Sunday, August 7, 2011

The UFO ETH: Pro and Con: Alien Life Doesn’t Exist

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time the endless stalemate between those supporting the UFO ETH, and those sceptical debunkers of the UFO ETH starting with the most basic of all arguments, UFOs can not be extraterrestrial because there are no extraterrestrials; never have been.

Whether you’re a UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) supporter, a UFO ETH debunker, or you don’t give a damn either way about the UFO ETH at all (so then why are you reading this?), you’d be aware that overall the professional scientific community, including for some odd reason SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) scientists – the very clan who profess an intense interest in ETI – pooh-pooh the very notion of the UFO ETH.  That the scientific communities and scientists in general (there are exceptions) dismiss the UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) as pseudoscience and total bunk is understandable, but illogical. The scientists’ anti UFO ETH arguments don’t stand up to logical scrutiny. To adequately come to terms with the UFO ETH one needs to have a ‘deep time’ perspective; not just one of here and now or last week, month, year, decade or even centuries ago.

OBJECTION #1: We are the proverbial IT – there are no other alien life forms, therefore there can be no other advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, therefore UFOs can not have anything to with extraterrestrial intelligence.

ANSWER: Not even a UFO ETH skeptic SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) scientist of my acquaintance would argue we’re the proverbial IT – it would make a mockery of his own chosen career path.

With 13.7 billion years to play with since the origin of our Universe (the Big Bang event); with billions of stars in our own galaxy alone; with billions of galaxies scattered throughout the cosmos each with billions of stars therein, with extra-solar planets being discovered around many of those stars in our own galaxy (and by implication other galaxies as well); with the chemical elements required for life commonplace throughout the Universe; with the principles of Darwinian evolution given as universal, what odds that we are really the proverbial IT? And what are the implications for extraterrestrial UFOs?

When it comes down to the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), it’s only our own Milky Way Galaxy we need concern ourselves with. Even I acknowledge that though extraterrestrial civilizations exist in other galaxies, travel times between galaxies quickly exceed any logical transit times available, even when invoking a “Star Trek” warp drive. Interstellar travel, travel within the confines of our own galaxy, however is quite another matter. Still, our own galaxy gives us some ten billion years to play around with; billions and billions of stars and no doubt planets, those abundant chemical elements, and Darwinian principles. Again, it would be a very brave soul to suggest, given those sorts of statistics, that we are, even in our own galaxy, the proverbial ‘It’; not just the new kid on the block, but the first and only kid on the block.

Some people say that terrestrial life is the only life in the cosmos, therefore, whatever UFOs are, they can’t have anything to do with aliens. That’s despite the fact that there are ‘billions and billions’ of possible sites in the Universe where life could take hold, evolve and ultimately boldly go.

So are we alone in the Universe? That’s a question that’s been asked by millions over the eons, without, to date resolution. Of course the word ‘alone’ implies alone in the sense of whether or not there exists elsewhere in the cosmos our rough equals; more likely as not betters. We want to get to know our neighbours across the street, not their pets, or their plants. The standard gut-feeling answer to the question usually revolves around how vast the Universe is, and surely, given the billions and billions of stars in our galaxy and the existence of billions and billions of galaxies each with billions and billions of stars, etc. and the vastness of time, surely we can’t be the proverbial IT.

There’s unfortunately one slight flaw in that statistical approach. There’s a rather long chain of events that have to happen, hurdles to be jumped, in order to get from the elements of star-stuff to biological cosmic neighbours. Depending on whom you talk to, that chain can be extremely long indeed. The point is, if any one factor in that chain of causality has a very low probability of coming to pass, it matters not one bit whether or not all the other factors are extremely probable. The overall result is going to be low. If any one factor is as close to zero as makes no odds, then the overall answer will also be as close to zero as makes no odds. Certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by zero multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty ultimately equals zero!

It’s been pointed out by others, and I tend to have to agree, that astronomers (being physical scientists) tend to be much more optimistic and supportive of the notion that advanced life forms in the Universe - extraterrestrial intelligences - are a dime-a-dozen. That’s relative to biologists (being life scientists), who considerably hedge their bets and who it must be said are presumably better qualified to pass judgments. So, taking things from a more biological perspective, what’s what? Well, very low probabilities, when multiplied by vast numbers, still yield positive numbers. In other words, we might be faced with a ‘rare Earth hypothesis’ but not a ‘unique Earth hypothesis’.

So in summary to that first objection that only terrestrial life exists: 1) The Universe is a bio-friendly Goldilocks Universe – we’re here after all. 2) There is plenty of real estate in the cosmos that could give rise to and host hardy microbial life forms. 3) The appropriate chemicals, organic chemicals, and biochemicals; appropriate life producing and sustaining chemistry full stop, are present throughout the cosmos. 4) There’s been a massive amount of time for life to originate, evolve, survive, thrive and migrate. So IMHO, the first objection fails.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Washington, D.C., July 1952

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time one of the most famous of all UFO events – dateline, Washington, D.C., July 1952.

In July 1952, on two separate occasions, separated by one week, UFOs buzzed America’s National Capitol, making long term incursions over restricted air space. They were tracked, independently, by various civilian and military radars. Military jet fighters were scrambled to intercept and identify the UFOs, but were outmatched and didn’t succeed, although they were witnessed by the pilots. The objects were also witnessed from the ground. USAF Major-General John A. Samford, at the largest Pentagon press conference ever held since WWII, in late July 1952, made the statement with respect to the recent Washington D.C. UFO flap that these sightings were made by “credible observers of relatively incredible things”. It’s on the public record.
Now of course these sightings had to be explained by any means necessary since you just cannot admit to having unknown aerial objects fly over restricted air space. So the idea of ‘temperature inversions’ explained all - hogwash. It’s amazing that the common occurrence of ‘temperature inversions’ had never before, and never since, caused such commotion.

Further reading regarding Washington, D.C. (July 1952):

Randle, Kevin D.; Invasion Washington: UFOs Over the Capitol; HarperCollins Publishers, New York; 2001:

Ruppelt, Edward J.; The Washington Merry-Go-Round (in); The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ace Books, inc, New York; 1956; pages 207-227:

Friday, August 5, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Germs from Space: The Fred Hoyle Scenario

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, though this time it’s not really about UFOs, the bringers of alien germs, but something more natural as a bringer of germs – panspermia – especially as championed by the scientist, Fred Hoyle.  

So what then to make of the late Sir Fred Hoyle’s et al. claims or ideas that some of our terrestrial disease outbreaks originated from outer space? It’s a variation on the panspermia idea – life on Earth originated from extraterrestrial microbiological life forms seeding our planet.

The Fred Hoyle Scenario:

It’s well established that interstellar space is full of gas and dust. What came as a surprise was the unexpected discovery that many of those interstellar regions are also rich in organic molecules. Organic means that the compounds contain carbon, one of the elemental building blocks central to biology – along with hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, also well represented in interstellar gas and dust clouds. Many dozens of organic compounds have now been verified in the reaches of outer space, more than a few highly complex organic molecules, many associated in one way or another with life and biological processes.

Also verified has been the discovery that actual life forms, albeit simple microbial ones like bacteria, can, if not thrive, at least survive the rigors of outer space with minor shielding (say dust particles) to protect again harmful radiation. Terrestrial bacteria have survived three years on the Moon as demonstrated when the Apollo 12 astronauts brought back from the Moon pieces of the Surveyor III Lunar Lander, which had landed on the lunar surface three years prior. Experiments in Earth orbit have confirmed that some terrestrial microbes can boldly go in the cold and vacuum of space. 

Not so verified, but highly plausible, is the idea that simple life forms can be transported throughout the galaxy, hitching rides on dust particles, even larger objects like small hunks of rock that were ejected from their home planet. Recall the Martian meteorite (ALH84001) found in Antarctica which showed various lines of evidence that it was home to ancient fossilized Martian microbes. The controversy over that still hasn’t been resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Comets are known to be rich in organics, ditto some asteroids, and some have claimed that debris, say chips of an asteroid that have impacted and landed on Earth as a meteorite have ‘organised elements’ inside them suggestive of unicellular life forms. The possibility of course exists that those ‘organised elements’ were terrestrial contamination, since it can often be a long time between the fall of a meteor, and the discovery and analysis of the meteorite it became.   

The late Sir Fred Hoyle, along with several colleagues, most notable of which was Chandra Wickramasinghe, went a few steps further. Not only were there simple life forms in the depths of outer space, not only could they have seeded suitable planets with life – like Earth – but they to this very day rain down upon us. Further, they provide a far more logical explanation for various epidemics, maybe pandemics, experienced here on Earth. Why should some of these extraterrestrial bacteria be potentially infectious to us?  Well, if these microbes are the same sorts of microbes as seeded Earth ‘in the beginning’, that is were responsible for kick-starting life on Earth; providing the origin or life on Earth, then we share a common ancestry with them. We evolved from them over all those billions of years. Looking at it another way, we, in fact all life on Earth, really isn’t terrestrial life, but extraterrestrial life. We are the aliens!

