Seth Shostak On UFOs: A Few Comments: Part Three

Dr. Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in California has authored or co-authored a trio of books to date about life in the universe in general and extraterrestrial intelligence in particular. It’s difficult to address these topics without having to mention either in passing or at length the subject of UFOs and possible association with extraterrestrials. This Dr. Shostak has done, but painted with a very skeptical, perhaps in places with a misleading, paint brush. This trilogy and my abbreviations for them throughout this essay are as follows.

Sharing the Universe (STU)

Cosmic Company (CC)

Confessions of an Alien Hunter (CAH)

For complete bibliographic details, see at bottom.

While Dr. Shostak’s book trilogy isn’t the sum total of his opinions on the UFO phenomena, they no doubt represent a solid representation of his UFO philosophy, and since these tomes are readily accessible to the general public, they form as good a source as any.

Continued from Part Two.

Roswell, July 1947 (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak is a Roswell skeptic, at least so far as ET is concerned. What Dr. Shostak doesn’t answer or otherwise come to terms with is how experienced military officers (plural) could mistake balloon materials (weather or Mogul) for a metallic crashed ‘flying disk’. I maintain they couldn’t make that oops. I would maintain that Dr. Shostak himself could distinguish between the two and he’s no military officer in the air force or a balloon expert. I’d expect even the little old lady from Pasadena would detect the difference. In fact the discovery of any bit of balloon material in that Roswell debris would give the game away immediately. See also my comments on government cover-ups/censorship above. Dr. Shostak also made a minor mistake in attributing the Roswell incident as involving USAF instead of USAAF (Army Air Force) personnel (STU).

As related above, Dr. Shostak wants hard physical stuff to place on the slab-in-the-lab. That’s the only evidence he will accept for the UFO ETH. The only bona-fide UFO case we know of for absolute certain involving hard physical stuff is Roswell. Since Dr. Shostak acknowledges that Roswell is associated with hard physical evidence that’s testable on the slab-in-the-lab (that Roswell debris or wreckage), perhaps he could politely ask the USAF to loan him some of those Roswell bits and pieces for his analysis since he knows the debris exists. Where is the Roswell wreckage now and why can’t Dr. Shostak be loaned some? 

Of course Dr. Shostak, if successful, would have to take it on pure faith and trust that he’d be getting the Right Stuff; the Real Deal; the Real McCoy to test. Not a given I’d suspect.

Project Mogul (STU, CAH)

Dr. Shostak has swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker the new and improved 1995 USAF explanation for the July 1947 Roswell incident and debris. It was a Top Secret Project Mogul balloon (just a variation or upgrade on the previous weather balloon explanation). However, even that massive (lots of unnecessary filler of no relevance) 1995 USAF report pointing the Project Mogul finger at Roswell could only conclude that a Mogul balloon or balloon train was the most likely maybe explanation. The 1995 USAF report could not provide any actual evidence that Roswell WAS a Mogul balloon. Thus, the Roswell case is still open, although Dr. Shostak would have us apparently believe otherwise.  

Roswell: Reverse Engineering (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak maintains that if Roswell were true, that the powers-that-be actually obtained real extraterrestrial materials and thus alien technologies, that America should be light years ahead of the rest of the world in high-tech, especially aerospace technologies, since those powers-that-be would have reversed engineered those alien technologies and put them to American use – good old American know-how strikes again. Of course Dr. Shostak assumes we could actually reverse engineer alien technologies, but that is not a given. One hundred plus years ago, even a team of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi couldn’t have reverse engineered today’s ever present Smart Phone. 

I quite agree with Dr. Shostak however that lasers and fiber optics and the transistor, etc. were human inventions and not reverse engineered from alien technologies despite some claims to the contrary by some UFO buffs. Even UFO buffs can go a bit over-the-top with their claims.

Abductions (STU, CC, CAH)

If you stop and think about this abduction facet rationally, you’ll see a parallel with our own wildlife biologists who often (via a trap or a tranquiller dart) capture, transport, examine, measure, take samples (blood, tissues, etc.), tag, then transport back and release their wildlife specimens. Substitute aliens for wildlife biologists and humans for wildlife, and it makes scientific sense. Why millions of humans? Isn’t that overkill? Why do we do unmentionable things to millions of lab rats and fruit flies? Isn’t that overkill too?

Human-Alien Sex (STU)

Dr. Shostak notes that in the UFO abduction literature there is an emphasis on sex and reproduction and that from a biological point of view, this is as absurd as a pussy cat mating with a petunia. We’ll ignore Mr. Spock’s parentage here since he’s a fictional character.

Well actually the sex or reproduction referred to is not really akin to what happens in human bedrooms, on top of the kitchen table or in the back seats of automobiles. It’s more akin to what happens in fertility clinics. The scenario is more like aliens manipulating human eggs and sperm and genetic material that’s been removed from their unwilling human hosts than actual alien-human intercourse. Admittedly, this is still pretty far out stuff and one is hard pressed to come up with an alien motive for this behavior. What could the motivation really be? I don’t profess to understand this, but I can point out that we have a lot of trouble understanding motivation at times in our fellow life forms. I’m damned if I can comprehend at times what goes on in that brain thingy that’s housed between my pet cat’s ears. On the flip side of that coin, probably 95% of what I do is no doubt unexplainable and meaningless to the felines. Trying to comprehend alien motivations when it’s difficult to come to terms with our companion animals’ behavior is fraught with danger.  

Crop Circles (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak likes to ridicule and poke fun at the UFO ETH by pointing out the absurdity of aliens coming all the way to Planet Earth across the void of interstellar space just to do agricultural graffiti in the crop fields of southeastern England (in particular). And some people do make a UFO/crop ‘circle’ connection. I’m not one of those people. Crop ‘circles’ are a huge anomaly. They aren’t natural formations, but while some are hoaxes, there’s sufficient evidence that not all of them could be. There really is something screwy somewhere. I just can’t figure out a motive (again, dangerous to try one’s hand at alien psychology) for ET to do crop ‘circles’ unless they share a common trait with humans – a sense of humor, a sense of the absurd, a love of pulling pranks and causing mischief for its own sake. So, to make a long story short, I just shunt crop ‘circles’ to one side as an interesting anomaly but one which probably has bugger-all to do with any ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) connection. 

