What if the strangest visitors in human history were never aliens — but us?
Before anything else, a note on intellectual honesty.
This blog will make a speculative argument. It will do so by building on documented facts, legitimate physics, and cross-cultural evidence — and then, at a certain point, it will step across a line into inference. That line will be clearly marked. The argument does not pretend to be stronger than it is.
It is a case, not a proof. It asks whether something is coherent, not whether it is established. Those are different questions, and conflating them is how fringe ideas earn their bad reputations.
The extratempestrial model — developed and named by anthropologist and author Dr. Michael Paul Masters — deserves a better hearing than it typically gets, precisely because it is more rigorous than most of what surrounds it. So let’s give it one.
Part One: What Is Actually Being Funded
The claim that governments secretly research “UFOs and wormholes” is usually treated as tinfoil territory. But the documented reality is more interesting than the caricature.
The United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded research into spacetime metric engineering — the theoretical manipulation of the fabric of space itself — for decades. The NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts program (NIAC) has funded multiple peer-reviewed studies into propulsion concepts that require bending or shortening spacetime, including work directly referencing the Alcubierre warp metric. The Defense Intelligence Agency’s now-declassified Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which ran from 2007 to 2012, commissioned thirty-eight technical reports on subjects including traversable wormholes, negative energy, and quantum vacuum energy — documents that were only released under FOIA pressure and which read like graduate physics, not science fiction.
The Pentagon’s subsequent programs — the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) and the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) — have continued this institutional interest under more official cover, even as their public mandate has emphasized threat identification. In parallel, the European Space Agency, the Chinese National Space Administration, and a number of sovereign wealth-backed research consortia have funded theoretical physics adjacent to spacetime manipulation under the more palatable umbrella of quantum gravity and general relativity research.
None of this means warp drives or time machines exist. It means serious institutions with serious budgets have concluded these questions are worth taking seriously. That is the foundation for everything that follows.
Part Two: The Physics of Shortcuts
Faster-than-light travel, in the naive science-fiction sense, is ruled out by special relativity. Nothing with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light. That constraint is well-established.
What is not ruled out — and this is where general relativity opens doors that special relativity closes — is the manipulation of spacetime geometry itself. Einstein’s field equations describe how mass and energy curve spacetime. The equations do not, in principle, prohibit configurations of spacetime that allow shortcuts.
The Alcubierre drive, proposed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994, describes a metric in which a spacecraft sits inside a bubble of flat spacetime while the space ahead contracts and the space behind expands. The ship never exceeds the local speed of light; the spacetime itself moves. The engineering obstacles are severe — the energy requirements were initially calculated to require the mass-energy equivalent of Jupiter, though subsequent refinements have reduced this considerably — but the metric is mathematically valid. It does not violate known physics. It requires exotic matter with negative energy density, which has not been produced in macroscopic quantities, but whose existence in quantum form (the Casimir effect) is experimentally confirmed.
Traversable wormholes are solutions to Einstein’s equations first seriously explored by Kip Thorne and Michael Morris in 1988, partly at the request of Carl Sagan, who wanted to know whether they were plausible for a novel. Their paper, published in the American Journal of Physics, launched a legitimate research program. A traversable wormhole is a topological shortcut through spacetime — a tunnel connecting two points that may be spatially or temporally distant. Like the Alcubierre metric, it requires negative energy to hold open.
Einstein-Rosen bridges and ER=EPR — here the physics becomes genuinely strange, and genuinely important for this argument. In 1935, Einstein co-authored two papers that appeared to have nothing to do with each other. The first, with Nathan Rosen, described what we now call wormholes: solutions to the field equations in which two regions of spacetime are connected by a bridge through the geometry itself. The second, with Boris Podolsky and Rosen, described what Einstein famously called “spooky action at a distance” — the phenomenon we now call quantum entanglement, in which measuring one particle instantly determines the state of its paired partner regardless of the distance between them. Einstein found entanglement deeply unsettling. He did not connect it to the bridges he had described in the other paper.
That connection was made seventy-eight years later. In 2013, theoretical physicists Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind published the ER=EPR conjecture, proposing that Einstein-Rosen bridges (ER) and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs (EPR) are not merely analogous — they are the same phenomenon described at different scales. Two entangled particles, on this view, are not just statistically correlated across space. They are geometrically connected through a non-traversable wormhole in the fabric of spacetime. Entanglement is geometry. The apparent non-locality of quantum mechanics and the topological connectivity of general relativity may be two descriptions of one underlying reality.
