UFOpedia

masters-future-human-hypothesis

4 min read

Michael P. Masters — the “future human” / extratempestrial hypothesis

  • Type: named-figure source-of-record (biological anthropologist; UFO hypothesis-builder)
  • Role: Professor of biological anthropology, Montana Technological University; author of three books on the future-human hypothesis
  • Date: hypothesis developed 2019–2023; anchored here to the 2023 Jesse Michels interview
  • Credibility: ~44 — analyst / hypothesis register; bimodal. Real in-domain credentials and a genuinely novel evolutionary argument, wrapped around an unfalsifiable, physics-dependent core (time travel is real) and his own experiencer claim — capped by reliance on the low-tier abduction corpus. Full reasoning in the roster at community-credibility-assessment.
  • Primary: masters-jesse-michels-future-human-2023 (Jesse Michels, ft. David Grusch, 2023)

Who he is

Dr. Michael P. Masters is a full professor of biological anthropology at Montana Technological University (PhD, Ohio State, 2009), specializing in hominin evolutionary anatomy, osteology, and human variation — a real, publishing academic (Google Scholar, ResearchGate). His credentials are genuine and, unusually for UFO hypotheses, directly relevant to the claim he makes. He has written three books — Identified Flying Objects (2019), The Extratempestrial Model (2022), and Revelation: The Future Human Past (2023) — arguing that UFO occupants are not extraterrestrial but “extratempestrial”: our own distant human descendants, time-traveling back to study their evolutionary past.

The hypothesis

The argument’s spine is directional human evolution → the “grey” morphology: continued selection would plausibly yield large-brained, hairless, small-nosed/small-eared, large-eyed, bipedal, pentadactyl beings who communicate in our languages and use technology “built upon, but advanced beyond” ours — i.e. the canonical grey. He invokes neoteny (descendants resembling a lineage’s current children) to explain the child-like ~3-ft greys. The craft are read as time machines — accounting (he argues) for reported missing time, strong electromagnetism, and the “antiseptic rinse / gamete-sampling” abduction motifs, which he frames as an “intertemporal” self-preservation / breeding program (“I don’t think they’re doing anything to us… it’s for them”). He marshals credentialed precedents — Cmdr George Hoover, Hermann Oberth (“UFOs jump from one time-space coordinate to another”), Tom DeLonge, Hynek — and even Spielberg’s Close Encounters (the un-aged WWII pilots) as a “time-travel hint.”

The intellectual-honesty raiser: he consistently frames it as a model/hypothesis, not established fact, and grounds the morphology half in his actual expertise.

Where it breaks (the skeptical counterweight)

  • The core premise is unevidenced and physics-contradicting. The whole edifice rests on time travel being real and possible — which is not demonstrated, is widely held to violate known physics, and is outside Masters’ field. UFO skeptic Robert Sheaffer: the work relies on “the belief that time travel is not only possible, but real.” Neil deGrasse Tyson calls the hypothesis “illogical”; the Wikipedia “time-traveler UFO hypothesis” entry and a long Metabunk thread treat it as pseudoscientific. A specific objection: backward time travel to “study our past” ignores that Earth/the solar system occupy different spatial coordinates in the past — a “time machine” alone doesn’t get you to 1947 New Mexico.
  • It is unfalsifiable and explanatorily parasitic. The model is a reframing of the existing contactee corpus, not a discovery; any encounter feature can be retrofit (“missing time,” “rinses,” “telepathy” all “make sense if they’re time machines”). No physical evidence is presented; the explanandum is itself low-tier (hypnosis-recovered abduction testimony).
  • He is also an experiencer, which cuts both ways. In the same interview he recounts a personal telepathic-contact event — “my eyes went black and all of a sudden I feel all of this information coming in my brain” — and describes communicating “telepathically over the course of” a sustained episode. This pulls part of his stance into the experiential tier and complicates the detached-scientist framing.

How to weight him

The morphology argument is his real contribution — a credentialed anthropologist’s in-domain reasoning about what evolved humans might look like, which is a legitimately interesting (if speculative) constraint on the “grey” archetype. Everything downstream of “and therefore they time-travel here” is unfalsifiable, unevidenced, and physics-dependent, and rests on the abduction corpus the framework already discounts. Net: above pure advocates and the experiential floor on credentials, candor, and the framing-as-hypothesis discipline; held in the mid-40s because the load-bearing premise is outside his expertise and unsupported, and he is himself an experiencer of the phenomenon he models. Cite him as the canonical exponent of the future-human hypothesis and for the convergent-evolution-of-the-grey argument; give the time-travel core no evidentiary weight. Cf. Vallée’s interdimensional hypothesis (~58) — a structurally similar “not-ET” reframing, rated higher on Vallée’s vastly larger field-investigation record.

Graph View

Backlinks