PALEO-SETI: INTERDISCIPLINARY AND POPULARIZED *)
Arguments, Logic and Consequences
by Ulrich Dopatka (translated by Thomas Mlynarczyk)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 - a "magic" year not just for science fiction movies. For Paleo-SETI, this transition to a new century/millennium (according to our time count) is an opportunity to sketch out some fundamental things as well as to show both the philosophy and the future of this research field that is interdisciplinary and popular science at the same time. There are not many subjects dealing with questions and mysteries of science that have provoked such heated debate and controverse "black & white reactions". Apart from individual reasons why sometimes emotions run wild in discussions, the subject itself may be a reason... For if the basic idea of Paleo-SETI (that extraterrestrial intelligent beings have already visited earth) was proved, this would constitute one of the most epochal discoveries in the history of mankind affecting many different cultures.
Independently of that, however, one can and should approach this controversal topic of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) in an objective and logically arguing manner, while it is not even then sure if careworn sceptics are willing to follow logic. There are facts, but also indices, probabilistic calculations, hypotheses and, of course, speculations that play a role in the pros and cons argumentations of the paleo-SETI discussion. And they come from different departments of science, for which reason the subject fascinates the public in addition to the controversity of its basic idea. Many people can - and are supposed to - have their say and contribute their ideas. But which premises do the discussions proceed from, what's behind the debate, what are the "basics"? Let's review some of the steps in this model - briefly.
(Background information going more deeply into the subject as well as both scientific and more popular sources concerning the following issues were dealt with in the A.A.S. magazine "Legendary Times" (at the A.A.S. FG "Sagenhafte Zeiten") in various articles and are also available online from the A.A.S. database - click on "News" on the A.A.S. website.)
We assume that there are extraterrestrial civilizations. Life itself can exist in the most extreme environments and many planets will have more than just traces of it. Even though SETI-scientists and exo-biologists are not yet able to deliver a proof regarding extraterrestrial civilisations, an optimistic evaluation of this question is generally accepted by the involved scientists. Although recent research has shown that there are regions within galaxies that would permit for such civilisations to survive much longer (regions or "belts" around the galactic center where supernovae are less likely to happen), the number of possible civilisations is still very great. Even if further restrictions like the necessity of a moon for maintaining the climatic stability of a life-bearing planet are taken into account.
ET civilisations? No real doubts!
Although still rejected a few years ago, it is today more or less accepted in scientific theory: the expansion of an intelligent space-travelling species over the whole galaxy. This concept was proposed again in "Scientific American" (July 2000 - German translation in "Spektrum der Wissenschaft"). Still with the restriction of excluding the possibility of expeditions to other galaxies... but compared with the attitude of the scientific community a few years ago, a new way of thinking has established itself. Whether this expansion is accomplished using generation ships or other technologies remains an open question. But the principle of expansion by child civilisations on other planets according to the rule of multiplication (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc.) makes it possible for the one intelligent species using this snowball system first to colonize the whole galaxy.
Those millions of years that must be taken into account (until all of the galaxy is visited or explored) are not long compared to the life time of planets and biospheres. Except for the motivations we know of in today's exploration of space, there might be other compelling reasons for travelling to other planetary systems. For example the necessity of migration when a civilisation realizes that their sun has only a short time left to exist. Of course, the space travellers will not set out to travel "into the blue" (or rather "into the black"). They know their targets well. The detection of earth-like planets is a science we are just beginners at.
Interstellar space travel is possible.
Facts, or high probabilities, seem to exist also when we start thinking about "the others" - as Dr. Johannes Fiebag called them. As we have just asserted, a space-travelling species can dominate a galaxy simply by being the first to start expanding, thus occupying the "terrain". But what can we imagine such extraterrestrials to be like? The appearance of such space-travelling beings is determined by evolutionary convergence. This means that finger-like grippers are just as much a necessity as eyes capable of 3D viewing etc. In addition, an atmosphere like ours is necessary, to perform oxidation processes for producing metals, for example. Of course, different intelligent beings, also cognitively intelligent ones (possessing cognitive consciousness, as opposed to "animal intelligence") are a possibility (like aquatic beings similar to dolphins), but for space-travelling, species with a more "humanoid" appearance are predestined. At least according to our current understanding, because like everywhere, we must concede some restrictions.
Species with a "humanoid" appearance are predestined for space-travelling ETI-civilisations.
Further statements about the unknown ones are difficult to make with regard to detail, but logical and consequent with regard to civilizing or evolutionary tendencies. ETIs will share our concept of scientific-technological progress. Otherwise they could not do any space-travelling. Curiousity, the urge to survive and to expand etc. will not be unknown to them as a motor of progress. And what is today just starting to show up among us humans, might be of crucial importance to them as well: self control, i.e. artificial intervention into their own evolution. Where this could lead to, say, with a million years old civilisation, remains a secret even to science fiction which usually follows more terrestric patterns of thinking. Civilisations which are that far progressed, might be put into a category that looks like "magic" to us. Just this thought of imagining us to be "primitiv" and "inferior" causes ultimative problems. The progress of ETIs could thus have not only technological, but also biological (extending life span, perhaps) or philosophic dimensions.
There could be a great civilizing and technological discrepancy between mankind and ETIs.
The meaning of such predictions or conclusions for the problem "Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization" is, from our point of view, absolutely clear: We can make only limited statements concerning the strategy of "the others". But what we can assert is this: If other intelligent beings visited (or visit) our solar system, they may - apart from "low tech" - master a technology very well that will hide them from our detectors. As this holds also for radioastronomic proof, Frank Drake gave us the advice at the last two SETI conferences to consider some unconventional ideas and break with the old ways of thinking (as for SETI, concerning technologies of interstellar communication).
Let me quote here the example of the natives on their lonely island who, when asked how they could find out if there are other tribes behind the ocean, would think of giant drums or big fires and smoke signals. Their technology "thinks" within those limitations - while mobile phones would seem like "magic" to them... We will be in for similar surprises with the ETs... The duration for which the ETs will follow their strategy (whatever it may consist of) will certainly be a long-term one. The Mimicry-Hypothesis proposed by Dr. Johannes Fiebag can explain a lot here. There is an extremely high probability that the visits were taking place over a longer period of time and not just once. "Timeless" visits could, according to this, continue even today. The fact that no actual "occupation" of our planet has happened (comparable to the conquests in the colonial age), is a strong indication that earth is either interesting or even important as an isolated object or - more likely - that is is more effective and valuable for ETIs to contact civilizations which evolve independently.
