To see how to make suggestions for changing this article, and so possibly to help ufology become more effective in accomplishing its goals, see the "TRUTH ENGINE BOOK-DEBATE" section below.
After 70 years with little or no progress, we should reassess ufology's assumptions and methods. Some will object to my premise, saying that ufology has, in fact, recently begun to make progress. But, though it's possible that recent events will turn out to have constituted progress, it seems that we've actually been here before:
Lt. William Patterson, whose F-94 was surrounded by UFOs above Washington National Airport, was the 1952 version of David Fravor; Jesse Marcel, who told the world the truth about Roswell was the 1970s version of David Grusch. The very influential articles about UFOs in the April 7, 1952 issue of Life magazine and in the June 17, 1952 issue of Look magazine were early versions of the NY Times article of December 16, 2017. The congressional activity today is just the modern version of Gerald Ford's UFO hearings of 1966.
So, how should the reassessment of ufological goals, methods and assumptions take place? Rather than to suggest that it be done at a ufological conference, my idea was to create the online article below, which simulates a debate between two fictional ufologists about how ufology might reform itself. This article, actually, will become the medium of the reassessment debate itself, because the reader will be able to suggest changes to this article, and, if suggestions continue to be received, I will periodiaclly incorporate the best of them into the article—in this way, it will be a "living" article. So, you might have an idea for how to make some argument, pro or con, in this article more convincing; or maybe you'd like to add an argument for or against a claim. You can submit your suggestion to me.To submit a suggestion, follow the Game of a Trillion Worlds rules in the "TRUTH ENGINE BOOK-DEBATE" section below.
• GOALS
Before we can gain clarity about methods, we have to be clear about goals.
Ufologist 1. I think that most ufologists and UFO enthusiasts believe that anything that brings ufology further into the mainstream, anything that tends to demarginalize the topic, anything that reduces the giggle factor, is ufological progress.
They look forward to all the knowledge that we would possess if only we could learn what the visitors know about the world, but they realize that so long as the topic is marginalized, so long as the giggle factor exists, there will be little such learning. They know that if only we were to bring ufology into the mainstream, then more people, academics and others, would begin to give the problem more serious attention, and we would be that much closer to the solution of the UFO enigma.
A. Favored beliefs about the visitors' nature.
1. Beliefs about the visitors' attitudes and abilities
• CRITIQUE: Ufologists should consider the following argument:
The "UNDERESTIMATION" argument
Ufologists (by this term I mean both experts and enthusiasts) tend to hold an oddly inconsistent view of the visitors; they tend to view the visitors as being brilliant enough to be able to travel through interstellar space, or through time, or across "dimensions," yet as not being smart enough to get out of their craft and appear, for instance, in somone's bedroom, or to dissemble, or to speak our languages, or to possess knowledge about our ufological activities.
But it's clear that these entities are, in fact, truly intelligent—and therefore knowledgable; they've been here at least since the middle of the last century (and probably much longer) and no doubt know all about us; they probably know us much better than we know ourselves. They surely know who runs MUFON and the State Department and Walmart; they have access to the web and no doubt monitor podcasts, they know our phone numbers, they're aware of MUFON's Star Team ond the Galileo project.
The visitors themselves are partly responsible for ufologists' misconceptions: they, clearly with the intention to deceive, have given the impression of being explorers, recently arrived to our planet, doing scientific research in an unfamiliar world. This impression cannot be accurate—but it's the impression that they want us to have of them, probably so that they can continue, unimpeded, to do things that we do not think that they're capable of doing.
• The "Ethics" controversy.
Ufologists are divided on the question of whther or not the visitors are good-willed. Some, pointing to the way that people are forcefully taken from their beds by the visitors, believe that the visitors are not morally good. Others point to the way that some abductees feel that they are part of some important and good ET project as evidence of the visitors' goodness. What might be the nature of such a project? One possibility might be that the ETs are creating a hybrid race because they know that we instinctually tend not to be friendly with members of other "tribes," and so are creating a kinship with us. Perhaps, then, the ETs see that the good arising from such kinship counter-balances the very bad experience that some abductees have.
There are also philosophical reasons to suppose that any members of a long-existing race will be moral. Philosophers have outlined notions about how the processes of societal evolution, which can be taken to be universal, creates, maintains and strengthens a moral sense, a conscience, in the minds of the members of any society; see, for instance, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, [add reference] pp 21-23. We can expect, these philosophers would say then, that any long-existing civilization would be a moral one, and we may presume that any civilization capable of interstellar travel must be a long-existing one.
2. Beliefs about the visitors' identity
• The "Androids" controversy.
Some ufologists argue: (a)If the distances to the nearest stars are vast and faster-than-light travel is impossible, then robots or androids would, more likely than living beings, be the entities making the interstellar journeys. (b)The distances are, in fact, vast, and faster-than-light travel is impossible. (c) Therefore, the visitors are probably robots or androids. Also, the accelerations observed would kill organic pilots—this is another reason to suppose that the pilots are synthetic.