The implications are significant enough that they have reshaped how serious physicists think about wormholes. If ER=EPR is correct, wormhole structure is not purely a feature of extreme gravitational engineering — it is woven into the quantum information fabric of space itself. Every entangled pair is, in some sense, a microscopic Einstein-Rosen bridge. Scaling that structure to macroscopic traversability remains an unsolved problem, but the conceptual door it opens is fundamental: the tools for manipulating spacetime connectivity may not require the kind of bulk exotic matter engineering that made early wormhole proposals seem impossibly distant. They may be rooted in quantum information — which is a field humanity is actively and rapidly developing.
In 2022, a group of Caltech researchers simulated a traversable wormhole on Google’s Sycamore quantum processor. The simulation was a quantum information analogue — not a physical wormhole punched through spacetime — but it demonstrated that information could be transmitted between two entangled quantum systems in a way consistent with the ER=EPR framework, using a quantum computer to do it. The physics community took it seriously precisely because it wasn’t a metaphor. It was a proof-of-concept for the theoretical structure at the scale where that structure currently operates. The researchers were explicit: the goal is to eventually scale the experiment toward something that probes real spacetime geometry. That work is ongoing.
The key point is this: FTL travel and wormhole traversal are not established technology. They may never be. But they are not forbidden by known physics. The theoretical scaffolding exists. Whether it can be built upon is an engineering question, not a physics one.
Part Three: Time Crystals — What They Actually Are
Time crystals have become a recurring feature in enthusiast literature about temporal mechanics, usually misrepresented. They are worth understanding correctly, because the reality is strange enough without embellishment.
A time crystal is a phase of matter first proposed by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek in 2012 and experimentally realized by teams at Google and the University of Maryland in 2021. An ordinary crystal has structure in space — atoms arranged in a repeating lattice. A time crystal has structure in time — it oscillates between states in a periodic pattern without expending energy, driven by an external signal, but at a frequency different from that signal. It breaks time-translation symmetry the way a spatial crystal breaks spatial symmetry.
What time crystals are not: they are not time machines, not temporal navigation devices, not evidence of time travel. They are a quantum phenomenon with potential applications in quantum computing, particularly in error-correction and maintaining coherence. They are remarkable precisely because they represent a form of order that physicists previously thought couldn’t exist in a many-body quantum system at equilibrium.
Their relevance to temporal mechanics is conceptual rather than practical. They demonstrate that time, like space, can have exploitable internal structure — that the relationship between physical systems and temporal dimensions is more complex and manipulable than classical physics suggested. In the framework of quantum temporal mechanics, they are a data point, not a tool.
Part Four: What CERN Actually Does
CERN — the European Organization for Nuclear Research, home of the Large Hadron Collider — is perhaps the most misunderstood institution in popular science culture. It has been accused of opening portals to other dimensions, summoning demons, and colliding particles with enough energy to destroy the world. None of these are accurate.
What CERN does is collide subatomic particles at very high energies in order to observe the products of those collisions, probing the fundamental structure of matter. The LHC’s most celebrated achievement was the 2012 confirmation of the Higgs boson, the particle associated with the field that gives other particles mass. The energy scales involved — impressive as they are by human engineering standards — are many orders of magnitude below what would be required to produce macroscopic spacetime effects. Cosmic rays strike Earth’s atmosphere at energies exceeding anything the LHC produces, and the atmosphere has not collapsed.
What CERN is relevant to, in the present discussion, is the search for physics beyond the Standard Model. The LHC has searched for, among other things, extra spatial dimensions, micro black holes, and exotic particles that could serve as candidates for dark matter. The extra-dimension searches are particularly relevant: theories like Kaluza-Klein, ADD (Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali), and Randall-Sundrum propose that additional spatial dimensions exist but are compactified at small scales or accessible only via gravity. If extra dimensions exist, they have implications for the geometry of spacetime that would bear on questions of traversal and shortcuts.
CERN has not found evidence for extra dimensions. It has constrained the parameter space in which they could exist. That is how physics works — ruling out possibilities is productive even when it is not exciting.
The honest summary: CERN is a precision instrument for probing reality at its smallest scales. Its work is foundational to any serious physics of spacetime.
Part Five: Antimatter — The Most Energetic Fuel We Know Exists
There is a version of the CERN story that gets told in enthusiast circles: that the collider is quietly stockpiling antimatter as fuel for deep space or interdimensional travel. This is wrong in its specifics but points at something real in its instinct.
CERN does produce and trap antimatter. The Antiproton Decelerator, and its successor the ELENA ring, slow antiprotons to the point where they can be captured in magnetic traps and combined with positrons to form antihydrogen — the antimatter equivalent of the simplest atom. The ALPHA experiment has successfully trapped antihydrogen for minutes at a time and measured its gravitational behaviour. These are genuine, extraordinary achievements.
The energy physics is also real. Matter-antimatter annihilation is the most energy-dense reaction known to physics — it converts 100% of rest mass directly into energy, compared to roughly 0.7% for nuclear fusion and a fraction of a percent for fission. A theoretical antimatter rocket would dwarf any chemical or nuclear propulsion system by orders of magnitude. NASA’s Institute for Advanced Concepts has funded peer-reviewed antimatter propulsion research, and the concept appears in serious aerospace engineering literature, not just science fiction.
The catch is production. CERN generates antiprotons at a rate of roughly ten million per second — which sounds impressive until you note that a single gram of antiprotons contains approximately six hundred billion billion of them. At current production rates, accumulating one gram would take longer than the current age of the universe, at energy costs that would dwarf global electricity output. The antimatter that emerges from CERN is sufficient for precision experiments. It is not a fuel stockpile.
The more honest version of the claim is this: CERN is demonstrating, at nanogram scales, that antimatter can be produced, contained, and studied. The same institutional cluster funding this work — DARPA, NASA, the DIA, the ESA — is also funding spacetime geometry research, wormhole theory, quantum computing, and metric engineering. What that pattern suggests is not a secret fuel depot. It suggests a civilisation systematically probing every theoretical pathway toward propulsion and spacetime manipulation simultaneously, across multiple unconnected-looking programs.
For the extratempestrial argument, this matters in a specific way. A civilisation that solved the antimatter production problem — through means we have not discovered yet — would have access to propulsion capable of relativistic travel, compressing subjective travel time dramatically through time dilation even without wormholes or metric engineering. Relativity already permits, in principle, journeys of thousands of light-years within a human lifetime of shipboard time. The temporal displacement that creates is not trivial. It is one more pathway by which a sufficiently advanced future humanity could find itself operating at temporal removes from its own origin point — which is precisely what the extratempestrial model requires.
Part Six: What the Folklore Remembers
Now we step into different territory — not physics, but anthropology.
Every major human civilization has records of encounters with beings who are recognizably strange. Not monsters, not gods in the mythological sense, but beings described in terms that cluster around a consistent phenomenology: they appear without warning, they are associated with light or unusual craft or distortions in perception, they sometimes communicate (in ways that are imperfectly understood), they are interested in humans in a way that feels clinical or observational, and they leave.
The descriptions are not identical across cultures — they are mediated by the symbolic and linguistic frameworks available to the people recording them. A medieval European peasant and a pre-contact Amazonian villager do not share a vocabulary. But the underlying structure of the encounter — the arrival, the communication, the examination, the departure — appears with remarkable consistency.
A partial survey:
The Nommo of the Dogon (Mali): Beings described as coming from the Sirius system, amphibious in form, who brought knowledge of astronomy and agriculture. The Dogon’s pre-contact knowledge of Sirius B — a white dwarf companion invisible to the naked eye and not confirmed by Western astronomy until 1970 — remains contentious but documented.
The Fairy faith of the British Isles: The “Good Folk” of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh tradition are not the sanitized Victorian sprites. They are beings of uncertain origin who inhabit a parallel realm, who occasionally take humans away and return them changed or displaced in time, who are associated with specific landscape features, and who are described in terms that later ufologists would find structurally familiar. The “changeling” motif — a child taken and replaced with something not quite right — maps uncomfortably well onto certain modern encounter reports.
The Vimanas of the Vedic texts: The Sanskrit epics, particularly the Mahabharata and Ramayana, describe aerial craft of considerable sophistication — vimanas — piloted by beings who intervene in human affairs. The descriptions have been overinterpreted by ancient astronaut enthusiasts and underexamined by mainstream scholars, but the consistency of the engineering language across texts separated by centuries is notable.
The Zhuangzi and Chinese celestial beings: Chinese literature across several dynasties records encounters with beings from “the heavens” who descend, observe, and ascend again, associated with unusual light phenomena and inexplicable knowledge.
