Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Our government is spending many millions of dollars investigating UFOs (or UAPs). There are certain paradoxes concerning these phenomena, and it seems that there are more inconsistencies all the time. This is leading to chaos, confusion, and further distrust of institutions. The government, to paraphrase President Reagan, is not the solution. It seems to be the problem.
The most noticeable paradox is that UFOs, with their supposed advanced technology, should have better stealth than do our supposedly, relatively primitive aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber — but they don’t. UFOs, if they wish not to be seen, should never be detected at all — or, if they do not care whether they are seen, should be observed very frequently, and under conditions conducive to accurate, detailed photography. Either one or the other of these should be likely, but neither is the case.
What is least likely is the halfway measure — that is, they only sometimes get seen, but never under conditions that would provide convincing proof of their existence, such as for example as we have with photographs of eagles or hummingbirds. Instead, all we get are fuzzy, grainy pictures that never persuade reasonable skeptics.
It has long been stated by such skeptics that they would be persuaded of the existence of nonhuman advanced technology if they could see it firsthand, and analyze it, to show that it could not have been created with our present abilities. Proof would consist of actual specimens of such technology or actual specimens of alien creatures themselves, with demonstrably different biology than anything that could have evolved on Earth.
To date, nothing of the sort has been presented for public examination.
What we have instead is sworn testimony by witnesses that they have seen advanced technology not of human origin — and even seen the aliens themselves. Despite their high degree of credibility, that is not enough. There is a disturbing gap, slight, but one in which even they might have been deceived.
We are therefore presented with two extraordinary claims. One is that our government has in its possession, incontrovertible proof beyond doubt, that there are otherworldly spacecraft in our skies. The other claim is that numerous expert witnesses of high repute are mistaken, deceived, or lying. We cannot decide between either of these claims without extraordinary evidence, and that evidence has not been presented to the satisfaction of the public.
How long can this continue?
Our elected representatives have held public hearings that always seem extraordinary but inconclusive. Those same representatives have also held “closed” secret hearings, in which they say they have heard compelling testimony from eyewitnesses, who offer strong evidence, perhaps extraordinary evidence, that our government has in its hands undeniable proof of the sort that will convince even the hardest skeptics that we have been visited by intelligent creatures from another planet, or even another universe.
Some of the claims are beyond extraordinary, such as that our government is in close communication with alien creatures who are influencing our own technological innovations.
There is an old adage by book reviewers in which the weakness of much science fiction is that when anything can happen, no sense can be made of what does happen.
If the extraordinary claims are true, if there is indisputable evidence, we should either be given it or be given a persuasive reason why it should be withheld.
Having neither, the next logical conclusion for many of us is that our government is up to no good, and/or it is utterly incompetent, or even worse. What that “even worse” could be might be dreadful. I will leave that territory to the writers of science fiction.
Keep reading
You must be logged in to post a comment.