| H
O M E |
||
|
Analysis & Implications |
||
|
Analysis: Evaluating the Evidence Lie-Detector Tests and the Credibility of Witnesses
Careful review
of the vast array of relevant evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that
some unidentified flying objects are intelligently controlled vehicles whose
origin is outside our solar system. All the arguments against the
extraterrestrial origin seem to be based upon false reasoning,
misrepresentation of evidence, neglect of relevant information, ignorance of
relevant technology, or pseudo sophisticated assumptions about alien
appearance, motivation, or government secrecy.
"If a close look is taken at the best available evidence, it is
possible to deal with what is known about UFOs, and what may reasonably
be assumed. The point we will make is that the evidence to support the
conclusion that UFOs are unknown aircraft/spacecraft seems to be
overwhelming."
The
extraterrestrial hypothesis, or ETH, is formulated consistent with the
accepted scientific framework for hypothesis induction. The null hypothesis to
explain UFOs is that they are random, disparate misidentifications of
atmospheric or artifical terrestrial phenomena. This is called the
misidentification hypothesis. If rejected on sufficient grounds -- and due to
the subjectivity we are probably facing a more Bayesian type of inference than
an objective test approach -- then we accept the alternative hypothesis, which
is that disk-shaped vehicles are in fact flying in our atmosphere.
The (un)likelihood
of extraterrestrial visitation is probably one of the most debated aspects of
the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, the answer being an essential component to
the validity of the ETH. After all, the assumed unlikeliness of interstellar
travel has become the cornerstone of those who resist the ETH as an
explanation for UFOs. So, does extraterrestrial visitation necessarily require
all sorts of "unlikely" science, or is it possible to accomplish
interstellar travel using conventional wisdom?
Four examples
of allegedly close contact with UFOs are presented. Possible
physical, physiological, and psychic reactions are explored. The
question fo the validity of the data, and the evaluation of
psychodynamic factors operating in fact versus fantasy, is
discussed. I tis felt that the objective details fo the reported
UFO experiences are essentially real, and tneither fantasized nor
dereistic.
> Click here to go (PDF)
"Cut
through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the
skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not
surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific
examination of evidence?" "Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.) Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist, computer scientist and world renowned researcher and author on UFOs and paranormal phenomena. He worked closely with Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Commenting on the need for science "to search beyond the superficial appearances of reality"
Skeptics in the
scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation
because of the implications it raises and because of the questions it
begs. But should the integrity of the determination rely on the implications
of a positive classification? Or should the classification of true or false be
assessed in isolation of the implications? Which is worse -- a false positive,
meaning ruling in favor of the UFO as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does
not exist, or a false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on
its true existence? "Although
only a few sightings have been discussed here, they are important
because they remain unexplained after analysis and even after
"prosaic explanations" have been offered by the skeptics. The
failure of UFO skepticism, from the scientific point of view, has been
to allow such explanations to be tacitly accepted by the scientific
community. If UFOs were "ordinary science" the proposed
explanations would have been rigorously analyzed...and probably
rejected... rather than simply accepted. Scientific ufology needs
skeptics, but skeptics who are capable of recognizing when a sighting
simply cannot be explained by any "prosaic explanation." "Among
the deeply embedded misconceptions of scientists are: 1. UFOs are
nothing but vague fleeting lights seen at night, 2. No trained or
experienced observers have reported truly puzzling UFOs, 3. UFOs are
prosaic objects or phenomena that are converted into spaceships by
"believers," 4. A religious-like "will to believe"
in salvation from the outside drives the entire UFO phenomenon, and 5.
Nothing of substance has been reported that science could investigate
even if it wanted to."
"Debunkers
seem to employ four major rules: A. What the public doesn't know, we
certainly won't tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn't
even mentioned in 12 anti-UFO books, though all the book authors were
aware of it. B. Don't bother me with
the facts, my mind is made up C. If
one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier. D. Do one's research by proclamation rather than
investigation.It
is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway."
The
most frequent "skeptical" argument, of course, is that there
is "not a shred of evidence" and that UFO claims were long ago
carefully and open-mindedly examined and rejected in the Condon Report.
What the "skeptics" either never bothered to read or choose to
ignore is that there is substantial evidence in the roughly 1000-page
body of that report itself and Condon's dismissive summary bears hardly
any relation to what the rest of the report says. Condon's aim was to
put an end to serious UFO investigation, and that is how he slanted his
summary, never mind what was in the actual report. Indeed the rest of
the Condon report contains substantial "shreds of evidence."
An analysis of the Condon Report by Sturrock was published in Vol. 1. of
JSE and will be posted on the web shortly. Cut
through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the
skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not
surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for
scientific examination of evidence?
