Show Me The Evidence!

You will find many claims in science and religious texts that this, that and the next thing is 100% factual and true. Usually, in science at least, those claims are backed up by hard evidence, peer reviewed, and published for the entire world to read and examine. However, that’s not always the case. Claims are sometimes made that such-and-such is factual, but there’s no supporting evidence, which a) wouldn’t be so bad if that were admitted, and b) if those failing to give their evidence didn’t demand hardcore evidence from others for their claims.  

Scientists and science buffs have a near religious mantra when it comes to the claims of what they term the pseudo-sciences, pseudo-scientists and pseudoscience buffs. That mantra is “show me the evidence”; Show Me The Evidence”; “SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE” - And rightly so. In general it is a good step in the advancement of knowledge to require some minimum amount of evidence when someone making a claim that has a good probability of being wrong.

But there’s a whole pot-full of scientific claims (and for completeness, religious claims) that’s given as unquestioned ‘fact’ albeit ‘fact’ with no supporting evidence at hand. These are ‘facts’ taken on pure faith. These ‘facts’ are presented by the faithful, in whatever discipline(s) their ‘facts’ reside in or belong to, as, well ‘facts’ yet offer up nothing in the way of evidence supporting these ‘facts’.

THE DOUBLE STANDARDS

So, it is a double standard to demand evidence from someone else’s bailiwick (say from so-called pseudoscience or the paranormal) while not presenting any evidence for your bailiwick (the sciences; religion).   

In other words, there’s often a double standard, probably linked to one half of the equation having an entry ticket to the ivory tower and the other half of the equation excluded from the ivory tower. Scientists (ivory tower resident) preaching to the layman (not ivory tower resident), usually present less evidence for their convictions than they demand in turn from the layman for their convictions or worldviews.

For example:

The Catholic Church probably demands some quite definitive and sufficient evidence of a miracle as claimed by Joe Faithful, but expects Joe Faithful to swallow hook, line and sinker stories (mythological tall tales IMHO) of a virgin birth, a deity who walks on water, and that Christmas is the actual birthday of Jesus.

It’s no great secret that some scientists believe in the reality of a creator God. Yet while they will accept God-the-Creator based on zero evidence, they will demand solid slab-in-the-lab physical evidence from their peers (not to mention the great unwashed layperson) for their bailiwicks and worldviews.

Biologists confront Bigfoot: Show us the evidence!

-         Eyewitness sightings, even multiple eyewitness sightings – not evidence.

-         Physical traces, like dung or hair – not evidence.

-         Films and photographs – not evidence.

-         Plaster casts of footprints – not evidence.

-         Required: One corpse, skeleton or live specimen – now that’s evidence.

Physical scientists confront UFOs: Show us the evidence!

-         Eyewitness sightings, even multiple eyewitness sightings – not evidence.

-         Radar ‘sightings’ – not evidence.

-         Eyewitness sightings backed up by radar ‘sightings’ – not evidence.

-         Films and photographs – not evidence.

-         Professional expertise and witness quality – not evidence (unless it turns a UFO into an IFO).

-         Ground traces – not evidence.

-         Physiological effects – not evidence.

-         Electromagnetic effects – not evidence.

-         Required: Stuff to place on the slab in the lab for analysis, or even a ‘Gray’ corpse – now that’s evidence.

Alas, that sort of tin bucket definition of what is, and is not, evidence wouldn’t hold any legal or courtroom water being so full of holes. But, then again the courtroom of science isn’t the courtroom of Perry Mason.

Okay, let’s flip over the coin and see what sorts of evidence some scientists and theologians present for their established, traditional and acceptable bailiwicks. 

COSMOLOGY: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- For a Multiverse as opposed to a Universe. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created space as opposed to an event that happened in preexisting space. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created time as opposed to an event that happened in preexisting time. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Big Bang actually created matter and energy out of absolutely nothing as opposed to an event that happened within the confines of preexisting matter and energy. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That space itself is expanding as opposed to the contents within space expanding through that existing space. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the singularity at the heart of a Black Hole is actually infinite in density and occupies zero volume as opposed to just being very dense and something that occupies a small but finite volume. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

PHYSICS: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That there really has to be a Theory of Everything (i.e. – quantum gravity) as opposed to there being two separate and apart sets of ‘software’ running the cosmos. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the elementary particles are actually tiny vibrating strings as opposed to tiny little ‘billiard balls’. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there are an additional six spatial dimensions as opposed to the standard three (length, width and height). There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there is such a thing as Supersymmetry (SUSY) as opposed to just normal symmetry. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the physical constants are indeed constant throughout all of time and space and under all conditions as opposed to really being variable depending. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That mathematics exists independently of the human (or biological) mind as opposed to mathematics existing solely within the confines of intelligence. In other words, in a Universe before life evolved, did mathematics exist? If so, show me the evidence. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That we exist in a really real reality as opposed to existence as virtual reality. That is, that our Universe actually exists and isn’t just a simulated universe – wallpaper to our ‘reality’. There is no more evidence for the former than there is relative to the latter.

