UFOs & the Anti-ETH: Summation Arguments: Part Three

That the scientific communities and scientists in general (there are exceptions) dismiss the UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) as pseudoscience and total bunk is understandable, but illogical. The scientists’ anti UFO ETH arguments don’t stand up to logical scrutiny. Here’s some more of their specific objections, and why they are in turn, objectionable. To adequately come to terms with the UFO ETH one needs to have a ‘deep time’ perspective; not just one of here and now or last week, month, year, decade or even centuries ago.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Eyewitness cases are often backed up by a radar tracking or ground traces or physiological effects or (electromagnetic) EM effects or motion pictures or still photographs. Radar, ground traces, EM effects also exist by their lonesome. UFOs are a global phenomenon that cuts across all age, sex, racial, cultural etc. boundaries. If UFOs were just the province of one country or region, or only witnessed by those with an IQ less than 90, well that would be suspect. UFOs have been taken seriously enough to be an official part of government programs from around the world, unlike say poltergeist events which aren’t, and expert military and scientific analysis can not explain, depending on where and time, between five and ten percent of all UFO reports.

Now I am well aware that scientists like to focus on physical evidence as opposed to eyewitness testimony. They want the evidence that lies on the slab in the lab; the kind you can put under an electron microscope. That’s quite understandable and I have no problems with that whatever. What I do have a problem with is when scientists say there is no physical evidence without them having actually examined the physical evidence that is available. I refer to the physical evidence that actually exists that’s associated with the UFO phenomena.

Firstly, ground traces, depressions, discoloured areas, broken branches, electromagnetic imprints etc. associated with a UFO event. No, I’m not talking about crop circles here (that’s another issue separate and apart), but data that exists in the USAF Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book UFO archives. There are quite a few hardcore unknowns associated with UFO physical traces left behind on the environment and you’ll find several in the Condon Report on UFOs.

Secondly, there are unexplained UFO photographs and motion pictures, many from the late 40’s and 50’s (pre CGI). You’ll find five UFO photographic hardcore unknowns in the so-called ‘scientific study of UFOs’ conducted under government contract by the University of Colorado – the Condon Report.

Thirdly, there’s a vast number of unexplainable UFO radar related cases. That infamous Condon Study (University of Colorado) alone contains three unexplained UFO radar cases. I can’t help note the parallel between SETI and UFOs on radar. In both cases you have EM radiation impacting a receiver and a human that ultimately has to determine the cause – intelligent or natural; terrestrial or extraterrestrial.

So, ground traces; photographs; radar – that’s physical evidence.

So, perhaps until such time as scientists take the time and trouble to examine UFO cases that have associated physical evidence, they might want to soften the mantra that there is no physical evidence for hardcore UFOs.  

I make one defense however for the UFO ETH since scientists counter that each of the threads of ETI having been then or now on Earth are weak-in-the-knees when it comes to solid evidence. Roswell is weak; UFO abduction cases are weak; the UFO conspiracy or cover-up case is weak; UFO photographs and videos are weak; UFO radar cases are weak; the case for Erich von Daniken’s ancient astronauts is weak; the ghost rocket sightings (1946) are weak; contactee claims are especially weak; UFO eyewitness reports are unreliable (except when they solve a UFO sighting turning it into an IFO), etc. But, put them (and much more besides) all together and like all good detective stories combine/integrate all the clues into one composite whole (after separating out the wheat from the chaff and eliminating the red herrings) then the whole is more than the sum of the parts. You get a fairly consistent pattern that emerges; not the radio signal patter-of-little-dots-and-dashes the SETI scientist wants but a nuts-and-bolts and a here-and-now pattern.

Now admittedly any one of a hundred different and independent facets to the UFO phenomena might in itself be not all that convincing, but then all 100 or so threads are woven together – that’s a different duck of another color. It’s like if it looks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it flies like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it walks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it swims like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it quacks like a duck – it may not be a duck. But if it looks, flies, walks, swims and quacks like a duck – then it’s a duck!

Another point is what the UFO ETH debunkers are confusing here is the concept of ‘evidence’ vs. the concept of ‘proof’. There are massive amounts of evidence for the UFO ETH as noted immediately above. For example, I’d consider as part of legit evidence documents released under the Freedom of Information Act that show that in 1947, the then Army Air Force (AAF) requested the FBI to assist in investigating ‘flying disc’ reports all as part of the developing Cold War hysteria at the time. The FBI (Hoover) responded that they would cooperate only if they were granted access to the “crashed discs”, something the AAF refused. That’s evidence; it’s not proof.

In fact there’s more than enough eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that would satisfy any court of law; any judge; any jury in just about any other set of circumstances to render a verdict of guilty. But the UFO ETH can not yet be rendered guilty, because though there’s not yet to date a smoking gun. There’s no absolute under-the-microscope, on the lab’s slab, proof positive of the UFO ETH. If any UFO ETH buff says they have proof, tell them to ‘put up or shut up’. If however they say they have evidence in favor of the UFO ETH, ask them politely what it is.  

So, IMHO, this objection fails because there is quite some considerable amount of evidence, both eyewitness and physical suggestive of an UFO ETH, and also because scientists, being human, often employ the double standard.

Now if the UFO ETH is correct then obviously the ‘land on the White House lawn and a take-me-to-your-leader’ scenario would be the obvious course of action for ET. That hasn’t happened; therefore the UFO ETH is ridiculous.

However, an alien by definition would have to have an alien mind, and alien psychology, and alien motives. We can’t hold them to our standards, our motives, our behavior patterns. Half the time I can’t figure out why my cats do what they do!

According to hundreds (probably thousands) of sci-fi writers and of course Hollywood (and equivalents around the world), alien invasion is even more a viable scenario – as entertainment anyway. But that hasn’t happened either, but again that’s no argument to suggest that because there’s been no alien invasion that UFOs can’t be alien technology. The U.S.A. hasn’t invaded Canada anytime lately and America has appropriate technology to do so if it wanted.

