Is our inability to make NHI contact a frequency problem — not a technology problem?

[Sandra]

The UAP disclosure hearings of 2023 confirmed what many in this community have long suspected: non-human intelligence is real, and it appears to be interacting with our world in a structured, non-random way.

But here's a framework I've been sitting with lately that completely reframes the contact question.

Most "contact readiness" discussions focus on radar systems, radio telescopes, mathematical signal protocols. What if we're optimising for the wrong variable entirely?

Exopsychological research suggests that positively oriented NHI operate in high-coherence frequency bands — not as a metaphor, but as a measurable compatibility principle. The idea: a civilisation that radiates a domination-saturated, fear-based, incoherent signal isn't going to receive a response — not because the signal isn't being heard, but because there's no compatible channel to respond through.

If that model is correct, then consciousness development — Remote Viewing practice, meditation, cultivating collective empathy — isn't a soft add-on to contact preparation. It literally is contact preparation.

There's a related concept called the "Integration Point" — the civilisational threshold at which a species transitions from fragmented individuation to organic collective intelligence. Relevant to Paracast discussions about UAP patterns and why disclosure seems to be happening gradually and pedagogically rather than all at once.

More on the framework here: Are We Vibrating at the Right Frequency to Meet Non-Human Intelligence? A Civilizational Readiness Guide - THE STAR EMBASSY

Does anyone here think the UAP disclosure acceleration itself might be functioning as a frequency catalyst — calibrated to accelerate human consciousness development without triggering destabilisation?

 

[Burnt State]

The UAP disclosure hearings of 2023 confirmed what many in this community have long suspected: non-human intelligence is real, and it appears to be interacting with our world in a structured, non-random way.

I really haven't seen any proof provided at these hearings of NHI existing let alone a structured program at work. The history of ufology is really one big random collection of sightings and interactions with something very strange that appears in the guise of aliens from outer space.

Exopsychological research suggests that positively oriented NHI operate in high-coherence frequency bands

I would love to see this research and was unaware such detailed work was being done. Please point us at these materials.

There's a related concept called the "Integration Point" — the civilisational threshold at which a species transitions from fragmented individuation to organic collective intelligence. Relevant to Paracast discussions about UAP patterns and why disclosure seems to be happening gradually and pedagogically rather than all at once.

Two points here.....practically speaking, the integration point would require us to work across all cultural and social barriers. Maybe before we learn to become remote viewers and consciousness explorers we need to get educated in diversity and equity issues, so that we can remove the basic barriers that currently divide us in our nations and between nations. As Chris O'Brien frequently pointed out - why would a higher civilisation want to visit this misogynist, racist, environmentally destructive backwoods planet in the first place?

From looking at the history of supposed contact, going backwards in time as per Aubeck and Vallee, though to the modern era of ufology, I have not seen patterns of education nor disclosure. Instead we appear to have rather bizarre and absurdist contact moments and potential abductions. We have had many attempts to define patterns of UFO incidents but none have really borne fruit. The only real pattern is a shift in the nature of the technology appearing in our skies across the last 125 years.

Does anyone here think the UAP disclosure acceleration itself might be functioning as a frequency catalyst — calibrated to accelerate human consciousness development without triggering destabilisation?

I don't see an acceleration of disclosure at work, if anything it would appear that there's been a slowing down of sightings. We used to see armadas of ships flying across America back in the 50's and 60's, along with regular sightings of soil sampling aliens around their ships and highly dramatic abduction events, but now we have only the occasional unique sighting getting reported in any substantial way which includes whatever videos the navy wants us to look at. Consequently, I'm not too sure about this whole higher frequency thing you're talking about.

 

[Sandra]

Burnt State — thanks for pushing back on this with actual substance. You're right to call out the difference between testimony and proof. The 2023 hearings were testimony, and testimony from compelling witnesses is not the same as verified evidence. I should have been clearer on that.

On the "exopsychological research" — fair challenge. I was drawing loosely on work in the consciousness research space (Thomas Campbell's My Big TOE, some of Rudy Schild's work on quantum mind and NHI), which is more theoretical than empirical. I should have flagged that framing as speculative rather than presenting it as an established field. Noted.

The Chris O'Brien point is actually one I find genuinely compelling — and interestingly, it supports rather than undermines the frequency argument. If the barrier to contact is partly ethical and cultural coherence (which you and O'Brien are essentially arguing), then the "frequency" framing becomes less mystical and more sociological. A civilisation that can't cooperate across its own divisions may simply not be at the threshold for stable contact — regardless of technology.

On sightings declining — that's a real observation. One counterpoint worth considering: the shift from quantity to quality (less armadas of craft, more precise, hard-to-explain events like the Tic Tac) may itself be meaningful. Whether that's signal or noise is genuinely unclear. Good thread.

 

[Randall]

Most "contact readiness" discussions focus on radar systems, radio telescopes, mathematical signal protocols. What if we're optimising for the wrong variable entirely?

A fair question — but given the variables, the aliens should still be able to detect and respond on the frequencies we're using, and in doing so, remove the uncertainty from the situation. So why don't they? Could it be because they're no longer actually here?

More on the framework here: Are We Vibrating at the Right Frequency to Meet Non-Human Intelligence? A Civilizational Readiness Guide - THE STAR EMBASSY

Looks like that site is reaching a little far — but it's still interesting from a ufology culture perspective.

