The most believable explanation for UFOs, where misidentifications or new physical or astrophysical processes can be ruled out, is the
extraterrestrial drone hypothesis. Dr. Michio Kaku, physicist and founder of field string theory, has described this theory on his show 'Physics of
"By the way if you're a type-3 you will explore the galaxy not by sending Captain Kirk on an Enterprise hopping from star system to star system --
that would take million of years to explore the milky way galaxy!
"The way you do it, is you would create a robot. Have the robot land on a moon. It would create a factory. It would make millions of copies of itself
on this moon, which is quite stable, and send these to other moons. Then each of these would create another factory. Starting with one robot you would
have a million. Then a million-million, and a million-million-million. Until you had a sphere expanding near the speed of light containing trillions
of these robots. They would land on a moon and simply wait. Wait for a type-0 civilization to become type-1. Now where have you seen that before? This
is the basis of the movie 2001. The movie 2001 is perhaps the most authentic rendition of the encounter of a type-0 civilization with a type-3
"Now at the beginning of the movie Stanley Kubrick interviewed many leading astronomers and scientists, and we laid out this scenario. That the most
efficient way to colonize a galaxy is to send robots have them land on a moon, and create a factory, and then they would shoot out and colonize other
moons. But at the last minute Kubrick cut the first five minutes of his own film, and the film became super mystical. But the next time you see that
movie realize that the monolith on the moon is perhaps a remnant of a passing type-3 civilization waiting for our type-0 civilization to become
If Professor Kaku's explanation of how technologically advanced species explore the galaxy proves to be true. Then it would neatly explain "crash
landings" of off-world objects. It isn't much of a leap to imagine a non-human sapient species spreading von Neumann-esque probes throughout the
universe by impacting the surface of planetary bodies, deploying sensory equipment, and manufacturing transmitter towers on a nearby moon as a relay
to communicate with the stellar network. This becomes even more believable when we consider how we as humans explore other planets.
For the sake of argument, simply imagine for a moment little green men live on Mars and that one of them saw the Mars Polar Lander crash land to the
surface of the planet. A Martian skeptic might incredulously say to an eyewitness, "So a non-martian intelligence sent a craft all the way
across the solar system, but they couldn't prevent it from crashing into our planet?!" Yet this is exactly what happened. Unfortunately since the
martians lack an understanding of the circumstances surrounding the impact, they'd miss out on crucial evidence due to a misplaced sense of a need for
skepticism. Where, instead, if they had employed a more open-minded investigative approach it might have helped them to prove that life exists
elsewhere on other planets.
If anything this should cause us to pause and rethink the Kecksburg, and to a lesser extent the Roswell incidents. Furthermore the drone
hypothesis might even explain the 1955 Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter. Really the only problem with this theory is if drones are observing our
planet, it's reasonable to question why we haven't detected any anomalous electromagnetic communication transmissions. It also requires us to ask,
"Why hasn't SETI heard anything?" The only defensible explanations are:
- They're either using technology far beyond what we're familiar with -- perhaps quantum modems.
- The probes aren't from a local star cluster and are perhaps instead from an adjacent n-th dimensional space.
- There are no drones and we're not being visited.
Whatever the case might be the drone hypothesis is an interesting possibility and
one we need to take seriously as it's likely how we'll explore the universe ourselves.
== Notes/Refs ==
 1967.08.19, Astronautics and Aeronautics, UFOs ~ Extraterrestrial Probes - James E. McDonald --
 "Michio Kaku about future civilization" (occurs at 5:30) -- www.youtube.com...
 "We should scour the moon for ancient traces of aliens, say scientists" --
 A Scientific Search for Visitation from Extraterrestrial Probes -- www.setv.org...
 The Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts (SETA) -- www.setv.org...
 Mars Polar Lander -- en.wikipedia.org...
 "Mars Exploration Rover 2003" (occurs at 2:29) -- www.youtube.com...
 "NASA Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover) Mission Animation" (occurs at 1:18) --
 "Is case finally closed on 1965 UFO mystery?" --
 Karl Pflock makes a compelling case against the Roswell incident. However, there are credible details about the story that simply won't go away.
It's difficult to explain why the USAF would publicly state there was a saucer crash in Roswell only a day later to retract the story, and then
decades after officially release four conflicting additional explanations: weather balloon, project Mogul, project Excelsior, and project High Dive.
Beyond making repeated changes to the story, even many of the specifics fail to possess any sort of internal consistency. For instance, the Mogul
mission was classified, but the equipment used off the shelf parts. Nothing which couldn't be identified by a 10 year old. So, why did they establish
military cordons (as described by sworn affidavits of witnesses) and fly the debris to top foreign tech bases such as Ft. Worth and Wright Field?
Note, these flights are facts, not suppositions, there are both military and press records of the flights. How could intelligence officers at a base
housing the only operational nuclear bomber wing, incorrectly identify balsa wood and foil paper (if Mogul)? Either the officers at the base were
wholly incompetent or the Mogul story simply doesn't hold water. A reading of Friedman, Berlitz, Moore, Randle, Pflock, McAndrew, Weaver, Mitchell,
and the other principles should give a more thorough overview of the nuance and murkiness surrounding the case. I'd also recommend looking into the
research surrounding the Ramey memo.
edit on 30-11-2012 by FooScience because: fixing links and formatting