Science and Ufology
By Grendel the Martyr
I'd be estatic to have evidence of an alien presence on Earth, truly so, and I've stated this over and over, but....show me the money. There is absolutely no way I'm going to trust on faith on such a claim as alien abduction or alien visitation. Completely unrelated to and independent of my role as a psychologist, I know a guy who believes he is a Soviet spy, tells people this for whatever reason, and with no less fervor and certainty than does your average alien abductee, and he has exactly the same amount of proof for his claim as do alien abductees for theirs. That's the whole nut right there -we have no lack of claims re: ufology, nor any lack of cases. How might I go about investigating my guy's claim of being a Soviet spy? WHY might I go about investigating his claim of being a Soviet spy? What do you suppose needs to happen before I'd take his claim seriously? The burden of proof is on the claimant. If my Soviet spy acquaintance were to bring me some authentic looking Russian intelligence documents, or introduce me to a control agent named Olga, I'd have something to look at, a place to begin, a reason to proceed.
The notion that science can't/won't/hasn't/wouldn't look at the ufological evidence is hogwash, an easily disspelled myth. The work done on the photographic 'evidence' alone would fill a small midwestern library. The problem is that when the evidence is looked at, it disappears in a cloud of hoax, misidentification, inconclusion, "they" hide it, etc...at least every bit so far.
If you were a Scientist sitting in your lab somewhere, would you drop your current endeavors (making a living like the rest of us) and run to investigate an abductees claims? No offense to abductees, but claims simply aren't going to cut it. All a scientist can do with claims is listen to them, nod, smile, and tell you what they do in fact tell you: "Um, well, that's nice. Let me know when you've got something tangible I can work with.." Mr. Scientist doesn't behave this way out of spite, closedmindedness, or snobbery.....what else could he do?
What does the record show about investigations of tangible evidence, mainly photographic evidence? Inconclusive at absolute best.
What about materially tangible evidence, such as implants? They are common objects of terrestrially available materials. They exhibit absolutely nothing to indicate extraterrestrial origins......EXCEPT those removed by Dr. Roger Leir, who says he has lab reports proving alien origins......EXCEPT he won't let you see these reports to judge for yourself -you must accept his interpretation of the reports. Scientists rightfully won't do this. There are other 'problems' with Leir's claims, but my point is that scientific inquiry has revealed hoaxing, misidentification of mundanities sincere and otherwise, and inconclusive results. Do not trot out any of that tired old nonsense about scientists hiding results because it upsets their paradigms, or that the public couldn't handle it -that is complete nonsense. Your average scientist LIVES for such discoveries, and the discovery of proof of alien presence on Earth, whether in person or by virtue of one of their artifacts, would constitute one of the greatest discoveries ever.
In many ways, Science = Townspeople, while Ufology = Boy Who Cried Wolf.
"Efforts" like the Sturrock Panel, the COMETA Report, and the Disclosure Project were so poorly done -comically done in at least one case -that serious scientific interest, already waning due to endless false leads, has been understandably scared off. Fold in the Hopkins/Mack idiocy, then blend in the Friedman/Roswell nonsense, then sprinkle lightly with all the TV schlockumentaries where all the above UFO Pop Culture Club people are regularly seen, and you begin to see that the Giggle Factor so bemoaned by the believer crowd is 99% self-inflicted, and that the reticence of science to spend resources on UFOs is entirely understandable and a reasonable response to Ufology as we know it.
Ah, but Science "should" be above all that, right? Sure, in an ideal world, but an ideal world this ain't. As I've stated before, if there is anything substantive whatsoever in the ufological field, you could not possibly keep Science *out* of it. Due to the phenomena's very nature it cannot be isolated from anyone desiring to investigate it. How do you keep everyone/anyone from looking at the sky? But scientific research into anything costs money, and whomever puts up that money -be it a private, corporate, public (tax), or educational source -is going to want a return on their investment, and will not offer it without some indication that such a return is possible.
Even one single piece of tangible, testable evidence would start an absolutely unstoppable bonfire of scientific inquiry into UFOs and related fields -this process could not be stopped, and the history of science supports it 100%, with the latest examples being the world-wide research and development in computers, computer programs, genetics, bioengineering, etc....so many other examples exist.
'Science' is ready. The scientists are ready. The investigative methods and technology are ready. All that is missing is the spark -that bit of undeniable evidence that funding further research would be an acceptable risk. Who is going to pay for this clammered after scientific research -that is the question. Traditional Science doesn't see the risk as worth it just now. Research funding is a highly competitive area, and there are too many productive areas already begging for -competing for -research funding.
Particularly loud, even abrasively loud, voices in Ufology belong to Laurance Rockefellar, Joe Firmage, and Robert Bigelow. Between just these three extremely rich guys -all loyal ufo believers -one could fund the best research facility ever. Any one of them could devote $10-20-30 million without missing a beat, and yet they don't. This is because they are businessmen first and agree with mainstream traditional science that the risk is too great. Why should skeptical scientists or those who fund their research take risks these believers won't themselves take?
I'm sorry, but Ufology needs to accept responsibility for its own lack of credibility and resultant scaring off of serious inquiry -or at least find new scapegoats. It needs to grow up and quit expecting a market driven entity -bigtime Science -to drop precedence and behave altruistically and spend valuable, hard to come by resources on investigating UFOs because it's important to Ufology and Ufology asked it to.
Ufology needs to abandon this ongoing delusion that mere claims will suffice, that 101 claims will somehow make a stronger case than 100 claims did. It needs to drop this insistence that appeals to authority lend credence to claims. Science doesn't much care who made the original observation -they want to know if you have any *independent corroboration* of the claim. Would Rodney King see police witness testimony as inherently credible? Would MK Ultra test victims see military witness testimony as inherently credible? Military and police are inherently more credible? Not so, and this is readily demonstrable. Science knows this and is rightfully wary of those claims which require this fallacy to support them.
Oops. The guard is coming. I need to finish mopping up and get back to my cell ;o).