The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[Thomas R Morrison]

Sorry but if Jerome Clark's assessment of the history of sightings is childlike

I wrote two long and detailed responses to your latest posts, and then realized that it all comes down to this one simple point:

My interest is exclusively in the kinds of sighting reports that involve solid metallic objects in the sky that execute maneuvers vastly superior to the most advanced fighter jets in the world. We have plenty of credible radar-visual and trace-evidence cases to conclude that this category of report is real and physical in nature.

You’ve maligned the ETH as an explanation, and even maligned me personally by trying to characterize my logical and scientifically well-supported arguments as the ravings of some kind of religious fanatic (which I find to be a despicable and intellectually bankrupt tactic, honestly).

So let’s have it: how do you explain the class of highly anomalous radar-visual cases, if not via the ETH?

I completely agree with your estimation of the value of Thomas's broad knowledge base concerning the ETH and his highly competent representation of its development on the basis of both 1) extensive human experience and 2) human reasoning based in hard data that can be confirmed.

I have to disagree, however, with your claims concerning "the phenomenon" –

Thank you Constance. And you’ve made a good point: some people are putting absolutely everything unexplained, including ghosts, demons, etc., into the category of “the phenomenon.” But that’s foolish and unwarranted, imo: there's no "one size fits all" explanation for the vast breadth of unusual human experiences.

I think that most of us here are using the term "the phenomenon" to simply mean “apparently solid technological aerial objects that frequently emit light, and which levitate silently and execute maneuvers vastly superior to the best known military fighter jets.” And the best (if not the only) cogent explanation for such things is the ETH. So that’s generally the basis for whatever speculation we do from that point forward.

I’d be happy to seriously consider any alternatives to the ETH that seem rationally supportable. But I keep asking critics of the ETH to offer one, and I’m still waiting to hear it. Heck, I’d settle for a single scientific objection to the ETH, but they can’t seem to offer that either.

And I agree that further scientific research is merited. Perhaps one day those of us interested in this field will pull together the national passive radar system that we need to collect a wealth of useful scientific data regarding this phenomenon.

 

[Constance]

Nice post and not the only one Constance. How about the Vatican one ? Is this open access to all the material?

Thanks, blowfish. Not sure what you're referring to with the Vatican reference?

 

[Trajanus]

That was really heartening to read, thank you Trajanus.

My pleasure.

And you’ve made an excellent point that’s rarely touched on. It’s a little more speculative than the ETH itself, but it also demonstrates the kind of ancillary thinking that fortifies the ETH overall.

A central feature of the phenomenon is evasive behavior. Whoever or whatever they are, “they” clearly make an effort to minimize detection/observation. This is evident in the reports of dramatic evasive maneuvers and the brevity of most sightings. So we can make a strong argument for these devices operating in a deliberately covert manner.

That’s a small step from psychological operations, disinformation, and diversionary tactics – which our own military and governments engage in constantly. It would be silly to presume that a species more advanced than our own wouldn’t engage in these kinds of behaviors as well. In fact, it would be logical to assume that they do, and that they’re much more sophisticated about it.

Right, and I'd assume the result we see--doubt about the ETH--is in fact one objective of such sophisticated operators.

My working assumption is that we’re being visited by a wide variety of civilizations far more advanced than we are today – most sightings probably involve a one-time “drive by” from various unique civilizations, but it does appear that at least one or two alien species have taken a more active interest. So here’s the part that troubles me: all of them exhibit covert behavior. Not a single one has made any effort to make formal public contact with us.

IMO the # of visiting civilizations may be quite small. The apparent great diversity of beings may be illusory I think, because some don't appear likely to have evolved naturally hence may be just conjuries of a single species or type. Likewise the oft claimed diversity of agendas is probably illusory, in part because of the rejection of overt contact, by all ETs coming here.

Frankly that makes me wonder if we’re on some kind of galactic “terrorist species” list, which prohibits open diplomatic relations with our kind. This would be easy to justify: our primary hobby seems to be mass murdering each other. No sooner than we had a working nuclear bomb, we used it to murder and horribly maim hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Well, frankly I don't think ETs are inherently any better. It's common for people here to project fantasies of perfect morality on an advanced alien species but the reality seems different. Look at abduction, mutilation and disappearance cases.

