The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[Creepy Green Light]

But still effectively disproven, so any continued insistence on it is ludicrous.

Hasn't been disproven. Just because someone says something or it's on paper doesn't mean squat. I know, I spent 5 years of my life in military.

Go back in time to 1994 - take a visit out to our magazine in Sigonella Sicily. WOW! Mysteriously 120 CAD's disappeared (cartridge actuated device - used to explosively launch sonobuoys out of the P-3C Orion). On paper the inspector "fixed it" so that the CAD's weren't missing. So what happened to them? Two individuals were out there doing a CAD count and decided to draw Star Wars TIE fighters on the CADS in Sharpie. After a few days they panicked and took the 120 CADS on a mission and had them disposed of (which means dumped down the free fall chute over the Mediterranean Sea.)

The point being just because "The Army says......" or "The Navy says...." or "Army records show that...." doesn't mean shit (to me anyways). I've seen how things get fudged, damaged, lost, hidden, manipulated, etc. etc. I wouldn't trust Navy records from when I was in (1990-1995) let alone Army records from the 1940's. But believe what you want...

 

[marduk]

I really don't think that's something you should rule out tbh.

Oh I’ve tried man, seriously. I’m sure I’m at least not more or less crazy than the average.

My point is that it would be easier to just say that.

It’s kind of hard when you’re standing next to your buddy as a kid and they’ve seen these things too.

 

[Constance]

How would it be more verifiable than reports that came out of the USAF from the people operating Project Blue Book? ... I'd say it's not that we'd be starting clean. We'd be starting with nothing in an age where the subject is heavily biased, faked videos are everywhere, and there's no cooperation from official sources.

Indeed. And your next statement is also right on:

Let's not to forget that back when the Air Force first got involved, there was no stigmatization yet. They were looking at the subject with a slate that was squeaky clean compared to anything today, and they had relatively unbiased ideas about where these unknown craft were coming from.

My impression has long been that those who are most critical of the ETH have not read enough of the early ufo history. There is an enormous amount to read from the 1940s and 50s and additional recently published essential research re ufos during the WWII period, such as Keith Chester's Strange Company: Military Encounters with UFOs in World War II. If Chester hasn't yet been interviewed on the Paracast, he should be. (note to @Gene Steinberg)

The closest we've ever gotten to a no baggage situation, and will probably ever get to one in the future, has already come and gone and left us with a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It was only after The Robertson Panel in 1953 that the real ridicule and heavy debunking set in. And well, you know most of the rest of the story. I see this revisionist movement as little more than an attempt by contemporary personas to make their work stand out as new and fresh and worthy of attention.

I could not agree more with that statement and also with your next comment:

... Naturally the first order of business ( for some people ) is to downplay the work done previously by others, and it's really common to see the "new and fresh" versus the "old and obsolete" tactic in today's world.

Yes, "naturally," because it's so much easier to make wholesale claims and dismissals of the historical evidence supporting the ETH than it would be to provide a comprehensive critique of the many thousands of worldwide military ufo encounters and events, multiple witness cases and physical forms of evidence, that were investigated and reported out over the first half-century of modern ufo experience. To accomplish that goal would require volumes of detailed archival research and writing. Instead what we've seen in contemporary internet chat re ufos has consisted of attempts to debunk a dozen well-known cases in the belief that doing so is adequate to justify ignoring modern ufo history and research as a whole.

 

[marduk]

In most cases you're probably right.



Sure but it probably has long gone beyond the stage of probes and is at the stage of more intense study or intervention.



Evidence? Cases I've heard about mention stricken craft either having a self destruct mechanism or being destroyed by another craft. But they were post Roswell so maybe such means wren't initially available, on short notice.

No evidence, pure speculation.

It would account for the recovery of debris, and yet both zero interest from them to get it back and zero back engineering progress.

 

[Burnt State]

Oh I’ve tried man, seriously. I’m sure I’m at least not more or less crazy than the average.

My point is that it would be easier to just say that.

It’s kind of hard when you’re standing next to your buddy as a kid and they’ve seen these things too.

Agreed. Had the exact same experience.

 

[Burnt State]

Yes, "naturally," because it's so much easier to make wholesale claims and dismissals of the historical evidence supporting the ETH than it would be to provide a comprehensive critique of the many thousands of worldwide military ufo encounters and events, multiple witness cases and physical forms of evidence, that were investigated and reported out over the first half-century of modern ufo experience.

