Strictly speaking, “PROOF” of the extraterrestrial presence (from a rigorous academic point of view) would be more (classically speaking and before the findings of Kurt Gödel) limited to mathematics and logic but not to evidence obtained inductively after the senses however frequent the perceptions. The same applies to scientific theories, models, explanations that correspond to observations or sensorially obtained data. However, there is STRONG, ROBUST EVIDENCE that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is VALID and that it is the more LOGICAL hypothesis to explain at least SOME UFO cases. Structured objects flying in ways that challenge Newtonian physics while sometimes producing strange electromagnetic interference near airplanes when seen by experienced observers under the sunlight cannot be seriously explained away as reflections, lenticular clouds or the planet Venus. Here the simplest explanation, even following the advice (not an unfailing law) from “OCCAM’s “Razor” is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis rather than trying to contrive other explanations that do not fit the data as well (as was done several times with Projects Grudge, Blue Book, the highly biased 1968 “CONDON Panel” and other mostly dismissive research efforts on UFOs), especially after UFO incidents that involved commercial and military pilots and-or radar-eyesight evidence. Even if one UFO case were most likely due to an intelligent extraterrestrial presence, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis would have to be seriously considered and – unlike what was concluded by the “Condon Committee” – just to understand the physics involved (which apparently cancels and-or manipulates gravitational and inertial forces) there would definitely be great scientific merit in researching UFOs.
This evidence that goes against the so-called “Misidentification Hypothesis” favored by skeptics not only includes contactees and abductees and pilots and military personnel and documents and regular people all over the world occasionally seeing structured metallic-looking disc shaped or ovoid shaped “aerodynes” but also analyzed photographs, videos and specific physical samples or objects (like alleged implants removed by Dr. Roger Leir and his team), for instance with isotopes that not only do not naturally occur on Earth but which also emit radio waves while subcutaneously lodged in normal people that alleged to have been abducted by some varieties of aliens. There also are serious CREDIBLE, sane, responsible “whistleblower” witnesses (some hundreds of them only in the Disclosure Project) and as Monsignor Corrado Balducci essentially said in Italian TV, there’s a healthy limit to being suspicious about what others say because –in order to have a functioning society – the normal human need to give some credence to human witness testimony must take over!
It could be said that evidence for out of the ordinary events that recur in a meteorological-like (semi predictable/semi unpredictable) manner can be assigned Bayesian-style probabilities or are more suitable for exopolitical, social science-based qualitative analysis. This may be useful for events that perhaps not only occupy external, objective space for a physically perceptible time within classical parameters, but also (in an equally causally applicable and “real” way) a greater degree of shared, internal, subjective space. It may be that the physical reality systems in which the ETs normally operate has a greater degree of subjective space influence. These are new scientific issues that also ask for a new metaphysical approach and scientific methodology. However, there still is good classical evidence for an objective phenomenon whose best logical explanation would be the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. www.ufoevidence.org
For instance, there are trained pilots (check out Dr. Richard Haines’ and other scientists’ NARCAP), even some valiant astronomers that could not identify some objects they saw displaying intelligent maneuvering that cannot be replicated with current human technology as far as we know; there are radar-visual cases that include military pilots. There are analyzed UFO photographs of metallic looking structured craft, landing traces with soil and plant anomalies. In fact the main reason for denial would be that it sounds ludicrous because it challenges how we naturally perceive “reality” through our physical senses and our biological-psychological adaptations to a classic (non-quantum or local) physical experience. We simply dismiss and ridicule ideas and reports that seem more fit to be included in a movie or fantasy and assume that being well educated we should already know by now; that “they” wouldn’t be able to travel faster than the speed of light…in all cases assuming that what we know applies to the alleged ETs.
Most likely, “proof” doesn’t exist in an absolute, objective sense but what may available to an intelligent self-conscious mind is sufficient evidence to make a reasonable subjective choice. Even in a formal mathematical and logical sense, “proof” may not apply if one restricts deduction to the elements within a coherent logical system. If one proves consistency one may fail to prove completeness. Gödel could only prove that that form of indeterminacy exists regarding arithmetic with natural numbers. From Wikipedia: “The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorems
Both following an inductive procedure and a deductive procedure, accepting or rejecting the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) comes down to a subjective decision but, even if a majority of particular scientists in most scientific institutions do not pronounce themselves in its favor, does this mean that they are qualified to reject the evidence? Not scientifically if theirs is an offhanded a priori reaction without carefully looking at the evidence. As a group they already rejected many good explanations and theories that are now considered valid and (to non-initiates) “proven.” In fact, because “science” relates to principles and method, non-accredited individuals may have a better scientific “attitude” open to valid and scientifically interesting evidence and also be able to conduct serious scientific research whether accredited scientists agree with it or not. I would say that, from the point of view of Integral Theory there’s only a partial validity and a limit to the postmodern idea that “scientific facts” depend on the agreement or “social construction” of orthodox institutional scientists. That social construction aspect may also start with a serious minority willing to look at things “out of the box.”
