.png)
La desclasificaci贸n UAP bajo la mirada de la hip贸tesis ORBIT
Por Iv谩n Vega Recabal
Diciembre de 2017 no marc贸 el comienzo del fen贸meno OVNI —denominado actualmente UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena)— ni tampoco el inicio de las investigaciones oficiales estadounidenses sobre esta clase de acontecimientos. S铆 represent贸 el inicio de una nueva etapa p煤blica. La aparici贸n de informaci贸n relacionada con un programa del Departamento de Defensa dedicado al estudio de amenazas aeroespaciales avanzadas, las declaraciones de Luis Elizondo y la difusi贸n de videos obtenidos por pilotos de la Armada estadounidense devolvieron el fen贸meno a una discusi贸n de la que durante d茅cadas hab铆a permanecido parcialmente relegado. En los a帽os siguientes llegar铆an la confirmaci贸n oficial y publicaci贸n de tres videos militares por parte del Pent谩gono, los informes de la Oficina del Director de Inteligencia Nacional (ODNI), la creaci贸n de la All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), la participaci贸n de la NASA y nuevas audiencias en el Congreso estadounidense. El asunto comenzaba as铆 a desplazarse desde los m谩rgenes de la cultura popular hacia un problema reconocido institucionalmente, relacionado con la seguridad del espacio a茅reo, la inteligencia y la necesidad de mejorar la calidad de los datos disponibles.
Este proceso de desclasificaci贸n ha despertado enormes expectativas. Para muchas personas representa el camino hacia la confirmaci贸n de que gobiernos y fuerzas militares han recuperado naves extraterrestres, cuerpos biol贸gicos no humanos o tecnolog铆as de caracter铆sticas extraordinarias mantenidas en secreto durante d茅cadas. Sin embargo, el desarrollo de los acontecimientos ha mostrado un panorama considerablemente m谩s complejo.
Por una parte, pilotos militares altamente entrenados como David Fravor y Ryan Graves han descrito encuentros con fen贸menos cuyas caracter铆sticas de vuelo, seg煤n sus testimonios, resultaron dif铆ciles de explicar. Informantes como David Grusch han declarado bajo juramento haber recibido informaci贸n sobre presuntos programas de recuperaci贸n de materiales y restos biol贸gicos asociados a inteligencias no humanas. Paralelamente, congresistas como Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, Jared Moskowitz, Chuck Schumer y Mike Rounds han impulsado iniciativas destinadas a aumentar la transparencia y facilitar el acceso p煤blico a la informaci贸n relacionada con los UAP.
Sin embargo, conviene detenerse en lo que este proceso ha conseguido establecer realmente. Los tres videos militares que terminaron siendo conocidos como FLIR1, GIMBAL y GOFAST constituyen un buen punto de partida. En abril de 2020, el Departamento de Defensa autoriz贸 oficialmente su publicaci贸n y confirm贸 que las grabaciones correspond铆an a encuentros registrados por aviadores de la Armada estadounidense: una de noviembre de 2004 y dos de enero de 2015. El comunicado oficial sostuvo adem谩s que los fen贸menos observados en esos registros continuaban caracterizados como “no identificados”.
Aquella confirmaci贸n fue importante, pero su alcance debe ser delimitado. El Pent谩gono confirm贸 la autenticidad de las grabaciones; no confirm贸 que mostraran aeronaves extraterrestres, tecnolog铆as no humanas ni que las aparentes caracter铆sticas extraordinarias observadas en algunas de esas im谩genes correspondieran necesariamente al comportamiento f铆sico real de los objetos registrados. Esta diferencia puede parecer evidente, pero resulta fundamental para comprender lo ocurrido posteriormente. Autenticidad no equivale a explicaci贸n. Que una observaci贸n permanezca sin identificar solo indica que, con la informaci贸n disponible, no hemos podido explicar qu茅 estamos observando ni determinar su origen.
El informe preliminar publicado por la Oficina del Director de Inteligencia Nacional en junio de 2021 reforz贸 precisamente esa cautela. El documento examin贸 144 reportes originados entre 2004 y 2021, concentrados principalmente en los 煤ltimos a帽os del per铆odo, y se帽al贸 que 80 de ellos hab铆an involucrado observaciones registradas mediante m煤ltiples sensores. Sin embargo, el mismo informe advert铆a que la limitada consistencia de los datos, las diferencias entre sensores y las condiciones en que se produc铆an las observaciones dificultaban alcanzar conclusiones firmes. Solo uno de los 144 casos pudo ser identificado con alta confianza en aquel an谩lisis inicial.
El dato es interesante porque permite observar dos cosas que no deber铆amos confundir. Por una parte, muestra que exist铆an incidentes suficientemente relevantes como para justificar una investigaci贸n oficial y que algunos hab铆an sido registrados por m谩s de un sistema de observaci贸n. Por otra, muestra que “no identificado” continuaba siendo una categor铆a de incertidumbre y no una explicaci贸n sobre el origen del fen贸meno. El propio informe reconoc铆a adem谩s que el estigma sociocultural asociado hist贸ricamente a los UAP pod铆a haber dificultado la recopilaci贸n de informaci贸n, aunque se帽alaba que esa percepci贸n estaba comenzando a cambiar.
A partir de ese punto, el debate comenz贸 a experimentar un desplazamiento considerable. Ya no se trataba solamente de determinar qu茅 estaban observando los pilotos o qu茅 registraban determinados sensores. Comenzaron a adquirir protagonismo afirmaciones mucho m谩s extraordinarias: que sectores del propio gobierno estadounidense conocer铆an desde hac铆a d茅cadas una respuesta y que, incluso, habr铆an recuperado veh铆culos de origen no humano.
Una de las expresiones p煤blicas m谩s conocidas de esta nueva etapa lleg贸 con David Grusch. El 26 de julio de 2023, durante una audiencia de la C谩mara de Representantes, el exoficial de inteligencia declar贸 bajo juramento que hab铆a sido informado sobre un programa de recuperaci贸n y posterior ingenier铆a inversa de UAP al que, seg煤n afirm贸, se le hab铆a negado acceso. Preguntado durante la audiencia acerca de la recuperaci贸n de cuerpos asociados a algunos de esos objetos, respondi贸 que hab铆a sido informado de la existencia de restos “biol贸gicos no humanos”.
