UFO skeptics claim that there’s little or no credible evidence that any UFO event can be interpreted as an alien spaceship doing its alien flying thing, boldly going on Planet Earth where no extraterrestrial has gone before. However, the fact that there exists such a thing as the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), six decades (and then some) on must suggest that there is some really real evidence in support of that UFO ETH belief, belief supported by opinion polls over many, many years.
Continued from yesterday’s blog…
Here are a few more realities that scientists once rejected as having no evidence.
The Sun went around the Earth – there was no evidence for any other configuration.
Our Universe could not be anything but static. The Universe could be neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the Universe static, he and the scientists of his times believed in a ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. Einstein later called that his greatest blunder since there wasn’t any actual evidence for it. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!
Those cosmic suckers, Black Holes, while existing theoretically on paper, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object without any observational evidence to contradict that alleged impossibility.
Despite theory, gravity couldn’t bend light rays – forget it because no observational evidence had ever seen such a thing. Of course that was to change.
No one in their right mind would believe that it was possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms. Where’s the evidence? Then along comes Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, and the rest, as they say, is history.
That matter could actually consist of indivisible bits called atoms; well that atomic theory was nonsense, even if it did date back to the ancient Greeks, since there was absolutely no shred of evidence to support it.
That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed highly improbable by experts for lack of any observational evidence.
Catastrophism in geology was considered a no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All evidence in geology (especially landforms) pointed to a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.
Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff despite observational evidence that the outlines of the continents could be matched like a jigsaw puzzle. Geologists countered that there was no even theoretical evidence for a physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics.
Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously since there was no evidence for any such an energy source, at least until X-Rays were accidentally discovered. .
Prior to the initial test, there was ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work – again, observational evidence proved superior to theoretical ‘evidence’ as to how the real world worked.
Powered flight was once considered impossible because evidence proved that balloons were the only feasible means of air travel.
Rocket travel was utter bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against. That was just so obvious that no actual evidence was required.
It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences, and what human would risk life-and-limb to provide evidence to the contrary?
The sound barrier would never be broken, despite evidence that the crack of the bullwhip was exactly that.
It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – evidence provided by eye-witnesses to the contrary be damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites.
Nature of Evidence:
It is claimed by scientists and other UFO sceptics, with good scientific reason, that the whole issue of the UFO ETH must be judged on the basis of actual evidence. And, it is claimed, by those sceptics, that the evidence for alien visitation is so poor that very few scientists find it convincing, convincing enough to devote their time and energy into pursuing the matter. And that is true, at least the part that few scientists, publicly at least, find the UFO ETH more than somewhat lacking in solid evidence – the sort of evidence that can be laid down on a lab slab or at least put under a microscope. Since there’s no such evidence, the UFO ETH has garnered somewhat of an aura of being just a ‘silly season’ subject, unworthy of scientific study, though to be honest, I’d often like to survey academics / scientists for their private opinions!
I would ask the question whether by evidence one means a physical artefact that can be put under the microscope, or is human testimony, the sort that would convict someone of a crime and put them on death row enough evidence? I’m 99% convinced 99% of scientists would say the former, yet the evidence for the UFO ETH is 99% the latter (plus a few radar returns and films). Actually IMHO it’s ludicrous for UFO ETH sceptics to poo-poo and give the thumbs down to eyewitness testimony. After all, it’s accurate eyewitness testimony that enables the trained investigators to properly identify the vast majority of UFO reports, turning them into identified flying objects to the tune of around 95%. So, when sceptics need eyewitness testimony to be accurate and turn UFO cases into something with ordinary and mundane causes – that’s fine. But when the tables are turned, sceptics turn turncoat as well so as to re-enforce their already-minds-made-up point of view. That is, eyewitness testimony that turns a UFO sighting into an unexplained bona fide UFO case, even if only about 5% of the time, well then clearly the eyewitness testimony counts for nothing in terms of bona fide evidence.
I make one defense however for the UFO ETH since scientists counter that each of the threads that an extraterrestrial intelligence having been then or now on Earth are weak-in-the-knees when it comes to solid evidence? Roswell is weak; UFO abduction cases are weak; the UFO conspiracy or cover-up case is weak; UFO photographs and videos are weak; UFO radar cases are weak; the case for Erich von Daniken’s ancient astronauts is weak; the ghost rocket sightings (1946) are weak; contactee claims are especially weak; UFO eye-witness reports are unreliable, etc. But, put them (and much more besides) all together and like all good detective stories combine/integrate all the clues into one composite whole (after separating out the wheat from the chaff and eliminating the red herrings) then the whole is more than the sum of the parts. You get a fairly consistent pattern that emerges; not the radio signal patter-of-little-dots-and-dashes the SETI scientist wants but a nuts-and-bolts and a here-and-now pattern.
Now admittedly any one of a hundred different and independent threads might in itself be not all that convincing, but then all 100 or so threads are woven together – that’s a different duck of another color. It’s like if it looks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it flies like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it walks like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it swims like a duck – it may not be a duck. If it quacks like a duck – it may not be a duck. But if it looks, flies, walks, swims and quacks like a duck – then it’s a duck!
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment