Ask a barrister of 50 years’ call what he would put before a court and you get a precise answer. Jonathan Caplan KC does not hesitate: a crashed craft, or a body. Then comes the part that should stop you. Both exist, he says, and the United States has held them since the 1940s, as have China and Russia. He is not speculating and he is not hedging. He is a King’s Counsel of 35 years standing setting out what he believes the evidence establishes, in the register he would use opening to a jury.
Caplan read law at Cambridge, was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in 1973 and took silk in 1991. His practice at 5 Paper Buildings has been built in the places where facts are contested hardest: the Guinness appeal for Ernest Saunders, then Maxwell, Blue Arrow and Barings; P&O after Zeebrugge and Balfour Beatty after Hatfield; the inquiry into the Southall rail crash; Associated Newspapers at the Leveson Inquiry; and the successful defence of the former managing editor of the News of the World at the phone hacking trial. He appears regularly in the Hong Kong courts, and he represented Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn in the harassment proceedings in which Juan Carlos I was held not to be entitled to state immunity. He is a Recorder of the Crown Court and a Bencher of Gray’s Inn, and he chairs Project Zero, an ocean conservation charity, which is less of a digression than it sounds, given how much of the conversation below concerns craft reported entering and leaving the sea. The other half of his life began in the early 1970s with a television item about a saucer following an airliner. By the late 1970s his name was on the masthead of Flying Saucer Review, then the leading journal in the field, listed as a consultant beside J. Allen Hynek, the astronomer who had spent 20 years as scientific adviser to the US Air Force’s Project Blue Book. One of his jobs was to deliver each issue to Prince Philip‘s equerry, the Duke being a long-standing subscriber who had his staff gather sighting reports from the RAF. Half a century on, Jacques Vallee, a correspondent of the same magazine in those years, has endorsed his book. Not For Disclosure, published by Century in June 2026, went straight onto the Sunday Times bestseller list.
The expectation you bring to a book about UFOs by a silk is that it will hedge, that everything will be alleged and reportedly, and that the conclusion will be a call for further research. Caplan does the opposite, and it is the most striking thing about him. He is genuinely careful about where the craft come from: extraterrestrial, interdimensional, a surviving civilisation of our own planet, or some form of intelligent consciousness we have no apparatus to perceive. He offers all four and declines to rank them, because he does not think the evidence yet allows it. On the prior question he does not equivocate at all. What you are really talking about, he says, are intelligent, non-human intelligences that are here. The Nimitz object was a structured solid craft. The abduction scenario is real. More than one intelligence source has told him of structures on the far side of the Moon. We are not alone, and in his account that is not a hypothesis but a finding, one that a small number of people have held since the 1940s and have spent 80 years keeping from everyone else, at a cost he puts in the language of the criminal courts. This is his settled position rather than something drawn out of him in one conversation. He told Sky News the same week that the debate is no longer about whether the phenomenon is real, and that in Washington it is an open secret that it is. Elsewhere he has put the reason for the silence in a single sentence: to admit the phenomenon is to admit that we are not in control of our airspace or our oceans, and that nobody knows what it is. His publisher states the thesis more baldly still: for decades the public have been asking the wrong question, which was never whether they are real but why their existence has never been disclosed.
In this conversation we discuss what makes a witness believable and what would satisfy a court, the Nimitz encounter and why he regards it as a textbook case, the evidence that the phenomenon has several distinct sources rather than one, the paranormal residue that follows people home from Skinwalker Ranch, the gods in the cave paintings, structures reported on the far side of the Moon, how President Truman’s problem hardened into a programme running outside Congress, and what he would put in front of a sceptic. Readers may want to set his account alongside those of the Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb and the astronomer Jill Tarter, who have both addressed the same question here from very different positions.
Q: Thank you for your time, and for the book. I remember that over the years I’ve had Avi Loeb on and a few others, and this is such an important topic, so I’m glad it’s getting this kind of serious attention. Obviously, as part of many interviews you’ve done, people have pointed out the obvious, which is your legal background. From the research you’ve done over the years, if there was one main exhibit, one main finding you’ve had about this phenomenon, one thing to put in front of people, what would that be?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: That I’ve seen, or that I would want? You have to remember, I am not an experiencer myself. I have accumulated a great amount of evidence. I have met many people who are very knowledgeable about this subject, from scientists to military personnel who have had experiences, and I have gone on to meet people who are intelligence officers and who have spoken to me in a very confidential way over a number of years. So I am privy to the information they have received, the data they have received, and in some cases the personal experiences they have physically witnessed.
