THE TRUTH ENGINE UFO CANONICAL DIALECTIC

PART FIVE: REASSESSMENT

Version 1.0

August 2026

Preface

The Truth Engine UFO Canonical Dialectic presents the strongest arguments presently available concerning the principal questions of the UFO topic. Rather than advancing a single thesis in essay form, it is organized as a structured dialectic among representative participants holding differing viewpoints. Its purpose is not merely to defend conclusions but to clarify issues, strengthen arguments, identify weaknesses, and promote continual dialectical development.

Unlike a conventional publication, the Canonical Dialectic is intended to be a living document. As stronger objections, improved replies, new evidence, clearer formulations, and better organizational structures emerge, the Canonical Dialectic should be revised accordingly. Readers are therefore invited to submit suggestions for improving the work, including corrections of factual or logical errors, proposals for new arguments, stronger objections, improved replies, clearer organization, and any other changes that would strengthen the dialectic.

Because this is the founding edition of the Canonical Dialectic, many of the objections and replies necessarily reflect the present editor's own understanding of the subject. One of the principal purposes of the Truth Engine is to replace hypothetical objections with stronger objections proposed by actual participants and thereby to produce progressively stronger future editions. The aim is not to preserve the opinions of any particular author but to produce the strongest, fairest, and most comprehensive dialectical treatment of the subject that can be achieved.

Part I. Ufological Goals, Methods and Assumptions

Version 1.0

TOPIC: REASSESSING UFOLOGICAL GOALS, METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

SUBTOPIC ONE: UFOLOGICAL GOALS

WHAT DO UFOLOGISTS WANT IN THE SHORT TERM? WHAT REALISTIC SHORT-TERM ACHIEVEMENT WOULD UFOLOGISTS LIKELY CALL PROGRESS? THAT IS, WHAT ARE UFOLOGY'S IMMEDIATE GOAL(S)?

Ufologist. In general, ufologists want to de-marginalize ufology, to bring it into the mainstream, to get rid of the giggle factor, while trying to make sure that their beliefs as outlined in Subtopic two are true.

In my view, after 80 years of little to no progress, it is time for us to reassess ufology's assumptions and methods. Although some will claim that ufology is finally working it’s way into the mainstream, it seems to me that we may have 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.

— The releases of the uncompelling text and video files is far less revelatory than Blue Book’s public files.

The past events did not result in real progress. The implication is that today’s events may not either, and that a reassessment is in order..

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 is to create an online article which simulates a debate between two fictional ufologists about how ufology might reform itself. The reader would be able to suggest changes to this article, and the best suggestions could periodically be incorporated into the article—in this way, the living article, would become the medium of the reassessment debate itself.

In what follows, I may use the term 'UFO prponent' to denote anyone with a sustained interest in the UFO phenomenon, including both ufologists and UFO enthusiasts.

To gain clarity about methods, we have to be clear about goals.

Ufologist 1. Most UFO people 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 believe that so long as the topic is marginalized, so long as the giggle factor exists, there will be little such learning. They feel that if only we were to bring ufology into the mainstream, then more people, academics and others, would begin to give the problem the attention it diserves, and we would be that much closer to the solution of the UFO enigma.

Ufologist 2. [no counter argument yet]

SUBTOPIC TWO: UFO PROPONENTS’

BELIEFS ABOUT THE VISITORS

I. Beliefs about the visitors' ATTITUDES AND ABILITIES—INCLUDING THEIR TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENTS.

• The "Three Attributes” argument.

Critic. This is my view of the visitors’ attitudes and abilities—it does not appear to reflect the views of the majority of ufologists. As can be shown by the objections to the use of certain ufological methods (see below), many UFO proponents tend to hold an inconsistent view of the visitors. Though they proclaim the visitors’ ability to travel through interstellar space, or through time, or across "dimensions," they do not, for some reason, seem to appreciate their probable capabilities. In order to be able to devise good methods, ufologists should keep the following in mind:

A. Mental Ability

The visitors surely have the mental capacity to deceive (and, of course, may well have the will—and reasons—to deceive.)