Anyway, how does it happen? Specifically that is, or at least one mechanism, Earth’s orbit intersects now and again a stream of bacteria-laden cometary dust and debris – germs from outer space – that impact Earth’s atmosphere and ultimately filter down (perhaps incorporated in rain drops) to ground level and do their infectious thing.

However, to be fair, to state that their ideas are controversial is very definitely an understatement. For their side of the story, you’ll need to examine the evidence they present in there books (see further readings).

Further readings:

Hoyle, Fred; Evolution from Space: The Omni Lecture Delivered at the Royal Institution, London on 12 January 1982; University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff; 1982:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Cosmic Life-Force; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1988:  

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Diseases from Space; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1979:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Evolution from Space; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1981:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; From Grains to Bacteria; University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff; 1984:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Life on Mars? The Case for A Cosmic Heritage; Clinical Press Limited, Bristol; 1997: [Note: This title is very misleading. It has nearly bugger-all to do with Mars but everything to do with panspermia.]

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1978:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Living Comets; University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff; 1985:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution; J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London; 1993:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Proofs That Life Is Cosmic; Memoirs of the Institute of Fundamental Studies, Sri Lanka; December 1982:

Hoyle, Fred & Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Space Travellers: The Bringers of Life; University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff; 1981:

Hoyle, Fred, Wickramasinghe, Chandra & Watkins, John; Viruses from Space; University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff; 1986:

Ponnamperuma, Cyril (Editor); Comets and the Origin of Life; D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland; 1981:

Seargent, David A.J.; Genesis Stone? The Murchison Meteorite and the Beginnings of Life; Karagi Publications, The Entrance, New South Wales: 1991:

Thursday, August 4, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Germs from Space: The War of the Worlds

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time UFOs, the bringers of alien germs?

In the original “War of the Worlds” novel, our Martian invaders where thwarted not by us high and mighty humans, but by humble terrestrial bacteria who just ate them up! The question therefore is would extraterrestrial ‘bacteria’ find us (terrestrial life) a nice snack? The answers could be both ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

We all know the “War of the Worlds” scenario. No, this ain’t it because I don’t mean by this that there is any analogy between the UFO ETH and alien invasion, a typical example being the “War of the Worlds” (be it the novel, the movies, the TV series, the musical, etc.). I refer here to the ultimate resolution of that alien war scenario – that ultimately what defeated the Martians were terrestrial microbes – bacteria to which the alien invaders had no resistance. That was a really excellent plot device – it was also lousy science! If there is one truism in biology, it is that cross-species infection is rare. There are of course a few exceptions to the cross-species infection rule, but they remain by far a minor, minor, minority. Micro-organisms tend to be species specific in terms of their nastiness. Thus, if I sneeze, my cats aren’t in any danger of catching my cold – and vice versa. I’m not about to infect any of my garden plants by touching them with my dirty soiled hands – I’m not likely to become infected with deadly disease from a maple tree. If a wild bird has beak and feather disease and my cats should happen to catch and eat it – well, the bird was doomed anyway, and I’m not going to have to rush the feline predator off to the vet for shots! So, if it is relatively unlikely for one terrestrial species to be a contagion towards another terrestrial species (unless they are very closely related – evolutionary speaking), then what odds a terrestrial species will be deadly to an extraterrestrial species – and vice versa.

What’s the point of all this? Well, if UFOs can be explained by the ETH, then it is unlikely in the extreme that the ETH exists in a species vacuum. That is, ‘ufonauts’ (for lack of a better term), will be associated with their extraterrestrial micro-organisms (maybe ever their extraterrestrial equivalents of head lice, mites, bedbugs, cockroaches and rats depending on how hygienic they are). We do not exist in a bacteria free environment, nor could we even if we wanted to. ‘Ufonaut’ bodies and their UFOs will be as ‘bacteria-ridden’ as our bodies, our homes, automobiles, and in fact any and all other bits and pieces of our environment. We haven’t endured or experienced any pandemic or epidemic due to micro-organisms associated with ‘ufonauts’, and presumably ‘ufonauts’ haven’t caught cold or smallpox or the measles from microbes associated with us, our cats, birds, or any other terrestrial life forms.

So, UFO sceptics can’t invoke the “War of the Worlds” resolution as an argument that the UFO ETH is an invalid one. So, by all means, shake hands with ET (if you meet him/her/it) and don’t worry about any resulting medical bill – it ain’t gonna happen.

