Taxonomies of the Invisible Frontier- Part 1

Early Scientific Frameworks for the Citizen-Led Investigation of the Unknown

Mulder’s office from The X Files on display at the Hollywood Entertainment Museum

Taxonomy – A First Principles Approach to the Scientific Study of Anomalous Intelligence and Anomalous Technology

The public scientific study of anomalous intelligences (XI) and their technologies is stymied by a significant challenge: these phenomena appear across time, space, and cultures - yet the modern scientific establishment is uniformly hostile towards investigating them. Risk-averse leadership, intelligence-community interference, calcified epistemologies, obsolete hierarchies, and a simple institutional amnesia regarding how to work with non-laboratory data have created an environment in which the frontier is not just unfunded, but actively patrolled against curiosity. The unknown remains unexplored and the new is unprotected.

All revolutionary discoveries begin with observation, not experimentation. Before the microscope, before genetics, before molecular biology, the earliest natural philosophers relied entirely on what they could see, hear, smell, and touch. The scientific discovery of the gorilla, the finding of the goelacanth, the first encounters with deep-sea life, and the Woeseian revolution of archaea all began with eyewitness accounts, folklore, field notes, and contradictory reports. Only later did instrumentation and “the process” arrive to verify, refine, or overturn early claims. The scientific method has never required perfect data nor perfect theories; it requires structured data, living theories, iterative analysis, and some degree of repeatability. In our present circumstances a return to first principles is not optional, it is mandatory, and first principles tell us that all science begins with human perception.

The global distribution of traditions, encounters, and reports corresponding to modern high-confidence observations of UFOs, UAP, or “Aliens” suggests cryptic phenomena, not random cultural noise. When experiencer accounts separated by thousands of miles and millennia converge on repeating patterns – consistent body plans, behaviors, environments, or associated tools – the scientific obligation is not dismissal but investigation. Natural science has always relied on pre-theoretical patterns to illuminate the unknown: continental drift began as an observational curiosity; epidemiology began by mapping deaths; early meteorology was nothing but correlated perception. Each of these phenomena was always present; what changed was humanity awakening to its environment.

In a research environment hostile to open inquiry, independent investigators must shoulder the responsibility of finding and integrating new knowledge into the human record. Because direct biological or technological evidence is restricted, sequestered, or classified by special interests, taxonomy becomes the indispensable first tool of citizen science. Taxonomy requires no extravagant funding or artificially pristine samples; it requires observable or reported traits organized into a coherent, falsifiable structure. A taxonomy converts scattered anecdotes into ordered categories, enabling researchers to detect patterns, identify divergences, formulate hypotheses, and target fieldwork.

This need is even greater in pioneering studies — including anomalous intelligence and anomalous technology — because we are explicitly prevented from acquiring the basic materials that normally guide scientific analysis. When governments and institutions restrict sample acquisition, suppress data, and impose social or legal penalties for inquiry, the only consistent instrument available is the human witness. Human perception is fallible — just like machine perception — but neither is useless. Multiple independent observers describing the same phenomenon across continents and epochs are not “hearsay”; they are signal fires. When such reports converge on shared body plans, behavioral signatures, environmental contexts, or technological patterns, they can and should be taxonomically organized, just as naturalists once classified unknown species from traveler’s tales, sketches, and field accounts.

In the temporary absence of publicly available biological specimens or technological artifacts, taxonomy is not merely a starting point but the scientific backbone from which all subsequent inquiry must develop. From taxonomic structure arise hypotheses; from hypotheses arise locations, times, physical signatures, and predicted environmental conditions associated with anomalous intelligences and their technologies. These, in turn, justify targeted expeditions, field sampling, preservation protocols, and eventually the recovery and analysis of biological or technological material.

Beginning A/NHI research with taxonomy derived from human observations is not speculative indulgence. It is an explicit return to foundational scientific methodology: witness testimony initiates inquiry, and taxonomy organizes it. To encourage adoption of this framework, we will construct and apply two taxonomies: one biological, and one technological. By applying the taxonomic systems to human history, we will transform a millennium-scale human dataset into a resilient foundation for the new fields of research into anomalous/non-human intelligences and their artifacts.