The ‘Face’ on Mars (CAH)

Dr. Shostak goes on for some length about the so-called ‘face’ on Mars photographed by the Viking mission in 1976, and re-photographed in 1998, 2006 and 2007 and probably many times thereafter given all the probes orbiting Mars today. Conclusion – close, but no cigar. Mother Nature played a trick (of the lighting) on us. There is no artificially constructed ‘face’ on Mars. In this I totally agree with Dr. Shostak. But the ‘face’ is just a diversion from there real issue at hand here – UFOs.  

Hostility (CAH)

Apparently, though overall a sweeping generalization, SETI (and other physical) scientists are way less hostile to UFO buffs (a few of which are also scientists) than the other way around (and that imbalance probably applies to other ‘fringe’ buffs as well like inventors of perpetual motion machines who get cranky at the Patent Office and creationists who bucket evolutionary biologists). And I sympathize and feel for those scientists on the receiving end of nasty and personal comments just because they don’t share the exact same worldview as their antagonists. There’s no excuse for that.

However, for Dr. Shostak to suggest that UFO buffs are overly hostile to SETI and therefore SETI scientists who aren’t UFO buffs just because SETI might succeed in proving the existence of ET first, thus leaving the UFO buffs in PR limbo, can cut both ways. How would Dr. Shostak feel if after decades of fruitless dedication to traditional radio SETI along with the spending of multi-millions of dollars on sophisticated equipment, Mary Citizen holds a press conference and walks in with her arm around a bona-fide ‘Grey’ alien?

In any event, a positive SETI hit doesn’t of necessity negate the UFO ETH and Mary Citizen’s press conference doesn’t mean SETI won’t get a positive hit a day later. Even though I don’t see the UFO ETH and SETI in competition, rather as being complementary, if there’s a Nobel Prize or any other public recognition at stake, defending their turf and their claim to priority, even scientists have been known to behave badly towards each other, a trait hardly confined to recent times – scientist-to-scientist hostility goes back centuries - so I’ll cut a bit of slack, but only a bit, for the less professional UFO enthusiast.

My Personal Conclusions

IMHO, Dr. Shostak has a rather shallow comprehension of the entire UFO issue and I doubt that he has really studied the field, at least relative to many that he has debated. He apparently hasn’t gotten his hands dirty doing any actual onsite fieldwork and interviewing witnesses and doing photographic analysis. Further, based on his written works, I don’t believe he has adequately thought through many of the various facets of the phenomena and how those jigsaw puzzle pieces might fit together.

Dr. Shostak might argue that it’s not his job to be on top of the UFO topic and research same, but I suggest otherwise if for no other reason than to play fair with the great unwashed that go to him for advice and information on the subject. It is his job if he is going to write and speak on the subject for the public’s consumption and voice professional opinions for their benefit.

I get the impression that he uses his public profile and his scientific authority as a senior astronomer to convincingly wax lyrical on a subject to Joe and Mary Citizen who know less about UFOs that he does and who aren’t by nature skeptical enough or knowledgeable enough to think the issue through themselves. We tend to rely on authority figures to tell us what’s what.

That aside, there’s nothing in the “S” in SETI which specifies how to search or what to search when it comes to pinning the tail on ET. UFOs are as legit as radio telescopes, so by ignoring any active participation in UFO investigation he’s effectively tying one hand behind his back. To profess an interest in ETI and yet ignore UFOs in the same breath is strange scientific behavior IMHO.

Finally, to end on a positive note, Dr. Shostak has made some valid points as related above; he has put his ‘money’ where his mouth is and been willing to engage politely in dialog with those who hold alternate worldviews.

Bibliographic Details:

Shostak, Seth; Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial Life; Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, California; 1998:

Shostak, Seth & Barnett, Alex; Cosmic Company: The Search for Life in the Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003:

Shostak, Seth; Confessions of An Alien Hunter: A Scientist’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence; National Geographic, Washington, D.C.; 2009:



Seth Shostak On UFOs: A Few Comments: Part Two

Dr. Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in California has authored or co-authored a trio of books to date about life in the universe in general and extraterrestrial intelligence in particular. It’s difficult to address these topics without having to mention either in passing or at length the subject of UFOs and possible association with extraterrestrials. This Dr. Shostak has done, but painted with a very skeptical, perhaps in places with a misleading, paint brush. This trilogy, and my abbreviations for them throughout this essay are as follows.

Sharing the Universe (STU)

Cosmic Company (CC)

Confessions of an Alien Hunter (CAH)

For complete bibliographic details, see at bottom.

While Dr. Shostak’s book trilogy isn’t the sum total of his opinions on the UFO phenomena, they no doubt represent a solid representation of his UFO philosophy, and since these tomes are readily accessible to the general public, they form as good a source as any.

Continued from Part One.

Motivation (CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak can’t seem to find a real motive(s) for why UFOs (as ET) would want to be here and waste their time out in our galactic boondocks. Some of the obvious candidates as related in sci-fi are apparently off their agenda, given the lapse of time since the ‘modern’ UFO era’ began – 1947 to date. For example, it’s highly unlikely by now that invasion is their motive or have a motivation as in ‘take me to your leader’ or establishing diplomatic and/or trade relations. The obvious parallel is do wildlife biologists establish these sorts of relationships with elephants (a highly intelligent mammal, unfortunately probably soon to be driven to extinction); do you establish these sorts of relationships with your pet companion animals?