However, this does open up an interesting research area – one I’ve never, ever, seen mentioned in the UFO literature. That is, extraterrestrial microbiology. If UFOs are piloted by alien beings, biological beings that must be associated with extraterrestrial micro-organisms, then presumably said ET microbes have entered into our terrestrial biosphere. Presumably, said ET microbes would be so biochemically distinct or unique that any microbiologist examining same would immediately note that something was afoot! Of course, if you’re not looking out for it, you’re unlikely to find it or get that ‘eureka’ moment even if you do find it. Perhaps UFO abductees or UFO landing sites should be examined for the presence of extraterrestrial microbes.

So what then to make of the (late Sir) Fred Hoyle et al. claims or ideas that some of our terrestrial disease outbreaks originated from outer space? It’s a variation on the panspermia idea – life on Earth originated from extraterrestrial microbiological life forms seeding our planet. Specifically that is, Earth’s orbit intersects now and again a stream of bacteria-laden cometary dust and debris – germs from outer space – that impact Earth’s atmosphere and ultimately filter down to ground level and do their infectious thing. Well, there’s no conflict. The two sources of alien microbes are just that – two independent extraterrestrial sources that have no connection with each other. Of course relatively few experts in infectious diseases give any credibility to Hoyle’s theory so that might eliminate that. Then too many scientists give any credibility to the UFO ETH, hence to alien microbes originating from that source. Whether none, one or both ideas have credibility doesn’t result in any ultimate contradictions.

P.S. I’ll look at the Fred Hoyle ‘germs from space’ scenario in more detail next time.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Valentich: The Missing Pilot

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time the curious case surrounding the disappearance of private pilot Frederick Valentich while reporting a UFO event.

One of many, many highly unexplained UFO cases, is the events surrounding Frederick Valentich on 21 October 1978. It’s more a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke, but smoke there certainly is, and lots of it.

In a nutshell, on the evening of that date, Mr. Valentich piloted a private plane from Melbourne, intended destination, King Island in Bass Strait. He took off only to shortly thereafter radio in that there was this UFO hovering over him. The UFO was spotted by several independent witnesses. While radioing his observations, all contact ceased; all communications abruptly ended. Mr. Valentich, plane and all, vanished without trace. An extensive air and sea search failed to find any sign of Mr. Valentich, or his plane. No oil slick, no floating wreckage, no body – nothing, zip, bugger-all. No trace has ever been found of pilot or plane – not then, not since, not ever. The weather had been perfect for night flying.

One obvious explanation was that Mr. Valentich staged his own disappearance, although friends and family could offer no reason why he would do so. Of course many people voluntarily disappear themselves for various reasons; many eventually are found, are caught or reappear voluntarily. But keep in mind; it wasn’t just Mr. Valentich who disappeared. One entire aircraft vanished as well, never to be seen again. Surely if Mr. Valentich wanted to ‘drop out’, there were easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.  If he had deliberately gone walkabout, in these decades since of security cameras and computer facial software recognition technology, it would be hard to remain an unknown walkabout in any populated area.

Was suicide a motive? Again, no wreckage or body was ever found, and who would go to all the bother of reporting a non-existent UFO overhead – a non-existent UFO that happened to be independently reported by others.

And what of the plane since no wreckage was ever found floating on the surface of Bass Strait; washed up on beaches, or found on the ocean bottom – Bass Strait isn’t that deep.
It’s a mystery, and while it doesn’t prove aliens nicked off with Mr. Valentich and plane, there’s not that much wriggle room. Now multiply this sort of unexplained case by the thousands worldwide, and you do have the ETH as a plausible hypothesis.

Interestingly, despite my asking for a copy of the Valentich ‘accident’ case report in an official capacity related to my employment at the time, the Department of Transport (Air Safety Investigations Branch) refused. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, that report has never been publicly released.

Further reading regarding Valentich:

Haines, Richard F.; Melbourne Episode: Case Study of A Missing Pilot; L.D.A. Press, Los Altos, California; 1987: [Dr. Haines was at the time a research scientist for NASA and an accredited air safety investigations officer.]

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Those Unknowns

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time a focus on the unknowns and why they are important as a counter to sceptics of the UFO ETH.

The fact is, as most UFO sceptics readily acknowledge, between 5 and 10 percent of all reported UFO incidents remain unidentified after investigation by those qualified to do so. This fact apparently excites the scientific, astrobiology, and SETI communities not one jot. Now I would maintain that a 5 to 10% level of hardcore UFO unknowns, over six decades on, worldwide, is a major scientific anomaly. It amounts to at least several thousand unexplained UFO incidents. I was under the impression that it was the role and duty of scientists to research the unknown, but apparently not when it comes to this subject.