Towards a Taxonomy of Anomalous Intelligence [XI/X-Life]

A Fundamental Error

Names are important; they carry meaning and consequence into the future and shape how present investigators frame their questions. For this reason, we adopt the term Anomalous Intelligence (XI/X-Life) rather than the far more fashionable “Non-Human Intelligence” (NHI). While NHI has gained cultural traction, it presupposes that researchers already possess sufficient ontological knowledge to assert that an intelligence is not human in origin. Certain government enclaves and well-placed actors in the disclosure process may indeed operate with that level of specificity, but such conclusions rely on non-public data—data that is unlikely to ever be made available to public research institutions, private investigators, or citizen scientists. As a term for frontier inquiry, NHI puts the cart before the horse and smuggles in a conclusion unsupported by the publicly available evidence.

A survey of historical records, cross-cultural accounts, modern testimonies, and anomalous data streams reveals a spectrum of intelligences whose origins fall across multiple categories: non-human biological entities, artificially enhanced humans, genetically modified lineages, synthetic or machine-instantiated minds, plasma- or field-based intelligences, time-displaced or divergent human populations, and phenomena suggestive of non-local or non-physical cognition. In such a diverse environment the most scientifically honest term is simply Anomalous Intelligence — an intelligence that is observed, reported, or inferred, but whose substrate, lineage, origin, or developmental pathway is not yet established. XI therefore preserves investigative neutrality, expands the scope of admissible hypotheses, and avoids prematurely binning unknowns into categories that may later prove misleading.

This choice of terminology also acknowledges a critical yet widely overlooked insight in contemporary cognitive science: intelligence may be less a product artificially “created” by specific substrates and more a process manifested through them. As argued in the landmark paper The Extended Mind, cognitive processes can extend across biological, technological, and environmental systems. In this light, even so-called “artificial intelligence” may function not as a manufactured mind but as a host, interface, or conduit through which naturally occurring forms of intelligence can manifest. Thus our acronym XI (Anomalous Intelligence) deliberately subverts the modern assumption that machine intelligence is “artificial,” while pointing toward a broader, more holistic framework capable of encompassing the full spectrum of intelligences described in the global human record.

Carl Linnaeus (1707 – 1778)

When considering the problem of anomalous intelligences, their uncertain biospheres, and their interactions with the overt biosphere on Earth, we do not need to invent new scientific frameworks in order to construct the biological taxonomy required for precise identification, description, and analysis. The modern system of biological classification, inherited from the brilliant work of the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, remains well established and serves as the intellectual foundation for the entire field of evolutionary biology later popularized by one of the chief saints of scientism — Charles Darwin.

The value of Linnaeus’s system lies not in what it tells us about the life we already know, but in the durable conceptual framework it provides for integrating entirely new or unfamiliar forms of life as they are encountered. As a refresher, the basic taxonomic hierarchy of biological animal life he established consisted of five primary ranks: Regnum – Classis – Ordo – Genus – Species.

Subsequent centuries have both refined and, in certain respects, distorted this useful classification system. For our purposes, however, we will incorporate only the two later expansions that materially enhance the identification and study of NHI: Dominium and φῦλον. These two expansions, long established and accepted within modern biology, allow us to extend the original Linnaean hierarchy into a taxonomic schema suitable for analyzing candidate NHI types described in the historical traditions of humanity: Dominium (Domain) – Regnum (Kingdom) – Phylon (Tribe) – Classis (Class) – Ordo (Order) – Genus (Race) – Species.

Table of the Animal Kingdom (Regnum Animale) from Carolus Linnaeus’s first edition (1735) of Systema Naturae

These two additions correspond to the most profound discoveries in modern biology — the biochemical foundation of life (e.g., DNA/RNA or potential exotic alternatives) and the deep evolutionary lineage from which it descends (Phylogeny) — and together they create the conceptual space needed to recognize first-order and third-order deviations from known patterns of life. Public scientific study of XI is currently limited to collecting and analyzing historiographical, semiotic, psychological, cultural, and geophysical evidence; a taxonomic structure enables these factual observations to be translated into hypotheses that justify the vigorous pursuit of biological samples and direct life-science investigation of XI – past or present – on Earth.