But if you are asking what would be the exhibit I would want to produce before a commission or a court, obviously the star exhibit would be a crashed craft or a biologic, which we know have been in the possession of the United States, for example, since the 1940s, and are in the possession of other superpowers such as China and Russia.
Q: In terms of the individuals you’ve spoken to, there are obviously thousands of pieces of evidence you’d have seen in terms of individuals and stories and conversations. What is it that makes you really sit up and believe a particular witness? Because I think, like so many things, it will be extremely difficult to sort the inevitable fantasists from the serious, credible witnesses, or the serious, credible pieces of evidence.
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: You are obviously looking at the circumstances in which the witness has had the particular experience. You are looking at their training. You are looking for corroboration from other witnesses. And you are also looking to see whether the account they describe has been recorded independently on sophisticated equipment.
One case that brings all of that together, and which would be a typical case in any curriculum on UAPs, is the Nimitz incident. You have Air Force trained pilots seeing an object performing a technology wholly beyond anything we could possibly construct. It is being recorded simultaneously, not only on sophisticated equipment on two naval vessels, but on another airborne reconnoitring aircraft. It exhibits intelligence: it goes to the rendezvous point of the pilots, which is secret and confidential to them. It is transmedium and maintains speed, not only in airspace but underwater as well. And it originates from space. It has dropped from 80,000 feet to a standing point, literally a pinhead in space, where it remains. When they go to investigate it, it then performs at incredible speeds, right angles, an ability to accelerate with extraordinary power. So that is clearly a phenomenon, and it is a structured solid craft, and we have no idea what it represents.
“The star exhibit would be a crashed craft or a biologic, which we know have been in the possession of the United States, for example, since the 1940s.”
What the phenomenon might actually be
Q: I wonder, in your view, we see the phenomenon appearing time and time again through history, even, dare I say, through our archaeological artefacts, where we see evidence of civilisations encountering similar phenomena. What is your view on what these phenomena are? Is it indeed an older civilisation like ours, which exists here, as in Timothy Gallaudet’s theory around the oceans? Do you think we are being visited by other intelligences and other civilisations? Or are we mistaking extraordinarily advanced research vehicles, which to me seems the least likely outcome?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: That is, of course, the thousand dollar question. I think you have to start by saying that throughout the history of civilisation there are numerous accounts of strange beings and strange craft, which have been described by numerous individuals: the biblical figure, the Roman soldier, the medieval monk, the Elizabethan courtier, the modern astronaut, the modern fighter pilot. All of them have described strange experiences according to the language available to them at the time, and to the constructs and concepts which prevail at the time.
Now, I am not saying that all phenomena are connected, and I think it is very important not to do that. The Vatican is very keen to make that point, because they do not want UAPs to be seen in the same way as they would interpret, for example, the vision of a beatific figure at Fatima or somewhere else. So when you are talking about the UAP phenomena, what you are really talking about are intelligent, non-human intelligences that are here in craft which perform in a way that is beyond our current technology.
Focusing then on NHIs and UAPs, which I think is the subject of your question, we have to look at the available evidence, and you will find many people with different answers. But I am pretty clear in my own mind that this is a phenomenon which has multiple sources. Let us just take two facts and we can develop it from there. Of course there have been instances of UAP sightings before the 1940s and the use of the atomic bombs. But I think the UAP phenomenon has maximised and increased ever since the use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1940s. And I have also spoken to very many people, such as Paul Hellyer, the former Defence Minister in Canada, who told me he had been reliably informed that more than 40 separate non-human species have been detected and observed.
So just focusing on those two facts for a moment, I think it is probably safe to conclude that a part of this phenomenon is extraterrestrial, and that we are dealing with a number of different extraterrestrial races who, with the use of advanced technology, have come here, and may be attracted by our deployment of nuclear fusion or fission.