El alcance de esas declaraciones obliga a detenerse en ellas. Una parte importante de lo expuesto p煤blicamente por Grusch proven铆a de informaci贸n que, seg煤n explic贸, hab铆a obtenido de otras personas vinculadas a esos supuestos programas. Tambi茅n afirm贸 haber entregado antecedentes a los organismos correspondientes y se帽al贸 que determinados detalles solo pod铆an discutirse en un entorno clasificado. Su testimonio constituye, por tanto, un antecedente que merece ser investigado, pero no equivale por s铆 mismo a la presentaci贸n p煤blica de una aeronave recuperada, un cuerpo, una muestra biol贸gica o un material cuya procedencia no humana haya podido establecerse mediante an谩lisis independiente.
.png)
Las investigaciones oficiales publicadas posteriormente no han corroborado esas afirmaciones. En su revisi贸n hist贸rica de 2024, AARO sostuvo que no hab铆a encontrado evidencia de que alguna investigaci贸n oficial estadounidense hubiera confirmado que una observaci贸n UAP correspondiera a tecnolog铆a extraterrestre, ni evidencia emp铆rica de que el gobierno estadounidense o empresas privadas hubieran realizado ingenier铆a inversa sobre tecnolog铆a de esa procedencia. AARO afirm贸 adem谩s haber investigado alegaciones relacionadas con programas, personas, empresas y lugares mencionados por sus entrevistados.
Esto no demuestra por s铆 mismo que cada denuncia sea falsa, ni convierte a AARO en 谩rbitro definitivo del fen贸meno. Establece, sin embargo, un l铆mite importante para este an谩lisis: hasta ahora, las afirmaciones sobre veh铆culos recuperados, materiales ex贸ticos y restos biol贸gicos no humanos no han venido acompa帽adas, en el dominio p煤blico, por evidencia f铆sica cuya procedencia no humana haya podido ser comprobada de manera independiente.
La NASA encontr贸, desde una perspectiva cient铆fica, una dificultad semejante. Su estudio independiente sobre UAP, publicado en 2023, se帽al贸 que el reducido n煤mero de observaciones de alta calidad imped铆a obtener conclusiones cient铆ficas firmes sobre la naturaleza de estos fen贸menos. Su trabajo no consisti贸 en revisar y resolver los casos hist贸ricos, sino en determinar qu茅 datos deber铆an recopilarse y c贸mo hacerlo para permitir un estudio cient铆fico m谩s riguroso. Es una consideraci贸n menos espectacular que hablar de naves recuperadas o inteligencias no humanas, pero quiz谩s mucho m谩s importante: antes de explicar el origen de una anomal铆a necesitamos disponer de informaci贸n suficiente para caracterizarla.
Despu茅s de todo este recorrido aparece entonces una situaci贸n extra帽a. Tenemos pilotos que observaron algo, sensores que registraron algunos de esos encuentros, organismos creados espec铆ficamente para estudiarlos y reportes acumulados durante a帽os. Tenemos tambi茅n testimonios que hablan de programas secretos, recuperaciones y restos biol贸gicos. Pero entre una cosa y la otra contin煤a existiendo un vac铆o enorme. Sabemos que existen observaciones que no siempre logramos explicar; lo que no sabemos es si detr谩s de ellas existe realmente esa arquitectura de naves, tripulantes y tecnolog铆as recuperadas que durante d茅cadas ha acompa帽ado al fen贸meno.
Esta diferencia entre lo observado, lo testimoniado y lo que finalmente ha podido demostrarse constituye, a mi juicio, uno de los aspectos m谩s interesantes del actual proceso de desclasificaci贸n.
Y precisamente en ese punto comienza a adquirir relevancia la hip贸tesis ORBIT. (Observable Reality Bridging Interaction Theory o Teor铆a de la Interacci贸n que Conecta Realidades Observables)
Esta hip贸tesis no parte de la pregunta tradicional que ha dominado el debate durante d茅cadas: ¿qui茅n est谩 detr谩s del fen贸meno?
Propone una pregunta diferente.
¿Qu茅 ocurre cuando el fen贸meno se manifiesta?
Este cambio metodol贸gico resulta fundamental porque desplaza la atenci贸n desde la identidad de la anomal铆a hacia el proceso mediante el cual interact煤a con nuestra realidad. En lugar de intentar demostrar si se trata de visitantes extraterrestres, inteligencias interdimensionales o tecnolog铆as secretas, la hip贸tesis ORBIT propone observar primero los patrones que parecen repetirse en distintos casos y testimonios documentados.
Desde esta perspectiva, esta hip贸tesis propone que el fen贸meno no comienza necesariamente con la aparici贸n de una nave, sino con la manifestaci贸n de una anomal铆a cuya naturaleza todav铆a desconocemos.
El primer postulado de la hip贸tesis ORBIT sostiene precisamente esa posibilidad: una parte significativa de la casu铆stica UAP podr铆a corresponder a anomal铆as pertenecientes a un dominio de realidad normalmente inaccesible para la percepci贸n humana y que, bajo determinadas circunstancias, interact煤an temporalmente con nuestro entorno.
Cuando esa interacci贸n ocurre, la anomal铆a podr铆a manifestarse objetivamente mediante luces, orbes, estructuras luminosas u otras configuraciones detectables tanto por observadores humanos como, en determinados casos, por instrumentos tecnol贸gicos. Dentro de la hip贸tesis, esta etapa constituir铆a la dimensi贸n f铆sica del fen贸meno y permitir铆a interpretar aquellos episodios en los que una observaci贸n humana aparece acompa帽ada por registros instrumentales.
Sin embargo, esta hip贸tesis propone que la experiencia no termina all铆.
Cuando la anomal铆a interact煤a con la conciencia del observador podr铆a desencadenarse autom谩ticamente un proceso denominado entrelazamiento. A partir de ese momento, la experiencia comienza a involucrar no solo la presencia objetiva de la anomal铆a, sino tambi茅n la estructura cognitiva del individuo que la observa.