BIOLOGY: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) actually exists to give justification to all the time, effort and cost of SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) to pin down ETI’s celestial coordinates as opposed to humanity being the be-all-and-end-all in terms of advanced technological civilizations. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That human beings are the evolutionary product of natural selection as opposed to artificial selection, in either case from primate ancestors. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

ANOMALIES: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That all ‘crop circles’ are hoaxes and are the sole work of the human being as opposed to some have a more paranormal explanation. There is no evidence that the former is the case relative to the latter.

RELIGION: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…

- That a monotheistic deity (i.e. – God) actually exists as opposed to there being no deity at all. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the Bible is the literal word of that God as opposed to the recorded or written word of the human imagination. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That Heaven and Hell are actually geographical places as opposed to having existence solely within the human imagination. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That there really was a universal flood as opposed to accounts in mythology from around the world of separate and apart major flooding events. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

- That the events (for example) in Exodus actually happened as opposed to being pure mythological fiction. There is no evidence for the former relative to the latter.

Oh dear!

Dare I say it, “extraordinary claims [and most of the above are] require extraordinary evidence”. Heck, even a little bit would be an improvement. But there are many examples where those who demand the proof of other’s pudding can’t produce any pudding when it’s their turn to cough up.

It’s unfortunate, but double standards rule.



Those Oops In Physics: Part Two

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Continued now from yesterday’s blog…

Oops in Causality     

Causality (the future is contained in the past), cause-and-effect, has to operate across the board if Mother Nature is to be predictable, and prediction and predictability is at the heart of what makes science, science. Yet, some scientists insist some phenomena have no causality. Lack of causality implies that what happens is the result of some sort of ‘free will’ (or variations thereof) which is absurd. That would imply that an electron or a radioactive uranium atom has an independent ‘mind’ of its own. Lack of causality alone in IMHO is nearly sufficient evidence to justify the hypothesis that we are ‘living’ in a simulated (virtual reality) universe.

# Big Bang: Apparently the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang event) happened for absolutely no rhyme or reason at all. That means there was no first cause attributable for the effect that was Big Bang event. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd, as in absolutely impossible?

# Radioactivity: That two identical radioactive (unstable) nuclei will decay (go poof) at different times despite both being in the same place, in the same environment, at the same time. That’s therefore because of the ‘fact’ that an unstable radioactive nucleus will go poof for absolutely no reason at all. If there is no causality behind radioactive decay, then obviously any two identical radioactive nuclei can go poof in a totally random way. But random events shouldn’t result in a precise mathematical relationship, which is what is claimed by observation – the concept of the half-life.

# Electrons: That an electron will drop to a lower energy level by emitting a photon for absolutely no reason at all is strange given that an electron will jump to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon’s worth of energy. There’s no causality in the downward direction; there’s causality in the upwards direction. That’s nuts!  

# Pane in the Glass:  You have one light source. You have one normal everyday clear and clean pane of glass. Some of the light (photons) from the light source will pass clear through the clear glass, but some of those identical photons will reflect off the clear surface of the pane of glass. One set of circumstances yields two differing but simultaneous outcomes. That violates cause-and-effect. That’s crazy, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. 

Oops in Probability     

# Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge on the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so.

# Fine Tuning: In fact, you tend to a violation in probability when it comes to numerous examples of fine-tuning – the fine-tuning that allows the Universe to be bio-friendly. For example, if the force of gravity were slightly stronger, the Universe would have re-collapsed into a Big Crunch rather quickly, and thus there would have been no time allowed for life to form and evolve. If the force of gravity had been slightly weaker stars and galaxies wouldn’t have formed. No stars and galaxies: thus, again, a lifeless Universe.       

Oops in Theory vs. Observation

# Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere.

# Vacuum Energy: Theory suggests a certain value for the vacuum energy. Experimental observation shows quite a different value for the vacuum energy. In fact, the difference between theory and observation is 120 orders of magnitude. Something is definitely screwy somewhere.

# Protons: Some theories suggest that like an isolated neutron, the proton is, over the long term, unstable and should go poof and decay. Alas, experiments, and there have been many of them, have failed to detect even one proton decay event. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

General Oops: WTF?

# Inflation: In addition to the above, the Big Bang event as a standalone event raised lots of problems, collectively known as the flatness problem; the horizon problem; and the monopole problem. To resolve those issues, a secondary theoretical and rather ad hoc expansion event, termed Inflation, was proposed. Alas, it lacks any shred of actual independent and observational evidence (apart from dealing with the Big Bang issues as noted), and has its own set of problems, not least of which there are many variations on the Inflation theme; how and why Inflation started and how and why Inflation stopped. If the Big Bang were really a comprehensive theory of everything with respect to the origin and early evolution of the cosmos, there wouldn’t be a horizon, flatness and monopole problem requiring an ad hoc tack-on.