That leaves other motives – scientific, economic, etc. Let’s examine human equivalents. Humans have explored ever since we had the ability to explore. We’ve boldly gone, in person or via machine surrogates, to the depths of the ocean, to Antarctica, to the Moon, and to all of the planets (actual, or in the case of Pluto, on route). All this exploration for all practical purposes has been for the sake of just science, pure science, and nothing but the science. Of course there’s usually an ulterior motive in the back of the mind – exploration leads to exploitation. We explore, we like what we see, we colonize, we exploit, we build resorts for R&R, we migrate to escape various forms of environmental/political pressures, we mine for resources, and we farm for food and do more besides. Today the Moon is for science; tomorrow we may exploit its resources. Why should the ET-Earth relationship be any different? 

How about the fact that every cubic inch of the sky is monitored from above and below 24/7/52 by highly sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment, always on the lookout for sneak attacks and to track satellites and space junk. The orbits of thousands of bits of space junk are known with high precision, even if that bit is no larger than a ham sandwich! Any alien spaceships that large or (obviously) larger that’s up there, well, we’d know about it.

However, advanced stealth technology rules; okay anyone? It’s a major and ever ongoing R&D into stealth technologies are of interest to the military, the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies on Earth. What might an advanced alien civilization 1000, 10,000 years in advance of our have in the way of such camouflage? They’d obvious use that technology to prevent being shot at by trigger-happy generals! In ‘Star Trek’ terminology, we’d call this sort of technology something akin to a ‘cloaking device’.

What about if ET is, or was here, there would be artifacts left behind, even if it’s just ET’s garbage and litter.

Unless we humans start launching our garbage into space, say the ultimate incineration in the solar furnace; well let’s just say that option is going to increase waste disposal rates several thousand fold and therefore isn’t a realistic option. Therefore, we have little option but to use Planet Earth as a garbage dump – much to the delight of archaeologists who base much of ancient human history on just such detritus. But of course time, natural forces and biological agents ultimately deal with most forms of human waste – solid, liquid and gaseous.

Those same natural forces and biological agents would also strut their natural recycling and breakdown stuff on ET’s waste. But, in addition, ET can and does have the option of removing their detritus off planet. Secondly, would we of necessity recognize and distinguish ET’s rubbish from all other forms of human rubbish especially without any obvious differences that would suggest such rubbish is somehow different and should be subject to complex analysis that would be required to confirm that this rubbish isn’t ordinary rubbish but extraordinary rubbish?  Lack of ET’s garbage is not evidence of a lack of ET.

There’s yet another solution. A technologically advanced ET is probably equally advanced in recycling technology. If you undertake interstellar voyages you’d better be damned efficient at recycling. Anyway, I don’t recall anyone in ‘Star Trek’ for example leaving behind their litter – an artifact, maybe like a book on Chicago’s gangsters yes, but not rubbish! But speaking of artifacts related to ET, there have been lots of authors, quite apart from Erich von Daniken, who have made careers out of pointing out archaeological evidence suggestive of ET. Now clearly much of that is embellishment and wishful thinking and often plain nonsense, but, as most of life’s little mysteries are, this isn’t an either/or situation. There are many shades of gray here and I’ve sen quite a few artifacts that are quite suggestive of an ET in our past, and of course if past tense, why not present tense? Now throw in some mythology…

An all to human final fallback objection is that the UFO ETH can’t be therefore it isn’t; alright it might be but it still isn’t; don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up; and in any event it’s all pseudoscience and I just deal with real science. Trust me on this – I’m a scientist!

Once upon a time Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus would have been considered pseudo-astronomers; Heinrich Schliemann (of Troy fame) someone who dabbled in pseudo-archaeology; Charles Darwin was a pseudo-naturalist; and Alfred Wegener, obviously put forth a theory (continental drift) that could only be described as pseudo-geology at the time. Even originally Albert Einstein was so far out in left field that his scientific seniors and superiors could easily have described his physics as pseudo-physics. Only time and history will be the judge whether or not the UFO ETH is or was pseudoscience or real science. The jury IMHO is still out on that issue. 

Conclusion: Scientists rally against the UFO ETH and perhaps they are right – or maybe not. Scientists aren’t all-knowing. They too are human with all the accompanying baggage that implies and they can, and do, make mistakes.

UFOs: The Stellar Rainbow Connection

It’s pretty much common knowledge that most scientists reject the reality of UFOs, at least in terms of UFOs being something ultimately anomalous, like extraterrestrial spaceships. Eyewitness testimony doesn’t cut their mustard. Photographs don’t hack it. What they demand is something nuts-and-bolts that they can study, put under a microscope, pound with a hammer, pour acid on, etc. No actual body on the lab’s slab equals no actual evidence one can study therefore there is no reality to the nonexistent body and no correspondence will be entered into on the matter. I smell a double-standard rat!

A senior SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) astronomer recently posted an essay on UFOs in the Huffington Post where he first stated:  “Allow me to first note that this is a phenomenon worthy of attention. If aliens are really hanging out in our 'hood, it's hard to imagine any other fact more worthy of study.” Then he concludes with: “The fact is, if you're certain that our planet is hosting alien visitors, the way to gain acceptance for your point of view is to prove it, not insist that the problem lies with third parties. The blame game is a cop-out.”

WTF is this guy saying? UFOs are important but it’s up to others to do all the hard yards and prove that UFOs and aliens are related. You can just about hear the writer scream out WE REQUIRE PROOF as long as the burden is on others to come up with the smoking gun!

