THE DOUBTERS AMONG US
Many UFO books and articles are written which only address the way that humanity deals with UFOs, and are not about the UFOs themselves. That is, they are about a person’s reaction to an encounter, a collection of sightings with no interpretation, the government coverup, and so forth. Now, I am not talking about what is written by the nut job part of humanity, but instead what is written by persons of a very level headed nature, by persons who have drawn the correct conclusion that something major is going on which needs clarification. I have read many of their books, and have only recently been struck by a major realization.
The realization is this: To the best of my recollection, few
of the major authors in the field of ufology have come out and said that we are
being visited by extraterrestrial races and the UFOs are their crafts (Richard
Dolan and Stanton Friedman are the top two.)*. It appears to me that most of
the remainder always hedge their bets, falling back to a plea for more study.
These pleas occur after in depth presentation of lots of case study discussion
and/or document review. Despite the fact
that all their good writing compels the reader to believe in the ETH
(extraterrestrial hypothesis), the authors hold back on crossing the line of
total commitment to the ETH. It took me a while to adjust to the reality that
these well studied people who write books, run blogs, author articles, and give
lectures on UFOs overwhelmingly seem to be holding back, at least publicly, on
professing belief that these craft are
piloted by alien races. Do they really believe that all the good sightings are
advanced military experiments? Practically the whole UFO field appears to be
populated by those who don’t even fully believe in the ETH! They do believe
that it is a very good possibility, however.
This is like holding back on believing in evolution because of the
theory of intelligent design.
Nevertheless, most UFO speakers and authors will admit that UFOs appear to be structured craft under intelligent control. If they think that this is the case, then why hold back in saying that the aliens are here? Yikes! Sure, there could be a residual doubt that the whole UFO things is being misinterpreted, and that it could be something more earthly. Even I have a tiny doubt, but the odds are so stacked in favor of the ETH being the actual truth that it should simply be put in the back of one’s mind while information about the aliens is pursued. What this means is that there is an acceptable risk of being embarrassed by a “false positive”; i.e. that someday the phenomenon could be found to be totally unrelated to alien visitation.
Non-acceptance of the ETH holds one back and wastes time. After all, how many of you have read a UFO book which enumerates lots of sightings and then the author calls for more study? I have, and even though I enjoyed reading them, after the first 5 or 10 such books I ceased to learn anything more about UFOs. Wouldn’t you much rather read the same book in which the author enumerates those same sightings and then states the obviousness of alien involvement and then goes on to analyze those sightings to extract hypotheses about the aliens and the crafts? Wouldn’t it be nice if the author would go on to speculate about what the hell is inside that thing and what keeps it airborne? This would push the reader further into an understanding of our visitors. ETH acceptance answers many questions about UFOs, leaving one’s brain free to concentrate on more “alien-centric” questions. Among the questions the ETH answers immediately upon its acceptance are “Are they real? Are they here? Is star or dimensional travel possible? Is there a coverup? “
·
* A few more might be Dr. John Alexander, Frank Feschino, James Fox, and Anthony Bragalia, but I sure cannot remember any others as I write. I could put Philip Corso in there too, but I have a problem with the truthfulness of his claims.
* A few more might be Dr. John Alexander, Frank Feschino, James Fox, and Anthony Bragalia, but I sure cannot remember any others as I write. I could put Philip Corso in there too, but I have a problem with the truthfulness of his claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment