FATE Magazine
Mar 2, 202210 min
By Bill J. Sego
Armand Delsemme, in his book Our Cosmic Origins, writes, “The questions raised by
those who feel intuitively that life is a phenomenon too complex to emerge simply by chance
no longer stand up…as expressed by [British astrophysicist] Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramashing he, has proved to be totally misleading. We can in fact readily accept that ‘life’ is a very probable physico-chemical phenomenon that will appear soon after the prerequisite
conditions are met.”
Though polls vary from one to the next, roughly 65% of Americans believe
extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the Universe, and 35% believe they have visited Earth.
Many UFO documentaries and other popular programs, such as Ancient Aliens on the History
Channel, have attributed to the steady increase in that number.
The Fermi paradox, an argument put forth by nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950,
then begs the question, “If extraterrestrial beings are commonplace, where are they?”
Just 50 years ago, it was widely accepted that no life existed anywhere beyond Earth.
Many scientists of the time dismissed any such possibility. However, life only appears to be a
rare, extraordinary phenomenon. In the future, biologists will be forced to concede otherwise
as better means of locating extrasolar planets are developed. The blueprint of the Universe
encourages life and subsequent evolution. There is too much space and too many star systems for there not to be.
Evidence of a uniform Universe continues to mount. It is only a matter of time before
astronomers discover a multitude of other star systems harbor intelligent life. Life should be
the final product of solar-system evolution for most systems, whether basic or complex. While
intelligent life might be rare, primitive life will emerge and, over time, propagate.
There are more stars in the visible Universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches
of Earth. To assume Earth harbors the only advanced civilization throughout the cosmos is
nothing short of blind egoism. How could anyone infer there are no other intelligent beings
anywhere else throughout its vast expanse regardless of the current lack of substantiated
evidence? Giving the vast expanse of the Universe the benefit of the doubt is not as
presumptuous as the latter.
John Clute, author of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, does not believe alien beings
are visiting Earth, nor are they abducting humans for scientific experiments.
However, in a 1996
interview that appeared on a TLC documentary, Future Fantastic,
he indicates aliens would look something like what Hollywood portrays due to certain laws and patterns of evolution.
The typical gray aliens with large heads and bulbous eyes are a potential reflection of future
human evolution, perhaps not in all aspects but surely in some. He forgets that Hollywood’s rendition
of these depictions was taken from eyewitness testimony and alien abduction accounts throughout history.
Life, like stars and planets, might reflect the overall uniformity of the Universe. If so,
most life will be carbon-based and reflect what scientists know carbon-based life forms resemble.
Deviations are inevitable from one environment to the next, but the overall appearance of
intelligent beings should consist of similar humanoid characteristics.
Of course, not all life-harboring planets will have a similar atmosphere nor be at the ideal
distance from their sun to permit the appearance of life forms like those found on Earth. But
characteristics of the humanoid model may be typical of intelligent life in general.
Just because some biologists refuse to incorporate depictions of small gray aliens with
big heads and large eyes into their models does not mean it is an invalid rendition.
Had cases of alien abduction not arose with such frequency over the past 30 years, those same biologists may
have provided depictions of future human evolution that resemble the standard “gray” model
since a handful of exobiologists predict we shall evolve into something similar.
Why must validation or proof of the extra-terrestrial hypothesis be established a
posteriori? Is the quest for the truth not at the heart of scientific investigation? Reliable
eyewitness accounts and unexplained footage of UFOs are pieces of evidence to be analyzed.
Most will have a mundane explanation, however a small percentage will not. Completely
dismissing such evidence offhand because of personal career implications or the giggle factor
is nothing short of making an uneducated excuse and turning a blind eye.
Aside from hoaxes that
are now fairly easy to establish, there remains a significant body of unexplained video evidence.
This leaves one with the conclusion that some of these objects are either top-secret, military
dream machines or of extraterrestrial origin. There remains no other explanation for some of
the evidence out there to account for the maneuvers of some of these objects.
Senior SETI astronomer Seth Shostak argues if aliens ever do visit, they will resemble
artificial intelligence in the form of Von Neumann machines and “not some soft, squishy, little
gray guy with big eyeballs.” 5 His logic may be a little skewed here. If we were advanced
enough to dispatch artificial beings to other star systems, would they not resemble human beings?
If an advanced civilization had to utilize artificial beings to traverse the stars, is it not plausible
assume they would resemble their manufacturers?
The biggest problem with SETI is its avoidance of viable subject matter, such as ufology,
that presents a conflict of interest to its own field of study. Why look for extraterrestrial radio
signals if the aliens are here already? Because of this, SETI proponents avoid the topic of
UFOs as if it were a plague. Is such a position fair to the public or even scientific?
