Alien Theory Aids And Abets Debunkers

ETH. Three little letters that have been the backbone of ufology since its inception. It stands for “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis,” but the way it is commonly used today you’d think it’s more forgone conclusion than hypothetical. To any reasonable person this is jumping too far ahead. No one ever accused ufology of welcoming reasonable people to its fold.

Still, there are some astute researchers who hold a personal hypothesis of what is behind ufo sightings and accompanying phenomena, but they never make it public. This is because the question is the important thing, not their conclusion. No cart before the horse for them, no sir. And I’ve been thinking lately why that’s important. I mean besides the obvious reasons contained in these two paragraphs and others we’ve covered on Paratopia and elsewhere.  Let us add this to the mix–nay, let us make this the main ingredient from here on out:

It is important not to promote the ETH anymore because it allows the Secular Humanist debunkers masquerading as skeptics to avoid the real issue. The real issue is, Are UFO sightings and accompanying phenomena worth examining or not?

The question isn’t, Is it aliens? It’s not, What does the government know? It’s, Is this worth our time?

In order for it to be worth our time, there has to be an unknown or unidentified in the data. Skeptical groups, as I’ve been hammering lately, are not really comprised of skeptics. They are organizations under the umbrella of a religion called Secular Humanism. Humanists are, as you may guess from the name, real big on what humans think and do and not so much concerned with anything else. Science. Philosophy. The end. Every good thing is a healthy mental construct from the human brain; everything else is a delusional mental construct.

They are more afraid of the dark than abductees and haunted people. They light that dark with themselves–with what they know “for sure” and with what they assume they will know once the scientific method has proved it. If a phenomenon hasn’t run that course then it isn’t real.  Needless to say, once it has run its course–and if it has been proven to be real–what was formerly scoffed at is now taken as conventional wisdom.

All of that is to say that “skeptics” (Humanists) must debunk the unknown and the unknowable because these are antithetical to their belief in the human capacity to know all. Some unknowns get the scientific treatment, with judgement put on hold until a verdict is in; other unknowns get laughed out of the room. It is far easier to laugh and be done with it than to investigate. Upholding their belief in themselves takes precedence over science and discovery. If you take unidentified objects or manifestations in the sky and call them “alien,” man alive are you ever making the Humanist’s job easier, because that they can know the answer to and laugh you out of the room.

Jeff Ritzmann and I have often complained that “skeptical” organizations always pick the low-hanging fruit to debunk. I never saw this before, but it’s actually ufology’s fault that they do. If you say “UFOs are alien spacecraft” then all the debunker need do is concentrate on those photos and videos that look like props from a sci fi movie to debunk it. “Nope. Sorry. That mothership is a spray-painted cup glued to a plastic tree.”

There goes your proof of aliens.

Well… duh. But, see, that’s the wrong conversation to have. The real one, the one ufology and Humanism despise for the same reason (lack of a concrete answer) is, “Okay, if we put aside aliens and every definition for these things, is it worth studying? If we examine it, we’ve got to go all in. We’ve got to be honest with what happens to experiencers–ALL the weird surrounding phenomena. What happens, how it happens, when it happens. We’ve got to throw away the hypnotically-retrieved junk and the CGI footage. No more Greer talking about alien fetuses when we know it’s human. No more Jim Sparks sweating into the camera as he assures you that he already knows everything about the aliens. No more Steve Bassett fake news conferences or any promotion where the promoter takes center stage over the science. That on our part–so skeptics, we’re abandoning aliens, which means you have to  put down the 15-page dissection of Billy Meier’s obvious hoax and the frame-by-frame examination of Stan Romanek’s puppet in the window and actually look at the data from legit case studies, not the sensationalized cottage industry junk.”

What can we glean from examining the still-unknown cases, the top 10%? We can glean whether or not this is worth investigating further. Humanists don’t ever have to address that question so long as we refuse to ask it. They LOVE having the alien fight. They will win that every time until an alien actually lands and gets out and says, “Lead me to your taker.”

That’s their whole thing, right? How many times have you heard a Humanist say, “Where’s the proof? Where’s the piece of the ship? Where’s the alien?”

And they are right to say that. More than that. In fact, they have all the proof in the world that it’s not aliens thanks to the likes of Meier, Romanek, Bassett, Greer, and every fledgling special effects house trying to go viral on youtube with “real” UFO footage. That’s the answer they NEED–it’s just humans behind all of this. Humanists require that it be just humans and ufology keeps feeding their belief system.

I say, no more. Stop playing into their hand and ask the question they’re glad to ignore: Is this worth looking at?

You ask that and they have to look at it to know what you’re talking about to give an answer. And if they say no, they have to give a reason. And that reason can no longer be, “Because it’s not aliens. It’s hoaxes, delusions, and misidentifications of planets.”

“Yes,” you can agree, “it IS all of those thing. That’s the other 90% and the cultural filter we wrongly tried to force onto it. But what’s this 10% over here about if it’s not aliens, Mars, a hoax, and the witness is sane? It’s an unknown, right? So, is it worth examining?”

The last thing a Humanist will ever reply with is, “I don’t know.”

What Does The End of The Age of Visual Evidence Mean To Ufology?

Now that Photoshop is no longer the special domain of photographers and analysts, cameras run at unlimited frame rates, everyone with a computer has access to special effects suites, and Google Earth is Google Earthing, I’d say the age of visual evidence is pretty much over for ufology, wouldn’t you? But is that a bad thing?