WE REQUIRE PROOF! That’s all fine, well and good in theory, an in an ideal world, except the average member of the great unwashed doesn’t have the name-brand, academic bona-fides or resources required. No matter what ‘proof” the great unwashed offer up, the WE REQUIRE PROOF demands of the many (scientists) outweigh the abilities of the few (the great unwashed) to proved the required goods. If I ring up a top scientist at a top university and say I have a piece of an alien spaceship, do you honestly think they will listen to me or slam down the phone uttering “another bloody wacko wasting my time”! So the ‘blame game’ is perhaps more a plea for those with the scientific bona-fides, and the resources and the credibility and respected home institutions to take the great unwashed a tad more seriously when it comes to UFO experiences and get their hands dirty studying the subject.

I play the blame game. I put blame on those who could, but won’t get their hands dirty. It’s intellectual cowardice pure and simple. The fairly obvious if unstated message is I’m interested in ET, I’m a SETI scientist by profession, but I’m not interested in UFOs unless someone else provides the proof that there is an actual alien connection. I’m not interested in UFOs because I won’t get external funding to study them. That’s because I’ve got too much on my plate already. That’s because I’d rather sit on my ass and let the great unwashed do the dirty work. That’s because someone might make fun of me, like my professional colleagues. The sociology (office politics) of the science community usually runs something along the lines of don’t stray beyond the mainstream; don’t think out of the box; don’t rock the boat or you’ll end up like Jonah and tossed overboard without a whale in sight.

So holier than thou essays like that posted by ‘Mr. SETI’ aren’t really helpful; relevant scientists need to put up some legit science or shut up since if they are clearly not part of the solution, they are part of the problem standing in the way of a solution!

Let’s forget the great unwashed for the moment; let’s talk nerdy talk and deal with evidence, not proof, just evidence, that something strange is afoot via observations from astronomers,  professional colleagues of SETI scientists, and their reported anomalous observations that are in the scientific literature. Now albeit it’s ‘colleagues’ from several generations ago and way before modern SETI times, but that doesn’t alter their academic bona-fides nor what they reported in the professional literature.

I refer to the numerous historical sightings of Neith (reported satellite of Venus) and the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan along with numerous other sightings of alleged planets inside the orbit of Mercury. Not one, or two but multi-dozens of reports are in the scientific literature for both. That’s in addition to those multi-dozens of sightings of unpredicted by uncharted and unknown objects that made unexpected transits of the Sun and Moon. So, professional astronomers are on record as having seen, for all practical purposes, unidentified ‘aerial’ phenomena. Now we know there is no Neith and there is no Vulcan, etc. so exactly what did scientists in the astronomical profession observe? A UFO by any other name is still a UFO. Okay, that’s just evidence, not proof. Still, UFO observations are not exclusively the property of the great unwashed.   

WE REQUIRE PROOF! Okay, even if scientists don’t want to actively participate, their demand WE REQUIRE PROOF (lay it on the slab in my lab) sounds reasonable, until you realise that those same scientists accept the reality of many other things that they equally can’t study on a slab in the lab, things that only can be seen or photographed.

An obvious case in point is those stars in the night sky. You see them; you can photograph them, but to date you can’t study the physical object in the laboratory! You can’t put a star on the slab. So, if stars are acceptable, why not UFOs? Well, stars can be therefore they are; UFOs can’t be therefore they aren’t*.

Scientists have a readymade excuse for not being able to verify the bona-fides of stars as laboratory specimens; they are out of reach – way too distant to grab hold of. But they still argue that stars aren’t illusions or misidentifications or all-in-the-mind or hoaxes because astrophysical theory supports stars being what scientists believe they are. Of course in a manner of speaking starlight can be ‘captured’ and analysed in the lab, and at least stars have the decency of making their appearance on schedule. Still, you cannot examine up close and personal the physical star itself.

So as a generality, in defence to an anti-UFO stance, scientists will say there are theoretical reasons for accepting the reality of things they can’t put their mitts on, implying that there are no theoretical reasons supporting the UFO ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis). Alas and alack, as an additional counterattack, as stars (and rainbows - see below) are supported by astrophysics’ theory, there is also an actual theoretical scenario that nearly demands that there be UFOs and that UFOs be extraterrestrial spacecraft – it’s known as the Fermi Paradox. That just basically says that even if there is only one advanced technological civilization ‘out there’ with the ability to “boldly go”, then the time it would take to explore (even at low sub light velocities – say 1% to 10% the speed of light) and colonize end-to-end our galaxy is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. So where is everybody? They should, if they exist at all, by rights be here. Why would they pay special attention to the third rock from the Sun? While stars and planets are dimes-a-dozen, abodes with biospheres are probably as rare as hen’s teeth – that’s why. Planet Earth is a hen’s tooth! Alas, while astrophysical theory passes their muster, the Fermi Paradox doesn’t cut their mustard apparently. That’s rather odd seeing as how SETI scientists must accept the premise that there does indeed exist at least one advanced ET high-tech civilization out there in order to justify their own profession!

Okay, for terrestrial scientists, physical star-stuff can’t be placed on the lab’s slab. But there are parallels much closer to home where that excuse of extreme distance falls far short. Now here’s a parallel. The rainbow is the case in point. If scientists can play UFO skeptic, I can play the role of rainbow skeptic.

If you say you’ve seen a rainbow, you can’t prove that to me since you can’t bring the rainbow, or any part of it (like say the associated pot-of-gold), into my lab and place it on the slab for me to hammer away at or put under the microscope. You obviously believe in the reality of rainbows, yet you can’t put the one you see in the sky on your lab’s slab either. Okay, you know and I know that rainbows exist, but the critical point is that you cannot prove to me (or anyone) that you saw a rainbow. We all know eyewitness testimony, ain’t worth the price of spit in a bucket. As for photographs, being the grand skeptic I am, no doubt your photographs of rainbows are fakes, pure and simple. I REQUIRE PROOF of rainbows and you can’t provide it.