# Dark Matter: There apparently isn’t enough mass contained within our galaxy (and others as well) to account for its structure and how it stays together as a collective conglomerate of stars, planets, interstellar dust, etc. So, with a wave of a magic physics wand, physicists and astrophysicists invent out of thin air an ad hoc explanation – all that missing matter must be “dark matter”, matter which we can’t see, can’t detect, and haven’t a real clue as to what it might be

# Cosmic Rays: Cosmic rays tend to be very high energy particles like electrons and positrons, protons and antiprotons, alpha particles and other atomic nuclei that originate from beyond our solar system. After that, things get iffy. Their actual point(s) of origin are anywhere and everywhere and to be honest their origin(s) are rather mysterious. You name the astronomical object and someone will have tagged it as a, if not the, source of cosmic rays. Among the candidates are supernovae, active galactic nuclei, magnetic variable stars, quasars, gamma-ray bursts, even the Crab Nebula (a pulsar) and the radio galaxy Centaurus A. It all seems to be a case of picking a number out of a hat or throwing a dart at a dartboard labeled with astronomical structures. Your guess (and that’s what they are) is as good as mine.

# The Fine Structure Constant: The mysticism over the number 137 (i.e. - actually 1/137) – the Fine Structure Constant – has the same sort of cultist fascination and impact on some physicists and the physics community in general as the dimensions and mathematical relationships and their significance inherent in the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Cairo) has to occultists, numerologists, mystics and pseudo-archaeologists. Then there’s all that endless numerological speculations on and significance of 666 to Christians. A rose by any other name applies here.

Conclusions

As we have seen, there are many ghosts that haunt the academic corridors of academic physics. Physicists need to exorcise those demonic spirits first, before trying to inflict their exorcisms on the rest of the irrational world.

* What can escape from a Black Hole is called Hawking radiation, but in that massive a Black Hole, the one required for a pinhead sized start to the cosmos, that radiation leakage would take a very, very, very long time to ooze out; hardly what you’d call an explosive event.

     

Some Interesting Reading

Baggott, Jim; Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth; Pegasus Books, New York; 2013:

Jones, Sheilla & Unzicker, Alexander; Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility; Palgrave Macmillan, New York; 2013:

Smolin, Lee; The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What Comes Next; Penguin Books, London; 2006:

Woit, Peter; Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics; Vintage Books, London; 2007:



Those Oops In Physics: Part One

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Some people for example claim that some UFOs are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft and get bucketed for their point of view. No evidence; no proof is the mantra of the skeptic – usually a physical scientist. However, IMHO, some physicists (or other equivalent physical scientists like astronomers) make even greater outrageous claims without a shred of evidence, far less proof. The attitude of some scientists seems to be along the lines of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Physics tends to be a subject that lots of ordinary folks shy away from, probably because physics tends to rely heavily on mathematics, and usually highly complex mathematics at that, advanced mathematics that aren’t taught until well into third or fourth year at university and into gradate school. However, even when modern physics is explained minus the mathematics, in what I guess would be termed layman’s language, physics turns out to be really, really weird. The mathematics tends to hide the weirdness from the uninitiated (since everything is double Dutch to them) but it’s there all the same. These are some of the examples I’ve come up against – a wall that one tends to bang one’s head against in frustration. The frustration tending to be in the first instance, what’s wrong with me that I can’t do an end run around the (only apparent) weirdness? Once one accepts that it’s not you, but the physics that’s weird, well that doesn’t eliminate the frustration or the feeling that one still needs to bang their heads against the wall! Of course maybe it’s not the physics that are weird but the physicists. It wouldn’t be the first time – but that’s another story.

Oops in Common Sense - Theory

Now I am aware that common sense is not an acceptable criterion in science, but there is a limit to what pills I will swallow. With the exceptions of the speed of light and neutron decay (see below under observations) there is no observational or experimental evidence for any of this theoretical nonsense.

# Point Particles: Particle physicists often use the term “point particles” when talking about the fundamental or elementary particles that make up matter, like electrons, etc. However, a point particle has zero dimensions, and as such takes up zero volume. The upshot is, if particles have no dimensionality, then matter cannot exist. Matter is made up of these elementary particles, and if each particle has zero volume, well zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. All of matter would have zero volume and that’s clearly not the case. Alternatively, point particles couldn’t smash together in say the Large Hadron Collider or in any other particle accelerator.

# Dimensions: That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory is correct. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”. 

# Big Bang: That the first nanosecond of creation crammed the contents of our observable Universe into a volume less than a pinhead. In any event, if you could squeeze the contents of the observable Universe down into a pinhead’s volume, you’d end up with the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing* would escape. Therefore there would be no Big Bang and thus our Universe would not have been brought into existence. 

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created time itself. This can’t even be done in theory, far less in actual practice. Pull the left leg!

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created space itself. This too is beyond the theoretical limits of modern physics and certainly cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Now pull the right leg!

# Theory of Everything (TOE): There are three quantum (micro) forces that rule the roost – the strong nuclear; the weak nuclear; and electromagnetism. All three have been unified into the Standard Model of particle physics that’s called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). There is also one force that rules that rules supreme in the classical (macro) world – gravity. Since the micro and the macro are both part of the larger picture – Mother Nature – it should seem obvious that gravity can and should be unified with the Standard Model to provide what’s known in the trade as a Theory of Everything (TOE). Alas, despite the best minds working on unification over many, many decades, nothing of substance has surfaced. The realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. That makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces.    