Dr. Shostak notes that it is highly unlikely advanced high-tech aliens are coveting and stealing our technology and industrial secrets. Industrial espionage isn’t their agenda either though maybe through quirks in their industrial revolution they missed out on smart phones, amplifiers, plastics and the ability to brew beer. Dr. Shostak equally and correctly IMHO notes and that’s nicking our natural resources isn’t on their agenda either as anything Planet Earth has or our solar system has can be found closer to ET’s own home. We’re not likely to journey to Alpha Centauri for ices or minerals when there is an entire local asteroid belt, Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt to tap, enough to last humanity a very, very long time.

But there is one resource local to Planet Earth that aliens can’t find closer to home and that’s terrestrial biochemistry, a resource we exploit for the pharmaceutical industry. Exactly why aliens would want to harvest terrestrial biochemistry is beyond me (maybe for their drug or pharmaceutical needs?) but I’m not prepared to rule it out entirely even if it is a far out in left field. [See also Human-Alien Sex]

Among the other negatives, ET doesn’t appear to be here as missionaries come to promote even ram their alien religious philosophy down our collective throats. ET doesn’t appear to be interested in helping humanity achieve universal peace or provide us with new and improved environmentally friendly technologies, like the key to controllable nuclear fusion.

So what is the motivation of our potential UFO-related aliens? Well, and I’m sure Dr. Shostak can appreciate this, it is SETI! Of course in this case the “S” has been achieved and we’re their “ETI”. I find it strange that Dr. Shostak doesn’t acknowledge or list the possibility that their motivation is exactly the same as his very own calling card – scientific exploration. In Dr. Shostak’s case it is via radio telescopes. In the case of aliens, it is more like the Star Trek scenario – the boldly going scenario that Earthlings can appreciate given our past history of boldly going, finding new lands and new peoples.

Why Now (CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak asks the very logical question about the UFO/alien presence here on Earth – why now, now being 1947 to date. He means, given the age of our planet and the probability that aliens could come visiting anytime during that interval; it would be highly improbable that it would be ‘now’. He correctly points out that unless aliens were already in our neck of the woods (think here the film scenario of Star Trek: First Contact) then UFOs have bugger-all to do with recent (say first half of the 20^th Century) human activities since they would have to be too far away to witness same and still get here by 1947.  

Dr. Shostak briefly discusses and dismisses the ‘ancient astronaut’ issue even though it partly answers his own ‘why now’ objection  which is that it defies probability that UFOs would become a presence and a force to be reckoned with just in the last several decades plus. For the here and now, the ‘ancient astronaut’ issue is another essay for another time but I’ll just say I ground the reality of ‘ancient astronauts’ based on universal mythologies, not archaeology. Sufficient to say that the answer to ‘why now’ is that the alien presence has been an ever ongoing one (even if token), so it’s not just here and ‘now’. It’s that biosphere argument. We’re interesting on an ongoing basis, not just now, not just a quickie visit every million years or so.

Consider an Antarctic penguin seeing his (or her) first human wildlife biologist that’s about to abduct, tag, and release it. The penguin might ask ‘why now’ and gee-whiz aren’t I ‘lucky’ to be so special as to have such an advanced being interested in little old me right here and ‘now’. Of course the penguin might say ‘why me’ and ‘why now’ instead of why not some other penguin from fifty years ago. What the penguin wouldn’t know is that humans (and wildlife biologists) have had an ongoing presence in Antarctica for decades and decades. Humans didn’t arrive in Antarctica just ‘now’ and there probably really was some other penguin from fifty years past who also asked ‘why me’ and ‘why now’ and there might be another penguin fifty years from now who will go through the same ‘why me’ and ‘why now’ process.  

Evidence (CC)

If there is one phrase or mantra repeated again and again by UFO skeptics is “show me the evidence” for the UFO ETH, though apparently by his own admission there’s sufficient evidence to convince some scientists that there really are “alien rocket jockeys” here and now.

Unfortunately, Dr. Shostak has a very narrow definition of what evidence is, and it’s not eyewitness testimony – the profession and the quality of the eyewitness is irrelevant, it’s not multi-eyewitnesses, it’s not radar, it’s not eyewitnesses combined with radar, it’s not photographs, it’s not films, it’s not physiological effects or electromagnetic effects or ground traces. One thing and only one things qualifies as really real evidence and that’s a physical something that he can put on the slab in his lab. That’s it. Pity he couldn’t use that criteria in a courtroom as to what constitutes real evidence.

But that’s not the real point. The real UFO issue is that there’s more than sufficient evidence that something really, really interesting is going on and ongoing. Maybe it’s psychological, maybe it’s pathological, maybe it is sociological or a cultural phenomena. Maybe it’s human time travelers from our future or maybe it is terrorists (or hippies) lacing our water with hallucinogenic drugs. Maybe it really is ET buzzing our aircraft and/or doing agricultural graffiti and/or abducting Joe and Mary Citizen for Frankenstein-like experiments. But something INTERESTING is going on and scientists, or so I thought, love to investigate INTERESTING things, topics, subjects, whatever.  

The Condon Report (STU)

Dr. Shostak loves the USAF sponsored University of Colorado study of UFOs that was done (after quite some considerable difficulty in coming up with an academic institution willing to take the money on offer) under the direction of physicist Edward U. Condon – thus oft referred to as the Condon Study and Condon Report. Why? It nailed shut the door on the UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) and that UFOs had any legit connection with all things scientific. UFOs were pseudoscience; the Condon Report said as much. Therefore, the USAF could bail out of the UFO business (a PR headache) with head held high. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out quite so cut and dried as Dr. Shostak might have his readers believe.

Dr. Shostak got one thing right (STU) in quoting Dr. Condon in Condon’s summary/conclusions preface to the report proper. That is, that summary/conclusions section was entirely all Condon’s work. None of his staff saw before-the-fact the conclusions section which were personally Condon’s and Condon’s alone. The staff only read Condon’s conclusions after the entire report had been published. Dr. Shostak neglects to mention the historical and well documented fact that the Condon Study was wracked with internal dissension not the least because Condon had gone public with his anti-UFO conclusions while the study was still in progress.

Dr. Shostak notes that the National Academy of Sciences endorsed the Condon Report, but fails to mention that the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) gave it the thumbs-down, as did the scientific consultant to the USAF’s various UFO investigations (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book), the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek. In fact Dr. Shostak seems to have been unaware there ever was a Project Sign and a Project Grudge before Project Blue Book as he only notes the latter (STU). That must have been pointed out to him by someone since Projects Sign and Grudge get a mention in a later book (CAH).  

Finally, Dr. Shostak fails to mention that fully 30% of the UFO cases studied by Condon’s staff (Condon himself never got his hands dirty with actual on-site investigation) could not be explained and thus remained bona-fide UFOs. Now I wonder why Dr. Shostak didn’t mention that little tidbit and how that contradicts Condon’s own conclusions.  

So, perhaps it isn’t all that surprising that Dr. Shostak drops the mention of Condon from his later UFO coverage (CC, CAH). The light bulb about how bad the Condon Report was probably came on since his first book (STU). 

Surveillance: Detection from the Top on Down (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak makes an apparently valid point when he notes that all of our surveillance of terra firma via those spy and other satellites like weather satellites, Google Earth images, all that massive 24/7 surveillance coverage from the top (space) down (ground level) hasn’t reveled diddly-squat in terms of spotting any UFOs. Conclusion: there are no UFOs to spot! Well one can ignore the spy military surveillance since anything unusual detected could be, probably should be, classified. As to the rest, well there’s a relatively easy answer – stealth technology.  If you know enough physics to cross interstellar space, you know enough physics to adapt physical principles into stealth technologies if it is to your advantage to do so and given the human track record of shoot-first-and-ask-questions-afterwards stealth technology is a wise precaution. If you can use stealth technologies to absorb radar photons (make yourself invisible to radar) you can adapt that sort of high-tech to absorb light photons (make yourself invisible to the eye, the camera, etc.) By analogy, terrestrial stealth technologies and ever ongoing R&D of stealth technologies are part and parcel of every advanced military nation (the US, Russia, China, etc.). Nations are using and are working on stealth technologies, and not necessarily 100% towards military applications. Law enforcement makes use of such advancements too. So, if we do stealth technology, why not ET?  

But just because commercial satellites have apparently not photographed UFOs (have all images been examined in exacting detail with that objective in mind?) doesn’t mean UFOs don’t exist. UFOs are not a fixed feature on the landscape, unlike say the pyramids at Giza or Easter Island. Any UFO would have to be in exactly the right spot at exactly the right time and that’s relatively unlikely as the numbers of alien craft are probably very few and far between. What? Multi-thousands of eyewitness sightings and there are just a few craft? Yes! Subtract all those IFOs from the UFOs and then note that one craft could be witnessed hundreds of times over the many decades. There are vastly more sightings of aircraft than there are aircraft since one aircraft can be witnessed multi-thousands upon thousands of time over the lifetime of that aircraft. If there were only a dozen or so bona-fide UFOs shared around the globe what odds one will be in the right place at the right time to have its picture taken by a satellite?  

To be continued.

Bibliographic Details:

Shostak, Seth; Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial Life; Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, California; 1998:

Shostak, Seth & Barnett, Alex; Cosmic Company: The Search for Life in the Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003:

Shostak, Seth; Confessions of An Alien Hunter: A Scientist’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence; National Geographic, Washington, D.C.; 2009:



Seth Shostak On UFOs: A Few Comments: Part One

Dr. Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in California has authored or co-authored a trio of books to date about life in the universe in general and extraterrestrial intelligence in particular. It’s difficult to address these topics without having to mention either in passing or at length the subject of UFOs and possible association with extraterrestrials. This Dr. Shostak has done, but painted with a very skeptical, perhaps in places with a misleading, paint brush. This trilogy, and by abbreviations for them throughout this essay are as follows.

Sharing the Universe (STU)

Cosmic Company (CC)

Confessions of an Alien Hunter (CAH)

For complete bibliographic details, see at bottom.

While Dr. Shostak’s book trilogy isn’t the sum total of his opinions on the UFO phenomena, they no doubt represent a solid representation of his UFO philosophy, and since these tomes are readily accessible to the general public, they form as good a source as any.

This is where Dr. Shostak and I start off agreeing with each other. Firstly, there exist a reasonable number of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations out in our Milky Way Galaxy. For Dr. Shostak to believe otherwise would make a farce of his chosen profession as a traditional SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) scientist.

Secondly, we both would agree that there is no physical law(s), relationship(s) or principle(s) in physics that prohibit interstellar travel and journeys from one solar system to another solar system.

Thirdly, and this is where we might start diverging, given the age of the Milky Way Galaxy and the time available for civilizations to rise and achieve a status of ‘boldly going’ (in person or via artificially intelligent robotic surrogates), it’s a near certainty that ET has been in our local neck of the cosmic woods and that we (Planet Earth with biosphere) has been noted and logged in at least one ET database, perhaps many, especially if there’s such a thing as a cosmic version of the Internet. That’s the famous or infamous “where is everybody” Fermi Paradox. That said, I maintain that once here, and once we (Planet Earth) was discovered, their presence, their monitoring, even if a token one, would be ongoing, all the more so when our biosphere got really interesting with the arrival of multi-cellular land-lubbers - terrestrial critters.

Dr. Shostak asks the question (STU) “are we really that interesting” such that aliens would pay so much attention to our little cosmic neck of the woods. He suggests that that scenario is highly doubtful. I say “yes” because biospheres are going to be relatively rare; multi-cellular biospheres rarer still and biospheres with intelligent life rarer still. Biospheres are interesting; rarity is interesting; therefore Planet Earth in the relatively recent here and now is interesting.