Can you capture and put an actual rainbow in the sky into a laboratory environment and subject it to cruel and unusual punishments?  You can artificially create one in the lab, but that’s not quite the same thing – it’s not the real McCoy. And what about that associated physical trace – the pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow? I’ve yet to read of any laboratory analysis of that pot and that gold. How do we know it’s really gold without slab-in-the-lab analysis? Maybe its fool’s gold! And just like Pandora’s ‘box’ is really a jar and not a box, maybe the ‘pot’ is really a bowl! Of course the scientists can’t quite get at the pot-of-gold since it’s guarded by a leprechaun, and no scientist is going to admit being thwarted by a little green man (or abducted by a little grey one either for that matter).

Okay, I would be foolish not to believe your observation and to deny the reality of rainbows, yet its okay for scientific skeptics to ignore the rainbow parallel when it comes to UFOs. Eyewitness testimony regarding UFO sightings isn’t worth the cost of the paper it’s printed on; photographs of UFOs are indeed pure Photoshop fakery.

But in fact, UFOs offer up way more physical evidence than the rainbow. Despite that pot-of-gold at the end of a rainbow legend, rainbows leave behind no physical traces; no physiological effects, and no electromagnetic effects; they make no sounds, etc. UFOs are not so hampered. So, if crunch-comes-crunch, the reality of UFOs have a lot more going for them in terms of physical evidence than the reality of rainbows. Of course no scientist in their right mind would exhibit scepticism of the existence of rainbows even without any physical evidence backing them up, but when it comes to UFOs, that’s a different horse of another colour – but is it really a different horse, and is it really of a different hue?

Of course one reason physical scientists accept the reality of the rainbow is that they’ve seen one themselves (many most likely) and seeing is believing as long as it’s they who are doing the seeing. If they themselves had witnessed a UFO event they (and their colleagues) could not identify then I’m sure they would be much more open and inclined to accept another’s eyewitness testimony. A bit of a double standard there of course but that’s human nature and scientists aren’t exempt from that weakness. Unfortunately, UFOs tend to be a rarer commodity than rainbows and therefore witnessed way less often, including viewings by scientists. 

While UFOs have a higher physical evidence quota than rainbows, they also have a higher strangeness quota too, which is not to say that rainbows don’t have a strange mythological aura about them. I wonder if the scientist who accepts the reality of the rainbow also accepts that the rainbow is a bridge to heaven (Asgard) according to Norse mythology and made famous in the conclusion to Richard Wagner’s first “Ring Cycle” opera “Das Rheingold”. Christian mythology has the rainbow as a sign that at least the next time God lays waste to the world it won’t be via the Big Wet, though I doubt you’ll find that in any textbook on optical and atmospheric phenomena. And if you’re into cryptozoology, the Australian aborigines have a Rainbow Serpent (which doubles as a creator deity), but then again, scientists aren’t noted for their curiosity into the actual existence of unknown mega-fauna or polytheistic creator deities** either for that matter. In fact, you name the culture; you’ll find a rainbow mythology contained within. Rainbows are associated with spirits and demons and all manner of omens from the good, to the bad and the ugly that scientists will reject as part and parcel of their belief system.

So, where do scientists draw the line? Rainbows – yes; rainbow serpents and rainbow bridges – no. And this distinction is rightly so, IMHO. But when they reject out of hand a phenomenon that actually has more and better evidence than say rainbows (auroras and sprites would be other cases in point) then eyebrows must be raised and questions asked – like please explain your logic.

While on the subject of things mythological, let’s go harking back to the stars and planets and other celestial objects. There’s a massive mythology from many ancient cultures that usually goes hand-in-hand with how those celestial objects and night sky patterns came to be. Astronomers don’t support those tall tales either since they have other more scientific theories that explain the origins of stars and constellations. Still, its two competing theories of how to account for say, the Pleiades star cluster. Once upon a time it was Zeus. Today it’s astrophysics. Who’s to say since neither scenario can be subjected to a definitive WE REQUIRE PROOF slab-in-the-lab test.

By the way, as a final counterattack, I haven’t yet seen any SETI scientist come up with proof positive on ET, so IMHO it’s still a tied ball game. But rather than have two opposing teams, SETI scientists may as well study UFOs as well since SETI to date has a batting average of zero. Perhaps that’s what comes from scientists putting all their ET eggs in just the SETI basket. 

*And the Sun can’t have sunspots since we all know that the Sun is perfect; meteorites can’t exist since we all know stones can’t fall from the sky;

**Though faith in the reality of God is hardly unknown to exist in some physical scientists, though like stars and rainbows, they can’t put God on the slab in their lab either. Somehow the WE REQUIRE PROOF criteria don’t matter in this case.

UFOs: Show Me the Evidence! Part Three

UFO skeptics claim that there’s little or no credible evidence that any UFO event can be interpreted as an alien spaceship doing its alien flying thing, boldly going on Planet Earth where no extraterrestrial has gone before. However, the fact that there exists such a thing as the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), six decades (and then some) on must suggest that there is some really real evidence in support of that UFO ETH belief, belief supported by opinion polls over many, many years.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Extraordinary Claims

Lastly, something really needs to be said that there’s one set of standards of evidence for one set of phenomena, and another set of standards of evidence for other sets of phenomena. That is to say, if you want to be extraordinarily sceptical about some things, you claim you need extraordinary evidence to make you see the sceptical error of your ways!

There exists a phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”'. I've seen that mantra in numerous books, articles, on the Internet, etc. I understand it originates from the late and great Carl Sagan. Were Dr. Sagan alive today I'd take my comments to him, but seeing as how he's no longer available, this section of the essay will suffice instead.

Claims require evidence. That's not in dispute. However, the word 'extraordinary' is in the mind of the beholder. What might be an extraordinary claim to you might not be an extraordinary claim to me, and vice versa. Murder is a more extraordinary crime than littering, yet the same evidence (say a security camera film) will convict in both cases. You don't need twice the amount of evidence in a murder trial vis-à-vis being convicted of littering. So, claims, of any kind, require enough evidence to convince anyone with an open mind - no more; no less.