# Gravity: Centuries after Isaac Newton, the puzzlement that is gravity has still not been completely solved. There appears to be two competing theories. One, gravity is geometry, otherwise wrapped around Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Mass tells space how to curve; curved space tells mass how to move. Two, gravity is a force somewhat akin to electromagnetism in that it has an associated particle that conveys the gravitational force, like a photon conveys the electromagnetic force. That hypothetical or theoretical particle is termed the graviton, and remains to date undetected. You’d think by now the issue would have been settled. 

# Observation/Measurement: That the lack of observation or of measurement (same difference) has a bearing on the reality of what’s not being observed or not being measured is absurd. That’s like saying the Moon doesn’t exist, or may or may not exist, or exists and yet doesn’t exist at the same time, if nobody is looking at it. In any event, to but the worms back into that can, during the early history of our Universe, there were no observers (i.e. – no life forms of any kind) and the cosmos got along just hunky-dory. The Universe doesn’t give a rat’s ass about observers. Things either are, or they are not.

# Electrons: When an electron rises or falls from one energy level to another, when in-between the electron is in limbo, in Never-Never-Land, in The Twilight Zone, in another dimension for all we know. It just can’t be anywhere that’s locatable in-between for if it was – in-between that is – it would possess an in-between energy state that it is not allowed to have.

Oops in Common Sense - Observations  

# Velocities: Velocities maybe added or subtracted. If you are on a treadmill that’s moving left at 5 MPH, and you’re on it walking to the right at 5 MPH, to an external observer you are waking yet standing still. Now the exception to that universal rule is the speed of light. The velocity of light is a constant to an external observer no matter what. Why that should be no one knows, but it is so. However, my take on this can of worms which as a consequence require both time and length to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the exception to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here.  

# Neutron Decay: One isolated neutron will decay in roughly 15 minutes into an electron, a proton and an antineutrino. That’s probably why a hydrogen atom hasn’t a neutron you’d think; there’s only one electron around a nucleus of one proton. Unfortunately heavy hydrogen is heavy because it has one neutron, so that blows that idea. Apparently therefore, any neutron inside or part of a nucleus is stable. So obviously two or more neutrons together (i.e. – part of a nucleus or within a neutron star) will not decay. Why one isolated neutron is unstable, yet a neutron or neutrons (two or more together) as part of a nucleus or as a neutron star are stable, is to me a mystery that defies logic. I mean, by analogy, an isolated radioactive (unstable) nucleus behaves no differently than its clone or twin that is cheek-by-jowl with others of its kind. 

Oops in Conservation Laws – The Free Lunch     

# Dark Energy: Apparently the density of Dark Energy remains constant while the volume of the Universe expands. That’s something from nothing. That’s a free lunch.

# Big Bang: First there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s also a free lunch.

To be continued…



Theory vs. Observation: Part One

There’s many a conflict that rages between observation and theory. What is observed cannot be; what cannot be alas is observed. Sceptics, those supporting theory, dump down on those who contradict theory because they witnessed something to the contrary. “It can’t be therefore it isn’t.” The witness dumps down on the sceptic with the statement, “I know what I saw”. Impasse! Perhaps there is a third option, one where both theory and observation can coexist.

In any sort of legal dispute, if you’re the prosecutor, it’s good to have documents – a paper trail – fingerprints, video camera footage, someone caught red-handed in the act or with the goods, as well as a documented trilogy of available time, substantive motive and ample opportunity against the alleged perpetrator.  But sometimes all you have to base your case on is the observation of a witness or witnesses. That’s often been enough, even more than enough, to either convict someone or provide and substantiate that someone with a legal alibi.  Eyewitness testimony alone, well it’s not perfect but it’s not something inadmissible in court either. 

While documents, including pictographs, rock carvings/paintings, hieroglyphs and related archaeological relics, including human remains; films and photographs too, are all excellent means to document history, an awful lot of what we accept as historical gospel comes from what someone or a group of people have witnessed, especially in the days before sound recordings and film. Then too many a document is nothing more than the recorded word of an eyewitness; an observer(s). 

Lastly, you couldn’t last or survive a day without your powers of observation being accurate and reliable. If your vision was unreliable or faulty, could you drive to work? You’d better know a red light when you see one, and exercise superb judgment based of your observations if thinking about overtaking and passing another vehicle. Ditto if you cross a busy street. You’d better be spot-on in your observation if approaching a down staircase. You’d better be able to observe and tell the difference when meeting up with a bear or a deer in the woods if you intend to pet it. Your ability to observe and report accurately (if only to yourself) those observations are absolutely critical to your survival.

You probably tell lots of people every week events that you observed and many people no doubt relate to you things they have witnessed. Nobody bats an eyebrow – nobody questions anyone’s bona fides. Expect of course when its something that expert authorities, professional sceptics included, say cannot be. Then eyebrows get raised. 