But I think it is even more complicated than that. There is certainly in Washington now a strong belief that there is an interdimensional element to this. Whereas in the old days, and I am talking about the 1970s, we used to regard these as being nuts and bolts and people coming from distant planets, it may be they are coming from other dimensions, or another kind of reality which we just cannot conceive. And there are those who believe they are coming from another time, and that the concept of time running in a linear fashion along a straight line is wrong. So there are many potential sources for these non-human intelligences, and of course that will depend on our laws and understanding of physics, of time and space, reality, consciousness.
But you have also got to build into that something which I believe is a real possibility. That is that there may be a form of universal consciousness which is intelligent, and which is here coexisting with us, and which interacts with us in ways that we cannot comprehend. That again is a theory which, amongst those more qualified than myself and who have access to confidential information, is gaining ground.
Now, as to whether all of these non-human intelligences are visiting, that raises another question. I do think there is a distinct possibility that one or more are coexisting with us, and there are many people now who believe that. I think the involvement of the US Navy, which has a very large role to play still in the UAP phenomenon and its investigation, is largely because a large number of craft are seen exiting and then re-emerging into the oceans. Some have suggested that some of these non-human intelligences in fact emanate from bases under the oceans, which are largely unexplored.
So there are many possibilities. I think we have got to be open-minded. One should say that there are a number of different non-human intelligences. There is no reason, and every reason, to say that they are not from the same source, that they are not from the same time period. It also may be the case that some have survived from a previous civilisation on this planet and are coexisting with us in a very covert way on the planet with us. But all of these are real possibilities.
Skinwalker Ranch and the hitchhiker effect
Q: This leads me to think about cases like Skinwalker. I’m somebody similarly not an experiencer, and I would be very open to an experience apart from Skinwalker, because that in particular not only seems extraordinary given the amount of evidence there is, but also seems to intersect the phenomena with spirituality in a very unusual way. Have you had discussions around Skinwalker? Have you reached any conclusions on what’s occurring there?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: Well, I can’t reach a conclusion, but I have got preliminary views. I think one possibility is that within the mesa at Skinwalker Ranch there might be a craft, and there is some evidence to suggest, from their experimentation on the ranch, that there is a solid object buried within the mesa. If that was an anomalous craft from elsewhere, it may be that some kind of artificial intelligence is designed to protect it and is deploying all kinds of countermeasures to the experiments they are conducting.
But I think you raise a much more important general point, which is that there does seem to be a paranormal consequence to the UAP phenomenon itself. By that I mean that many people who have had close encounters with craft seem, as a very unwelcome consequence of those encounters, to go on to experience in their own homes a range of paranormal phenomena. It may be small orbs appearing and disappearing. It may be shadowy figures appearing and disappearing. It may be strange animals appearing in and around the property. Or it may be poltergeists.
Indeed, when you mention Skinwalker and say you wouldn’t want to have that experience, I think you might well have in mind what has been termed the hitchhiker effect, where many people who have been involved, both originally under Robert Bigelow when he was working with the US government, and since then under its new owner, have left the ranch, gone back to their homes, and carried these paranormal phenomena with them. Not only do they appear in a most unwelcome way in their homes, but they also seem to appear in the neighbourhood, and in the houses of friends and relatives.
There are a number of people who have looked at this and tried to theorise what it may be. Amongst them, somebody called Colm Kelleher. I don’t know, but certainly that fits in with this dimension of paranormal phenomena being a part of the UAP phenomenon. Whether it is part of these NHIs’ intentions themselves, it is impossible to say. It may be that they trigger some other kind of incidences because of the effects they bring when they visit and manifest. I don’t know. But I couldn’t agree more that there are unwelcome features to do with Skinwalker, and also with UAPs themselves.
Gods in the cave paintings
Q: If I extrapolate that in a perhaps slightly unusual way, the more technologically advanced we’ve become, the more we have assigned a technological nature to the phenomenon. Now that we’re developing our own artificial intelligences, we can talk about non-human intelligences in a slightly more serious way, in inverted commas. But extrapolating backwards, in the same way we used to think solar eclipses were gods, it’s conceivable that for ancient civilisations their perceptions of what was God were linked to interactions with the phenomena. Is there that ancient history component? Much UAP discourse starts at Roswell and moves forward, but there does appear to be a far more ancient element.
