Science and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis in Ufology

reply to post by Orkojoker

That may help slightly but I don't think it solves the problem.

I found it interesting that Dr. Hynek said the sound people heard came from an emergency vehicle and Dr Seff who interviewed the witnesses said the sound did NOT come from an emergency vehicle. That would seem to be an important point since Hynek reported that noises are not commonly reported with such UFO sightings.

One thing is for sure, they can't both be right!

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I know as a FACT...not opinion....but as a 100% FACT that E.T. is a REALITY! I wish I did not know this...but I do and I deal with it.

I'm not discounting whatever experience you had that you haven't told us (at least here), but No, you don't know as a 100% fact. You had an experience that you interpret as being about UFOs and the ETH (assuming you're on topic here). You may even have been led to believe that. There's an old quote I will mess up, but the gist of it is this: There is a phenomenon that has chosen to present itself as UFOs so as not to upset us too much.

A few hundred years ago this phenomenon may have manifested itself as fairies from the woods. The point is that our interpretation plays a big factor in terms of what we think we see. Bringing up the psychological aspect of these experiences does not mean that anyone thinks you're not 100% sane. You are. And your interpretation is one of the big links here and is fair game.

Yesterday there was a thread about an old UFOTV movie that depicted the first contactees, such as Adamski, Fry, and Meneger. Meneger, who died in 2001, went through the usual litany of being a contactee, with a trip to the Moon thrown into the bargain. Most people throw Meneger in with the other suspect cases like Bethurum, but if you listen to Meneger, especially toward the end of his life, he's being much more circumspect.

Indeed, he came to believe that he had been duped. Of his moon trip he said (paraphrased), "Well, it appeared to me that we went to the Moon and back, but the fact is we may never have left the ground." That's a pretty profound statement for a guy who had this phenomenon in his life from the time he was 10 years old. That gave me a new found respect for him. When they said they were "from Venus" Meneger doesn't buy it. He says they could have been visiting and them saying they were from Venus may have been technically correct, but that doesn't mean they were originally from Venus. It was just their last stop.

What gets me, though, is that the topic here is the efficacy, if you will, of the ETH. But immediately people start talking about some lights in the sky and their proper interpretation, either explainable, as a missile, for example, or not. Then the arguments ensue. But it's completely off topic. Are we still at lights in the sky? Let's get beyond that.

When you get past the mundane explanations of missiles, seagulls, reflections, and helicopters (There was one very clear helicopter in the movie mentioned above touted as a UFO) then what you have left is a core group of unknowns that appear to be beyond explanation, perhaps including Split Infinity's experience. The questions before us are,

Where are they from and how did they get here?

And even if you've conversed with these creatures and they tell you where they are from, are they telling you the truth? They used to say they were from Venus. We know better now so that explanation doesn't work. So now they say, "We're from the Pleiades" because we, the sophisticated Star Trek generation, are more likely to accept it. At least it's unkown to us so we can't disprove it like we can Venus. Then they let our imaginations take over. They must have invented Warp Drive, so that's how they got here. They did the same thing when they said they were from Venus. We just didn't know Venus was 500 degrees on the surface, and John Carter got to Mars, so why couldn't they be from there?

The original article cited by OP is, I believe, somewhat simplistic. It begs the question. It's not that there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Nearly everyone accepts that possibility. Proclaiming this as so produces the gag reflex. It's old news. Given UFO reality, it does not follow that they are from "out there" though they might be. And if they ARE from out there, we don't have an explanation for how they got here. "Warp Drive" is from the movies. Invoking it is filling a gap with your imagination.

About all we know, really, is that some very sane and intelligent people claim to have conversed with creatures, and that these creatures often lie to us.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

That may help slightly but I don't think it solves the problem.

I found it interesting that Dr. Hynek said the sound people heard came from an emergency vehicle and Dr Seff who interviewed the witnesses said the sound did NOT come from an emergency vehicle. That would seem to be an important point since Hynek reported that noises are not commonly reported with such UFO sightings.

One thing is for sure, they can't both be right!