Public Opinion Polls & UFOs (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak makes a point of noting that public opinion poll after public opinion poll after public opinion poll, across the board, rich or poor, male or female, elderly or young, black or white, Ph.D. or high school dropout, atheistic or Catholic, a healthy percentage of the population believe that there is a connection between ET and UFOs. He’s probably muttering under his breath something like ‘stupid people’ but really real physical scientists know better – or most of them anyway. He tends to put these polls down to an ‘it’s time’ factor. World War Two and the Cold War and the dawning of the Space Age are all involved with relatively high-tech aeronautical and astronautical stuff from ICBMs that carry nuclear payloads to the U-2 to spy satellites to Telstar to the Space Shuttle to Moon landings, etc. Since roughly the WWII era, we’re talking about the ‘high ground’ that has us all interested in and ‘watching the skies’. The popularity of sci-fi, especially aliens and alien invasions didn’t hurt and the concept of extraterrestrials is just so damn interesting. Dr. Shostak got hooked on aliens too; otherwise he’d still be doing routine radio astronomy research on galaxies. So we all got space and aliens on the noggin. 

But the conclusion I draw is that where there’s smoke, there’s at least smoke, and probably fire. In other words, there must be something really suggestive in the data that’s been presented over the past six decades to support this UFO/ET connection; that lends people to lean towards this conclusion and not some other like maybe UFOs represent human time travelers from our future or terrorist organizations that have been putting hallucinogenic substances in our water supply. 

Public Opinion Polls & Alien Abductions (CC)

Based on public surveys, millions upon millions of otherwise apparently normal and sane people believe that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials, usually the ‘Greys’. I get the impression that Dr. Shostak kind of rolls his eyeballs at that subject and those findings. He probably mutters some more about ‘silly people’ or gullible people. However, IMHO, no matter how you slice and dice those findings, what a fascinating area for scientists to research. [See also: Abductions]

Public Opinion Polls & Government Cover-ups/Censorship of UFOs (STU)

Dr. Shostak also notes that these same public opinion polls note that Americans (in this case) are highly suspicious of officialdom claims that there’s nothing to the UFO story at all. It’s all just hoaxes and misidentifications albeit honest misidentifications. There is no UFO/ET connection. The public widely suspect that the powers-that-be aren’t being 100% aboveboard on the issue. Shostak might silently mumble ‘silly humans’, but I have a different conclusion, since I say who can blame Joe and Mary Citizen for being suspicious of officialdom’s word given the track record of secret projects (like the U-2) and covert operations (incursions into other countries during the Vietnam War) and surveillance (NSA) and dozens of other case histories that have come to light (Nixon and Watergate comes to mind here).

If there is a UFO/ET connection and the powers-that-be know this, that information would be classified (therefore by definition censored from the public or in other words covered-up). Then too, every citizen knows, and respects, that proper authorities like the Defense Department and the various diplomatic agencies and departments have and need to keep some stuff classified on a need-to-know basis. It’s sometimes called being economical with the truth. Anyone who believes that any administration from any country at any time tells their people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is living in cloud cuckoo land. Those opinion poll results are therefore hardly surprising.

But Dr. Shostak appears to have a real bee in his bonnet over the advocates that insist or at least claim that there’s a UFO cover-up or censorship. Dr. Shostak insists that a really real conspiracy would have to be global in nature and given the diversity of nations and leaderships and political systems and cultures, over six plus decades that’s as likely as winning lotto ten times in a row. Unfortunately, the logic doesn’t follow. Those relatively few, perhaps even one nation in the know, are not only not going to share that info with their own great unwashed who have no need to know, but they are not going to share that info with any other nation either, friend or foe.

It’s not the notion that ET is here that’s being censored but that they (the USA for example) have in their possession ET technologies of potential military value, and you know how the military likes to protect its secrets, as in Area 51 (Groom Lake, Nevada) which is sign posted for all to see with “No Trespassing” signs that further warn you that “Use of Deadly Force is Authorized” (i.e. - shoot to kill) for those who do enter illegally. Armed guards are visible from outside the perimeter fence as are various electronic surveillance gizmos. The US Government covered up the very existence of this top secret Groom Lake military facility (despite it being common knowledge to the relatively few locals in the area) for decades until commercial satellite photographs made the cover-up of its existence untenable and a farce. Area 51’s existence is now acknowledged by officialdom. That cover-up aside, in general, just try to enter any restricted military area and see how quick-smart you are dealt with.

By analogy, the Nuclear Club doesn’t tell its citizens how to obtain nuclear weapons grade materials and how to build nuclear weapons and neither do they share these technologies with other countries, friend or foe. They don’t share with each other since today’s friend or ally – Russia in WWII for example - could be tomorrows foe. You figure things out for yourself.

Just because UFOs are seen worldwide doesn’t mean each and every government has the Smoking Gun evidence, the sort of slab-in-the-lab evidence that Dr. Shostak craves. Most countries don’t have that sort of proof that enables them to go public that ET is here, even if they wanted to. Most, maybe nearly all countries need the corpse they don’t have. Both Uganda (1971) and Grenada (1977) tried that via the United Nations and got nowhere.

Many Explained Suggests All Are Explainable (STU, CC)

Dr. Shostak makes the point that, as even UFO buffs acknowledge, most UFO events are quickly explained and get filed in the IFO bin. Dr. Shostak suggests that if 19 out of 20 UFO incidents turn out to be solved as IFOs, then in all probability 20 out of 20 UFO incidents are theoretically solvable, there’s just some piece(s) of the puzzle missing preventing that 20^th UFO case turning into an IFO.

Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame would probably roast Dr. Shostak over Vulcan coals for logically suggesting that if 19 out of 20 UFO events weren’t really bona-fide UFOs at all but solved cases, that therefore 20 out of 20 UFO cases would be solved if only X, Y or Z data had been available. Unfortunately, that logic does not follow. If you recover from the flu 19 times in a row, that doesn’t mean that you will recover from flu round #20. If you hit 19 green traffic lights in a row, that’s no guarantee that your 20^th traffic light will be green, and the same logic applies to just about any other either/or scenarios. Of special relevance to Dr. Shostak, just because the first 19 interesting SETI signals turn out to be prosaic, mundane and ultimately terrestrial in origin, doesn’t mean #20 won’t be the real extraterrestrial deal, or so I would imagine Dr. Shostak hopes. And I hope he’s right. Otherwise, what’s the point of carrying on carrying on?    

