UFO Religions

Is the Idea of Man-Made UFOs a Myth? Part 3

This is my third and final response to the UFO Iconoclast post opposed to the idea of man-made UFOs. (See Part 1 and Part 2). I just finished the new book by Vallee and Aubeck and will be writing a lengthy review of it.

My responses are at “MSH” and blocked off. I think you will see that these arguments lack persuasive power and can be turned back to anyone who makes them in such as a way as to demonstrate their un-compelling nature.

On the very face of it there are very fundamental reasons why such fantastic craft cannot be our own. If we have had such aerial abilities for so many decades:

1) Why do they fly in full view of civilian populations or within commercial air routes?

With all of the hundreds of thousands of square miles of Area 51′s and other such places, why fly publicly? It may test the “reaction” of the populace, but it would at the same time unnecessarily expose the technology and performance capabilities to enemy powers. In reality, security would never be compromised in that way.

MSH: I don’t find this at all persuasive. It compels us to believe that a sighting ranging from a few seconds to a couple of minutes will yield technological information. Unless observers have X-Ray vision, I don’t see how that is the case. Most of the best sightings are at high altitude, and so chances of detection are themselves minimal, and all the observer really knows is that “I’ve never seen one of those before,” or “we aint’ got one like that as far as I know.” Big deal. Now, the argument would be much better if there were USA-AF decals on the craft. THEN it would make sense to not fly these things anywhere they could be seen, because then you actually ARE risking sensitive information (like, “hey, this UFO is ours”). But without that, all a sighting does is perpetuate a mystery (or a convenient mythology; see below).

MSH: This argument can be reversed as follows: “Since civilians and other people, including commerical pilots, see UFOs, that means they cannot be man-made. Does that *really* make sense?

2) Why don’t we use this technology to transport our astronauts into space?

It makes no sense that if such UFO-like capabilities are man-made that they would not be applied in the exploration of the cosmos. Why continue to use “outdated” technology that relies on conventional combustion and thrust technologies, with extremely limited range and with significant safety issues?

MSH: This presumes speed is all one would need for space flight. There may very well be other technologically-related safety issues. It’s easy to presume there aren’t if one a priori assumes such craft are ET and are used to travel in deep space, but we don’t actually know that. At any rate, let’s assume they can do that. Then we are asked to believe that ineptitude on the part of the military is a reason to consider the craft extraterrestrial. Last time I checked, things like government waste, bureaucratic rivalry, and plain short-sighted stupidity are alive and well in the military and most other corporate entities. A bad decision does not an ET vehicle make. We also have to consider that, if these are man-made and there is some internal reason (comprehensible or sensible or not) for maintaining secrecy, that alone would be enough reason for whoever is in charge to remain using the old technology when it can get the job done.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology to send people to space, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Say what?

3) Why is the technology not used in warfare?

If such things have been developed by our government, why have they not been applied in national defense? It would have instantly ended conflicts in past decades in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. If another country has been the developer of UFO-like technology, why have they not exercised such amazing aerial superiority during conflict?

MSH: See my response above; it applies here as well. One could add that the reasoning might be the same as why we don’t just whip out an atomic bomb to end conflicts quickly and decisively. It may be too destructive. But my bet is on the fact that wars are inescapably political. Take the war on terror. We could end it in a day if we just nuked everybody, or if we took the handcuffs off our forces and allowed them to actually use the other weapons we have. But we don’t do that, and haven’t, since WWII.

Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for military purposes, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Ditto on “say what?”

4) Why don’t we use this technology in commercial air flight?

Such navigation and propulsion breakthroughs would revolutionize the flight of people and parcel. Billions would stand to be made- and everyone would appreciate shortened flights!

MSH: This is a better question, but still not very persuasive for simple reasons. So, we give our UFO technology to Boeing or Delta and then the technology is as close to falling into the hands of our enemies as a hijacking. Right. Good idea. Did Dilbert’s boss think of that plan?  I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to suggest that, if the military industrial complex is behind UFO technology we ought to expect it a reasonable thing to do would be share it with commerical entities. If the military industrial complex thought such technology gave us a military edge, they would withhold it from such public use, since that would invariably mean more porous security.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for commercial flight, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Really?  Is it that simple?

5) Why hasn’t the aerial technology been used to take over the world?