Just what exactly are the concrete links between sightings and the ETH? Agreed that there were many investigations and cases of foo fighters, balls of light and ships being seen. How do these connect to aliens from space? Is it simply a case that it looks like it's from outer space and so it must be from outer space. Is seeing a foo fighter the same thing as seeing a solid technological craft? Because of it's all just about parsimony and the mountain of evidence it still comes back to how much of the evidence is actually valid, not just a story retold, and how thorough and consistent investigations were vs. a massive collections of reports. And then should all the distinct types of objects in the sky belong to the same ETH discussion?

Do you see the post war era of ufology as distinct from the airship mystery and the recent era of triangles and platforms? Are ghost rockets also a part of these and what about abduction reports, humanoid sightings and CE cases? Are these different phenomena or all part of the same phenomenon.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

A great book would be just on school sightings and events. There are a number of landing cases involving schools and because of the range of witnesses and ranges of experience, there's a lot of rich data to be explored there.

Recently there was a fascinating episode of The Unexplained about a 1994 mass sighting just outside of a schoolyard in Zimbabwe. 64 children saw a craft land outside of the playground during their morning break, and two humanoid creatures emerged from it. A filmmaker tracked down one of the witnesses, who appeared on the show to discuss the incident:
Edition 317 – Zimbabwe ET “Contact” Case « The Unexplained Paranormal Podcast with Howard Hughes

 

[Constance]

Just what exactly are the concrete links between sightings and the ETH?

That depends on what has been sighted and by whom and where. Pilot reports, and especially those involving military pilots and crews (with their associates on the ground such as air traffic controllers and radar operators) constitute the best early indications of the pressure of the ufo presence. The databases of pilot sightings are immense. Recorded events involving military pilots and crews, whether in wartime or in engagements by jets scrambled to pursue ufos in numerous countries for the past 70 years, also constitute essential ongoing databases, and they have involved technologically informed military and civilian researchers who have investigated these events in detail.

Agreed that there were many investigations and cases of foo fighters, balls of light and ships being seen. How do these connect to aliens from space? Is it simply a case that it looks like it's from outer space and so it must be from outer space. Is seeing a foo fighter the same thing as seeing a solid technological craft?

Suggest you read Keith Chester and others to find out the bases of their reasoned interpretations of the pilot/crew data reported. A vast amount of informed inductive reasoning has been applied, by military and civilian researchers, since the early 1940s to the effort to determine the likely nature and origin of ufos daunting in their anomalous speeds, maneuverability, and intelligent behaviors.

Because of it's all just about parsimony and the mountain of evidence it still comes back to how much of the evidence is actually valid, not just a story retold, and how thorough and consistent investigations were vs. a massive collections of reports.

The only way to find out is to read, attentively and exhaustively, the immense accumulation of evidential data gathered by researchers over many decades of investigation. It takes years to do that.

And then should all the distinct types of objects in the sky belong to the same ETH discussion? Do you see the post war era of ufology as distinct from the airship mystery and the recent era of triangles and platforms? Are ghost rockets also a part of these and what about abduction reports, humanoid sightings and CE cases? Are these different phenomena or all part of the same phenomenon.

Those are additional questions that have been legitimately pursued in the effort to interpret the significance, the comprehensive meaning, of various ufo-related phenomena in our time. The extraterrestrial hypothesis has been increasingly seen as "the best available hypothesis" to account for the manifold data indicating the objective reality of many ufos and some of their interests in visiting this planet, most notably involving monitoring of environments and ecologies here and especially signaling interest in the development of nuclear weapons. Early in the 1940s, ufos were observed over the Hanford atomic production facility and reported within the military by pilots scrambled to investigate them. We need to start there to begin to understand how soon our government/military was aware of evident ufo concern re nukes (also obvious in the numbers of ufos witnessed over the US's atomic research facilities in Tennessee and New Mexico). A great deal happened before Kenneth Arnold's sighting and the event at Roswell.

 

[Constance]

Oh I’ve tried man, seriously. I’m sure I’m at least not more or less crazy than the average.

My point is that it would be easier to just say that.

It’s kind of hard when you’re standing next to your buddy as a kid and they’ve seen these things too.