Influencing such an evolution may be a way of pushing certain evolutions. There is an analogy to ethnologists who appear only sporadically, observe and even deliberately provoke reaction. One might hypothesize that such an "artificial embargo" creates a chance for special situations to arise. A logical thought would be that a contact - one is almost tempted to say unmasking - would only make sense, when the other civilization has reached a cultural level that would enable them to understand the ETIs as being such. The ability to travel in space would be such a milestone of understanding that would include dealing with ETIs.
Visits from ETIs in our solar system will probably happen in intervals or continuously over very long periods of time (just like ethnologists explore isolated tribes): Hints to this can be interpreted as such by man only when we are ourselves doing space exploration.
Considering the immense amount of time that has already passed, the prospect of our planetary system having already been visited by ETIs in the past is, of course, much greater than if we assume this moment "X" to be happening just today in the present. Apart from the question if they appear sporadically or permanently and for what purpose, one cannot exclude the assumption that robot-like constructs were sent out by ETIs that can repair and reproduce themselves and maybe even evolve. Summarized, however, the mentioned conclusions justify the search for traces of extraterrestrial presence in the solar system as well as on earth. Maybe, if one takes into account the importance of a discovery, all SETA projects (SETA = Search for extraterrestrial artefacts) are not only legitimate, but also of high priority. Whether such efforts are made mainly by the so-called scientific establishment, by amateurs or by both groups, is subject to discussion as well as the question if this subject should be called paleo-SETI, pre-astronautics, paleo-visitology, ancient astronaut theory or maybe even crypto-archaeology. If one goes by the degree of publicity alone, one often hears only about "Däniken's Theory".
The search for traces of ETI is scientifically justified.
The search for traces is a complex one - one can discover them deliberately or accidentally or one can collect indirect proof of ETIs. Alien property - no matter of what kind - that is deposited in the solar system, e.g. on the Moon, Mars or the asteroids, has, of course, a much greater chance of surviving (due to the lack of erosion which can be noticed here on earth) and the additional advantage of being discovered only by the "right" generation: by people on a level of evolution where they do space travelling and have therefore integrated and sanctioned the theory of the existence of other intelligent beings and their possible visits in our galactic home. We should not consider such planetary findings as being some kind of monument like the Face on Mars. Wishes and reality ought to be kept apart. But with the current process of space travelling I am sure we can expect some surprises within the next few years already. SETA, as the search for such possible artifacts is called, is, of course, a popular subject too at SETI conferences. And the brothers Johannes and Peter Fiebag as well as others have published research results relating to this subject about objects in our solar system which are definitely not of terrestric origin (NASA, ESA etc.) but still show an unnatural behaviour for bodies in space. Alien satellites of ETIs? And, as for SETA projects, NASA itself has focused its searching cameras on the supposed Marsian Face!
Searching for traces in our solar system is promising - great discoveries might await us in the following years.
On earth itself, the traces of ETIs would be - in the true sense of the word - within our grasp. But it's not quite that simple: Firstly, even the most definite traces will be of no use if they are found or analyzed by people who will not even consider the theoretical possibility of a connection to ETIs. This is true for people of all eras before the current one as well as for contemporary ethnic groups who are ignorant of this "ET factor". All of the traces that were found by such people in such eras had to be, and were interpreted in a different, however for those people satisfying, way. Interestingly enough, this is a kind of stereotypic behaviour as new realizations were achieved in every era, while it was stated at the same time that previous generations had explained the matter in a different way satisfactorily (even though their views were "wrong"). Fossils, for example, were not paleontological relics, but "remains of pour souls from before the Flood".
As for the justification or importance of paleo-SETI - the problem of today is that we live in a kind of "intermediate era", where more and more realizations like the ones mentioned above ripen and make an additional interpretation of supposed or really mysterious cultural evidence possible. At the same time, other people will - fully justified from their point of view - point out that so far it was very well possible to solve this or that question satisfactorily without any "ET factor" at all. In certain cases, this conventional explanation will be true indeed, in others just one of several variants of interpretation and in the remaining cases, a new, for many "science-fiction-like", interpretation finds more and more acceptance as we will discuss below. The pungency of many discussions about this subject has its roots in this field of tension.
The "blindness" towards recognizing ETI traces depends on the scientific/technological background of the respective era: It was only in our century when a new "parameter for interpretation" established itself, conflicting, of course, with our current, sanctioned understanding.
But even if ETI visits were generally accepted as a factor to be considered and we would look around on our planet without any prejudice, it would not be trivial to locate indices or even proofs. Although there are many promising areas which logically present themselves, we are dealing here on earth with an environment subjecting artifacts very much to erosion. Not only nature, but also the "cultural erosion" of man changes and destroys almost everything. How much of all the material from the last war can we still find today? But oral traditions, too, are subject to change and may, over the generations, preserve the true event only in an encrypted kernel. Rituals change as well or die out. This way, knowledge gets lost or - at best - becomes "masked". Knowledge containing ETI contact may thus reach a generation that is able to understand it only in a strongly changed form.
Only a civilization knowing about space travelling can do ETI research and recognize such traces. But it will take a lot of exploration to filter indices or proofs from the complex cultural heritage.
However, the variety of levels that may offer indices or proofs is positive and a chance for paleo-SETI. One can currently identify the following fields:
• Direct traces - "hard facts" as one might say - i.e. real objects of definitely non-terrestric origin. To find them, is just one part of the problem - analyzing, asserting the non-terrestric origin, publishing and accepting the find is the other.
• Indirect hard proof, i.e.traces of processing, buildings or indications of applied technologies ("hi-tech") that contradict the established scientific opinion about the native's level of technology. Evidence not showing any "evolution of technology".
• Indications of (highly) scientific/technological know how that individual persons or ethnic groups received. Theoretical knowledge without any apparant evolution that seems to have been "imparted". In many cases, strange "bringers of knowledge" are mentioned as a source at the same time.
• Myths and other legends telling about observations - including details - that can hardly be attributed to fantasy. Apart from symbolism, religious or philosophical explanations which, of course, offer themselves as such in accordance with cultural- historical background, there are new, astonishing interpretations possible when the "ET factor" is included. Descriptions mostly appear as circumscriptions here, where the unknown is compared to things known in the respective era and culture using the principle of "Looks like...".
• The broad range of ethnological research is a kind of "memory of mankind", documenting also real observations and events in traditions. If spectacular observations had been made (and ETI appearances, no matter in which form, would constitute such "sensations") they would have been preserved, too, in rituals, dances, masks, stone pictures etc.
• It is also consequent to extrapolate all aspects of cargo cults as they are documented in present and historical time, to the distant past, if such cult-initiating contact happened then. Not only traditions, but whole religions as well can arise this way, along with "looks like..." circumscriptions of not understood observations and imitations of real objects (examples from the present include the imitations of airplanes, radios and guns in Melanesia). A new interpretation of sujets from different cultures is thus possible.
