human psychic capacities to perceive NHIs, earth lights, and various other paranormal realities.
NHIs seem to use EMEs to help them manipulate time and space (e.g., to time travel or open up portals to enter our world from other dimensions or parallel realities). Thought forms and archetypes can draw on and be substantiated by EMEs, and earth lights can be the direct result of EMEs.

Each of the above 11 NHI hypotheses can also be placed along the ontological stations spectrum (see Table 4). This highlights how different hypotheses tend to interpret NHIs as having different degrees of ontological status depending on which station they are associated with, or even reducing them to different types of beings altogether. Thus, Table 4 illustrates how the major NHI hypotheses fall along the ontological stations spectrum from NHIs being merely psychological phenomena on the far left to them being existent (i.e., having independent existence) on the far right. Keep in mind that each of these 11 hypotheses have variations that might occupy additional or different spots on this spectrum. Their current placement reflects my assessment of their primary emphasis. Note the Dark Military Hypothesis (DMH) is likely best represented as straddling three categories on the ontological spectrum due to its mixture of psychological manipulation, cultural disinformation campaigns, and use of technology (including their own “UFOs” and potential PLFs). The MEH is the only one that explicitly includes all four ontological positions along the ontological stations spectrum and acknowledges that NHIs and the other kinds of beings can move along this ontological spectrum.

Much philosophical and scientific work remains to further explore and clarify these issues of ontology as related to NHIs and the other beings in our Wild Kosmos. This metaview of NHIs has aimed to develop a new taxonomical framework and provides us with a set of useful distinctions for understanding the wide range of diversity in human encounters with non-human intelligences. So far, we have explored in brief all four questions posed at the beginning of this article: “Where do NHIs come from?” “What do they look like?” “What do they want? Why are they here?” and “What are they? Are they real?”

While each of these questions deserves more engagement, I want to focus on the latter one for the rest of this article. After all, the meaningful answers to the other questions are largely dependent on NHIs being existent. However, as I will argue in Part 2, they might not be existent in the ways we are accustomed. I have outlined above an ontological stations spectrum that includes four major ontological spheres, realms, or domains and their associated kinds of beings. This is a good set of initial distinctions. But as we will see, in Part 2, boundaries quickly get ontologically messy.

Back: Introduction
Forward: Part 2: The Ontological Status of NHIs
Forward: Conclusion & Appendices

Last update on 2022-12-15 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API