Long post about my problems with the ETH

[DamnDirtyApe]

Here are a few major aspects to the ET phenomena that I have trouble accepting. A lot of things just don’t “sit right” with me at gut level.

1) No two sightings/photographs are alike.
With possible exception of the black triangles (which I believe are from our own military) why is it that pretty much every major ufo photo/video/sighting is different? It's almost impossible to count the variety of crafts supposedly out there - orbs, glowing discs, saucers, boomerangs, cigars etc. And within each major shape category you have endless differences. Windows, protrusions, lights, etc all deviate from one another. Even the sizes vary from gigantic all the way down to tiny drones.

The fact that even the core “best” cases are very different makes it hard to accept that these are actual physical crafts unless you entertain the idea that the ufos literally have an unlimited number of vehicles at their disposal. If everyone around the world saw and photographed and videotaped the same thing, or even a small variety of the same things, I would find it incredibly compelling. Sadly, it seems ufos are like snow-flakes. No two are alike.

I find it very telling that when you look at the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union after the government collapsed, the nature and descriptions of their sightings varied widely from the West. Since they were so isoloated during the cold war they didn’t have access to the latest fads and trends in the media and ufology. Thus we get sightings of tall robots and an assortment of other odd things that the West left behind in the 50’s.

2) Their "technology" is anachronistic, and their messages trite.

Explain how beings that can travel the unimaginable distances of space, or master traversing other “dimensions” (whatever THAT means) can't seem to avoid crashing all the time, or need running lights? Our own planes can fly in complete darkness if need be, yet UFO’s need running lights? Ridiculous.

Perhaps ufos glow as a byproduct of their propulsion systems? Fine. Then why isn’t that a universal trait? Many of the sightings report ships traveling at great speed with no glow at all. Again you run into the issue of there being no consistent details from sighting to sighting.

On a more abstract level, if aliens are here to study/monitor us, why would they need to directly interact with us in any way whatsoever? We primitive humans are already working on micro-sized robots that can fly around and record data or deliver weapons. Surely an advanced intelligence can do better than buzzing over farms in huge ships or grabbing thousands of people in their beds. When modern anthropologists want to study primates in the wild, even with our limited technologies we can do it more surreptitiously than the ET’s seem to be able to manage with us.

Beings that have mastered technology to the point of traveling the stars would assuredly possess tools and techniques that are unpredictable, unexpected, or downright baffling to us. They should be able to whip up some sort of nano-sized "exploration" dust bots, or invisible robots etc. Hell I don’t know, but whatever it might be, I’ve never heard of any evidence of it beyond projected near-term advancements of our own current technologies.

Likewise, just as their tools are simply an extrapolation of our own current systems, the messages they supposedly give to abductees are equally mired in contemporary issues. Back in the 50’s the reason for the alien’s contacting us was to warn us about the threat of nuclear annihilation. Then in the 80’s it was for genetic experimentation. In the new millennia, with all the hoopla and media hype of global warming, suddenly the aliens are here to warn us about how we are destroying the environment. In 20 years, whatever the latest social obsession happens to be, I’m sure the ET’s will be warnings us about that as well.

And why is it that besides the pre-requisite stereotypical gloom and doom warnings, nothing else truly useful is ever conveyed to contactees? How come no one is ever given any information that is not already currently available on Wikipedia, or that is testable or predictive in some way.

For example, if a contactee were to come out and say “The Greys told me that they traverse our space-time by manipulating closed cosmic strings employed as the struts of a cube thus causing negative tension to cancels tidal forces blah blah blah, and here is the cornerstone equation which describes the process…” Then you could actually have experts evaluate the information in a meaningful way. Hoaxer Bob Lazar tried that rout once, but his lies were quickly exposed as scientific mumbo-jumbo once experts examined it. His crap about gravity waves and element 115 sounded great to the uneducated willing believers, but was instantly seen for what it is by real physicists. So instead of truly unexpected or verifiable info, we endless get nonsense about how the ET’s want us to meditate and get in harmonic frequency with mother earth, or why we should be vegans if we want to enter into the greater cosmic community. Ugh. I don't expect them to reveal the secerets of the universe, but come on, you'd think that guys like Whitley Striber would come away with even a tiny iota of useful information after supposedly having years and years of alien visits.

3) They look even remotely like us. This one has been around for a while, and it still holds as far a I'm concerned. Even if the Greys are synthetic or automatons, why would they look similar, yet not TOO similar, from us? Why is it that people in the 50 and 60s' were not describing the modern Greys. It's not until stuff like the movie "Close Encounters" and Strieber's book came out that everyone started describing the modern prototypical alien form. It's all too convenient for me.

At the end of the day, part of me still feels there is a valid unexplained phenomenon out there, so I’m not 100 percent opposed to the possibility of the ETH. But issues like I raised above really make it hard for me to take it too seriously.

Please chime in with your own observations or rebuttals. I’d love to debate information that refutes or explains the issues I raised.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

Here are a few major aspects to the ET phenomena that I have trouble accepting. A lot of things just don’t “sit right” with me at gut level.