Critique. I believe (b) may in fact be false, and that faster-than-light travel may well be possible (see the "ET Hyothesis" argument below); but I think that (c) seems false because: if the visitors are actually producing alien-human hybrid people, then the visitors are probably, themselves, living beings and therefore deserving of moral consideration; it is imperative that we make the assumption, pending further information, that the visitors themselves are, in fact, living people, like ourselves; and there is every reason to believe this, since it may well be that their technology has overcome the distance problem—or perhaps it is not the problem we think it is; or perhaps they have been colonizing worlds for so long that they exist everywhere throughout the galaxy. If the entities that have been observed in association with the UFOs turn out to be some sort of robot, then those who made them are the people to whom we must direct our moral sentiments (and their representatives should be given moral respect), whether we come to see ourselves aligned with their goals (as I believe we are) or not (see: They Are Good, below).
• CRITIQUE: Ufologists should consider this possibility: we are being visited by a "group person"
Claim. The visitors might constitute what is called, in the philosophical branch of social ontology, a "group (i.e., collective) person" (as are the humans of earth).
Rebuttal. The notion that there are group persons is a minority view among the social ontologists.
Defense. There are strong arguments in support of group persons.
B. Beliefs about where "they" are from
• The "ET Hypothesis" argument.
Ufologist 1. The ufonauts are probably from other planets—this solution requires the least number of novel elements to be supposed to exist; so, by Ockham's Razor, "Things should not be multiplied without necessity," we should assume that the visitors are ETs.
Ufologist 2. (a)But the distances to other stars are vast, and the chances of any stars relatively nearby supporting advanced life are slim, and travel cannot be faster that the speed of light. (b)If the distances to other stars are vast, etc., then extraterrestrial craft have not been visiting Earth. (c)Therefore, extraterrestrial craft have not been visiting Earth [b,a,c 1]
Ufologist 1. But, against a, it is not clear at all that science has never developed or can never develop a means for traveling faster than the speed of light (using wormholes, etc.). The chances simply seem to be 50-50 that faster-than-light travel is possible.
Also, the ufologist says (see (b)) that "if the distances to other stars are vast, etc., then extraterrestrial craft have not been visiting Earth." But this is unproven. Even supposing that there is no way to travel faster than the speed of light, his point at (b) is still unproven. Eric Jones of Los Alamos Laboratories showed that an expanding sphere of colonized stellar systems could, even using slower-than-light vehicles, fill our entire galaxy within sixty million years. Since the universe is 16 billion years old, even if intelligent life were so rare that colonizations of the Milky Way happened only one at a time, our solar system could still have been colonized 266.7 times.
Actually, the number of times that we could be colonized by the most distant civilizations would be many times more than that, because it is reasonable to suppose that many not-yet colonized races on the most distant worlds would embark on colonization at about the same time, and, in fact, they would do so all during the history of the galaxy.
Furthermore, colonizers from closer stars could find us more quickly, some much more quickly. We can safely suppose that, assuming that intelligent life is fairly common, the number of times that colonizers could reach us from all parts of the galaxy over the galaxy's history is an absolutely enormous number. We have only to presume that some logic dictates to advanced colonizers that they should be secretive in their interactions with the less advanced cultures that they discover, and we will see that some UFOs are probably alien machines.
• The "Other Dimensions" argument.
Ufologist 2. (a)But UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space. For instance, some witnesses have reported seeing UFOs suddenly appearing and disappearing; UFO occupants have been seen passing through solid walls (b)If UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space, then the visitors must be coming here from other dimensions. (c)Therefore, the visitors must be coming here from other dimensions. [b,a,c 1]
Ufologist 1. Against (b), the advanced technology possessed by an extraterrestrial civilization could make UFOs and their occupants seem to be doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in time and space. Aside from the problem of trying to figure out what it means to be in or of a dimension, this claim would seem to violate Ockham's Razor: it unnecessarily assumes the existence of other dimensions and civilizations that exist "within" them.
• The "Mental Constructs" argument.
Ufologist 2. (a)UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space. For instance, some witnesses have reported seeing UFOs suddenly appearing and disappearing; UFO occupants have been seen passing through solid walls; also, there seems to be some sort of causal relation between the unconscious mind and the entities of folklore, such as fairies and tricksters, and many reports of such entities resemble reports of the visitors (b)If UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space, and many reports of entities of folklore resemble reports of the visitors, then the visitors may well be some sort of collective mental construct. (c)Therefore, the visitors may well be some sort of collective mental construct. [b,a,c 1]
Ufologist 1. Against (b), the advanced technology possessed by an extraterrestrial civilization could make UFOs and their occupants seem to be doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in time and space. Aside from the problem of trying to figure out what it means to be a collective mental construct, this claim would seem to violate Ockham's Razor: it unnecessarily assumes the existence of such constructs.
• The "Time Travelers" argument.
Ufologist 2. (a) UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space. For instance, some witnesses have reported seeing UFOs suddenly appearing and disappearing; UFO occupants have been seen passing through solid walls; also, Jim Penniston, USAF (ret), who was a witness to the Rendlesham Forest UFO event in 1980, received a telepathic message, as he was examining a landed UFO, that seemed to imply that the entities associated with the UFO are from our future. (b) If UFOs and their occupants have been seen doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in our time and space, and if any communication from the visitors implies that they are from our future, then the visitors must be time travelers. (c) Therefore, the visitors must be time travelers. [b,a,c 1]
Ufologist 1. Against (b), the advanced technology possessed by an extraterrestrial civilization could make UFOs and their occupants seem to be doing things that seem inconsistent with their existence in time and space. Aside from the problem of trying to figure out how time travel could possibly happen, this claim would seem to violate Ockham's Razor: it unnecessarily assumes the existence of time travel.
