scientific method

A Rational Defense Against the Irrational Bashing of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

June 20, 2015
Giorgio Piacenza

The good news unbeknownst to many is that much of the debunking criticism against the extraterrestrial hypothesis, ufology, exopolitics, experiencers, socially conscious insiders and/or whistleblowers can be considered as rationally flawed.

Institutional defenders of conventional, official truths have sometimes avoided the UFO question but have occasionally misrepresented facts. For example, as physicist Stanton Friedman often points out, the Secretary of the Air Force D. Quarles said to reporters that no flying saucer had flown over the U.S.; that only 3% of reports received by Project Blue Book remained “unknown”and that eventually even that percentage would be identified as conventional phenomena or illusions. But in, truth, the percentage of overall “unknowns” which had been presented earlier inside the Air Force by Project Blue Book’s Special Report number 14 had been 21.5%. Furthermore, if the witnesses level of education was greater and the case provided greater details, the percentage of “unknowns” went up to 30%. Moreover, a chi square analysis performed by Battelle Memorial Institute comparing “unknowns” with the “knowns” (or clearly identified objects) gave a probability of less than 1% that the “unknowns” would simply be misperceptions or mistakes. Therefore, there was at least a truly puzzling phenomenon taking place (in fact worldwide) even though it was being publicly dismissed while secretly reported in a completely different manner.

An accumulation of observations is important and an accumulation of analyzed witness testimonies does not have to be a form of weak or irrelevant evidence in the natural sciences. Inductive reasoning is most fundamental to the advancement of SCIENCE because experience is what brings in data and information that requires new explanations. New scientifically designed, international, anonymous surveys with a larger, anonymous population like that conducted by F.R.E.E. (the Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Encounters (www.experiencer.org)) provide statistical patterns that increase the gravitas of testimonial evidence. It is unreasonable to simply think that thousands of witnesses are lying or definitely mistaken in their observations although they are willing to anonymously answer hundreds of questions. There is a place for human testimony, not only in the social sciences and in a court of law but also in the natural sciences. In part it depends on how scientifically that testimony is acquired and treated. This statistical quantitative and qualitative data (which in some important aspects contradicts popular notions about extraterrestrials) must be taken into account.

Science advances when theories adapt to evidence and experience and theories should not be considered final but, rather, well-organized, temporary and probable explanations that best explain phenomena and data accumulating through experience. Taken as well-organized explanations – hopefully with predictive power – theories must evolve as new data and experiences are registered and accepted. However, oftentimes, the acceptance of data and phenomena is precluded by biases and there often are sociological and psychological reasons to unscientifically reject phenomena that don’t fit in well with accepted theory.

It is becoming clear that we only perceive a limited segment of reality. There may well be ‘laws of physics’, inter-reality processes and types of energies that contend with phenomena not currently accepted by mainstream science, an endeavor still excessively biased toward representing all experienced reality as based upon materialism and mechanicism. This occurs in spite of alternative implications from quantum physics regarding the “de-materialization” of matter and the inseparable role of choice, consciousness and the observer affecting what seems to be a non-local, information substratum.

Status quo power networks traditionally reject new perceptions of reality both when new instruments extend human detection and decoding capacities (remember Galileo’s telescope and Van Leewenhoek’s use of the microscope) and when theories and underlying worldviews need to be modified to account for those detections. But this holding on at all costs to a classical preference for exclusivist materialism and mechanicism lends itself to the fallacy of trying to explain all phenomena under specific and previously accepted ad hoc explanations. Regardless of how thoroughly the scientific method has been followed, this often means trying to explain some phenomena which MAY be conventionally explained as if it necessarily follows that their explanation MUST be conventional. This is also popularly also called “dogmatism.”

But it is becoming quite acceptable for educated individuals to recognize that there indeed is an abundance of recurrent phenomena (“anomalies” from the perspective of conventional theories) unremittingly reported by credible individuals and groups around the world; phenomena which – if seriously considered – bring into question the completeness of classical materialist and mechanicist explanations. Furthermore, individuals not intimately associated with any of the major modern institutions often have the willingness and freedom to openly consider these phenomena real and significant. Some even know that their formal acceptance would logically require re-assessing known theories and suggesting alternative scientific hypotheses. Some are – thankfully – taking the lead to make this happen.

Baye’s Theorem helps us ASSESS the probability that a hypothesis among others is valid based on new experience. In the XXVIII Century Reverend Thomas Bayes tried to show how to use new evidence to update beliefs. It goes hand in hand with induction and not with a rigid, unequivocal logical deduction. Through induction, we approximately “know” that it is more likely that Earth will continue turning and that tomorrow there’ll be another sunrise, but we don’t know this with absolute certainty. Like the so-called “principle of parsimony” (or “Occam’s Razor”) Baye’s Theorem is more like a “heuristic,” which can be understood as a general rule of thumb helping us to assess the validity or usefulness of a hypothesis. Both are “shortcuts” simply assisting us to come up with probable explanations. However, if we apply them mechanically based on wrong premises about reality they may even sidetrack us into not recognizing more feasible and obvious explanations.

Baye’s Theorem requires having several hypotheses at hand in order to compare them. It is structured to help us come up with an approximate probability and it states that The Probability of an Hypothesis Explaining the New Results = The Probability of Obtaining the New Results if the Hypothesis is True ÷ The Probability of Getting the New Results Whether the Hypothesis is True or Not. Then, multiply that division by The Probability of the Hypothesis Before Considering the New Results.

Just like Baye’s Theorem is a practical recommendation attempting to approximately give us a clue on the probability of the validity of an hypothesis by also considering several competing hypotheses in light of new information regarding phenomena, “Occam’s Razor” is not like a physical principle or a principle set in stone as an unfailing rule. The latter (re-stated by several philosophers following Aristotelian thinking but also more associated with theologian, nominalist philosopher and Franciscan friar William of Occam) basically states: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.” To my understanding, this means that when an explanation is sufficient to explain a phenomenon, it is not recommended to seek a greater number of alternative explanations. However, in the case of phenomena challenging conventional explanations, the question would also be if all possible “sufficient explanations” rest upon a classical materialist-mechanicist worldview or, in effect, that the most straightforward and sufficient explanation would be a hypothesis that better fits or corresponds with the facts, however challenging.

Another way of stating “Occam’s Razor” is that it is generally preferable not to assume more hypothesis as causes than the minimum necessary to explain a phenomenon. Said differently, trying to extend the materialist and mechanicist worldviews (and paradigms) in convoluted ways in order to reductionistically explain (or to explain away) the experiential facts and “anomalous” data gathered around the UFO Phenomenon, may actually be not following Aristotle’s and Occam’s recommendation but instead doing just the opposite. While exclusivist materialism is clearly incorrect and insufficient, materialism in itself may be correct but only as an integral part of a network of metaphysical positions, each explaining “reality” from a different angle and all of them arising from a deeper pattern. We will need to understand that “deeper pattern” in order to make sense of phenomena that objectively combine subjective and psychic aspects altering conventional physical life.

Once again, these “heuristics” are basically recommendations generally useful on how to proceed to choose among various hypotheses that might explain a phenomenon. Moreover, unfortunately “Occam’s Razor” has often been misunderstood by closed-minded skeptics (normally defending conventional theories associated with materialism and mechanicism) in their blindly dogmatic search for every which way to ridicule or dismiss evidence pointing toward the “extraterrestrial hypothesis” (or variations within that hypothesis) pertaining to some of the most ‘anomalous’ aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

There’s still another recommendation that can be considered as a useful heuristic. It is the advice to avoid Type Two Errors. In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis one tries to cancel out by using evidence to the contrary. In statistical hypothesis testing, a Type II Error (or Error of the Second Kind) is the failure to reject a FALSE null hypothesis. In other words, it is a failure to detect some aspect of reality that is suggested by the statistical evidence. This becomes a useful heuristic to think about any accepted percentage of truly unconventional UFO cases.

The concept that “UFO’s are nothing but natural phenomena or phenomena that can be explained by conventional science” would be a false null hypothesis that has not been invalidated based on the best UFO evidence and statistics. This is because the evidence and statistics clearly also suggest that something truly distinct and quite possibly anomalous is going on. Fixated UFO debunkers (and debunkers of the reasonable likelihood of there being genuine “experiencers” interacting with a variety of intelligent extraterrestrial beings which may be able to manipulate spacetime in unconventional ways) are clearly committing a Type Two Error or Error of the Second Kind.

The relevant and scientifically honest (and highly relevant for humanity) situation here is that the “extraterrestrial hypothesis” or ETH (if not limited to a “nuts & bolts” approach) may well be the MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD HYPOTHESIS OR EXPLANATION. In general this hypothesis is not discarded within some foreign governments and Air Force teams researching “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or “Anomalous Aerial Phenomena” (like the Chilean CEFAA or Committee for the Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena functioning under the General Secretary of the DGCA (the Ministerial Department of Civil Aeronautics), itself under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force).

The initial (often not quoted) step in the “scientific method” is observation of a phenomenon in the natural world. While individual testimony of an anomaly in a non-controlled setting may be considered a weak piece of evidence, the fact that thousands upon thousands (including some astronomers) have observed and reported UFOs that resist conventional explanations can be considered part of the initial step. Today, besides these individual testimonies (given to civilian and military institutions) there have been a few scientifically conducted surveys (like the anonymous international survey Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research on Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Encounters). As witness testimony goes, the latter is stronger from a natural science point of view. However, besides witness testimony, after-the-event analysis of photographs, radar cases, landing traces with soil modification and other forms of “physical evidence” also accumulate in favor of the “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH).”

The ETH hypothesis is neither discarded beforehand (for instance by introducing pre-conceived conclusions into the premises) by the high-level military and scientific French GEIPAN (Study Group and Information on Non-Identified Aerospace Phenomenon) analysts working under the jurisdiction of CNES (the National Center for Space Studies) who in 1999 produced the so-called “COMETA Report.” Likewise, this reasonable hypothesis is endorsed by the “Sigma/3AF Commission” of the Aeronautical & Astronomical Association of France. In fact, given the evidence available, the ETH cannot be reasonably discarded in advance without incurring dishonesty. Sigma/3AF considers the ETH valid and plausible. They are scientists and are being reasonable – rather than dogmatic – based on a rational analysis of UAP/UFO cases.

Moreover, it might be possible to improve “after-the-fact ufology” by propitiating field experiments that interact with the phenomenon. If consciousness (besides objectivity) is a key ingredient for their success, so be it. The science-based ufologist expanding his or her methods would learn to work with this.

Interactive field experiments using instruments and live empirical observation to test hypothesis might be achievable with the assistance of CE-5 approaches, “prime contactees,” adequate preparation, equanimity and fearlessness and – above all – a respectful attitude of any intelligences behind the phenomenon as well as experiencer-contact processes that involve consciousness, group effort, feelings and ideologies. Through this “experimental ufology” we may complete the steps of the scientific method pursuant genuine UFOs: Observation of a phenomenon, gathering information about what is known about it, proposing a reasonable hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the results, concluding if they verify the hypothesis or not, sharing the method, results, and conclusions with other scientists, replicating the research and – eventually – modifying theory.

Humanity needs its academic, religious and political leaders to come to terms with the fact that the ETH is a reasonable and rational perspective backed-up by the finest inductively-derived, independently assessed and cross-tabulated evidence gathered by sincere, mentally sound, capable and reputable UFO researchers across several decades; by some courageous and honest scientists, a good number of political, military and intelligence community whistleblowers and witnesses and by thousands of individuals from around the world (individuals who for the most part don’t do it for personal gain but who, instead, oftentimes face ridicule from peers in the name of truth).

This evidence also includes, highly trained witnesses capable of recognizing a variety of flying objects, alleged landings leaving anomalous and analyzed physical signatures, clear visual, radar and radar-visual sightings, military intercept missions; photographic and film analyses passing adequate tests, the analysis of a few solid objects with highly anomalous characteristics (such as those which podiatric surgeon Roger K. Leir collected from alleged abductee-experiencers) and leaked or formerly classified government documents that indicate longstanding, official interest in “flying discs,” “flying saucers” or “UFO anomalies.”

Moreover, after thousands upon thousands of psychologically healthy and socially functional “citizen-experiencers” reporting intelligent physical interactions with otherworldly extraterrestrial beings; after metallic-looking disc-shaped, triangular-shaped, sphere-shaped and tubular-shaped objects have been reported zigzagging and departing in abrupt ways defying momentum and inertia (sometimes after apparently interacting with witnesses for instance by responding with right-angle formations) the lack of formal academic investigation onto what may be going on (at least from a social and psychological perspective) is a failure against modern, humanistic, democratic and scientific ideals.

It simply looks as if FEAR and personal convenience got the upper hand in the innards of modern academic and political institutions since facing the facts would probably challenge the premises those institutions are based in and thus internal social forces arise to prevent individuals from stepping out of line. To this we must add possible private interests to take advantage of technological developments besides the national security need to maintain a possible advanced technology out of reach from enemies; something which can be overdone and – once a vast secret apparatus around this issues has been established – it becomes increasingly difficult to eventually inform civilians as time passes by. Perhaps many unconstitutional actions were taken throughout the decades at least since 1947, especially if taboo, ridicule and a highly classified secrecy did not allow for the application of constitutional supervision or checks and balances.

Nonetheless, the forces of social control (among them ridicule), or even active repression and suppression cannot forever hold back the truth in order to sustain the status quo or an outmoded way of thinking, especially if the intermittent and phenomenon were to be interactive and clearly related with human interests.

In relation to UFOs, for the Principle of Parsimony (a.k.a. “Occam’s Razor”) multiplying explanations to uphold the materialist-mechanicist premises may not be the way to arrive at a “sufficient explanation.” Then, Baye’s Theorem asks us to compare several hypotheses and not to discard any plausible one offhand. Finally, the advice to avoid Type Two Errors or Errors of the Second Kind (the failure to detect some aspect of reality which is suggested by the statistical evidence) also reminds us to become aware of our blinding cognitive biases when the evidence is displayed before us within a complex phenomenon. I wonder how many “Close Encounters of the Second Kind” interesting pieces of unique evidence (as described by J. Allen Hynek’s six-fold classification scale for UFO encounters) have been so dismissed…

All of these HEURISTICS basically warn us against inflexibly holding on to our conventional ‘pet’ theories. In relation to truly anomalous UFOs and in the offing human-extraterrestrial interactive encounters we seriously need to change our premises and face the facts.

To conclude, the three heuristics mentioned are not inimical with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) and, what is more, an intelligent use of them clearly suggests that the ETH MUST be seriously considered. It is a matter of time before good old common sense prevails as the need to adapt to reality has the real final say with its own complex (emergent and self-organizing) ways to assert itself.

Experimental Contact Exopolitics

November 17, 2014
Giorgio Piacenza

At Teotihuacan, Mexico July 2014 sighting with Sixto Paz — Photo 1: Meditation contact group pointing at ETI craft in Teotihuacan, Mexico on July 19, 2014 (with contactee Sixto Paz)

UFO over Teotihuacan with Sixto Paz July 2014 — Photo 2: One of the several metallic craft observed at Teotihuacan, Mexico on July 19, 2014 after telepathic messages were received.

INTRODUCTION

Genuine contactees can contribute to this by assisting with the applications of scientific procedures. Furthermore, objective results would also legitimize their contact claims. It is 2014 and high time to shift ufological tactics first by relaxing many psychological, ideological and social prejudices and, quite simply…by attempting to scientifically verify the extraterrestrial presence with the assistance of some of these beings and their contactees.

With the growing abundance of documentaries on extraterrestrial life people are getting used to entertaining ideas and news about extraterrestrials, UFOs and contacts. Conventional documentaries sell the expectation of an eventual intelligent extraterrestrial contact mostly through technological means and the unconventional clearly suggest that it may be actually happening through means which often include mental, psychic, spiritual and-or advanced spacetime/reality manipulating means.

It is time to bring both consciousness and scientific approaches together to detect and measure unconventional flying vehicles in an objective manner and to augment any verifiable interaction with their designers.

we need to be bolder and to move into a more proactive, experimental stage blending scientific verification means and the mental-psychic-social contactee means. I do think so after considering that already – on occasions – some degree of collectively verifiable human-extraterrestrial interactions have taken place through contactees in agreement with intelligent extraterrestrial varieties. It is not so much a matter of possibility but of overcoming the prejudices inhibiting us from even attempting it.

It is an issue of thinking beyond fears, a matter of surpassing social control mechanisms and limiting self-centered ‘comfort zones’. It is also a matter of intersubjective agreement. Instead of dismissing serious contactee efforts that may provide evidence but may also seem to be “pseudo-religious,” to the premises of our particular identity “tribe” let’s go out to the fields and find repeatable, objective evidence through experimental interaction! Empirical results are possible and the implications are vast. A new stage of Ufology suitable for Exopolitics is possible. Integrative Ufology: scientific, activist and psychic. The field demands this integration.

THE CONTEXT

We seem to be dealing with a phenomenon that bridges the gap between purely physical and purely psychic-social experiences and explanations of reality. However, to begin dealing with this adequately, first of all, the very term “extraterrestrial” must become legitimate and not the butt of jokes in the perspectives of social actors.

Under the build-up of social awareness on ET issues, any dramatic UFO phenomenon event may spur enough social demand and the possibility of some kind of citizen or government-induced public “disclosure.” But before that first, it would be good to try to find out who’s who among the ETs to be disclosed.

I think that certain types of extraterrestrial intelligences (or “ETI”) interacted with through a few serious contact groups may become more disposed to show up (materialize? temporarily relocate?) their vehicles less ambiguously and more regularly under telepathically established place, date and time. Some ETI may be willing to work with well-meaning, balanced individuals to boost a scientifically verifiable kind of Ufology.