But what would Dr. Shostak think if I adopted the Shostak philosophy on UFO cases and applied it to his profession? Clearly if 19 out of 20 SETI signals are false alarms then all SETI signals are false alarms and Dr. Shostak might as well give up the ghost and permanently retire home to smell the roses.  

To be continued.

Bibliographic Details:

Shostak, Seth; Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial Life; Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, California; 1998:

Shostak, Seth & Barnett, Alex; Cosmic Company: The Search for Life in the Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003:

Shostak, Seth; Confessions of An Alien Hunter: A Scientist’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence; National Geographic, Washington, D.C.; 2009:



Astronomers On E.T.

The bulk of books, articles, documentaries, written and presented on the subject of life in the universe are by professional astronomers. However, much of the subtopics that make up the broad-brush picture have nothing to do with professional astronomy. As such, readers interested in the subject need to be highly critical when astronomers wax lyrical about extraterrestrial life as most what they pontificate about is personal, not professionally based opinion.

When it comes to the subject of extraterrestrial life, exobiology or astrobiology, the profession most oft associated is that of the astronomer*. That should be nonsense as the focus should be on the word “life” or “biology” not on the word “extraterrestrial”, “exo” or “astro”. I’ve often said that when it comes to UFOs, for example, astronomers are out of their league because the subject of UFOs is not a proper astronomical subject for astronomers to professionally study and thus comment upon in a professional capacity. Astronomers, being human and all that entails, do not always draw a line in the sand between what they believe professionally through academic study and research and what they believe personally, without benefit of academic study and research.  

The only astronomer who ended up making a serious professional study of UFOs, in fact employed as a consultant to the USAF on UFOs – astronomical at first, hence all facets – was the late J. Allen Hynek, so he’s qualified to wax lyrical. What’s interesting is he started off sceptical on the bona-fides of the field, but came around to the opinion that UFOs were serious scientific business. 

The turf of astronomers starts at the top of Earth’s atmosphere and goes outward bound from there, although I’d maintain that things like meteorites are the realm of mineralogists; Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP) and the ‘Face’ on Mars and other dynamic visible features on planetary and satellite ‘surfaces’ are more the turf of meteorologists, geologists, and maybe even oceanographers (i.e. – Jupiter’s moon, Europa).

WHAT ASTRONOMERS CAN, SHOULD, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT COMMENT ON REGARDING EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

Probability of Extraterrestrial Life: Astronomers can tell us roughly how many stars there are per galaxy and what kind of stars they are and how many galaxies there are in the visible universe and roughly what the average solar system might be like, it’s components and constituents, but that’s as far as it goes. When it comes down to whether life arises and evolves on any of these extra-solar planets up through and including intelligence and technologies is an exercise better left to biologists and anthropologists.

Extra-Solar Planets and Planetary Systems: Astronomers are doing an outstanding job in discovering planets orbiting around other stars than just our Sun. They can pretty much estimate, maybe guesstimate, their size and orbital characteristics. They can also determine what the atmospheric constituents are – if any. However, what precisely that composition signifies – constituents perhaps in chemical disequilibrium suggestive of biomarkers – is an analysis best left to chemists and biochemists.

Origin of Life and Panspermia: Astronomers have no academic bona-fides that enables them to wax lyrical on these topics. Maybe terrestrial life originated on Earth; maybe it came via spores (or some such) from outer space (panspermia), but that’s not a subject that’s part and parcel of astronomy, even if extrapolated to abodes somewhere out there.

Transition from Simple (Unicellular) to Complex (Multicellular) Life: Any pontificating on this subject by astronomers is pure and simply their personal opinion. Astronomers would be pissed if evolutionary biologists got press coverage for commenting on the astrophysics of Black Holes, yet astronomers seem to feel capable of practicing biology, as long as it’s called extraterrestrial biology, astrobiology or biology in outer space.

Evolutionary Rise of Intelligence, Technology and the Longevity of Civilizations: Any such speculations are best left to anthropologists as these topic fall way, way, way outside of the realm of academic astronomy.  

Life Not As We Know It: Any speculation on alternative biochemistries (substitute silicon for carbon; ammonia for water; etc.), in fact the entire definition of what life itself is, is best left to biochemists and related disciplines.

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI): Professionally, astronomers seek out photons – visible light photons; radio photons, microwave photons, gamma-ray photons, infrared photons, ultraviolet photons, etc. Astronomers have a good handle on what naturally originating photons are like and what they can tell us about astronomical objects. Thus, astronomers should be able to spot anomalous photons – artificially originating photons with the accent on the artificiality. If astronomers spot unnaturally emitted photons then the odds are rather good that they have found an extraterrestrial intelligence, an intelligence that has the ability to emit artificially produced photons – like radio signals, optical (laser) signals, etc. Of course there have been false alarms. Pulsars were first thought to be artificial signals; ditto some quasars; and there were those who thought they had picked up radio broadcasts from Mars in the early years of the 20^th Century. However, once astronomers have detected anomalous photons and unanimously concluded they came from an extraterrestrial technological civilization, then any extrapolation from that is out of their bailiwick and resides more with anthropologists, linguistics experts, and other social science academics. 

First Contact: While there are lots of terrestrial examples of first contact, astronomers aren’t historians, sociologists or anthropologists and thus shouldn’t professionally speculate as being all-knowing on the subject of extraterrestrial first contact.

AREAS WHERE ASTRONOMERS NEED TO REALLY BUTT OUT

Visitors from Outer Space: Astronomers are qualified to tell us about the vastness of the cosmos and the immense distances between stars and our neck of the woods. But, the ability of advanced technological extraterrestrial civilizations to transverse those distances is a matter for engineers not astronomers.