• Apart from the possible fields mentioned above that come to our mind immediately, there might be more "tricky" fields offering themselves to ETIs to leave proof of their existence or to "do manipulations": everything that concernes in the broadest sense intervention into biology, genetics or terrestric (micro or macro) evolution. Interventions in such fields could be demonstrated as was shown scientifically by the biologist Dr. Martina Steinhardt. Other considerations, going even farther, will not be discussed here as we would enter a too speculative terrain. There are no limitations to imagination - another fact making paleo-SETI attractive to many people - reaching from metaphysics to sub-oceanic bases. It remains to be seen in how far ideas should be taken seriously here. But maybe it's just the "crazy" approaches that lead to keys as sources of ideas...
Interdisciplinary science is needed. The great spectrum of paleo-SETI detective work!
The sources for paleo-SETI argumentation just mentioned are, however, just parts of the whole field. Even though a single find or the interpretation of a single legend can be very convincing in some cases, the global cross connections between those indices seem to be even more important to us. If ETIs have been active on earth in any manner or appearance then it must have been a world-wide event. Globally, there must have been similar or even the same reactions from different cultures. There are indeed such parallels and they were recognized and explained as a "common denominator" of it even before the discussion about ETIs. Concepts and details in architecture or with archaeological relics and sujets are evident.
In mythology, too, there are astonishing examples of legends perfectly alike. There were and are many explanations, also the opinion that different cultures, too, might undergo parallel evolutions - simply because man as a being with his way of thinking, his dealing with nature, is the same. For example: When thunder cannot be explained, then gods of thunder are created in all cultures. Independently of those explanations, it is a fact that scientists - naturally focussing only on their own field - show an astonished reaction when confronted with such parallels and claim them to be pure chance. That's why diffusion theories, such as those presented by Thor Heyerdahl and others, are hardly accepted. Prehistoric intercultural contact and exchange of information by transoceanic contact: "Kon Tiki" and "Ra", the voyages of Heyerdahl, were examples of experimental archaeology and ethnology that found, apart from other indices, also such for this theory.
The difficulty of deciphering events in the past lies in the fact that one is indeed confronted with a conglomerat of possibilities, as all mentioned interpretations are justified. The possibility for distinguishing indices for paleo-SETI from other explanations with world-wide parallels lies in especially looking for (in the broadest sense) "hi tech background". When myths, e.g., describe flying vehicles of gods with technical accessories, they can hardly mean ancient sea travellers. But one should not consider the concept of "hi tech" in the narrow sense of "technology as we don't know it". Although we said above that ETI civilizations are probably far advanced in comparision to our scientific/technological level, this does not exclude the possibility that, for certain missions, technologies or forms of appearance were used that can very well be regarded as technology we can still understand.
A flying vehicle as we know it from the Ezechiel report or certain descriptions of vimanaas do indeed show parallels to evolutions we are familiar with. "Low tech" for ETIs, but still making sense in certain situations. We, too, are still using bicycles while having space ships at our disposal at the same time! While searching for such descriptions "not fitting into the period", one should pay particular attention to combinations of direct or indirect archaeological traces interesting to paleo-SETI and local legends and traditions that could be interpreted in the sense of paleo-SETI.
Finding indices for paleo-SETI means to localize them by characteristics in addition to possible explanations of other fields of research (all fields of archaeology and diffusion theories). Most important are world-wide parallels of such characteristics.
Logically, crosslinks must by force exist when we follow the motto "the gods were astronauts". Even more among ancient advanced civilizations than among isolated primitive races like eskimos. But separating the chaff from the wheat, judging the importance of strong and weak indications, is not a simply but a time consuming process. To illustrate the problem of how paleo-SETI could make an intellectual breakthrough and which obstacles are to be overcome in this process (independently of the above mentioned main obstacle that in our era people still tend to hold on to old, so far completely satisfying explanations and scorn on a view under the "light of paleo-SETI"), I like to use the example of a giant puzzle. When you deal with a puzzle very intensely and have managed to put a certain number of pieces at their correct position, then you can already see what the picture contains - even without having put all the pieces yet.
Our brain works redundantly and simply puts the missing pieces together and then you can see what the whole picture shows, its message, so to speak. It is also clear that this will not work if you are concentrating on just one corner of the puzzle or haven't dealt with the matter thoroughly enough. Transposed to paleo-SETI, this means that someone who has not been dealing with the indications for very long or has just focused on a sub-topic, will have difficulties recognizing the "picture", i.e. realizing the idea. The idea meaning to understand the "message", to realize that ET contact was a factor, too, in the past. I, personally, have come to this opinion by evaluating all the information. At the same time, however, I had to learn about the reasons that make this process so hard.
In contrast to a puzzle, we are dealing here with a game where the pieces must fit not only geographically ("game board" / " two-dimensional"), but are also dispersed throughout time. A three- or rather four-dimensional puzzle, so to speak. Another difficulty lies in the fact that in this heap of "pieces" that you must put together there are many (as discussed above) that do show a picture of the past, but without any connection to paleo-SETI. In a normal puzzle, this would correspond to there being a lot of additional pieces beside the right ones which would need to be checked. And: whoever buys a puzzle in a toy shop assumes that the box contains all the necessary pieces. In our case, the pieces are not delivered en bloc, but must be looked for by ourselves "somewhere in the cellar or the attic", must be "obtained" from other people (or museums of scientific institutions) using appropriate tactics.
And last but not least, it is an unfortunate fact, that whenever someone has managed to put a piece in the right position, there are enough people who would like to - I have this impression - remove it. People who challenge us to "defend our piece" instead of (in addition to discussions!) helping us to complete the puzzle. I'm not amazed that paleo-SETI needs a lot of patience and is a process establishing itself successively. Several new generations with increasing tolerance towards this subject may be needed!
Paleo-SETI - a mega puzzle!
The work on this puzzle (to keep the comparison) is discussed as much as the activities of the A.A.S. as a now established organization dealing with paleo-SETI as their central subject. Of course, criteria of scientific work, i.e. dealing with problems analytically, studying primary sources etc. prove useful and are applied to paleo-SETI. On the other hand (and this has positive aspects as well), this field encompasses such a vast spectrum of scientific branches (see above) and inspires popular ideas and contributions to discussions to such a great number of amateurs, that other methods of true or supposed recognition are also legitimate and in use. Maybe, now and then, the cart is put before the horse or things are separated from their context or weird inspirations are being followed or things are compared that can't be compared. Nobody could prevent this from happening.
But even though I, myself, am wondering sometimes about some "intellectual saltos" - who knows: it might be just such unconventional thinking that leads us to new insights. Why not? To quote an example: I know that the isolated contemplation of the Great Pyramid's architecture, without paying much attention to the cultural-historical context, is frowned upon by many people... But if the results as such are fascinating and pointing out problems that hitherto have been ignored or underestimated? In finding a prove by indications, several factors can be taken into account. Quality is one of them, but also quantity, i.e. finding new indications and crosslinks between them. Both the A.A.S. magazine "Legendary Times" (for the AAS-FG it's "Sagenhafte Zeiten") and the A.A.S. RA/FG News contain many of them. In addition, one should take into account the results of so-called wrong methods, too. If the outcome is nonsense, then it can easily be recognized as such.
Both scientific methodology and tolerance towards unconventional thinkers are needed!
However, there is doubtless a difference between "nonsense" and "speculative interpretation". Now and then, some skeptics dealing with paleo-SETI give me the impression that - despite critical thinking being legitimate - they empty the baby out with the bath when it comes to the final "checking off" of indications. Sure, when there's a column in India said not to get rusty - and soon pre- astronautic arguments are brought forward - and then does get rusty after all... Rust is rust and not an "extraterrestrial alloy"! And there could not have been any Atlantis (i.e. a very advanced civilization comparable to ours) either, or else we would find traces of its infrastructure worldwide - not to mention the untenable theory of a geologically recently sunken continent. Whenever findings, imitations of findings or descriptions thereof appear in old cultures, they seem to come up suddenly as if "dropped from the sky". But where were the manufacturing sites if not on earth?
Therefore: looking back to hundreds if not thousands of indications one must, in most cases, grant the paleo-SETI interpretations to be at least variants of explanations as tenable as those of the established opinion. If not even more tenable, objectively considered! Attention: We have already mentioned that ETI interference were certainly a world-wide phenomenon. And the consequences, too, are of a global nature. If a proof is found - be it on earth, within our solar system, through an actual message from ETIs (á la "We Were Here") - all indications will automatically be upgraded or at least there will arise a need to search through our terrestric history and the surface of our planet anew and to re-evaluate some details. The advice to put away paleo-SETI theories, in general, should be reconsidered carefully.
"Keeping a record" is sometimes better than to "bury". Apart from evaluating already found indications for paleo-SETI, it seems important to me to look for new indications, new crosslinks and perhaps also more insight into completely new fields of proof (we mentioned genetics earlier... maybe findings in physics will open up new prospects). Here, I'd like some of my contemporaries to invest more energy than just turning up and down of existing material! Don't get me wrong: Both the examination and evaluation of known paleo-SETI indications and extracting new material are important. An often neglected aspect is also that "weird theories" that make no sense at first or second sight, may prove inspiring for some people. In the sense of "...not like that, but this gives me another idea..."
There are also arguments for repeating "old paleo-SETI stories" in literature or on the internet. We must not forget - Erich von Däniken experiences this at his lectures - that, for many people (not just of the younger generation), even subjects like Nazca or Palenque are completely unknown. So it is legitimate to give introductions and overviews of the matter, not to mention showing the broadness and globality of these "mysteries of the world". And there may always pop up new aspects of old topics!
Looking for indications with methodical objectivity - yes. But one should also be careful not to throw away too quickly speculative ideas.
This approach is one of the most important intentions of the A.A.S. In the magazine "Legendary Times" (or "Sagenhafte Zeiten") this becomes as clear as on the Internet. Among the members of the A.A.S. one can find university graduates as well as amateurs of all kinds. Both "camps" are taken into account in the publications. Meanwhile, thanks to those works and apart from many publications (see the bibliography on the A.A.S. website) and film documentations, a such great fund of complementary indications has accumulated, that one can now start to complete the "paleo-SETI puzzle" in such a way to make the picture, the message jump to the eye at first sight. To everyone. I think that now the right time has come to start this task - in a much better way that I was able to do it in my "Lexikon der Präastronautik". A kind of analytical documentation would be possible today using modern computer technology. A scientific work indeed. Done by whom? It is the task of the "Erich von Däniken Foundation" to be responsible for the contents of the Mystery Park.
This requires a digital exploitation not only of Erich von Däniken's archive, but of many other sources as well. Using multimedia and contacts to all necessary scientific/interdisciplinary institutions. I'm sure, this project will not only close some gaps of knowledge and lead to astonishing discoveries, but will also give the chance of direct participation to many people, especially those of the young generation. Inspiration is given directly and indirectly at the Mystery Park. Through this dealing with questions of paleo-SETI, experts are being urged to look around at places or conduct experiments that have not been considered before (since that was supposed to be unnecessary). When I think of Gantenbrink's shaft in the Great Pyramid... Instead of all those operations about the "final stone" or the little door at the end of the mini tunnel, it would be much simpler, for example, to take the dried out spider from deep in there and determine its age. Why not?!
The "paleo-SETI network": Searching for proof through connections and meta-information.
I do indeed expect new discoveries and revelations from the tendencies and activities I have described to come up in the future. It was already a "breakthrough" for paleo-SETI to establish itself as a hypothesis - without being called by name. The foundations are there, parts of the mega-puzzle have been put together or are in our hands or at least we know where to look for them. Creativity is demanded! This is rather seldom the case with some people who keep turning around in argumentative circles, mostly from the camp of skeptics, critics or however they call themselves. There are others, but with some of them I have the impression that they only want to show off themselves or live out their antipathies. That's a real pity. I have nothing against discussions, as we keep doing them all the time, but it's more important to look forward, to enter new territory, even with unconventional methods. Looking for ETI traces means decrypting a message.
Paleo-SETI is work, complex work, which is meanwhile done, however, by many with enthousiasm due to the fascination of this subject. A.A.S. stands for archaeology, astronautics and SETI - and at the very intersection of these three fields, there is paleo-SETI. Since 1973, this organization has been giving internationally to everyone the possibility to inform oneself about this new field of research, to take part and contribute ideas. Both together, the organizational experience and capacities of the A.A.S. and the contents as well as the growing fund of indications of paleo-SETI, will cause even more (positive) excitement in the future. Not only the new research technologies - comprising internet and multimedia database technologies - make me optimistic. Most of all we realize a growing willingness of all interested people to "look over the rim of their tea cup" and to risk new perspectives in a non-conforming and interdisciplinary way. There will be exciting years to come!
Ulrich Dopatka
The future: paleo-SETI and A.A.S./A.A.S. RA
(*) This article may be distributed on the internet. However, no parts of it may be quoted out of context. The permission of the author is required for using this article in journals, magazines, books or other media.
Arguments, Logic and Consequences
by Ulrich Dopatka (translated by Thomas Mlynarczyk)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 - a "magic" year not just for science fiction movies. For Paleo-SETI, this transition to a new century/millennium (according to our time count) is an opportunity to sketch out some fundamental things as well as to show both the philosophy and the future of this research field that is interdisciplinary and popular science at the same time. There are not many subjects dealing with questions and mysteries of science that have provoked such heated debate and controverse "black & white reactions". Apart from individual reasons why sometimes emotions run wild in discussions, the subject itself may be a reason... For if the basic idea of Paleo-SETI (that extraterrestrial intelligent beings have already visited earth) was proved, this would constitute one of the most epochal discoveries in the history of mankind affecting many different cultures.
Independently of that, however, one can and should approach this controversal topic of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) in an objective and logically arguing manner, while it is not even then sure if careworn sceptics are willing to follow logic. There are facts, but also indices, probabilistic calculations, hypotheses and, of course, speculations that play a role in the pros and cons argumentations of the paleo-SETI discussion. And they come from different departments of science, for which reason the subject fascinates the public in addition to the controversity of its basic idea. Many people can - and are supposed to - have their say and contribute their ideas. But which premises do the discussions proceed from, what's behind the debate, what are the "basics"? Let's review some of the steps in this model - briefly.
(Background information going more deeply into the subject as well as both scientific and more popular sources concerning the following issues were dealt with in the A.A.S. magazine "Legendary Times" (at the A.A.S. FG "Sagenhafte Zeiten") in various articles and are also available online from the A.A.S. database - click on "News" on the A.A.S. website.)
We assume that there are extraterrestrial civilizations. Life itself can exist in the most extreme environments and many planets will have more than just traces of it. Even though SETI-scientists and exo-biologists are not yet able to deliver a proof regarding extraterrestrial civilisations, an optimistic evaluation of this question is generally accepted by the involved scientists. Although recent research has shown that there are regions within galaxies that would permit for such civilisations to survive much longer (regions or "belts" around the galactic center where supernovae are less likely to happen), the number of possible civilisations is still very great. Even if further restrictions like the necessity of a moon for maintaining the climatic stability of a life-bearing planet are taken into account.
ET civilisations? No real doubts!
Although still rejected a few years ago, it is today more or less accepted in scientific theory: the expansion of an intelligent space-travelling species over the whole galaxy. This concept was proposed again in "Scientific American" (July 2000 - German translation in "Spektrum der Wissenschaft"). Still with the restriction of excluding the possibility of expeditions to other galaxies... but compared with the attitude of the scientific community a few years ago, a new way of thinking has established itself. Whether this expansion is accomplished using generation ships or other technologies remains an open question. But the principle of expansion by child civilisations on other planets according to the rule of multiplication (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 etc.) makes it possible for the one intelligent species using this snowball system first to colonize the whole galaxy.
Those millions of years that must be taken into account (until all of the galaxy is visited or explored) are not long compared to the life time of planets and biospheres. Except for the motivations we know of in today's exploration of space, there might be other compelling reasons for travelling to other planetary systems. For example the necessity of migration when a civilisation realizes that their sun has only a short time left to exist. Of course, the space travellers will not set out to travel "into the blue" (or rather "into the black"). They know their targets well. The detection of earth-like planets is a science we are just beginners at.
Interstellar space travel is possible.
Facts, or high probabilities, seem to exist also when we start thinking about "the others" - as Dr. Johannes Fiebag called them. As we have just asserted, a space-travelling species can dominate a galaxy simply by being the first to start expanding, thus occupying the "terrain". But what can we imagine such extraterrestrials to be like? The appearance of such space-travelling beings is determined by evolutionary convergence. This means that finger-like grippers are just as much a necessity as eyes capable of 3D viewing etc. In addition, an atmosphere like ours is necessary, to perform oxidation processes for producing metals, for example. Of course, different intelligent beings, also cognitively intelligent ones (possessing cognitive consciousness, as opposed to "animal intelligence") are a possibility (like aquatic beings similar to dolphins), but for space-travelling, species with a more "humanoid" appearance are predestined. At least according to our current understanding, because like everywhere, we must concede some restrictions.
Species with a "humanoid" appearance are predestined for space-travelling ETI-civilisations.
Further statements about the unknown ones are difficult to make with regard to detail, but logical and consequent with regard to civilizing or evolutionary tendencies. ETIs will share our concept of scientific-technological progress. Otherwise they could not do any space-travelling. Curiousity, the urge to survive and to expand etc. will not be unknown to them as a motor of progress. And what is today just starting to show up among us humans, might be of crucial importance to them as well: self control, i.e. artificial intervention into their own evolution. Where this could lead to, say, with a million years old civilisation, remains a secret even to science fiction which usually follows more terrestric patterns of thinking. Civilisations which are that far progressed, might be put into a category that looks like "magic" to us. Just this thought of imagining us to be "primitiv" and "inferior" causes ultimative problems. The progress of ETIs could thus have not only technological, but also biological (extending life span, perhaps) or philosophic dimensions.
There could be a great civilizing and technological discrepancy between mankind and ETIs.
The meaning of such predictions or conclusions for the problem "Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization" is, from our point of view, absolutely clear: We can make only limited statements concerning the strategy of "the others". But what we can assert is this: If other intelligent beings visited (or visit) our solar system, they may - apart from "low tech" - master a technology very well that will hide them from our detectors. As this holds also for radioastronomic proof, Frank Drake gave us the advice at the last two SETI conferences to consider some unconventional ideas and break with the old ways of thinking (as for SETI, concerning technologies of interstellar communication).
Let me quote here the example of the natives on their lonely island who, when asked how they could find out if there are other tribes behind the ocean, would think of giant drums or big fires and smoke signals. Their technology "thinks" within those limitations - while mobile phones would seem like "magic" to them... We will be in for similar surprises with the ETs... The duration for which the ETs will follow their strategy (whatever it may consist of) will certainly be a long-term one. The Mimicry-Hypothesis proposed by Dr. Johannes Fiebag can explain a lot here. There is an extremely high probability that the visits were taking place over a longer period of time and not just once. "Timeless" visits could, according to this, continue even today. The fact that no actual "occupation" of our planet has happened (comparable to the conquests in the colonial age), is a strong indication that earth is either interesting or even important as an isolated object or - more likely - that is is more effective and valuable for ETIs to contact civilizations which evolve independently.