And if that’s how we treat –each other- then how could we possibly be expected to treat an alien species any better?

Considering their edge they probably aren't worried, although thy may be working to preempt a longterm threat through some covert program.

Or perhaps we’re on some kind of “cosmic death watch.” Given our rapacious addiction to mass murder, and the logarithmic growth of our technological capability to do that ever more effectively, it does seem all but inevitable that we’ll soon succumb to the mass extinction event that we’ve precipitated upon this planet. Perhaps in a few decades we’ll be used as an alien cautionary tale: “don’t be like these savage humans that wiped themselves out in a blaze of fury; be kind to your neighbors and embrace peace if you want to flourish and endure.”

I'm not so pessimistic regarding our own effect on ourselves and this planet. They were probably no better when at a comparable phase of development, and I don't think humanity is stupid enough to destroy itself. Oh there will be crises but the real problem is ineffectual government, which will not IMO survive crises it can't cope with.

 

[Trajanus]

My question is how we can know what this 'it' wants if we don't yet know what 'it' is?

I think we can be reasonably sure what is is--alien visitors--but it's hard to clinch the case in part because the aliens themselves don't seem to want us to be sure of it. Not only do they refrain from making open contact, they occasionally behave in ways which cause researchers to doubt they're ET.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Thanks, blowfish. Not sure what you're referring to with the Vatican reference?

The Vatican and other religious institutions are all in the race to find other intelligent life forms and funding is ongoing with researching. Few examples
The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion
Rudy’s Paradox: The ALIENation of Race and Its Non-Humans
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.07829.pdf

All humanity would like to find the answers are we alone and many of us already know something behind the UFOs whatever it is cunning, cloaked and no doubt like in nature it has a "darkside".

 

[Trajanus]

The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion

IMO Peters is too optimistic about holy joe prospects after confirmation of ET. In fact, christianity essentially may not even last long enough to see that day (which may not come for many more years, perhaps not until 2060 or 2100). Even now there is ample evidence for the waning of christianity. Catholic priests are a dying breed as are their parishes.

 

[Constance]

I think we can be reasonably sure what is is--alien visitors--but it's hard to clinch the case in part because the aliens themselves don't seem to want us to be sure of it. Not only do they refrain from making open contact, they occasionally behave in ways which cause researchers to doubt they're ET.

I agree. As @Thomas suggested last night, I misinterpreted your remarks concerning "the phenomenon" to be referring to an undefinable force or influence far more mysterious and incomprehensible than the ufo phenomena manifesting near-earth, on land, and in the water during the 20th century. I think that the ETH remains, as the French COMETA Report concluded, "the best available hypothesis" concerning the origin of ufos.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Right, and I'd assume the result we see--doubt about the ETH--is in fact one objective of such sophisticated operators.

That makes sense: we know that they behave evasively, so it makes sense that they’d also deploy a “perception management” program to keep us ignorant and confused about their presence and agenda (whatever that might be) - incapable of reaching a public consensus that they’re here, and therefore at least a potential threat, if not an outright existential threat.

All the time we see how psychological operations in the US and abroad usually involve gaslighting the targets – if you want to hide something from the public, the most effective tactic is to make people think that the truth is too crazy to believe. We see this in the press constantly. Last year when we saw that the Democratic primary was rigged, the entire corporate news media slandered us as “conspiracy theorists.” Then just last week the former DNC Chair revealed that Clinton took complete control of the DNC on September 1st 2015, and now we have the written agreement to prove it. But when evidence is withheld, which is demonstrably the case with ufo evidence, most people succumb to the PsyOp and assume that you’re crazy. And as we’ve seen here, people will still maintain that position even after you’ve clearly and logically proven that your hypothesis is not only *not crazy* - but in fact logically supported by every line of scientific evidence available.

