| Extraterrestrial Hypothesis |
Article Index for Extraterrestrial |
Website Links For Extraterrestrial |
Information AboutExtraterrestrial Hypothesis |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS | |
| topics in ufology | |
| pseudoscience | |
| extraterrestrial hypothesis | |
|
OVERVIEW Jerome Clark credits physicist Edward Condon with popularizing both the term "extraterrestrial hypothesis" and its abbreviated form, "ETH", in the 1969 Condon Report . Condon defined the ETH as any "idea that some UFOs ''may'' be spacecraft sent to Earth from another civilization, or on a planet associated with a more distant star." (Clark 1998, 213) However, Condon rejected the ETH in the most emphatic terms. Although Condon may have popularized the term, he was not the first person to use it. For example, French engineer Aimè Michel used "extra-terrestrial hypothesis" in his book ''The Truth About Flying Saucers'' two years before Condon. Dr. James Harder also used the term in 1968 while testifying before a Congressional committee. Congressional testimony After nearly six decades, the ETH remains probably the central question in ufology (and sometimes—perhaps regrettably—the ''only'' question in ufology). As Dr. Carl Sagan said in a 1969 lecture, "The idea of benign or hostile superbeings from other planets visiting the earth clearly an emotional idea. There are two sorts of self-deception here: either accepting the idea of extraterrestrial visitation in the face of very meager evidence because we want it to be true; or rejecting such an idea out of hand, in the absence of sufficient evidence, because we don't want it to be true. Each of these extremes is a serious impediment to the study of UFOs." (Sagan and Page, p265) Similarly, astrophysicist Dr. Peter A. Sturrock writes that for many years, "discussions of the UFO issue have remained narrowly polarized between advocates and adversaries of a single theory, namely the extraterrestrial hypothesis ... this fixation on the ETH has narrowed and impoverished the debate, precluding an examination of other possible theories for the phenomenon." (Sturrock, 255-256) Most Ufologists accept this hypothesis at least as one of several proposed explanations for UFOs, although there is a smaller number of them who don't. ARGUMENTS AGAINST AND FOR Arguments Against The most frequent argument against the ETH is that there is simply little to no evidence or data which supports such a far-reaching hypothesis. It's also argued that the vast distances between stars and planets would make interstellar travel so unlikely as to be practically impossible. Astronomer Carl Sagan offered a detailed argument against the ETH along these lines. See also Fermi Paradox . Though at one point Dr Jacques Vallee favored the ETH, he has since rejected it and contends that a measure of Censorship has taken place by proponents: "What the public learns about the phenomena comes from that small portion of the facts that has been pre-selected by believers to promote enthusiastic support for the extraterrestrial theory."[http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1497.htm pilots and their craft reflected the expectations of the turn of the last century ... Critics argue that we have Anthropomorphised the (UFO) phenomenon--given it the attributes of our own Culture . Genuine Extraterrestrial s would be so 'alien' that they would be beyond our Comprehension , and not like extras from a low-budget SF film." (Randles and Hough, 285-287) Astronomer J. Allen Hynek proclaimed that UFOs were a mystery worthy of continued study, but he eventually rejected the ETH, and at a 1983 MUFON conference, explained his reasons for doing so in detail:
Hynek admitted that, in his judgement, all the arguments offer considerable problems, but only the seventh of his arguments was insurmountable. Arguments For On the other hand, the ETH has seen a number of supporters. Noting that there is widespread consensus within the scientific community that extraterrestrial civilizations almost certainly exist , they argue, the ETH is possible, or at least in the realm of plausibility. The argument that the ETH is Pseudoscience has not been universally accepted; as noted below, prominent astronomer Clyde Tombaugh suggested that ''excluding'' the ETH could be unscientific. Similarly, Dr. Michael D. Swords argues that the ETH can (and has) been framed in a scientific manner, and furthermore, that many common objections to the ETH are themselves often specious and/or pseudo-scientific. The ETH might even be a relatively conservative or mainstream hypothesis if one assumes that UFOs are real craft. (See Notable Quotes below for some scientists and studies who have argued along these lines.) Given general consensus that ET civilizations exist , the key points of contention would be how common and how close such civilizations might be and how likely that they could achieve interstellar travel and currently be surveying Earth. All of these are unknown. See Drake Equation . Supporters of the ETH further argue that it is unreasonable to apply the limits of modern Earthly technology to a civilization that may be far more advanced, perhaps by millions of years. Indeed, physicist further argues that Earth is a young technological civilization with very limited energy resources (what Kaku calls a "Type 0" civilization), but older, more advanced civilizations would likely be able to control orders of magnitude greater energy resources needed to make interstellar travel possible. Supporters also typically argue that critics usually lack familiarity with available UFO evidence, and that their statements against the ETH are often merely a reflection of the critics' personal biases and their ignorance on the subject. Indeed, when Peter Sturrock conducted a survey in 1977 of the American Astronomical Society , he found strong support among members for continued scientific research into UFOs and that antagonism to such research was directly correlated with ignorance of the subject matter. {Link without Title} . Another argument frequently advanced