UAP Likelihood Analysis: A Rational Breakdown

Another bored Saturday night. Instead of getting high or drunk, like 10 or 20 years ago, going out to a club or a party, I’m sitting here contemplating the likelihood of a specific scenario regarding the existence, nature and implication of UAPs.

Fascinated by the Drake Equation, with a penchant for logic and rationality and a fervent hope to experience at least one paradigm-shattering numinous event in my lifetime, I started feeding a couple of LLMs (using their highest rationality models) some assumptions, testing them against sources, assigning odds and whittling away at uncertainty and ambiguity.

It’s not drinks out with friends in a place with flashing lights and loud music, but it is quite exciting and surprising nonetheless.

The Question

What if we applied cold, hard probability to the “Fox Mulder” interpretation of UAPs? Not the conspiracy theories, not the wild speculation, but the core claim: that some Unidentified Aerial Phenomena represent intelligently controlled, non-human craft that have been observing Earth since at least the 1940s, with governments suppressing disclosure for practical reasons.

This isn’t about belief. It’s about what the numbers tell us when we break down the scenario into components and assign probabilities based on expert testimony and public evidence.

The Method: Surprisal and Probability

Think of surprisal as a measure of “how shocked should I be?” It’s measured in bits – the same bits your computer uses. The more surprising something is, the more bits of surprisal it contains.

Here’s the key insight: if you string together a bunch of claims, their total surprisal adds up. Once you know the total surprisal in bits, you can calculate the probability: divide 1 by 2 raised to the power of the surprisal bits. So 10 bits of surprisal = 1 in 1,024 odds.

This is basically a localized Drake Equation – but instead of estimating the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy, we’re calculating the likelihood of a specific scenario right here on Earth.

A Note on Methodology

The surprisal for each component is calculated using Shannon Information Theory: Surprisal = -log₂(probability). This gives us the information content in bits. When we add up all the surprisal values, we get the total information content of the entire scenario being true. The beauty of this approach is that it transforms multiplicative probabilities into additive bits, making complex scenarios easier to grasp intuitively.

The Components

Let’s break down the “Fox Mulder scenario” into testable components:

The Analysis

Total surprisal: 3.10 bits, implying a probability of approximately 1 in 8.6

A More Conservative Estimate

When I looked at the numbers again from a more skeptical perspective, it produced these estimates:

Conservative total: 5.49 bits, implying 1 in 45

Even the conservative analysis yields odds you’d encounter in everyday life.

The Reasoning

Here’s where it gets interesting. When I first ran these numbers, we started with cosmic-level unlikelihood. But then I started pushing on the logic:

The Key Insight: If experts say UAP behavior demonstrates non-human tech capabilities, and human origin is therefore unlikely, then non-human origin cannot also be unlikely. They’re mutually exclusive – it has to be one or the other. You can’t have both be improbable if the phenomenon exists.

This forced a recalculation. Once you accept:

1. UAPs are real (confirmed by Pentagon)
2. They exhibit capabilities beyond human technology (expert consensus)

Then by logical necessity, if human origin is ruled out, non-human origin becomes the default explanation, not the extraordinary one.

The Economic Revelation

The part that really surprised me – and apparently surprises most people – is component G: economic and legal motivations for suppression. We’re so used to thinking about UFO secrecy in terms of “mass panic” or “religious upheaval.” But what if it’s just… money?

Think about it:

• If you have access to propulsion tech that breaks physics, you have a trillion-dollar advantage
• If you’ve been sitting on world-changing technology while people suffered from energy crises, the liability is astronomical
• If disclosure means every other nation immediately demands access, you lose your edge

This isn’t conspiracy thinking – it’s how every corporate and governmental secret works. The economic motive is more plausible than the “protecting humanity” narrative.

What This Means

1 in 8.6 is not unlikely at all.

For context, these are everyday odds:

• Rolling a 7 with two dice: 1 in 6
• Being left-handed: 1 in 10
• Having type O-negative blood: 1 in 15

We’re talking about odds better than being left-handed. Even the conservative estimate of 1 in 45 is still about as likely as:

• Rolling snake eyes (double ones) with dice: 1 in 36
• Being born on a specific day of the month: 1 in 30
• Drawing a specific card from a deck: 1 in 52

And 1 in 45 odds are FAR more likely than:

• Being dealt a flush in poker: 1 in 508
• Someone in a room of 23 sharing your birthday: 1 in 253
• Getting struck by lightning in your lifetime: 1 in 15,000

We deal with less likely events constantly. We plan for them. We insure against them. If someone told you there was a 1 in 45 chance of rain, you’d probably take an umbrella.

If this were any other domain – medical, financial, security – these probabilities would trigger immediate investigation and contingency planning. The only reason it doesn’t with UAPs is cultural inertia, not mathematical improbability.

The Implications

If we accept this analysis, several things follow:

1. The burden of proof has shifted. Denying the non-human hypothesis now requires more assumptions than accepting it.
2. Disclosure isn’t about readiness. It’s about who profits from the status quo.
3. We’re possibly living in a post-contact world that hasn’t admitted it to itself – not because we can’t handle the truth, but because some people are too ready to profit from our ignorance.
4. The “giggle factor” is doing heavy lifting. The only thing keeping this from serious mainstream analysis is social stigma, not lack of evidence.

Final Thought

This isn’t about believing in little green men. It’s about following evidence and logic wherever they lead. And right now, they lead to a conclusion that’s far more probable than most people realize: that the “Fox Mulder interpretation” isn’t the crazy theory anymore.

It might just be the least surprising explanation that fits the facts.

Citations

Military/Government Sources

• Nimitz Encounter (2004) – USS Nimitz “Tic Tac” incident
  • Official Navy video release
  • 60 Minutes coverage
• Gimbal and GoFast Videos – US Navy footage
  • Pentagon’s official UAP videos

Whistleblower Testimony

• David Grusch Congressional Testimony (2023)
  • House Oversight Committee Hearing
  • Full testimony transcript
• Wilson-Davis Memo
  • Document analysis

Historical Cases

• Project Blue Book
  • National Archives
• Foo Fighters (WWII)
  • Historical documentation

Expert Analysis

• COMETA Report (France, 1999)
  • English translation
• AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office)
  • Official website
  • 2023 Report to Congress

Pilot Reports

• JAL Flight 1628 (1986)
  • FAA documentation
• Chilean CEFAA Cases
  • Official CEFAA website

Recent Footage

• Jorge Arteaga Colombian Pilot Video
  • News coverage (Note: Original video circulated on social media without official verification)