What Is The Best Hypothesis

[Randall]

I did a title specific search and found no other thread with "hypothesis" in the title, and none dealing exclusively with the issue of what hypothesis best explains the UFO phenomenon. So I propose that we explore it here.

To kick this off. We are all aware of the ETH ( Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ), but there are others who believe that the ETH isn't the best one. I persoanlly still believe it is the best explanation within the following context:

Extraterrestrial:

A term referring to a location or origin other than the planet Earth, but still within our current universe or spacetime.

ETH:

In ufology, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis ( ETH ) theorizes that UFOs come from outer space and probably originate on another planet. However most UFOs are more accurately explained as shuttles that have been dispatched from a mother ship near the Earth or some secret terrestrial base. Therefore, technically, some UFOs may be terrestrial based, but because they are ultimately of alien origin, the ETH still applies to them.

I am particularly interested in point-counterpoint ( reasonably short ) exchanges that provide logical and cohesive reasoning for hypotheses that people believe provide a better explanation than the ETH. I look forward to your responses.

 

[tyder001]

While I think the planet Venus and swamp gas are waaayy to overused I have not found any credible sources for life from other planetes. I'm afraid I kind of lean toward the ole boring "black ops" explanation of earthly origin. Still, there are some provocative paintings and sightings such as those researced by Vallee that are way to ancient for the military explanation. Now, don't get mad and don't laugh (well ya could but it's just a opinion) I'm still not completely convinced the ufo's are one thing and alien abduction something else such as a spritual or psycological experience.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

If it is determined that a UFO is not a mis-identified object from earth (human or natural), the ETH seems like a solid hypothesis. Nothing has shown me though that it's anything beyond an idea to explain something unexplained. To me, chances are much higher that ALL UFO encounters are something that we would otherwise find ordinary. Maybe one day we'll know for sure. In the end, no one on this forum knows for sure.

 

[tyder001]

I do tend to think much of it will be shown to be military produced. However, there are some provacative facts such as ancient accounts that are either myth, flat out lies or evidence of alien encounters and even alien manipulation. But, to me once you go there you open up the whole range of angelic, demonic and ancient alien questions that just seem to take on a life of their own. I actually don't so much like or propose the military view as simply accept it as having more weight than the other views. But, I'm open to possibilities.

 

[trainedobserver]

Table 2, pg 151, The UFO Phenomena: Fact, Fantasy, and Disinformation. John Micheal Greer, 2009.

UFOs are either ...

• Material objects, and are either …
  • Artificial, and are either …
    • Made by human beings ….
      • On the earth …
        • At the present time--anthropogenic hypothesis.
        • In the far future--time travel hypthesis.
        • Or somewhere else--intraterrestrial hypothesis.
    • Or made by nonhuman beings …
      • On the earth--cryptoterrestrial hypothesis.
      • Or somewhere else--extraterrestrial hypothesis.
  • Or natural, and are either …
    • Living things--zoological hypothesis.
    • Nonliving natural phenomena--geophysical hypothesis.
  • Or apparitions, and are either …
    • Objectively real, and are either...
      • Best understood via Christian theology--demonic hypothesis.
      • Or best understood via alternative faiths--ascended masters hypothesis.
      • Or best understood outside either option--ultra-terrestrial hypothesis.
    • Or only subjectively real, and are either …
      
      • Produced by the nervous system--neurological hypothesis.
      • Or produced by perceptual and psychological factors--null hypothesis.
        

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This thread isn't about whether or not UFOs exist or whether or not anyone knows for sure that they exist. I and many others know they are not "ordinary" and they are real. What we are trying to do is come up with the best hypothesis for what they are and where they come from. I agree with you that the ETH is solid in this regard, but there are those who lean toward other hypotheses and seem to be pretty firmly convinced. I am curious as to why. Maybe I am missing something I had not considered before.

J.R.
www.ufopages.com

Sorry dude, I was just supporting my point with that statement.

 

[trainedobserver]

It seems obvious to me that it isn't one thing but several with the ETH on the lower end of the probability scale.