IMO the # of visiting civilizations may be quite small. The apparent great diversity of beings may be illusory I think, because some don't appear likely to have evolved naturally hence may be just conjuries of a single species or type.

While that is possible, here’s why I think it’s unlikely: if one extraterrestrial species has realized the field propulsion system required to reach our planet and defy inertia in our skies, then it’s more likely that many civilizations have, than just one. Because in that case, interstellar field propulsion is an inevitable achievement of any sufficiently advanced civilization.

In this scenario, we’re the exception – we’ve only been really been a bonafide technological civilization for a mere century - since the advent of the electrical age, so we barely even qualify as a technological civilization. Most technological civilizations would therefore be far more likely to be many thousands of years ahead of us, if not millions of years ahead of us. So the median level of advancement is probably far ahead of us, and given the numbers we’re seeing via the Kepler project, it’s quite likely that many thousands of advanced spacefaring civilizations populate our galaxy alone. And given what we already know theoretically, interstellar distances are easy to traverse once you have metric engineering capability.

I look at it this way: we’re just beginning to poke our noses out of the gutter, so to speak. Once we can get a good look around (which will probably happen within the next century), I think we’ll find that we’re in the midst of a bustling galactic metropolis of activity. Because with 20-40 billion Earth-like planets in their stellar habitable zones within this galaxy alone, and the virtual certainty that we know of at least two technological civilizations (ours, and the operators of the devices in our skies), it’s more likely that many advanced technological civilizations occupy our region of the galaxy than just two.

Well, frankly I don't think ETs are inherently any better. It's common for people here to project fantasies of perfect morality on an advanced alien species but the reality seems different. Look at abduction, mutilation and disappearance cases.

Those are good points. We rose to dominate the global food chain because we’re intelligent predators, so we should expect that to be a common evolutionary trajectory. And abductions and cattle mutilations are clearly predation types of behavior. So you’re probably right: they likely arose amid their own brutal wars and oppressive regimes. And they may still have an essentially militaristic and draconian culture like we do. There’s certainly no indication whatsoever that they’re warm and friendly.

Considering their edge they probably aren't worried, although thy may be working to preempt a longterm threat through some covert program.

That’s what I’d do. The thought of our government achieving practical interstellar spaceflight capability is pretty chilling – any intelligent species would have to be worried about our long-term prospects. I don’t know how you’d go about reducing the threat level of a civilization like ours, but it’s an interesting problem to think about. They don’t seem to be trying to exterminate us. And if they’re trying to make us less prone to violence, it doesn’t seem to be working.

I'm not so pessimistic regarding our own effect on ourselves and this planet. They were probably no better when at a comparable phase of development, and I don't think humanity is stupid enough to destroy itself. Oh there will be crises but the real problem is ineffectual government, which will not IMO survive crises it can't cope with.

It seems to me that we only narrowly avoided nuclear war on many occasions during the Cold War. And the Deep State is clearly very eager to start that up again. And faced with global warming and their rapacious lust for money and power, the corporations have seized control of our government and pushed to reduce regulations, rather than sacrifice a dime in profits. So I think it’s reasonable to seriously question the long-term viability of our civilization.

I agree that our government is ineffectual and unstable – by all outward indications it seems that we’re in the death throes our civilization right now, akin to the ugly collapse of the Roman Empire. That probably doesn’t bode well for modern technological civilization – it takes a stable and well-integrated global civilization to advance beyond this level of technology. If we’re now seeing the first signs of a new era of widespread economic and political instability, we might not just take a few steps back, we could end up in the midst of a new world war. And there’s an alarmingly high chance that the outcome of that would take us back to the Stone Age, if not outright extinction.

While the average person may have the sense to avert that level of catastrophe, the sociopaths in control of our government and military are very clearly the most myopic and murderous among us. So I have very little faith in their sense of judgment, or even self-preservation for that matter – if we don’t throw them from power, I think there’s a high chance that they’ll take us all down with them when the shabby house of cards they’ve built finally crumbles.