Does anyone here think the UAP disclosure acceleration itself might be functioning as a frequency catalyst — calibrated to accelerate human consciousness development without triggering destabilisation?

Not me — but something analogous seems to have been taking place in the past.
Today "phenomenon" can be produced by our own technology that looks the same — but isn't.
So without scientifically valid material evidence, how do we tell the difference now?

 

[Tyger]

On sightings declining — that's a real observation. One counterpoint worth considering: the shift from quantity to quality (less armadas of craft, more precise, hard-to-explain events like the Tic Tac) may itself be meaningful. Whether that's signal or noise is genuinely unclear. Good thread.

The tic-tac 'disclosure' is far from from high quality. Several red flags -
1 - took place years ago (impossible to assemble random corollary witnesses to verify even something as simple as a duty roster)
2 - government doesn't release video like that, or control of it, without permission, pointing to a psyops or nefarious actors [see below]
3 - claims are themselves odd with no internal verification possible, just say-so among 3 men (was it 3?)

Thanks to @Burnt State mentioning Mick West (who is a great analyst) I made my way over to his videos to see what he said:
Came across this LINK: Debunking Navy “UFO” Videos

“With the help of others, I quickly arrived at likely explanations for all three videos,” West explains. “The FLIR video is most likely a distant plane. The video was taken well after the famous encounter with a hypersonic zig-zagging tic-tac by pilots from the Nimitz [aircraft carrier]. This object doesn’t actually move on screen – except when the camera moves, and it resembles an out of focus low-resolution backlit plane. I don’t know what the pilots saw, but this video does not show anything really interesting.”

The GIMBAL video is also probably of a plane, West continues. “It’s not rotating. What you see is the infrared glare of the engines, larger than the plane. It looks like it is rotating because of an artifact of the gimbal-mounted camera system.” As for the “AURA” around the plane, that’s just image sharpening, he adds. “It happens all the time in thermal camera footage. It’s not an alien warp drive, it’s just the unsharp mask filter.”

Lastly, the GO-FAST video probably shows a balloon, West surmises. “It’s not moving fast, it’s not skimming the water, and you can verify this yourself because all the information you need is in the numbers on screen. It’s just an effect caused by parallax,” he concludes.

Without even being a scientist one can sniff out the bogus nature of this 'disclosure'. Sadly, most such disclosures never stand up to even cursory analysis. My guess as to why we don't see more UFO sightings is because it's harder to fake these things with today's technology.

Mick West Video (Run Time 2:53) :

 

[Tyger]

The UAP disclosure hearings of 2023 confirmed what many in this community have long suspected: non-human intelligence is real, and it appears to be interacting with our world in a structured, non-random way.

Quite the reverse - anyone who has followed the UFO story from as far back as the 1950s will attest to being harder and harder to be taken in by any claims. The so-named 'whistleblowers' at that hearing were cringeworthy. The real question now is: why has the US government flipped to egging on the UFO narrative? If that's what it's doing.

 

[Tyger]

@Sandra Just curious: what AI are you using for your posts' text formulations? It's very recognizable.

 

[Randall]

@Sandra Just curious: what AI are you using for your posts' text formulations? It's very recognizable.

We'll see. At present, it looks like promotional content for the associated website.
It's getting more and more difficult to tell whether or not the content we see is AI, human, or some combination of the two.
If we take such things as spell and grammar checks into account, virtually all of it is now some combination of the two.
The whole site — maybe even the commenter could be sock puppets for Jakub "Qba" Niegowski also behind wcentrumrozwoju.pl

 

[Tyger]

We'll see. At present, it looks like promotional content for the associated website.
It's getting more and more difficult to tell whether or not the content we see is AI, human, or some combination of the two.
If we take such things as spell and grammar checks into account, virtually all of it is now some combination of the two.
The whole site — maybe even the commenter could be sock puppets for Jakub "Qba" Niegowski also behind wcentrumrozwoju.pl

Well, @Randall , you went far more into it than I did. Fact is she signed up yesterday and within minutes made her post. She also showed up at close to 3:00 p.m. today and yet did not choose to answer my question about the AI usage which I posted at 11:00 a.m. (Nor answer your recent post - all of which she would have seen at 2:36 p.m. today when she came back on site).

My question was actually very simple and very innocent: the structure of her text - in particular when she responded to @Burnt State - is a structure I have seen before almost word-for-word.

" ... thanks for pushing back on this with actual substance."
" ... You're right to call out the difference between .... "
" ... I should have been clearer on that."
" ... fair challenge ... "
" ... noted ... "
" ... point is actually one I find genuinely compelling ... "
" ... that's a real observation."
" ... may itself be meaningful."
" ... Whether that's signal or noise is genuinely unclear."
" ... Good thread."

It's a style - like AI has been programmed to respond in a particular style, right down to word order. It's very polite, and used to great effect in discussions that could be considered contentious perhaps. Hallmark is it's devoid of personality.

Someone I converse with elsewhere gives a heads-up that he is using AI for his responses - I could ask him, of course. He uses AI to formulate his answers and notates that fact at the bottom of his posts. I have to say it's very off-putting.

So I have experience with AI-generated-text in an informal setting (AI would be less noticeable, I think, in a professional context). Her response to Burnt state just flashed out at me.

Of course she's in her rights to use AI. Totally fine - I was just hoping to find out more about how she uses it and how it's done.

@Sandra My question stands: did you use AI?
If you did, how do you go about it? what application did you use?
If you didn't, then I was wrong, and it's a learning experience for me.