The mix in order of probability:
null hypothesis
anthropogenic hypothesis
neurological hypothesis
geophysical hypothesis
on the extreme edge of probability and freq. of occurrence would be:
ultra-terrestrial hypothesis
cryptoterrestrial hypothesis
extraterrestrial hypothesis

 

[stphrz]

If ufos are extraterrestrial in origin, then the civilization responsible for them must be of type 2 or 3. Perhaps an advanced type 1 at the very least.

The problem is, such a civilization would be emitting energy from their home system which would be detectable by scientists here on earth and would not be possible to conceal. No such emissions have been detected. Until they are, the ETH is seriously hobbled. Speculating they have the technology to mask such massive energy emissions (which by the way flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics) adds complexity to the hypothesis.

The ETH also requires the civilization(s) visiting us possess extremely advanced technology that can overcome or work around the lightspeed barrier. As it stands now we don't know if this is even possible. Making the assumption that it is or may be possible adds much to the complexity of the hypothesis.

Finally the ETH must not only speculate the existance of advanced spacefaring races, it must speculate that they are coming here to earth.

All in all that is one hell of a lot of complicated speculation. In addition to all of that, even more speculation must be engaged in to explain the lack of clear unambiguous physical evidence of their presence.

A less complicated explanation, in my opinion, is in order.

My hypothesis, in a nutshell, is the origin of ufos (and all other things paranormal) is the earth and us. Part unknown phenomenon and our own perceptions. While assumptions must be made regarding an "unknown phenomenon", few assumptions have to be made about ourselves. We can easily study our own psychology, senses, and belief systems.

 

[trainedobserver]

OK, but a lot to deal with at once. It looks like you are saying the "Null Hypothesis" is the best. Can you please give us a definition for that and explain why you think it is the best explanation for UFOs?

j.r.

I'm saying it is probably a mix of all of those on the upper portion of the list with some small chance of one or more of the bottom three contributing to a small percentage of sightings.

The null hypothesis takes in errors in perception which account for a great deal of UFO sightings.
The anthropogenic hypothesis attributes a great number to man-made objects like spy planes and so forth.
The neurological hypothesis speaks to perceptional issues again and a possible interaction with the next one,
The geophysical hypothesis and the electromagnetic and plasma displays created by the earth itself.

Those probably account for most UFO sightings. The small percentage of others not explained by the above may be ultra/crypto/extra terrestrial in origin but how could you tell one from the other and would it really matter?

 

[trainedobserver]

Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.

Yes, I understand what you meant. My list and the order still applies. How are these things determined to be aircraft? See what I'm getting at? They may appear to be aircraft but does mean they are?

If you are asking what they are if they aren't related to human technology or misperception then they could come from anywhere that you can imagine. Could we tell the difference between an extra, ultra, or crypto-terrestrial? Would it matter?

They could just be an aspect of terrestrial life that we are ill-equipped to perceive and interact with, like electromagnetic fields which our senses can only detect indirectly. I'm pretty sure that the stories we have made up to explain them (greys, reptilians, demons, space-brothers, subterraneans, time travelers) have no basis in truth whatsoever if that is the case.

 

[HotSoup]

The word in and of itself is a good phrase for humanity, a no fault scenario is basically created from the source, allocating room for realization from all corners of reality and perception, placing zero fault on any one in particular as revelations light the way.

 

[trainedobserver]

So out of those three choices, why do you rank the ETH at the bottom?

I'd pick something closer to home first I guess, yes. Then something from outside. Given the long history of the phenomena you could surmise that they have been here a long time or are traveling a short distance to get here. But in all honesty, I think it really doesn't matter at this point. Could we distinguish between them and what difference would it make to us? We'd be screwed in any case.

 

[boomerang]

The 'best evidence" method of forming opinions is uniquely ill suited to ufos.

I have a split personality on the subject. On one side is the "breakaway civilization" theory, in which a small faction of humanity has progressed so fast and far that they intend to leave the rest of us (ugh--sorry for the choice of phrases!) behind. This would seem to be supported by the way in which the best evidence clusters around things military. A lot of baggage goes along with this approach. But we are talking high strangeness in any case.

On the other side of my personal divide is that the whole thing is from some variety of "elsewhere". I don't see why the visitors need to be exclusively from either another planet, another dimension, or another time. These may all be facets of the same thing.

Various hybrid combinations of the above described are conceivable. "They", may always have been here and kept a hand in human affairs by influencing or controlling our social centers of power. We may be, as Charles Fort said, "property". Or, our most elite centers of power may recently be learning from and working with them as best they can. These all have baggage that is hard to reconcile with what we think we know about how the world works.

The one thing I do tend to believe about the "ET" hypothesis, which most ufologists apparently do not, is that the secrecy surrounding ufos is mandated by the phenomenon itself
as opposed to governmental policy. However, I have no good evidence of that.

 

[trainedobserver]

So Train ...

If UFOs are from "closer to home", why have we not found their base of operations, manufactuing facilities and other infrastructure required to support the operation of their craft?

Well, if you are talking non-human intelligences using advanced technology then hypothetically they could do anything couldn't they? So there you go.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Uh ... no ... sorry ... that's a cop-out answer.

j.r.

What's the point of asking people's opinions if you already think that you know the answer?

 

[HotSoup]

There is no point, thats the point hehe

 

[trainedobserver]

Uh ... no ... sorry ... that's a cop-out answer.

How so? How could I presume to understand and predict the capabilities of a non-human intelligence? It can't be done can it? What technological magic might they possess? I don't have any idea. They could hiding in the earth or on the moon for that matter. How could we tell?

Also, I'd be remiss to not point out that for something to actually be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable and falsifiable. These things we are talking about are more speculations than actual hypothesis.

We won't know exactly who and what these things might be until we track them back to their points of origin. It seems unlikely that it would become common knowledge if that does ever occur though. That knowledge would be entirely too valuable to share with the general population don't you think? The common man on the street will never have the need to know and its probably better if he doesn't. Which come to think of it, could explain a great deal.

 

[trainedobserver]

Because the same answer you gave could be used to justify any point of view including the ETH and it doesn't address the issue. The point of the excercise is to go beyond our limitations by considering possibilities, not resign ourselves to a belief that the discussion is pointless because it is beyond our comprehension.

So, I'm supposed to make something up then? Ok. They use super stealth technology and live in bases under the sea.

The problem has proven to be beyond our comprehension don't you think? That is where we are at with this subject as a whole. It has proven to be beyond the resources of the average Joe researcher to crack. If those who have the resources (governments and corporations) have cracked it, they will not share it with us. Why should they? There is no practical reason for them to and a bunch of reasons for them not to. My feeling is they haven't cracked it, that no one actually has although they may be convinced that they have.

And my question wasn't flippant. How could you tell an extra-terrestrial from a ultra or crypto-terrestrial? What would be the practical use of making that determination anyway? Other than just some intellectual exercise in speculation I don't see any.

Perhaps the only valid question to ask that has any kind of answer that might be available to us is, "What are these things doing to us?" What does it say about human beings and human society?

We can speculate about his stuff to we are blue in the face. Anything is possible. Maybe we're the aliens and the true inhabitants of this planet are invisible to us under normal conditions. Maybe we're tolerated like cranky house pets. Maybe it's just us reacting to some aspect of the universe we don't understand or comprehend. Who the hell knows? No one in my estimation. Yours may vary.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

There is no "best" hypothesis. Just choose the one you like and move on

 

[trainedobserver]

I guess the problem I have with that is that if the UFO phenomenon is inherently terrestrial, then there must have been an evolution of the beings and their technology here on Earth.

Good point. Where is the trash?

They could be from somewhere in the local system and we just haven't found them yet for that matter.

If you want to adopt the Bob Dean "We are in a zoo" concept then things could be constructed in such a manner that prevents us from seeing them normally. They are here but our 3 dimensional consciousness does not perceive them under normal conditions. They watch us from a blind so to speak. How scary to you want to get with it?