Not Knowing Should Make a Scientist Curious

Neil deGrasse Tyson is back to his debunker’s ways, but the lack of incontrovertible evidence he demands does not justify ignoring real probabilities of ET existence.

Is It Really So ‘Extraordinary’ to Think UFOs May Come from a Non-Human Source?

Neil deGrasse Tyson caused a stir yet again in UFO circles with his March 4, 2021 tweet saying, “Not knowing what it is, does not count as evidence for knowing what it is,” regarding the videos of UFOs taken by Navy pilots. This echoes a popular line of reasoning among skeptics that UFOs do not prove the existence of extraterrestrial (ET) beings or advanced galactic civilizations.

Even among skeptics who believe observed objects are not of human origin, there is often doubt or reluctance to suggest that these objects or vehicles are being piloted or otherwise controlled by advanced non-human intelligence. To be fair, setting aside rumors of the US government possessing ET bodies or crash wreckage, there is no known direct physical evidence to link UFOs and ETs. Yet, this lack of evidence is not proof that it isn’t possible or even the most probable scenario.

Not knowing what something is should make a scientist curious. Can we start by at least agreeing on that?

In their paper, Sovereignty and the UFO, professors Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall believe there is enough indirect evidence to warrant further scientific study. They go on to say:

What is actually known about UFOs is that we have no idea what they are, including whether they are alien; far from proving UFO skepticism, science proves its ignorance. With so little science on either side, therefore, the UFO controversy has been essentially theological, pitting ET believers against unbelievers. In this fight, the unbelievers have secured the authority of science, giving them decisive advantage. Their views are taken as fact, while those of believers and agnostics are dismissed as irrational belief. Since science does not actually justify rejecting the ETH [extraterrestrial hypothesis], why would unbelief be so hegemonic?

It is an interesting question. The authors describe what is potentially at stake in confirming the presence of ETs, including challenging modern science, philosophy, and the belief in our own anthropomorphic sovereignty. As monumental and rattling as the discovery of alien intelligence may be, ignoring the idea and shrouding it in taboo is an affront to science and humanity’s right to know. The authors posit there is room and a need for critical theory on the UFO and ET relationship. I agree.

I sometimes wonder if part of the reluctance of skeptics to entertain the ET hypothesis is a worry that bringing theory and personal experience into the debate compromises the integrity of UFO research and contributes to ongoing stigma. It is a fair point. Certainly, many theories are untestable and some claims are pure fabrication. However, does that justify systematically excluding theory and experience from consideration? In the search for answers, why would we be so rigid in what we are willing to entertain? How does that serve us?

I don’t think it does. We may not have positive evidence but that doesn’t mean we are disproving the negative. As the professors say:

It is not known, scientifically, that UFOs are not ETs, and to reject the ETH is therefore to risk a Type II error in statistics, or rejecting a true explanation. Of course, this does not mean that UFOs are ETs, either (inviting a Type I error), but it shifts the burden of proof onto skeptics to show that a Type II error has not been made.

When we apply logic to the question of what we are observing and how UFOs are being controlled, we find that ET involvement in UFO sightings is very plausible if not probable. In fact, answering the question of what else they could be if not a product of advanced intelligence is more problematic. Skeptics may say that we are witnessing natural space phenomena or evidence of human technologies developed on the sly. Yet in many cases, we know enough to know or at least leave open the possibility that is not true.

Building the Case

There are several observations that support a hypothesis that at least some UFOs are of ET origin.

Observed Physical Characteristics Suggestive of Deliberate Engineering.

Through documented observation, we know that there are various shapes of objects or craft appearing in our atmosphere. Common shapes include the infamous flying disk, cigar-shape, circle, cube, and triangle. On the tails of the bell curve are other configurations.

Now, our natural world is rife with physical diversity, so it would follow that the vastness of space could produce even greater diversity. However, unless we are seeing the same individual objects over and over, which would raise additional questions of how likely that was for objects just passing through, it seems there are recurring prototypes. In short, they appear to be engineered.

Moreover, some of the best photos I have seen (taken by a trusted friend and UFO researcher) show objects that appear very smooth or have defined edges, all without rivets or the markings of human design. The likelihood of such objects being naturally occurring seems to be very low and perhaps impossible if we consider the catalog of sightings over the last 70 years. Similarly, Lue Elizondo popularized the five observables based on validated video evidence and corroborated witness testimony:

Anti-gravity lift

Sudden and instantaneous acceleration

Hypersonic velocities without signatures

Low observability or cloaking

Trans-medium travel

If these objects were naturally occurring space phenomena, would they exhibit such capabilities? That brings out the skeptic in me. While it is possible we are observing secret technologies developed by the military of one or more countries, those with past and/or present access to classified information, such as Lue Elizondo and Christopher Mellon have concluded that they at least are not the product of US ingenuity and the likelihood of them being Russian or Chinese are remote. Moreover, if our political adversaries have had access to this technology for the last several decades, we would likely find ourselves in a much different world.