Influencing such an evolution may be a way of pushing certain evolutions. There is an analogy to ethnologists who appear only sporadically, observe and even deliberately provoke reaction. One might hypothesize that such an "artificial embargo" creates a chance for special situations to arise. A logical thought would be that a contact - one is almost tempted to say unmasking - would only make sense, when the other civilization has reached a cultural level that would enable them to understand the ETIs as being such. The ability to travel in space would be such a milestone of understanding that would include dealing with ETIs.
Visits from ETIs in our solar system will probably happen in intervals or continuously over very long periods of time (just like ethnologists explore isolated tribes): Hints to this can be interpreted as such by man only when we are ourselves doing space exploration.
Considering the immense amount of time that has already passed, the prospect of our planetary system having already been visited by ETIs in the past is, of course, much greater than if we assume this moment "X" to be happening just today in the present. Apart from the question if they appear sporadically or permanently and for what purpose, one cannot exclude the assumption that robot-like constructs were sent out by ETIs that can repair and reproduce themselves and maybe even evolve. Summarized, however, the mentioned conclusions justify the search for traces of extraterrestrial presence in the solar system as well as on earth. Maybe, if one takes into account the importance of a discovery, all SETA projects (SETA = Search for extraterrestrial artefacts) are not only legitimate, but also of high priority. Whether such efforts are made mainly by the so-called scientific establishment, by amateurs or by both groups, is subject to discussion as well as the question if this subject should be called paleo-SETI, pre-astronautics, paleo-visitology, ancient astronaut theory or maybe even crypto-archaeology. If one goes by the degree of publicity alone, one often hears only about "Däniken's Theory".
The search for traces of ETI is scientifically justified.
The search for traces is a complex one - one can discover them deliberately or accidentally or one can collect indirect proof of ETIs. Alien property - no matter of what kind - that is deposited in the solar system, e.g. on the Moon, Mars or the asteroids, has, of course, a much greater chance of surviving (due to the lack of erosion which can be noticed here on earth) and the additional advantage of being discovered only by the "right" generation: by people on a level of evolution where they do space travelling and have therefore integrated and sanctioned the theory of the existence of other intelligent beings and their possible visits in our galactic home. We should not consider such planetary findings as being some kind of monument like the Face on Mars. Wishes and reality ought to be kept apart. But with the current process of space travelling I am sure we can expect some surprises within the next few years already. SETA, as the search for such possible artifacts is called, is, of course, a popular subject too at SETI conferences. And the brothers Johannes and Peter Fiebag as well as others have published research results relating to this subject about objects in our solar system which are definitely not of terrestric origin (NASA, ESA etc.) but still show an unnatural behaviour for bodies in space. Alien satellites of ETIs? And, as for SETA projects, NASA itself has focused its searching cameras on the supposed Marsian Face!
Searching for traces in our solar system is promising - great discoveries might await us in the following years.
On earth itself, the traces of ETIs would be - in the true sense of the word - within our grasp. But it's not quite that simple: Firstly, even the most definite traces will be of no use if they are found or analyzed by people who will not even consider the theoretical possibility of a connection to ETIs. This is true for people of all eras before the current one as well as for contemporary ethnic groups who are ignorant of this "ET factor". All of the traces that were found by such people in such eras had to be, and were interpreted in a different, however for those people satisfying, way. Interestingly enough, this is a kind of stereotypic behaviour as new realizations were achieved in every era, while it was stated at the same time that previous generations had explained the matter in a different way satisfactorily (even though their views were "wrong"). Fossils, for example, were not paleontological relics, but "remains of pour souls from before the Flood".
As for the justification or importance of paleo-SETI - the problem of today is that we live in a kind of "intermediate era", where more and more realizations like the ones mentioned above ripen and make an additional interpretation of supposed or really mysterious cultural evidence possible. At the same time, other people will - fully justified from their point of view - point out that so far it was very well possible to solve this or that question satisfactorily without any "ET factor" at all. In certain cases, this conventional explanation will be true indeed, in others just one of several variants of interpretation and in the remaining cases, a new, for many "science-fiction-like", interpretation finds more and more acceptance as we will discuss below. The pungency of many discussions about this subject has its roots in this field of tension.
The "blindness" towards recognizing ETI traces depends on the scientific/technological background of the respective era: It was only in our century when a new "parameter for interpretation" established itself, conflicting, of course, with our current, sanctioned understanding.
But even if ETI visits were generally accepted as a factor to be considered and we would look around on our planet without any prejudice, it would not be trivial to locate indices or even proofs. Although there are many promising areas which logically present themselves, we are dealing here on earth with an environment subjecting artifacts very much to erosion. Not only nature, but also the "cultural erosion" of man changes and destroys almost everything. How much of all the material from the last war can we still find today? But oral traditions, too, are subject to change and may, over the generations, preserve the true event only in an encrypted kernel. Rituals change as well or die out. This way, knowledge gets lost or - at best - becomes "masked". Knowledge containing ETI contact may thus reach a generation that is able to understand it only in a strongly changed form.
Only a civilization knowing about space travelling can do ETI research and recognize such traces. But it will take a lot of exploration to filter indices or proofs from the complex cultural heritage.
However, the variety of levels that may offer indices or proofs is positive and a chance for paleo-SETI. One can currently identify the following fields:
• Direct traces - "hard facts" as one might say - i.e. real objects of definitely non-terrestric origin. To find them, is just one part of the problem - analyzing, asserting the non-terrestric origin, publishing and accepting the find is the other.
• Indirect hard proof, i.e.traces of processing, buildings or indications of applied technologies ("hi-tech") that contradict the established scientific opinion about the native's level of technology. Evidence not showing any "evolution of technology".
• Indications of (highly) scientific/technological know how that individual persons or ethnic groups received. Theoretical knowledge without any apparant evolution that seems to have been "imparted". In many cases, strange "bringers of knowledge" are mentioned as a source at the same time.
• Myths and other legends telling about observations - including details - that can hardly be attributed to fantasy. Apart from symbolism, religious or philosophical explanations which, of course, offer themselves as such in accordance with cultural- historical background, there are new, astonishing interpretations possible when the "ET factor" is included. Descriptions mostly appear as circumscriptions here, where the unknown is compared to things known in the respective era and culture using the principle of "Looks like...".
• The broad range of ethnological research is a kind of "memory of mankind", documenting also real observations and events in traditions. If spectacular observations had been made (and ETI appearances, no matter in which form, would constitute such "sensations") they would have been preserved, too, in rituals, dances, masks, stone pictures etc.
• It is also consequent to extrapolate all aspects of cargo cults as they are documented in present and historical time, to the distant past, if such cult-initiating contact happened then. Not only traditions, but whole religions as well can arise this way, along with "looks like..." circumscriptions of not understood observations and imitations of real objects (examples from the present include the imitations of airplanes, radios and guns in Melanesia). A new interpretation of sujets from different cultures is thus possible.