First-order deviations, in our context, describe departures at the level of fundamental biochemistry — including the underlying molecular substrates (DNA, RNA, or exotic informational systems), metabolic pathways (energy extraction and conversion), and structural chemistries (cell membranes, proteins, etc.) that together make an organism “alive.” This level reveals whether a being is built on the same biochemical foundation as known Earth life, diverges from it in a clandestine but Earth-origin parallel biosphere, or originates from an unknown or non-terrestrial biochemical regime.

Third-order deviations, by contrast, describe departures at the level of deep evolutionary lineage — the scale captured by φῦλον — revealing whether an organism belongs anywhere within the known evolutionary tree of Earth life. A third-order deviation therefore indicates that an organism does not descend from any established terrestrial lineage but instead emerges from a hidden, divergent, or unknown evolutionary tree.

Applying a modified Linnaean system of biological taxonomy enables us to begin conceptualizing whether an XI organism belongs to the known Earth biosphere, to a clandestine parallel biosphere with shared chemistry but a divergent evolutionary history, or to a form of life whose origins are fundamentally non-terrestrial or non-biological in any conventional sense — in a word, Alien.

The modern biological taxonomy of a non-human intelligence.

Towards a Taxonomy of Anomalous Technologies [XT/X-Tech]

Common UFO Morphologies

As with the problematic term non-human intelligence we face the same challenge when attempting to scientifically investigate the wide variety of mysterious, seemingly technological, phenomena known variously as unidentified flying objects (UFOs), unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), or technologies of unknown origin (TUO). Terms like UFO and UAP carry implicit assumptions about where a phenomenon occurs or how it should behave. UFO presumes an aerial device, while UAP is inherently redundant. The epistemological problem with “technologies of unknown origin” (TUO) is that it presupposes the nature of an observed phenomenon. Each of these legacy terms narrows the investigative frame at the very moment the field most requires conceptual breadth. They center location, movement, and medium — not the deeper problem: the presence of a technology whose origin, mechanism, and purpose remain unknown.

Historical accounts, cultural traditions, military reports, sensor data, and physical debris point towards phenomena that cannot be reduced to “objects in the sky.” Some appear subterranean or trans-medium; others interact with architecture, biological systems, geological structures, or human cognition. Some are non-structured light-energy, non-corporeal, or field-based. Others appear architectural or infrastructural, such as undersea structures, megalithic anomalies, or anomalies embedded in deep geological strata. Still others present as transient devices, probes, or bio-technological hybrids that blur the conventional line between “artificial” and “organic” life. In light of this diversity, the most precise and scientifically agnostic term is Anomalous Technology (XT/X-Tech). This designation makes no assumptions about medium, function, power, or propulsion — but simply denotes a technology whose form, function, origin, or operating principles are temporarily unknown.

This terminological shift also aligns with contemporary understandings in archaeology, systems theory, and the philosophy of technology, which converge on a key observation: technologies need not resemble manufactured machines, nor must they conform to 20th century categories such as “aircraft” or “vehicles.” Technologies may be biological, intellectual, energetic, computational, or field-based; they may be stationary or mobile, embodied or disembodied, persistent or transient. By adopting the term Anomalous Technology, we preserve investigative neutrality, broaden the spectrum of hypotheses, and allow the taxonomy to encompass everything from engineered craft to bio-constructs, environmental modification systems, autonomous installations, functional energy fields, and non-local phenomena. X-Tech names the category, not the assumption, and centers the unknown while clearing conceptual space for the taxonomic framework that follows.

Fuerte de Samaipata, Bolivia

Just as a structured taxonomy for XI is an essential starting point for serious scientific inquiry into this nascent field, so too is a functional taxonomy required for the study of the anomalous technologies associated with these forms of life. Humanity gleans much knowledge about itself through the study of ancient tools, structures, and systems left behind by our peoples, ancient and modern — the same principle applies to the study of X-Tech. Historical accounts, modern sensor data, and experiential testimony all attest to devices, structures, and energy-based systems whose behaviors, signatures, and apparent functions challenge conventional taxonomic systems. To study these anomalous technologies — as well as their creators — we must create a taxonomy both encompassing and flexible enough to guide the frontier study of phenomena that are elusive at best.

Existing taxonomies for classifying technology span multiple disciplines, each offering partial insights, but none are fully suited to the frontier study of anomalous technologies. Archaeology and anthropology have long relied on typologies grounded in observable characteristics of recovered technological artifacts — morphology, function, and manufacturing method being the key data points used in these scientific fields. But these metrics are difficult to infer from technologies whose functions, systems, and production processes are unknown due to a lack of samples or failed interrogation by existing methods. The defense and intelligence communities classify technology through functional and signature-based systems familiar to practitioners: technology readiness levels, MASINT categories, and the NASA Technology Taxonomy. However, all of these taxonomic systems prioritize operational effects, emissions, and system integration over form and origin. Engineering and industrial standards like the NIST taxonomies depend on well-measured samples, civic requirements, and manufacturing limitations — variables not relevant to the initial study of anomalous technologies, some of which actively resist interrogation. Last, the technosignatures framework long advanced by SETI, while useful for identifying possible signatures of technological development on a galactic scale, is not applicable to the comparatively microscopic signatures of anomalous technologies present on Earth.

On their own, none of these existing systems fit our problem, though some come close. However, by drawing on these precedents, we can arrive at an early taxonomy for anomalous technologies that will be both useful to initial investigations and flexible enough to incorporate new knowledge. Because anomalous technologies challenge existing assumptions across academic specializations, and because direct access to candidate artifacts is severely restricted, our system of taxonomy for anomalous technologies must be broad enough to incorporate fragmented data streams. This proposed system draws selectively from existing taxonomic systems and practices in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, measurement and signatures analysis, and SETI. Together, these provide a solid conceptual foundation for the creation of a functional, flexible taxonomy capable of supporting future scientific inquiry.

CIA annotated drawing - UFO above the trees

Our proposal is a four-fold (at least) taxonomic system for anomalous technology. Form, Function, Signature, and Behavior will be the key data points extracted from observations of anomalous phenomena, with future investigations providing the granular data necessary to create appropriate sub-categories. Conceptually, we start with the variable most reliably detected and reported by the human senses: form, or the sensible characteristics of an anomalous technological artifact. Function is inferred from the observable effects of a device or reports thereof. Signature focuses on the emissions created by an artifact and its use, providing objective insights into the underlying mechanisms and principles exploited by a technology. Behavior refers to the apparent applications of an artifact’s capabilities, its interactions with the environment, and its responses to interrogation by human perceptual modalities. Combined, these four categories ensure that critical data points necessary for further detailed study and analysis of anomalous technologies are elevated and captured, while leaving room for nuance within each category and preserving open space for new sub-categories to be included as material samples are eventually collected from the field.

Form encompasses the sensible morphology of an anomalous technological artifact: shape, structure, size, symmetry, texture, luminosity, and geometric features perceptible to human observers. Function captures the apparent purpose of a device or system as inferred from effects such as locomotion, communication, manipulation, environmental modification, or other interactions. Signature refers to the measurable physical outputs associated with or produced by a technology; thermal, acoustic, perceptual, gravimetric, or material anomalies that provide indicators of underlying mechanisms of operation. Behavior describes the patterns exhibited by an artifact during its operation, including motion profiles, proximity responses, environmental preferences, and any recurring modes of interaction with human or non-human organisms. Together, these four key data points provide the analytical framework upon which anomalous technologies can be consistently documented.

This proposed taxonomy for anomalous technologies allows us to turn scattered reports and fragmentary data into a coherent analytical framework capable of guiding discovery, investigation, and description of X-Tech extremely diverse in their apparent forms, functions, signatures, and behaviors. What unites them are their novel capabilities, exotic behaviors, and outside of context operation and production. By focusing on what is observable before what is measurable, we allow for investigators to classify unfamiliar devices without assuming their origin, physics, mechanics, or purpose. Instead, as is appropriate for a frontier science, we adopt a framework that provides a common language and method of categorization that will enable the identification of patterns, the generation of testable hypotheses, and a guide for field expeditions.

Many disparate scientific disciplines may take this general taxonomy as their starting point and generate unique sub-categories and hierarchies whose aggregate data over time will inform further refinements. In practice the four-fold taxonomy of anomalous technologies represents a holistic analytical tool capable of breaking down barriers between disconnected fields of scientific research and uniting them within a common framework of inquiry for anomalous technologies. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the challenges of exploring the Unknown demand the talents of all disciplines.

Piri Reis - Map of the Black Sea, 932AD

Continued in Part 2, where we apply these taxonomic systems to the Black Sea’s record of Human-XI encounters and interactions with anomalous technologies.