The Great UFO Debate

SPACE.com ^ | Thursday, July 14, 2005 | Seth Shostak

[Momaw Nadon]

The good news is that polls continue to show that between one and two-thirds of the public thinks that extraterrestrial life exists. The weird news is that a similar fraction thinks that some of it is visiting Earth.

Several recent television shows have soberly addressed the possibility that alien craft are violating our air space, occasionally touching down long enough to allow their crews to conduct bizarre (and, in most states, illegal) experiments on hapless citizens. While these shows tantalize viewers by suggesting that they are finally going to get to the bottom of the so-called "UFO debate", they never do. That bottom seems perennially out of reach.

So what are the contentious issues here? First off, despite heated discussion by all concerned, let’s admit that interstellar travel doesn’t violate physics. It’s possible. After all, the Pioneer and Voyager probes are nearly three decades into an inadvertent interstellar journey right now. The kicker, of course, is that these craft will take 70,000 years to cover the distance to even the nearest stars (and they’re not aimed that way). With the physics we know, it’s extremely difficult to substantially, and safely, shorten that travel time. Sure, it might be theoretically possible to create wormholes or some other exotic facility for high-speed cosmic cruising; but that approach is entirely speculative.

And it’s not really the point. The problem I have with the claim that strange craft are prowling our planet is not with the transportation mode, but with the evidence. I’ll worry about how they got here once I’m convinced that they’ve really made the scene.

Well, have they? How good is the evidence? In the course of a recent TV broadcast in which I participated, guest experts who have long studied UFOs argued the case for their alien nature by showing photographs of putative saucers hovering at low altitudes. Some of these objects appeared as out-of-focus lights, while others resembled hubcap-shaped Frisbees caught in mid-trajectory.

Since the former are perforce ambiguous, the latter commanded more of my attention. How can we know they’re NOT hubcaps, tossed into the air by a hoaxer with a camera? The reply from one expert: "these photographs pass muster." When quizzed on exactly which muster was mastered, the response was that "atmospheric effects give us a limit on the distance, and careful examination has ruled out photographic trickery." Well, the former is pretty chancy, and relies on some assumption about atmospheric conditions (was it a smoggy day in Los Angeles?), and the latter proves nothing. A real shot of an airborne hubcap would, after all, be free of photographic trickery.

Additional evidence that is endlessly cited is "expert testimony." Pilots, astronauts, and others with experienced eyes and impressive credentials have all claimed to see odd craft in the skies. It’s safe to say that these witnesses have seen something. But just because you don’t recognize an aerial phenomenon doesn’t mean that it’s an extraterrestrial visitor. That requires additional evidence that, so far, seems to be as unconvincing as the trickery-free saucer snaps.

What about those folks who have experienced alien beings first-hand? Abduction stories are an entirely separate field of study and one which I won’t address here, although I must confess that it’s intriguing to see photos of scoop marks on the flesh of human subjects, coupled with the claim that these minor disfigurements are due to alien malfeasance. But even aside from the puzzling question of why beings from distant suns would come to Earth to melon-ball the locals, this evidence is, once again, ambiguous. The scoops might be due to aliens, and then again, they could be the consequence of spousal abuse or many other causes.

When push came to shove, and when pressed as to whether there’s real proof of extraterrestrial visitation, the experts on this show backed off by saying that "well, we don’t know where they come from. But something is definitely going on." The latter statement is hardly controversial. The former is merely goofy. If the saucers and scoopers are not from outer space, where, exactly, are they from? Belgium?

The bottom line is that the evidence for extraterrestrial visitors has not convinced many scientists. Very few academics are writing papers for refereed journals about alien craft or their occupants. Confronted with this, the UFO experts usually take refuge in two possible explanations:

* The material that would be convincing proof has been collected and secreted away by the U.S. government. While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from ignorance (tantamount to saying "we can’t show you good evidence because we haven’t got it"), and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien artifacts. Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials only visit the U.S., where retrieval of material that falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form.

* Scientists have simply refused to look carefully at this phenomenon. In other words, the scientists should blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis has failed to sway them.

Not only is this unfair, it’s misguided. Sure, rather few researchers have themselves gone into the field to sift through the stories, the videos, and the odd photos that comprise the evidence for alien presence. But they don’t have to. This complaint is akin to telling movie critics that films would be better if only they would pitch in and get behind the camera. But critics can compose excellent and accurate evaluations of a movie without being participants in the business of making films.