One could suppose that advanced aliens would have the means to make their craft invisible, rendering the question moot–but if they do they certainly haven’t used their cloaking devices liberally over the years. Maybe they want to be seen. Maybe they don’t care either way. Or maybe, just maybe, they don’t exist at all.

What if the end of the age of visual evidence means this: we can prove that ufological phenomena belong to the trickster realm more than alien? We will know this if, for instance, ufological evidence stops being visual and starts taking place in the other senses. Already we’ve seen people talking about mysterious booms and mysterious trumpet noises. Phantom sounds. And as our attention spans have been decreasing, we’ve been asking ourselves if time is speeding up, right? Some people link this and deja vu to interdimensional beings, parallel worlds, time travelers, and aliens or future humans fixing our timeline, whatever that means. I imagine the next big thing will take place through touch: people claiming to be knocked down by a mysterious invisible force. A phantom sucker punch, if you will. Or perhaps a light tickle on the back of the neck that feels like a finger. Maybe it starts out nice but grows violent until you have a story to tell.

I can also imagine an entire town waking up from the same strange dream about grays and talking to each other about it. Then someone calls Coast and it goes viral.

Is that us searching for an unknown to explore in the face of the “alien” unknown growing quieter and quieter as youtube hoaxes proliferate? Or is the phenomenon doing that? It could be both: as our visual tech renders photo and video evidence moot, we create several new mysterious options for the “alien” to appear in our lives and whichever one becomes the popular norm is built upon by the enigmatic other–if there is an enigmatic other. Perhaps that other is no more than the human collective working in a way we have yet to prove, creating tulpas that act out our agreed-upon mystical fantasies in a concrete way that today’s materialism demands.

We won’t know what the definition of the enigmatic other is if alien ships get replaced with sound, touch, taste, dream, time, or other  phenomena, but we’ll know what it is not: what we thought it was, believed it was, and fought over deep into the night for the last 60+ years. And when the hurt wears off from realizing we’ve wasted our lives believing self-woven fantasies about the other, that’s when we’ll see we’ve actually taken one small step closer to seeing it as it is by having dramatically peeled off a huge layer of what it is not.

Letter To Dr. Michael Swords

The message below to Dr. Michael Swords concerns a post at his blog in which he apologetically presented some information casting doubt upon the validity of hypnosis as a memory retrieval enhancer and investigative tool. When Emma Woods attempted to contribute to the comments section of the post, Dr. Swords chose to edit those comments to omit the name of Emma Woods, as well as Dr. David Jacobs, who was referenced in her comments. The letter below was submitted today in the comments section of the post in question.Dear Dr. Swords:

This message is in response to your April 19 blog post, ‘Abduction and Hypnosis: a Letter from the Past.’ [sic], and particularly your remarks contained in the comments section. While your stance on preferring to remain independent of controversy surrounding hypnosis used as a memory enhancer and the extremely questionable activities of some of its proponents, such as Dr. David Jacobs, is noted, a reasonable argument could be made that a man in your position within ufology is not afforded any such skirting of the issues. This is by no means to suggest that you should be disproportionately criticized for the actions of others, but to moderately point out that a community should expect to look to its leaders for guidance on relevant issues.

In addition to subjecting hypotheses to direct tests, scientists employ a regular regimen of intense introspection. No less important than the basic investigations is the essential activity of critiquing the results and the means to obtain them. Are the data accurate and precise? Was the methodology sound? These questioning processes begin before the first experiment is conducted. Careers, money and prestige may all be on the line, but they all take a back seat to the review processes. In no case would the demands imposed for the responsible conduct of research ever be considered stirring up controversy. The bottom line is simple – scientists question everything, including each other.

A concern over the possible reactions of colleagues and friends for bringing up issues with hypnosis is a clear sign something is amiss. Your choice to edit the comments of Emma Woods and refuse to allow her to specifically name Dr. Jacobs as a controversial figure at your blog is indeed your prerogative. However, it could be interpreted to be much more of the problem than the solution. While reticence to delve into matters requiring legal remedies is both wise and appreciated, the fundamental problems with abduction research itself embodied by extraordinary reliance on a single problematic methodology and exposed by a long running public dispute warrant a broader discussion. Abduction research has imitated some facets of science, but without the underlying and critical procedures to ensure data quality and subject protections. The thin veneer of this faux ‘scientific’ process works well enough to mislead some, but those who know the difference have an obligation to sound the alarm.

While you are entitled to your perspective, an alternative and reasonable stance would be that denying public discussion of relevant issues impedes abduction research while indirectly supporting some perpetrators of unethical acts and adding to their undeserved credibility. Due to your position as a longtime member of the board of directors of the Center for UFO Studies, the UFO community might expect to count on you, as well as your peers and others holding similar positions in UFO organizations, to clarify and resolve relevant issues. Perhaps you will opt for alternative choices in the future, and contribute in more substantial manners to the much needed improvements in leadership within abduction research specifically and ufology in general. Notwithstanding friendships, loyalties and worries over making someone feel bad, it is impossible to have this both ways.


Jack Brewer

Tyler A. Kokjohn, Ph.D.

Alfred Lehmberg

Harvey Price

Carol Rainey

Jeff Ritzmann

Jeremy Vaeni

Emma Woods