If the “controllers” of such technology are of nefarious intent (i.e. former Nazis, the Illuminati or even an enemy country) why have they not openly displayed their terror technology and by now have commanded the world’s allegiance?

MSH: This is also a better question, but one that presumes certain things in relation to the man-made argument it is targeting. For instance, one could take the targeted view and say something like, “since this technology derives from Nazi science, and since members of the teams who worked on projects that are related to exotic flight (see Farrell’s books here, e.g.), then it is possible that this technology may be in mutliple hands (U.S. included) or at least suspected of being in multiple hands.” In other words, one could apply the MAD logic to this question (Mutually Assured Destruction — anyone remember the Cold War?). But that’s guesswork. It also presupposes that anyone holding this technology is interested in world domination. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe they are content with their own little invisible empire that’s puttering along just fine while the rest of the known geo-political entities implode just fine on their own. But maybe they are interested in world domination and don’t think they can pull it off. Would 100 UFOs do that?  Last time I checked, all a UFO was really good for was SPEED. I don’t recall much in the way of any reports that UFOs were weaponized (they “are for peace, always,” right?). Let’s say some entity has 100 or 1000 of these craft. Now what? All one would need to do is find out where they are an nuke them. They aren’t indestructible (can we say “UFO crash”?). My point is that, since we are using our imaginations, if I had a UFO squadron I’d be pretty scared about anyone knowing about them, because they are quite destructible, and the facilities I have to make them and house them are also quite destructible. Hey, one piece of imagination is as good as another.

MSH: This one has another problem. It can be reversed very easily on the ET view: “If UFOs are ET vehicles, why isn’t ET using them to take over the world?” Hmmm.  Maybe they don’t want to.  And maybe the humans who might have them don’t want to, either. Oh, I forgot, ET is far more enlightened than we are. He told us so. If he exists. Or there’s this reversal: Since no single human group has taken over the world yet, none such group can be behind UFO technology. That one has some serious gaps of thought.

6) Why haven’t other scientists anywhere in the world “stumbled upon” such aerial breakthroughs in intervening decades?

It is inconceivable that only a very few working within deep black programs (or who were WWII Germans scientists, secret Tesla disciples or the like) could alone have discovered the secret to such propulsion without any other scientists or physicists in private or university employ ever having envisioned these same technologies after all of these years.

MSH: No, it isn’t inconceivable at all. My guess is that a reasonable number of people (working within the controlled sphere where it’s happening) would know about the technology. If it was at the highest level of security, the burden of proof is on the other side to tell us WHY it would become known to others — or that it has not become known. So let’s play with this one. Let’s say the US developed UFOs after WWII and no one else did. They were able to protect this knowledge for a couple of decades but, as espionage would have it, the secret leaked out to the Russians. What would the Russians do?  Tell the world? Aside from the fact that they’d expose their access to us by doing so, what good would it do? How would they prove themselves trustworthy without compromising the intelligence apparatus that allowed them to gain such closely-guarded secrets? They’d probably want MORE information, like how to take that piece of knowledge and make it their own reality. They’d already be decades behind, and losing their intelligence conduit would mean getting no further. And if they developed one, by the time they did, we’d be a few models ahead. And if they did tell tje world at any point, it would just be denied.

Frankly, this isn’t a coherent objection because the ETH defenders would want to build part of their case on secret information about aliens escaping the screcy placed upon it.  But then that undermines this very argument — about others stumbling upon the technology.  It’s further shown to be weak by the simple counter-assertion that man-made UFO technology *has* broken out, but there is still uncertainty about whether it is man-made. This is actually where find ourselves. We have had a number of insiders come forward and say “I saw this and that technology and I think it might be alien, but I’m not sure.” Great. So the fact that the technology has become known or exposed can’t tell us the point of origin in any regard. Let me illustrate:

Statements:
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) but it can’t tell us if it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it is man-made.

Question: HOW do any of these statements actually solve the riddle?  They don’t. Piont: allowing for such disclosures don’t compel any position; you need an actual alien to make that case. Otherwise, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The UFOI argument is that it is unreasonable to think that such knowledge could be maintained with complete security forever. I agree — but how does that help or compel a conclusion? It doesn’t.