There's no need, imo, to think you've been temporarily 'crazy' when you have observed ufos in the sky and perhaps ufo occupants on the ground. Why not just accept the fact that our species has as yet only very limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and the nature of life? We have to build our hypotheses and theories on the basis of our own empirical experiences, our own perceptions, along with whatever physical/objective data we can acquire through our current technologies. The more our own perceptions accord with those of others [and with accessible hard data], the more confidence we can have that we share a common experience of the world we exist in. And we are, for the most part, not crazy.

 

[Constance]

Recently there was a fascinating episode of The Unexplained about a 1994 mass sighting just outside of a schoolyard in Zimbabwe. 64 children saw a craft land outside of the playground during their morning break, and two humanoid creatures emerged from it. A filmmaker tracked down one of the witnesses, who appeared on the show to discuss the incident:
Edition 317 – Zimbabwe ET “Contact” Case « The Unexplained Paranormal Podcast with Howard Hughes

An excellent case, thoroughly investigated and recently revisited in interviews with a number of the witnesses, now young adults.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

In the spirit of that active forum debate on the ETH with Thomas R Morrison, Robert Brandstetter (forum name: Burnt State), Jason (forum name: marduk) and Mike Jones (forum name: mike), we invited this quartet to appear on The Paracast.

It was one of the most fascinating episodes ever.

In fact, we had a lot more to go, so we invited them to return for this weekend's episode of After The Paracast to complete, or at least continue the discussion.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

For more information about our premium subscription service, please check: https://www.theparacast/com/plus/

I just listened to them back-to-back, and I feel badly that most listeners didn't get to hear us thrashing on the mat on After The Paracast as we vigorously debated additional points about the ETH and related topics.

Thanks to everyone for bringing all of their knowledge and passion to bear upon an issue of such enormous import to the human species.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I just listened to them back-to-back, and I feel badly that most listeners didn't get to hear us thrashing on mat on After The Paracast as we vigorously debated additional points about the ETH and related topics.

Thanks to everyone for bringing all of their knowledge and passion to bear upon an issue of such enormous import to the human species.

We welcome everyone to sign up for Paracast+. Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Is this the thread for the episode? If not, maybe it should be merged with the ET thread.
I must say that it was a great idea having the panel discussion. Everyone acquitted themselves quite well.
As for the conclusion, I found myself more persuaded that the ETH is still viable and is the most plausible explanation for some observations.
I was also impressed by the suggestion that there could be a secret space program. Maybe Richard Dolan is right.

I moved everything to the existing ETH thread.

 

[marduk]

How would it be more verifiable than reports that came out of the USAF from the people operating Project Blue Book? Is NUFORC really any better? How does Davenport verify his reports? Or UFO Stalker? Or MUFON? Or any other civilian agency? I'd say it's not that we'd be starting clean. We'd be starting with nothing in an age where the subject is heavily biased, faked videos are everywhere, and there's no cooperation from official sources.

Let's not to forget that back when the Air Force first got involved, there was no stigmatization yet. They were looking at the subject with a slate that was squeaky clean compared to anything today, and they had relatively unbiased ideas about where these unknown craft were coming from. It was from those initial studies that USAF technical experts in 1948 concluded that what they we're probably dealing with is ET. At the time they figured ET probably meant interplanetary, but since then advances in space exploration have pretty much ruled that out. So the next logical alternative is interstellar, hence the Interstellar Hypothesis ( ISH ).

The closest we've ever gotten to a no baggage situation, and will probably ever get to one in the future, has already come and gone and left us with a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It was only after The Robertson Panel in 1953 that the real ridicule and heavy debunking set in. And well, you know most of the rest of the story. I see this revisionist movement as little more than an attempt by contemporary personas to make their work stand out as new and fresh and worthy of attention.

After all if the guys back at the beginning got it right in the first place, what value is some nonsensical theory based on folklore and quantum woo? Naturally the first order of business ( for some people ) is to downplay the work done previously by others, and it's really common to see the "new and fresh" versus the "old and obsolete" tactic in today's world, especially when a lot of the original players are no longer around to defend themselves. So I'll do what I can in their stead. There's a reason it was called the Golden Age of Ufology.

To be clear, here's what I would do.

I'd take every report, fact, data point, anecdote, theory, and musing... and lock it in a lead lined vault a km or so below the Canadian shield at an undisclosed location. Maybe the same place they created weapon X.

Then, I'd spend the next five or so years only considering new data from sources like Chris'. Maybe crowdsource some kind of networked sensor and put it on several tens of thousands of people's rooftops. And then, you know, just observe.