• The "Hidden Terrestrial Race" argument.
Ufologist 2. The UFO occupants may be of an unknown race that evolved on earth, under the sea or underground.
Ufologist 1. The way I see it, one minimizes the multiplication of things, and so is in accord with Ockham, by supposing that the UFO people are, by analogy to us, products of evolution on their world(s) in the very same way that we are products of evolution on ours. When I make that supposition, I introduce very few novel ideas into the discussion, there's not much multiplication of things. Similarly, again by analogy, I suppose that they have made scientific advances beyond ours in the same way that we made advances to get where we are now—although I assume novel knowledge exists on their part (so I am necessarily multiplying things), the hypothesized process is a familiar one, so multiplication of things is minimal.
On the other hand, I think that you have to be more creative, more inventive, more of a multiplyer of things to suggest that a hidden race of beings, not human (as seems apparent in close encounter cases), could have evolved on earth, left no fossil remains in the normal fossil beds on the earth's surface—nor did any of their close biological relatives—could have built a civilization that eventually surpassed our own, perhaps doing this partly or largely underground, developed writing, perhaps in the dank caverns, mined their ore underground or from surface mines that have somehow disappeared, and smelted their steel in underground forges, built no lasting roads above ground, built the first aircraft—underground? All without leaving a trace. To my mind, coming up with ways this all could have happened multiplies things greatly and unnecessarily. It will work in fiction, and, I think, it can be made believable—after all, in the novel The Engine, Robert discovers the remains of Atlantis, a civilization whose technology was ahead of ours, and finds himself in an underground city/museum built by aliens—one can ignore Occam's Razor in fiction. But, as an explanation for UFOs, I think the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the better one.
Ufologist 2. But you're supposing that underground life would have invented and built the exact same things that humans did. There's no way they'd need steel for buildings, or need to build roads or train tracks. The aircrafts are seen hovering over water. They are probably just as capable of going under the water. Evolving in a different environment would mean they would need different things. Just look at all the different life forms here on earth. Who's to say that penguins or raccoons will never evolve into intelligent beings.
Parts of the underground earth are constantly being turned into magma. Many things have been destroyed without us ever knowing about them.
Ufologist 1. But aren't you arguing my point? To suppose that there was this subterranean terrestrial race that created a civilization that surpasses our own requires you to hypothesize a whole different kind of cultural/technological evolution. That's certainly multiplying things. Your account could all be true (Ockham said [to paraphrase], "God often does with more what he could have done with less")—the UFOs may indeed be products of an unknown subterranean terrestrial race that evolved very differently than we did, but the Razor says that, as we work to discover the Truth, we should keep choosing the simplest of the alternatives. I still see the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) as being the alternative to choose at present
C. Beliefs about what they are doing here
• The "Explorers" argument.
Claim. They are scientists and researchers:
(a)If witnesses report that the visitors are doing things indicative of scientific-like research, then the visitors are researchers, doing pure sociological, linguistic, biological, or cartographical research; or they are explorers—all to amass knowledge that may become useful at some point. (b)Witnesses, in fact, report visitors doing research-like things; for instance, Budd Hopkins tells of a sighting by George O'Barski, the proprietor of a Manhattan liquor store. From his car, as he drove through a deserted park at night, O'Barsky watched a group of entities disembark from a UFO that was hovering a few feet above the ground. "Each one carried a large spoonlike tool and a little bag with a handle.They dug, spooning the dirt into their bags." The entities that abducted the Hills "removed Betty and Barney's clothes, plucked strands of their hair, took clippings of their nails and scraped their skin," as if they were researchers taking human samples for scientific analysis. (c)Therefore, the visitors are researchers, doing pure sociological, linguistic, biological or cartographical research; or they are explorers.
Rebuttal. But this conclusion is far from proven. It is one of the conclusions that is undercut by the reciprocalogy (they can deceive and they do deceive) arguments. The observations that Ufologist cites are consistent with the notion that the visitors wanted to give the impression that they were scientists, and not much different from human researchers. In fact, it can reasonably be inferred that UFO events, the genuinely strange ones, constitute elements of a theatrical production staged by the alien presence—see Reciprocalogy below).
• The "Collectors" argument.
Claim. They are publishers/broadcasters/operators of zoos, botanical gardens and museums gathering material to satisfy the curiosity of an audience.
Rebuttal. But there is no evidence for that.
• The "Miners" argument.
Claim. They are miners, commercial suppliers of materials. There are cases where the witness reports seeing visitors taking soil samples (see the "Explorers" argument above).
Rebuttal. But this conclusion is far from proven. It is one of the conclusions that is undercut by the reciprocalogy (they can deceive and they do deceive) arguments. The observations that Ufologist cites are, as I said in the "Explorers" argument above, consistent with the notion that the visitors wanted to give the impression that they were scientists, and not much different from human researchers.
• The "Travelers" argument.
Claim. They are operators and users of fueling stations, rest stops or travel destinations, and their activities are connected with this.
Rebuttal. But there is no evidence for that.
• The "Everyday Activities" argument.