Oftentimes, people say “There is no scientific evidence that ETs are here” because they think that scientists would agree on it, but that is not a valid statement. In fact, objective “evidence” about unique phenomena that can be included in a scientific study does exist to differing degrees. Just as we have evidence of weather patterns that don’t need to be solidly predictable, it is not necessary for the evidence pointing to the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis to be perfectly regular or predictable. Perhaps read what is also disclosed in http://www.theblackvault.com/ or in the following good page http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html
Some people also utter “There’s no proof that ETs are here” when off course (especially after Gödel and philosophers of science like Kuhn and Popper) science doesn’t really deal with final “proofs” but with temporary theoretical models that are not considered final any longer but rather (and ideally) open to improvement. Occasionally they also say “Science has not demonstrated the reality of extraterrestrial visitors” forgetting that “science” is more a methodological procedure than an entity that makes choices and itself demonstrates something being real or not.
I think that learning about the means ETs may have to interact with our particular world/reality system (even if briefly from our linear perspective) would activate in us other ways of understanding other aspects of reality also co-existing with us. It may activate in us interpretive “instincts” adapted to non-linear ways of being which are parts of deeper aspects of our nature. These “instincts” may be less related to a dichotomous “either-or” Aristotelian or classic way of thinking (more useful for understanding stable exterior, objective patterns). They may relate to more inclusive relational “laws” connecting subjective and objective aspects of experience and reality (epistemology and ontology) and they may subsume (not discard) classical rules of inference. We would need to know what other possibilities there are to understand and participate in the Cosmos (especially besides classical logic and physicality) in order to better understand the “ET mind” and to make intelligent, informed decisions.
Perhaps Integral Theory is one of the integrative models emerging within the search for post postmodern intellectual approaches to help us better understand the complex world, our lives, ETs and our roles are currently situated, especially in an age in which traditional linear thinking doesn’t work well with the non-linear, uncertainty-generating interconnectness we have artificially created. I think we need to grow up intellectually and ethically to thrive based on more profound synergistic patterns in which information rules but not just in a randomly self-organized way but with an active role for consciousness and…purpose.
Furthermore, I think that we can indeed grow up and that our genuine, long term security rests in not on remaining ignorant about what is going on. Otherwise – using a reasonable exopolitical analysis – I think that there are different forms of evidence that indicate we won’t be considered capable of handling our becoming a space-faring civilization and we’ll need different kinds of the “powers that be” to decide things for us. In fact, if we don’t grow up to a more mature way of thinking we may not earn a minimal status that equates with cosmic-level “sovereignty”.
We need to stop bickering among us about whether there is scientific evidence that ETs are really here or not. Our scientists must at least valiantly come out of their cocoons and self-reinforcing conservative, doctrine-based institutions to really serve humanity in our current situation by being willing to look at the entire evidence in detail and in earnest so that more of us can start thinking politically (with greater credibility and influence) about important consequences and implications such as to why different alien entities with different agendas seem to be allowed to pursue their different goals using us in different ways based on our current state of understanding. We need to understand how they apparently come to agree with each other or at least to agree not to interfere with each other’s plans too much. We need to find out in a non-condemnatory, non-xenophobic but, instead, more integrally intelligent manner who among the various ETs can reasonably be considered our “friends” and our “foes” in terms of them (even if all were capable of thinking non-linearly and in many ways more “integrally” than most humans) being or not being willing to patiently work with us to assist our development toward our highest potentials as a species while simultaneously not violating our CONSCIOUS free choice.
Through CE-V human-propitiating contact techniques like those of Sixto Paz and others, more experiment-style and (to a degree) repeatable evidence could be obtained. If more of us become willing to research with a genuine scientific attitude and even to proactively make contact in order to find out more directly “who is who” among the ETs and what the (hyperdimensional, social and ethical) “rules of engagement” might be, progress will be made towards subjectively (and inter-subjectively) assigning “proof” to the ever-increasing and already profuse “evidence.” Let’s grow up as a species and consider all the possibilities in earnest!
By Giorgio Piacenza