• Apart from the possible fields mentioned above that come to our mind immediately, there might be more "tricky" fields offering themselves to ETIs to leave proof of their existence or to "do manipulations": everything that concernes in the broadest sense intervention into biology, genetics or terrestric (micro or macro) evolution. Interventions in such fields could be demonstrated as was shown scientifically by the biologist Dr. Martina Steinhardt. Other considerations, going even farther, will not be discussed here as we would enter a too speculative terrain. There are no limitations to imagination - another fact making paleo-SETI attractive to many people - reaching from metaphysics to sub-oceanic bases. It remains to be seen in how far ideas should be taken seriously here. But maybe it's just the "crazy" approaches that lead to keys as sources of ideas...
Interdisciplinary science is needed. The great spectrum of paleo-SETI detective work!
The sources for paleo-SETI argumentation just mentioned are, however, just parts of the whole field. Even though a single find or the interpretation of a single legend can be very convincing in some cases, the global cross connections between those indices seem to be even more important to us. If ETIs have been active on earth in any manner or appearance then it must have been a world-wide event. Globally, there must have been similar or even the same reactions from different cultures. There are indeed such parallels and they were recognized and explained as a "common denominator" of it even before the discussion about ETIs. Concepts and details in architecture or with archaeological relics and sujets are evident.
In mythology, too, there are astonishing examples of legends perfectly alike. There were and are many explanations, also the opinion that different cultures, too, might undergo parallel evolutions - simply because man as a being with his way of thinking, his dealing with nature, is the same. For example: When thunder cannot be explained, then gods of thunder are created in all cultures. Independently of those explanations, it is a fact that scientists - naturally focussing only on their own field - show an astonished reaction when confronted with such parallels and claim them to be pure chance. That's why diffusion theories, such as those presented by Thor Heyerdahl and others, are hardly accepted. Prehistoric intercultural contact and exchange of information by transoceanic contact: "Kon Tiki" and "Ra", the voyages of Heyerdahl, were examples of experimental archaeology and ethnology that found, apart from other indices, also such for this theory.
The difficulty of deciphering events in the past lies in the fact that one is indeed confronted with a conglomerat of possibilities, as all mentioned interpretations are justified. The possibility for distinguishing indices for paleo-SETI from other explanations with world-wide parallels lies in especially looking for (in the broadest sense) "hi tech background". When myths, e.g., describe flying vehicles of gods with technical accessories, they can hardly mean ancient sea travellers. But one should not consider the concept of "hi tech" in the narrow sense of "technology as we don't know it". Although we said above that ETI civilizations are probably far advanced in comparision to our scientific/technological level, this does not exclude the possibility that, for certain missions, technologies or forms of appearance were used that can very well be regarded as technology we can still understand.
A flying vehicle as we know it from the Ezechiel report or certain descriptions of vimanaas do indeed show parallels to evolutions we are familiar with. "Low tech" for ETIs, but still making sense in certain situations. We, too, are still using bicycles while having space ships at our disposal at the same time! While searching for such descriptions "not fitting into the period", one should pay particular attention to combinations of direct or indirect archaeological traces interesting to paleo-SETI and local legends and traditions that could be interpreted in the sense of paleo-SETI.
Finding indices for paleo-SETI means to localize them by characteristics in addition to possible explanations of other fields of research (all fields of archaeology and diffusion theories). Most important are world-wide parallels of such characteristics.
Logically, crosslinks must by force exist when we follow the motto "the gods were astronauts". Even more among ancient advanced civilizations than among isolated primitive races like eskimos. But separating the chaff from the wheat, judging the importance of strong and weak indications, is not a simply but a time consuming process. To illustrate the problem of how paleo-SETI could make an intellectual breakthrough and which obstacles are to be overcome in this process (independently of the above mentioned main obstacle that in our era people still tend to hold on to old, so far completely satisfying explanations and scorn on a view under the "light of paleo-SETI"), I like to use the example of a giant puzzle. When you deal with a puzzle very intensely and have managed to put a certain number of pieces at their correct position, then you can already see what the picture contains - even without having put all the pieces yet.
Our brain works redundantly and simply puts the missing pieces together and then you can see what the whole picture shows, its message, so to speak. It is also clear that this will not work if you are concentrating on just one corner of the puzzle or haven't dealt with the matter thoroughly enough. Transposed to paleo-SETI, this means that someone who has not been dealing with the indications for very long or has just focused on a sub-topic, will have difficulties recognizing the "picture", i.e. realizing the idea. The idea meaning to understand the "message", to realize that ET contact was a factor, too, in the past. I, personally, have come to this opinion by evaluating all the information. At the same time, however, I had to learn about the reasons that make this process so hard.
In contrast to a puzzle, we are dealing here with a game where the pieces must fit not only geographically ("game board" / " two-dimensional"), but are also dispersed throughout time. A three- or rather four-dimensional puzzle, so to speak. Another difficulty lies in the fact that in this heap of "pieces" that you must put together there are many (as discussed above) that do show a picture of the past, but without any connection to paleo-SETI. In a normal puzzle, this would correspond to there being a lot of additional pieces beside the right ones which would need to be checked. And: whoever buys a puzzle in a toy shop assumes that the box contains all the necessary pieces. In our case, the pieces are not delivered en bloc, but must be looked for by ourselves "somewhere in the cellar or the attic", must be "obtained" from other people (or museums of scientific institutions) using appropriate tactics.
And last but not least, it is an unfortunate fact, that whenever someone has managed to put a piece in the right position, there are enough people who would like to - I have this impression - remove it. People who challenge us to "defend our piece" instead of (in addition to discussions!) helping us to complete the puzzle. I'm not amazed that paleo-SETI needs a lot of patience and is a process establishing itself successively. Several new generations with increasing tolerance towards this subject may be needed!
Paleo-SETI - a mega puzzle!
The work on this puzzle (to keep the comparison) is discussed as much as the activities of the A.A.S. as a now established organization dealing with paleo-SETI as their central subject. Of course, criteria of scientific work, i.e. dealing with problems analytically, studying primary sources etc. prove useful and are applied to paleo-SETI. On the other hand (and this has positive aspects as well), this field encompasses such a vast spectrum of scientific branches (see above) and inspires popular ideas and contributions to discussions to such a great number of amateurs, that other methods of true or supposed recognition are also legitimate and in use. Maybe, now and then, the cart is put before the horse or things are separated from their context or weird inspirations are being followed or things are compared that can't be compared. Nobody could prevent this from happening.