Claim. They are residents of, and visitors to, local colonies, and are just living their lives.
Rebuttal. But there is no evidence either for or against that claim.
• The "Monitoring" argument.
Claim. They are monitoring our offensive and/or our defensive capabilities. (a)If witnesses report that the visitors are doing things indicative of showing an interest in our nuclear missile and power sites, then we can suppose that they are monitoring our offensive and/or our defensive capabilities. (b)Witnesses, in fact, report visitors doing things indicative of showing an interest in our nuclear missile and power sites; for instance, on the night of March 24-25 an entire flight of Minuteman ICBM missiles was shut down by a UFO at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; on March 5, 1967, a UFO descended over the missile silos on Minot AFB, North Dakota; in October and November of 1974, there were UFO incursions into Cheyanne Mt., near Colorado Springs, Loring AFB, in northern Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan and Malmstrom AFB, Montana. (c)Therefore, the visitors are monitoring our offensive and/or our defensive capabilities.
Rebuttal.The visitors might not be monitoring our nuclear capabilities. There appear to have been two important clusters of these incursions: one centered around 1967 and the other in late 1975. It is interesting to note that The Freedom of Information Act was enacted on July 4, 1966, and became effective on July 4, 1967, the official government UFO investigation was conducted by the Condon Committee from 1966 to 1968, and the Privacy Act of 1974 featuring FOIA-strengthening amendments was signed into law by President Gerald R. Ford on December 31, 1974—all events that could bring about official UFO disclosure. Could it be that the incursions were threats? Perhaps the visitors were saying to the government, "Continue the cover-up or we will launch your missiles or turn them off and launch Russia's missiles." (I suggest that the government cover-up is enforced by the visitors on pain of severe punishment—see the "Press for government disclosure" argument below)
Defense. An interesting idea, but there were other incursions that do not seem to correspond to the Condon investigation or FOIA events: Malmstrom, 1992, 1995 and 1996; F. E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, August 1, 1965, 1973-4 and 1980-81; Walker AFB, New Mexico [= Roswell], 1963-65; and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, 1966, 1992.
It might be argued that the visitors are benevolently motivated, focusing on how we can be helped, or helped to do something important, for instance:
• The "Warning" argument.
Claim. Their goal is to warn us that we are in danger of self-destruction from our nuclear weapons. (a)If witnesses report that the visitors are doing things indicative of warning us about our nuclear missile and power sites, then we can suppose that they are monitoring our offensive and/or our defensive capabilities.
(b)Witnesses, in fact, report visitors doing things indicative of warning us about our nuclear missile and power sites,; for instance, on the night of March 24-25 an entire flight of Minuteman ICBM missiles was shut down by a UFO at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; on March 5, 1967, a UFO descended over the missile silos on Minot AFB, North Dakota; in October and November of 1974, there were UFO incursions into Cheyanne Mt., near Colorado Springs, Loring AFB, in northern Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan and Malmstrom AFB, Montana. (c)Therefore, the visitors are warning us about our use of nuclear missile and power sites.
Rebuttal. The visitors might not be warning us about nuclear self-destruction. There appear to have been two important clusters of these incursions: one centered around 1967 and the other in late 1975. It is interesting to note that The Freedom of Information Act was enacted on July 4, 1966, and became effective on July 4, 1967, the official government investigation was conducted by the Condon Committee from 1966 to 1968, and the Privacy Act of 1974 featuring FOIA-strengthening amendments was signed into law by President Gerald R. Ford on December 31, 1974-all events that could bring about official UFO disclosure. Could it be that the incursions were threats? Perhaps the visitors were saying to the government, "Continue the cover-up or we will launch your missiles or turn them off and launch Russia's missiles." (I suggest that the government cover-up is enforced by the visitors on pain of severe punishment—see "Press for government disclosure" argument below)
Defense. An interesting idea, but there were other incursions that do not seem to correspond to the Condon investigation of FOIA events: Malmstrom, 1992, 1995 and 1996; F. E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, August 1, 1965, 1973-4 and 1980-81; Walker AFB, New Mexico [= Roswell], 1963-65; and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, 1966, 1992.
• The "Climate Warning" argument.
Claim. It might be argued that their goal is to warn us about self-destructive practices that create climate change. (a)If witnesses report that the visitors are communicating that we need to be aware of the perils of ecological irresponsibility, then we can assume that the visitors are interested in helping us to avoid the dangers of climate change. (b)In fact, abductees have reported being shown representations of ecological disaster; and, the children who encountered visitors during the Ariel Elementary School incident reported having had received telepathic pro-ecology messages. (c)Therefore, we can assume that the visitors are interested in helping us to avoid the danger of ecological destruction.
Rebuttal. There is no reason to take the visitors' words to experiencers at face value.
• CRITIQUE: Ufologists should consider: The "Birth of Helios" argument.
Claim. [See "Panopy" on this website]
A. Ufology has generally adopted the presumptions and methods of the natural sciences.
For instance, the MUFON mission statement is, "The scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity."
• Ufologists' Surveillance projects
Ufologist. Deploying electronic and photographic surveillance (which is in progress) is a good method of gathering data on UFOs that can increase ufology's credibility and bring ufology more into the mainstream.