 

[mike]

Excellent article on the aestivation hypothesis for resolving Fermi’s paradox.
Most of this would be over the heads of the people you will see in the shopping mall, but the audience here should be able to manage it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03394.pdf

 

[Ron Away]

I tend to flit between the ETH and a possibly more exotic Vallee explanation.
Last night I listened to an interview with Professor Brian Cox.He stated that we know that there are at least a hundred billion galaxies in the known universe.Countless number of planets would be in the Goldilox zone which would lead,you would think to the reasonable assumption that there must be thousands of life forms out there. However the conditions on earth that led to our existence are ridiculously rare and the chances of it happening again even taking into consideration the numbers of planets out there is excuse the pun astronomical!.So I'm back on the fence once again.Which is where I've been for the last 30 years or so.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

IMO Peters is too optimistic about holy joe prospects after confirmation of ET. In fact, christianity essentially may not even last long enough to see that day (which may not come for many more years, perhaps not until 2060 or 2100). Even now there is ample evidence for the waning of christianity. Catholic priests are a dying breed as are their parishes.

Not just talking about Catholic priests rather the acdemic groups within the Church systems which agree many priests are leaving the field. Beliefs and Teachings Furthermore, the other types of religion for example Catholic religion is growing in the UK . Hinduism http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/hindus/and Islam will be the strongest religon in the 20 to 50 years as the World population grows. So science will have a struggle in the future and will impact contacts in some formula regarding "Protocals" . Also don't have to be religous to have faith either personal choice of what you slig your hook too.More Americans now say they’re spiritual but not religious

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I tend to flit between the ETH and a possibly more exotic Vallee explanation.
Last night I listened to an interview with Professor Brian Cox.He stated that we know that there are at least a hundred billion galaxies in the known universe.Countless number of planets would be in the Goldilox zone which would lead,you would think to the reasonable assumption that there must be thousands of life forms out there. However the conditions on earth that led to our existence are ridiculously rare and the chances of it happening again even taking into consideration the numbers of planets out there is excuse the pun astronomical!.So I'm back on the fence once again.Which is where I've been for the last 30 years or so.

Fence sitting is a freedom of choice and nothing wrong with it .

 

[Trajanus]

While that is possible, here’s why I think it’s unlikely: if one extraterrestrial species has realized the field propulsion system required to reach our planet and defy inertia in our skies, then it’s more likely that many civilizations have, than just one. Because in that case, interstellar field propulsion is an inevitable achievement of any sufficiently advanced civilization.

In this scenario, we’re the exception – we’ve only been really been a bonafide technological civilization for a mere century - since the advent of the electrical age, so we barely even qualify as a technological civilization. Most technological civilizations would therefore be far more likely to be many thousands of years ahead of us, if not millions of years ahead of us. So the median level of advancement is probably far ahead of us, and given the numbers we’re seeing via the Kepler project, it’s quite likely that many thousands of advanced spacefaring civilizations populate our galaxy alone. And given what we already know theoretically, interstellar distances are easy to traverse once you have metric engineering capability.

I look at it this way: we’re just beginning to poke our noses out of the gutter, so to speak. Once we can get a good look around (which will probably happen within the next century), I think we’ll find that we’re in the midst of a bustling galactic metropolis of activity. Because with 20-40 billion Earth-like planets in their stellar habitable zones within this galaxy alone, and the virtual certainty that we know of at least two technological civilizations (ours, and the operators of the devices in our skies), it’s more likely that many advanced technological civilizations occupy our region of the galaxy than just two.

I don't doubt there are more than two intelligent races in the galaxy. I suspect, though, the number of independently evolved civilizations in the Milky Way is under 1,000, maybe only 100. So many things have to "go right" for evolution to progress to the peak. An earthsized world in a goldilocks zone isn't enough. There has to be sufficiently rapid rotation, probably obliquity similar to Earth's, perhaps even a good natural satellite to stabilize it. And look at all the hazards..... Had Siberian trap volcanism c 252 Ma, or Chicxulub c 66 Ma been worse events, no tetrapod may have survived, in which case no intelligent life might've arisen here prior to old sol leaving main sequence....
I think it's possible that, even if thousands of other civilizations arose in our galaxy, a single one may have been given responsibility for looking after us, so to speak. One thing I find so fishy about the many ET races coming here claim is that many of the reported, diverse entities appear phony i.e. not likely to have evolved naturally to high intelligence. They may be mere creations by a single race or maybe a few.