If we accept that there is a chance these objects are engineered, the question remains: by who or what? We can honestly admit that we are not sure, but that is different from ignoring that there is a who or what. It may be that some of what we see in the skies are unmanned vehicles, like drones sent on reconnaissance, but that still doesn’t resolve the question of sent by whom? It is even possible that the objects themselves are a type of consciousness taking material form. What we identify as a vehicle could be a conscious being capable of assuming different shapes and appearances. But no matter which way you slice it, we cannot definitively rule out the ET hypothesis.

Responsiveness to Human Thought and Intention.

While it is fashionable in some circles to trash-talk grassroots efforts to invite in and communicate with UFOs, such as in CE-5 events or UFO tours, the reality is that sightings do occur during such events. Whether people are actually calling in the craft or simply witnessing interstellar traffic is up for debate, but there are cases where the objects appear to be responding to human thought and requests.

Melinda Leslie runs UFO Sighting Tours in Sedona, Arizona. As an experiencer and researcher, including having over a thousand tours under her belt, she is a wealth of information on the phenomenon. In addition to observing some of the characteristics mentioned above, including objects flying in formation, she has countless examples of objects responding to telepathic and visual attempts to engage. It happened on both of the tours I attended.

Through night vision goggles, we viewed a couple of objects who clearly got significantly brighter as we flashed at them with our lasers and asked them to power up for us. This happened a few times, powering up and then dimming and powering up again, as we focused on these glowing objects in the sky. The skeptic might say it was a satellite with iridium flares but those communications satellites were not very prevalent and were phased out, making them an unlikely explanation. Plus, a satellite with no power source wouldn’t illuminate several times or flash back a pattern, as Leslie has repeatedly observed.

The response of these objects to human observation does not definitively prove that they are piloted by alien intelligence, but the volume of examples of this behavior supports it as a possible hypothesis. It is one reasonable explanation, which deserves to be considered.

Channeled Information from ET Beings.

For millennia, humans have communicated with beings from beyond. No longer the province of shamans or the occult, people from all walks of life are being contacted by other consciousnesses. These channels bring forth information from archangels, ascended teachers, and a cornucopia of galactic races, such as the Pleiaidians and Arcturans, as well as councils and collectives of non-physical, higher dimensional entities. In addition to bringing forth messages of oneness, love, and ascension, some speak openly about ET-human engagement.

For example, Shaun Swanson channels a hybrid human-grey being named Ishuwa from the Yahyel civilization. According to Ishuwa, the Yahyel were the pilots of the Phoenix Lights mass sightings in March 1997 and February 2007, the latter of which was prophesied in a January 2007 message from Darryl Anka, channeling a hybrid known as Bashar. Bashar has said that open first contact will most likely be from these hybrid races that most closely resemble humans.

Admittedly, much of what these beings communicate, whether it is the truth about the moon, stories of life aboard their ships, or the genetic ET heritage of humanity are not provable with our current capabilities. It is smart to be critical of any information that is not readily corroborated. However, the preponderance of channels and wealth of information that comes through them, some of which can be validated, suggests that it is possible that there are forms of consciousness existing outside our human perception. If we allow that to possibly be true, perhaps it is also true that consciousness represents intelligence capable of engineering vehicles that can travel through space. Maybe what these beings tell us about where they come from and why they are here is also true. Again, we may not be able to definitively prove what is real but we also can’t prove none of it isn’t.

A Stone is Not an Airplane

Those with skeptical leanings often quote Carl Sagan in saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Philosophers trace this back to Enlightenment thinker David Hume, who was critical of the belief in miracles cited in religious texts. But is the claim of UFOs or the ET hypothesis truly “extraordinary?” Professor David Deming explains:

“A claim or theory is not ‘extraordinary’ solely because it is novel, unusual, or is in disagreement with human consensus… An ‘extraordinary’ claim is one that is contradicted by a massive amount of existing evidence.”

He offers this useful example:

The claim that a rock will remain suspended in air when released from the hand is extraordinary because we have an extraordinary number of observations to the contrary. But a claim that it is possible to construct and operate a heavier-than-air flying machine is not “extraordinary,” even though we have overwhelming evidence that objects heavier than air fall to the ground. The two instances are not exactly comparable. A heavier-than-air flying machine is an object, but it is a unique object. Objects that we may have observed falling to the ground, such as stones, do not have engines or wings. It does not matter that we may have observed falling stones ten million times: a stone is not an airplane.

Is the ET hypothesis contradicted by a massive amount of evidence of the exact antithesis? I don’t think it is. Using this decree to establish near impossible burdens of proof and maintain the status quo only serves to limit our thinking. It does not hurt us to earnestly consider a wider range of explanations. Certainly, if we amass overwhelming evidence that disproves a hypothesis, we should reject it. But until that time, being open to the world being extraordinary in its possibilities can drive innovation and lead to greater knowledge. Isn’t that what we are all trying to achieve?

In light of repeated attempts by Tyson to debunk and dismiss the phenomenon, we should question why he is so entrenched in his position. Clearly there is a lot at stake for him and others in the scientific community, which could be a red flag for the rest of us.

---

My work is entirely supported by people like you. If you have liked what you see here, please consider sharing it, subscribing, signing up for a course or coaching, and/or making a donation via Venmo or buying me a coffee on ko-fi to help me continue to provide this service. Thank you!!!