THE PROPOSAL

We ought to initiate a new stage of research. Ever since the beginning of the modern era of “Ufology”, some researchers went on to work with contactees, telepaths and experiencers and others went on to work with classical “nuts & bolts” approximations establishing themselves as more “scientific” and dismissive of the former. Today, there’s evidence that each approximation is valid for different aspects of a reality that encompasses them. Thus, these knowledge worlds must merge. Genuine contacteeism should not be further dismissed as stemming from illusion and-or crank cases especially if independent researchers and media reporters are objectively verifying it.

The ETI connection between physical reality levels might occur through a non-physical, mental, information realm related to our subconscious minds and with which we are always connected. ETIs would be able to reach “our planet” not only by “tunneling” or quantum jumping between sectors of our universe but also among reality sectors, time rates and other parameters between various physical universes. This is why the concept of “ETI” would have to include the possibility of “transdimensionality.”

Let’s remember that the term “UFO” is an easy-to-use, but often imprecise, acronym pertinent to objects that have not been adequately identified, but if we have enough evidence that some of these objects are used by ETI, we should find another definition that applies to that. If we repeatedly verify in a reasonable way an intelligent interaction with objects connected with ETI after communicating with them we should apply another term, such as “ETV” (extraterrestrial vehicle) or such. Understanding these vehicles and the intelligences linked to them may be best done through a lessening of classical scientific strictures. The reason may be that, in order for them to function in our reality frame, subjective, probability-modifying, qualitative connections would also have to be in operation.

There are no clear statistics but I have the impression that for every few hundred or so typical abduction accounts (a la Budd Hopkins) there may be one that qualifies as communicative, friendly contact through invitation and respect of conscious choice. The requirement may be to possess a more permeable subconscious while in the conscious state. These types of contacts now seem to be less common and, due to our minds often being set on thinking of these encounters as truly “alien” and even manipulative they seem to be too nice to be true. However, generally speaking – even with benevolent, “space brother,” “classical contactee” cases – it is “them” (the particular extraterrestrial group involved) who generally decide how and who to initiate contact with.

For the most part, it seems that we are still too primitive, emotionally attached to simplistic, dichotomous views of reality and too unpredictable but – according to some contactees – we can still evolve way beyond that situation without co-dependent attachments to ETI.

Some ETI would be “benevolent” in the sense that they would believe that we can still “catch up” by awakening to actualize much greater dormant potentials. They would thus keep an eye on us advising and protecting our possibilities to evolve through a conscious effort. Moreover, these ETI varieties seem to be willing to communicate at least with a few of us a bit more under our communication styles as respectable entities of equal worth.

Other ETI groups not knowing what we may become and observing not only that we are destroying our ecosystems but that we have not yet obtained a decent planetary coherence as a species may have the right to take advantage of us, for instance by hybridizing with us to “enhance” us by producing hybrids. However, whether we see “eye to eye” with them or not this “taking advantage” may also be beneficial to us as future incarnating souls as we blens with another species perhaps generating a more balanced one.

However, I think the highest path for us relates to consciously chosen, VOLUNTARY forms of contact in which fear and limiting attachments are overcome and important information is consciously gained. As most ETs seem to be benevolent or neutral (and playing by non-undue interference rules) according to most experiencers, most ET contacts also seem to lead to spiritual and personal development.

Let us find some bona fide contactees that seem to work with varieties of ETI willing to interact more openly in a mutually respectful manner. It would beeasier to interact with human-looking ETs. Some called them “Adamic Race” ETs.

In George Adamski’s time, few other witnesses (like Madeleine Rodeffer) were able to see and film the craft or to accompany the main protagonist to a contact experience. Most of the alleged physical contactees from the 1950’s had experiences almost exclusively reserved to them as it’s been known through their individual testimonies. It seems that when the possibility of making these experiences more collectively verifiable was increasing, the “CONTACTEE ERA” (a window of opportunity in time) was questioned to the point of almost coming to a close. It didn’t make much difference even if some pictures (like for instance Paul Villa’s) really looked outstanding.

The many alleged contact cases with human-looking, conversant and friendly ETI known in the 1950s were almost forgotten and contacts with other kinds of ETI naturally surged from the 1960s on. We don’t need to condemn that but to understand it as a natural shift after easier contacts were rejected. Apparently, society and those in the know within Government would not believe such lofty propositions. Their values and intersubjective agreements would have to evolve to accept heartfelt information for them to get more objective evidence or to permit social change.

The first human-looking ETs seemed to invite us through a feeling of trust towards a higher form of living and it was not a mind thing. Grays and other ETs seem to be less healthy and needier but most may not actually be “negative.”

For various reasons the tendency in the world’s northern hemisphere was -generally speaking – also unable to match the more flexible – even if less analytical – adaptive mindset in some of the best (albeit few), coherent, idealist, Latin American contact groups, able to blend spirituality, some degree of intellectual coherence and hard work with a natural, easygoing INTERSUBJECTIVE connectivity and acceptance of the extraterrestrial presence as “elder brothers” or simply…as friends. Thus, a different contact plan with a different subgroup of ETIs was implemented in Latin America in the 1970s.

And today there’s a slowly growing awareness that a dynamic middle ground compromise accepting greater objectivity (while maintaining spiritual idealism) can be achieved. In the beginning, mostly due to a non-scientific attitude and to great respect for the “extraterrestrial guides” only in very rare instances did people bring along their cameras to try to document the ETI presence. Now, there’s a mildly growing interest in using video and photo cameras to document what is happening and with it there are more opportunities for a more modern kind of worldwide recognition.

Ufologists and scientists in the more rigidly intellectual “north” should at least suspend judgment as much as possible and go see what is happening with a spirit of genuine scientific exploration and straightforward sincerity. This is what Michael Salla (political scientist) and Paola Harris (investigative journalist) did through a particular serious contactee as reported in http://exopolitics.org/extraterrestrial-message-for-humanity/ and in http://edy.rdz.mybluehost.me/exonews/encounter-antarel-mt-shasta/. They verified the possibility of a peaceful, interaction with ETI.

In my view, those experiences can be repeated and improved in different countries with the respect and CONSENT of the particular friendly (and more human-compatible) extraterrestrial beings directly associated. That would be more exopolitically convenient for humanity at large since these beings seem to respect our self-determination much more markedly. Moreover, it should be repeated in a progressive manner with the aim of building genuine, amicable relationships of trust and respect, not only with the ETI but with ourselves, growing, learning and respecting the process involved.

Contact would also induce us to think of ourselves as a single species or family worldwide, overcoming hyper nationalisms and, if we connect more with each other like this, the various groups of ET (acting different plans and provisions in case of different eventualities) may see as a whole that we are more deserving of sovereignty.

Our worldviews, premises, and paradigms (now mired in conflicting views, materialism, lack of trust and even excessive post-modern relativism) will definitely receive a refreshing expansive influence after “first contact” becomes unequivocally clear in a conscious, worldwide sense or after a socially impacting form of disclosure is widely acknowledged. However, we still need to learn much more about benign forms of contact which not only are easier to assimilate by honest, rational human minds but also offering a communicative broad-spectrum picture. We need to converse with them’ and to know ‘who’s who’ among them. For this, we would need to psychologically move beyond the traditional “let’s first consider them as potential enemies” military-like, approach and this shift in view could even officially take place through gradual, voluntary contacts and interactions establishing trust.

We can bring together useful intelligent, QUALITATIVE approaches that, due to our self-investment in the partial solutions of dichotomous thinking, only SEEMED UNREAL AND NON-CREDIBLE. What can arise from this is not only a form of “scientific contacteeism” and a more “proactive exopolitics” but also an “experimental ufology” and, in the latter case (with increasing degrees of cooperation from ETI) we could have more opportunities to measure energy fields and other aspects related to various scientific theories that may begin to explain the physical, “trans physical” and-or “interdimensional” nature of devices that operate across levels of reality. The bulk of the effort, of coming together and research would fall upon human shoulders, not upon the “space brothers” (a perfectly valid term) who – in my view and that of a majority of contactees (in spite of detractors prejudices) are not here to “save us.” They are not here to save us as is often generalized among intellectuals and researchers that often OVERSIMPLIFY contacteeism.

Through specific contactees and through their psychic-psychological-ethical, group-based contact methods (however “naïve” and “soft” they may seem) there may rise opportunities for accredited scientists and for objective “citizen scientists” to verify the interactive contacts; also greater opportunities to interact and communicate with ETI first hand. That is important and that is a possibility. A step forward to look up to.

I understand that contacts through genuine telepathy and telepathic, instrumental psychography are generally more respectful of human dignity and more accurate and I understand that, through them, the contact can sometimes be verified, for instance, through consecutive and simultaneous communication receptions, synchronicities and sufficiently unequivocal specifically expected verification sightings. However, to be fair, I must say that it is known that psychiatrist Mario Dussuel (advisor to Chile’s formal UAP/UFO research office CEFAA) carried on some proactive scientific contact experiences through the use of voice channeling. He requested a particular extraterrestrial group to provide a way to analyze the substance of “foo fighters” and apparently was soon given a PHYSICAL SAMPLE through another person and the analysis was performed. Therefore, there may be other methods but we must be careful so as not to deceive ourselves or be interfered by negative ETI groups or other entities.

THE FEAR

The fear of being made fun of by peers inside academic, political and other modern institutions and then shunned from opportunities has been a powerful deterrent against serious research into genuine contacteeism. There simply is a stubborn resistance to consider something as crucial, especially through means outside of recognized academic methods. But the evidence for a reality that urges to be recognized will eventually win out against avoidance, closed-mindedness, denial, and fear.

Let me state that I do admire the work of regular scientists revealing the cosmos in other specific, valid, necessary, objective and conventional ways. I’m all for SETI, ESA and NASA’s continued discoveries and look forward to the launch of the Tess and James Webb Telescope Missions. The scientists’ revealing of patterns in the known physical universe may reflect deeper aspects of the non-physical cosmos. Their discoveries are necessary. In fact, connecting with ETI through alternative telepathic and contactee means may not necessarily reveal to us all there is to know as some ETI may want to avoid propitiating co-dependencies or not be willing to inform us of everything they know. Thus scientific research (also open to open dialogue with the humanities and social sciences) should remain just as important in order to develop our understanding even after widely acknowledged verification or disclosure.

However, (even if not coinciding with current theoretical frameworks or being taken seriously by most individuals with PhDs) credible evidence for an intelligent extraterrestrial presence does already exist, should be carefully looked into and should be creatively approached. Scientific but non-conventional methods are called for. If institution-based scientists remain unwilling to work with contactees to verify human-ETI interaction with a new breed of “citizen scientists” also providing objectively-gathered evidence can promote knowledge and disclosure.

THE OPPORTUNITY

The next step is to try to develop a rapport with the extraterrestrial entities willing to establish a dialogue, gradually but clearly allowing us to verify their presence. It is not something naive because it has already been gradually happening on a small scale. We can take the small-scale methods and what was learned and try to verify even more publicly.

“They” may be willing not only to appear with their craft at a set location, date and time but to eventually – for instance – facilitate us filming or taking pictures of their vehicles, perhaps during the daytime. That’s were science and scientific equipment can come in. Some reporters have even been occasionally able to witness and-or film anomalous aerial objects through some contactees. “They” may agree to move their craft in a certain way or produce certain energy emissions following our requests and a type of experimental verification could take place.

CITIZEN SCIENTISTS may be able to work with some open-minded, respectful accredited scientists but if the latter don’t show up the “CITIZEN SCIENTISTS” could produce serious evidence so that academic interest in actually verifying and communicating with ETI through contactees may follow. Of course, the work of citizen scientists can also be scientifically valid and deserve due respect and also being reproduced.

We would have to come to terms with the legal status of ETI as much as with our own legal status in the cosmos (or analogous concept) according to ETI procedures and understandings. For instance, we would have to understand whether existing in a physical-but- non-completely physical form and materializing more to coincide within our reality frame exempts ETI from our legal prohibition against flying over our nation’s skies without permission.

