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.”