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: Obviously that is only something that the three letter intelligence agencies can look at historically and form a view about. It is not something they can examine. But there are those who speak about finding craft which have been in situ for thousands of years.
Haim Eshed, who is or was an Israeli astrophysicist, and who famously wrote a book which he then declined to talk about, has spoken in that book about a craft, one example, that was found in the Grand Canyon and was over 2,000 years old. There are other craft which have apparently been recovered from under the sea, which are similarly aged. That would tend to suggest that craft have been visiting our planet not since the 1940s, but for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
And you can look at cave drawings, you can look at depictions. There are many of men in the sky, what appear to be circular craft, and men coming out of them who they worshipped as gods. So my own view is, yes, I think we have had visitations from the beginning of civilisation and, for all we know, from before this current civilisation. Maybe there have been previous civilisations on this planet that similarly have had that kind of contact. So I don’t believe myself that this began in the 1940s. I think there is a very strong case that we have had this kind of non-human intelligence, which has been worshipped or depicted as gods, for thousands of years.
Structures on the far side of the Moon
Q: Another key aspect is our own adventure into space. I love how Joe Rogan once put it, that it’s as if they were thinking, what are these stupid monkeys up to now? But one of the most compelling elements has been the testimony from lunar astronauts. Edgar Mitchell flatly said he’d been briefed around Roswell. Gordon Cooper said what he said about things on the Moon. As you’ve noted before, we can convict somebody in a court on one person’s evidence, yet we seem to have dismissed a lunar astronaut saying there’s something there. What conversations have you had around the Moon and the solar system?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: I think the individual astronaut you are talking about is describing what he was briefed about, rather than what he observed himself on the lunar surface. But I have certainly had reports from intelligence people that observational craft going around the dark side of the Moon have seen structures. That has come from more than one individual. It has come from several individuals. And it certainly is a current theme that they were the domain of a particular species of non-human intelligence who has been visiting. I know this begins to get a bit sci-fi, but I think that is ascribed to what is described in the literature as the reptilian non-human intelligences.
Professor Eshed has spoken about examining the Martian surface. He has looked at a number of photographs that have been culled from explorers on the Martian surface, and says he has detected artificial structures and compounds. From those various observations, if they are accurate, you could deduce that non-human intelligences have used the dark side of the Moon as a base from which to visit us, or even the Martian surface.
How Truman’s problem became a permanent secret
Q: The unusual thing is that, even as you said it, you said these begin to sound sci-fi. But if modern civilisation extinguished itself by its own hand, and civilisations from the Amazon decided in thousands of years to explore the wider world, they would find a civilisation that looked extraordinarily sci-fi to them, and we would accept that narrative as true. Whereas when compelling witnesses say I’ve been briefed on something, we seem not to. Which makes me think about the rationale for the secrecy. I understand the military element, if it’s an adversary with advanced propulsion. But in the absence of that, why?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: For that you have got to go back to the 1940s, when this phenomenon really manifested itself in terms of crashed craft and interaction with military aircraft, many of which crashed as a result, with a lot of loss of military aircraft in the 1940s and 1950s.
I think you have to put yourself in the mind of President Truman, who would have been informed just at the end of the Second World War. Of course, this information was culled earlier than that, in the 1940s, from previous crashes before Roswell in continental United States, and indeed we now know of a crash in Italy at Magenta in 1933. But the fear is that you have just come out of a really dreadful world war and you are now confronted with another threat, and that is craft from some unknown civilisation which do not originate here on Earth. The immediate concern would have been, what is the agenda? Are they a threat? How many of them are there? And there was the urgency of developing a military defence plan for that unwelcome discovery, and indeed of dealing with the possibility of harvesting technology from these celestial gifts which had come into your hands.
All of that creates an immediate thought of, well, we had better keep this absolutely secret within a very small compass. It then became a matter that the whole phenomenon was closed off from Congress to a small group of people chaired by the President, with military intelligence and scientists, but a very small number of people. Over the years, we can see, by looking at the documentation we have now been able to gather and the evidence we have been able to gather, that it evolved into a small group which, primarily after the creation of the CIA, was career intelligence officers and some other agencies.
