When it comes to dealing with phenomena that are (at first sight) abnormal in nature, it’s important to keep one very specific concept in mind: intellectual honesty.
A few weeks ago, a “Salon du Bien-être” (a convention dealing with well-being) was organized in my village. The program included a conference on “UFOs and Spirituality”. One could wonder about the potential link between the subject of “UFOs” and spirituality, and how it would be dealt with.
The conference was presented in several parts, each covering specific ufology themes. The aim seemed to be to establish the reality of the phenomenon for the general public. Varied topics were covered:
- Crop circles;
- Contactees – people claiming to have had contact experiences with extraterrestrial entities;
- Photos and videos of flying objects;
- Historical cases spanning several centuries, sometimes present in religious texts;
- Alleged abductions by extraterrestrial entities.
One problem is that we currently have no scientific proof that all these phenomena are correlated. It’s not necessarily the same type of “flying object” sighting that could lead to the formation of a “Crop Circle” or the “abduction” of a person, for example. We could be confronted with several distinct phenomena sharing common characteristics, but it is also conceivable that all these phenomena are interconnected. Both are possible, but nothing is yet certain. It is therefore problematic to present these elements together as part of a single whole without objective certainty.
The next problem is the presentation of cases that have been proven to be hoaxes. During the “Contactee” portion of the conference, George Adamski was used as an example of the ultimate proof of extraterrestrial presence. Starting in 1952, he claimed to have made contact with “Orthon the Venusian” [sic]. To illustrate this point, his photos of flying saucers, cited as the “best in the world”, were presented to the assembly.
It’s common knowledge, however, that the Adamski saucer is a fake. According to this source, it’s an assemblage of pieces of kerosene lamp and other everyday objects.
Another problem was that throughout the conference, only the term “extraterrestrials” was used to define these potential beings. This would imply that we are certain of their nature. We are not. To this day, while we may have beliefs and theories about where these objects might come from, there is no certainty in the scientific community, even from experts on the subject.
Among the various possibilities are hypotheses of “Ultraterrestrial/Cryptoterrestrial”, “Interdimensional” or even simply secret military projects. David Grusch cautiously refers to “non-human intelligence”. It remains possible, however, that the phenomenon is “extraterrestrial” in nature – we just can’t say for sure at the moment. It’s just one hypothesis among many.
Towards the end of the conference, the speaker declared: “All UFO activity is extraterrestrials preparing mankind for the return of Maitreya, our saviour and protector”, mentioning here a figure from Buddhism.
At that moment, I realized that I wasn’t at a “UFO and Spirituality” conference; I seemed to be witnessing a quasi-religious indoctrination, where unexplained phenomena were being used to serve a group’s beliefs. It seemed that we were only there to receive “the Good Word”.
Since the 1950s, ufological cults and sects have been using the UFO phenomenon to prove their “powers” to their followers, and if the subject continues to gain media coverage, an amplification of these movements isn’t out of the question.
The title of the conference was “UFOs and Spirituality”. Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. A real discussion on the connection between UFOs and spirituality could have taken place, touching on themes such as:
- the myth of the “Star People” of the Amerindian tribes
- shamanic rituals
- close encounters involving interaction with the consciousness of witnesses
Instead, we witnessed a discourse presenting the personal faith of a few individuals.
One wonders about the lack of intellectual honesty in these presentations, which have the effect of alienating the general public, who attend these conferences out of curiosity, to discover the subject a little more seriously, or to obtain answers to questions raised by current events. By failing to verify information, blindly believing it and presenting supposed links as truths, the people organizing these conferences are misinforming the public, all the while believing they are informing them.
While the audience is invited to ask questions at the end of the conference, the only question comes from a person in his fifties: “My problem is your Maitreya. How do you know all this? What proof do you have?”
Answer: a few embarrassed stammerings, then “Well… that’s just the way it is!” [sic].
This type of event, instead of being able to free speech and arouse the curiosity of the general public, discredits the subject, which is still recovering with difficulty from 70 years of ridicule and stigmatization. Observing the reactions of a few people in the room (sniggering, embarrassment, unease), I can easily understand how this stigmatization of the subject has held up for so long: through blindness and a lack of intellectual honesty in the face of events that are literally extraordinary.