B. Knowledge

1. Knowledge of the World, including their technological achievements.

They probably know how to make our sensors read whatever they want them to read. The Tehran case of 1976, and Malmstrom, 1967 show that they can manipulate electronic devices from a distance.

2. Knowledge of Us

There’s every reason to believe that they know as much about us as we know about ourselves. The visitors, a brilliant people, living in some sense alongside of us, surely understand our languages and know how to speak to individual human beings. They probably know who runs MUFON and the State Department and Walmart; they surely know how to access YouTube and social media and they no doubt monitor our podcasts. They probably know our phone numbers. And it would be strange if they were not interested in and aware of MUFON’s Star Team and the Galileo Project.

C. Individual Physical Abilities

Like any creature with legs, a visitor can surely go places—they can get out of their craft, go to someone’s bedroom at night or to a meeting room in the Pentagon, etc.

Re A above:

Ufologist. This is speculation. Where is the evidence that they actually do dissemble?

Critic. 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 to be found in the Roswell case in the summer of 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 detect 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]

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 otherworldly. 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 otherworldly beings and the actual result are the same (see the “Reciprocality” Argument) . What, then, was the result of the alleged crash at Roswell? The result was a government cover-up of the entire otherworldly 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 otherworldly 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.

_______________________________________________ ________________

• The "Ethics" controversy.

Ufologists are divided on the question of whether 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 abductions? One possibility is that the ETs are creating a hybrid race because they recognize our instinctive tendency to identify with members of our own "tribe" while regarding outsiders with suspicion. By creating a genuine kinship between themselves and humanity, they may hope to overcome that barrier. If so, they may judge that the good arising from such kinship ultimately outweighs the suffering experienced by some abductees. There are also philosophical reasons to suppose that the members of any long-existing society will tend to develop a robust moral sense. Philosophers have argued that the processes of social life itself cultivate, reinforce, and internalize conscience in the minds of individuals. See, for example, John Stuart Mill: "Not only does all strengthening of social ties, and all healthy growth of society, give to each individual a stronger personal interest in practically consulting the welfare of others; it also leads him to identify his feelings more and more with their good. [...] The good of others becomes to him a thing naturally and necessarily to be attended to, like any of the physical conditions of our existence."—Utilitarianism, Chapter III, "Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility." 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.

II. Beliefs about the visitors' IDENTITY

• Biological Entities.

They are biological beings like us.

• The "Androids" controversy.

Some ufologists argue: assuming that the visitors come from other regions of space, (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 Hypothesis" 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. There is every reason to believe this, since it may well be that their technology has overcome the distance problem; 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 do 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.

III. 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 than 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 can never develop or has never developed, elsewhere, 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, Ufologist 2 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.

Dialectician 1. (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 (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]

Dialectician 2. Against (b), the advanced technology possessed by an extraterrestrial civilization could make UFOs and their occupants seem to be doing things that are 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. (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]

Critic. Against (b), the advanced technology possessed by an extraterrestrial civilization could make UFOs and their occupants seem to be doing things that are 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 are 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 "Silurian" argument.

Dialectician 1. The UFO occupants may be of an unknown race that evolved on earth, under the sea or underground.

Dialectician 2. 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 is 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 extremely creative, inventive, a multiplier of things, to suggest that a hidden race of beings, not human (as seems apparent in close encounter cases), could have evolved on earth and left no fossil remains in the normal fossil beds on the earth's surface—nor did any of their close biological relatives—and 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 in which 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.

Dialectician 1. 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.

Dialectician 2. 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

IV. Beliefs about WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE

• The "Explorers" argument.

Ufologist. 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 of our world. (b) Witnesses, in fact, report visitors doing research-like things; for instance, Budd Hopkins, in Missing Time, recounts 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 come out of 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.