The rest of the UFOI post aims to convince us that it is a lie that the U.S. Government wants us to believe in ETs for some internal purpose. On what basis is the claim made? Well, the post pokes fun at some attempts to articulate that conspiracy, and that’s pretty much it. I’d poke fun at some of what I saw there, too. But that isn’t a compelling answer or rebuttal. What I want to see is the UFOI group systematically show, by virtue of a systematic critique of Joe Farrell’s work and W. A. Harbinson’s non-fiction work, that a group of scientists, mostly attached to Nazi scientific teams, lacked the knowledge, funding, and wherewithal to keep working on these ideas. I would suggest that they had all three, but that of course doesn’t prove the man-made view.  As I said at the end of my second post on all this:

Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), we ought to be seriously asking if they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. But there is no reason at all to take the man-made view off the table. Since we know humans exist, and are not at all sure aliens actually exist, as things stand right now, I know which way Occam’s razor is cutting.

Technorati Tags: alien, extraterrestrial, government, Man-Made UFOs, military, Nazis, secrecy

Is the Idea of Man-Made UFOs a Myth? Part 2

A couple of weeks ago I posted Part 1 of my response to an essay on the UFO Iconoclast blog entitled, “The Myth of Man-Made Flying Saucers.” That essay listed seven operational and design characteristics of some UFOs that, for the essay writers, defied the notion that humans could be responsible for any technology behind them. These characteristics were:

* The ability to “morph” appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
* “Changing state” by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as “engineered light” or plasma-like
* Seamlessly “splitting” from one craft into multiple craft – often creating formations
* Appearing in one part of the sky and – in a literal instant – appearing in a completely different part of the horizon
* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing “cat and mouse” with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history

In Part 1 I discussed the first four, explaining the logical disconnects with assuming such characteristics could not be explained in non-ET terms. In this post, I’ll breifly touch on the remainder:

* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing “cat and mouse” with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history

Some of what I said in Part 1 could apply to the first three of the remainder. In fact, everything listed here could be explained as tricks on the eye, the plasma technology suggestion offered by a commenter to Part 1, and “radar ghosting,” a known technique used by military and intelligence insiders who have sought to perptuate the belief in alien craft. This technique is discussed in Mark Pilkington’s recent book, Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs. But I want to add a few other thoughts about them.

First, if a “craft” moves with a tremendous speed to create a sonic boom but does not, that suggests the craft is either (a) not physical, or (b) manipulates the physical forces that would produce the sonic boom. The former argues against an ET craft in my view, at least if we define an ET as a life form subject to physical laws that govern a corporeal embodied being. That leaves the inter-dimensional option, which could dovetail with the second alternative above — the manipulation or defeat of certain physical forces. But does that point to ET?  Actually, no. It is epistemologically disingenuous to say it does. Why? Because that conclusion requires that we know with certainty that humans have never achieved a technology that could defeat or bend or “cancel” gravity so that speeds can be achieved for physical craft and there is no sonic boom (or a high degree of certainty — and suspicion is *not* certainty).

We do not have that certainty. As I noted in Part 1, several serious researchers have constructed a good circumstantial case that such technology has existed and does exist, and it is human. I speak here of Joseph Farrel and W.A. Harbinson’s work. (Note that Farrell’s research is not noted anywhere in the UFO Iconoclast essay). I could add Nick Cook’s work investigating anti-gravity and Thomas Valone.

Frankly, any scientist who does serious work in this area was not the first to think of the ideas, equations, problems, possibilities, and techniques that occupy their thoughts. They are standing on the shoulders of others. Some of those others are part of the historical record involving attempts to produce man-made saucers and similar craft back to at least the 1940s. The great unknown is whether or not this research proved successful within the secret operations of the military industrial complex. If it did, we would have our explanation. We just don’t know. But here is the critical point for the current discussion: WHY should this possibility be taken off the table — especially when its reality would account for the very things that supposedly cannot be explained by human efforts?  In other words, the UFO Iconoclast list for why UFOs cannot be man-made could be explained by man-made technology if the research we know to have existed in its infancy in the 1940s was pursued and became successful.  The list does not rule out humans. It invites the question of whether humans succeeded. There’s no coherent reason to conclude that the list makes the man-made option no longer worth considering.

Second, if “gravity overcoming” technlogy was achieved, the descripotions of the second and third items in the list would be expected and normal.  In other words, the description does not compel an alien source. Rather, it compels us to ask anew whether known human research was pursued to success.