But blindness is human, and even among those convinced of the ridiculousness of the subject, the same belief biases can be observed.
I’ve recently noticed two types of reaction from people who claim to be skeptics:
The first is to omit, deliberately or otherwise, certain elements of a case. The “skeptic” chooses the part of the investigation that supports his or her own hypothesis.
Take, for example, the case of the Washington flyover. In 1952, several objects flew over the capital of the United States. According to the official US Air Force version, the radar echoes were produced by weather disturbances. This is the justification put forward to explain the event. It does not explain the visual witnesses in the streets of Washington, as F-94s were dispatched to chase these objects, nor the documents proving that debris from these same objects was subsequently studied by Wilbert Smith, then sent to the Battelle Institute.
Moreover, this case resulted in the second largest press conference in American history, second only to the announcement of the end of the Second World War, led by Major General John Samford.
This kind of arbitrary skepticism can be seen in what might be called “categorical scientific denial”.
Take, for example, Dr. Garry Nolan‘s study of Jacques Vallée‘s collection of alleged UFO debris. In his conclusion, one can read that some of them are alloys of different known elements, but with abnormal isotopic ratios. This would mean that these fragments use atomic combinations that are unusual, even non-existent in nature, and useless to industry.
When I raised the issue with an engineer, the response I received regarding this study was that it was “impossible” for the same reasons of instability and rapid degradation. This is a categorical denial of the seriousness of the study.
However, the fragments do exist, apparently with these characteristics.
The physical reality of these objects is undeniable.
So the question is: why react so negatively to these facts instead of trying to understand them?
Perhaps for fear of having one’s personal convictions and faith in institutions shaken?
Or perhaps it’s due to a hasty judgment stemming from limited knowledge of the UFO subject, focusing mainly on the pop culture and media caricatures that have prevailed over the past 70 years?
Rather than denying the very existence of a phenomenon that is unknown due to the extraordinary nature of its facts, shouldn’t we rather explore these same facts and try to reproduce them in order to better understand them? Or, more simply, to prove their very existence?
Doesn’t the scientific method consist of taking the facts into consideration, experimenting in an attempt to reproduce them, analyzing the data and then drawing conclusions?
Yet this is not often the path taken on the UFO subject by people who declare themselves “skeptics”, categorically denying its existence by its “impossible” nature.
If the facts seem too “extraordinary” to the skeptic, their very existence will be denied and a hasty conclusion reached without any real investigation. A denial of the very existence of the phenomenon.
Wouldn’t this also be a lack of intellectual honesty?
Yet Dr. Nolan bases his work solely on the facts. His conclusion is not that this is flying saucer debris, far from it. He simply asserts that there are materials that are abnormal in isotopic and structural terms, which certainly appear to be manufactured, but whose function we can’t guess at.
What links these alloys to the UFO phenomenon are the associated sightings. One of the elements analyzed by Dr. Nolan comes from the “Council bluff” case in Iowa in 1977. Witnesses report seeing a glowing red spherical object falling rapidly and crashing into a lake. Other witnesses claim to have seen a stationary object in the sky that “pulled” this spherical object.
If this debris had been found without any witnesses talking about objects flying in the sky, wouldn’t the interest of the scientific community have been much greater?
It’s this “extraordinary” aspect that immediately pushes back any thought or questioning about an as yet unknown possibility.
Skepticism is an essential component of the scientific method. Any discovery can and must be verified by independent teams.
And this applies regardless of the origin of the information.
Isn’t the problem the current trend towards polarized discourse? Every human group tries to frame itself by common elements and ways of thinking that distinguish it from others and build the identity of its members. Isn’t there a fanaticism about UFOs, whether they exist or not?
The “believer” needs to seek answers, bearing in mind that his convictions may be challenged by scientific studies.
The “skeptic” needs to be open to the possibility of unknown variables that could become tomorrow’s standards.
Whether you’re a believer or not, there’s a mystery about this subject that’s been going on for at least 70 years. So let’s stop trying to determine who’s right or wrong, and follow a path to the truth based on facts, beyond what may be most readily available.
Main picture by Pexels for Pixabay