Issue number one: If 99.99% of what you observe is accurate, believable, a no-brainer in terms of  credibility, then why are you all of a sudden an unreliable witness if you observe something others, so-called expert others, dismiss as an impossible anomaly?

Issue number two: So-called, and really-real experts can indeed dismiss an impossible anomaly, witnesses be damned, if it is indeed an impossibility by the science of the day.

Issue number three: We have a contradiction between theory (what the experts say) and observation (what the witness sees)

On the one hand, throughout history, there’s been many an observation of something anomalous and considered downright impossible, according to the sceptics, that’s now part and parcel of the standard norm, like meteorites – stone that fall from the sky. Score points for the observer.

On the other hand, how many observations have been credited as legit though later found to be less than credible. Score points for the sceptic.

Now if someone has a track record of telling tall tales or taking substances that are known to hinder accurate observations and judgments, that’s one thing, but if not, are you prepared to call someone into doubt just because their observation are anomalous according to the state of the world?

For the purposes of this essay, I’ll ignore the philosophical concept inherent in quantum physics that the observer actually creates what is being observed; or in other words, nothing exists or has reality unless it is being observed. Let’s go with the more down to earth philosophy that something has, or has not, a reality regardless of whether it is being scrutinized or not.

Let’s examine a quintuplet listing of those it-can’t-be-therefore-it-isn’t anomalies contradicted by observations of just that, which could easily be expanded by two orders of magnitude, but then this is an essay and not a book-length encyclopaedia.

The realm of the once animate: Ghosts – Even if you haven’t seen a ghost, you probably know of someone who has or lacking that, you can go to your nearest library or the Internet and find ultimately hundreds of thousands of reported observations of ghostly manifestations. Are you prepared to call all these witnesses deluded or liars or under the influence? Now, try to come up with a viable explanation that’s compatible with physics, chemistry and biology that explains the relationship between a dead body and its post-death yet animated counterpart. Good luck!

Apart from the gap between observation and there being no theoretical way for ghosts or phantoms or spirits or wraiths, call them what you will, those remnants of the dead of people recently, or even not so recently, deceased, to exist, there is also the question, why aren’t sighted ghosts, or phantom hitchhikers, etc. naked? I mean it’s the person who died, not what they were wearing, so if a ghost is the essence of a former living person, and clothing doesn’t contribute to the nature of that essence, then ghosts should be seen naked! They’re not, so that’s anomaly number two between theory (should be undressed) and observation (ghosts are decently attired).

The realm of the animate: Botany: Crop Circles – This time there is absolutely no doubting the observational bona fides of the anomaly.  Thousands of witness and thousands of photographs and more measurements than you can shake a stick at have been made of (mainly British) crop circles. Sceptics counter that since natural complex geometric crop circles cannot be; and aliens obviously didn’t make them since there are no aliens on or near Planet Earth, then, since not even sceptics can explain away the reality of the circles, it has to be all a human hoax. Sceptics of the sceptics point out that the sheer logistics of human involvement, in total darkness, without mistakes, without leaving traces, without ever being caught, are also as close to theoretically impossible as makes no odds. Observations can’t be disputed; no theory can adequately explain them.

The realm of the animate: Zoology: Loch Ness – Let’s take at face value that numerous witnesses have sighted, some have photographed even filmed some sort of relatively biologically large ‘sea monster’ in Scotland’s Loch Ness. No matter how good the testimony or reliable the witness, no matter the quality of the photograph or the film, can it be so? Unfortunately for us romantic naturalists, the odds that ‘can it be so’ are so low that no sane person would bet a sawbuck on the positive. And so it’s Biology 101 to the fore for a theoretical reality check. You cannot have just a one-off ‘monster’. At the very least you need a male ‘monster’ and a female ’monster’. In fact you need a viable breeding herd of ‘monsters’ in order to keep the lake population of ‘monsters’ an ongoing proposition, since if you had just the one male or the one female and either one was infertile or somehow both failed to get their act together, well it’s by-by birdie or rather Nessie. Unfortunately, if Loch Ness contained a breeding herd of ‘monsters’ then snags would have to rear their ugly head that would argue the contrary. One would be that sightings would be vastly more frequent. Two, sooner or later one of the herd has gotta die, then another, then another. Sooner or later a corpse, fresh or decayed, has got to get washed ashore. If that happens, mystery solved. Thirdly, well there’s the issue of an adequate food supply. Loch Ness could probably feed one ‘monster’, but not a herd of them. Loch Ness is large, but still quite finite in volume. Fish in the open ocean can roam the wide open spaces for a meal; not so in a relatively small fish tank like Loch Ness. So we have another unresolved conflict between observation and theory. 