Unidentified Flying Objects: UFO crashes in general and Roswell (July 1947) in particular falls way outside the province of professional astronomy (unless such a ‘crash’ can be positively identified as an impacting meteorite). Yet astronomers feel quite capable to wax lyrical on the subject. However, any opinions expressed by astronomers are really personal, not professional ones, and have no more validity than comments by Joe and Josephine Citizen.

UFO abductions, or abductions by ufonauts (the ‘greys’), fall outside the province of professional astronomy and are more properly the province of mental health professionals.

Government programs associated with investigating UFOs, UFO censorship or cover-ups fall outside the province of professional astronomy. Astronomers aren’t experts in national security matters, defence protocols, political science and other associated areas that deals with intelligence operations.

Close Encounters of any kind including geophysical, physiological, electromagnetic, ground trace cases, fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Analysis and commentary on UFO films and photographs fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Analysis of radar returns from UFOs, a rather technical and complex matter, tends to fall outside the province of professional astronomy even though radar has been used to probe some of the planets and satellites of our solar system, and thus their ground topography which puts such data in the realm of the geologist in any event.

Alien motivations (i.e. – why don’t they land on the White House lawn, etc.) fall outside the province of professional astronomy. At best this is a matter for psychologists and anthropologists and sociologists, though when it comes to what motivates an alien or alien culture neither is anyone else really qualified for that matter.

The only intersection between astronomy and UFOs is where assistance is required in ruling in or out astronomical bodies (the moon, planets, stars, meteors, etc.) as the cause or unlikely cause of a UFO sighting event. Or, perhaps where statements by so-called ‘contactees’ contradict known astronomical data. Otherwise, UFOs are the province of meteorologists, experts in optics and atmospheric optical phenomena, psychologists, etc.  Yet astronomers wax lyrical on all facets of the UFO phenomena as if all things UFO were exclusively part and parcel of their turf.

So 99% of what astronomers do (like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Seth Shostak, and Donald Menzel) when pontificating about UFOs, are in reality spouting off personal opinions, not professional or professionally related (i.e. – astronomical related) factual knowledge.

Ancient Astronauts: Astronomers are not archaeologists, anthropologists, historians or usually conversant with mythologies, and thus should steer clear of anything to do with the subject of “ancient astronauts”.

Associated Facets:

Crop circles fall outside the province of professional astronomy, even though IMHO crop circles have probably nothing to do with ETI.

The animal (wildlife and livestock) mutilation phenomena fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Ball lightning and other associated anomalous lights (like the Australian Min-Min Lights) fall outside the province of professional astronomy or astronomers who are not geophysicists.

Again, any commentaries by astronomers on these issues quasi-associated with ETI are, when all is said and done, when crunch comes crunch, are personal, not professional commentaries.

* And if not the astronomer then physicists. In fact the bulk of material dealing with life in the universe is penned by physical scientists, not biological or life scientists or naturalists. When I did a course in the subject of life in the universe, SUNY @ Stony Brook, it was of course taught by an astronomer, Tobias C. Owen, who has since co-authored along with Donald Goldsmith an entire textbook on the subject “The Search for Life in the Universe” (third edition - 2001).



Neil DeGrasse Tyson on UFOs: Some Comments

Sooner or later, nearly every astronomer, especially if they have a relatively high public profile, has got to face the UFO issue and expound upon whether there is any scientific credibility to the idea that some UFOs are bona-fide alien spacecraft. One such astronomer, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium, New York City, has indeed made his point of view known. He doesn’t deny the theoretical possibility, but that is about as far as the credibility goes. I take issue with some of his opinions as this essay details.

When it comes to the emotive subject of UFOs (as in alien spacecraft), scientists just don’t want to know or enter into the debate if it can be possibly be avoided, for the prime reason that those who make the UFO = alien spaceship equation fail to either put up or shut up. That’s ‘put up’ in terms of the sorts of evidence that scientists tend to have to ‘put up’ when they make claims. If they have to ‘put up’, they expect in turn that others will ‘put up’ evidence to them. The scientific consensus is that UFO = alien spaceship buffs haven’t done an adequate job in the ‘put up’ department. One such scientist with that point of view (POV) is the fairly well known astronomer, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. While overall reasonably correct in that POV, some of his arguments are flawed and lack credibility in my POV.

When it comes to evidence for this or that explanation for a UFO sighting, especially the UFO = alien spacecraft explanation, eyewitness testimony is suspect. Or so relates astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson via several YouTube clips relevant to his take on UFOs. But wait, there’s more!

Dr. Tyson quite correctly points out that the “U” in UFO stands for “unidentified” and that’s as far as anyone seeing, what to them is an Unidentified Flying Object, can expound upon. One should not jump to the conclusion that “U” equals alien spacecraft. No argument there. However, he also points out, an equally valid comment, is that we don’t like mysteries like things that are unidentified and so therefore we do tend to jump the gun and jump to unwarranted conclusions in order to identify the unidentified and maybe unidentifiable. No argument from me there either other than to point out that we leap to the conclusion of UFOs = alien spaceships in favour of some other explanation probably because there must be something suggestive of that possibility; there’s something in the observational date that points to alien ships and not to something else.

He notes that there exist natural phenomena and conditions which can befuddle someone not familiar with those phenomena. No argument on that observation either.

HUMAN PERCEPTION

But he goes slightly off the rails by suggesting the least likely form of bona-fide evidence is human perception or eyewitness testimony. Optical illusions are a case in point as he delights in pointing out. However, relative to manmade or designed optical illusions, there are not all that many natural ones, although there are some of course, like mirages or that ‘sinking’ ship as it passes beyond the visible horizon.

I get the impression from Dr. Tyson’s comments that eyewitness testimony has as much reliability as a $7 bill. Human perception is absolutely 100% fallible. Although eyewitness testimony is a cornerstone in legal proceedings, courtroom lawyers have a field day in discrediting eyewitness testimony. Experiments by psychologists prove overwhelmingly that any sudden and unexpected event witnessed by ten people will result in ten different versions of what happened, but not drastically so. I mean ten witnesses will differ on the height, weight and attire of the person in the unexpected happening, but they won’t differ on the fact that it was a human and not an elephant!