Third, the last point is very weak. Even the modicum of aviation design reading I’ve done informs me that these sorts of items were known obstacles or weaknesses to the kinds of human “gravity overcoming” technology that was begun. Put another way, the humans working on this technological pursuit were well aware that new designs that largely eliminated these normal design features had to be re-designed. Further, both Farrell’s works and Harbinson Projeckt UFO discuss certain technologies that allowed air intake through the “skin” of craft. The point: these are known issues to the humans involved, and designs are literally on the books for these sorts of re-designs. The only question is whether they succeeded.

Bottom line: Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), the UFO Iconoclast list should pique our curiosity as to whether they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT.

In Part 3 I will revisit the original UFO Iconoclast post for more discussion.

Technorati Tags: aliens, flying saucers, Man-Made UFOs, physics, UFOs

Addendum to My Previous Man-Made UFO Post

An alert reader (kudos to Keith) brought yet another alternative possibility to mind with respect to how a “shape shifting” UFO need not be alien technology. He cited the following from W. A. Harbinson’s important book, Projekt Saucer:

The fuselage of the experimental craft is covered with a plasma shell. As radar waves track the unknown craft from below, the waves are unable to “find” its true shape, shimmering and sliding over the plasma surface; and so the screen at the radar station receives indistinct, amorphous (and spectacular) blob-like impressions.

It’s been a while since I read Harbinson, so this was a welcome reminder.

And by the way, I hope I am not the only one who noticed that none of the evidence for fantastic human technology that could mimic the amazing behavior of saucers that Joseph Farrell has brought to light in his series of books on the subject was addressed in the UFO Iconoclasts post that asserted man-made UFOs were a myth. Until I see rebuttals of the documentation and the derivative hypotheses detailed by Dr. Farrell, I’m not going to be persuaded of alien origins.  If you have not read his books, you need to, as he is able to document powerful human technologies that, were they applied in the late 1940s, 50s, and 60s, would certainly explain much. And he builds a very good circumstantial case that this application could indeed have been funded and accomplished. Here are the titles to which I refer:

Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend

The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: Nasa’s Nazis, JFK, And Majic-12

Roswell and the Reich: The Nazi Connection

As with any other scholar, I can’t endorse everything Dr. Farrell writes or positions he holds. But anyone making any claims thereto who has not read his works and has not refuted his case should politely do both before opining. When combined with things like Harbinson suggests and ghost radar, we may be able to explain all of the fantastic flight phenomena through such works, leaving only the issue of alien bodies as the real point that needs resolution. And of course all we have on those is anecdotal (and some alternative hypotheses that involve humans).

Back to writing Part 2 now!

Technorati Tags: Farrell, Harbinson, man-made, physics, plasma, shape-shifting, technology, UFOs

Is the Idea of Man-Made UFOs a Myth? Part 1

About a month ago the UFO Iconoclast blog posted an important essay entitled, “The Myth of Man-Made Flying Saucers.” I’ve said before on this blog that the UFO Iconoclasts put out a lot of material that’s worth your time. This essay is no exception. The essay begins this way:

Many have touted the theory that the anomalous aerial craft seen in our skies are man-made. Authors of such material believe that UFOs are actually “secret US government experiments.” Others maintain that these advanced craft are resultant from hidden “Tesla technologies.” Still others maintain that there are really “WWII German flying saucers” and that we secured their designs. Some even believe that an “Illuminati” – or some closed cabal – controls this secret science.

A long line of researchers has promoted the idea that there has been a “legacy of suppression” of these amazing aerial technologies. They say that UFOs are craft of human construction. But all of these researchers are wrong. And incredibly, the US Government has itself quietly and craftily reinforced this fallacious “man-made UFO” belief over many decades.

The truth is that there are very good reasons that “genuine” UFOs cannot be the creation of man – and very good reasons to dismiss forever the notion that classified or covert human technology of any kind accounts for these strange craft.

Despite the value of this essay (and you will note its value as you read), it has problems in its persuasion. These problems are illustrative of the epistemological conundrum (crisis?) for the alien hypothesis for UFOs. I’m going to respond to sections of the essay (labeled UFOI) over the course of a few posts in an attempt to illustrate what I mean. My replies are indented and marked MSH.

UFOI: There is no doubt that many sightings of UFOs are actually of advanced military aircraft. And there is no doubt that the U.S. military and Intelligence agencies do not mind when these craft are misperceived as “alien spacecraft.” We do indeed have craft that are far ahead of what the public is generally aware. We’ve made circular craft and other craft of even far more novel appearance. And such ultra-high-performance craft are clandestinely test flown at places such as Area 51.