Those are good points. We rose to dominate the global food chain because we’re intelligent predators, so we should expect that to be a common evolutionary trajectory. And abductions and cattle mutilations are clearly predation types of behavior. So you’re probably right: they likely arose amid their own brutal wars and oppressive regimes. And they may still have an essentially militaristic and draconian culture like we do. There’s certainly no indication whatsoever that they’re warm and friendly.

Well, a few ETs have appeared altruistic but malevolent ones are as numerous if not more so.

That’s what I’d do. The thought of our government achieving practical interstellar spaceflight capability is pretty chilling – any intelligent species would have to be worried about our long-term prospects. I don’t know how you’d go about reducing the threat level of a civilization like ours, but it’s an interesting problem to think about. They don’t seem to be trying to exterminate us. And if they’re trying to make us less prone to violence, it doesn’t seem to be working.

I wonder if Jacobs could be right about getting control of us via a breeding program.

It seems to me that we only narrowly avoided nuclear war on many occasions during the Cold War. And the Deep State is clearly very eager to start that up again. And faced with global warming and their rapacious lust for money and power, the corporations have seized control of our government and pushed to reduce regulations, rather than sacrifice a dime in profits. So I think it’s reasonable to seriously question the long-term viability of our civilization.

I don't think nuclear war was really likely during the Cold War; '62 saw the most dangerous situation, '67 and '73 less so, but even the '62 crisis was resolved peacefully.
Among many intellectuals, it's popular to slam corporations but I doubt they're really so dominant. Look at the exodus of manufacturing jobs. Had the corporations really been in control we wouldn't have minimum wage laws. Another thing: If the corporations are ripping up the planet, it is to satisfy high consumer demand among the masses. Of course it's not fashionable to blame the people, but IMO they are at fault. Corporations are only giving them the junk food, gas guzzlers and porn that they want. If our government is irresponsible and ineffectual, it's because of the people who voted it in and heavily influence it.

I agree that our government is ineffectual and unstable – by all outward indications it seems that we’re in the death throes our civilization right now, akin to the ugly collapse of the Roman Empire. That probably doesn’t bode well for modern technological civilization – it takes a stable and well-integrated global civilization to advance beyond this level of technology. If we’re now seeing the first signs of a new era of widespread economic and political instability, we might not just take a few steps back, we could end up in the midst of a new world war. And there’s an alarmingly high chance that the outcome of that would take us back to the Stone Age, if not outright extinction.

As I've said on other boards, many times, I think we're in a stage of history analogous to the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. By the first century BCE times had changed; the republic, designed to govern a small city state, was obsolete. Rome was now an Empire, and effectively running it required Caesarism. After the republic was dumped the result was the Pax Romana, one of the great ages of mankind.

While the average person may have the sense to avert that level of catastrophe,

Lol, the average person is an ignoramus who can't put three countries on the map and hasn't a clue about scientific issues like anthropogenic global warming....

the sociopaths in control of our government

In a democracy it is the masses who are ultimately in control or ultimately responsible for our current mess.

So I have very little faith in their sense of judgment, or even self-preservation for that matter – if we don’t throw them from power, I think there’s a high chance that they’ll take us all down with them when the shabby house of cards they’ve built finally crumbles.