Humans are actually pretty good when it comes to the details, otherwise why would law enforcement officials ask you to point out the criminal in a police line-up or the news reporters question witnesses to some unusual news happening? To take just one of thousands of possible examples, you can easily tell your face from your parent’s faces and from the face of every other person you know (in person) or have frequently seen (like Dr. Tyson’s on YouTube). You know a new and different face when you see one. You can tell a human face from say a reconstructed one of Homo erectus. You can distinguish a primate face from a feline face from a canine face from a bovine face. You can tell apart the face of a penguin or an eagle from their ancient ancestor, the T-Rex. If you can’t tell apart a frog face from a crocodile face from a shark face from a spider’s face, there’s something seriously askew. Assuming there’s nothing askew; you can tell apart all these examples of faces despite the fact that they are all faces.  

Therefore, in your day-to-day life, 99.9% of what other people tell you they saw (i.e. – Joe Blow drinking down at the pub) you’ll believe them. Human perception is flawed, but it’s all you got for all practical purposes – despite zillions of smart-phone cameras around snapping anything and everything. People don’t tend to tell you they saw Joe Blow at the pub AND show you their smart-phone camera picture of Joe Blow at the pub since you obviously wouldn’t believe them without the pictorial backup. 

In any event, perception in humans usually tends to be more than adequate, say when driving a car or playing a game of baseball. Humans have an excellent innate ability to judge height, depth, colour, direction of sound, types of sounds, motion, velocity (speed plus direction), etc. We’d better have those skills if we are to survive day-to-day; week-to-week; month-to-month; etc. from birth through death.  

THE GAME OF TELEPHONE

Dr. Tyson makes much of the child’s game of ‘telephone’ and how that relates to evidence of how unreliable eyewitness (or ear-witness) testimony is. It’s that version of someone who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, etc. etc. That story that goes in ear number one ends up usually bearing little relation to what the last person in the chain relates what they were told. Cases where someone who told someone repeated many times over on down the line are indeed suspect, but that’s not usually the case with UFO sightings. ‘Telephone’ is actually pretty irrelevant to UFO reports since the chain is usually just a chain of one link between two individuals – the UFO witness relates firsthand their story to the UFO investigator. There’s no twenty-something someone who told someone links here. Direct first-person testimony is written down or otherwise recorded for posterity.

THE INEXPERIENCED LAYPERSON

Dr. Tyson makes the point that average Joe Blow citizen isn’t usually all that familiar with astronomical and meteorological and optical phenomena and thus sightings of lights in the sky are frequently misinterpreted – Venus becomes an alien spaceship. However, not all UFOs sighted are reports of dot points of lights in the sky. UFOs have been seen close up on the ground and often exhibit a substantial disc when seen in the sky. That’s why the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek (who was a pioneer in the scientific study of UFOs while also an astrophysicist like Dr. Tyson) came up with that category of UFO sightings called “close encounters” where misidentification of say a star for an alien spacecraft is unlikely since a star never exhibits a substantial 2-D or 3-D geometric shape.

ABDUCTIONS

Dr. Tyson also suggests (tongue-in-cheek?) that if you are abducted, you grab (steal) something off the alien’s shelf in order to back up your claim with something that can be put on the slab in a lab for independent testing. That’s flawed for several reasons. Assuming you’ve been abducted by aliens, you’ve got to think of it at the time under rather trying circumstances. That’s if you’re not naked on the slab being poked and prodded – you have no pockets available in which to squirrel something away, assuming there is anything in arm’s reach to squirrel away in any event. That’s also assuming you are not being watched. Even if you do nick off with something, elements and compounds tend to be uniform across the cosmos so an alien ashtray or knife could be made of the same stuff as a terrestrial ashtray or knife. Any alleged alien artefact would clearly have to be of such a nature as to rule out any terrestrial origin or a hoax. It’s a sensible suggestion but a way more likely bet is that any alleged UFO abductee would pick up alien micro-organisms which might be detectable and cultured as evidence.  

ALIEN PSYCHOLOGY

One obvious flaw in Dr. Tyson’s reasoning is that, according to Dr. Tyson, if UFOs are alien spacecraft, why should said aliens land in a farmer’s field as opposed to something more visible like touching down in Times Square (New York City). Well, aliens, by definition, are alien and will have alien motives; an alien psychology. We cannot determine before the fact how aliens should behave since we have no studies to hand on alien wetware, alien neurochemistry and alien motivations.

INEPT ALIENS: SHIT HAPPENS

Dr. Tyson also ridicules UFOs as alien spacecraft by noting the [Roswell] crash. How can advanced high-tech aliens navigate and travel across the galaxy then end up crash-landing? They must be pretty stupid inept aliens. Actually, it is in this case, an unusually inept example of reasoning by Dr. Tyson. Dr Tyson - shit happens! How many UFOs (if alien spacecraft) haven’t crashed? Nearly all would be an appropriate answer. And how many of our Mars-bound probes have coasted safely through the relative vastness of interplanetary space only to crash onto the Martian surface at the final moment.  Sometimes, albeit rarely, we have aircraft crashes. Most times aircraft don’t crash. If terrestrial shit happens, extraterrestrial shit happens. These are fallible aliens, not infallible deities.

In conclusion, Dr. Tyson’s various YouTube presentations are clearly his standard answer to the UFO question and his well rehearsed monolog on the subject. They were pure showmanship – witty, highly entertaining, but, alas scientifically barren. His presentations contributed nothing to furthering the coming to terms with the bona-fide UFO phenomena. As the saying goes, “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”.

P.S. By the way, Dr. Tyson also made a big issue of why UFOs would need runway lights as in the film “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. I need remind people here that the movie was a science fiction film and not a documentary. Any fault in logic lies solely and squarely on the shoulders of those who made, produced and directed the movie.