The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious. If there are investigators who are convinced that craft from other worlds are buzzing ours, then they should present the absolute best evidence they have, and not resort to explanations that appeal to conspiratorial cover-ups or the failure of others to be open to the idea. The UFO advocates are not asking us to believe something either trivial or peripheral, for after all, there could hardly be any discovery more dramatic or important than visitors from other worlds. If we could prove that the aliens are here, I would be as awestruck as anyone, however, I await a compelling Exhibit A.

[Momaw Nadon]

FYI and discussion

[Perdogg]

ping! Are you really in sunny downtown Burbank?

[Momaw Nadon]

Ping!

[cripplecreek]

I think there is intelligent life somewhere but they aren't visiting much these days.

[EveningStar]

bttt

[Quix]

THANKS.

Dave, could you do the honors? I'm about to rush out the door.

No sweat, if not. Will try and check it when I return.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Pinging the list (as requested).

[Perdogg]

Please put me on the Art Bell/weird/Ufology ping list!

[lowbridge]

What about those folks who have experienced alien beings first-hand? Abduction stories are an entirely separate field of study and one which I won’t address here, although I must confess that it’s intriguing to see photos of scoop marks on the flesh of human subjects, coupled with the claim that these minor disfigurements are due to alien malfeasance. But even aside from the puzzling question of why beings from distant suns would come to Earth to melon-ball the locals, this evidence is, once again, ambiguous. The scoops might be due to aliens, and then again, they could be the consequence of spousal abuse or many other causes.

How did abductee Betty Hill manage to draw an accurate picture of a distant star system years before it was discovered by astronomers?

[TAquinas]

LOL!

That's "an accurate picture of a distant star system?"

What does it say? Nothing.

[SpringheelJack]

Because it's easy to find things in the sky if you just ignore the things which don't fit. This article on the "star map" was published back in 1974, after Marjorie Fish first made her claim for its accuracy.

---

Pattern Recognition & Zeta Reticuli

by Carl Sagan & Steven Soter

"The Zeta Reticuli Incident" is very provocative. It claims that a map, allegedly shown on board a landed extraterrestrial spacecraft to Betty Hill in 1961, later drawn by her from memory and published in 1966, corresponds well to similar maps of the closest stars resembling the sun based on stellar positions in the 1969 Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars. The comparison maps were made by Marjorie Fish using a three dimensional physical model and later by a group of Ohio State University students using a presumably more accurate (i.e., less subjective) computer generated projection. The argument rests on how well the maps agree and on the statistical significance of the comparison.

Figure 1 [not available here] show the Hill map and the Ohio State computer map with connecting lines as given in the ASTRONOMY article. The inclusion of these lines (said to represent trade or navigation routes) to establish a resemblance between the maps is what a lawyer would call "leading the witness". We could just as well have drawn lines as in the bottom of Figure 1 to lead the other way. A less biased comparison of the two data sets, without connecting lines as in Figure 2, shows little similarity. Any residual resemblance is enhanced by there being the same number of points in each map, and can be accounted for by the manner in which these points were selected.

The computer star map includes the sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as "the enumeration of favorable circumstances".

The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in The Interrupted Journey by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allow even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance.

Finally, we lear from The Interrupted Journey that Betty Hill first thought she saw a remarkable similarity between her UFO star map and a map of the constellation Pegasus published in the New York Times in 1965 to show the position of the quasar CTA-102. How many star maps, derived from the Gliese catalog or elsewhere, have been compared with Betty Hill's before a supposed agreement was found? If we suppress information on such comparisons we also overestimate the significance of the result.

The argument on "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" demonstrates only that if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful. The argument cannot serve even to suggest a verification of the Hill story -- which in any case is well known to be riddled with internal and external contradictions, and which is amenable to interpretations which do not invoke extraterrestrial intelligence. Those of us concerned with the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence must take care to demand adequately rigorous standards of evidence. It is all too easy, as the old Chinese proverb says, for the imprisoned maiden to mistake the beating of her own heart for the hoof beats of her rescuer's horse.

Steven Soter is a research associate working under the advisement of Carl Sagan, director of Cornell University's laboratory for Planetary Studies.

[lowbridge]

Carl Sagan is a loon.

[lowbridge]

That was hand drawn under hypnosis.

You want a more professional looking map?

[SpringheelJack]

Not loony enough to believe in the "star map".

[carlr]

To believe in UFOs one has to assume as fact a number of sophisticated things.
As examples,the required energy source,supply capacity,consumption ability(propulsion units)to make the long trip possible,pre flight research (to find and identify Earth as a platform for life)and guidance systems to pinpoint us for a visit.
All are hypothetically possible but of course require a much greater level of knowledge and technology than we have.
Assuming an alien life form has this knowledge to make interstellar travel feasible,it is still not realistic to think that they would make stealth visits and then leave with a minimal of contact.
Sorry to any who are true believers but alien visitation is highly implausible.

