UFOs... Who Cares Right?

By Adam Johnson

Have you ever encountered a mysterious craft or born witness to an object in the sky that defied reason? Did you ever think twice about your encounter and wonder what was maneuvering this mysterious object, or did you take the easy road out and deny your sighting? Frequently, people encounter mysterious objects and lights in the sky, on the ground, and even in the water. These objects are known as UFOs (unidentified flying objects) and they range in size and shape and are commonly reported as saucers, triangles, spheres, or even as pure light forms. Some eyewitnesses have the opportunity to take photographs and others capture video footage. However, many individuals frequently overlook, ignore, and even debunk the UFO phenomenon, even scientists and government officials.

One reason the general public entirely overlooks the UFO phenomenon is that many people are “inside-the-box” thinkers who lack the ability to think for themselves. Frequently, these individuals turn to authority figures for answers and are prone to let prejudiced beliefs such influence their interest into the subject matter. However, this does not make the phenomenon bogus. Instead, it shows how modern technology and mainstream media condition society’s consciousness. For example, if an individual witnessed a UFO and came home and mentioned the sighting to his or her parent(s) or spouse, a common response to the individual’s story typically seems vague or unresponsive like “sure you did,” or “oh really, that’s nice.” In more extreme cases, an individual would face ridicule from another individual; hypothetical responses include “now you know only crazies see that sort of stuff” and “crackpots see UFOs!” These ignorant comments are frequently created by the popular idea that UFOs are silly. This consistent lack of knowledge associated with UFOs is extremely negative toward the truth.

Scientists are also extremely susceptible to overlooking the UFO phenomenon. Usually, these individuals are reluctant to look into the phenomenon because it contradicts and opposes popular scientific thought. However, anyone who truly believes they can rationally, scientifically prove the notion that all UFOs are of terrestrial origin are clearly forgetting the scientific rule that one must suspend all predisposed judgment. For example, the claim that it is impossible to travel from one star system to another because it defies the current laws of physics is probably the most commonly used argument in the case against UFOs. Moreover, this attempt to debunk UFOs logically has never been accomplished by any skeptic because it is scientifically unacceptable to explain any phenomenon illogically. This, however, has not stopped many skeptics from writing off the phenomenon. In an article in the New York Times, Lawrence M. Krauss discusses pseudoscience and in a counter response to the New York Times, ufologist Stanton Friedman responds to Krauss’s claim that the study of UFOs is pseudoscience. Krauss states:

I vividly remember the first time I was hijacked on the radio. I had agreed to participate in a debate for a Florida radio program that specialized in alien visits and U.F.O. sightings. My better judgment suggested that I should be wary. But I thought if I kept my focus purely on the physics challenges involved in space travel, I might be able to persuade some listeners to be skeptical of the claims that aliens were regularly visiting, abducting, and experimenting with our fellow earthlings. I should have known better. After 45 minutes defending myself against the claim that I was close-minded, when I argued that science did in fact impose constraints on what is possible, and politely responding to demands that I must first scrupulously review all the specific claims of alien sightings before I could possibly have the temerity to make general statements about plausibility or implausibility, I felt that any uninformed listeners who might have been waiting to be swayed probably found themselves merely confused at the end of the show. In a debate that confronts the results of science with pseudoscience, from alien abductions and crop circles on one hand to the health benefits of weak magnetic fields or young earth creationism on the other, the odds are stacked against science.

Part of the problem is uniquely American. We in the United States are constantly regaled by stories about the limitless possibilities open to those with know-how and a spirit of enterprise. Combine that with a public that perceives the limits of science as targets that are constantly being overcome and the suggestion that anything is absolutely impossible seems like an affront. Indeed, modern technology has made the seemingly impossible almost ordinary. How often have I heard the cry from an audience, "Yeah, but 300 years ago people would have said it would be impossible to fly!"

Although true, the problem with that assertion is that 300 years ago people did not know enough about the laws of physics to make the assertion, so the claim would have been improper. Had they made a simpler claim like, "Three hundred years from now, if you drop this cannonball off the Tower of Pisa, it will fall down," they would have been right.

Although it is probably true that there is far more that we do not know about nature than that we do know, we do know something! We know that balls, when dropped, fall down. We do know that the earth is round and not flat. We do know how electromagnetism works, and we do know that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands.

We may not know how spacecraft of the future will be propelled, whether matter-antimatter drives will be built or even if time travel is possible. But we do know, absolutely, how much on-board fuel will be needed to speed up a substantial spacecraft to near the speed of light — an enormous amount, probably enough to power all of human civilization at the present time for perhaps a decade.

That means that aliens who want to come here from a distant star will probably have to have some better reason than merely performing secret kinky experiments on the patients of a Harvard psychiatrist.

As difficult as debating ultimate limits of the possible may be, there is another debate that is even harder to win. But it is a debate that may be even more important. It is a debate on the "fairness" of science. The reason for the difficulty is simple. Science is not fair. All ideas are not treated equally. Only those that have satisfied the test of experiment or can be tested by experiment have any currency. Beautiful ideas, elegant ideas and even sacrosanct notions are not immune from termination by the chilling knife edge of experimental data.

In Ohio, a debate is raging over whether to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution in high school biology classes. Intelligent design is based on the belief that life is too complicated to explain by natural causes alone and that some intelligence, ultimately some divine intelligence, must have created the original life forms on earth or guided their development. Proponents of that idea suggest that including it in the curriculum is simply a question of fairness. If a significant number of people do not believe that evolution provides an adequate explanation of the origin of species, they argue, and then it is only fair to present both sides of the argument in a high school science class.

But at least half of Americans polled in a recent survey by the National Science Foundation did not know that Earth orbits the Sun, and that it takes a year to do so. Does this mean we should teach that Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not. It merely means that we are not doing a very good job informing the public about physics. Science is not a democratic process. It does not proceed by majority rule and it does not accept notions that have already been disproven by experiment.

Intelligent design makes assertions that cannot be tested by experiment. Those assertions that can be tested, say about blood clotting or the claimed irreducible complexity of various components of cells, seem to have thus far failed those tests. So intelligent design does not belong in a science class. End of story.

Nevertheless, recently the Ohio State School Board felt it necessary to run a hearing on evolution vs. intelligent design in a debate format, with two proponents of evolution to face off against two advocates of intelligent design in Columbus.

One might think that I would know better than to agree to participate in such a debate. But I did, because I felt the education of schoolchildren in Ohio was so important.

Nevertheless, I tried to learn from my earlier mistakes. Merely having a debate inevitably suggests that each side has some credibility. As a result, opponents of the scientific method like creationists try very hard to appear in debates with scientists. Merely being on the same stage represents a victory!

I made sure that I emphasized this intrinsic inequity in my opening remarks in Columbus, and it colored much of the subsequent discussion, as well as the later reporting of the event. I do not know whether it was sufficient to let listeners focus on whether there was really anything worth debating in the first place. But it at least allowed for that possibility.

In the meantime, for those scientists who find themselves thrust in such public debates, I have found at least one useful tool. When debating U.F.O. experts, ask them whether they believe in "Young Earth Creationism." When debating young earth creationists, ask them whether they believe in alien U.F.O.'s. When they say no, ask why. Their answers will inevitably shed light on the weakness of their own positions.

Of course, as has once happened to me, you might find yourself debating a U.F.O.-believing creationist. But you can't win them all. My hope is that you can win at least some of the time (Friedman).

In response, Stanton Friedman wrote:

May 1, 2002
The New York Times
Dear Editors:

Lawrence Krauss follows in the footsteps of a number of academic scientists bold enough to make predictions of the future of flight. Dr. Simon Newcomb in October, 1903, published an article "scientifically" proving that the only way man would ever fly would be with the help of a balloon -- just two months before the Wright Brothers' first flight. Dr. Bickerton in the 1920's proved "scientifically" that it would be impossible to provide anything with sufficient energy to place it in orbit around the earth. Dr. Campbell, at the U. of W. Ontario, proved "scientifically" in 1941 that the required initial launch weight of a chemical rocket able to take a man to the moon and back would be only 300,000,000 times higher than what was actually required as demonstrated less than 30 years later by the Apollo Program. Campbell made such pseudoscientific assumptions as that the rocket would have only one stage, would be limited to 1G acceleration, would be launched vertically, and would require a retrorocket to slow it down before return to earth. The NASA aerospace engineers and applied scientists of course used a multistage rocket, exposed the astronauts to several Gs, launched to the East from near the equator, and took advantage of the moon's gravity to provide some of the energy and the earth's atmosphere to slow down the rocket upon return. Making wrong assumptions usually leads to false conclusions.

Krauss' claim "we do know absolutely, how much on board fuel will be needed" is pseudoscience of the highest degree, equivalent to Campbell's absurd assumptions. I am not surprised at this arrogance having debated him on a California radio show about UFOs. I had earlier read two of his books (though he had read neither of mine). As a nuclear physicist who worked on nuclear power plants for space applications and aircraft nuclear propulsion systems as well as on fission and fusion rockets, I was able to demonstrate on the air that he had provided misinformation about these areas of technology and about UFOs, as well.

Of course he refused my challenge to a public debate. As might be expected, he followed the four basic rules for UFO debunking: 1. don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn't know, I will not tell them. 3. If I can't attack the data, I will attack the people; it is easier and 4. I will do my research by proclamation, since investigation is too difficult.

Proclamations by Academic Professionals, about things about which they know almost nothing, are the lowest form of pseudoscience.

Stanton T. Friedman (Friedman).