I too was a little confused over what the actual verdict was on the sound people allegedly heard. On one hand, it was reported that some witnesses observed the object upon going outside to investigate "a disturbing and unusual sound", yet there apparently was an emergency vehicle in the area with its siren on. Seems strange that people living in that neighborhood would never have heard the sirens of the local emergency vehicles and that it would sound so strange to them that they would go outside to investigate - and then just happen to see a UFO from which they assumed the sound was emanating. Either way, I don't think the sound - or lack thereof - is a particularly significant aspect of the sighting.

As you noted, in many close range sightings like this no sound is reported to be noticed in connection with the object, although there are a good number of exceptions to that general rule.

Originally posted by schuyler

The original article cited by OP is, I believe, somewhat simplistic. It begs the question. It's not that there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Nearly everyone accepts that possibility. Proclaiming this as so produces the gag reflex. It's old news. Given UFO reality, it does not follow that they are from "out there" though they might be. And if they ARE from out there, we don't have an explanation for how they got here. "Warp Drive" is from the movies. Invoking it is filling a gap with your imagination.

I think maybe you should give Swords' paper another look, because he certainly doesn't imply that the reality of UFOs leads necessarily to the ETH. What he says is that it is an acceptable hypothesis and, in some ways, the least implausible of the relatively "far out" hypotheses considering our current understanding of the universe. The paper, in any event, goes far beyond the matter of intelligent life in the cosmos to discuss the plausibility of - and possible motivations for - visitation.

Originally posted by schuyler

And even if you've conversed with these creatures and they tell you where they are from, are they telling you the truth? They used to say they were from Venus. We know better now so that explanation doesn't work. So now they say, "We're from the Pleiades" because we, the sophisticated Star Trek generation, are more likely to accept it. At least it's unkown to us so we can't disprove it like we can Venus. Then they let our imaginations take over. They must have invented Warp Drive, so that's how they got here. They did the same thing when they said they were from Venus. We just didn't know Venus was 500 degrees on the surface, and John Carter got to Mars, so why couldn't they be from there?

It MIGHT be that they knew that people understood that Venus was another planet, and that they didn't think your average human was likely to believe they came from another planet outside our solar system.

When I went to school, I remember our elementary teacher saying that scientists thought that our solar system was probably unique, maybe the only one in the galaxy as it was formed by some entirely unlikely set of circumstances. So I think a lot of people used to assume that planet earth and our neighboring planets were "unique and special" in the whole universe. And of course, that line of thought is still quite popular with a lot of religious fundamentalists.

So I think you are looking at this like they could explain these things in very literal and your average person would understand. That isn't necessarily the case.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if these contactees are telling us truthful accounts or if most of these are just hoaxes, or fantasy, or misperceptions.

In any case, we DON'T know that they couldn't come from Venus. Just because the exterior of the planet is not habitable, doesn't necessarily negate the possibility they might live underneath the planet's surface, or in orbit around the planet (although that still begs the question WHY they would choose to live there when there is a much more habitable planet nearby).

Originally posted by Orkojoker

I think maybe you should give Swords' paper another look, because he certainly doesn't imply that the reality of UFOs leads necessarily to the ETH. What he says is that it is an acceptable hypothesis and, in some ways, the least implausible of the relatively "far out" hypotheses considering our current understanding of the universe. The paper, in any event, goes far beyond the matter of intelligent life in the cosmos to discuss the plausibility of - and possible motivations for - visitation.

Yes, thank you for pointing out the article again. I printed it out and read it. This IS about ETH, right? It's in the thread title. It's the title of the article. I thought it might be admissable to address that as a main point. I apologize if I was misled by the thread title, and the article title. Oh, well. You asked for opinions. Mine is above. I didn't realize you wanted only positive opinions on the piece, allocades for its deep perception. As I stated, I think the article is somewhat simplistic. It's not particularly perceptive. I stand by that opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by schuyler
Yes, thank you for pointing out the article again. I printed it out and read it. This IS about ETH, right? It's in the thread title. It's the title of the article. I thought it might be admissable to address that as a main point. I apologize if I was misled by the thread title, and the article title. Oh, well. You asked for opinions. Mine is above. I didn't realize you wanted only positive opinions on the piece, allocades for its deep perception. As I stated, I think the article is somewhat simplistic. It's not particularly perceptive. I stand by that opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Sorry there, friend, if I touched a nerve or something. I certainly wasn't trying to insult you. It seems I may have misinterpreted what you said:

The original article cited by OP is, I believe, somewhat simplistic. It begs the question. It's not that there's intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Nearly everyone accepts that possibility. Proclaiming this as so produces the gag reflex. It's old news. Given UFO reality, it does not follow that they are from "out there" though they might be.