One of the main scientific arguments against UFOs being of any scientific interest is that if the substantial majority of UFO reports can be adequately explained (95%) then surely all could be if there was only sufficient information. Well, the USAF (as a typical government agency that was responsible for solving UFO sightings) had a category for ‘insufficient information’, as well as ‘possible’ this or ‘probable’ that. They also had a separate and apart category for ‘unknowns’. That is to say, they had sufficient information regarding a UFO sighting but hadn’t a clue as to what the object(s) were. That’s why they were tagged as ‘unknowns’. And that amounted to roughly five percent of all UFO sightings.

Okay, 19 out of 20 UFO reports prove to have prosaic explanations. Therefore the twentieth one has one as well. Sorry, the logic just isn’t there. The first and most obvious argument is that the 20th UFO sighting has been singled out as being different because it is different. It’s like having one green apple in a basket of 19 red apples. If all you see on the surface are red apples, that don’t mean there’s not a green apple buried below, yet that’s what those who should know better conclude. Yet in reality you can’t conclude anything about the color of the apples out of sight in the apple basket until such time as you investigate and examine the color of all the apples present.

Of course the reluctance of scientists to come to terms with the bona fide UFO hardcore is really an issue central to the sociology of science. In particular, the negative findings of the University of Colorado (Condon Committee) report (1968) have been cited as a decisive factor in the generally low level of interest in UFO activity among academics since that time. That’s despite the fact that that report couldn’t adequately explain 30% of the UFO cases it investigated. Despite that historical anomaly, UFOs for better or worse acquaint to aliens and the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis). There’s something about aliens that translates into little green (or gray) men, fodder for the tabloids that has an overall aura as a ‘silly season’ filler when there’s no real news around. That’s not the sort of fodder scientists like to feed on.

SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) scientists tend to be vocal against the UFO ETH. They suggest that if the majority of UFO events are explainable in prosaic terms, all are ultimately explainable in prosaic terms. Therefore, the UFO ETH is boring and a non-event. But, I’d wager that if SETI received out of all artificial radio signals, 5% to 10% unexplained artificial radio signals, (“WOW” signals), that of course would set the SETI community abuzz.

In a similar vein, if 5 to 10 percent of particle interactions were unexplainable by the current standard model of particle physics, that would set the physics community abuzz without question.

If the speed of light varied ever so slightly 5% to 10% of the times it were measured, the special relativity community would be agog, and extremely interested.

If 5 to 10 percent of galaxies showed a discrepancy between their red-shifts and their distances, that would set the cosmology community abuzz.  

So, why the big scientific yawn over the apparently bona fide UFO’s unidentified percentage? Again, it might take sociologists who study the sociology of science to pin that one down. There’s a mystery just begging for serious attention here that has the potential for massive ramifications, not just scientific ones.

Monday, August 1, 2011

UFOs: Bits and Pieces: Stargate: SG-1

With both the existence of pure theory and applied evidence supporting the plausibility of the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) – where the UFO remains a UFO after appropriate expert analysis has failed to find a more terrestrial explanation – lets look at a few snippets of the phenomena, this time, apparently with official USAF endorsement, a TV series that often featured the typical alien abduction ‘Greys’ as well as Area 51 – “Stargate: SG-1”.

“Stargate: SG-1” was a TV spin-off of the feature film “Stargate”. That TV show ran for ten seasons (and inspired in turn two more TV spin-offs) and featured several alien races that in the main had links to ancient terrestrial mythology. One such race was the Asgards, and as the name suggests had connection with our Old Norse mythology. The interesting bit was that in appearance, the Asgards just happen to look exactly like the standard ‘Greys’ of modern UFO (Roswell and alien abduction, etc.) lore. This was I’m sure quite by design and no coincidence. This fictional show also confirmed several times over that Area 51 both housed and studied extraterrestrial technology.

The fact that both ‘Greys’ and Area 51 feature on the show makes one other observation an interesting observation. That other interesting bit is that “Stargate: SG-1” featured a fictional operation or program run under the direction of the USAF. The TV show featuring the fictional stargate had the endorsement and cooperation of the actual USAF, probably because the “Stargate: SG-1” TV show portrayed the USAF in a highly positive light. In fact, two actual then currently serving USAF Chiefs of Staff (4-star generals) appeared in the actual TV show starring as themselves! How’s that for endorsement! So, we have the actual USAF assisting (by providing an advisory role, aircraft and personnel to the show) and endorsing a TV show that prominently featured UFO ‘Greys’ and Area 51. Okay, I’m probably reading way too much into that. In all probability the real USAF connection probably had no actual relevance to any indirect approval of the UFO ‘Greys’ and Area 51 in the show by the USAF. That part of the ‘endorsement’ is just pure speculation on my part. So I do have to admit that overall there’s probably no deep meaning underlying this connection, but I still find it interesting, very, very interesting.