If I, one of the vast majority of laymen, were to make a claim that the double slit experiment beloved in quantum physics provides evidence for the existence of parallel universes, or that a positron (an anti-electron) was actually nothing more than an electron going backwards in time, that would be extraordinary. If a professional scientist, a physicist, were to make those same claims, it’s not extraordinary presumably because physicists know what they are talking about. Yet it’s the same set of claims. They can’t be both extraordinary and ordinary at the same time!

Many of the greatest and now accepted parts of science started out as an extraordinary claim - like quantum mechanics or relativity theory or the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun. But did these claims really need extraordinary (like double the experimental) evidence vis-à-vis other claims that are now equally parts of the accepted science we find in the textbooks? For open-minded people, especially scientists, such claims probably did not require extraordinary evidence. And how in fact do you quantify extraordinary over ordinary evidence? Is twice as much extraordinary or three times or ten times? If someone is really a true-blue skeptic, it might not make the slightest difference, they would always demand more. No amount of evidence is extraordinary enough for them.

Few scientists now dispute the (initially extraordinary) claim of the reality of ball lightning, yet not only is it far rarer than UFO sightings, it has less of a theoretical underpinning than the proposal that some UFOs have an extraterrestrial intelligence behind them. Ball lightning hasn’t been put under a laboratory microscope any more than UFOs have. There are lots of parallels between ball lightning and UFOs for the sociologists of science to ponder. Yet one has credibility, one doesn’t. Why? It makes relatively little sense.

It is said, and there is truth in this, that science and scientists do not have the time and resources to investigate every claim ever made about the natural world. There must be some ways and means of distinguishing reasonable from unreasonable (i.e. – extraordinary) claims. While I don’t have an easy answer to that – though I’ll give one immediately below – I’ll just initially observe that there’s been a lot of seemingly reasonable claims that are now only footnotes in the history of science, and a fair few unreasonable claims that are now part of the bedrock on which our sciences, technology and civilization rests.

However, instead of ordinary vs. extraordinary distinctions, I’d suggest important vs. relatively unimportant claims. Lots of claims, whether proven or unproven, aren’t going to set the world on fire. Others have the potential to make for paradigm shifts in our understanding of the world and the cosmos. The equation UFOs = evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence is such an example. The claim needs to be investigated, yet not requiring massive more investigations than any other sort of scientific puzzle would require.

So, we desire evidence for the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs, not extraordinary evidence since that word ‘extraordinary’ has too much philosophical baggage attached to be meaningful.

To sum up this section, that ultra overused phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Claims of course require evidence, but the word ‘extraordinary’ is in the mind of the beholder. What’s extraordinary to one is routine, boring, commonplace and downright bloody obvious to another. And speaking of the common phrase, another one is ‘absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence’, or in this context, absence of evidence for the UFO ETH (which I dispute) is not the same thing as evidence of absence of the UFO related alien here on Earth.

Summary & Conclusions

UFOs vs. evidence for the UFO ETH – there is no absolute smoking gun - yet. I’d be the first to acknowledge that. I’d suggest however that this is a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke. The fire has yet to be seen through the smoke. There however has got to be something suggestive about the nature of that smoke to drive lots of people, even some quite intelligent people, to accept the possibility, some say probability, of the UFO ETH. I mean the idea just didn’t pop out of the ether – out of thin air. Something very suggestive is driving it. 

But there is a reason. There’s more than enough eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that would satisfy any court of law; any judge; any jury in just about any other set of circumstances to render a verdict of guilty. But the UFO ETH can not yet be rendered guilty, because though there’s not yet to date that smoking gun. There’s lots of evidence – no proof. There’s no absolute under-the-microscope, on the lab’s slab, proof positive of the UFO ETH. If any UFO ETH buff says they have proof, skeptics should tell them to ‘put up or shut up’. If however they say they have evidence in favor of the UFO ETH, ask them politely what it is.  

UFOs: Show Me the Evidence! Part Two

UFO skeptics claim that there’s little or no credible evidence that any UFO event can be interpreted as an alien spaceship doing its alien flying thing, boldly going on Planet Earth where no extraterrestrial has gone before. However, the fact that there exists such a thing as the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), six decades (and then some) on must suggest that there is some really real evidence in support of that UFO ETH belief, belief supported by opinion polls over many, many years.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Nature of Evidence:

It is claimed by scientists and other UFO sceptics, with good scientific reason, that the whole issue of the UFO ETH must be judged on the basis of actual evidence. And, it is claimed, by those sceptics, that the evidence for alien visitation is so poor that very few scientists find it convincing, convincing enough to devote their time and energy into pursuing the matter. And that is true, at least the part that few scientists, publicly at least, find the UFO ETH more than somewhat lacking in solid evidence – the sort of evidence that can be laid down on a lab slab or at least put under a microscope. Since there’s no such evidence, the UFO ETH has garnered somewhat of an aura of being just a ‘silly season’ subject, unworthy of scientific study, though to be honest, I’d often like to survey academics / scientists for their private opinions!

I would ask the question whether by evidence one means a physical artefact that can be put under the microscope, or is human testimony, the sort that would convict someone of a crime and put them on death row enough evidence? I’m 99% convinced 99% of scientists would say the former, yet the evidence for the UFO ETH is 99% the latter (plus a few radar returns and films). Actually IMHO it’s ludicrous for UFO ETH sceptics to poo-poo and give the thumbs down to eyewitness testimony. After all, it’s accurate eyewitness testimony that enables the trained investigators to properly identify the vast majority of UFO reports, turning them into identified flying objects to the tune of around 95%. So, when sceptics need eyewitness testimony to be accurate and turn UFO cases into something with ordinary and mundane causes – that’s fine. But when the tables are turned, sceptics turn turncoat as well so as to re-enforce their already-minds-made-up point of view. That is, eyewitness testimony that turns a UFO sighting into an unexplained bona fide UFO case, even if only about 5% of the time, well then clearly the eyewitness testimony counts for nothing in terms of bona fide evidence.   