is that if UFOs are extraterrestrial, there are important national and worldwide security implications and that there is a Coverup by governments of the best UFO evidence. (See also UFO Conspiracy Theory ) Therefore, the scientific investigation of the UFO question and the ETH is different from most other scientific studies in that important information isn't freely available. The contention that there is a widespread coverup of UFO information isn't limited to the UFO research community. E.g., a 1971 survey of Industrial Research/Development magazine found that 76% felt the government wasn't revealing all it knew about UFOs, 54% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, and 32% thought they came from outer space. {Link without Title} See also some quotes below expressing this viewpoint, such as from Lord Hill-Norton, former British Chief of Defense Staff, former astronaut Edgar Mitchell , and the 1999 French COMETA UFO study committee. HISTORY In many people’s minds, the ETH is linked to the mass interest in UFO’s which began in the late 1940’s. For example, literature professor Terry Matheson writes that "sightings of unidentifiable lights the sky had been taking place for centuries, but only after Kenneth Arnold ’s ‘flying saucer’ sighting on June 24, 1947, near Mt. Rainier , Washington , were they explicitly theorized to be extraterrestrial on origin." (emphasis added) (Matheson, 15) Matheson’s may be the majority view, but, as detailed immediately below, it is simply inaccurate to suggest that extraterrestrials were never associated with reports of odd aerial phenomena prior to Arnold (though Arnold's sighting certainly brought far more attention to the subject). PRE 1900S Though not specifically linked to flying saucers or odd aerial lights, it's perhaps worth noting that there is a long history of claims of contact with non-earthly intelligences. As early as the 1700s, people like Emanuel Swedenborg were claiming to be in contact with inhabitants of other planets; Helena Blavatsky and others would later make similar claims. Perhaps the earliest clear citation of the ETH occurred more than eighty years prior to the Arnold report. Jerome Clark writes, "So far as is known, the first mention of an extraterrestrial spacecraft was published in the 17 June 1864 issue of a French Newspaper , '' La Pays '', which ran an allegedly real but clearly fabulous account of a discovery by two American geologists of a hollow, Egg-shaped structure holding the three-foot mummified body of a hairless humanoid with a trunk protruding from the middle of his forhead." (Clark 2000, p. 122) Another example dates to the 19 October 1865 issue of the St. Louis (Missouri) ''Democrat'' newspaper, in which it was written that a just-returned fur trapper reported the crash of an object in the Rockies near or Ufology in the 20th century. Mystery Airships In the late 1800s there was a wave of Mystery Airship reports across the United States. Some accounts were clearly hoaxes, but other accounts--whatever the ultimate origins--were apparently made by witnesses who genuinely thought they’d seen something unusual. In 1897, several newspapers speculated about extraterrestrial origins for these mysterious aircraft: The '' Washington Times '' speculated that the airships were "a reconnoitering party from Mars "; and the '' Saint Louis Post-Dispatch '' suggested of the airships, "these may be visitors from Mars ". (Jacobs, 29) Such opinions were in the minority, however, with most suspecting that the Airships were of human manufacture. 1900S Charles Fort Charles Fort was another who suggested that odd aerial phenomena might have extraterrestrial origins. He wrote four popular books in the early 1900’s, collecting from newspapers and scientific journals all manner of Strange Reports which, Fort argued, were ignored or marginalized by mainstream science. Fort occasionally suggested that extraterrestrials were responsible for a wide variety of events: Inexplicable artifacts, mysterious disappearances (and strange appearances), and bizarre lights reported in the sky or in the Ocean s. Jerome Clark writes that “Fort’s notions about otherworldly visitors are not presented in any clearly-developed fashion but are scattered through the three volumes, mostly in asides. His habitual jokiness sometimes obscured his meaning. His occasional letters to Newspaper s, composed in more straightforward style, indicate, however, an authentic conviction that extraterrestrial craft, artifacts, beings, and creatures have been and are present on earth.” (Clark 1998, 200) One of Fort's letters was published in the September 5, 1926 '' New York Times ''. Fort wrote, "If it is not the respectable or conventional thing upon this earth to believe in visitors from other worlds, most of us would watch them a week and declare that they were something else, and likely make things disagreeable for anyone who though otherwise." (Clark 2000, 127) One example from Fort's writings from his books illustrates his indirect, often humorous manner of suggesting extraterrestrial intervention on Earth. As is typical of Fort, it's unclear whether he took his own theory seriously. In '' The Book Of The Damned '' (1919) Fort notes that in 1853, whilst excavating in Ninevah , an object was discovered which Sir David Brewster insisted could be only a functional optical Lens . A debate developed, with skeptics suggesting that this OOPArt was more likely a bauble or fragment of Jewelry that Brewster misidentified. Fort writes that one of Brewster's critics "argues that it is impossible to accept that optical lenses had ever been made by the ancients. Never occurred to him—someone a million miles or so up in the air—looking through his Telescope —lens drops out." (Fort, 134) (Of course, in the years since Brewster's assertion, it's been firmly established that lenses are known to have been made as far back as Ancient Greece , it is likely that the object found was a man-made optical lens. Lenses were occasionally used in ancient times both for magnification and for starting fires by focusing