We would have to come to terms with the likely fact that “they” have been coming and going before we even thought what a “legal status” was in the modern sense of the word. We would have to consider that perhaps “they” (how many and why?) have influenced our cultural and biological evolution over eons. We may have to understand that we already share the planet with them. We would have to learn to communicate with them also according to their understandings.

It is time to make direct contact, solidifying the evidence in an undeniable way, dialoguing together with verifiable events to build our knowledge of who ‘they’ are, what their plans are, their differences, agreements, excesses, and so forth.

We also need to know who ‘we’ are in relation to ‘them’ and who expects what from us in the larger scheme of things.

I think that treating contactee and UFO research in a non-trivial way will be a first step crucial to be treated by most ETI varieties as incipiently or sufficiently responsible, intelligent, or as equals and sovereign, beings whose conscious minds deserve to be respectfully consulted before interactions.

CONCLUSION

It is time to think much more inclusively. This is not wishy-washy thinking. It is vital to survive. The contact experience itself doesn’t need to be limited to individuals without scientific training. It can take place both with a subjective-intersubjective approach as well as with an objective evidence-gathering approach.

Both skeptical, materialist scientists claiming that there’s little or even “no shred of evidence” that we are being ‘visited’ and small segments of humanity claiming to already be involuntary contact with ETI needs to come together recognizing the merits of each other’s methodologies as their exclusivist attitudes become passé. The phenomenon itself may decide to increase its demonstrations worldwide because it may be urgent for us and them that we do not to destroy the Earth’s ecology. They may not want to show up in a shocking way but may also try to legitimize their presence by appearing to members of formal institutions.

Knowing when and where extraterrestrials may become detectable would give accredited scientists and “citizen scientists” time to prepare for careful data gathering including the use of measurement devices such as infrared, gamma-ray, x-ray, detectors. Perhaps the decay of spacecraft produced particles into gamma rays expected by theorists like Robert L. Schroeder can be tested. The role of consciousness, the subconscious, premonition, why some individuals can clearly see an ETI vehicle and someone next to them can be better understood. How can science grow by understanding UFOs? Is it a science of resonance in which consciousness is paramount?

Taking simultaneous pictures at a known distance between two cameras preferably in the daytime and with some clouds for reference and (with ETI consent) could be useful to triangulate the distance from materialized ETI objects establishing that they are indeed three dimensional, of a certain size and apparent distance as they become detectable in our spacetime reality.

I also take the proposal of working with bona fide contactees and willing extraterrestrial entities as an enhancement over already interesting and partially successful CE-5 methods because of the particularity of being friends with ‘them’, knowing who ‘they’ are, and when and where they will manifest. This would lead to more repetitive, experimental opportunities. What is need the most is not to dismiss offhand the requirement to work in a respectful manner with the finest available contactees, whether we agree or not with their ideologies or with their more qualitative, subjective-intersubjective methods. Contactees, contactee supporters, accredited scientists, citizen scientists and also the general public, cultural leaders and politicians al need to grow up. Given that most people may not be serious enough, nor ethically motivated or sufficiently easy-going about full-blown, open contact interactions, most likely the process would have to be relatively gradual. However, it needs to get on its way. We need to learn to think like an intelligence observing us observing outside of our historical routines to stop the stupid destruction of our lives, political systems, and environment.

Verified, objective interactions connected with associated extraterrestrial information could also gradually inform our exopolitical considerations. We could assign more credence to some of the information imparted about cosmic history, human history and the structure of an intelligent cosmic community. Some of us could even have onboard contact opportunities and ETI ambassadorship may gradually manifest. The UN would have to establish a multinational research office and congressional hearings would ensue.

Practical, empirical results that can be analyzed would help scientists overcome their prejudice against the possibility of directly affecting physically verifiable phenomena through an interactive “space” not limited to a rigid external reality. Even the possibility of scientists experiencing some degree of verifiable physical and-or “trans physical” contact themselves could happen.

Not facing these mind-expanding challenges would probably signal that we are an unviable, closed-minded species, incapable of adapting beyond close-at-hand realities (local realism) or facing current planetary challenges as a whole.

Experimental Contact Exopolitics: Contacteeism & Scientific Colaboration

November 17, 2014
valentinbruno8

Introduction

To develop Exopolitics we need to know who the ETs are. Developing a more proactive-interactive approach which is both verifiable and trust building we could find out more. We need to RELATE with them more and with greater equality. Let’s try it! Discard it if its false but also accept it and change our prejudices if it is not! Genuine contactees can contribute to this by assisting with the applications of scientific procedures. Furthermore, adequate, objective results would also legitimize their contact claims. It is 2014 and high time to shift ufological tactics first by relaxing many psychological, ideological and social prejudices and, quite simply…by seriously attempting to scientifically verify the extraterrestrial presence with the assistance of some of these beings and their contactees.

Can we move into a more proactive, experimental stage blending scientific verification means and the mental-psychic-social contactee means? Yes, I think so after considering that already – on occasions – some degree of collectively verifiable human-extraterrestrial interactions have taken place through contactees in agreement with extraterrestrial varieties. It is not so much a matter of possibility but of overcoming the prejudices inhibiting us from even attempting it. It is a matter of thinking beyond fears, a matter of surpassing social control mechanisms and limiting self-centered ‘comfort zones’. It is a matter of intersubjective agreement. Instead of dimissing beforehand contactee efforts that may provide evidence but may also seem to be “pseudo religious,” let’s go out to the fields and find repeatable, objective evidence through experimental interaction! Empirical results are possible and the implications are vast. A new stage of Ufology suitable for Exopolitics is possible.

The Context

We seem to be dealing with a phenomenon that bridges the gap between purely physical and purely psychic-social experiences and explanations of reality. However, to begin dealing with this adequately, first of all the very term “extraterrestrial” must become legitimate and not the butt of jokes in the perspectives of social actors.

Under the build-up of social awareness on ET issues any dramatic UFO phenomenon event may spur enough social demand and the possibility of some kind of citizen or government-induced public “disclosure.” But before that first it would be good to try to find out who’s who among the ETs to be disclosed.