I make one defense however for the UFO ETH since scientists counter that each of the threads that an extraterrestrial intelligence having been then or now on Earth are weak-in-the-knees when it comes to solid evidence? Roswell is weak; UFO abduction cases are weak; the UFO conspiracy or cover-up case is weak; UFO photographs and videos are weak; UFO radar cases are weak; the case for Erich von Daniken’s ancient astronauts is weak; the ghost rocket sightings (1946) are weak; contactee claims are especially weak; UFO eye-witness reports are unreliable, etc. But, put them (and much more besides) all together and like all good detective stories combine/integrate all the clues into one composite whole (after separating out the wheat from the chaff and eliminating the red herrings) then the whole is more than the sum of the parts. You get a fairly consistent pattern that emerges; not the radio signal patter-of-little-dots-and-dashes the SETI scientist wants but a nuts-and-bolts and a here-and-now pattern.

Now admittedly any one of a hundred different and independent threads might in itself be not all that convincing, but then all 100 or so threads are woven together – that’s a different duck of another color. It’s like if it looks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it flies like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it walks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it swims like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it quacks like a duck – it may not be a duck. But if it looks, flies, walks, swims and quacks like a duck – then it’s a duck!

The Actual Evidence

What’s the general evidence for UFOs and by extension the UFO ETH? Well, you have multi-tens of thousands of UFO sightings, probably six figures worth by now, many multi-witness sightings, more than a few multi-independent multi-witness sightings; sightings by people used to the outdoors and aerial phenomena (like pilots), films and photographs that have defied the best experts to explain them in conventional terms, radar returns, physical ground traces, physiological effects on biological tissues, including humans; often more than one of these categories applies per incident.

You have a global phenomena, where countries from Australia, the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, France, Russia, Mexico, etc. have devoted considerable resources to finding answers to what many see as a ‘silly season’ filler with a high ‘giggle’ factor. That makes little logical sense – the ‘giggle’ factor, not the official investigations. There are neither psychological, sociological or cultural reasons to explain the origin of UFOs in general, nor specific UFO reports. It’s all evidence, and grist for the mill.  So, what part of the word ‘evidence’ don’t you understand? The crux of the matter is not lack of evidence; it is how that evidence is interpreted. So take the bona-fide UFO residue, that hardcore 5%.  Now what is this residue and what happens if you apply Occam’s Razor to it? Well, maybe bona-fide UFOs are just ghosts, or angels, or the work of the devil, or some nation’s secret weapons, or craft from a terrestrial advanced civilization that inhabits our hollow Earth! Or, maybe the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is the most plausible. I think Occam’s Razor would err on the side of the ETH when trying to come to terms with that hardcore unexplainable 5%.

Eyewitness and Evidence

Physical scientists won’t accept eyewitness accounts despite the double standards that entails in that if a physical scientist reports seeing something (like ball lightning or a ‘shooting star’, he or she expects to be believed. But not when it comes to UFOs.

Okay, so multi-tens of thousands of eyewitness accounts count for nothing, especially when many of those sightings were by trained observers, and multi-witness cases at that.

If eyewitnesses were the be-all-and-end all of the evidence, well that itself would be pretty suggestive IMHO. But eyewitness cases are often backed up by a radar tracking or ground traces or physiological effects or (electromagnetic) EM effects or motion pictures or still photographs. Radar, ground traces, EM effects also exist separate from eyewitnesses. UFOs are a global phenomenon that cuts across all age, sex, racial, cultural etc. boundaries. If UFOs were just the province of one country or region, or only witnessed by those with an IQ less than 90, well that would be suspect. But that’s not the case. UFOs have been taken seriously enough to be an official part of government programs from around the world, unlike say poltergeist events which aren’t part of official taxpayer funded investigations. And expert military and scientific analysis can not explain, depending on where and time, between five and ten percent of all UFO reports. Just because 18 or 19 out of 20 UFO events are explainable in prosaic terms, doesn’t automatically translate into accepting that 20 out of 20 are.

Evidence versus Proof

What many of the UFO ETH skeptics or debunkers are confusing here is the concept of ‘evidence’ vs. the concept of ‘proof’. There are massive amounts of evidence for the UFO ETH as noted above. For example, I’d consider as part of legit evidence documents released under the FOI (Freedom of Information) Act that show that in 1947, the then Army Air Force (AAF) requested the FBI to assist in investigating ‘flying disc’ reports all as part of the developing Cold War hysteria at the time. The FBI (Hoover) responded that they would cooperate only if they were granted access to the “crashed discs”, something the AAF refused. While that’s evidence; it’s not proof. SETI has received one “WOW” signal – unverified. While that’s evidence; it’s not proof.

Sceptics would argue that the burden of proof that extraterrestrials are behind (at least some of) the UFO phenomena lies with the believers – those who claim such is the case. And that’s true. But there’s another side to that coin. Sceptics need to look at what evidence is presented and not have a closed-mind-locked-away-in-a-closet attitude.

To be continued…

UFOs: The Stellar Rainbow Connection: Part Two

It’s pretty much common knowledge that most scientists reject the reality of UFOs, at least in terms of UFOs being something ultimately anomalous, like extraterrestrial spaceships. Eyewitness testimony doesn’t cut their mustard. Photographs don’t hack it. What they demand is something nuts-and-bolts that they can study, put under a microscope, pound with a hammer, pour acid on, etc. No actual body on the lab’s slab equals no actual evidence one can study therefore there is no reality to the nonexistent body and no correspondence will be entered into on the matter. I smell a double-standard rat!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Okay, for terrestrial scientists, physical star-stuff can’t be placed on the lab’s slab. But there are parallels much closer to home where that excuse of extreme distance falls far short. Now here’s a parallel. The rainbow is the case in point. If scientists can play UFO skeptic, I can play the role of rainbow skeptic.