Then, start to put some ideas together once you have some good, clean, fresh data. With fresh eyes. If you can start to create some hypotheses that fit the established data, then - and only then - I'd go crack that vault back open and see what that data says. If anything.

 

[marduk]

There's no need, imo, to think you've been temporarily 'crazy' when you have observed ufos in the sky and perhaps ufo occupants on the ground. Why not just accept the fact that our species has as yet only very limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and the nature of life? We have to build our hypotheses and theories on the basis of our own empirical experiences, our own perceptions, along with whatever physical/objective data we can acquire through our current technologies. The more our own perceptions accord with those of others [and with accessible hard data], the more confidence we can have that we share a common experience of the world we exist in. And we are, for the most part, not crazy.

I'm fully prepared to consider that the entire human species may be partly insane.

 

[marduk]

In the spirit of that active forum debate on the ETH with Thomas R Morrison, Robert Brandstetter (forum name: Burnt State), Jason (forum name: marduk) and Mike Jones (forum name: mike), we invited this quartet to appear on The Paracast.

It was one of the most fascinating episodes ever.

In fact, we had a lot more to go, so we invited them to return for this weekend's episode of After The Paracast to complete, or at least continue the discussion.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

For more information about our premium subscription service, please check: https://www.theparacast/com/plus/

It was great fun to be on, and thanks very much to you and Chris for making it happen.

To the rest of the crew on the show, thanks for the talk - we may not always agree but you guys know your stuff and sure made me think.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I'm fully prepared to consider that the entire human species may be partly insane.

That's easy to do. You only need a few different things to make that determination nowadays;

1) Have a penis? Some people that do want to use the women's room (and society goes along with it)
2) Stand for the national anthem? Nope. Kneel for it (and society goes along with it)
3) Here illegally AND murder someone? Not guilty (and society goes along with it)
4) Want to build a wall to minimize the amount of illegals coming in? Nope (society fights you on it)

Whatever the common sense or normal thing is to do - just do the opposite. It's the way things are in 2017 and 2018 is shaping up to be the same way. So yeah, I would agree that we are insane. Aliens are secretly monitoring our news channels and they are scratching there heads. One alien is saying to the other "Yeah, but wasn't that guy in the USA illegally? (yes, on 5 different occasions). Isn't that a crime in itself? (yes). And he murdered someone? (yes). Which is another crime, right? (yes). But he was found 'Not Guilty'? (yes). Ummm.....let's pass on making official contact with this planet....we'll move on to the next one. Maybe we'll find some lifeform that isn't insane....

 

[Gene Steinberg]

My post was moved to here? I thought I posted in the thread discussing the latest episode?

To avoid confusion. We already have an active thread on this topic.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's easy to do. You only need a few different things to make that determination nowadays;

1) Have a penis? Some people that do want to use the women's room (and society goes along with it)
2) Stand for the national anthem? Nope. Kneel for it (and society goes along with it)
3) Here illegally AND murder someone? Not guilty (and society goes along with it)
4) Want to build a wall to minimize the amount of illegals coming in? Nope (society fights you on it)

Whatever the common sense or normal thing is to do - just do the opposite. It's the way things are in 2017 and 2018 is shaping up to be the same way. So yeah, I would agree that we are insane. Aliens are secretly monitoring our news channels and they are scratching there heads. One alien is saying to the other "Yeah, but wasn't that guy in the USA illegally? (yes, on 5 different occasions). Isn't that a crime in itself? (yes). And he murdered someone? (yes). Which is another crime, right? (yes). But he was found 'Not Guilty'? (yes). Ummm.....let's pass on making official contact with this planet....we'll move on to the next one. Maybe we'll find some lifeform that isn't insane....

1. Social and societal matter not relevant to this thread.
2. Do you even understand what they are protesting?
3. Do you understand why? The jury concluded that the shooting, tragic as it was, was the result of an unfortunate accident. The defendant was not found innocent of all crimes.
4. The number of undocumented immigrants started to decline during the Obama administration. There is also a lack of evidence that building a wall, which would present some severe logistical difficulties due to rights of way, water crossings, etc., would actually help the problem.

President Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Stop Immigrants From Crossing

One more thing: There's not a shred of evidence that Mexico would pay for that wall even though that was one of Trump's biggest promises during the campaign.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I moved the rest of the political discussion to the appropriate thread on that subject.