Comments On The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis To Explain UFO Data

At the first level of theorization, we have the OEH - the objective existence hypothesis, which states: "UFOs are an objectively existent phenomenon, not a subjectively (i.e. psychologically or culturally) existent phenomenon.". If this hypothesis fails, there is no need for the ETH or any other hypothesis which depends on objective existence. However, the presence of physical / medical traces, instrument / visual sightings, and multiple independent witness sightings by reliable persons is a strong indicator of the truth of OEH.

At the second level of theorization we have the ETH (and others, including the paranormal hypothesis). The basic ETH may be formulated as "UFO sightings are observations of technological objects which derive from an intelligent, non-terrestrial source." If this hypothesis fails, there is no need for hypotheses of origin and intent.

At the third level, we have theories of origin and intent. This article considers the second level hypothesis.

The basic ETH is not an arbitrary hypothesis. It is a natural hypothesis suggested by various features of the UFO phenomenon:

1. Non-fractal geometric shape - non-fractal geometric regularity is a very uncommon feature of the non-technological world. Indeed, it is mostly limited to inanimate chemical objects, such as crystals. Geometric regularity outside that domain is an indicator of artificiality and technology.

2. Metallic or plastic surface characteristics - concentrated pure metals are rare in nature. The surface of most daylight UFOs (such as the recently investigated Harwinton CT case or the Socorro case from 1964) has an appearance of metallic or plastic material, again an indicator of artificiality and technology.

3. Luminosity - visible light energy output is a feature of a variety of natural processes, and thus UFO luminosity is a weak indicator of technological nature. The presence of high energy levels as estimated from the luminosity, however, significantly narrows the range of applicable natural phenomena, and when taken in conjunction with (1) and (2), it offers some support for artificiality and a technological source.

4. Non-human appearance of occupants - obviously, alien beings would not be completely human in appearance (though they might have heads, be bilateral, and have hands and feet). Indeed the advent of truly human appearing beings in some accounts (credibility uncertain) has been a troubling artifact of some modern abduction and high-strangeness cases.

5. UFO performance adequate to exit the earth's gravitational field - cases where speeds measured by radar are close to or sufficient to escape the earth's pull are strongly suggestive of an ability to leave the neighborhood of the earth, a key requirement for ETH. In addition, speeds or accelerations in excess of that possible to terrestrial technologies of the time suggest non-terrestrial origin.

6. Though not properly documented and certainly in most cases in dispute, the presence of UFOs in earth orbit and interplanetary space has been suggested by a variety of accounts. This is a fertile area for additional research and represents the primary discriminator for a extra-terrestrial presence of UFOs, though it does not specifically demonstrate an extraterrestrial source.

7. Behavior - (see the various behaviors in my object behavioral classification system and occupant behavior classification system, or the cases cited in The UFO Evidence). UFO behavior indicates the following, which would rank as normal indicators of sentience and (perhaps) intelligence in a non-human species:

   • an awareness of features of the environment, including the presence of witnesses, vehicles, and artificially produced signals (as in roadblock, stalker, gang, radar avoidance cases, and mimicry cases (see Sparks RB-47 analysis in Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopedia and UFO Book)),

   • an ability to respond to input from the environment (as in light signal and radar signal mimicry cases),

   • an ability to problem solve (as in rendezvous, interceptions, interception avoidance, close quarters manuvering, etc.),

   • curiosity (as in vehicle / witness / facility inspection cases, such as the Ponta Poran case),

   • tool use (paralysis tube, levitation / force exerted by UFO on inanimate objects with apparent intention, repair behaviors), and

   • language use (between themselves and with witnesses).

However, the behavior of UFOs and UFO occupants when details are examined are not entirely comprehensible. For instance, some cases have suggested a variety of wild manuvers performed, even by large UFOs, in the absence of any notable stimulus from the environment or any reasonable speculation as to an internal motivation for such behavior. This may either be an argument against intelligence, or a suggestion of the presence of an alien reasoning, or a suggestion of technological parameters which require such behavior, but of which we are currently ignorant (as has been suggested for some UFO secondary flight characteristics such as wobble, falling leaf, etc.).

In addition, there is a lack of apparent creative behavior in the sense of a UFO occupant or UFO engaged in a transformation of materials from the environment into a new form. Such a lack may or may not be a problem for a supposition of intelligence.

Finally, UFOs are frequently seen to come down from the sky and depart into the sky (as in the Moreland case). This is, again, suggestive of a non-terrestrial origin.

In short, the presence of these features reasonably suggests the ETH as a parsimonious hypothesis to account for the observations. As Our existence testifies to the potential for evolved intelligent life in the universe. Our steps into space demonstrate the feasibility of interplanetary travel, and extrapolations from existing technology suggest the feasibility of interstellar travel for advanced species with high levels of wealth.