This debate as to whether UFO researchers practice pseudoscience is empty because no one truly knows the existence of “true” UFOs. It is skeptics like Krauss who try to justify not researching the UFO phenomenon because they believe there is nothing to study. Again, Krauss has made up his unscientific mind with that claim and thus, ignores all facts and evidence associated with it. On the other hand, Stanton Friedman shows how illogical and ignorant skeptics are toward “something” going on in our skies and, through evidence, it seems to be out of this world. The skeptics are essentially the ignorant unscientific “believers” in this debate. One of the most established physicists, Stephen Hawking, has developed a hypothetical bias that prohibits him from seriously investigating the UFO phenomenon. In the following quote by Stephen Hawking, one will recognize how frequently people make assumptions regarding the arrival of intelligent life forms.

Of course, some people would claim that sightings of UFOs are evidence that we are being visited either by aliens or by people from the future. (If the aliens were to get here in reasonable time, they would need faster-than-light travel, so the two possibilities may be equivalent.)

However, I think that any visit by aliens or people from the future would be much more obvious and, probably, much more unpleasant. If they are going to reveal themselves at all, why do so only to those who are not regarded as reliable witnesses? If they are trying to warn us of some great danger, they are not being very effective. (Hawking 166)

Stephen Hawking’s speculations are clearly ignorant and biased. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to deny or resist an open-minded examination of UFO evidence while remaining skeptical. Furthermore, it is necessary for every scientist and human being to open his or her mind up for the possibility that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial or even inter-dimensional origin. For example, Dr. Carl Sagan was skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO phenomenon, but he also believed the scientific community unreasonably neglected the subject. So, in 1969, he decided to co-organize a conference on the subject matter ("Ufology".) Later in Carl Sagan’s life, he changed his attitude toward the subject matter. Like most typical scientists, Carl believed in the notion that interstellar travel for all advanced “alien” civilizations would be impossible, but he simultaneously argued that an advanced “human” civilization might achieve the feat ("Extraterrestrial hypothesis".) Is not Carl Sagan’s proclamation biased? Imagine how advanced a planet which harvested intelligent life would be if it had a billion year head start on ours! It is clear that Sagan’s “personal” unscientific idea that modern-day UFOs are without question earthly reflects accurately on the scientific community. As a final point, Carl Sagan contradicted his own belief that paleocontact (the hypothesis that intelligent extraterrestrial creatures visited Earth in the distant past or at the dawn of human civilization) may have occurred ("Extraterrestrial hypothesis".)

Everyone should research the UFO phenomenon openly and objectively, instead of letting modern science set our minds with the concept and belief that there is nothing extraordinary taking place in our skies. Astronomer, ufologist, and former Project Blue Book investigator J. Allen Hynek showed how dogmatic scientists can be by saying, “Close questioning revealed they (scientists) knew nothing of the actual sightings... and therefore cannot be taken seriously. This is characteristic of scientists in general when speaking about subjects which are not in their own immediate field of concern" ("Ufology".)

The United States government’s reluctance to look into the UFO phenomenon is the paradigm for how a government suppresses the interest of media and society. It has setup a system on how to treat the UFO phenomenon; it is unproblematic and flawless because it is a system of absolute denial. It is extremely common for an individual to overlook the likelihood of UFO cover-up because most people like to think their government tells them everything. However, it is this patriotic attitude that makes many individuals unaware. For example, no one realized the government developed the atom bomb and planned on using it in World War II. For this reason, one should realize that the subject of extraterrestrial life and the UFO phenomenon would not be treated any differently. In fact, the current secrecy surrounding UFOs may be above top-secret and well beyond the secrecy of the atom bomb. A usual question regarding the UFO cover-up is “why would any government hide this type of knowledge?” The question is extremely understandable because this kind of information should be worldwide. One must think from the government’s point of view: just as in the case of the top-secret atom bomb in the 1940’s, they can’t risk losing the top-secret information. A similar principal should be adopted for the UFO phenomenon because the implications surrounding the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial technology could potentially be deadly in this war hungry world. Clearly, it was necessary for the government to hide technology of this magnitude. Imagine what could have happened if advanced extraterrestrial technology fell into the hands of the Germans or the Japanese in World War II. In essence, every question as to why the government would cover-up UFO related phenomenon falls under national security.

The current state of terrorism the United States faces everyday has only contributed toward the UFO cover-up. This cover-up is extremely negative toward human consciousness because it creates more ignorance and less truth in our civilization. It would be positive, however, if the United States government was the only government to possess this technology. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to understand the implications a truth like this would have on our civilization. National security, religion, technology, and the economy would all be impacted severely. This makes it rather obvious that there is no urgent reason for the government to inform society about the existence of intelligent life forms who uncontrollably visit American air space. These enormous responsibilities rest mainly on the United States government. Even though there are good reasons for a cover-up, that is a flawed approach because, regardless of what happens from here on out, the ramifications will be extremely negative to the government and society. The government’s denial and cover-up should be disclosed on a national scale in the name of truth.

When taking a serious glimpse into the UFO phenomenon, undeniable proof that a phenomenon absolutely is taking place is found. It is clear that the government is not telling us everything and for a logical reason. No one knows for sure what controls UFOs, but undeniable evidence demands that the phenomenon be scientifically explored and no longer ignored!

© 2007 Mysterious Anomalies ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.