The irresponsible masses need to be put in their place, and I think they will be when e.g. crises reach a breaking point. Crises are virtually certain and never did bode well for democracy.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Excellent article on the aestivation hypothesis for resolving Fermi’s paradox.
Most of this would be over the heads of the people you will see in the shopping mall, but the audience here should be able to manage it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03394.pdf

Enjoyed that paper and which reminded me of the "Breakaway Civilisation" or Cloaked A.I with the analogy of a wasp laying it's egg inside a caterpillar waiting for the time to emerge. "However, the paper does not assume all advanced civilisation-perfect coordination merely very good coordination" Is the Global Warming theory aiding the Fermi question and is there evidence of this occurring on other planets which Dr Brandenburg theory would give a indicator of this type of activity? Also the "Zoo hypothesis" is more plausible as author Mack Maloney UFO activities during wartime. Which natural disasters (is there high sightings during famine events on large scale?) which late author John Keels "Mothman" event is another element. Also add these to the discussion

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07007.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.06288.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.05791.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.03965.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.06024.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.05829.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.03448.pdf

 

[William Strathmann]

Caleb Scharf is director of astrobiology at Columbia University and author of Gravity's Engines, The Copernicus Complex and The Zoomable Universe (Scientific American/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, October 2017).

Scharf's following articles push the reasoning about how intelligent beings might interact with the universe.

Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence?
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence
The Answer To Life, The Universe — And Everything? It's 63

 

[Burnt State]

Making leaps is a fact of life, it happens every day in the courts system.
The magistrate wasn't there, didn't see the crime, All he can go on is the data on the table and the balance of probability.

So we have the Fermi paradox.

The Fermi paradox is a conflict between arguments of scale and probability that seem to favor intelligent life being common in the universe.

The balance of probability says life should be common. And we are back to my original premise. Either ET life exists, or we are all alone in the vast universe, a fluke in a model that remains consistent across solar systems and galaxy's. If our planetary model isn't unique but rather is common. The balance of probability says we are not alone.

The fermi paradox explores myriad reasons why we dont have any proof of ET visitation

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

Some like the Zoo hypothesis - Wikipedia

And

They are too alien


Another possibility is that human theoreticians have underestimated how much alien life might differ from that on Earth. Aliens may be psychologically unwilling to attempt to communicate with human beings. Perhaps human mathematics is parochial to Earth and not shared by other life,[98] though others argue this can only apply to abstract math since the math associated with physics must be similar (in results, if not in methods).[99]

Physiology might also cause a communication barrier. Carl Sagan speculated that an alien species might have a thought process orders of magnitude slower (or faster) than ours.[citation needed] A message broadcast by that species might well seem like random background noise to us, and therefore go undetected.

Another thought is that technological civilizations invariably experience a technological singularity and attain a post-biological character. Hypothetical civilizations of this sort may have advanced drastically enough to render communication impossible.[100][101]

Seem like reasonable explanations for the lack of evidence.



Is the argument from ignorance fallacy

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

All we have is a leap, Like a magistrate we must draw a conclusion based on the balance of probability.

I cant see any compelling reason to conclude we are not being visited, i can see many that we might be.

If the choices are we might be, or we might not. I favor might be on the reality that scale and probability seem to favor intelligent life being common in the universe.

Again, I have no problem with the notion that the universe is well populated. I just don't see how that makes the ETH any more likely. There are a great number of gaps that exist between the potential for life to be throughout the big U and the notion that, speaking purely of event anomalies here, that what appears to be a different kind of technology operating in our skies belongs to aliens from outer space. While I fully understand that the first instinct is to claim it's ET we still have proof of nothing except this small amount of very unique cases. Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to be able to point to specific cases that would demonstrate this as a reality but I've found very little to convince me outside the Emilcin abduction case, and even that one I have to confess works much better as an experience anomaly despite the other witness claims, but its abduction narrative has very unique features. I also feel the Michalk case also belongs in a unique category because of the associated physical evidence and the quality of the character of the witness across his life. I know for you the Khoury case does this.

But while these cases suggest aliens I still don't see any consistent evidence across the history of Ufology that makes me feel personally that we should move away from a Zeitetic approach. I think being doubtful and open minded and less certain about things like the ETH is a better way.

I think the two main valuable thrusts in the field are to 1) build off of those whose analysis has been substantial and their thinking has allowed us at least to have some kind of vocabulary to talk specifically about what's gone on even though we remain mostly clueless about all the big questions and 2) continue to be doubtful about all theories until we have a means to either measure or reproduce the phenomenon for messurement in a consistent matter.