Two things would happen if we established direct, physical contact with an alien
civilization. UFO buffs would feel vindicated, and skeptics would find a nice, quiet place to
hide from the media. The liberation of scientific possibilities would abound. Religious fanatics
would avoid discrimination for their initial skepticism by declaring these beings are either
angels or demons, perhaps sent by God or Satan.
Politics, the economy, morality, religious beliefs, and much more would be adversely
affected as a result of such an encounter. Many aspects of daily life would be altered on a global
scale. News broadcasts, documentaries, and day-to-day conversations would revolve around
this momentous event for years to come. It would be the most historic, influential event in
human history, short of a catastrophic global disaster.
If aliens are here already, they are aware of how official contact would affect society on a
global scale. Just watching the evening news any given night is enough to convince many we
are nowhere near prepared to receive such a revelation. Perhaps they avoid contact on purpose and
skeptics are not giving them enough credit.
Any government agency would spare no expense to
ensure we were unaware of their presence.
Today, claims of UFO sightings and alien abductions are too numerous to record. Videos
of alleged extraterrestrial spacecraft plague the internet. Cases of purported alien abduction
surface almost daily. A certain level of gullibility clouds the judgment of many who accept such cases at face value.
At the same time, the public should not discount reports that incorporate
valid evidence or credible eyewitness testimony without further scientific analysis.
Do scientists ignore evidence of UFO accounts on purpose, in particular those which
cannot be explained by conventional means? It is easy for them to cry no evidence while
ignoring any at the same time. Perhaps giving it a shred of attention would influence their
credibility or reputation among their peers and present a conflict of interest. There exists no
direct proof of alien visitation, so why should they waste their time and resources? Meanwhile,
other scientists postulate wild claims of parallel universes, wormholes, and time machines, ideas
that make sense on paper, but ones that have even less of a potential to authenticate. Alien
visitation, on the other hand, does since it is a direct, physical phenomenon. Based on those
comparisons, one could argue their methodology is flawed. This suggests the ETH is more
plausible than claims of a multiverse by theoretical physicists. Lack of funding for serious UFO
research is nonexistent, so perhaps that is the primary motive for not doing so.
Many scientists find comfort in denial when it comes to the existence or interstellar
mobility of advanced extraterrestrial beings due to the negative impact it might have on their
reputation or career.
Intellectual cries of no physical evidence are fair arguments though if ever
established to the contrary could be self-defeating. Many would demand to know why it was a
topic they never took seriously.
Perhaps not believing the ETH is possible is as much of an illegitimate approach as
believing wholeheartedly.
Leaving the question open based on the viable evidence that does exist
is the most reasonable approach since concrete evidence could surface in our lifetime.
But why
should the burden of proof be on the believer if, backed by enough evidence, the possibility
remains?
Even Carl Sagan admitted the ETH was possible, however improbable. Just because the
UFO phenomenon is surrounded by clutter does not mean the ETH is an implausible explanation.
Perhaps if scientists devoted legitimate time to the study, they might help cut down on some
of the aforementioned clutter.
Another possible reason for denial is some scientists would feel threatened, perhaps
devastated by proof of super-intelligent beings, particularly if they were unable to comprehend most aspects of their technology.
SETI astronomers are the most vehement and compulsively deny any possibility of alien
visitation. Three main arguments are endorsed in their defense. First, distances between star
systems are too vast for an occupant to make such a trip within any being’s lifetime. Second,
to date, no evidence of alien visitation has been verified. (Those points do have merit and are
valid arguments.) Third, if SETI admitted visitation by aliens were possible, financial support for their
research would dwindle. Why look for signs of life out there if the suggestion they might
already be here remains a possibility?
Three basic elements outline the various positions people adopt with regard to the
question of alien visitation: skepticism, gullibility, and rational open-mindedness based on a
happy-medium approach. There is a misleading tendency for some to embrace an extreme
viewpoint be it for or against the ETH. Taking the high road or not committing to one position
or the other appears to be the safest bet.
Skepticism is at the heart of science, for better or worse. It is a healthy method of
observing the Universe, but too much of it can get in the way of valid science. The skeptical
effect can have negative consequences for anyone expressing excessive criticism toward a valid,
conceivable phenomenon. A scientist must consider the negative repercussions this approach
might procure when making absolute claims to the contrary of a taboo subject matter.
If not, he risks embarrassment and ridicule, much worse than what he may receive from his peers for at first
considering the topic. It could be detrimental for a prestigious scientist to find himself on the
wrong side of history. A forced about-face might harm his credibility since reporters and the
general public would put him on the spot and demand a statement. Concerning the ETH, it
would give UFO fanatics reasons to criticize the scientific community in general and take
advantage of such premature assessments to support their own agenda.
After all, if aliens are here and they ever make their presence known, the ETH would skip an ETT (extraterrestrial theory) post haste
and become the ETL (extraterrestrial law), which, technically, would be more concrete than
the theory of evolution.