The realm of the inanimate: The Vacuum Energy - This is probably the Mother of All Anomalies! A temperature of absolute zero, that is a state in which there is no available energy, is impossible. That’s because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is one of those rock solid foundations of quantum physics. So there is always a minimum amount of energy available that pervades the Universe. It’s called the ‘vacuum energy’. Theoretically the vacuum energy should exist with such-and-such a value. The vacuum energy indeed exists (is has been observed and it has been experimentally confirmed) with such-and-such a value. However, you have a 120 order-of-magnitude (that’s one followed by 120 zeros) discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy and the theoretical value of the vacuum energy. This discrepancy is the most embarrassing ‘oops’ in all of modern physics and nobody can figure out how to resolve the discrepancy. Oops indeed!  

The realm of the cosmos: Quasars - Quasars are ‘quasi-stellar objects’. They are ‘stellar’ because they aren’t all that large (unlike a galaxy). They are ‘quasi’ because they give off energy way, way, way more times greater than any star known in any astronomical catalogue. They seem to be primordial objects – they formed long ago and are now far away.  Quasars, like stars or galaxies, are their own entities and if two or more show very close and special causality relationships then they should show identical recessional velocities (since the Universe is expanding and they are part of the Universe and that expansion). Recessional velocities are measured by an object’s red-shift. Theory identifies red-shift with velocity. However, you apparently have observations of causality connected quasar pairs with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities). The anomaly, in an analogy, is that you can not have a runner running at 15 miles per hour holding hands with another runner running at 3 miles per hour!

To be continued…

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: A Passing Fad?

UFOs have been with us as a modern phenomenon for over six decades now. Is that too long an interval to associate the UFO movement (if there is such a thing) as just a passing fad? I suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that UFOs could hardly be called a passing fad after all this time and is therefore unlikely to be a cultural, psychological or sociological phenomenon.

A fad is a temporary fashion – a flavour of the month. Fads come, and fads go. For example, the big band/swing era; white wall tires and tail fins; hula hoops and yo-yos; the Charleston and the Twist; disco music, pet rocks, slicked back hair (greasy kids stuff) and wearing baseball caps on backwards; westerns on TV and the silver screen have mostly ridden off into the sunset; goldfish swallowing; miniskirts, bellbottom trousers and hot pants; and lots more. A fad can be anything that you adopt as a cultural value-adding to your lifestyle that sets you apart from the community at large, yet keeps you reasonably associated as being a part of your contemporaries, but which you could drop from your lifestyle if you wished or if you were required to. It’s often the next ‘must have’ gadget that you just can’t live without (so you are told), but which will be superseded in a year or two by the next ‘must have’ gadget Mark II.

Non-fads are anything that are personal choices yet are also really essential to your day-to-day existence - so a thing like eating isn’t a fad. Sex isn’t a fad. Social interactions aren’t a fad. Even bicycles aren’t faddish because they have become an overall essential, tried and true ways and means of transport. Or, non-fads could be anything that an outside reality clobbers you over the head with, like the weather, death and taxes!

To repeat, fads are temporary phenomena, only briefly imprinting themselves on our collective psyche before the next big thing comes along. What’s the duration of a fad? There’s no fixed time frame – clothing fashions can change drastically from one year to the next; the influence of a blockbuster TV series or a motion picture, or say toys - maybe over several years. TV series don’t normally last more than one generation, usually far less. So, I’ll pick an average of one generation, on the grounds that the next generation don’t want to imitate or do like their parents did. They’d rather do their own thing in their own way. Kids born in the 1980’s aren’t likely to get to misty-eyed and nostalgic over Elvis and the Beatles and “I Love Lucy”.

Well, UFOs (and crop circles) are both way over a generation old now. UFOs in fact are over three generations old by now and going strong. That in itself suggests to me that UFOs are not a mere passing fad, but reflecting a reality that’s something more permanent or ongoing.

Fads and non-fads appear in all manner of genres. There are fads in sports, say in baseball where for a while the accent is on power and homeruns, yet a decade later it’s the hit-and-run, the sacrifice bunt or fly, walks, and base stealing. Yet a non-fad in baseball is throwing strikes and not making defensive errors.

What about science? Unlike say ‘cold fusion’, SETI (the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) is not a scientific fad; it’s gone on way too long for that. The man-on-the-Moon (Apollo) program however proved to be just that – a temporary blip on the landscape. Science graduates often have to choose career paths based on that’s likely to be non-faddish, long-term science. For example, string theory has been a reasonable career path for physics students for many decades now, so string theory can no longer be considered a passing fad in physics.

One thing is pretty clear – participation in a fad is something voluntary. So, crop circles, if all are manufactured by humans, would have to be faddish, were it not for the long duration of the phenomena. If crop circles, at least in part, have nothing to do with human proclivities to hoax others, then there’s no fad. UFO hoaxes are faddish; immediately jumping to conclusions of alien spaceships when seeing just a light in the sky is voluntary. But, if bona fide alien UFOs are a reality, then seeing one isn’t voluntary and UFOs therefore aren’t a fad.

The bottom line seems to be, if it proves to be ongoing, without any prior cultural background infrastructure, it’s not a fad. If it’s likely to die out within a generation or so, and it can be explained as a natural progression of what culturally has come before, then it’s a fad.