But many of the operational and design characteristics of some UFOs simply defy the limits of current human technology by anyone’s measure – and will for at least many centuries. These characteristics include:

* The ability to “morph” appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
* “Changing state” by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as “engineered light” or plasma-like
* Seamlessly “splitting” from one craft into multiple craft – often creating formations
* Appearing in one part of the sky and – in a literal instant – appearing in a completely different part of the horizon
* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing “cat and mouse” with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history

MSH: Some of these items are hardly compelling as proof of alien technology. Let’s take the first four, since many readers would consider them the most difficult:

* The ability to “morph” appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic.
* “Changing state” by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as “engineered light” or plasma-like
* Seamlessly “splitting” from one craft into multiple craft – often creating formations
* Appearing in one part of the sky and – in a literal instant – appearing in a completely different part of the horizon

First, it should be noted that these observations are anecdotal and nothing more. Readers know I am inclined to accept such anecdotes as honest reports. But that is the best we can presume for them – honesty.  They are honest reports of naked eye observation. But that’s all. Their honesty says nothing about the accuracy of one’s interpretation as to the cause of what one has seen. What I mean here is that an object can certainly appear to “morph” but unless there is some scientific measurement for these reports that I don’t know about, it is only perception, a perception that may or may not be accurate in terms of what is physically happening to the object observed. There could be, for instance, something happening to or around or near the object that creates the visual impression of “morphing” to someone miles away. We just don’t know. And so I ask if it is sound thinking to be so certain that the object being observed is not man-made?  I think not, since that conclusion is based on visual observation, not scientific testing.

Second, what if there was such testing available, or that had been conducted? Naturally, we’d want to see it and have it peer-reviewed and reproduced for validity (a little thing we like to call the scientific method). Then the question changes to: Does the anomalous behavior of this object or metal prove alien, as opposed to human, origin? The answer is, honestly, “No, although it might.” What would we need to reach an accurate conclusion on the matter?  Here’s a minimalist list:

a. Proof that intelligent aliens exist.  One cannot logically say “well, the amazing technology is the proof” because that would be the logical fallacy of assuming what one is trying to prove. No dice there.
b. If “a” is proven, then we need proof that these intelligent aliens are visiting earth.
c. That what the above observations describe are in fact alien craft.

I’ve grouped “b” and “c” here for a reason. They are distinct propositions, for one thing. The truth of “b” does not constitute the validity of “c” unless the aliens in “b” tell us that is the case (presuming they are trustworthy, of course, which is another factor). But this also means that “b” could be true and proven *without* “c”. In other words, if the technology behind these observations turns out to be human, that doesn’t mean that alien visitation is disproven (or that “a” – alien existence – is disproven). In short, it’s a good thing for ETH proponents that these ideas are not dominoes.

Here are some questions and possible alternative hypotheses with respect to this list of four:

a. In reports of “changing state” — is there testing I don’t know about that can tell us this is what is happening? Do we know that the object is plasma? Do we know that any compositional change at all is what is behind the observation? No, no, and no — but again, maybe.

b. On the seamless splitting… This is actually an effect (if it is only an effect – I don’t know) that is easily produced — at night anyway, and especially with a hovering craft. If there were, say, four objects in the sky but only one visible, as soon as the others became visible, it would look like the result of splitting. And if those objects moved in tandem away from a central object, the effect could be even more dramatic. If visibility was turned off and on while moving, the effect of speed in the splitting would also be achieved. Same thing for “re-assembly” – we don’t know if there is real splitting and joining since visibility and non-visibility can produce those effects.

c. The appearance in one part of the sky and then in “a literal instant” appearing in another is also something easily achieved through light and darkness at night. If anyone has seen the wonderful movie, The Prestige, this is easily illustrated. How did the Christian Bale character instantaneously go into one door and appear from another across the stage?  Because he had a twin. If two objects were in the sky at the same time and they each alternated visibility and darkness in tandem, the effect would be instantaneous movement — while no movement occurred at all.

d. This list is also susceptible to something discussed in a few pages of Mirage Men — I speak here of “radar ghosting” — certain techniques used by “mirage men” to fool radar technicians into thinking they had UFOs on the screen of incredible speed and maneuverability. But it was fake.

e. Morphing appearance could be explained by a failure of the human eye to tell what’s really happening at these distances. Is the object *actually* changing composition and shape, or are we led to think that by light that is pulsating, flickering, or going off-and-on in such a way as to create a shape-changing appearance?

f. Could the object be expanding or contracting, or producing appendages that create the morphing impression?  How would we know if the shape-changing was not mechanical (i.e., the UFOI presumes that something is happening *compositionally* to whatever the object is made of, but we don’t actually know that.