Over the years, I have
decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all
critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both
proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have
distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard"
skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the
term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology
and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers
to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take
the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves
"skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed,
gained a false advantage by usurping that label.
What is "debunkery?"
As intended here, it is the attempt to "debunk" (invalidate) new
information and insight by substituting scient"istic" propaganda for
scient"ific" method. To throw this kind of pseudoscientific
behavior into bold--if somewhat comic--relief, I have assembled below a useful
"how-to" guide for aspiring debunkers, with a special section
devoted to debunking the UFO--perhaps the most aggressively debunked subject
in the whole of modern history. As will be obvious to the reader, I have
carried a few of these debunking strategies over the threshold of absurdity
for the sake of making a point. As for the rest, their inherently fallacious
reasoning, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar
to those who have dared explore beneath the ocean of denial and attempted in
good faith to report back about what they found there.
Many members of the
mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented
with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current
controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, and numerous
others. The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the
bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to
suppress heretics: hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing
of the 'enemy', extreme close-mindedness, underhanded debating tactics,
justifications, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination.
Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior "Pathological
Skepticism," a term based upon skeptics' assertion that various
unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list of
the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of
the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
"In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data." Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Director of the Skylab Workshop on Solar Flares in 1977. (Sturrock, Peter A., "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1987.)
The Journal of Scientific
Exploration (JSE), which I edit, is a peer-reviewed research journal in
which scholarly investigations on phenomena not part of the currently
accepted scientific paradigms may be published. UFO's fall in this
category, or more to the point, UFO's certainly fall outside the realm
of mainstream science. Is there any possibility of changing this
situation? The purpose of this essay is to present some ideas along
these lines to the community of UFO investigators and supporters.
For nearly 40
[more than 50] years, the science establishment has ignored the UFO problem,
relegating it to the domain of “true believers and mental imcompetents”
(a.k.a. "kooks and nuts" [according to the former editor of Applied
Optics magazine]). Scientists have participated in a "self-cover-up"
by refusing to look at the credible and well reported data. Furthermore,
some of those few scientists who have studied UFO data have published
explanations which are unconvincing or just plain wrong and have "gotten
away with it" because most of the rest of the scientific community has
not cared enough to analyze these explanations. The general rejection of
the scientific validity of UFO sightings has made it difficult to
publish analyses of good sightings [in refereed journals of establishment
science]. Examples are presented of the scientific-self-cover-up
involving erroneous explanations, refusal to look at the data, and rejection
of papers for publication. How long will this situation last?
Forty [fifty] years is long [too long].
Lie-Detector Tests and the
Credibility of Witnesses Lie
Detection in UFO Cases Examines the
applicability and usefulness of two different techniques and their relation to
witness investigation. - "Grappling with fraud and deception is par for
the course in the context of UFO claims, and as a result, "lie
detector" tests are frequently demanded of UFO claimants, and their
results, positive or negative, brandished as evidence. Some cases in
particular have put lie detection in the spotlight, notably the Travis Walton
abduction case of 1975, as well as the more recent (and divisive) case of Ed
Walters and
Takes an exhaustive look
at the case itself and the relevant issue of polygrah reliability. -
"A total of thirteen polygraph examinations would ultimately be
administered in conjunction with the case, a prodigious one as far as the use
of polygraph evidence is concerned. A total of nine individuals were tested,
including the seven primary participants as well as Walton's mother and
brother. Eleven of the tests were passed, one (the original Dalis test) was
inconclusive, and one -- the first test of the primary actor Walton -- was
failed. In evaluating this polygraph evidence, it is important to back up
and consider the validity of lie detection tests in general. Do they work at
all?"
One Universe, One People "One
of the greatest tasks humanity has faced throughout history is the
establishment of peace and unity among differing and diverse peoples....As
great as the challenges to unity have been and continue to be for humans, how
much greater might this be for the emerging and embryonic relationship between
humans and extraterrestrial civilizations....The challenges of establishing
unity among the peoples of the universe is a grand extension of the challenge
of establishing unity and peace among the people of the earth."
A comprehensive
analysis of the UFO phenomenon, as well as original research and experiences
of members of the CSETI CE-5 Initiative Working Group, has
enabled us to make some specific conclusions about UFOs, Extraterrestrial
Intelligence and their motives. The summation of this analysis, which follows,
is intended to assist both groups and individuals in their efforts to
understand this complex subject. We have recorded only those conclusions for
which we have a high level of certainty.
Extraterrestrials and the New Cosmology
|
|
