Decoding the Non-Human Agenda: What 30 Years of UAP Encounters Reveal About Intent

The global conversation about Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) has rapidly moved from questioning “if” they exist to demanding “how” they operate. Yet, the most critical question—the “why”—often remains unaddressed: What is the intent of the intelligence behind these craft, and how should humanity respond?

For decades, UAP data has seemed like a scattered “scatter plot”, defying clear geographic,
temporal, or circumstantial analysis. However, by applying structured methodologies and
analytic techniques borrowed from the intelligence and business analytics worlds, researchers are beginning to glean signals and patterns that reveal a profound and purposeful agenda at play.

The imperative of studying intent is clear: we must understand if these entities are here to
cooperate, survey, or exploit. As Larry Hancock noted, many investigators approach the subject “incident by incident report by report and quite honestly that’s interesting but where does it really get you”? To move beyond anecdotal evidence, we must commit to studying the patterns of activity.

Indications Analysis: A Method for Unpacking the Data

The study of intent requires a methodical approach, often referred to as indications analysis. This methodology does not seek a “perfect incident” to prove extraterrestrial existence, but rather deals with a vast series of data points to find focus, transitions, and activity.

The research focused on by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) relies on highly
curated reports—over 1,100 cases—where the observer had “some skin in the game,” such as
sworn military or law enforcement reports. This vetted data allows researchers to define
potential scenarios (such as survey, exploitation, or recognition of intelligence) and map
observed UAP behaviors against them.

As Ian Porritt explained, UAPs are “not just randomly turning up”. The goal is to understand if
they want to “cooperate with us or assist us” or if they want to “exploit us”. This systematic
approach allows researchers to rank possibilities, establishing a “most likely least likely
estimate” for NHI intentions.

Key Findings: The Focus Transitions

Analysis of UAP activity between 1945 and 1975 reveals stark patterns and transitions,
suggesting a controlled, evolutionary focus by the non-human intelligence (NHI):

1. Focused Interest in Atomic Capabilities

The data reveals a definitive and mobile focus on the U.S. atomic warfare complex. This interest was not static or widespread, but rather transitioned across the development cycle of nuclear weapons:

• Development Sites: Initial focus on facilities like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos.
• Stockpiles and Assembly: UAP attention shifted to weapons assembly plants and
  storage sites.
• Deployment Sites (ICBMs): The NHI focus transitioned to deployed weapon systems,
  such as ICBM bases.

Larry Hancock noted that once the weapons were moved to new stages (like deployment), the UAPs “never came back” to the previous sites. This “definite progression” suggests an
intelligence conducting a “survey” with specific guidelines—understanding what is being
developed, how it is weaponized, where it is stored, and how it is delivered. This interest was
often definitively correlated by missile type, with clusters of incidents occurring at Atlas and
Titan ICBM sites upon their deployment, and then fading.

This responsiveness extended to geopolitical events. The tight cluster of intrusions at Northern Tier atomic warfare sites in October and November 1975 occurred as the U.S. transitioned to the Minute Man 3 ICBM, which carried multiple re-entry warheads. This exponential increase in destructive capability, coupled with heightened Cold War tensions, appears to have triggered an “intense concentrated interest” from the NHI.

2. The Shift from Overt Display to Clandestine Approach

Early UAP activity (1945–1949) was predominantly overt and occurred during daytime hours.
These were often “display type activities” involving “interactive flight, radical flight and loitering,” allowing observers to see the craft’s advanced capabilities in a visible way. This behavior could be interpreted as “inferential messaging,” intended to signal, “we’re here, we’re friendly, we’re advanced”.

However, the analysis revealed a dramatic transition:

• By the mid-1960s and 1970s, UAP activity was predominantly nighttime.
• The activity shifted from overt, display-type encounters to more clandestine nighttime
• close approaches, particularly involving the public in rural areas.

3. Attempted Communications: The IFFF Signals

Between the overt displays and the clandestine approaches, there were short, intense clusters of electronic transmission activity, specifically involving IFFF (Identification Friend or Foe) signaling. These incidents occurred with air defense installations and airborne intelligence aircraft.

IFFF codes are complex communications signals requiring knowledge of specific frequencies
and digital code groups. In certain cases, NHI craft responded to queries from military
installations on the correct channel, sending a code that indicated “friendly” status.

As Larry Hancock observed, the UAPs seemed to move through the initial steps of a contact
protocol—making themselves visible, attempting signaling—but when there was no effective
response, they shifted behavior around 1957 (a key year in UAP reporting). The lack of
response may have led to the next phase of engagement.

4. The Behavioral Study Hypothesis

The dramatic shift toward clandestine nighttime approaches, often targeting individuals or small groups in remote areas (like the “rust belt area” and later the Hudson River Valley), supports the hypothesis that the NHI moved from technical survey to behavioral studies.

This change suggests curiosity over humanity’s “nonresponsiveness”. If a culture fails to react to highly visible, advanced phenomena, the intelligence might conclude that the next step is to observe individual human responses on a more fundamental level, such as the basic “flight fright level”. The NHI may be “still wrestling with understanding us,” necessitating a “very personal dynamic” over a large group dynamic.

The Implications of Intent: A Limited, Purposeful Presence

The pattern analysis suggests important conclusions regarding the nature and magnitude of the non-human presence: Against Covert Contact (1947–1957): The initial visibility, messaging, and signaling argue against the notion of a purely covert contact and secret treaties in the earliest years, as suggested by some counter-narratives. If the NHI wanted pure secrecy, they would not have been so visible with their technical capabilities.

A Limited Resource: The sequence of targeted activity—moving from one atomic site to the next rather than blanketing the globe simultaneously—suggests that the NHI presence may be numerically constrained. Ian Porritt speculated that it may be “difficult to get to earth,” requiring them to take a “slow and purposeful approach” with limited resources, necessitating a long-term play.

The End of the Data Stream: The study had to conclude in 1975 because that is where the flow of high-quality, vetted military and government reports largely ended (due to the termination of Project Blue Book). This strategic push by the U.S. military-industrial complex to end public inquiry coincides with the NHI’s own shift to a more clandestine mode. This leaves a crucial gap in our modern understanding. If NHI are functioning “down and in”—not merely “up and out”—their strategic silence complicates every attempt to determine
their motives.

This complex and evolving situation requires a structured approach to critical thinking and
responsible action. Reed Summers writes and speaks extensively on the UFO/UAP issue,
dedicated to providing a comprehensive and logical framework for understanding Contact and the non-human agenda. His work focuses on unraveling the mystery of the non-human
intelligences operating in our world, including their activities, agenda, and overarching purpose. Reed believes that Contact represents a major evolutionary hurdle for the human species, one that requires thoughtful, conscientious involvement by individuals.

To move beyond passive speculation and develop your own intelligent assessment, we invite you to become a pioneer in this frontier by joining Forerunner, a platform offering structured learning, collaborative analysis, and key tools for those ready to actively assess the nature and intent of NHI. The founding feature of Forerunner is the comprehensive Decoding Alien Intent course, which provides a logical process and framework for assessing NHI motives and involvements, equipping you to make your own evidence-based conclusions.

Stay current with ongoing analysis, including discussions of NHI, Disclosure, and Citizen Action, by subscribing to the Emergent Podcast on his YouTube channel and follow Reed on X.