Critique. This is a technique used in the natural sciences—such surveillance is useful in the study of meteors and polar bears, but it is not clear that this is the discipline that ufology should adopt in its study of that which knows it's being studied. See the "RECIPROCALOGY" argument below.
• UFO Reports
Ufologist. We must continue to gather UFO witness reports and carefully analyse them, discerning which reports resist conventional explanation.
• Databases and Document Centers
Ufologist. We must support and improve our databases and document centers. A world class documents center (which is being done).would increase the ability of ufologists to put together the pieces of the UFO puzzle and thus bring ufology more into the mainstream.
• Imaginative Projects
Ufologist. We must support and improve creative investigation techniques, such as MUFON's deploying of its Star Team, which will allow for the collection of better data, and this will increase ufology's credibility and bring ufology more into the mainstream.
Critique. This is a technique used in the natural sciences, but it is not clear that this is the discipline that ufology should adopt. See the "RECIPROCALOGY" argument below.
• Public Education Outreach
Ufologist. We must support and improve our efforts to educate the public about UFOs, via websites, podcasts, books and outreach to schools, etc.; this will help to bring ufology into the mainstream.
Critique. This can certainly help, but to a significant degree, many of these efforts amount to preaching to the choir.
• CRITIQUE: Ufologists should consider organizing public debates
Ufology has not yet used this sort of public education, but it is potentially the most powerful sort. Ufology needs to consider the following analogy: The purpose of a police report is to prepare the prosecutor to debate the defense attorney in front of a jury. Ufologists almost never debate the skeptics in public. So what is the purpose of a UFO report? My point is that, the way to demarginalize ufology, to get rid of the giggle factor, to mainstream ufology, is to organize numerous public debates, debate tournaments, between ufologists and skeptics—there should be an organization, a complement to MUFON to perform this "prosecutorial" function—and the Truth Engine method (see the "TRUTH ENGINE BOOK-DEBATE" section below) should be used in these debates. Ufologists, however, are not keen to argue their case; even though the arguments are all on their side.
Ufologist. There have been some debates; it's not clear that they produced any progress.
Reply. How can debates not be productive? The Framers of the Constitution knew the power of debate: that is why free speech was the subject of the First Amendment; would you exclude arguments in court? Also, The Truth Engine offers an improved method of debate.
Also, The Truth Engine offers an improved method of debate. We have cast the process as the Game of a Trillion Worlds. See the "Panoply" page on this website.
• CRITIQUE: Create media conducive to brainstorming
We should create more media conducive to the airing and evaluation of ideas on the nature of the phenomenon; that is, conducive to ufological brainstorming—platforms where new ideas can be presented and evaluated.
B. Other methods.
• Press for government disclosure
Ufologist. We should work to force government disclosure. We ufologists already know the truth of UFO existence (i.e., that some UFOs are otherworldly devices), but we should get the government to validate our beliefs; that is, as a means of de-marginalizing ufology.
We should work for government disclosure, also, in order that the world can benefit from the general knowledge that the government presumably has acquired from the visitors.
Critique.Government disclosure would certainly demarginalize ufology, but it will benefit us in terms of general knowledge only if what the government believes it has learned from the visitors is true—but I suspect that much of the "knowledge" that has been passed to the government by the visitors is false. (For instance, the machines acquired from alleged UFO crashes may be mock-ups.)
Also, ufologists should come to terms with the undeniably very distinct possibility that the visitors want to make their presence known to us in their own way and are enforcing our government's cover-up on pain of some punishment. If that is, in fact, the case, then trying to force the government to disclose would be an ill-conceived strategy!
Ufologist. That's pure speculation.
Critique.When I use the term "distinct possibility," I'm, of course, acknowledging that it's speculation; but it's not pure speculation: there is evidence that such threats have actually been made. See the "Monitoring" argument above.
There's simply nothing improbable about this possibility—the visitors are surely capable of making such threats (see the "UNDERESTIMATION" critique above)—and it should be acknowledged as a real possible explanation for the government's refusal to disclose.
We should address the cover-up when we have good leads (such as the Roswell testimony, the Ramsey memo photograph, etc.), but looking excessively or exclusively to government as a solution to the UFO enigma should not be allowed to distract us from study of the phenomenon itself—because, I think, it is such study that will yield answers.
Making the government the be-all and end-all of ufological study is a recipe for a lack of progress.
• CRITIQUE: The "RECIPROCALOGY" method instead of the methods of the natural sciences. What kind of discipline should ufologists adopt?
Ufologist. The mission statement of MUFON, the largest civilian UFO membership organization, is "The scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity." As those who adopted this statement understood, ufology should most diligently seek to use the methods of the natural sciences in its attempts to determine what is witnessed in UFO sightings. Although eyewitness testimony can be the spark that starts an investigation, ufology, to make sure that the investigation remains respectable, should assiduously seek the sorts of hard, physical evidence to which the natural sciences give weight: in ufology, this evidence would include data from radar and other monitoring devices, good photographs, materials collected at alleged landing sites, etc.
So, We should keep investigating as we are doing, using the approach of the natural sciences, until we find the kind of evidence that scientists and academics will accept as definitive
Critique. First of all, it is doubtful that the visitors will ever allow us to collect such evidence.