Dialectician. But this conclusion is far from proven. It is one of the conclusions that is undercut by The "Three Attributes” argument: A, and B2 (they can deceive, they do deceive, and they already know all about us). 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.

• The "Collectors" argument.

Ufologist. They are operators of zoos, botanical gardens and museums gathering material to satisfy the curiosity of an audience.

Dialectician. But there is no evidence for that.

• The "Miners" argument.

Ufologist 1. They are miners, commercial suppliers of materials. There are cases where the witness reports seeing visitors taking soil samples (see the "Explorers" argument above).

Ufologist 2. But this conclusion is far from proven. It is one of the conclusions that is undercut by The "Three Attributes” argument: A (they can deceive and they do deceive). The observations that Ufologist 1 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.

Ufologist. They are operators and users of fueling stations, rest stops or travel destinations, and their activities are connected with this.

Dialectician. But there is no evidence for that.

• The "Everyday Activities" argument.

Dialectician 1. They are residents of, and visitors to, local colonies, and are just living their lives.

Dialectician 2. But there is no evidence either for or against that claim.

• The "Nuclear Disturbances" argument.

Ufologist. (a) If witnesses report that the visitors are doing things indicative of their having an interest in our nuclear missile and power sites, then we can suppose that they are concerned that our nuclear weapons could cause very serious disturbances in the universe beyond earth. (b) Witnesses, in fact, report visitors doing things indicative of having 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 concerned that our nuclear weapons could cause very serious disturbances in the universe beyond earth.

Dialectician. The visitors might not be showing an interest in our nuclear capabilities for that reason. 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? It seems doubtful that the visitors themselves would have feared humanity's nuclear technology. If they possessed the capabilities attributed to them, they would presumably have little reason to do so. What matters is that they understood humanity's deepest strategic anxieties. A carefully staged performance involving strategic nuclear systems would therefore possess exceptional coercive force, not because those systems threatened the visitors, but because the visitors knew that the systems embodied humanity's deepest strategic anxieties. Were the visitors saying to the government, "Continue the cover-up or we will punish you"... (for instance: “we will launch your missiles or turn them off and launch Russia's missiles.")?

Ufologist. 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. Also, they’d have to talk to officials; it’s hard to believe that they actually talk to gov’t officials, and that they lie to them.

Dialectician. See The "Three Attributes” argument: I B1 and B2. And see <a href="../journal/Testing_the_ET_Coercion_Hypothesis.html">

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a>.

<!-- or, if it eventually becomes the index.html of its own folder:

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a> -->

Ufologist. That’s a good paper, but it doesn’t address later nuclear-site incursions, for instance: Malmstrom, 1992, 1995 and 1996 and Warren AFB, Wyoming, 1980-81

• The "Self-Destruction Warning" argument.

Ufologist. (a) If witnesses report that the visitors are doing things indicative of their monitoring our nuclear offensive and/or defensive capabilities, then we can suppose that they are warning us that we are in danger of self-destruction from our nuclear weapons and power sites. (b) Witnesses, in fact, report the visitors doing things indicative of their monitoring our nuclear offensive and/or defensive capabilities; 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 that we are in danger of self-destruction from our nuclear weapons and power sites.

Dialectician. The visitors might not be monitoring our nuclear offensive and/or defensive capabilities for that reason. 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)

Also: They’d have to talk to gov’t officials; it’s hard to believe that they actually talk to gov’t officials, and that they lie to them.

Dialectician: See The "Three Attributes” argument: B1 and B2. See The "Three Attributes” argument: I B1 and B2. And see <a href="../journal/Testing_the_ET_Coercion_Hypothesis.html">

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a>.

<!-- or, if it eventually becomes the index.html of its own folder:

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a> -->

Ufologist. That’s a good paper, but it doesn’t address later nuclear-site incursions, for instance: Malmstrom, 1992, 1995 and 1996 and Warren AFB, Wyoming, 1980-81

• The "Climate Warning" argument.

Claim. It might be argued that the general goal of the visitors 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. See The "Three Attributes” argument: A.