Discriminators for the ETH include:

• Detection of UFOs in interplanetary space.

• Detection of UFOs entering or leaving the atmosphere (suggested by UFOs arriving from and departing vertically at high speed, and by radar cases indicating escape velocity speeds)

• Technological nature of UFOs (suggested by metallic appearance, moving parts, energy emissions), in advance of terrestrial technologies (suggested by high speeds and accelerations or compact appearance in conjunction with high performance, or the absence of normal reaction propulsion systems, or side effects such as object levitation, emission of cold, EM effects, radiation effects, etc.)

• Association of non-human apparently sentient / intelligent beings with UFOs (suggested by the large numbers of occupant reports).

It is safe to contend the ETH has not been completely verified. For instance, the ETH requires not just extra-terrestrial presence, but extra-terrestrial origin (ETO). Discriminators for ETO would minimally require observation or the demonstration of the impossibility of UFOs approaching earth from interstellar and interplanetary space. Ideally, identification of a non-terrestrial origin point would be required for final confirmation of ETO. At any rate, these are discriminators, and thus represent the ability to falsify the ETH.

It cannot be disputed that the data which exists fails to be, in many cases, quantitative or ideally confirmable. Indeed, it remains reasonable at this point to state that even basic ETH can be no more than a working hypothesis, and of the ETH, the most solid part of the working hypothesis is that UFOs are objects of an artifical and technological nature. The data are provocative, but hardly conclusive, and, thus that it is impossible to justify anything on the next level of the ETH - which would be theories of origin and intent. Furthermore, the relative paucity of classification systems, both in number and support for detail, means that context for even the basis of such discussions is lacking.

We can consider ourselves beyond the start of the data acquisition phase though not past its end. Certainly, there are many steps we can take to improve the data. Yet even historical data provides opportunities for scientific estimates of a variety of quantitative parameters, including speed, acceleration, weight, thrust, density, and energy output. That this work has yet been barely tried on an existing database where cases number in the tens of thousands is a sad commentary on the state of the field. Even if less than one percent of 10,000 cases allow for quantitative estimates, we would have 100 data points more than we have now for every 10,000 cases in the database.

The history of science shows situations where theory outruns data and informs data collection, and situations where data outruns theory and requires the development of better theories. This has occurred in physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and many other fields. Usually, during transitional periods, extensive arguments about what constitutes viable data and viable theories break out and are discussed with great heat on all sides.

This has also occurred in ufology. In the 1940s, the secret weapon hypothesis reigned supreme. However, the data quickly made it clear that such theories were not viable. From then until the late 1960s, the dominant theories were ETH-related, based on the observations previously discussed. The advent of abduction data and seemingly UFO-related paranormal data drove a revolution toward transdimensional and occult intervention hypotheses. Sadly, that revolution seems to have produced less fruit than the earlier approaches, was based upon small or weak data sets, and much of the reasoning which seemed to support it has collapsed. Worse, as the few predictions made by those theories seemed to be invalidated, the theorists responded by creating more and more convoluted models to account for that refutation while saving the theory. Ultimately, the reaction to that event seems to have been a resurgence of neo-skeptical claims, which have not shown themselves to be any more viable than their predecessors in explaining the core UFO data.

In conclusion

• The data requires improvement. UFO data is not gathered in experiments or, typically, from repeated observations of what can be demonstrated to be the same phenomenon. However, similar problems plague other fields, including astronomy, economics, sociology, and zoological behavior studies. As with those fields, we are required to accept the nature of our data, use large error bars, derive upper and lower limits from the absence of data in particular ranges, and accept that we must perform classification in order to begin to concentrate observations of similar phenomena so that they are comparable in the same way that astronomers compare stars within and between classifications to derive models of stellar evolution.

• The basic ETH remains a reasonable working hypothesis in that it accounts for more aspects of the data as reported and to the extent confirmed by investigation in a more parsimonious fashion that any other theories so far presented. However, theories of specific origin and intent remain unjustified. Arguments over the ETH which contend it cannot be falsified ignore that a) it would be falsified by the absence of all or most of the elements described above and b) that there even more specific discriminators which have not yet been successfully tested or for which attempts at testing have not even been tried.

• Global theories as yet lack an underpinning of quantitative observation / analysis and classification of those observations. Therefore, the focus must be on these areas if we are to eventually support global theories.

The frustration of anyone in this field with the tendency to premature and unjustified theorization is understandable. However, such work represents the highly risky leading edge of the field and necessarily works hand in hand with data collection, each informing the efforts of the other. To rail against it is to ignore its essential role in all sciences as well as in our own field.