In fact it took all of this outside of the purview of Congress, using the atomic energy legislation so that there is no Freedom of Information Act vulnerability, and entering into private contracts with special access projects with defence contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. And excluding the President, excluding, in fact, what are called now the temporary employees, including the director of the CIA, who is regarded as a political appointment.
So the phenomenon has then morphed into one that is controlled by a small number of career intelligence officials working with private defence contractors, bringing in only those who are required on a strictly need to know basis. The motivation was obviously that if there is technology to be harvested here, we mustn’t allow that to fall into the hands of our adversary. But wrapped up with it, unfortunately, was the whole discovery that we are not alone. And that fact, which is the right of every person to know, was swept away under the curtain with the rationale for keeping technology secret. And that is where it has ever remained.
I think there are too many lies, too many criminal offences that have been committed since the 1940s, for them ever to come clean about that properly. And I think there is a concern that China and Russia have their own special access programmes and their own examination of crashed craft which they have recovered. We don’t want to tell them how far we have got, and the whole thing has got to remain under wraps.
“That fact, which is the right of every person to know, was swept away under the curtain with the rationale for keeping technology secret.”
Why here, why us
Q: As you were talking, it made me think of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has recently changed his views somewhat, and who used to make a very glib remark of, well, why would they come here, we’re not that interesting. There’s some element of truth in that. If you’re a million or a billion years more advanced, why would you come here? But then there’s the theory that maybe we are the experiment, which would be another reason for secrecy if that was the discovery. Why do you think we are being visited? What is the interest these phenomena may have in our civilisation?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: Well, that raises a whole skein of issues. Firstly, it is quite clear that whilst some may be visiting, the majority of this phenomenon is not visiting. The numbers show that these are not passing visitors. If anything, the UAP phenomenon has increased and maintained its presence. It is over nuclear facilities, which obviously demonstrates a concern about our use of nuclear energy. It interacts with military exercises, showing obviously a capability and a capacity to intervene if it ever had to.
It is also, and I do believe the abduction scenario is real, and I had conversations with Professor John Mack of Harvard University, who was professor of psychiatry there until he tragically died in a road accident, and who examined in detail the abduction experiences of hundreds and thousands of people around the world and came, much against his initial views, to the conclusion that this was a very real phenomenon. From that point of view there may be some kind of hybridisation programme going on where they are taking tissues, and semen and ova, to produce their own species of being. That, I know, is an active programme of the CIA, and they are looking very much at that. And I have spoken to CIA officers themselves who have been abducted.
So there is hybridisation as a potential. I think there is a real concern about us, in that we are becoming more advanced, not just with nuclear energy but with artificial intelligence and quantum computing. This all signifies that we are gaining the capacity to leave our planetary confines and could become a risk to others in outer space, or in other dimensions, who knows. And also you can’t lose sight of the fact that this may not be our planet. We may actually just be one species of inhabitants here, and this may belong to others. So all of those are viable theories.
Q: There was a podcast I was listening to some time ago, and I’ve forgotten the guest, where the example was that we exist in this reality and they may exist in the platonic space around us. So they’re here, we just can’t interact with them. But exactly to your point, our experiments with quantum computing, AI and nuclear are interfering in the platonic space, so to speak. So we’re starting to become a problem.
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: Yes. If you imagine, for example, as some people now believe, because of the number of sightings in the oceans and the fact that they are tracking objects at fantastic speeds, and it is very easy to track underwater accurately, nuclear submarines are having engagements. I could easily see that our use of nuclear energy could be a threat to others that may be living here.
“We may actually just be one species of inhabitants here, and this may belong to others.”
Why disclosure is further away than it looks
Q: As a bit of a roundup, I wanted to talk about where we are, because the striking point we’re at is where individuals such as yourself, prominent former and serving military officers, and members of Congress and the Senate, are comfortably talking about this as real. But they haven’t crossed the line into universal acceptance of even the basic we are not alone, never mind what it is. Do you think we’re genuinely any closer to formal disclosure, where the President or someone stands on a stage and says, ladies and gentlemen, we’re not alone? Or is that still fanciful?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: I really don’t see that we are close to formal disclosure. I know there is a lot of discussion at the moment saying it is close, and that there are people in the White House who want it and factions in the Pentagon who want it. But there are two consequences to that. Firstly, they still want to ring fence the technological research programmes they are doing. Secondly, they would have to come clean about the catalogue of deception they have practised over the last 80 years.