Until then likelihoods remains a likelihood and I don't see how there is any more validity in believing in probabliies because we like the way they look as we are still neophytes as a species when it comes to things like technology and space travel.

We seem to very easily start talking about intentions, probabliies, agency and aliens masking their technology and infecting our brains with their ideas of what they are, yet we don't even know anything at all about what or who or where they come from. We have no certainty and yet we describe everything about them. Sounds like talking about God if you ask me. I find those leaps and guesses to be only conjecture that starts from an ideological position that has little merit for me. So I don't see the difference between Greer's space brother thinking and ETH conjecture - they both guess at what we don't know and both speak to what we'd like to be true.

I appreciate the great degree of thought that goes into considering how the ETH could be true but without evidence of it it seems to me that not only are we putting the cart before the horse but we're also decorating said cart with bells and whistles and a flight path even.

As a final consideration: if we are prepared to believe alien technology that might appear like magic and is capable of planting whatever thought it wants in our heads then I would propose for equal consideration a life form whose existence is equally magical in its capacity to make our own technology and eyes to see nuts and bolts evidence. If we can imagine an ETH that can do whatever with our minds then why not also imagine a life form that could do all the same to us and yet we don't even know they're right here beside us. We don't evidence of their tech. They might not need such things to sustain themselves and we may be simply a lifeform whose biology and brain pan are so limited that we can't even understand how they live let alone what they are..

I guess it makes more sense to me to keep imagining possibilities that are as nuanced and complicated or oblique as the phenomenon appears to us than to be certain about one theory. Doesn't that stop the learning and investigation right there if we are looking in the wrong direction. Maybe we've been doing that for decades and that's why we still know as much know as we did when the ETH was born.

 

[Burnt State]

I wrote two long and detailed responses to your latest posts, and then realized that it all comes down to this one simple point:

My interest is exclusively in the kinds of sighting reports that involve solid metallic objects in the sky that execute maneuvers vastly superior to the most advanced fighter jets in the world. We have plenty of credible radar-visual and trace-evidence cases to conclude that this category of report is real and physical in nature.

You’ve maligned the ETH as an explanation, and even maligned me personally by trying to characterize my logical and scientifically well-supported arguments as the ravings of some kind of religious fanatic (which I find to be a despicable and intellectually bankrupt tactic, honestly).

So let’s have it: how do you explain the class of highly anomalous radar-visual cases, if not via the ETH?

Thomas, I'm sorry if I maligned you but I do malign the ETH as a religious belief system if we are not going to see it as only a possibility as opposed to certitude. I think I have given a pretty good description in the post above of what else could be going on for the event anomalies.

I don't discount the ETH 100%, even my own significant ufo sighting gave the appearance of metallic vehicles returning to the stars from whence they came. But I'm certain of nothing. If they can implant things in our heads and mess with our own tech then how can we even begin to have certainty about any scientific mesurement we make with our limited tech if theirs is magical to us?Such thinking and such scenarios make the ETH into a sometimes this but not that environment. So I don't find it a logical arena to speak in to begin with.

While the hardcore cases that point to a technology beyond our own make us want to think aliens then why not consider that whatever is behind these specific cases is a mind or an intelligence who wants to make us believe that to be true. That would be fairly easy no, given all else the ETH leads towards.

As for other theories I think as we've heard often enough on the Paracast that it's time to look more closely at who is perceiving these events and try to get a handle on that part of the equation. Witnesses are right here in front of us but whatever the ufo was is long gone. These phenomenon comprised of event and experience anomalies appear to be related but why? Those strike me as the first intellectual questions to explore and not what kind of propulsion systems ET may have when aside from Ray Stanford no one else has much evidence of anything and he's not sharing and I don't think he's got anything to share either. A doubtful and intellectually inquisitive approach seems to be a better path than trying to prove a hypothesis that has very limited proof and has revealed little over the years except to leading thinkers in the field who have turned away from it. That doesn't mean they've given up on it enirely but they acknowledge it's gotten us no where for decades. So they ask better questions as good science should. Should we continue to beat a dead horse if that horse ain't trottin?

