[ExI] Article: "Sexing Up UFO's"

[John Grigg]

An article whose thesis is worth considering...

John Grigg


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/sexy_ufo.shtml


Ever seen those car commercials where a young, scantily clad woman gets a
shot of tactile ecstasy from merely stroking a sports car's luxurious
lipstick-red exterior? You're supposed to think; "If I buy that car,
then..." Then what? You'll be a chick-magnet? Not likely. It's also not
likely that aliens have been visiting our planet, but you wouldn't know it
from the way the science community remains mealy-mouthed or even silent on
Joe Public's certainty that UFOs are visiting Earth. If pressed, both the
car manufacturer and the government official will admit that the woman and
the aliens are illusory. And while it's easy to understand how the woman may
help boost car sales, what's in it for the science community to keep the
illusion of orifice-probing aliens aloft?

Despite what were considered to be major investigations into Unidentified
Flying Object (UFO) sightings in the 50s, 60s and 70s, neither NASA nor the
USAF have been very forthcoming one way or the other when it comes to the
idea of extraterrestrials (ETs) visiting Earth. Project Blue Book, a
systematic study into UFOs, was initiated by the USAF in 1952, and
eventually terminated in 1970, after no evidence one way or the other was
found to support a breach of natural physical laws, or the existence of
alien technologies. Naturally enough, conspiracy buffs claimed that the
project was dubiously managed, that data was suppressed, and that military
officials continued to gather UFO data long after the project ended (there's
just no pleasing some people). But even today, official attitudes toward
UFOs are curiously inconsistent.

So what *is* the official word? Well, recently a panel of scientists
conducting an independent review concluded that UFOs are worthy of further
study after all. "It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to
extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science,"
claim the international review panel of nine physical scientists. Of course,
it will all be done very tastefully, they assure us, so that "such
evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness
to evaluate rival hypotheses."

However, the panel's latest conclusions are a stark contrast to those
reached by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project, in his
1968 UFO report. Back then Condon argued: "further extensive study of UFOs
probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be
advanced thereby." But barely two years after Condon's conclusions, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Kuettner Report argued for: "a
continuing, moderate-level [research] effort with emphasis on improved data
collection by objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis" in
regard to UFOs. With all of this official flip-flopping over the years, it
looks as though they are messing with the public on the issue of UFOs – but
more on that later.

You don't need to be a paid-up member on Mensa to work out how unlikely it
is that aliens are visiting Earth, because making such a claim implies a
number of truly remarkable things. First of all, any visiting aliens are
most probably quite some distance away from Earth, at least outside of our
own range of space travel or detection technologies. This may not be saying
much, but it at least implies that their technology is likely a whole lot
more advanced than our own. Another factor is time. Technologically advanced
humans haven't been around for very long in the scheme of things; just a
spec of time in the Earth's history, and our span of existence barely
registers when compared to the age of the universe. So given these
variables, what are the chances that (a) an alien civilization exists
simultaneously within the same teensy-weensy timeframe as we humans, (b) is
relatively close to Earth, and (c) intelligent enough to have the technology
to reach us? Slim at best.

Another seemingly good reason why we shouldn't put much stock in UFO
sightings is because UFOs seem to be invariably seen by ordinary, everyday
folk, rather than astronomers and other relevantly qualified persons. But of
course, this rule of thumb has since been dashed, as the international panel
attempting to have UFO investigations reopened is also comprised of a band
of former military pilots and high-ranking officials who have their own UFO
sightings to add as evidence. "It's a question of who you're going to
believe: your lying eyes or the Government?" said John Callahan, a former
Federal Aviation Administration investigator. Callahan alleges that the CIA
tried to silence reports about an enormous luminescent ball, roughly four
times the size of a jumbo jet.

Either NASA, together with USAF's top brass, know something that we don't
and they're keeping it hush-hush – like Area 51 and Roswell are real – or
they're just playing with us. As I said earlier, the lack of commitment to
UFO research one way or the other makes the latter far more likely – but to
what end?

In some respects you could argue that the concept of Earth-visiting aliens
is to science what Intelligent Design (ID) is to creationism. That is, both
world-views exploit such unlikely and improbable speculations to forward
scientific research and theological teaching – though obviously in very
different ways. Why, for instance, do you rarely hear scientists come out
and explain how unlikely it is that intelligent civilizations are visiting
Earth? Are we to assume from this silence that UFO sightings are in fact
quite likely? And let's face it; scientists aren't too big to take pot shots
at something they find preposterous, as evidenced by the chorus of
scientific opposition to ID.

Likewise, the same phenomenon that you see with scientists and UFO sightings
seems to occur with respect to theologians whenever ID is raised in the
public arena. Despite ID not telling the story of creation as set out in the
Bible, it does allow the concept of a "creator" or "designer" to seep into
the public consciousness. As a result, you can find fundamentalist
Christians, creationists, and Bible literalists biting their tongues
whenever ID is discussed, and even supporting moves to have ID taught in
classrooms – adopting the "students should hear all arguments" position. In
their eyes, ID is a gateway to theological concepts more in line with
Christian thought, and therefore a valuable tool to forward their overall
religious agenda.

So what message are we to take from these scientific and theological
shenanigans? Ok, ID is bad because it has no grounding in science, is
without foundation, and should therefore not be taught in science class.
Fine. But if scientists are happy to continue letting the public believe
that alien visitations are possible, then perhaps we should introduce such
possibilities into the science classroom. At the very least students could
put the possibility of alien visitations into some kind of perspective,
instead of being left wondering about the veracity of every UFO sighting
that they see, hear, or read about (UFO videos are some of the most popular
items on YouTube). If the issues surrounding UFO sightings were addressed in
science class, there may even be a reduction in the number of erroneous UFO
sightings as people begin to have a better understanding of what it is they
are seeing "Dang, Jed, that ain't no fly-in saucer, that there be a
meteorite." But judging by the silence of the science community in regard to
UFO sightings, educating the public about such matters is not on their
agenda. But why the selectiveness?

NASA spends a lot of time and money (billions, in fact) on space projects
that really don't amount to much in regard to improving the human condition
– either now or in the future. In relative terms, it's like you or I
irresponsibly dipping into the family budget so that we can go on a holiday
to somewhere we've never visited before, because you've heard that it might
be pretty or interesting, because it's there, because you can. So, much like
the creationists, scientists bite their tongues when it comes to UFO
sightings, because they know that as long as the public has a vested
interest in our skies, then NASA will always have the public on side in
regard to space project funding. Billions of dollars are nothing compared
with the possibility of finding the perpetrators of all of those cattle
mutilations, abductions and probings.

The pointy end of this argument is that UFO sightings – fueled by
sensational media reports that go unchecked – are tolerated by the
scientific community because such incidents help cast space exploration in a
worthwhile light in the eyes of the public. But just as you won't be having
dinner any time soon with the gorgeous woman writhing about on the expensive
red sports car, don't expect that your tax dollar investment in the space
race will lead to ET dropping by for a visit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080322/e4c288c8/attachment.html>