I think that certain types of extraterrestrial intelligences (or “ETI”) interacted with through a few serious contact groups may become more disposed to show up (materialize?) their vehicles less ambiguously and more regularly under telepathically established place, date and time. Some ETI may be willing to work with well-meaning, balanced individuals to boost a scientifically verifiable kind of Ufology.

The Proposal

I think that we can and ought to initiate a new stage of research. Ever since the begining of the modern era of “Ufology” some researchers went on to work with contactees, telepaths and experiencers and others went on to work with classical “nuts & bolts” approximations establishing themselves as more “scientific” and dismissive of the former. Today, there’s evidence that each approximation is valid for different aspects of a reality that encompases them. Thus, these knowledge worlds must merge. Genuine contacteeism should not be further dismissed as steming from illusion and-or crank cases especially if independent researchers and media reporters are objectively verifying it.

For the most part it seems that we are still too primitive, emotionally attached to simplistic, dichotomous views of reality and to unpredictable but, according to some contactees we can still evolve way beyond that situation without co-dependent attachments to ETI. Some ETI would be “benevolent” in that they would believe that we can still “catch up” awakening to actualize much greater potentials. They would thus keep an eye on us advising and protect our possibilities to evolve through a conscious effort. Moreover, these ETI varieties seem to be willing to communicate at least with a few of us more in our communication styles as respectable entities of equal worth. Other ETI groups not knowing what we may become and observing not only that we are destroying our ecosystems but that we have not yet obtained a decent planetary coherence as a species may have the right to take advantage of us, for instance by hybridizing with us to “enhance” us by producing hybrids. However, I think the highest path for us relates to consciously chosen, VOLUNTARY forms of contact in which fear and limiting attachments are overcome and important information is consciously gained.

Let us find some bona fide contactees that seem to work with varieties of ETI willing to interact more openly in a mutually respectful manner. In George Adamski’s time few other witnesses (like Madeleine Rodeffer) were able to see and film the craft or to accompany the main protagonist to a contact experience. Most of the alleged physical contactees from the 1950’s had experiences almost exclusively reserved to them as it’s been known through their individual testimonies. It seems that when the possibility of making these experiences more collectively verifiable was increasing, the “CONTACTEE ERA” (a window of opportunity in time) was questioned to the point of almost coming to a close. It didn’t make much difference even if some pictures (like for instance Paul Villa’s) really looked outstanding.

The many alleged contact cases with human-looking, conversant and friendly ETI known in the 1950’s were almost forgotten and contacts with other kinds of ETI naturally surged from the 1960’s on. We don’t need to condemn that but to understand it as a natural shift after easier contacts were rejected. For various reasons the tendency in the northern hemisphere was -generally speaking – also unable to match the more flexible – even if less analytical – adaptive mindset in some of the best (albeit few), coherent, idealist, Latin American contact groups able to blend spirituality, some degree of intellectual coherence and hard work with a natural, easygoing INTERSUBJECTIVE acceptance of the extraterrestrial presence as “elder brothers” or simply…as friends. Thus, a different contact plan with a different subgroup of ETIs was implemented in Latin America in the 1970’s.

While most contact procedures in the Northern Hemisphere apparently became more, instrumental, intrusive, matter-of-fact, one-sided and result-driven, the ones in the Southern Hemisphere became subtler, more open to voluntary participation, but also at times tending towards sociological forms of psycho-spiritual cultism and over-idealization. However, contacts were real…even physicallly so and ocassionaly collectively verified and today there’s a slowly growing awareness that a dynamic middle ground compromise accepting greater objectivity can be achieved. In the beginning, mostly due to a non-scientific attitude and to great respect for the “extraterrestrial guides” only in very rare instances did people bring along their cameras to try to document the ETI presence. Now, there’s a mildly growing interest in using video and photo cameras to document what is happening and with it there are more opportunities for a more modern kind of worldwide recognition.

Ufologists and scientists in the more rigidly intellectual “north” should at least “suspend judgment” as much as possible and go see what is happening with a spirit of genuine scientific exploration and straightforward sincerity. That is what Michael Salla (political scientist) and Paola Harris (investigative journalist) did through a particular serious contactee as reported in http://exopolitics.org/extraterrestrial-message-for-humanity/ and in http://edy.rdz.mybluehost.me/exonews1/encounter-antarel-mt-shasta/.

In my my view, those experiences can be repeated and improved in different countries with the respect and CONSENT of the particular friendly extraterrestrial beings directly associated. That would be more exopolitically convenient for humanity at large since these beings seem to respect our self-determination. Moreover, it should be repeated in a progressive manner with the aim of building genuine, amicable relationships of trust and respect not only with the ETI but with ourselves, learning and respecting the process involved.

Our worldviews, premises and paradigms (now mired in conflicting views, materialism, lack of trust and even excessive post-modern relativism) will definitely receive a refreshing expansive influence after “first contact” becomes clear or after a socially impacting form of disclosure is widely acknowledged. However, we still need to learn much more about benign forms of contact not only easier to assimilate by honest, rational human minds but offering a communicative broad-spectrum picture. We would need to psychologically move beyond the traditional “let’s first consider them as potential enemies” military-like, approach and this shift in view could even officially take place through gradual, voluntary contacts and interactions establishing trust.

We can bring together useful intelligent, QUALITATIVE approaches that, due to a sense of self invested in the partial solutions of dichotomous thinking, only SEEMED UNREAL AND NON-CREDIBLE . What can arise from this is not only a form of “scientific contacteeism” and a more “proactive exopolitics” but also “experimental ufology” and, in the latter case (with increasing degrees of cooperation from ETI) we could have more opportunities to measure energy fields and other aspects related to various scientific theories that may begin to explain the “transphysical” and-or “interdimensional” nature of devies that operate across a vaster cosmic reality. The bulk of the effort, of the coming together and research would fall upon human shoulders, not upon the “space brothers” (a perfectly valid term) who are not here to “save us” as is often generalized among intellectuals and researchers that often OVERSIMPLIFY contacteeism.

Through specific contactees and through their psychic-psychological-ethical, group-based contact methods (however “naïve” and “soft” they may seem) there may rise opportunities both for accredited scientists and for objective “citizen scientists” to verify contacts; to interact and communicate with ETI (and-or to verify interactions and communication events) first hand. That is important and that is a possibility.