The "Birth of Helios" argument.

Dialectician. [See "Panopy" on this website]

SUBTOPIC THREE: METHODS

WHAT SHOULD BE UFOLOGY'S METHODS FOR

CARRYING OUT THE GOALS OF ACHIEVING

MAINSTREAM STATUS, AND INVESTIGATING THE

QUESTIONS OF SUBTOPIC TWO

• The “Don’t Underestimate Them” argument

Dialectician. The visitors must not be underestimated, and the "Three Attributes” argument in subtopic two above shows that details of reported sightings should not be taken at face value. In subtopic two, ufologists’ beliefs were covered, beliefs about the visitors' ATTITUDES AND ABILITIES, about the visitors' IDENTITY, about WHERE THEY ARE FROM, and about WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE. In searching for the truth about all these categories, we must pay attention to Critic’s view in the "Three Attributes” argument.

Re ATTITUDES AND ABILITIES:

The visitors may falsely present themselves as lacking knowledge about us. There are reports of visitors returning abductees to the wrong bed or with their pajamas put back on backward, etc. Such apparent errors may be intentional bits of theatrical deceit (See the "Three Attributes” argument: A). Again, the visitors may well know more about us and about our planet than we ourselves know (See the "Three Attributes” argument: B2).

Those who advocate setting up instruments to capture UFOs in action, or advocate the formation of rapid-response teams, 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, the probability) that the visitors are listening (See The "Three Attributes” argument: A, B2) and will respond by giving the investigators only the "evidence" that they want them to have. (They are probably capable of manipulating instrument readings; see The "Three Attributes” argument: B1) (See the “Ufology Should Adopt the Methods of the Natural Sciences” argument below.)

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. (See The "Three Attributes” argument: A)

Re WHERE ARE THEY FROM?:

Witnesses have allegedly been given all manner of stories by visitors about where they are from. (See The "Three Attributes” argument: A)

Re WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE?:

Ufologists must realize that the visitors may mislead us with respect to what they are doing here: 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, when, in fact, they may know all about us (See The "Three Attributes” argument: B2). But their goals may be very different. (See The "Three Attributes” argument: A)

The “Ufology Should Adopt

the Methods of the Natural Sciences” argument.

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

We must seek hard evidence to support our claim that some UFOs are otherworldly devices, such as photographs and surveillance data.

Critic. First of all, it is doubtful that the visitors will ever allow us to collect such evidence.

We don’t need “hard” evidence, since eyewitness testimony can constitute good evidence, and we have enough such evidence to prove the claim that some UFOs are otherworldly devices a thousand times over.

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 that some UFOs are otherworldly devices because of the testimony of other witnesses. Yet, 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 some 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

Ufologist. ufology should seek to use the methods of the natural sciences. For instance, Ufologists' Surveillance projects: 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.

Critic. 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 "Three Attributes” argument: A, B1 and B2: The visitors may well have the will to deceive us: they may well wish to have us seeing them as they are not (see A). They are surely psychologically capable of deception (A). As noted in the The "Three Attributes” argument: B1, they have demonstrated the ability to manipulate electronic equipment from a distance (Tehran, 1976, Malmstrom, 1967). They can obviously pick up on ufological attempts to catch them in the act (B2), so they are able to counter these attempts (B1). The difficulty is that sufficiently advanced occupants might be able to dictate the outputs of our instruments, rendering any collected data epistemically suspect. It's about the limits of empirical instrumentation when the observed entity may be capable of controlling the measurement process itself.

In general, 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, are called for in these investigations, not Sagan or Tyson.

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?

Critic. Of course, we can try to put the pieces together using logical inference; but a particular method is available: see the "RECIPROCALOGY" argument below.

Ufologist. Again, ufology should seek to use the methods of the natural sciences. For instance, Imaginative Projects:

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.

.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.

• UFO Reports

Ufologist. We must continue to gather UFO witness reports and carefully analyze 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 now being created).would increase the ability of ufologists to put together the pieces of the UFO puzzle and thus bring ufology more into the mainstream.