The Mesoamerican cosmological records: Aztec and Maya sources describe periodic visitations from beings associated with specific celestial calendrical events, who are expected to return at predictable intervals. The level of astronomical precision embedded in these cultures’ calendars — achieved without instrumentation recognizable to modern archaeology — is not fully explained by purely terrestrial methods.
The vision of Ezekiel (Hebrew Bible, c. 593 BCE): The Book of Ezekiel opens with what its author calls a vision, but which he describes in terms so technical and so specific that scholars have argued about it for two and a half millennia. The account deserves to be read on its own terms before interpretation is applied. Ezekiel, a priest in Babylonian exile, reports a storm approaching from the north — a great cloud with fire flashing and a radiance surrounding it. From within it emerge four living creatures, each with four faces and four wings, moving in straight lines without turning, accompanied by wheels — ofanim in Hebrew — that move in any direction without turning, whose rims are described as tall and filled with eyes. Above the creatures is an expanse like crystal. Above the expanse is a throne. Upon the throne is a figure of human appearance, surrounded by radiance. The figure speaks to Ezekiel, who falls on his face. He is then addressed, commissioned, and at one point the spirit lifts him and he hears the sound of the creatures’ wings — described as the sound of many waters, of thunder, of a great army — before being set down elsewhere.
What is significant for the present argument is not the theological content but the structural and descriptive content. The encounter has a specific approach signature — directional, atmospheric, luminous. The craft-like objects are described with a precision unusual in visionary literature: their geometry, their movement axes, their appearance. The beings are non-human in form but communicate intelligibly. The experiencer is physically affected — falling prostrate, being lifted, being transported. He returns with a commission and a message. This is not the structure of dream or metaphor as those forms are used elsewhere in the same tradition. It is the structure of encounter — arrival, contact, communication, departure — rendered in the only vocabulary available to a sixth-century BCE Levantine priest.
The aerospace engineer Josef Blumrich, working at NASA, took the Ezekiel account seriously enough to attempt a technical reconstruction of the craft described, publishing his analysis in 1974. His conclusions are debatable, but the exercise revealed something worth noting: the description is internally consistent in ways that purely symbolic visionary writing typically is not. Whether Ezekiel witnessed something physical, something psychological, or something that defies that distinction, he was clearly reporting an experience with a structure — and that structure belongs to the same family as the others listed here.
None of this constitutes proof of anything. Folklore is not data in the scientific sense. But it is a record — an imperfect, culturally mediated, long-running record of something that people across disconnected civilizations found worth encoding in their most durable formats: myth, ritual, and sacred text. The question is not whether they were lying. The question is what they were reporting.
Part Seven: The Extratempestrial Model
This is where the load-bearing assumption sits, and it will be stated plainly.
Dr. Michael Paul Masters is a professor of biological anthropology at Montana Technological University. His model — developed in his book Identified Flying Objects and subsequent work — proposes a specific answer to the question of what the folklore was reporting, and what modern encounter witnesses continue to report: beings who are human, but not contemporary humans.
The argument proceeds as follows.
Humans are currently funding research into FTL travel, wormhole traversal, and quantum temporal mechanics. Some of that research is theoretically sound. If any of it succeeds, at any point in our future, then beings capable of temporal navigation will exist somewhere in spacetime. Those beings, if they can navigate time, may choose to visit their own past — which is, from their perspective, us.
The beings described in encounter reports — the large heads, the atrophied bodies, the large eyes, the apparent telepathic or non-verbal communication, the interest in human biology and reproduction — map remarkably well onto a plausible trajectory of human evolution over tens of thousands of years. Increased cranial volume, reduced physical musculature, sensory adaptation to technological mediation, sophisticated neurological development: these are exactly what evolutionary biologists might predict if they extrapolated human developmental trends across deep time.
Masters calls these beings extratempestrial — not from another planet, but from another time. The model is internally coherent. It resolves the Fermi paradox for the specific case of encounter phenomena by removing the interstellar distance problem entirely. It explains why the beings appear human-like rather than truly alien. It accounts for their apparent interest in human biology — they are studying their own ancestors. And it provides a framework in which the cross-cultural consistency of encounter reports makes sense: if the same beings are visiting across thousands of years of human history, you would expect consistent descriptions mediated through wildly different cultural vocabularies.
The load-bearing assumption is this: that temporal navigation will, at some point, become achievable. Everything downstream of that assumption is coherent. The assumption itself is not established. It rests on the hope — reasonable, but not guaranteed — that the physics being explored will prove out and the engineering will prove tractable. If time travel remains impossible in practice, the extratempestrial model has no visitors to account for.