Como consecuencia del entrelazamiento emerger铆a una condici贸n transitoria denominada Efecto Burbuja, caracterizada por alteraciones perceptivas, modificaciones en la experiencia temporal, sensaci贸n de aislamiento ambiental y otros fen贸menos que aparecen de manera recurrente en relatos de encuentros de alta extra帽eza.
Es dentro de ese escenario donde aparece el n煤cleo del modelo ORBIT: la microrealidad.
La hip贸tesis propone que la anomal铆a extrae informaci贸n aleatoria disponible de la conciencia del observador —sus conocimientos, recuerdos, s铆mbolos, experiencias y referencias culturales personales— y despliega, a partir de esos recursos cognitivos, una experiencia que no necesariamente resulta coherente.
La hip贸tesis propone que, una vez producido el entrelazamiento, la extracci贸n de informaci贸n disponible en la conciencia del observador ocurre de manera autom谩tica, como parte del propio proceso y no como una acci贸n deliberada de la anomal铆a. Es aqu铆 cuando se despliega una experiencia que no necesariamente resulta coherente.
.png)
Recreaci贸n art铆stica del objeto cubo-esfera descrito por pilotos.
Esta idea permite regresar ahora a algunos de los casos y registros oficiales mencionados al comienzo de este art铆culo y preguntarnos, con prudencia, hasta qu茅 punto pueden relacionarse —o no— con los postulados de esta hip贸tesis.
Los registros oficiales desde la mirada de la hip贸tesis ORBIT
Los videos FLIR1, GIMBAL y GOFAST permiten establecer una primera distinci贸n importante. Su valor para la hip贸tesis ORBIT no reside en que demuestren la existencia de una tecnolog铆a extraordinaria ni, mucho menos, en que confirmen el modelo. Su importancia est谩 en algo anterior: constituyen registros militares aut茅nticos de acontecimientos que, en el momento de su publicaci贸n oficial, continuaban caracterizados por el Departamento de Defensa como no identificados.
Desde el an谩lisis de esta hip贸tesis, esto permitir铆a relacionarlos 煤nicamente con los primeros postulados del modelo: la existencia de una anomal铆a y su manifestaci贸n objetiva. Hay un acontecimiento registrado por un sistema instrumental y existe informaci贸n suficiente para justificar su an谩lisis, pero no necesariamente para determinar su naturaleza. En este nivel, ORBIT no necesita atribuir inteligencia, procedencia extraterrestre ni propiedades f铆sicas extraordinarias a aquello que aparece en las im谩genes. El dato relevante es m谩s elemental: existe una observaci贸n que debe ser caracterizada antes de ser interpretada.
FLIR1, asociado al encuentro del USS Nimitz de noviembre de 2004, resulta particularmente interesante porque el registro instrumental forma parte de un episodio m谩s amplio en el que tambi茅n participaron observadores humanos. La grabaci贸n, por s铆 sola, no demuestra las extraordinarias caracter铆sticas atribuidas al objeto en los testimonios ni permite establecer su origen. Sin embargo, considerada junto con el relato de David Fravor y otros participantes del encuentro, permite separar dos niveles que la hip贸tesis ORBIT considera fundamentales: aquello que puede quedar registrado instrumentalmente y aquello que posteriormente experimenta, describe e interpreta el observador. Es precisamente en la distancia entre ambos niveles donde la hip贸tesis sit煤a parte de su campo de estudio.
GIMBAL, registrado en enero de 2015, plantea un problema semejante. La imagen muestra una firma captada mediante un sistema electro贸ptico y acompa帽ada por las reacciones de los propios aviadores. Pero el registro no permite, por s铆 mismo, reconstruir inequ铆vocamente la naturaleza f铆sica del fen贸meno. Desde la perspectiva ORBIT, esta limitaci贸n es importante: el instrumento registra informaci贸n; posteriormente, el ser humano intenta convertir esa informaci贸n en un objeto reconocible. Distinguir entre el dato captado por el sensor y la interpretaci贸n que construimos a partir de 茅l resulta esencial para no atribuir a la anomal铆a caracter铆sticas que podr铆an pertenecer al sistema de observaci贸n, a las condiciones del registro o a nuestra posterior interpretaci贸n.
GOFAST obliga a ser todav铆a m谩s prudentes. La impresi贸n inicial producida por una imagen puede sugerir velocidades o comportamientos extraordinarios, pero determinar las caracter铆sticas f铆sicas reales de aquello que aparece registrado exige conocer distancias, geometr铆a, movimiento de la plataforma, funcionamiento del sensor y otros par谩metros. Desde la hip贸tesis ORBIT, este caso funciona precisamente como una advertencia metodol贸gica: lo an贸malo no debe confundirse autom谩ticamente con lo extraordinario. Un fen贸meno puede permanecer sin identificar sin que ello permita atribuirle capacidades que los datos disponibles no demuestran.
Los tres videos establecen as铆 un l铆mite particularmente 煤til para la hip贸tesis. FLIR1, GIMBAL y GOFAST pueden ser relacionados con la manifestaci贸n objetiva en la medida en que existen registros instrumentales aut茅nticos de acontecimientos que requirieron an谩lisis, pero las grabaciones, por s铆 solas, no permiten avanzar hacia los postulados de entrelazamiento, Efecto Burbuja, microrealidad o humanizaci贸n. Para explorar esas etapas se necesita otro tipo de informaci贸n: el testimonio del observador, las caracter铆sticas de su experiencia y, especialmente, la posible distancia entre aquello que qued贸 registrado y aquello que la persona afirma haber percibido.
Es justamente all铆 donde los testimonios de pilotos como Ryan Graves y David Fravor adquieren un valor diferente para este an谩lisis. No porque demuestren la hip贸tesis ORBIT, sino porque permiten comparar una dimensi贸n aparentemente objetiva del acontecimiento con la manera extraordinariamente espec铆fica en que determinados observadores describieron aquello que encontraron.