Acceptance of a phenomenon based on wanton belief is another presumptuous approach
and a sign of naiveté. The gullibility effect results from the consequences of adopting the
opposite extreme to a phenomenon that might turn out to be a hoax. While it is okay to
believe in something you feel adamant about, accepting a case at face value without considering alternative
possibilities can have equally negative consequences. Staunch believers receive significant
criticism as it is. Adhering to a particular sighting that turns out to be a hoax or have a mundane
explanation could be as embarrassing as what a skeptic might face in the previous example.
Not only that, but some fanatics give the subject of ufology a bad name.
Either position is misleading, dishonest, and, to some extent, unscientific. Both methods
are evasive to the real answer. Whatever happened to a neutral position for both skeptic and
believer, instead adhering to a happy-medium approach? If one refrains from making absolute
convictions for or against a particular viewpoint and remains open to either, real progress might
become possible. It seems both scientist and believer sometimes dismiss logic, reason, and
common sense in exchange for extreme empirical skepticism or gullibility.
It is just as easy for a UFO believer to state, “This unexplained video footage provides
proof for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings,” as it is for a skeptic to say, “But
where is the concrete evidence?” Both answers, essentially, are right and wrong.
One, the
believer cannot provide validating evidence said object is no doubt of extraterrestrial origin
and two, the skeptic cannot explain what the object might be to the contrary. If a video of a UFO is not a hoax and appears to defy physics as we understand it, should a scientist feel obligated
to develop a case-by-case theory or hypothesis based on the available evidence instead of lumping them all together?
Proof of anything is subject to conjecture or point of view. Do people require visual
proof before they accept the existence of atoms and subatomic particles, or should they rely
on indirect experimental evidence and scientific deduction
Many scientists argue there is no physical evidence to back up any claim of the ETH,
even when extensive analysis of a video showing a purported alien spacecraft allows for no
other logical conclusion. First, one must establish a clear definition of what physical evidence is.
Second, one must establish a fair and reasonable approach to an unsubstantiated claim that might merit some credibility
An example of irrefutable physical evidence regarding alien visitation would be if their
spacecraft landed in New York City tomorrow, and the beings walked out for an interview with
Scott Pelley. This standard of irrefutable evidence is the only kind to which a skeptic would
concede. Any other form of physical evidence will remain suspect no matter the eyewitness
testimony, video or photographic depictions, or other physical evidence provided. Artifacts
from an alien spacecraft and proven by experts as not of this Earth would still not be
considered irrefutable physical evidence of alien visitation due to the implications it would have on society.
Since it would have such an everlasting effect, skeptics argue, established proof must be
unquestionable. Therefore, the ETH demands more evidence than would, for example, the
idea of string theory, or else it is dismissed as a possibility altogether. Scientists who adhere
to the status quo adopt a similar approach with theoretical physicists, and they argue how unfair it is.
Does a ufologist have the right to feel the same way?
A multitude of video evidence exists in support of such unexplained phenomena. Some
images depict objects that cannot be explained by conventional science following extensive
analysis. The maneuvers of these objects make it difficult to claim they are of this Earth. If so,
there remains one other possible explanation: they are top-secret, remote-controlled, super aircraft
utilizing a technology most scientists have only dreamed of. Since there is little possibility any
secret government agency harbored comparable technology prior to the 1970s or 1980s, only
post-modern videos should be considered as a possibility for this potential explanation.
Documented eyewitness testimony from reliable sources is another standard that should
be counted as a type of evidence, though not as significant as a video or photograph. Such
evidence is not irrefutable but could stand up in a court of law were the general public not
biased in their beliefs or pressured by social acceptability. Instances of unexplained phenomena are not
to be believed or not believed, but presented and deduced to a judgment of whether or not,
in all likelihood, they are what they appear to be. Mistakes do occur in the judicial system, and
its method of deducing the truth is not an exact science, but it remains a standard nonetheless.
Looking at all the evidence from an unbiased position and making a logical determination
of whether said sighting is or is not of terrestrial origin is the remaining viable option. Incredible
claims do require incredible evidence, but evidence that appears incredible should gain some
credibility, at the very least viewed as a possibility for interstellar mobility.
One might suspect there are some scientists out there that do believe in the extraterrestrial
hypothesis but refrain from making that belief public. How many are hypocritical enough to
believe in the existence of an unverifiable God while denying any possibility of a verifiable ETH?
Though most of this article is based on logical speculation, humanity owes it to itself to
remain open to the possibility of alien visitation should incontrovertible evidence present itself in
the near future. Both scientist and believer should refrain from making absolute convictions
either way, because these facts remain—we do not know if extraterrestrial beings have visited
Earth and nobody can say, with any certainty, they have not.