1) No two sightings/photographs are alike.
With possible exception of the black triangles (which I believe are from our own military) why is it that pretty much every major ufo photo/video/sighting is different? It's almost impossible to count the variety of crafts supposedly out there - orbs, glowing discs, saucers, boomerangs, cigars etc. And within each major shape category you have endless differences. Windows, protrusions, lights, etc all deviate from one another. Even the sizes vary from gigantic all the way down to tiny drones.

The fact that even the core “best” cases are very different makes it hard to accept that these are actual physical crafts unless you entertain the idea that the ufos literally have an unlimited number of vehicles at their disposal. If everyone around the world saw and photographed and videotaped the same thing, or even a small variety of the same things, I would find it incredibly compelling. Sadly, it seems ufos are like snow-flakes. No two are alike.

A testament to human imagination: I find ET to be more likely because of the rich variety of descriptions. Why couldn't each civilization have their own technology?

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

I find it very telling that when you look at the stuff that came out of the former Soviet Union after the government collapsed, the nature and descriptions of their sightings varied widely from the West. Since they were so isoloated during the cold war they didn’t have access to the latest fads and trends in the media and ufology. Thus we get sightings of tall robots and an assortment of other odd things that the West left behind in the 50’s.

Are you saying that you are skeptical about the ET hypothesis because folks in the former Soviet Union experience the phenomena differently that in other parts of the world? Couldn't this just be due to different ETs?

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

2) Their "technology" is anachronistic, and their messages trite.

Explain how beings that can travel the unimaginable distances of space, or master traversing other “dimensions” (whatever THAT means) can't seem to avoid crashing all the time, or need running lights? Our own planes can fly in complete darkness if need be, yet UFO’s need running lights? Ridiculous.

Speaking just for myself, I'm not convinced that there has been a single crash.

Also, the running lights could be for us, not them. (Even our planes that don't need them still have them.)

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

Perhaps ufos glow as a byproduct of their propulsion systems? Fine. Then why isn’t that a universal trait? Many of the sightings report ships traveling at great speed with no glow at all. Again you run into the issue of there being no consistent details from sighting to sighting.

Again, I don't see why any two craft should be alike. Human perception will surely add some variety to the descriptions, anyway.

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

On a more abstract level, if aliens are here to study/monitor us, why would they need to directly interact with us in any way whatsoever? We primitive humans are already working on micro-sized robots that can fly around and record data or deliver weapons. Surely an advanced intelligence can do better than buzzing over farms in huge ships or grabbing thousands of people in their beds. When modern anthropologists want to study primates in the wild, even with our limited technologies we can do it more surreptitiously than the ET’s seem to be able to manage with us.

What if they want to see how we react to them?

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

Beings that have mastered technology to the point of traveling the stars would assuredly possess tools and techniques that are unpredictable, unexpected, or downright baffling to us. They should be able to whip up some sort of nano-sized "exploration" dust bots, or invisible robots etc. Hell I don’t know, but whatever it might be, I’ve never heard of any evidence of it beyond projected near-term advancements of our own current technologies.

I've found the phenomena to be unpredictable, unexpected, and baffling enough to be ET. We can't really speak intelligently about any tools we don't recognize yet. (For all I know, my cat is a robot.)

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

Likewise, just as their tools are simply an extrapolation of our own current systems, the messages they supposedly give to abductees are equally mired in contemporary issues. Back in the 50’s the reason for the alien’s contacting us was to warn us about the threat of nuclear annihilation. Then in the 80’s it was for genetic experimentation. In the new millennia, with all the hoopla and media hype of global warming, suddenly the aliens are here to warn us about how we are destroying the environment. In 20 years, whatever the latest social obsession happens to be, I’m sure the ET’s will be warnings us about that as well.

Stipulating (briefly) to the reality that these "messages" are really from other intelligences, I'd expect the message to change as we change. The message might merely be "camouflage", a way to keep our minds engaged while they execute some other part of the study. Picture a parent trying to keep a child under control at the dentist --- the parent will tell the child anything to keep them still. ("Sure, honey, I'm from Venus.")

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

And why is it that besides the pre-requisite stereotypical gloom and doom warnings, nothing else truly useful is ever conveyed to contactees? How come no one is ever given any information that is not already currently available on Wikipedia, or that is testable or predictive in some way.

Why believe that they have any interest in helping us whatsoever? Just because they're not sharing doesn't mean they're not ET.

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

For example, if a contactee were to come out and say “The Greys told me that they traverse our space-time by manipulating closed cosmic strings employed as the struts of a cube thus causing negative tension to cancels tidal forces blah blah blah, and here is the cornerstone equation which describes the process…” Then you could actually have experts evaluate the information in a meaningful way. Hoaxer Bob Lazar tried that rout once, but his lies were quickly exposed as scientific mumbo-jumbo once experts examined it. His crap about gravity waves and element 115 sounded great to the uneducated willing believers, but was instantly seen for what it is by real physicists. So instead of truly unexpected or verifiable info, we endless get nonsense about how the ET’s want us to meditate and get in harmonic frequency with mother earth, or why we should be vegans if we want to enter into the greater cosmic community. Ugh. I don't expect them to reveal the secerets of the universe, but come on, you'd think that guys like Whitley Striber would come away with even a tiny iota of useful information after supposedly having years and years of alien visits.

There is no reason to believe they have any desire to educate us, or even if that would be wise if they *did* want to educate us. Keep in mind that Earth could be the millionth planet that they've scouted and they may have learned it's best to tell the young civilizations nothing. They may have some kind've "Prime Directive"-type rules or such.

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

3) They look even remotely like us. This one has been around for a while, and it still holds as far a I'm concerned. Even if the Greys are synthetic or automatons, why would they look similar, yet not TOO similar, from us? Why is it that people in the 50 and 60s' were not describing the modern Greys. It's not until stuff like the movie "Close Encounters" and Strieber's book came out that everyone started describing the modern prototypical alien form. It's all too convenient for me.

What about this theory: only the ones that look remotely like us are interested in us?

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe

At the end of the day, part of me still feels there is a valid unexplained phenomenon out there, so I’m not 100 percent opposed to the possibility of the ETH. But issues like I raised above really make it hard for me to take it too seriously.

I can't "refute" anything you've said. I have no idea what the truth may be. But nothing you've said makes me feel ET is more unlikely.

[DamnDirtyApe]

Thanks for taking the time to respond fitzbew88.

Some of the points you raised I think are plausible, but others seem to add an extra layer or two of complexity beyond what makes sense.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

A testament to human imagination: I find ET to be more likely because of the rich variety of descriptions. Why couldn't each civilization have their own technology?

Well there must be many, many civilizations visting us then since even hard photographic/video evidence varies so much. Given two arguments: A) a vast multitude of ET civs are visting us or B) The vast majority of photos are hoaxes and misidentified mundane objects, I would resort to Occam's razor and sumbit that the simplest explanation is the best. Sure that doesn't prove ALL sightings are fake/misidentified, but it does work against the case.

As I mentioned, the single most compelling bit of data that we could have, outside of full disclosure or some other public event, would be if everyone around the world, even people who had no access to our modern pop culture, saw the same few things.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Also, the running lights could be for us, not them. (Even our planes that don't need them still have them.)

I would consider that quite a stretch Again, the lights issue goes back to lack of consistency.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Again, I don't see why any two craft should be alike. Human perception will surely add some variety to the descriptions, anyway.

Really? That would be like us building a one-off, totally unique custom jet fighter every time we wanted to add a new plane to arsenal. That makes no sense from any standpoint I can imagine. Again I go back to Occam's razor. Especially when you take into consideration that we are not talking about changing minor thinsg like a paint job or anything, but fundamental variations in all aspects of their physical characteristics.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

What if they want to see how we react to them?

That's a good point, but then why the attempted concealement otherwise such as trying to conceal memories and such.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

There is no reason to believe they have any desire to educate us, or even if that would be wise if they *did* want to educate us.?

Well I'm referring to the many number of contactees/abductees who come back with quite extensive details and descriptions of their visits and conversations. Again, nothing that they ever report back is anything that you can't already find at the local bookstore under the "New Age" section. The idea that ET's have come trillions of miles to tell us how important it is to meditate seems patently ridiculous to me.

Of the entire UFO phenomena, I'd rate the entire contactee/abductee thing to be the least compelling or plausible evidence. At the other end of the spectrum, encounters with multiple military pilot sightings combined with multiple radar locks is to me the strongest type of evidence that there is an actual phenomena worthy of examination.

To me it's critical that when trying to examine possible solutions to the questions ufology raises, it's important not to ever try and justify data with progessivly more exotic and unlikely answers to prop up a certain pre-conceived hypothesis. I see that a LOT in this field amongst "true belivers" since they have a vested interest in validating their beliefs no matter how silly the rationalizations get. As I see it, interlocking consistency of data is powerful stuff, and the ETH is very weak in that regard.

While none of my arguments PRECLUDE the ETH entirely (How can you prove a negative), I would suggest that they at least strongly limit the extent and volume of reports to a much smaller subset. I would prefer ufolgy to stay out of the realm of religion and all its related issues of falsifiabilty. Endless excuses and exotic answers to simple questions raised by skpetics/scientists are part of the reason the field is not taken seriously by the mainstream. A lot of the answers I see from UFO believers are akin to creationists' explanation of dinosaur fossils which is essentially "God put them there to confuse man and test the faith of true believers" Sure.

[Brian Now]

I think you have good points about what's wrong with the ETH. If you don't really believe the abductee/contactee phenomenon (and I don't much) then you have to throw out all of the information exchange that comes out of these accounts. Meaning even if there are aliens out there they probably aren't really giving anyone New Age, fad-like dire warnings of anything...which is a plus for the aliens in my book. I wonder if they get pissed off at all the contactees that "speak" for them.

I did want to mention that not all accounts describe anachronistic technology. I have heard several stories (I know, talking anecdotes here) of glowing orbs in the sky that hover, fly around, separate and join. I can't say they are alien vehicles, but they certainly don't resemble anything we know.

I admit it's fun to think what they could be if they aren't from other planets...well, not so much 'fun' as it is scary actually.