If you say you’ve seen a rainbow, you can’t prove that to me since you can’t bring the rainbow, or any part of it (like say the associated pot-of-gold), into my lab and place it on the slab for me to hammer away at or put under the microscope. You obviously believe in the reality of rainbows, yet you can’t put the one you see in the sky on your lab’s slab either. Okay, you know and I know that rainbows exist, but the critical point is that you cannot prove to me (or anyone) that you saw a rainbow. We all know eyewitness testimony, ain’t worth the price of spit in a bucket. As for photographs, being the grand skeptic I am, no doubt your photographs of rainbows are fakes, pure and simple. I REQUIRE PROOF of rainbows and you can’t provide it.

Can you capture and put an actual rainbow in the sky into a laboratory environment and subject it to cruel and unusual punishments?  You can artificially create one in the lab, but that’s not quite the same thing – it’s not the real McCoy. And what about that associated physical trace – the pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow? I’ve yet to read of any laboratory analysis of that pot and that gold. How do we know it’s really gold without slab-in-the-lab analysis? Maybe its fool’s gold! And just like Pandora’s ‘box’ is really a jar and not a box, maybe the ‘pot’ is really a bowl! Of course the scientists can’t quite get at the pot-of-gold since it’s guarded by a leprechaun, and no scientist is going to admit being thwarted by a little green man (or abducted by a little grey one either for that matter).

Okay, I would be foolish not to believe your observation and to deny the reality of rainbows, yet its okay for scientific skeptics to ignore the rainbow parallel when it comes to UFOs. Eyewitness testimony regarding UFO sightings isn’t worth the cost of the paper it’s printed on; photographs of UFOs are indeed pure Photoshop fakery.

But in fact, UFOs offer up way more physical evidence than the rainbow. Despite that pot-of-gold at the end of a rainbow legend, rainbows leave behind no physical traces; no physiological effects, and no electromagnetic effects; they make no sounds, etc. UFOs are not so hampered. So, if crunch-comes-crunch, the reality of UFOs have a lot more going for them in terms of physical evidence than the reality of rainbows. Of course no scientist in their right mind would exhibit scepticism of the existence of rainbows even without any physical evidence backing them up, but when it comes to UFOs, that’s a different horse of another colour – but is it really a different horse, and is it really of a different hue?

Of course one reason physical scientists accept the reality of the rainbow is that they’ve seen one themselves (many most likely) and seeing is believing as long as it’s they who are doing the seeing. If they themselves had witnessed a UFO event they (and their colleagues) could not identify then I’m sure they would be much more open and inclined to accept another’s eyewitness testimony. A bit of a double standard there of course but that’s human nature and scientists aren’t exempt from that weakness. Unfortunately, UFOs tend to be a rarer commodity than rainbows and therefore witnessed way less often, including viewings by scientists. 

While UFOs have a higher physical evidence quota than rainbows, they also have a higher strangeness quota too, which is not to say that rainbows don’t have a strange mythological aura about them. I wonder if the scientist who accepts the reality of the rainbow also accepts that the rainbow is a bridge to heaven (Asgard) according to Norse mythology and made famous in the conclusion to Richard Wagner’s first “Ring Cycle” opera “Das Rheingold”. Christian mythology has the rainbow as a sign that at least the next time God lays waste to the world it won’t be via the Big Wet, though I doubt you’ll find that in any textbook on optical and atmospheric phenomena. And if you’re into cryptozoology, the Australian aborigines have a Rainbow Serpent (which doubles as a creator deity), but then again, scientists aren’t noted for their curiosity into the actual existence of unknown mega-fauna or polytheistic creator deities** either for that matter. In fact, you name the culture; you’ll find a rainbow mythology contained within. Rainbows are associated with spirits and demons and all manner of omens from the good, to the bad and the ugly that scientists will reject as part and parcel of their belief system.

So, where do scientists draw the line? Rainbows – yes; rainbow serpents and rainbow bridges – no. And this distinction is rightly so, IMHO. But when they reject out of hand a phenomenon that actually has more and better evidence than say rainbows (auroras and sprites would be other cases in point) then eyebrows must be raised and questions asked – like please explain your logic.

While on the subject of things mythological, let’s go harking back to the stars and planets and other celestial objects. There’s a massive mythology from many ancient cultures that usually goes hand-in-hand with how those celestial objects and night sky patterns came to be. Astronomers don’t support those tall tales either since they have other more scientific theories that explain the origins of stars and constellations. Still, its two competing theories of how to account for say, the Pleiades star cluster. Once upon a time it was Zeus. Today it’s astrophysics. Who’s to say since neither scenario can be subjected to a definitive WE REQUIRE PROOF slab-in-the-lab test.

By the way, as a final counterattack, I haven’t yet seen any SETI scientist come up with proof positive on ET, so IMHO it’s still a tied ball game. But rather than have two opposing teams, SETI scientists may as well study UFOs as well since SETI to date has a batting average of zero. Perhaps that’s what comes from scientists putting all their ET eggs in just the SETI basket. 

*And the Sun can’t have sunspots since we all know that the Sun is perfect; meteorites can’t exist since we all know stones can’t fall from the sky;

**Though faith in the reality of God is hardly unknown to exist in some physical scientists, though like stars and rainbows, they can’t put God on the slab in their lab either. Somehow the WE REQUIRE PROOF criteria don’t matter in this case.

UFOs: The Stellar Rainbow Connection: Part One

It’s pretty much common knowledge that most scientists reject the reality of UFOs, at least in terms of UFOs being something ultimately anomalous, like extraterrestrial spaceships. Eyewitness testimony doesn’t cut their mustard. Photographs don’t hack it. What they demand is something nuts-and-bolts that they can study, put under a microscope, pound with a hammer, pour acid on, etc. No actual body on the lab’s slab equals no actual evidence one can study therefore there is no reality to the nonexistent body and no correspondence will be entered into on the matter. I smell a double-standard rat!