Ryan Graves ha relatado que pilotos de su escuadr贸n observaron objetos descritos como cubos oscuros contenidos dentro de esferas transparentes. Una interpretaci贸n posible consiste en asumir que esa descripci贸n corresponde aproximadamente a la morfolog铆a de aquello que fue observado. Esta hip贸tesis propone explorar una posibilidad diferente, sin presentarla como un hecho establecido.
La esfera podr铆a corresponder a la manifestaci贸n objetiva inicial de la anomal铆a, mientras que el cubo representar铆a una de las primeras configuraciones construidas por la microrealidad a partir del lenguaje tecnol贸gico y de las referencias cognitivas propias de un piloto militar entrenado para identificar aeronaves, geometr铆as y amenazas a茅reas.
De manera semejante, el c茅lebre Tic Tac descrito por David Fravor podr铆a no corresponder necesariamente a la estructura f铆sica de una nave. Podr铆a constituir la representaci贸n m谩s estable que la conciencia de un piloto de combate pudo haber organizado frente a una anomal铆a completamente desconocida: una forma simple, de apariencia tecnol贸gica, no necesariamente aerodin谩mica ni coherente, pero que le permiti贸 convertir una experiencia extraordinaria en una imagen posteriormente comunicable.
En ambos casos, la hip贸tesis ORBIT no cuestiona la veracidad de los testimonios.
Lo que propone revisar es el nivel de realidad al que pertenece la forma observada.
La anomal铆a puede ser completamente real.
La representaci贸n tambi茅n puede ser completamente real para quien la experimenta.
Pero ambas podr铆an corresponder a niveles distintos de un mismo proceso de interacci贸n.
.png)
Recreaci贸n art铆stica del encuentro Tic Tac.
Esta interpretaci贸n adquiere una dimensi贸n todav铆a m谩s interesante cuando se analiza la evoluci贸n hist贸rica del propio lenguaje institucional estadounidense.
Durante d茅cadas se habl贸 de Objetos Voladores No Identificados.
Posteriormente, la terminolog铆a oficial estadounidense evolucion贸 hacia Fen贸menos An贸malos No Identificados.
El cambio parece menor, pero posee implicancias conceptuales interesantes.
Un objeto presupone, al menos en el lenguaje com煤n, una entidad material.
Un fen贸meno permite describir un acontecimiento observable sin determinar de antemano su naturaleza.
El t茅rmino anomal铆a ampl铆a todav铆a m谩s esa incertidumbre.
Esto no significa que la evoluci贸n del lenguaje institucional confirme la hip贸tesis ORBIT. S铆 resulta interesante que la terminolog铆a utilizada para describir estos acontecimientos se haya vuelto progresivamente menos dependiente de la idea de un objeto f铆sico claramente definido.
Desde esa perspectiva, el recorrido resulta compatible con el enfoque metodol贸gico de esta hip贸tesis.
Mientras buena parte del debate contin煤a centrado en determinar qui茅n conduce las supuestas naves, la hip贸tesis ORBIT propone dirigir la atenci贸n hacia una cuesti贸n diferente: comprender c贸mo interact煤a la anomal铆a con nuestra realidad y con la experiencia humana.
Desde esta perspectiva, la ausencia p煤blica de evidencia verificable sobre cuerpos recuperados o restos tecnol贸gicos no elimina el problema planteado por aquellos casos que contin煤an sin una identificaci贸n concluyente. Lo que hace es impedir que pasemos directamente de “fen贸meno no identificado” a “tecnolog铆a no humana”. Precisamente en ese espacio de incertidumbre es donde intenta trabajar esta hip贸tesis.
Simplemente cuestiona una interpretaci贸n concreta del mismo.
Si la anomal铆a pertenece a un dominio de realidad que solo interact煤a temporalmente con nuestro entorno, quiz谩s tambi茅n debamos reconsiderar aquello que esperamos encontrar como evidencia. En lugar de buscar necesariamente veh铆culos accidentados, fragmentos met谩licos o incluso restos biol贸gicos no humanos, podr铆amos prestar mayor atenci贸n a manifestaciones transitorias, testimonios, registros instrumentales, observaciones m煤ltiples y experiencias extraordinarias cuya informaci贸n disponible no siempre permite establecer una identificaci贸n definitiva. Si esa anomal铆a puede o no dejar rastros f铆sicos es algo que todav铆a desconocemos.
La hip贸tesis ORBIT no pretende resolver el fen贸meno UAP. Su prop贸sito es intentar ordenar lo que estamos observando y encontrar patrones que puedan ayudarnos a comprenderlo mejor, sin adelantarnos a definir qu茅 es o de d贸nde proviene.
As铆 mismo el actual proceso de desclasificaci贸n tambi茅n obliga a revisar algunas de las preguntas que nos hemos hecho durante d茅cadas. Durante mucho tiempo, una parte importante de la discusi贸n sobre los OVNI estuvo centrada en determinar si se trataba de naves extraterrestres.
Tal vez esa nunca fue la pregunta m谩s importante.
La verdadera cuesti贸n podr铆a ser mucho m谩s sencilla y, al mismo tiempo, mucho m谩s profunda:
¿Qu茅 ocurre exactamente cuando una anomal铆a entra en interacci贸n con nuestra realidad y con la conciencia humana?
Si esa pregunta resulta correcta, la nueva etapa p煤blica iniciada en 2017 podr铆a ser recordada no como el momento en que la humanidad confirm贸 la existencia de visitantes de otros mundos, sino como el instante en que comenz贸 a estudiar el fen贸meno desde una perspectiva diferente, m谩s prudente y m谩s cercana a la evidencia.
En ese escenario, la hip贸tesis ORBIT no aparece como una alternativa a la desclasificaci贸n, sino como un posible marco interpretativo desde el cual intentar ordenar un conjunto de observaciones que, hasta ahora, contin煤an resisti茅ndose a las categor铆as tradicionales de an谩lisis.
Tal vez la desclasificaci贸n y apertura de estos antecedentes sea solo una parte del camino. Podemos abrir archivos, conocer testimonios que permanecieron ocultos durante d茅cadas y acceder a informaci贸n que antes nos estaba vedada, pero aun as铆 seguiremos enfrent谩ndonos al mismo problema: determinar qu茅 es realmente aquello que estamos observando.
