UAP

 TL;DR — Lock 9: UAP as Interface Intelligence (BGT)

• Core claim: UAPs are misframed as objects. They behave more like events—specifically interface events—that appear when systems (human, technological, environmental) are under stress.
• 1952 DC flap as clue: The radar/visual incidents didn’t act like intruding craft. They clustered, adapted to observers, dispersed and reappeared—more like a system response than an invasion.
• Why “object” fails: UAPs are repeatedly both physical and non-physical—radar-confirmed yet elusive, structured yet symbolic, external yet tied to perception and meaning.
• Key pivot: Ask not “What are they?” but “What kind of system produces events that couple to attention, intention, and thresholds?”
• Consciousness matters: Recurrent patterns suggest entanglement with awareness (e.g., “summoning” via intention). Not proof—pattern pressure.
• The braid (Locks 7–9):
  
• Plasma = external display medium (field-responsive, luminous under instability)
• Biology = internal interface (coherence-based resets under stress)
• Consciousness = coupling variable (attention/intention)
• 
  
• Bottom line:
  UAPs may be interface phenomena—events rendered where mind, matter, and an informational substrate meet.
  Not craft. Not hallucinations. System diagnostics, not system actors.