I took this as an indication that you felt that the author tried to insinuate that, given UFO reality, it does follow that they are from "out there". Apparently that's not what you meant. My apologies. I interpreted the author's meaning to be something along the lines of:

I certainly welcome your opinion, regardless of how close it is or isn't to my own. I hope I didn't suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
. There are plenty of reports out there by (sometimes multiple) psychologically normal people of experiences that are on par with vivid visual hallucinations. For most UFO witnesses in these cases, the experience is an isolated incident - something never seen before and never see again - not part of an ongoing mental issue. Aren't psychologists curious to learn what might trigger such unusual psychological events? If people all around the world are spontaneously and inexplicably tripping out in highly patterned and particular ways, shouldn't somebody be trying to figure out why?

Actually Dr Rick Strassman has a theory on spontaneous endogenous '___' release. His theory is usually applied to religious Experience and visions and not UFOs.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Either way, I don't think the sound - or lack thereof - is a particularly significant aspect of the sighting.

It could be significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if the sound actually came from the UFO, it might provide some kind of clue about the nature of the object that was observed. So once again a video recording (with audio) would be very helpful in cases like this.

But I also think the confusion over the sound is important for another reason, in highlighting the misperception phenomena. What could be simpler than identifying the sound of an emergency vehicle in the area in which you live? People in rural areas may only hear them rarely but most people in urban areas you would think should have no problem identifying the sound of an emergency vehicle, so it does seem odd that what should seemingly be a matter of great simplicity ends up in two completely contradictory accounts by doctors who investigated the case.

source

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

I have no idea what they saw, but hopefully you'll agree with Dr Hynek's statements about misperception which definitely apply to those cases:

home.comcast.net...

Dr. J. Allen Hynek (The "Father" of modern UFOlogy) in his summary of AF Project Grudge (April 30, 1949) wrote:

First of all, it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, UNLESS THE OBJECT IS IDENTIFIED FIRST… It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude and size ARE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED (My emphasis). THIS IS DOUBLY TRUE OF OBSERVATIONS MADE AT NIGHT (My emphasis).

Personally I agree with Hynek and find that "most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude and size ARE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE".

Here's another quote by Hynek on the subject of such estimates by UFO witnesses, from a letter he wrote concerning the Redlands case:

The object was estimated to have been at least 50 feet in diameter. The estimates of 300 feet altitude and 50 feet must be considered jointly; only the apparent diameter can be judged, of course, but on the assumption of a given distance the estimate of 50 feet was arrived at. Clearly, if the object had been several miles away, the unchanged apparent diameter would lead to an unbelievably large object. For these reasons these estimates cannot be summarily dismissed.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It could be significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if the sound actually came from the UFO, it might provide some kind of clue about the nature of the object that was observed. So once again a video recording (with audio) would be very helpful in cases like this.

But I also think the confusion over the sound is important for another reason, in highlighting the misperception phenomena. What could be simpler than identifying the sound of an emergency vehicle in the area in which you live? People in rural areas may only hear them rarely but most people in urban areas you would think should have no problem identifying the sound of an emergency vehicle, so it does seem odd that what should seemingly be a matter of great simplicity ends up in two completely contradictory accounts by doctors who investigated the case.

While we're on the topic, could you point out where Hynek differs with the primary investigator regarding the sound heard by witnesses? I can't seem to find his comments on the matter. Thanks.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
While we're on the topic, could you point out where Hynek differs with the primary investigator regarding the sound heard by witnesses? I can't seem to find his comments on the matter. Thanks.

I followed your link at the bottom of p1 to your OP, and if you scroll down you'll see a link to "Hynek Letter". In the quote underneath that is where it says the sounds were from an emergency vehicle, but now that I look at it again, I'm not sure if the source is the Hynek letter or what the source is, so I guess maybe I should ask you, what is the source for that? Did I miss the link to it?

reply to post by schuyler

The definition of an E.T. is an EXTRA TERRESTRIAL...THUS MEANING...NOT FROM EARTH.