• 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 only rarely 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 should be used in these debates. Ufologists, however, are not keen to argue their case; even though the arguments are all on their side. (See <a href="../journal/Methodology.html">

Truth Engine Methodology

</a>

<!-- or, if it eventually becomes the index.html of its own folder:

Truth Engine Methodology

</a> -->).

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, 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, conducive to ufological brainstorming—platforms where new ideas can be presented and evaluated.

II. 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.

Critic. 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 see The "Three Attributes” argument: A, B2 and C: The visitors may well have the will to deceive the government: they may well wish to have the government seeing them as they are not (see A)—and they are surely psychologically capable of deception (A). And they no doubt can cause officials to believe untruths about them, not simply by planting false evidence, but also through direct communications (B2 and C). Therefore, I suspect that much of the "knowledge" that has been passed along to our 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— see The "Three Attributes” argument: B2 and C: they no doubt can understand English, and can in some sense speak to the government officials (B2) and can go to where the officials are in order to communicate with them (C). If all this is, in fact, the case, then trying to force the government to disclose would be an ill-conceived strategy!

Ufologist. That's all pure speculation.

Critic. When I use the term "distinct possibility," I'm, of course, acknowledging that it is speculation; but it's not pure speculation: there is evidence that such threats have actually been made.

There are incidents that appear to have been intended to frighten our government: (1) the eerie “green fireballs” of 1948 through early 1950 haunted the skies around highly sensitive locations like Los Alamos, New Mexico just at the time when the Air Force’s "Estimate of the Situation, was drafted—this was a highly classified 1948 Project Sign document, prepared by military intelligence, which concluded that unidentified flying objects were likely interplanetary spacecraft and which might have threatened disclosure. (2) The Washington National UFO overflights of July, 1952, happened just when Project Blue Book, the Air Force’s systematic study of UFOs, was initiated. At the beginning, Blue Book was meant to replace project Grudge—which dismissed UFOs as hoaxes, misidentifications, or mass hysteria—with a less skeptical study. Project Blue Book constituted, clearly, at that point, a threat of disclosure. (3) There were two important clusters of incursions over nuclear missile sites: one centered around 1967 and the other in late 1975. 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 these events could have brought about official UFO disclosure. Could it be that these frightening events were threats? It seems doubtful that the visitors themselves would have feared humanity's nuclear technology. If they possessed the capabilities attributed to them, they would presumably have little reason to do so. What matters is that they understood humanity's deepest strategic anxieties. A carefully staged performance involving strategic nuclear systems would therefore possess exceptional coercive force, not because those systems threatened the visitors, but because the visitors knew that the systems embodied humanity's deepest strategic anxieties. Were the visitors saying to the government, "Continue the cover-up or we will punish you"... (for instance: “we will launch your missiles or turn them off and launch Russia's missiles.")?

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—I believe that it is such study that will yield answers.

Making the government the be-all and end-all of ufological study, which occurs in some ufological circles, is a recipe for a lack of progress.

Ufologist. If your hypothesis makes a genuine historical prediction, then it ought to be testable.

Critic. It is. An initial historical test examining additional nuclear-related UFO incidents is presented in the companion paper: see <a href="../journal/Testing_the_ET_Coercion_Hypothesis.html">

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a>.

<!-- or, if it eventually becomes the index.html of its own folder:

Testing the ET Coercion Hypothesis</a> -->

The "Reciprocalogy” argument

Ufologist. If it is true that the visitors deceive, planting false evidence to mislead us about their Abilities and Knowledge, how can we investigate them? Surely they are better at subterfuge than are Columbo’s or Holmes’ quarry.

Critic. We do this by assuming that their goals match their accomplishments, and then we ask: what have they accomplished? I call this method “recipralogy.

End of Version 1.0

This document remains under continual revision. Suggested improvements may be submitted for consideration...

—Richard Crist, PhD; August 9, 2026