Second, the method of the natural sciences is good for studying meteors and polar bears, but the study of entities who know that they're being studied requires a different method, one in line with with the methods of Holmes and Columbo, who knew that "evidence" can be planted: I call such a method "reciprocalogy." Ufology must be different from the natural sciences in that it must become a reciprocalogical discipline. Reciprocalogy refers to the study of that which knows that it is being studied, that which is capable of deception and the planting of evidence, and, unlike meteors (as in the physical sciences) and polar bears (as in the life sciences), the subject of ufological study is something that knows that it is being studied. Sherlock Holmes and Columbo, always taking care to spot planted evidence, were reciprocalogists.
So, applying the methods of reciprocalogy to the study of UFOs, we note that certain details of reported sightings should not necessarily be taken at face value. For instance, details which seem to point to the goals of the visitors should be looked at with skepticism. Ufologists must realize that the visitors may mislead us with respect to their goals on earth: visitors who are seen taking soil samples or who are reported taking skin samples from abductees, for example, might well be intentionally presenting a fiction in order to leave the impression that they are scientists exploring our world, detached, curious and recent arrivals. But their goals may be very different.
The visitors may also mislead us with respect to their knowledge of the earth and our civilization: The visitors may falsely present themselves as lacking knowledge about us; again, they may be seen taking soil samples, giving us the impression that they are newly arrived at a world about which they know little. And there are reports of visitors returning abductees to the wrong bed, or with their pajamas put back on backward, etc. But, these apparent errors may be intentional bits of theatrical deceit. In fact, the visitors may well know more about us and about our planet than we ourselves know. In fact, it stands to reason that a brilliant people, living in some sense alongside of us, must know at least as much as we know: they surely understand our languages, keep track of our news, monitor our podcasts, listen to our music (and maybe even enjoy it)—they know our names and phone numbers, etc. And it would be strange if they were not interested in and aware of the activities of our UFO investigators. Those who advocate setting up instruments to capture UFOs in action, or advocate the formation of rapid-response teams, ready to collect fresh evidence or to catch a saucer or triangle unawares, and who announce their plans on the Internet, should factor in the possibility (or, I would argue, probability) that the visitors are listening and will respond by giving the investigators only the "evidence" that they want them to have.
The visitors may also mislead us with respect to their technology and the state of their knowledge in general: they are seen by abductees to be using medical tools much like ours when they examine their abductees, yet their methods are no doubt far more sophisticated. We hope that we have gotten insight into how their ships work when we discover residual radiation at a landing site, or when our cameras pick up haze around a tic tac in flight. But scientific investigation may not be the appropriate means of discovery here: UFO events may be staged productions, with details intentionally chosen in order to engender specific impressions.
Ufologist. But let's say that the visitors, like Holme's and Columbo's quarry, leave planted evidence. Surely the visitors are vastly cleverer than those whom the detectives are after; how can we ever hope to discern the truth?
Critique. We probably can simply make the assumption that they know a great deal about us and our civilization, and that their technology (or some sort of metatechnology) is far advanced beyond ours, though there may be no way to deduce the details of this technology, including the secrets of how their craft work. (This may be true even if we possess "crashed" saucers, because these "crashes" may have been staged.) But reciprocalogy offers a way that we may be able to discern their goals. We do this by assuming that their goals match their accomplishments, and then we ask: what have they accomplished?
Ufologist. We won't be convinced to change our approach unless you show, not only that the visitors can deceive, but that they do deceive.
Critique. That there may be visitor deception is obviously true and needn't be proved, and therefore the possibility of staging should be taken seriously by ufologists as a general proposition. But I agree that the point will have a much greater impact on ufology if it can be shown definitively that the visitors do, in fact, deceive. Possibly the best proof of visitor deception is found in the Roswell case of July, 1947, where it can be shown almost without doubt that the UFO "crash" was staged by the visitors. The proof is demonstrated in this simulated argument between a skeptic and a dialectician:
Skeptic. You claim that "an alien spacecraft crashed and left the debris on the Foster Ranch." The following is an argument against that claim:
Dr. Albert Crary, in his log for June 4, 1947, describes the launch, not far from where the alleged "crash" was discovered, of a "Mogul" cluster of balloons (Mogul was a project designed to check on Russian nuclear testing). This cluster was never recovered. There are good reasons for thinking both that it did and that it did not carry ML-307 radar reflectors. If it did carry such reflectors, however, then they may well have had tape with purple floral designs attached to them. Furthermore, this flight may well have been heading toward the Foster ranch when it disappeared.
If the train of such a balloon cluster had landed on the ranch where the Roswell debris was actually found, then its remains would consist of short balsa-wood beams, quite possibly (as Crary claimed) with tape with purple floral designs on it, attached to the beams, metal foil, paper (backing on the foil), nylon twine, and possibly a box for ballast or plastic parts of such a box. But this matches exactly the gross properties of the Foster ranch debris. The actual Roswell debris, as everyone agrees, consisted of light balsa-like beams with purple designs on them, metal foil, a paper- or parchment-like material, tough string, a small box, and a bakelite-type material. (a)If the Roswell debris was from a crashed alien spacecraft, then this amazing Mogul match was coincidental. (b)But the chances are infinitesimally tiny that a crashed exotic craft would just happen to leave wreckage that so closely and coincidentally matched, even in gross appearance, what may well have been the parts of a balloon train attached to a balloon that may well have disappeared in the same area at roughly the same time. It's ridiculous to believe that such a fantastically incredible coincidence occurred. (c)So, no alien craft crashed near Roswell in 1947. [a,b,c 4]
Furthermore, (d)if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed. And so, (e)the materials were not exotic.[d,c,e 4]1
Believer. In fact, I agree with the skeptic's conclusion (c), that "no alien craft crashed near Roswell in 1947."But Skeptic's claim (d), "if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed," is not proven, so (e) is not necessarily true, even if there was no crash, the materials might have been otherworldly--for instance, if the debris was left by aliens to simulate a crash. The skeptic, however, might respond:
Skeptic. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the crash was staged by aliens. But the chance of that, the chance of the debris being otherworldly, is so miniscule as to be not worth considering; "alien staging" is ruled out by Ockham's Razor.
Believer. Ockham's Razor states that the more complex explanation is to be rejected unless it's necessary to accept it. The fact that the reports by good witnesses attest to the materials' otherworldliness makes it necessary to choose the more complex explanation, namely, the explanation that says that the "crash" was staged.
In other words, you proved that there couldn't have been a crash, yet the witness reports prove that the debris was other-worldly. The only way to solve this Roswell Dilemma is to conclude that the "crash" was staged by otherworldly beings.
Skeptic. To make plausible your notion that the "crash" was staged, you have to show why the otherworldly beings might want to stage such an incident.
Believer. In fact, the conclusion that it was staged seems inescapable. But we might speculate on the motivation of the otherworldly entities. We might do this by looking at the result of the staging, assuming that the goal of the other-worldly beings and the actual result are the same. What, then, was the result of the alleged crash at Roswell? The result was a government cover-up of the entire other-worldly visitation phenomenon. We can possibly discern the entities' plan, then: "We wish to reveal our presence to the people of earth in our own way. To prevent the government of this land from disclosing our presence in some other way, we will bestow upon them an artifact that they will take to be a crashed ship, something that they would so zealously guard, that they would institute a program to cover up the entire phenomenon." Yet the debris clearly did resemble parts of the missing Mogul balloon train. It can only be that the "crash" was designed to have three different effects: first, the debris forestalled any government disclosure; second, the Mogul match allowed the scientific and academic ranks to ignore the phenomenon; third, the incident spoke to those who could identify and solve the dilemma, showing these critical thinkers more about the other-worldly beings than even those in the government were aware of. The next question, then, is, among the non-governmental people, why are the critical thinkers singled out to receive this knowledge? I'll leave this as an open question.
(Critique.) Also, I believe that it is a mistake to give such preference to the methods of the natural sciences in the study of UFOs. Scientific method is, after all, only one kind of rational inquiry; philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, historians, detectives, and people in ordinary life are not natural scientists, yet they form true beliefs in a rational way, and, in my opinion, it is rational inquiry, in its broadest sense, that is the proper means for solving the UFO enigma. The temptation to accept only physical evidence of UFO visitation, discounting rational induction based upon other facts, such as witness testimony, is scientistic and should be resisted (I use "scientistic" in the sense of having an exaggerated adherence to the principles and methods of science. The scientistic skeptics, in a pinch, will sometimes go so far as to deny the value of induction itself!)
Consider the "Phoenix Lights" case: many witnesses reported seeing an enormous V-shaped UFO passing just overhead. It is instructive to realize that science has little if anything to contribute to an investigation of such observations. The scientistic mind concludes that because we have no physical evidence to support these observations, they can be discounted—but the more broadly rational mind is mystified and highly intrigued.
Many ufologists never witnessed an undeniably exotic UFO; they believe because of the testimony of other witnesses. But they agree that witness testimony is not enough to convince a rational mind? Are they not rational? They should have confidence in themselves and assert that witness testimony can be great evidence.
It can be proven definitively that witness testimony can justifiably be taken as solid evidence by the rational mind. Consider this valid argument:
Dave told me that a dog chased a cat across his lawn today.
Dave never, in all the years I've known him, lied to me; not once.
Therefore, a dog chased a cat across Dave's lawn today.
Clearly, witness testimony can be reasonably taken to be evidence; it is wrong to rule it out wholesale.
Roughly speaking, the factors that determine the evidential value of any eyewitness account seem to be these:
1. The character of the witness.
2. The susceptibility of what's reported to multiple interpretations.
3. Corroboration: the existence of other witnesses to the same thing.
Many examples of witness testimony in UFO cases have satisfied these criteria
.END
—Richard Crist, PhD (in philosophy); February 25, 2024
The Algorithm for: How to play the canonical, book-debate Game of a Trillion Worlds
BOOK-DEBATE
(the players are book readers who make suggestions)
How to submit a suggestion
You can suggest to improve an argument, to rebut an argument or to create a new argument.
(There are three ways to play the Game of a Trillion Worlds, the canonical version, the card/tile version and the board game version. Here, we will be playing the canonical version.)
1. To create a formal argument:
If p then q
p if and only if q
If p, and if q, then r
If q then r
If p then r
p or q
p
q
r
not-p
not-q
not-r
Using one of the following forms as a model, place the appropriate panels in order on a piece of paper. For instance, if you are using Form 1 as a model, you will place the "If p then q" panel on the paper. Under it, you will place the "p" panel, and under that, you will place the "q" panel. Write on the paper, to the left of each panel, a letter name.