This is not a small caveat. It is the entire structural hinge of the argument. The model does not prove that extratempestrial beings exist. It demonstrates that if certain physics is possible, their existence is a coherent consequence, and that the historical and contemporary evidence is at least consistent with their presence. That is a different — and more defensible — claim than what most encounter-adjacent literature offers.
Conclusion: What Coherence Is Worth
The extratempestrial model is not proven. It may not be provable by any currently available method. But it is coherent — and coherence matters in a domain where most competing explanations are not.
The extraterrestrial hypothesis requires interstellar travel across distances that dwarf our current engineering capacity, motivated by reasons that remain obscure. The mass-hallucination hypothesis requires that millions of people across disconnected cultures and millennia hallucinated the same structured experience. The “all folklore is metaphor” hypothesis requires us to discount a remarkable convergence of detail as purely symbolic.
The extratempestrial model requires one thing: that we, or our descendants, eventually figure out how to do something we are already trying to do.
It is speculative. It is also, in its logical structure, one of the tidiest arguments in this strange corner of inquiry. The research is real. The physics is legitimate. The folklore is extensive. The assumption is marked.
Make of it what you will.
There is a remaining question the extratempestrial model quietly raises that it does not answer: if temporal navigation becomes real, who gets there first, and what do they do with it? History does not encourage optimism on this point. Christopher Columbus was not the worst person Europe could have sent to the Americas, but he was not its best either, and the consequences of that asymmetry lasted centuries. Sometimes, first to market isn’t best to market. Technology and virtue do not arrive together. The same civilisation capable of building a warp metric or stabilising a wormhole is capable of using it to extract, to dominate, to erase. If the beings visiting us across human history are our descendants, we might hope they have resolved something of that tendency — but there is no guarantee that a civilisation advanced enough for temporal navigation has advanced morally at the same rate. The question of who gets the technology first is not separate from the extratempestrial argument. It is one of its most uncomfortable implications. It connects to something worth sitting with: whether death itself, as explored in What if Death is Just Bad Policy?, is a problem that the same technological trajectory solves or accelerates — and whether, as A River You Can Not Step In Twice asks, the self that arrives at the other end of that journey is continuous with the one that began it.
Further reading and works cited
Masters, Michael Paul. Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon. Masters Creative LLC, 2019.
Alcubierre, Miguel. “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity.” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 11, no. 5, 1994, pp. L73–L77.
Morris, Michael S., and Kip S. Thorne. “Wormholes in Spacetime and Their Use for Interstellar Travel: A Tool for Teaching General Relativity.” American Journal of Physics, vol. 56, no. 5, 1988, pp. 395–412.
Maldacena, Juan, and Leonard Susskind. “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes.” Fortschritte der Physik, vol. 61, no. 9, 2013, pp. 781–811.
Thorne, Kip S. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. W. W. Norton, 1994. — The accessible entry point to wormhole physics from the physicist who made it a serious research program.
Morris, Michael S., Kip S. Thorne, and Ulvi Yurtsever. “Wormholes, Time Machines, and the Weak Energy Condition.” Physical Review Letters, vol. 61, no. 13, 1988, pp. 1446–1449. — The follow-up paper that extended the wormhole work explicitly to time machine solutions.
Blumrich, Josef F. The Spaceships of Ezekiel. Bantam Books, 1974. — The NASA engineer’s technical reconstruction of the craft in Ezekiel 1. Debatable in its conclusions; notable for its method.
Casimir, H. B. G. “On the Attraction Between Two Perfectly Conducting Plates.” Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol. 51, 1948, pp. 793–795. — The original paper establishing negative energy density in quantum systems, which underlies both the Alcubierre and wormhole proposals.
Jafferis, Daniel, et al. “Traversable Wormhole Dynamics on a Quantum Processor.” Nature, vol. 612, 2022, pp. 51–55. — The Caltech/Google Sycamore simulation.
White, Harold. “Warp Field Mechanics 101.” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, vol. 64, 2011. — NASA Eagleworks lead physicist’s refinement of the Alcubierre metric reducing energy requirements substantially.
van den Broeck, Chris. “A ‘Warp Drive’ with More Reasonable Total Energy Requirements.” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 16, no. 12, 1999. — Further energy reduction work on the Alcubierre metric.
ASH & INK 
Leave a comment