Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. These conversations get bogged down in conversations that center around the question of ET.
The ETH, while advocated by some UFO proponents, is the albatross hanging around the neck of legitimate inquiry into the subject.
Both "sides" share responsibility for this; debunkers in fact do like to center the conversation around the issue of whether UFOs constitute evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. This is a pretty handy argument - precisely because the ETH is so easy to shoot down. Why is it easy to shoot down? Because there isn't any evidence that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin.
Now don't start thinking I've become a debunker or anything. But UFO proponents hand this argument to the debunkers over and over again, or at least fall clumsily into the trap over and over again. I think this points to the dangers inherent in becoming wedded to a certain interpretation of UFO sightings. Once you become vested in the argument that UFOs to some degree are connected to extra-terrestrial intelligence, you have lost objectivity and to some degree fail to recognize that you have substituted your belief in your speculation for objective analysis of the evidence.
This bothers me because there is, as I believe Hynek put it, a "signal in the noise" of UFO sightings. This is a subject that demands legitimate, formal study, regardless of what any debunker says. In fact, the incurious, look-away, stick your head in the sand, there's nothing to be gained from the study of UFOs approach is possibly the most uninspiring approach to a topic I've ever seen. This approach tries way too hard to pretend that no aspect of the phenomenon is intriguing or worthy of a second thought. And that's just nonsense clothed in bluster and mock outrage.
There is common ground that both sides will have trouble accepting. This phenomenon is ripe for genuine analysis free from bias or prejudice. Let the facts speak for themselves. We would be left with a phenomenon suggestive of intelligence but ET would be only one among an unknown number of possibilities.
But instead, we argue about propulsion methods, time dilation (I've done this too, so I'm as guilty as anyone) instead of talking about the actual evidence. Actually, those discussions are fine, but shouldn't always be the natural direction of UFO conversation.
For the record, my earlier days of interest also focused on the ETH. Viewing credible case after case of human sightings (with corroboration) of what our perceptions saw as structured objects leads to certain understandable conclusions. Example: It was disk-shaped, and moving at high speed, paralleling our course. At once, it executed a 90 degree course change and passed by directly in front of our cockpit, where the flight crew got a good look at it. Ground radar confirmed the activity described.
Now, I just made that up as an example of some interesting pilot sightings. And regardless of debunker rantings, there are many sightings like that, where even the superior officers of the witnesses made statements that there was little doubt that the witnesses saw what they described. These are not human events that should be dismissed so easily.
So the UFO proponent might review such a case, and think: Well, it wasn't one of ours, since it didn't reasonably appear to represent human technology (particularly in older cases). But it appeared structured and powered, and changed course. Since it was not of human origin, it stands to reason that this may be an extra-terrestrial craft.
This is the exact point at which I am now differing with many UFO proponents. It does not stand to reason. It is speculation based on incomplete facts. Things are not always what they appear to be. Even now, we use technology to make planes less visible, and for how long has camoflage been around? We don't know what we are looking at or why it was perceived in the way that it was. We need to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.
Having said that, we do not need to ignore our lying eyes, or stick our heads back in the sand. There is a certain truth to the assertion that if we see what appears to be directed or intelligence behavior from what also appears to be a non-human source, then the word "alien" is somewhat applicable in the sense that it conveys that what we are witnessing is something foreign to us. But it is a big leap to "aliens", as that word is commonly used here, from other planets.
The ETH, while advocated by some UFO proponents, is the albatross hanging around the neck of legitimate inquiry into the subject.
Both "sides" share responsibility for this; debunkers in fact do like to center the conversation around the issue of whether UFOs constitute evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. This is a pretty handy argument - precisely because the ETH is so easy to shoot down. Why is it easy to shoot down? Because there isn't any evidence that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin.
Now don't start thinking I've become a debunker or anything. But UFO proponents hand this argument to the debunkers over and over again, or at least fall clumsily into the trap over and over again. I think this points to the dangers inherent in becoming wedded to a certain interpretation of UFO sightings. Once you become vested in the argument that UFOs to some degree are connected to extra-terrestrial intelligence, you have lost objectivity and to some degree fail to recognize that you have substituted your belief in your speculation for objective analysis of the evidence.
This bothers me because there is, as I believe Hynek put it, a "signal in the noise" of UFO sightings. This is a subject that demands legitimate, formal study, regardless of what any debunker says. In fact, the incurious, look-away, stick your head in the sand, there's nothing to be gained from the study of UFOs approach is possibly the most uninspiring approach to a topic I've ever seen. This approach tries way too hard to pretend that no aspect of the phenomenon is intriguing or worthy of a second thought. And that's just nonsense clothed in bluster and mock outrage.
There is common ground that both sides will have trouble accepting. This phenomenon is ripe for genuine analysis free from bias or prejudice. Let the facts speak for themselves. We would be left with a phenomenon suggestive of intelligence but ET would be only one among an unknown number of possibilities.
But instead, we argue about propulsion methods, time dilation (I've done this too, so I'm as guilty as anyone) instead of talking about the actual evidence. Actually, those discussions are fine, but shouldn't always be the natural direction of UFO conversation.
For the record, my earlier days of interest also focused on the ETH. Viewing credible case after case of human sightings (with corroboration) of what our perceptions saw as structured objects leads to certain understandable conclusions. Example: It was disk-shaped, and moving at high speed, paralleling our course. At once, it executed a 90 degree course change and passed by directly in front of our cockpit, where the flight crew got a good look at it. Ground radar confirmed the activity described.
Now, I just made that up as an example of some interesting pilot sightings. And regardless of debunker rantings, there are many sightings like that, where even the superior officers of the witnesses made statements that there was little doubt that the witnesses saw what they described. These are not human events that should be dismissed so easily.
So the UFO proponent might review such a case, and think: Well, it wasn't one of ours, since it didn't reasonably appear to represent human technology (particularly in older cases). But it appeared structured and powered, and changed course. Since it was not of human origin, it stands to reason that this may be an extra-terrestrial craft.
This is the exact point at which I am now differing with many UFO proponents. It does not stand to reason. It is speculation based on incomplete facts. Things are not always what they appear to be. Even now, we use technology to make planes less visible, and for how long has camoflage been around? We don't know what we are looking at or why it was perceived in the way that it was. We need to be cautious about jumping to conclusions.
Having said that, we do not need to ignore our lying eyes, or stick our heads back in the sand. There is a certain truth to the assertion that if we see what appears to be directed or intelligence behavior from what also appears to be a non-human source, then the word "alien" is somewhat applicable in the sense that it conveys that what we are witnessing is something foreign to us. But it is a big leap to "aliens", as that word is commonly used here, from other planets.
you just went ape shit for no reason. kinda touchy i think... see here..