Lo que s铆 podemos reconocer es la recurrencia de ciertos elementos en una parte de la casu铆stica: algo irrumpe en nuestro campo observable, produce una experiencia dif铆cil de integrar dentro de nuestras categor铆as habituales y, muchas veces, desaparece dejando tras de s铆 m谩s preguntas que evidencia material concluyente.
Por mucho que avancemos en esta desclasificaci贸n, creo que ni siquiera sus m谩s fieles inquisidores tienen certeza de la enorme y compleja red de rumores que ha alimentado este entuerto.
Sinceramente, no encuentro hasta ahora razones suficientes para aceptar la existencia de tales restos biol贸gicos no humanos, y menos a煤n de aeronaves ex贸ticas almacenadas durante d茅cadas en alg煤n lugar secreto. Las afirmaciones existen y algunas proceden de personas con antecedentes profesionales relevantes, pero la evidencia f铆sica que permitir铆a comprobarlas p煤blicamente contin煤a ausente. Un acontecimiento de semejante magnitud ser铆a, adem谩s, extraordinariamente dif铆cil de compartimentar y mantener oculto durante d茅cadas frente a tantos cient铆ficos, militares, funcionarios, contratistas e investigadores que necesariamente tendr铆an que haber participado de una estructura de esa naturaleza. Me cuesta creer que exista algo as铆 ah铆 dentro.
Tambi茅n existe una posibilidad menos extraordinaria que no deber铆a descartarse: que parte del secretismo no proteja necesariamente naves recuperadas, sino las propias limitaciones de los sistemas militares para identificar, comprender o responder ante determinados acontecimientos. Reconocer p煤blicamente que existen fen贸menos capaces de ingresar en espacios vigilados sin ser inmediatamente identificados puede constituir, por s铆 mismo, una vulnerabilidad que cualquier estructura de defensa tendr铆a razones para administrar con cautela.
Tambi茅n es posible que, con el paso de las d茅cadas, hayamos humanizado a tal nivel la anomal铆a que terminamos convirti茅ndola en un constructo reconocible: aeronaves, tripulantes, tecnolog铆as, recuperaciones y materiales, porque esas son precisamente las categor铆as con las que nuestra cultura aprendi贸 a interpretar aquello que descend铆a del cielo.
Esa construcci贸n puede haber calado tan profundamente que hoy muchos contin煤an buscando las pistas de un rumor distorsionado por una 茅poca en la que el secretismo lo era todo; un relato que termin贸 instal谩ndose como parte del folclore ufol贸gico-militar, creciendo alrededor del fen贸meno hasta confundirse con el fen贸meno mismo.
.png)
Despu茅s de revisar estos antecedentes, creo que podemos establecer al menos algunas diferencias importantes. La primera es que la existencia de observaciones y reportes que permanecen sin identificar constituye un objeto leg铆timo de investigaci贸n. Su recurrencia ha sido suficiente para impulsar investigaciones oficiales, nuevos mecanismos de reporte y el inter茅s sostenido de organismos cient铆ficos, militares y de inteligencia. Pero que una observaci贸n permanezca sin identificar no determina por s铆 mismo su origen ni confirma ninguna de las explicaciones construidas alrededor de ella.
La segunda es que existe una distancia considerable entre aquello que ha podido documentarse y algunas de las afirmaciones m谩s extraordinarias surgidas durante este proceso. Los testimonios sobre programas de recuperaci贸n, materiales ex贸ticos y restos biol贸gicos no humanos merecen ser investigados, especialmente cuando proceden de personas vinculadas al aparato de inteligencia o defensa, pero hasta ahora no han venido acompa帽ados, en el dominio p煤blico, por evidencia f铆sica independiente que permita convertir esas afirmaciones en hechos establecidos. Esa diferencia entre testimonio, evidencia e interpretaci贸n deber铆a permanecer en el centro de cualquier an谩lisis serio del fen贸meno.
La tercera es que la hip贸tesis ORBIT tampoco resuelve esa incertidumbre. Su alcance es m谩s limitado: considerar la posibilidad de que una parte de aquello que interpretamos como objeto, nave o entidad no pertenezca necesariamente a la anomal铆a misma, sino a la forma que adquiere una interacci贸n cuyo mecanismo todav铆a desconocemos.
Si esta posibilidad tiene alg煤n valor, deber谩 encontrarse en su capacidad para explicar patrones, enfrentar casos que la contradigan y, eventualmente, formular observaciones que permitan ponerla a prueba.
Desde mi punto de vista, ah铆 se encuentra una de las mayores dificultades de toda esta historia: separar aquello que verdaderamente se manifiesta de todo lo que nosotros hemos humanizado al intentar explicarlo.
Existe una anomal铆a, s铆, pero quiz谩s nunca lleguemos a comprenderla por completo, menos a atraparla.
Art铆culo escrito para: Revista de Ufolog铆a.
Revisa la revista completa: Click Aqu铆
Para m谩s informaci贸n sobre la hip贸tesis ORBIT: Click Aqu铆
UAP Declassification Through the Lens of the
ORBIT Hypothesis
By Iv谩n Vega Recabal
The emergence of information related to a
Department of Defense program devoted to the study of advanced aerospace
threats, Luis Elizondo’s statements, and the release of videos obtained by U.S.
Navy pilots brought the phenomenon back into a discussion from which it had
remained partially marginalized for decades. In the following years came the
Pentagon’s official confirmation and release of three military videos, reports
from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the creation
of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), NASA’s involvement, and new
hearings in the U.S. Congress. The issue thus began to move from the margins of
popular culture toward an institutionally recognized problem related to
airspace security, intelligence, and the need to improve the quality of
available data.
This declassification process has generated
enormous expectations. For many people, it represents a path toward
confirmation that governments and military forces have recovered
extraterrestrial craft, non-human biological bodies, or technologies with extraordinary
characteristics that have been kept secret for decades. However, the course of
events has revealed a considerably more complex picture.