But even though I, myself, am wondering sometimes about some "intellectual saltos" - who knows: it might be just such unconventional thinking that leads us to new insights. Why not? To quote an example: I know that the isolated contemplation of the Great Pyramid's architecture, without paying much attention to the cultural-historical context, is frowned upon by many people... But if the results as such are fascinating and pointing out problems that hitherto have been ignored or underestimated? In finding a prove by indications, several factors can be taken into account. Quality is one of them, but also quantity, i.e. finding new indications and crosslinks between them. Both the A.A.S. magazine "Legendary Times" (for the AAS-FG it's "Sagenhafte Zeiten") and the A.A.S. RA/FG News contain many of them. In addition, one should take into account the results of so-called wrong methods, too. If the outcome is nonsense, then it can easily be recognized as such.
Both scientific methodology and tolerance towards unconventional thinkers are needed!
However, there is doubtless a difference between "nonsense" and "speculative interpretation". Now and then, some skeptics dealing with paleo-SETI give me the impression that - despite critical thinking being legitimate - they empty the baby out with the bath when it comes to the final "checking off" of indications. Sure, when there's a column in India said not to get rusty - and soon pre- astronautic arguments are brought forward - and then does get rusty after all... Rust is rust and not an "extraterrestrial alloy"! And there could not have been any Atlantis (i.e. a very advanced civilization comparable to ours) either, or else we would find traces of its infrastructure worldwide - not to mention the untenable theory of a geologically recently sunken continent. Whenever findings, imitations of findings or descriptions thereof appear in old cultures, they seem to come up suddenly as if "dropped from the sky". But where were the manufacturing sites if not on earth?
Therefore: looking back to hundreds if not thousands of indications one must, in most cases, grant the paleo-SETI interpretations to be at least variants of explanations as tenable as those of the established opinion. If not even more tenable, objectively considered! Attention: We have already mentioned that ETI interference were certainly a world-wide phenomenon. And the consequences, too, are of a global nature. If a proof is found - be it on earth, within our solar system, through an actual message from ETIs (á la "We Were Here") - all indications will automatically be upgraded or at least there will arise a need to search through our terrestric history and the surface of our planet anew and to re-evaluate some details. The advice to put away paleo-SETI theories, in general, should be reconsidered carefully.
"Keeping a record" is sometimes better than to "bury". Apart from evaluating already found indications for paleo-SETI, it seems important to me to look for new indications, new crosslinks and perhaps also more insight into completely new fields of proof (we mentioned genetics earlier... maybe findings in physics will open up new prospects). Here, I'd like some of my contemporaries to invest more energy than just turning up and down of existing material! Don't get me wrong: Both the examination and evaluation of known paleo-SETI indications and extracting new material are important. An often neglected aspect is also that "weird theories" that make no sense at first or second sight, may prove inspiring for some people. In the sense of "...not like that, but this gives me another idea..."
There are also arguments for repeating "old paleo-SETI stories" in literature or on the internet. We must not forget - Erich von Däniken experiences this at his lectures - that, for many people (not just of the younger generation), even subjects like Nazca or Palenque are completely unknown. So it is legitimate to give introductions and overviews of the matter, not to mention showing the broadness and globality of these "mysteries of the world". And there may always pop up new aspects of old topics!
Looking for indications with methodical objectivity - yes. But one should also be careful not to throw away too quickly speculative ideas.
This approach is one of the most important intentions of the A.A.S. In the magazine "Legendary Times" (or "Sagenhafte Zeiten") this becomes as clear as on the Internet. Among the members of the A.A.S. one can find university graduates as well as amateurs of all kinds. Both "camps" are taken into account in the publications. Meanwhile, thanks to those works and apart from many publications (see the bibliography on the A.A.S. website) and film documentations, a such great fund of complementary indications has accumulated, that one can now start to complete the "paleo-SETI puzzle" in such a way to make the picture, the message jump to the eye at first sight. To everyone. I think that now the right time has come to start this task - in a much better way that I was able to do it in my "Lexikon der Präastronautik". A kind of analytical documentation would be possible today using modern computer technology. A scientific work indeed. Done by whom? It is the task of the "Erich von Däniken Foundation" to be responsible for the contents of the Mystery Park.
This requires a digital exploitation not only of Erich von Däniken's archive, but of many other sources as well. Using multimedia and contacts to all necessary scientific/interdisciplinary institutions. I'm sure, this project will not only close some gaps of knowledge and lead to astonishing discoveries, but will also give the chance of direct participation to many people, especially those of the young generation. Inspiration is given directly and indirectly at the Mystery Park. Through this dealing with questions of paleo-SETI, experts are being urged to look around at places or conduct experiments that have not been considered before (since that was supposed to be unnecessary). When I think of Gantenbrink's shaft in the Great Pyramid... Instead of all those operations about the "final stone" or the little door at the end of the mini tunnel, it would be much simpler, for example, to take the dried out spider from deep in there and determine its age. Why not?!
The "paleo-SETI network": Searching for proof through connections and meta-information.
I do indeed expect new discoveries and revelations from the tendencies and activities I have described to come up in the future. It was already a "breakthrough" for paleo-SETI to establish itself as a hypothesis - without being called by name. The foundations are there, parts of the mega-puzzle have been put together or are in our hands or at least we know where to look for them. Creativity is demanded! This is rather seldom the case with some people who keep turning around in argumentative circles, mostly from the camp of skeptics, critics or however they call themselves. There are others, but with some of them I have the impression that they only want to show off themselves or live out their antipathies. That's a real pity. I have nothing against discussions, as we keep doing them all the time, but it's more important to look forward, to enter new territory, even with unconventional methods. Looking for ETI traces means decrypting a message.
Paleo-SETI is work, complex work, which is meanwhile done, however, by many with enthousiasm due to the fascination of this subject. A.A.S. stands for archaeology, astronautics and SETI - and at the very intersection of these three fields, there is paleo-SETI. Since 1973, this organization has been giving internationally to everyone the possibility to inform oneself about this new field of research, to take part and contribute ideas. Both together, the organizational experience and capacities of the A.A.S. and the contents as well as the growing fund of indications of paleo-SETI, will cause even more (positive) excitement in the future. Not only the new research technologies - comprising internet and multimedia database technologies - make me optimistic. Most of all we realize a growing willingness of all interested people to "look over the rim of their tea cup" and to risk new perspectives in a non-conforming and interdisciplinary way. There will be exciting years to come!
Ulrich Dopatka
The future: paleo-SETI and A.A.S./A.A.S. RA
(*) This article may be distributed on the internet. However, no parts of it may be quoted out of context. The permission of the author is required for using this article in journals, magazines, books or other media.