 

[Constance]

Caleb Scharf is director of astrobiology at Columbia University and author of Gravity's Engines, The Copernicus Complex and The Zoomable Universe (Scientific American/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, October 2017).

Scharf's following articles push the reasoning about how intelligent beings might interact with the universe.

Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence?
The Answer To Life, The Universe — And Everything? It's 63

Splendid links, William. Thank you for posting them.

 

[Trajanus]

As a final consideration: if we are prepared to believe alien technology that might appear like magic and is capable of planting whatever thought it wants in our heads then I would propose for equal consideration a life form whose existence is equally magical in its capacity to make our own technology and eyes to see nuts and bolts evidence. If we can imagine an ETH that can do whatever with our minds then why not also imagine a life form that could do all the same to us and yet we don't even know they're right here beside us.

IMO this is not in the least bit credible. Alien technology may seem "like magic" (at least some of it other stuff appears no better than ours) but it is assumed that it just goes beyond what we have ourselves achieved and is perfectly rational. Furthermore it would appear the aliens are fallible. I'm not just alluding to certain crash cases but failed attempts to abduct people, apparent mechanical problems with craft etc.
In the real world, the only way to progress is rationally/technologically. If some other lifeform "right here beside us" made so much progress it could fool us continually and completely, we probably wouldn't exist. If they had a problem with us so they felt a need to do that why not just get rid of us altogether and take the planet for themselves?

 

[mike]

Dr. J. Allen Hynek addressed the United Nations on the subject of UFOs on November 27, 1978

Mr. Chairman, there exists today a world-wide phenomenon... indeed if it were not world-wide I should not be addressing you and these representatives from many parts of the world. There exists a global phenomenon the scope and extent of which is not generally recognized. It is a phenomenon so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that it is frequently met by ridicule and derision by persons and organizations unacquainted with the facts. [...]

I refer, of course, to the phenomenon of UFOs... Unidentified Flying Objects... which I should like to define here simply as "any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons."

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this definition says nothing about little green men from outer space, or manifestations from spiritual realms, or various psychic manifestations. It simply states an operational definition. A cardinal mistake, and a source of great confusion, has been the almost universal substitution of an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon for the phenomenon itself.

This is akin to having ascribed the Aurora Borealis to angelic communication before we understood the physics of the solar wind.

Nonetheless, in the popular mind the UFO phenomenon is associated with the concept of extra-terrestrial intelligence and this might yet prove to be correct in some context. [...]

We have on record many tens of thousands of UFO reports... they include extremely intriguing and provocative accounts of strange events experienced by highly reputable persons... events which challenge our present conception of the world about us and which may indeed signal a need for a change in some of these concepts. [...]

Mr. Chairman, any phenomenon which touches the lives of so many people, and which engenders puzzlement and even fear among them, is therefore not only of potential scientific interest and significance but also of sociological and political significance, especially since it carries with it many implications of the existence of intelligences other than our own. [...]

Speaking then for myself as an astronomer, and I believe for many of my colleagues as well, there is no longer any question in my mind of the importance of this subject. [...]

Mr. Chairman, I have not always held the opinion that UFOs were worthy of serious scientific study. I began my work as Scientific Consultant to the U.S. Air Force as an open skeptic, in the firm belief that we were dealing with a mental aberration and a public nuisance. Only in the face of stubborn facts and data similar to those studied by the French commission... have I been forced to change my opinion.[...]

The UFO phenomenon, as studied by my colleagues and myself, bespeaks the action of some form of intelligence... but whence this intelligence springs, whether it is truly extra-terrestrial, or bespeaks a higher reality not yet recognized by science, or even if it be in some way or another a strange psychic manifestation of our own intelligence, is much the question. We seek your help, Mr. Chairman, in assisting scientists, and particularly those already associated with the many formal and informal investigative organizations around the world, by providing a clearing house procedure whereby the work already going on globally can be brought together in a serious, concentrated approach to this most outstanding challenge to current science.