[lowbridge]

Not loony enough to believe in the "star map".

He probably turned his nose up at a map of Earth's galaxy too.

[lowbridge]

require a much greater level of knowledge and technology than we have.

It could be that they are more advanced, their civilizations are much older than ours by millions or even billions of years. So naturally they would have the more advanced technology.

Assuming an alien life form has this knowledge to make interstellar travel feasible,it is still not realistic to think that they would make stealth visits and then leave with a minimal of contact.

Why wouldnt that be realistic? Actually that makes sense. The one thing they dont need is to have you earth people turn our their visits into a circus.

[Angelas]

Please put me on the Art Bell/weird/Ufology ping list!

Thanks!

[carlr]

Why wouldnt that be realistic? Actually that makes sense. The one thing they dont need is to have you earth people turn our their visits into a circus.

It would be realistic only if we assume that the alien life form is benign and non aggressive,which with the multitude of life forms here on Earth is very hard to find regardless of their level of development.Add to that the necessary organizational component of an alien society that would be interested in space exploration and there would be no evidence of commerce or colonization?
I am not interested in a long debate into the deep hours of the night but is it realistic to think that if we had visitors from other worlds with the technology to make the trip through the vastness of space,that there would be no evil or aggression which would manifest itself through the easy conquest and exploitation of a inferior population?
This may be possible if there was only one other life form outside of our own but presumably our "visitors" represent a multitude of life forms.

[TAquinas]

She did not draw those maps. LOL!

[Semper Paratus]

If we are being observed by extra-terrestrials it will more likely be by nano-probes not much bigger than molecules.

Our technology is close to this devleopment already.

[lowbridge]

She did not draw those maps. LOL!

I DIDNT say she did. Those maps are more professionally drawn versions if the Zeta Reticuli.

[TAquinas]

You wrote: "How did abductee Betty Hill manage to draw an accurate picture of a distant star system years before it was discovered by astronomers?"

And I mentioned that it didn't look like a map, much less accurate. Now that I take a look at it, it looks more like a flashlight.

And then you presented me with more professional maps. But not of Betty Hill. We were talking about BH's maps, not professional maps.

Betty Hills' so-called accurate map of a distant star system looks like a scribble my daughter could have made.

LOL! That ain't no map. That ain't no accurate, and that ain't a distant (nor near) star system.

[Graybeard58]

The resemblance of B.H. map to the professional one is about the same as my rendetion of the Mona Lisa would be to the original.

(I can't draw squat)

[Boomer Geezer]

I'm not taking sides on this pro or con although I have followed the story for many decades -- quite interesting, if nothing else.

Lowbridge, you may want to check out THE HILL ALIENS Part of Chapters 11 & 12 ... you may find it quite interesting.

[My2Cents]

between one and two-thirds of the public thinks that extraterrestrial life exists

What's the margin of error? ;-)

[My2Cents]

to allow their crews to conduct bizarre (and, in most states, illegal) experiments

Not illegal in California.

[Bon mots]

Hey Dave,
(Thanks for the ping BTW)
Have you read Corso's book, "The Day After Roswell"?
How about Friedman's book, "Crash at Corona"?

Oh, and for anyone interested, they finally synthesized element 115 - and it's not stable, so Bob Lazar is discredited.

[lowbridge]

You wrote: "How did abductee Betty Hill manage to draw an accurate picture of a distant star system years before it was discovered by astronomers?"

And I mentioned that it didn't look like a map, much less accurate.

True. Your words were: "That's "an accurate picture of a distant star system?" And I pointed out that it was drawn by hand under hypnosis. So I can understand not accepting hand drawn maps under hypnosis.

Now that I take a look at it, it looks more like a flashlight.

And the big dipper looks like....a big dipper.

And then you presented me with more professional maps. But not of Betty Hill. We were talking about BH's maps, not professional maps.

I presented the professional maps because obviously you didnt want to accept a hand drawn map by someone under hypnosis (which is understandable).

Astronomers at Ohio State University had a computer put them in their exact position out beyond the double star system of Zeta Reticuli 1 and Zeta Reticuli 2--220 trillion miles, 37 light years from earth, looking toward our sun. The computer duplicated with virtually no variation, the map of Betty Hill.

http://ufocasebook.com/Hill3.html

Betty Hills' so-called accurate map of a distant star system looks like a scribble my daughter could have made.