On the one hand, highly trained military
pilots such as David Fravor and Ryan Graves have described encounters with
phenomena whose flight characteristics, according to their testimony, were
difficult to explain. Whistleblowers such as David Grusch have testified under
oath that they received information about alleged programs for the recovery of
materials and biological remains associated with non-human intelligences. At
the same time, members of Congress such as Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna,
Jared Moskowitz, Chuck Schumer, and Mike Rounds have promoted initiatives aimed
at increasing transparency and facilitating public access to UAP-related
information.
However, it is worth considering what this
process has actually established. The three military videos that became known
as FLIR1, GIMBAL, and GOFAST provide a useful starting point. In April 2020,
the Department of Defense officially authorized their release and confirmed
that the recordings corresponded to encounters documented by U.S. Navy
aviators: one from November 2004 and two from January 2015. The official
statement also maintained that the phenomena observed in those recordings
continued to be characterized as “unidentified.”
That confirmation was important, but its
scope must be clearly defined. The Pentagon confirmed the authenticity of the
recordings; it did not confirm that they showed extraterrestrial aircraft,
non-human technologies, or that the apparently extraordinary characteristics
seen in some of those images necessarily corresponded to the actual physical
behavior of the recorded objects. This distinction may seem obvious, but it is
fundamental to understanding what followed. Authenticity is not the same as
explanation. An observation remaining unidentified merely indicates that, with
the available information, we have not been able to explain what we are
observing or determine its origin.
The preliminary report published by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence in June 2021 reinforced
precisely this caution. The document examined 144 reports originating between
2004 and 2021, mainly concentrated in the later years of that period, and noted
that 80 involved observations recorded by multiple sensors. However, the same
report warned that limited data consistency, differences among sensors, and the
conditions under which observations occurred made firm conclusions difficult.
Only one of the 144 cases could be identified with high confidence in that
initial analysis.
This is interesting because it allows us to
see two things that should not be confused. On the one hand, it shows that
there were incidents sufficiently relevant to justify an official investigation
and that some had been recorded by more than one observation system. On the
other, it shows that “unidentified” remained a category of uncertainty rather
than an explanation of the phenomenon’s origin. The report itself also
acknowledged that the sociocultural stigma historically associated with UAP may
have hindered information collection, although it noted that this perception
was beginning to change.
From that point onward, the debate began to
shift considerably. It was no longer merely a matter of determining what pilots
were observing or what certain sensors were recording. Far more extraordinary
claims began to take center stage: that sectors of the U.S. government had
known the answer for decades and had even recovered vehicles of non-human
origin.
One of the best-known public expressions of
this new phase came from David Grusch. On July 26, 2023, during a House of
Representatives hearing, the former intelligence officer testified under oath
that he had been informed of a UAP recovery and reverse-engineering program to
which, he said, he had been denied access. Asked during the hearing about the
recovery of bodies associated with some of those objects, he replied that he
had been informed of the existence of “non-human biologics.”
The scope of those statements requires careful consideration. A significant portion of what Grusch publicly presented came from information that, according to him, he had obtained from other people connected to those alleged programs. He also stated that he had provided information to the appropriate bodies and indicated that certain details could only be discussed in a classified setting. His testimony therefore constitutes information that deserves investigation, but it does not by itself amount to the public presentation of a recovered aircraft, a body, a biological sample, or material whose non-human origin has been established through independent analysis.
Official investigations published
subsequently have not corroborated those claims. In its 2024 historical review,
AARO stated that it had found no evidence that any official U.S. investigation
had confirmed a UAP observation as extraterrestrial technology, nor empirical
evidence that the U.S. government or private companies had reverse-engineered
technology of such origin. AARO further stated that it had investigated
allegations concerning programs, individuals, companies, and locations
mentioned by interviewees.
This does not by itself prove that every
allegation is false, nor does it make AARO the definitive arbiter of the
phenomenon. It does, however, establish an important boundary for this
analysis: so far, claims involving recovered vehicles, exotic materials, and
non-human biological remains have not been accompanied, in the public domain,
by physical evidence whose non-human origin has been independently verified.
NASA encountered a similar difficulty from
a scientific perspective. Its independent UAP study, published in 2023, stated
that the small number of high-quality observations prevented firm scientific
conclusions about the nature of these phenomena. Its work was not intended to
review and resolve historical cases, but rather to determine what data should
be collected and how to collect it in order to enable more rigorous scientific
study. This consideration is less spectacular than talk of recovered craft or non-human
intelligences, but perhaps far more important: before explaining the origin of
an anomaly, we need sufficient information to characterize it.
After this entire journey, a strange
situation emerges. We have pilots who observed something, sensors that recorded
some of those encounters, agencies created specifically to study them, and
reports accumulated over years. We also have testimony concerning secret
programs, recoveries, and biological remains. Yet between one and the other
there remains an enormous gap. We know that observations exist that we cannot
always explain; what we do not know is whether behind them there truly exists
the architecture of recovered craft, occupants, and technologies that has
accompanied the phenomenon for decades.
This difference between what has been
observed, what has been testified to, and what has ultimately been demonstrated
is, in my view, one of the most interesting aspects of the current
declassification process.
And it is precisely at this point that the
ORBIT hypothesis (Observable Reality Bridging Interaction Theory) begins to
become relevant.
This hypothesis does not begin with the
traditional question that has dominated the debate for decades: Who is behind
the phenomenon?
It proposes a different question.
What happens when the phenomenon manifests
itself?
This methodological shift is fundamental
because it redirects attention from the identity of the anomaly toward the
process through which it interacts with our reality. Rather than trying to
demonstrate whether it involves extraterrestrial visitors, interdimensional
intelligences, or secret technologies, the ORBIT hypothesis proposes first
examining the patterns that appear to recur across different documented cases
and testimonies.
From this perspective, the hypothesis
proposes that the phenomenon does not necessarily begin with the appearance of
a craft, but with the manifestation of an anomaly whose nature remains unknown.
The first postulate of the ORBIT hypothesis
holds precisely this possibility: a significant portion of UAP cases could
correspond to anomalies belonging to a domain of reality normally inaccessible
to human perception which, under certain circumstances, temporarily interact
with our environment.
When that interaction occurs, the anomaly
could manifest objectively through lights, orbs, luminous structures, or other
configurations detectable both by human observers and, in certain cases, by
technological instruments. Within the hypothesis, this stage would constitute
the physical dimension of the phenomenon and could account for episodes in
which a human observation is accompanied by instrumental records.
However, the hypothesis proposes that the
experience does not end there.
When the anomaly interacts with the
observer’s consciousness, it could automatically trigger a process called
entanglement. From that moment onward, the experience begins to involve not
only the objective presence of the anomaly, but also the cognitive structure of
the individual observing it.
As a consequence of entanglement, a
transient condition called the Bubble Effect would emerge, characterized by
perceptual alterations, changes in the experience of time, a sense of
environmental isolation, and other phenomena that recur in accounts of high-strangeness
encounters.
It is within this setting that the core of
the ORBIT model appears: the microreality.
The hypothesis proposes that the anomaly
extracts randomly available information from the observer’s consciousness—their
knowledge, memories, symbols, experiences, and personal cultural
references—and, using those cognitive resources, unfolds an experience that is
not necessarily coherent.
The hypothesis proposes that, once entanglement has occurred, the extraction of information available in the observer’s consciousness happens automatically, as part of the process itself rather than as a deliberate action by the anomaly. It is at this point that an experience unfolds which is not necessarily coherent.
This idea now allows us to return to some
of the official cases and records mentioned at the beginning of this article
and ask, cautiously, to what extent they can—or cannot—be related to the
postulates of this hypothesis.
Official Records Through the Lens of the ORBIT Hypothesis
The FLIR1, GIMBAL, and GOFAST videos allow
us to establish an important initial distinction. Their value for the ORBIT
hypothesis does not lie in demonstrating the existence of extraordinary
technology, much less in confirming the model. Their importance lies at an
earlier level: they constitute authentic military records of events that, at
the time of their official release, continued to be characterized by the
Department of Defense as unidentified.
From the standpoint of this hypothesis,
this would allow them to be related only to the model’s first postulates: the
existence of an anomaly and its objective manifestation. There is an event
recorded by an instrumental system and sufficient information exists to justify
analysis, but not necessarily to determine its nature. At this level, ORBIT
does not need to attribute intelligence, extraterrestrial origin, or
extraordinary physical properties to what appears in the images. The relevant
fact is more elementary: there is an observation that must be characterized
before it is interpreted.
FLIR1, associated with the November 2004
USS Nimitz encounter, is particularly interesting because the instrumental
record forms part of a broader episode that also involved human observers. The
recording by itself does not demonstrate the extraordinary characteristics
attributed to the object in testimony, nor does it establish its origin.
However, considered alongside the account of David Fravor and other
participants in the encounter, it allows two levels that the ORBIT hypothesis
regards as fundamental to be separated: what can be instrumentally recorded and
what the observer subsequently experiences, describes, and interprets. It is
precisely in the distance between these two levels that the hypothesis locates
part of its field of study.
GIMBAL, recorded in January 2015, presents
a similar problem. The image shows a signature captured by an electro-optical
system and accompanied by the reactions of the aviators themselves. But the
recording alone does not allow the physical nature of the phenomenon to be
reconstructed unambiguously. From the ORBIT perspective, this limitation is
important: the instrument records information; afterward, the human being
attempts to turn that information into a recognizable object. Distinguishing
between the data captured by the sensor and the interpretation we construct
from it is essential if we are to avoid attributing to the anomaly
characteristics that might instead belong to the observation system, the
recording conditions, or our subsequent interpretation.
GOFAST demands even greater caution. The
initial impression produced by an image may suggest extraordinary speeds or
behaviors, but determining the actual physical characteristics of what is
recorded requires knowledge of distances, geometry, platform motion, sensor
operation, and other parameters. From the ORBIT perspective, this case
functions precisely as a methodological warning: the anomalous should not
automatically be confused with the extraordinary. A phenomenon may remain
unidentified without that allowing us to attribute capabilities that the
available data do not demonstrate.
The three videos therefore establish a
particularly useful boundary for the hypothesis. FLIR1, GIMBAL, and GOFAST can
be related to objective manifestation insofar as authentic instrumental records
exist of events that required analysis, but the recordings alone do not allow
us to advance toward the postulates of entanglement, the Bubble Effect,
microreality, or humanization. Exploring those stages requires another kind of
information: the observer’s testimony, the characteristics of their experience,
and especially the possible distance between what was recorded and what the
person claims to have perceived.
This is precisely where the testimony of
pilots such as Ryan Graves and David Fravor takes on a different value for this
analysis. Not because it proves the ORBIT hypothesis, but because it allows an
apparently objective dimension of the event to be compared with the
extraordinarily specific way in which certain observers described what they
encountered.
Ryan Graves has related that pilots in his
squadron observed objects described as dark cubes contained within transparent
spheres. One possible interpretation is to assume that this description
approximately corresponds to the morphology of what was observed. This
hypothesis proposes exploring a different possibility, without presenting it as
an established fact.
The sphere could correspond to the initial
objective manifestation of the anomaly, while the cube could represent one of
the first configurations constructed by the microreality from the technological
language and cognitive references characteristic of a military pilot trained to
identify aircraft, geometries, and aerial threats.
Similarly, the famous Tic Tac described by
David Fravor might not necessarily correspond to the physical structure of a
craft. It could constitute the most stable representation that the
consciousness of a fighter pilot was able to organize when confronted with a
completely unknown anomaly: a simple, technological-looking form, not
necessarily aerodynamic or coherent, but one that allowed him to convert an
extraordinary experience into an image that could later be communicated.
In both cases, the ORBIT hypothesis does
not question the truthfulness of the testimony.
What it proposes reconsidering is the level
of reality to which the observed form belongs.
The anomaly may be completely real.
The representation may also be completely
real for the person experiencing it.
But the two could correspond to different levels of the same interaction process.
This interpretation takes on an even more
interesting dimension when the historical evolution of U.S. institutional
language itself is examined.
For decades, the term Unidentified Flying
Objects was used.
Subsequently, official U.S. terminology
evolved toward Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.
The change may seem minor, but it has
interesting conceptual implications.
An object presupposes, at least in ordinary
language, a material entity.
A phenomenon allows an observable event to
be described without determining its nature in advance.
The term anomaly broadens that uncertainty
even further.
This does not mean that the evolution of
institutional language confirms the ORBIT hypothesis. It is nevertheless
interesting that the terminology used to describe these events has become
progressively less dependent on the idea of a clearly defined physical object.
From this perspective, this evolution is
compatible with the methodological approach of the hypothesis.
While much of the debate remains focused on
determining who is piloting the supposed craft, the ORBIT hypothesis proposes
directing attention toward a different question: understanding how the anomaly
interacts with our reality and with human experience.
From this perspective, the public absence
of verifiable evidence concerning recovered bodies or technological remains
does not eliminate the problem posed by those cases that remain without a
conclusive identification. What it does is prevent us from moving directly from
“unidentified phenomenon” to “non-human technology.” It is precisely within
this space of uncertainty that the hypothesis attempts to operate.
It simply questions one specific
interpretation of the phenomenon.
If the anomaly belongs to a domain of
reality that interacts only temporarily with our environment, perhaps we should
also reconsider what we expect to find as evidence. Rather than necessarily
searching for crashed vehicles, metallic fragments, or even non-human
biological remains, we might pay greater attention to transient manifestations,
testimony, instrumental records, multiple observations, and extraordinary
experiences for which the available information does not always permit a
definitive identification. Whether such an anomaly can leave physical traces
remains unknown.
The ORBIT hypothesis does not claim to
solve the UAP phenomenon. Its purpose is to attempt to organize what we are
observing and identify patterns that may help us understand it better, without
prematurely defining what it is or where it comes from.
Likewise, the current declassification
process also forces us to reconsider some of the questions we have asked for
decades. For a long time, a significant part of the UFO discussion centered on
determining whether these were extraterrestrial craft.
Perhaps that was never the most important
question.
The real question could be much simpler
and, at the same time, much more profound:
What exactly happens when an anomaly
interacts with our reality and with human consciousness?
If that question is the right one, the new
public phase that began in 2017 might be remembered not as the moment when
humanity confirmed the existence of visitors from other worlds, but as the
moment when it began to study the phenomenon from a different perspective—more
cautious and more closely aligned with the evidence.
In that scenario, the ORBIT hypothesis
appears not as an alternative to declassification, but as a possible
interpretive framework through which to attempt to organize a set of
observations that, so far, continue to resist traditional categories of analysis.
Perhaps declassification and the opening of
these records are only part of the journey. We can open archives, learn of
testimony that remained hidden for decades, and gain access to information that
was previously unavailable to us, yet we will still face the same problem:
determining what it is that we are actually observing.
What we can recognize is the recurrence of
certain elements in some cases: something intrudes into our observable field,
produces an experience that is difficult to integrate within our usual
categories, and often disappears, leaving behind more questions than conclusive
material evidence.
No matter how far this declassification
proceeds, I believe that not even its most devoted investigators can be certain
about the enormous and complex web of rumors that has fueled this whole affair.
I sincerely find, so far, insufficient
reason to accept the existence of such non-human biological remains, much less
exotic aircraft stored for decades in some secret location. The claims exist,
and some come from people with relevant professional backgrounds, but the
physical evidence that would allow them to be publicly verified remains absent.
An undertaking of such magnitude would also be extraordinarily difficult to
compartmentalize and keep hidden for decades from the many scientists, military
personnel, officials, contractors, and researchers who would necessarily have
had to participate in a structure of that nature. I find it difficult to
believe that something like that exists behind the curtain.
There is also a less extraordinary
possibility that should not be dismissed: some of the secrecy may not
necessarily protect recovered craft, but rather the limitations of military
systems themselves in identifying, understanding, or responding to certain
events. Publicly acknowledging that phenomena exist which can enter monitored
spaces without being immediately identified may itself constitute a
vulnerability that any defense establishment would have reason to manage
cautiously.
It is also possible that, over the decades,
we have humanized the anomaly to such an extent that we have ultimately
transformed it into a recognizable construct: aircraft, occupants,
technologies, recoveries, and materials, because those are precisely the
categories through which our culture learned to interpret what descended from
the sky.
That construction may have taken root so deeply that many people today continue searching for clues to a rumor distorted by an era in which secrecy was everything—a narrative that ultimately became part of ufological-military folklore, growing around the phenomenon until it became confused with the phenomenon itself.
After reviewing this background, I believe
we can establish at least a few important distinctions. First, the existence of
observations and reports that remain unidentified constitutes a legitimate
subject of investigation. Their recurrence has been sufficient to prompt
official investigations, new reporting mechanisms, and sustained interest from
scientific, military, and intelligence organizations. But the fact that an
observation remains unidentified does not by itself determine its origin or
confirm any of the explanations constructed around it.
Second, there is a considerable distance
between what has been documented and some of the more extraordinary claims that
have emerged during this process. Testimony concerning recovery programs,
exotic materials, and non-human biological remains deserves investigation,
especially when it comes from people connected to the intelligence or defense
establishment, but so far it has not been accompanied, in the public domain, by
independent physical evidence capable of turning those claims into established
facts. This distinction between testimony, evidence, and interpretation should
remain at the center of any serious analysis of the phenomenon.
Third, the ORBIT hypothesis does not
resolve that uncertainty either. Its scope is more limited: to consider the
possibility that some of what we interpret as an object, craft, or entity may
not necessarily belong to the anomaly itself, but rather to the form assumed by
an interaction whose mechanism remains unknown.
If this possibility has any value, it will
have to be found in its ability to explain patterns, confront cases that
contradict it, and eventually formulate observations that allow it to be
tested.
From my point of view, this is where one of
the greatest difficulties in this entire story lies: separating what truly
manifests itself from everything we have humanized in our attempt to explain
it.
There is an anomaly, yes, but perhaps we
will never fully understand it, much less capture it.
Article written for: Revista de Ufolog铆a.
Read the full magazine: Click Here
For more information about the ORBIT hypothesis: Click Here
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