They would also have to come clean, I am afraid, about criminal activity. I suspect that would include misappropriation of funds. It would include perjury, contempt of Congress, governments lying to their assemblies and to their populace. I am sorry to say I think it would include acts not just of intimidation, but of physical assault and even murder. And I don’t think any administration is ready to confess to that.
Also, from a paternalistic point of view, they don’t have the answers to some fundamental questions. Despite what they have been doing, I am not sure they do know. They know where some of them are from, but they don’t know where all of these are from. For example, there are plasma UAPs, which appear to be intelligent and sentient balls of plasma, which appear over very sensitive sites and residential areas, and which can be very damaging. They have no idea what those are. And I know that the Americans have been liaising with the Chinese about that. So there are things they don’t know.
I think they would be concerned about destabilising society, concerns about the effect on the markets, on religious faith, on the belief that law and order can protect you. So there are all those kinds of concerns. And so I don’t see disclosure happening in the United States. Mind you, we shouldn’t believe that the President is the only person who can make disclosure. China could do it tomorrow. A private contractor who has got the money, who is investigating it, could, if he has got the evidence, do it tomorrow.
I think in this country we are so behind the curve, and by this country I mean the United Kingdom. I don’t think there is any appetite for serving politicians at the moment to take on UAPs, because there is a belief, I think, that the voting public are much more concerned with national health, the economy and crime rates, and don’t necessarily want to see their Members of Parliament dealing with this topic. I think that is mistaken, because I think a lot of people would want to see that. But I can tell you, I don’t know of any programme in the UK, any government programme or policy, and I don’t know of any budget allocated for it.
You would think and hope that certainly amongst, let us say, Five Eyes, which is the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Britain, there should be some contingency plan for dealing with the announcement of non-human intelligence, even by the phenomenon itself. What would they say? How would they deal with it? I don’t know. But it is something they ought certainly to have in mind, because anything could happen. We are working very much on the assumption that this is a phenomenon that is simply observing. It interacts occasionally with us. Sometimes it is too close for comfort. Yes, it can on occasion be damaging in a variety of ways. But they are still operating on the basis that they have time, and that we can go on just ignoring it from a public viewpoint. I am not sure that is right, and I hope very much that they have got a contingency plan up their sleeves.
What a sceptic should read
Q: One small roundup question, if I may. I would suspect that you and I are both very much in the same place, and as a lay member of the community, as it were, I’ve spent an awful lot of time reading and watching things, and I very much come to the view that there’s definitely a there there. But there’s still an awful lot of people who remain, in some senses quite rightly, sceptical. So as a bit of a roundup, I thought it’d be great for readers who may still be sceptical: what would you point them to?
[Jonathan Caplan KC]: Definitely my book, Not For Disclosure. What I have tried to do there, over 50 years, is to draw together what I am going to say is the most reliable evidence, and to structure it in a way that recognises that this phenomenon is very complex.
It is not the phenomenon I came into over 50 years ago, which was structured metal flying saucers in the skies with benevolent ETs who come down to say hello and shake your hand. This has become a very, very complex topic, and it only gets more complex. To understand, or to get an overview of, the phenomenon is very difficult for anybody. There is no syllabus here. There is no recommended reading list. There is a lot of misinformation out there on social media and indeed on streaming television channels.
So I think it is critical to pull together the different strands, so far as we understand them, and to try to explain them in clear language through the viewpoint of the best evidence and the best minds, the most reliable minds. That is what I have tried to do, because what we need here is informed debate. So many people, as you know, Vikas, are interested in this subject and say, oh, I’m interested in that. But intelligent people are so uninformed about it, because they haven’t had the opportunity to read about it and to know where to go to enquire further, and that is fundamental. I hope the book is a real stepping stone for that.
But I want to see this introduced as a syllabus in educational establishments. I want to encourage academia to conduct research, because there is still a huge amount of stigma in academia around this subject, and people are nervous, from their own professional viewpoint, about touching it. So we have got to change that approach.
——–
Jonathan Caplan KC is a barrister at 5 Paper Buildings and the author of Not For Disclosure: UFOs, The World’s Best Kept Secret, published by Century.