sunlight.) Lyman Spitzer Interestingly, on June 23, 1947--the very day before Arnold's sighting and three days before it made national news--the '' Hartford Courant '' reported on comments made the previous night (June 22, 1947) by Lyman Spitzer, Jr. , an Associate Professor of Astrophysics at Yale University . While speaking on New Haven , Connecticut 's WTIC radio, Spitzer speculated that the planet Mars could have been inhabited for millions of years. He thought it possible that Martian s had "visited the earth", but "unless they had spent some time in a large city or had landed sufficiently recently to have been photographed, we would have no record of their having been here". Spitzer also thought that "any few men who had seen them would probably not be believed by anyone else." (Clark 2000, 127) Post-Arnold ETH Ideas After Kenneth Arnold 's reported UFO sighting on June 24, 1947, there were occasional speculations reported in the Mass Media that flying saucers were from other worlds. However, for the first few years after Arnold, such suggestions seem to have been few and far between, and were largely mentioned in passing. Arnold himself struggled to explain the sighting within the context of his knowledge, initially suspecting they were guided missiles or experimental aircraft. Arnold didn't speculate as to an extraterrestrial origin for the objects he reported until perhaps several years after the sighting, as in an interview he had with journalist Edward R. Murrow in 1950. Arnold stated, "...if it's not made by our science or our Army Air Forces, I am inclined to believe it's of an extra-terrestrial origin." interview In 1952, he had another sighting of two craft-like objects, one transparent, which he said looked like "something alive." He eventually concluded that UFOs were not spaceships but space animals, "living organisms ... in the atmosphere." (Clark 1998, 62) Several polls might suggest that--initially--only a very small minority of the general public suspected an extraordinary explanation for the phenomena. The results of a es, 3% thought UFOs were "weather forecasting devices", while 1% thought they were of Soviet origin. The remaining 9% were classified as "other explanations"; this category included ideas that the UFOs had something to do with the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy , that they were secret aircraft produced commercially, or were somehow related to Atomic Testing . (Clark 2000, 129-130) However, this polling result may possibly be misleading. The subject was never far beneath the surface. Various newspaper articles and columns immediately following the Arnold sighting did raise the possibility of extraterrestrial origins, although usually in a derogatory or satirical way. "Men from Mars" was mentioned on a number of occasions, particularly in relation to similarly reported that the weather balloon identification "flashed over the wires to bring relief to a worried public." The following day, United Press reported that, "Reports of flying saucers whizzing through the sky fell off sharply today as the Army and Navy began a concentrated campaign to stop the rumors." The Gallup poll the next month followed in the wake of this extensive official and mass media debunkery. Possibly this suppressed less conventional opinions from people for fear of ridicule or caused a change of opinion, perhaps reflected in one third of those polled expressing no opinion and 10% suspecting hoaxes. The poll might also have been skewed by the pollsters not offering the respondents the option of extraterrestrial origins in their list of choices. However, another poll from the August, 1951 issue of '' Popular Mechanics '' printed the results of a poll of UFO witnesses. 52% believed they'd seem "manmade aircraft", while only 4% thought they'd seen "visitors from afar." (Clark 2000, 130) Another Gallup poll from June 1950 made it very clear that the vast majority of the public was very aware of the phenomenon, even if they didn't necessarily believe it to be of non-earthly origins. The term "flying saucer" was familiar to 94% of the respondents, by far the best-known term commonly appearing in the news, easily beating out others like "universal military training" (75%), " Bookie " (67%), or " Cold War " (58%). Donald Keyhoe and the ETH As noted in the chronological list below, the bulk of the early consideration of an interplanetary answer to the UFO question came from U.S. Military sources. However, most of these studies and opinions were little known at the time they were made. In the January, 1950 issue of ''True'' (a popular men's magazine) published an article by retired Marine Corps Major Donald E. Keyhoe . The article, "Flying Saucers Are Real", caused a sensation. Importantly, the article seems to have been the first in-depth, public dissemination of the idea that UFO's were of extraterrestrial origin. Keyhoe would go on write several more articles and successful books about UFOs, all espousing the ETH; he became one of the most prominent and influential people in Ufology . In 1956, he cofounded the National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomenon (NICAP), and eventually became its director. Jerome Clark writes that Keyhoe's "advocacy of the extraterrestrial hypothesis ... measurably affected popular attitudes towards the UFO phenomenon." (Clark 200, 133) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF NOTABLE QUOTES AND STUDIES SUPPORTING ETH As noted above, the ETH has seen rather little public support or consideration from most mainstream experts. There are many instances, however, where it was at least considered by notable figures, and by persons in official government studies.
UFO/ALIEN ORGANIZATIONS UFO Casebook and Malevolent Alien Abduction Research conduct research into UFO and alien encounters that may suggest that aliens are really visiting this planet, both have a list of aliens allegedly visiting this planet,both list the Grey Aliens, certain other aliens as HOSTILE to the human race. SOURCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|