Generally, I have to wonder how many of these four anecdotal observations / descriptions (a) were observed during the day time and (b) are not radar-related.  For me, a day-time observation of the types listed above that was made with the naked eye and not purely on the basis of radar would be much more compelling. But the fact that I’d be awed (as would the viewer, no doubt) doesn’t say diddly about what the object was or who made it. That’s just the cold, logical fact of the matter. Awe does not translate to factual knowledge about what awed you and who or what was behind it.

So where does this leave us? Back where we started. And that is the epistemological problem for UFOs.  How do you really know what it is you claim to know? Or, in the spirit of the UFOI essay, how can you discern one myth from another? For me, I’m not going to call the man-made idea a myth unless science can tell me that the observational language coincides with what is actually happening with what is being observed — and that its origina is extraterrestrial. By calling the man-made option a myth (as opposed to an alternative hypothesis), one is claiming that the ETH is the truth. It cannot be given that accolade when it is inadequate on epistemological and logical grounds (at least right now).

Stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: assembling, data, ETH, extraterrestrial, formation, Man-Made UFOs, morphing, scientific, separation, testing

Rich Dolan Interview and Thoughts on Parsing “Non-Human Intelligences”

Below is a (roughly) ten minute interview of Rich Dolan from the 2008 Laughlin, NV UFO conference. It’s very good. Rich is always a good listen (and a good read). I also personally like him, so I may be a bit biased. I agree entirely with his assessment that UFOs are indeed a worthwhile and important historical subject. The data for that conclusion is easily demonstrable. Just read Rich’s two lengthy volumes on the subject. To say they are data-driven is quite an understatement; he knows what he’s doing as a historian and researcher).

In this interview, Rich refers to “non-human intelligences” being behind UFOs. I think that’s a good working term, since it’s broad. He also acknowledges at least some of these intelligences are quite evil. I’d encourage you to watch it as well because of the very obvious “big picture” issues that invariably overlap with religion.

As readers know, I pretty much parse the UFO issue into “advanced and largely unknown–even in military circles–human technology” and (using Rich’s term) “non-human intelligence.” I see no reason why a demon or angel would need technology of this sort (vehicles). I am open to such beings, since they are created and must be made of something, needing other sorts of technology to traverse dimensions, that sort of thing. They cannot act as though they are independent of the physical world since they are part of it. Hence the (perhaps awkward) use of the word “technology”.  Only God is truly apart from creation (at least in a biblical theology).  What this means for me are thoughts as follows:

1. UFOs and non-human intelligences may or may not even be related issues. Here are the sub-categorizations:

(A) All real UFOs (i.e., those that are clearly not astronomical or meteorological phenomena) are above top-secret human craft, using exotic technologies not even widely used within the military.

(B) All UFOs are produced by non-human intelligences. That may mean they are physical (material), or that they are not physical (material). The latter includes both an inter-dimensional sense and a “projected” sense (see D below).

(C) Some UFOs are man-made, some are made by non-human intelligences.

(D) Some UFOs are man-made, some are manufactured (visually) by human or non-human intelligences (for this one, see this link).

2. Non-human intelligences may or may not be related to what the Bible would call demons or aliens. Here are the sub-categorizations:

(A) There may be a complete overlap (aliens = demons, or aliens = angels, some of whom are fallen/evil);

(B) There may be partial overlap (some aliens = demons, or some aliens = angels, some of whom are fallen/evil, but some aliens may be either extraterrestrial beings [occupants of a physical planet somewhere] or some aliens may be extra-dimensional beings [having nothing to do with a planetary existence as we know it]).

(C) There may be no overlap at all (there are demons [or fallen angels] or demons or aliens or extra-dimensional beings, each in its own category or box).

And readers know that none of the above gives me the slightest bit of theological trepidation. All options are on the table.

Technorati Tags: aliens, angels, demons, ETs, extradimensional, extraterrestrials, interdimensional, military, national secutiry, Rich Dolan, secrecy, UFOs