A senior SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) astronomer recently posted an essay on UFOs in the Huffington Post where he first stated:  “Allow me to first note that this is a phenomenon worthy of attention. If aliens are really hanging out in our 'hood, it's hard to imagine any other fact more worthy of study.” Then he concludes with: “The fact is, if you're certain that our planet is hosting alien visitors, the way to gain acceptance for your point of view is to prove it, not insist that the problem lies with third parties. The blame game is a cop-out.”

WTF is this guy saying? UFOs are important but it’s up to others to do all the hard yards and prove that UFOs and aliens are related. You can just about hear the writer scream out WE REQUIRE PROOF as long as the burden is on others to come up with the smoking gun!

WE REQUIRE PROOF! That’s all fine, well and good in theory, an in an ideal world, except the average member of the great unwashed doesn’t have the name-brand, academic bona-fides or resources required. No matter what ‘proof” the great unwashed offer up, the WE REQUIRE PROOF demands of the many (scientists) outweigh the abilities of the few (the great unwashed) to proved the required goods. If I ring up a top scientist at a top university and say I have a piece of an alien spaceship, do you honestly think they will listen to me or slam down the phone uttering “another bloody wacko wasting my time”! So the ‘blame game’ is perhaps more a plea for those with the scientific bona-fides, and the resources and the credibility and respected home institutions to take the great unwashed a tad more seriously when it comes to UFO experiences and get their hands dirty studying the subject.

I play the blame game. I put blame on those who could, but won’t get their hands dirty. It’s intellectual cowardice pure and simple. The fairly obvious if unstated message is I’m interested in ET, I’m a SETI scientist by profession, but I’m not interested in UFOs unless someone else provides the proof that there is an actual alien connection. I’m not interested in UFOs because I won’t get external funding to study them. That’s because I’ve got too much on my plate already. That’s because I’d rather sit on my ass and let the great unwashed do the dirty work. That’s because someone might make fun of me, like my professional colleagues. The sociology (office politics) of the science community usually runs something along the lines of don’t stray beyond the mainstream; don’t think out of the box; don’t rock the boat or you’ll end up like Jonah and tossed overboard without a whale in sight.

So holier than thou essays like that posted by ‘Mr. SETI’ aren’t really helpful; relevant scientists need to put up some legit science or shut up since if they are clearly not part of the solution, they are part of the problem standing in the way of a solution!

Let’s forget the great unwashed for the moment; let’s talk nerdy talk and deal with evidence, not proof, just evidence, that something strange is afoot via observations from astronomers,  professional colleagues of SETI scientists, and their reported anomalous observations that are in the scientific literature. Now albeit it’s ‘colleagues’ from several generations ago and way before modern SETI times, but that doesn’t alter their academic bona-fides nor what they reported in the professional literature.

I refer to the numerous historical sightings of Neith (reported satellite of Venus) and the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan along with numerous other sightings of alleged planets inside the orbit of Mercury. Not one, or two but multi-dozens of reports are in the scientific literature for both. That’s in addition to those multi-dozens of sightings of unpredicted by uncharted and unknown objects that made unexpected transits of the Sun and Moon. So, professional astronomers are on record as having seen, for all practical purposes, unidentified ‘aerial’ phenomena. Now we know there is no Neith and there is no Vulcan, etc. so exactly what did scientists in the astronomical profession observe? A UFO by any other name is still a UFO. Okay, that’s just evidence, not proof. Still, UFO observations are not exclusively the property of the great unwashed.   

WE REQUIRE PROOF! Okay, even if scientists don’t want to actively participate, their demand WE REQUIRE PROOF (lay it on the slab in my lab) sounds reasonable, until you realise that those same scientists accept the reality of many other things that they equally can’t study on a slab in the lab, things that only can be seen or photographed.

An obvious case in point is those stars in the night sky. You see them; you can photograph them, but to date you can’t study the physical object in the laboratory! You can’t put a star on the slab. So, if stars are acceptable, why not UFOs? Well, stars can be therefore they are; UFOs can’t be therefore they aren’t*.

Scientists have a readymade excuse for not being able to verify the bona-fides of stars as laboratory specimens; they are out of reach – way too distant to grab hold of. But they still argue that stars aren’t illusions or misidentifications or all-in-the-mind or hoaxes because astrophysical theory supports stars being what scientists believe they are. Of course in a manner of speaking starlight can be ‘captured’ and analysed in the lab, and at least stars have the decency of making their appearance on schedule. Still, you cannot examine up close and personal the physical star itself.

So as a generality, in defence to an anti-UFO stance, scientists will say there are theoretical reasons for accepting the reality of things they can’t put their mitts on, implying that there are no theoretical reasons supporting the UFO ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis). Alas and alack, as an additional counterattack, as stars (and rainbows - see below) are supported by astrophysics’ theory, there is also an actual theoretical scenario that nearly demands that there be UFOs and that UFOs be extraterrestrial spacecraft – it’s known as the Fermi Paradox. That just basically says that even if there is only one advanced technological civilization ‘out there’ with the ability to “boldly go”, then the time it would take to explore (even at low sub light velocities – say 1% to 10% the speed of light) and colonize end-to-end our galaxy is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. So where is everybody? They should, if they exist at all, by rights be here. Why would they pay special attention to the third rock from the Sun? While stars and planets are dimes-a-dozen, abodes with biospheres are probably as rare as hen’s teeth – that’s why. Planet Earth is a hen’s tooth! Alas, while astrophysical theory passes their muster, the Fermi Paradox doesn’t cut their mustard apparently. That’s rather odd seeing as how SETI scientists must accept the premise that there does indeed exist at least one advanced ET high-tech civilization out there in order to justify their own profession!

To be continued…