I understand that contacts through genuine telepathy and telepathic psychography are generally more respectful of human dignity and more accurate and that through them the contact can sometimes be verified, for instance, through consecutive and simultaneous communication receptions, synchronicities and sufficiently unequivocal specifically expected verification sightings. However, to be fair I must say that it is known that psychiatrist Mario Dussuel advisor to Chile’s CEFAA carried on some proactive scientific contact experiences through the use of voice channeling. He requested a particular extraterrestrial group to provide a way to analyze the substance of “foo fighters” and apparently was soon given a PHYSICAL SAMPLE through another person and the analysis was performed.

The Fear

The fear of being made fun of by peers inside academic, political and other modern institutions and then shunned from opportunities has been a powerful deterrent against serious research into genuione contacteeism. There simply is a stubborn resistance to consider something as crucial, especially through means outside of recognized academic methods. But evidence for a reality that urges to be recognized will eventually win out against avoidance, closed-mindedness, denial and fear.

Let me state that I do admire the work of regular scientists revealing the cosmos in other specific, valid, necessary, objective and conventional ways. I’m all for SETI, ESA and NASA’s continued discoveries and look forward to the launch of the Tess and James Webb Missions. The scientists’ revealing of patterns in the known physical universe may reflect deeper aspects of the non-physical cosmos. Their discoveries are necessary. In fact, connecting with ETI through alternative telepathic and contactee means may not necessarily reveal to us all there is to know as some ETI may want to avoid propitiating co-dependencies or not be willing to inform us of everything they know. Thus scientific research (also open to an open dialogue with the humanities and social sciences) should remain just as important in order to develop our understanding even after widely acknowledged verification or disclosure.

However (even if not coinciding with current theoretical frameworks or being taken seriously by most individuals with PhDs) credible evidence for an intelligent extraterrestrial presence does already exist, should be carefully looked into and should be creatively approached. Scientific but non-conventional methods are called for. If institution-based scientists remain unwilling to work with contactees to verify human-ETI interaction a new breed of “citizen scientists” also providing objectively-gathered evidence can promote knowledge and disclosure.

The Opportunity

The next step is to try to develop rapport with the extraterrestrial entities willing to establish a dialogue, allowing us to verify their presence. It is not naive because it has been gradually happening on a small scale. They may be willing not only to appear with their craft at a set place, date and time but to eventually – for instance – facilitate us filming or taking pictures of their vehicles, perhaps during daytime. That’s were science and scientific equipment can come in. Some reporters have even been occasionally able to witness and-or film anomalous aerial objects through some contactees.

If “CITIZEN SCIENTISTS” produce enough serious evidence, then an academic interest in actually verifying and communicating with ETI through contactees may also follow. Their work may also be scientifically valid and deserve due respect and being reproduced.

We would have to come to terms with the legal status of ETI as much as with our own legal status (or analogous concept) according to ETI procedures and understandings. We would have to understand whether existing in a non-completely physical form within our reality frame exempts ETI from our legal prohibition against flying over our nation’s skies without permission.We would have to come to terms with the likely fact that “they” have been coming and going before we even thought what a modern “legal status” was. We would have to consider that perhaps “they” (how many and why?) have influenced our cultural and biological evolution over eons. We would have to learn to communicate with them also according to their understandings.

It is time to make contact, solidifying the evidence in an undeniable way, dialoguing in tandem with verifiable events to build our knowledge of who ‘they’ are, what their plans are, their differences, agreements, excesses, and so forth. We also need to know who ‘we’ are in relation to ‘them’ and who expects what from us. I think that treating contactee and UFO research in a non-trivial way will be a first step crucial to be treated by most ETI varieties as sufficiently responsible, intelligent, as equals and as sovereign whose conscious minds deserve to be respectfully consulted before interactions.

Conclusion

It is time to think more inclusively. The contact experience itself doesn’t need to be limited to individuals without scientific training. It can be both with a subjective-intersubjective approach as well as a careful, objective evidence-gathering approach. Both skeptical, materialist scientists claiming that there’s little or even “no shred of evidence” that we are being ‘visited’ and small segments of humanity claiming to already be in voluntary contact with ETI would have to come together recognizing the merits of each other’s methodologies as their exclusivist attitudes become passé.

Knowing when and where extraterrestrials may become detectable would give accredited scientists and “citizen scientists” time to prepare for careful data gathering including the use of measurement devices such as infrared, gamma ray, x ray, detectors. Perhaps the decay of spacecraft produced particles into gamma rays expected by theorists like Robert L. Schroeder can be tested. The role of consciousness, the subconscious, premonition, why some individuals can clearly see an ETI vehicle and someone next to them cannot could come to be better understood

I also take the proposal of working with bona fide contactees and willing extraterrestrial entities as an enhancement over already interesting and partially successful CE-5 methods because of the particularity of being friends with ‘them’,knowing who ‘they’ are, and when and where they will manifest. This would lead to more repetitive, experimental opportunities. What is need the most is not to dismiss offhand the requirement to work in a respectful manner with the finest available contactees, whether we agree or not with their ideologies or with their more qualitative, subjective-intersubjective methods. Contactees, contactee supporters, accredited scientists, citizen scientists and also the general public, cultural leaders and politicians al lneed to grow up. Given that most people may not be serious enough, nor ethically motivated or sufficiently easy-going about full-blown, open contact interactions, most likely the process would have to be relatively gradual. However, it needs to get on its way.

Verified, objective interactions connected with associated extraterrestrial information could also gradually inform our exopolitical considerations. We could assign more credence to some of the information imparted about cosmic history, human history and the structure of an intelligent cosmic community. Some of us could even have onboard contact opportunities and ETI ambassadorship may gradually manifest. The UN would have to establish a multi national research office and congressional hearings would ensue.

Tag: scientific method

A Rational Defense Against the Irrational Bashing of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

Experimental Contact Exopolitics

Experimental Contact Exopolitics: Contacteeism & Scientific Colaboration