Now assign one claim each to p, to q and, if relevant, to r so that the premises (see below) prove, as you see it, the conclusion.
For illustration purposes, I'm using (a), (b) and (c) here. But the parts of your argument might just as well turn out to be (e), (f) and (g), or some other three or four letters:
The letter-named parts above the line are called "premises," and the part below the line is called the "conclusion."
Form 1. Modus Ponens [MP]
(a) If p then q
(b) p
_______
(c) q
Here is an example of an argument that has Modus Ponens form (with color added to show the logical form): (a) If Col. Garrett had had no need to know about the Roswell debris, then Col. McCoy, even if he had known about the recovery of exotic debris near Roswell, would not have mentioned such debris in the letter he sent in response to Garrett's inquiry. (b) There was, in fact, no need for Garrett to know about any crashed UFO to do his job. (c) So, it is distinctly possible that McCoy knew about the Roswell materials, yet would nevertheless have sent the letter that implied that no such evidence existed. [ab1]
Form 2. Biconditional Modus Ponens [BMP]
(a) p if and only if q
(b) p
____________
(c) q
Form 3. Conjunctive Modus Ponens [CMP]
(a) If p, and if q, then r
(b) p
(c) q
_______________
(d) r
Here is an example of an argument that has Conjunctive Modus Ponens form:
(a) If the witnesses are respected individuals, and if the properties of the recovered materials as described by these witnesses indicate that the materials were exotic ("nothing made on this earth," to use Maj. Marcel's expression [B&M p 28]), then the materials were, in fact, exotic. (b) In fact, the witnesses in this case are respectable. Many, Jesse Marcel, Jr., Bill Brazel, Frankie Rowe, Phyllis McGuire, and Walt Whitmore, Jr., are the sons and daughters of those most intimately involved: Some have or had held positions of substantial responsibility. [see 170] (c) The descriptions, by the witnesses, of the recovered materials express clearly that the materials were exotic. (d) Therefore, the materials were, in fact, exotic and "nothing made on this earth." [see 8, 63, 71, 188, 305] [abc3]In this example, in essence, p = "The witnesses are respected individuals," q = "The properties of the recovered materials as described by these witnesses indicate that they were exotic," and r = "The materials were exotic."
Form 4. Modus Tollens [MT]
(a) If p then q
(b) not q
____
(c) not p
Here is an example of an argument that has Modus Tollens form:
(a) McCoy did not know of any such materials. But, (b) if alien materials had been recovered, then McCoy would've known about them. So, we can be sure that (c) no alien materials had been recovered in New Mexico in 1947. [ba4]In this example, p = "Alien materials had been recovered," and q = McCoy knew [ = would've known] about the materials." The argument appears in the text with premises reversed, i.e., as
(a) not q
(b) If p then q
(c) not p
but the form remains Modus Tollens.
Form 5. Complex Modus Tollens [CMT]
(a) If p and if q, then r
(b) q
(c) not r
___________
(d) not p
Example of an argument that has Complex Modus Tollens form:
(a) If these men knew about such materials, and if they believed it to be more of a social scientific issue than an issue of national security, then they would've told Jeffrey about the materials. (b) In fact, they must've realized that it was more of a social or scientific issue than one of national security, (c) and, in fact, they did not tell Jeffrey about the recovery of any exotic materials. (d) Therefore, they probably did not know about any such materials.*
In this example, p, = "These men knew about such materials," q = "They believed it to be more of a social scientific issue than an issue of national security", and r = "They would've told Jeffrey about the materials."
Form 6. Hypothetical Syllogism [HS]
(a) If p then q
(b) If q then r
(c) If p
Example of an argument that has Hypothetical Syllogism form:
(a) If alien materials had been recovered from a crashed saucer in 1947, then they would have been taken to Wright-Patterson, and (b) if any such alien debris had been taken to Wright-Patterson, then Colonel McCoy, as Chief of Intelligence of AMC would have known about it. All of this means that (c) if alien materials had been recovered, then McCoy would've known about it. [ab6]
Form 7. Disjunctive Syllogism [DS]
(a) p or q
(b) not-p
(c) q
Form 8. (one kind of ) Categorical Syllogism [CS]--A, B, and C each stands for a term, not a statement
(a) All A are B
(b) All B are C/
(c) All A are C
Example of an argument that has Categorical Syllogism form:
(a) Any flying saucer would be an unimaginably sophisticated flying machine.
(b) Any unimaginably sophisticated flying machine would never crash [i.e. would never be a thing that crashes]
(c) Therefore, a flying saucer would not crash.
To use any version of the eighth Form, the player simple declares the Form and identifies A, B and C.
The debater can supplement his basic argument with supporting evidence.
So once the player decides to deploy a formal argument, either an original argument or one from the topic's companion article, he decides which one of the first seven "Forms" he will employ in his argument and chooses, in order, the appropriate set of panels and attaches a proposition to p, q and, if relevant, r.
2.To strengthen or refute an argument:
send an email to contact@truthenginedebate.com with this content:
3. If you want to add your own claim, support of a claim, or refutation to a claim: send an email to contact@truthenginedebate.com with this content: