It's amazing to think that only 100 years ago, the term "UFO" did not exist. "Alien" meant a human being with citizenship from another country, a usage that in today's world seems increasingly bizarre. How the times have changed!
In the 20th and early 21st century, the subjects of UFOs and extra-terrestrials underwent an exponential increase in the both the popular culture, and academic study. To what can we attribute this phenomena?
A complete study is, unfortunately, beyond the brief limits of this discussion and debate. Besides the innumerable 'case studies' and personal testimonials this subject has evoked, thousands of books have written; documentaries, movies, conventions and papers - there exist an incredible interconnected network of contention, debate, contradiction, and reasoning both meticulous and imaginative.
Agendas exist. Nothing, it seems, is separable or definitively answerable. Every specific topic yields another dozen avenues of investigation. Frankly, it's all a little daunting. As someone who does not claim to be an 'expert', with decades spent studying this, I can only hope to give a fair and adequate summary overview.
Perhaps a fresh approach is best here. We are dealing with a field that has been deliberately polluted with false information, reports, and conjecture. The truth has been, with somewhat appalling success, twisted and even concocted whole-cloth, forming what is a maze of twisted paths of possible belief, a minefield of deception.
This is the unfortunate 'Postmodern Truth' of the UFO/Alien Phenomena:
The hallmark of postmodern philosophy has been disbelief or skepticism of all "metanarratives," or translations of reality. Postmodernism has even turned its profound skepticism on such important humanist concepts as "objective truth" and reason.
Yet, for a deconstructionist postmodern society, individually we are still riddled with superstition and gullibility, and open to manipulation through our belief systems as any politician, philosopher, clergy, or salesperson will attest.
[1]
The format of this discussion is a debate, and I'm sure my esteemed friend Skyfloating will help us examine this subject, from whatever opposing perspective may be necessary to balance our investigations.
There's no need for 'clever tricks' of rhetoric or strategy here. This subject is broad, the concepts are explainable, the supporting evidence is vast (perhaps even, at times, too vast). Why deal with tricks and traps, when the subject matter, unfortunately, has those built-in, for us to untangle? We'll look past that.
So with that in mind, a brief outline of my case:
The current 'UFO/Alien' phenomena is not a naturally occurring culture structure. With strong roots in mythology and human psychology, the attractive perception of the subject matter, born into popular spotlight by early 20th century science-fiction (Jules Verne, HG Wells), and incubated in the environment of the Cold War, has increased 1000-fold from its origin.
The 'culturization' of this phenomena will be examined, and we will see exactly what benefits can be derived from such manipulation, as well as some of the specific 'truth-building' mechanisms thereof.
I will not pretend to have the 'final truth' of secret government agenda, but I will recount the many and varied effects of concealment and deception, and the supporting evidence, and I believe you will be convinced of the solid foundation on which this position is built.
The means to perpetrate this hoax cannot be overlooked. Can a complete 'air-tight' conspiracy exist, and does it have to? What documented government efforts, vast even in the scope we can see from public records, point to such? Where do small kernels of truth still gleam though this eye-watering facade, and what has the reaction been?
In short, we will look at this hoax, the sad effect it has had on honest pursuit of truth, and perhaps gain a little understanding of ourselves, our social psychology, and how we, as a species, can move beyond such deceit and deception. We must 'thaw' the Cold War of the mind.
I want to make one thing clear, up front. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. It doesn't necessarily imply 'alien spacecraft', although in the popular culture, it does. Exactly why that line has been blurred will be a topic of this debate, but I'm not going to play games of ambiguity with the subject.
And I'm also not going to say "aliens don't exist". Maybe that somehow 'hurts' an absolute stance of this side of the debate, but I don't care. That wouldn't be intellectually honest of me. There are some who contend that in all this vast universe we humans are the only intelligent life, and all doubt of that without 100% total proof is 'silly'. While I do respect the need for consistent logic and evidence, I think such a stance is closed-minded and counter-productive.
Perhaps some ancient peoples really did see more in the sky than comets, ball lightning, auroras, and 'swamp gas'. Myself, I personally believe that there is very specific and convincing evidence that ancient astronomy was much more advanced than we give it credit for. People thought the world was flat, until the middle ages? That's bunk! We must be careful to distinguish between actual history, and historical reinterpretation, where 'modern ideas' and context are used to reinterpret and relabel the past.
Fortunately, we're not dealing directly with all such specifics here; we're looking at how the issues have been formed and used, deliberately, and I hope we can keep open minds on all levels.
Then let's begin. Before I get into discussing the black budget, paperclip, military compartmentalization, etc., I'd like to take a little bit closer look at the phenomena of belief, and allow my opponent to make his opening statement.
So I'll keep this brief, and begin this topic by presenting for open inspection one of the most misused tools in the rhetorical kit: Occam's Razor.
Also called the 'Law of Parsimony', it's often mis-stated as: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best". That is a horrible mis-statement, in my opinion, as it assumes that one possesses a complete and adequate viewpoint from which to judge what is 'equal', and what all the options and possible truths are. In the modern world, truth can be much more subtle, and Occam's Razor can be used to eliminate and ignore valid objection, when arguing from an absolute stance that accepts a certain viewpoint as the only 'obvious and correct' way of organizing facts and evidence.
There's a better phrasing of Occam's Razor: what Occam actually said.
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
[2]
As an aside, some historical perspective may be attained by contrasting the two versions of Occam's Razor as applied to religious arguments. Is it 'simpler' to posit, by parsimony alone, an entity that by virtue of its very existence answers and eliminates a multitude of questions?
To relate this to the topic at hand, I ask my opponent the following Socratic Questions:
SQ1: Does the government have secret technology, in advance of the public state-of-the-art?
SQ2: Does the military conduct large, proactive projects to conceal their capabilities?
SQ3: What do you suppose William of Occam would say about this subject?
I now hand the floor to my opponent, with respect and thanks for his participation. My thanks to ATS for this venue, and a special shout-out to MemoryShock, who has organized and moderated this tournament - great job!
May the readers enjoy.








). 