And you are wrong in your assumptions of why I said what I did. I KNOW AS A FACT AND AS 100% a FACT that E.T. is a REALITY. I did not gain this information because I saw something in the sky. Split Infinity

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Bah, I thought I had sourced that properly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (not that I can edit the OP now, unfortunately). The bit below the Hynek letter link are the conclusions of the primary investigator on the Redlands, California, case.

Professor Philip Seff, who headed the investigative team, reached the following conclusions: The object sighted can be attributed to no known type of aircraft. Since the atmosphere was clear and the object was low, witnesses obtained a clear view; also, no known aircraft was over Redlands at that time. As far as is known, the object cannot be attributed to any known natural phenomenon. The sound heard was that of the emergency rescue vehicle. In the excitement of seeing a UFO, witnesses naturally assumed that it was coming from the object overhead. The composite painting was obtained from witnesses seeing the object at different angles. Therefore composite is probably a very accurate representation of the object. Classification: UFO.

source

Now I remember why I was confused. The article below - in the second to last paragraph - notes that the sound the witnesses heard was not the emergency vehicle's siren.



I'm guessing the newspaper goofed, but I'm not sure. I'd think that the information at the link above, from:
Story, Ronald D., Ed., 1980, Encyclopedia of UFOs, New York, Doubleday, pages 299-300

...is more thoroughly vetted than a newspaper article.

In the original thread for the Redlands case there is also some discussion about the uncertain number of witnesses. Various sources indicate the possibility of 20, 40, 100 and 200 people (give or take in the last two numbers) having seen the thing. Apparently 20 were interviewed (according to an account by James McDonald), but people were allegedly standing all up and down a couple streets outside their houses, hence what is surely only an estimate of 100 to 200 people. A newspaper reported that Seff and his investigative team had interviewed 40 witnesses, but shortly thereafter McDonald was quoted as saying they had interviewed 20. McDonald was in personal contact with Seff during this period, so I have to think that what he said is more likely to be accurate.

I think in the Coyne helicopter case and all the good airlines cases of close encounters by crew and passengers (witnesses in the first such case included two Boeing engineers and the head of a manufacturing company), as well as cases in which witnesses included several police officers (who, being on the ground, would not be subject to disorientation in flight typically mentioned by debunkers in a case of a pilot who reports a UFO, as well as being careful observers by habit because they often have to fill out detailed reports) make the case against their mental capacity and/or veracity very thin, indeed.

If that leads to the conclusion that there must be something going on very much like what a large number of good witnesses have described, it doesn’t automatically rule out everything but the ETH, but the alternatives to that hypothesis seem pretty far-fetched. And it at least suggests that the subject is worth methodically investigating.

While the notion of secret military craft as the stimulus seems attractive and would certainly account for some sightings, a compelling case against that theory can be made.

The notion of a secret group of humans with advanced technology seems pretty hard to swallow, although less so if the story involves descendents of advanced humans who were in space tens of thousands of years ago when society back home was knocked back to the Stone Age by war or some natural disaster.

Time travelers? Interdimensional? Yuck (not a sufficiently scientific term), but short and to the point.

With sufficient examination of the available evidence, logic strongly favors the ETH, and there is sufficient cause to suspect that proof exists but is being withheld from the public.

reply to post by LightAssassin

then closed down the investigation without reason

This makes no sense, some reason had to exist even if not publicly divulged. If there are extraterrestrial, they are not benevolent and we have already been infiltrated. This is the major reason of lack of scientific interest and political and social ostracism of those discussing the phenomena.

To make things worse there is a lot of disinformation a quacks; as a fringe phenomena that always had public interest (making it even more strange the official lack of attention) it attracts people from other disenfranchised areas, polluting the subject, generating confusion and increasing frustration in ascertain the few real events in any scientific capacity.