So, are UFOs (and say crop circles) a passing fad? Are UFOs all in the mind, something we adopt as a temporary way of assisting us coping with current reality, perhaps a novelty to give us respite from the ordinary? Are UFOs a reflection of our existing culture, say as expressed via Hollywood themes? Or, are UFOs like the weather – ever present and hammering that point home to us? Does Hollywood reflect the actual presence of UFOs in their themes, or are films perpetuating them in a faddish sort of way? 

The origin of the UFO phenomena, if one is to believe the idea that UFOs are all in the mind, was due to the onset of the Cold War, and hundreds of Hollywood films in the fifties played up to the red menace threat, often in the guise of alien invasions (can you recall that catch phrase ‘look to the skies’?). So, if UFOs are a fad, shouldn’t they have died out after the end of the Cold War and the demise of the red menace - reds under the beds? Whatever the origin of UFOs actually was, it does seem to be an origin independent of any cultural influences and no reasonable attempt to culturally explain them, and maintain their presence for over six decades, appears adequate. 

Whatever bona fide unexplained UFOs are, they certainly aren’t a fad, rather an ever ongoing phenomenon that’s part and parcel of our environmental background, cause or causes unknown, but probably extraterrestrial IMHO.

UFOs: They Can’t Be, Therefore They Aren’t: Part Two

UFO skeptics, that is those scientists who are skeptical against the position that some hardcore bona fide UFOs are serious indications of the existence of an advanced civilization of extraterrestrial beings, and unable to put a dent into any other pro-UFO position, go to their final fallback objection which is that the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) can’t be, therefore it isn’t; alright it might be but it still isn’t; don’t bother me with any facts to the contrary, my mind is absolutely made up; and in any event UFOs are just pseudoscience and I only deal with real science. Please trust me on this for I’m a scientist! And we all know scientists are 100% rational and right 100% of the time!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

I’ll just list a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities that have proved to be anything but impossibilities; here are some further examples of what some might call an equivalent of the pseudo UFO ETH but under another guise.

*It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other configuration was considered against the acceptable grain.

*Once upon a time, our Universe couldn’t’ be static – It was neither expanding nor contracting. Albert Einstein however knew our Universe should be contracting because of the pulling force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the scientists of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s attractive force. He later considered that his greatest scientific blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, a sort of antigravity, so Einstein might have been right after all!

*Black Holes, while existing theoretically on paper according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, could not exist in real reality - in real reality, they were quite the impossible object.

*No one pre-Darwin (even often post-Darwin) would in their right mind consider the possibility that it was possible for mankind to have had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms, most noticeable being the primates.

*For a very long time the notion that matter actually consisted of tiny undividable bits called atoms – well that atomic theory was obviously pure nonsense.

*That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars, what well call today galaxies, and not nebulous conglomerations that formed part of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed at best improbable if not downright impossible by astronomy’s experts.

*Catastrophism in physical geology was considered a no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

*Speaking of physical geology, the idea that continents could drift around the globe was considered preposterous. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious based on cartography! Geologists of course countered that there were no plausible physical mechanisms that could push the continents around. Well, there was such a mechanism as it turned out, only we may no longer call it ‘continental drift’ but rather plate tectonics. So, the meteorologist caught the geologists flatfooted after all. 

*Once upon a time, the concept of atomic energy was pie in the sky. It was  a subject no serious physicist would take at all seriously.

*Prior to its initial detonation, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the atomic bomb could never work.

*Energy-powered airflight was once considered absolutely impossible – hot-air balloons were the only feasible means of air travel, and even they were a bit suss.

*Rocket travel Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon style was utter bilge given that there was nothing in outer space for their rocket exhaust to push against.

*It was near impossible for the human body to survive any velocities faster than the speed of a horseless carriage, or a horse for that matter, without suffering fatal anatomical consequences. However, the iron horse soon put the lie to that belief.

*The sound barrier could never be broken; to claim otherwise was to disgrace your scientific kudos in aerodynamics. 

*It was once upon a time considered utterly impossible for rocks to fall from the sky; any witnesses to the contrary are damned. We now somewhat incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. 

*The “RMS Titanic” was absolutely ‘unsinkable’; everyone and their grandmother knew that God himself couldn’t sink that ship!

*The city of Troy in Homer’s “Iliad” was pure mythology. There was no such place in reality until such time as amateur pseudo-archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann found Troy based on information in, Homer’s “Iliad”.   

Now let’s look at some current commonly accepted notions by scientists that they consider impossible or wildly improbable, but which, in IMHO are ultimately flawed concepts, as per the above examples, they have – flawed to the point where I suggest these scientist’s ‘impossibilities or implausibility’s’ range from an actual near certainty to only somewhat implausible.