Well I'm sorry that Betty Hill's profession was not professional map maker.

LOL! That ain't no map. That ain't no accurate, and that ain't a distant (nor near) star system.

It's a map, it's accurate, It's the Zeta Reticuli.

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/hillmap.htm

[vannrox]

[Cvengr]

You've brought out some good points, although the conclusions might be a bit hasty IMHO.

I've considered the issue in a different vein.

I've found remarkable similarity of the style of problem between discerning supernatural phenomenon and the 'UFO/alien' issues.

In both cases, numerous eyewitness testimonies have provided the basis of assertions that these phenomenon exist. In both cases the testimonies indicate other persons are involved in the reported phenomenon and that said persons are able to perform supernatural feats.

To argue UFO/aliens do not exist because insufficient reproducible evidence exists is a poor argument. Considering a good percentage of humanity rejects even the historicity of Jesus Christ, not to mention his ressurrection and status as the Son of God on similar premise, for those who testify to His status as Lord and Savior, the counterargument for lack of evidence regarding UFO/aliens appears even more arrogant and untrustworthy.

Considering the similarities between UFOlogy and Theology, yet also their differences, I suspect many of the problematic areas of UFOlogy might be better understood upon a btter grasp of Theology. Especially since in Scripture we are warned of deceiving spirits and malevolent persons in the spiritual domain. This revelation from God is far more truthful than following a materialist perspective that an anthropology from another world travelled billions and billions of miles only to manifest a primeivel fascination with human tissue sampling,..or else rejecting even the existence of such phenomenon.

[SunkenCiv]

"The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious."

Actually, if there is a burden of proof, it is on those who, through denial, are accusing lots of people of being liars, fools, cads, etc.

And no one is under any obligation to please the deniers with data or anything else. **** 'em.

Refuting Fermi: No Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life?
National Institute for Discovery Science | John B. Alexander, Ph.D
Posted on 01/02/2005 4:43:04 AM PST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1312384/posts

[A knight without armor]

Please put me on the Art Bell/weird/Ufology ping list!

Me too!
Me too!

Thanks!

[Quix]

May see if I can post some docs from this site. Some good qulity reports from quality, well trained observers:

http://www.nuforc.org/

Well put post, BTW, Thanks.

[muir_redwoods]

Visits by aliens who hit and run and don't attempt to make official and obvious contact make no sense to me. The physics of interstellar travel make the whole thing unlikely.

I have absolutely no doubt that the universe if full of all kinds of life but the lights in the sky could more easily be time machines from our own future than alien space craft, IMHO.

[RightWhale]

I've been looking for hard evidence in the sense of hardware. I have also been watching the sky since Sputnik 1. If something is going on, there ought to be some actual evidence besides mysterious scoops and Moses-like burns, but so far, nothing.

[BigSkyVic]

Please put me on the Art Bell/weird/Ufology ping list!

Me also! and...thanks!!

[Thombo2]

I agree.IMO,even if there is intelligent life out in space,the chances of us ever meeting are maybe 1 in a billion?Too many conditions have to be met,and as you pointed out we're nowhere near the necessary technological level.

[SunkenCiv]

UFO list? Yeah, I'll try it for a while, if it's no trouble.

[Sam Cree]

Thanks for the ping.

I think it's not big news that alien visitation is *unproven.* To most of us, anyway [Quix :-)]. In that sense, the article does nothing more than state the obvious.

The fact that so many highly respected professionals have witnessed UFO's, combined with the real possibility of their existence, should at the very least be provocative to all of us.

[Frank_Discussion]

Seth is a vindictive little man. He absolutely HATES that Ufology competes with SETI. And I even happen to like SETI, and expect it to bring positive results. Shostak is an irrational loose cannon, and he threatens destruction of his own field of study with his own vitriol.

Jill Tartar needs to b*tch-slap him.

[BillyBobRob]

If the government has no knowledge of aliens,
then why does Title 14, Section 1211
of the Code of Federal Regulations,
implemented on July 16, 1969,
make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact
with extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

Maybe they passed this, just incase someone does
come visiting. Maybe it is to prevent us getting
one of their vehicles, that gets better gas milage
than ours. ha

[SunkenCiv]

thanks, Q.

[Quix]

THANKS MUCH.

DAVE, THANKS TONS for all the help on my travels this summer. Heading home, I think, Fri/Sat.

Couldn't find any lodging at Grand Canyon, Page/Glen Canyon; Cameron, Kayenta . . . so will likely head home after an overnight near NAU in Flagstaff. Wheee.

LUB

[Quix]

THANKS THANKS