Orko, great thread (again) mate and it looks like I've got some reading to do there - Dr Swords is a very knowledgeable chap when it comes to UFO history, UFO incidents and UFO documents so it's definitely going on the 'to do' list - here's another more recent article where he also discusses the ETH and speculates about nature and motivations:


“WHAT DOES A HALF-CENTURY OF INTENSE UFO DISPLAY MEAN?”

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Cases like the Red Bluff incident of 1960

Well thanks for linking that one - APRO described the case as 'one of the most interesting we have ever encountered' and the police witnesses describing the object performing 'aerial gymnastics' and emitting a beam of light which caused EM effects on their radios - just like in the Portage County case, I'm completely baffled as to what the object actually was.

Cheers.

I have to say I find this publication interesting and informative, but one thing about it concerns me deeply. It is not in the data provided and looked over, these are actually some of the most interesting examinations and conclusions on the subject that I have EVER read. But the AGE of this study, published as it was in 1989, means that it fails to encompass the newer information that we have now, which might have had a bearing on the conclusions reached.

I would like to suggest, that as useful as this study is to us as interested parties, and as interesting and important as its conclusions may be, it is not current. I wonder if there are any people on this website, whose understanding of the science involved is adequate to the task of re examining the subject, or adding the new data that we have that might have an affect on those conclusions, and updating the examination as it stands?

That said, I must thank OP for bringing this study to our attention, since as I have mentioned, its conclusions are at least as profound as its level of detail.

Having read the content of this thread, the following things stand out as important in my veiw. First of all, regarding the topic of UFO encounters, one poster pointed out, accurately, that one of the problems with the ETH and UFOlogy in general, is that fiction got there first. It is very true that fiction arrived at the possibility before mainstream science ever did.

What many people fail to realise, is that the same can be said of every single thing that the human race, has put into space. Space stations, shuttles, moon landings, commercial spaceflight (comming soon to an astroport near you) EVAs and pretty much every facet of those things, was being fictionalised before any of them ever took place, and before some of them were being seriously considered. The biggest , most glaring example of this would be 2001: A Space Oddyssey. Arthur C. Clarke, being the fortune teller, come scientist, come author that he was, postulated pretty much every machination of the space industry, before such a thing even existed, and some of NASAs endevours were actually based on his work, his ideas, as many of the people who were around at the time will attest. Some even say that a failiure to realise all but the most fantastical and improbable of his ideas, regarding technology and so on, is the biggest one can imagine, since it is a clear road map to the stars.

Hynek's 1949 opinion can't be taken seriously, he was paid to parrot the company line. It wasn't until the late 60s that he began to change his tune after having been confronted by atmospheric physicist James McDonald.

It's also instructive to read McDonald's testimony to Congress. He speaks about how 'rocks falling from the sky' was an issue a couple centuries ago, and how it was thought impossible that rocks should fall from the sky. A scientist cataloged many hundreds of such events from peasants and others. Still, the consensus was it was impossible, therefore it didn't happen and those witnesses were ridiculed. Of course it turned out that the peasants were right, and that meteorites do indeed fall from the sky. McDonald used this example to illustrate the UFO sighting situation of his day.

McDonald also used another example to illustrate the differences between eyewitness to an event. An accident happens at an intersection, there are several witnesses. Each gives different accounts of what they saw based on their positions, the moment they turned to look, etc. While details among them may vary, all agree that an accident happened at that intersection on that day at that time.

Regarding pilot's observations, no one's mentioned Haines and his impressive data in his aircat database. Like McDonald, Haines concentrates on the best, multi witness / radar sightings and physical and electromagnetic effects. To simply declare that pilots are unreliable witnesses is arrogant and misinformed at best and asinine and insulting at worst. There are many radar visual cases. There are also some very compelling multiple radar, multiple visual cases.

My opinion is that the the ETH and the IDH are not mutually exclusive. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in all your philosophy."

We might do well to include psychology as well.

However, as a starting point, the ETH is as McDonald indicated, the "least unsatisfactory hypothesis". Though some might quarrel with that view. Still, since the preponderance of quality data by highly qualified people is so great, I think it's a reasonable place to start. Even 50 years after McDonald first sought to take a summer off to dispose of the UFO problem but discovering that the more he researched it the more alarmed he became at the data he found.

See Ann Druffel's book on McDonald: "Firestorm Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science".