As per the point of this essay, the UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) immediately comes to mind, as well as that closely related concept, the ‘ancient astronauts’ (the UFO ETH and associated subject ‘ancient astronauts’ are really two fraternal twins). Why? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there is the ‘Fermi Paradox’ (“where is everybody?”) issue; that’s the theoretical argument that underpins the two. Secondly, there is much observational, mythological and archaeological evidence supporting both. Considering each in turn…

Theoretical Underpinnings: I’d like to think that Planet Earth would be among the cosmic real estate of some interest to any advanced technological species of extraterrestrial being, especially since the Cambrian Explosion over 500 million years ago when complex (multi-cellular) life forms became noticeable. Like the Star Trek mantra says, “to seek out new life…”

Now in terms of galactic or interstellar real estate, comets and asteroids are pretty common. That equally applies to airless rocky worlds. Gas giants (like Jupiter and Saturn) seem to be dime-a-dozen based on discoveries of extra-solar planets, but planetary real estate that has an atmosphere, a hydrosphere, a lithosphere, and a biosphere aren’t exactly your everyday dime-a-dozen celestial bodies. So, when one such abode is detected on an extraterrestrial’s ‘radar’, either through personal or robotically ‘boldly going’, or via at a distance remote sensing (for example our oxygen rich atmosphere is an obvious giveaway that just screams out as something that should be singled out for extra attention), well, that’s us! We have a biosphere. We have life. Well, that’s interesting.

Of course for most of our biosphere’s existence, we’ve been interesting in the same way that an ant hill is interesting to an entomologist or a bacterium is interesting to a microbiologist. Just like it doesn’t take all that much effort for an entomologist to seek out an ant hill or a microbiologist to find a microbe, so, in the cosmic scheme of things, it doesn’t take all that much effort for an alien technological civilization to reach us. Many might dispute that statement, but the fact is, going from point A in our galaxy, to point B in our galaxy, violates no known laws or principles of physics. Once they have the desire and the ways and means of ‘boldly going’, the rest are mere technical details. And Planet Earth can no more hide from exploring alien eyes than an ant hill can hide from an inquisitive entomologist! Now you take local A, somewhere in our galaxy, home to an alien civilization. Now take place B – Planet Earth. What’s the distance between the two? It doesn’t matter. If the civilization can achieve 1% to 10% light speed interstellar travel – no violation of physics in that – calculate how long it would take them to get from A to B. Now, compare that with the overall age of our galaxy! You’ll find the ratio is somewhere in the same ballpark as how long it took humans to migrate, explore and colonize Planet Earth!

Observational Evidence: Well, for starters, regarding UFOs (as extraterrestrial vehicles), how about over six decades on, hundreds of thousands of sightings in all countries of the globe, by all walks of life - male & female; rich & poor; professional & illiterate; the young and the elderly, all religions; all races; all nationalities; no category has been left out. Then how about witnesses, passing lie detector exams all the while insisting “I know what I saw”? Then how about the fact that there are those experts in aerial phenomena who should be able to, but can’t explain all the sightings – the usual unexplained residue being between 5% and 10% - the hardcore, bona-fide UFOs. Now throw in multiple and independent witness accounts! You don’t care for eyewitness testimony? Too unreliable you say? Well, chuck in a pot-full of unexplained photographic and motion pictures, lots of unexplainable radar returns, ground traces, and all manner of other bits and pieces that instrumentation has detected or can do analysis on – no human brain entered into, just iron and silicon.  Also, you have the undisputed fact that many countries have undertaken official investigations into the UFO issue – that in itself suggests that the issue has been taken seriously at the highest levels, unlike say, ghosts, astrology or stigmata!

Ancient astronauts are a slightly murkier kettle-of-fish because of the massive separation in time between when the polytheistic ‘gods’ ruled and now. Its way easier to come to terms with what’s been happening over the past 60 year’s vis-à-vis 6000 years ago. Still, I’d maintain that there exists a reasonable amount of artistic and literary remnants from those long ago and far away cultures that are suggestive of otherworldly influences. For example, nearly every civilization has a mythology of legends if you will of ‘sky beings’ who obviously, in most cases at least, were considered some sort of ‘gods’, but ‘gods’ that were in reality, far beyond their comprehension, and thus really extraterrestrials. Since nobody in our more modern sophisticated age actually believes in supernatural deities; that leaves the pigeonholes of human imagination or aliens as being those ‘sky beings’. 

When it comes to mythology, my basic premise is that anytime you have near universal themes between wildly dispersed in space and/or time cultures, ethnic groups, nationalities, whatever, then you sit up and take notice that something more than just human imagination is at work.

Now, is all of that super-ultra hardcore proof? No it isn’t! Is all of that real hardcore evidence? Yes it is! It’s the sort of evidence that’s lacking in most of the other paranormal/supernatural/pseudoscience bits and pieces that the sceptics love to collectively debunk and rubbish. But, that evidence makes my assertion that some paranormal claims are more equal than other paranormal claims more credible.

In conclusion, I note that it is very interesting that for each and every anti-UFO ETH argument, there’s an equal and opposite pro-UFO ETH argument. After six plus decades, the debate is still finely balanced. That in itself is a pro-UFO ETH observation, because if the ‘can’t be, therefore it isn’t’ observation were so compelling, the interest in the UFO ETH would have dried up decades ago.