Since ancient times, vehicles repeatedly been reported coming from the sky. Thus, the Sumerians already reported of gods who came from the sky. Also in the Bible, in Hezekiel 1, 15-21, there is evidence of a vehicle used by angels to visit the people. In 79 AD a Roman soldier saw a shiny silver shield flying over the city of Rome. Medieval drawings and pictures show aircraft, some with crew. In 1561, a real battle in the sky was reported in Nuremberg.
These reports culminate in our culture with the 1947 Roswell incident in New Mexico, USA. Worldwide, the number of sightings goes into the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions! However, it seems that neither the number of sightings, the quality of the sightings, the quality of the witnesses, nor the forensic evidence of the collected matter, when you meet someone who is skeptical about the subject.
But why is that?
I began to wonder very much about “faith” and “knowledge” about 15 years ago when I met a very bright and intelligent young man who was an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement. I could not imagine that someone who was so intelligent and apparently had a very good education could believe in such a thing. We brought arguments and counterarguments and came closer to us in the course of the months (!), Although everything – apart from a bit of polemics – was discussed peacefully and full of mutual respect.
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” …
For many years now, I have been dealing with the fundamental issue of why world views can be so different and I began to understand that everything we experience, is only a projection of our senses. Rene Decartes once said, “I think, therefore I am” – the implications that resonate here are very far-reaching: For one, it’s the only sure statement we can make! We could not ask ourselves the question of our existence if we were not there. On the other hand, it is an exclusion process in which only 2 states are possible: to be, or not to be…
If I can not prove one thing positively, I can at least exclude the other one by logic.
Since we can not apply this method to our senses because of the multitude of unknowns (hallucinations, hysteria, …), we have only the possibility to trust our senses – to believe that it really is there, what we experience. To put it bluntly: Our brain could be caught in a glass of water and all our impressions are generated … we would not notice the difference.
About the scientific method
Science has come to realize over the last hundreds of years that positive evidence, forensic research, and the collection of empirical evidence alone are not enough to successfully establish a theory about the world – the annoying skeptics have always found possibilities to collapse theories and paradigms. After some attempts to install a method that allows scientists to develop theories that endure, logical empiricism has been developed and later refined. One tries to derive, excluding any metaphysics, observation, measurement and logic hypotheses that are falsifiable – which are not, not wrong. If enough data is available then the hypothesis can become a theory.
The goal is:
to give as many scientists as possible a tool to derive the most probable data, in order to develop the scientific worldview as quickly and efficiently as possible, so that the statement of a theory with such a high probability is true and can be taken seriously!
A good thing!
The scientists and their credibility are thus strengthened with this method and if you stick to it, nobody is ridiculed.
From this one can derive the following:
If somebody observes a flying object unknown to him, it can not be proved, that it is not a well-known object, because it could finally be a known object. There are too many unknowns in the equation! The reasons are manifold: The observer has no experience with astronomy, ornithology, avionics, space, meteorology, environmental phenomena, etc. or the number or quality of the witnesses is not sufficient, or can not be excluded hysteria or age-related dementia, or , or or… Of course, because the “phenomenon” is not reproducible, it makes it easy for skeptics to doubt everything.
The method that has made modern science so successful, can not be applied here …
Perception is a curious thing. It gives us an idea of the world in which we live. That means, that we perceive the world through our senses. We make experiences and learn what is good and what is bad for us. These experiences are linked to emotions in the brain. The stronger the experience, the greater the emotion. We all gain experience in the course of our lives. You can imagine experiences like circles, if we gather a lot of experiences in one field (for example play 10,000h piano) you can think of it as a big circle, because we are able to master the instrument very well. The average of all circles is the inner sense of normal – our world as we see it – our reality! Now other people are experiencing something different and therefore have a different view of things, like ourselves. We can call the average of experiences and insights – of all circles – of the people of our culture: a paradigm.
What is real for us does not necessarily mean that it is for someone else!
The imagination necessarily depends on our experiences and intentions. If I have no experience with the color blue, it will be impossible to imagine! And if I do not intend to believe anyhing, because it does not conform to what I can imagine, I will not see it. Thus, the open experience remains closed to me.
Without imagination, it will be difficult to gain new experiences
The more experiences we gather, the more concrete are the intentions and ideas of the world in which we live. This inevitably leads us into a circle that makes it difficult for us, with something that we do not know, that has no contact with our world – our circles – or seeks to deal with it. Something that is outside the circle of experience of our worldview can be difficult to integrate into our ideas and experiences!
But just because we do not know anything, or can not tell us, does not mean that it does not exist!
We are all subject to this effect: whether farmer, craftsman, doctor or physicist! We judge the world according to our experiences, ideas and intentions! Behind it “can” be partly logical conclusions, but since experience, ideas and intentions have developed through emotions, we do not always respond logically and reasonably to the world. We are all just people, not machines – without wanting to explain where this comes from … So I could now explain why there are people who have a completely different view of the world. Why, for example, there are flat-earthers or even the intelligent design movement who defend their cause so vehemently – here too are intentions, experiences and ideas behind it.
How can one prove the existence of a phenomenon that is not falsifiable?
Now let us assume that many people are not satisfied with the answers that traditional, effective, and efficient science offers us, simply because they do not yet have the necessary insight understanding of the phenomenon. (State of the art is that they can only explain 5% of what the world is …) The phenomenon is not within the cognitive circles. Especially as these scientists here for this type of investigation, due to improper conditioning also have difficulty imagining something like this. And then there is the fear of the destructive skeptics and the subsequent loss of credibility. The success of the scientific method is based on the improbability that the statements they make of the theories are false, are so small, that it would be ridiculous to doubt them.
So if I can not prove the phenomenon negatively, the following question arises: Can I increase the probability of testifying in such a way that the quality of the testimony becomes so high, that some sort of critical mass is reached and doubts are so inappropriate, that they can be ignored?
Some ufologists recognized the problem very well
One of the best studies dealing with the phenomenon is the so-called COMETA Report. Here, specialists from a wide range of disciplines (military, geology, physics, biology, chemistry, avionics and aerospace) were brought together in a group, to thoroughly investigate the phenomenon and collect evidence, that would exceed a critical mass. Excerpt from Wikipedia: “The report concludes that UFOs are real, complex flying objects and that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is most likely the explanation for the UFO phenomenon. It is also recommended that the government adapt to the reality of the phenomenon and advance research in this area.
” Other well-known studies: Project Condign, Hearings at the National Press Club in 2001, 2007, 2010 and 2013 The disclosures of the files of countries such as Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Italy, and so on.
There are now thousands of statements by witnesses, due to the required experience, with very high credibility. There are many documents that were partly declassified and partly leaked There are thousands of radar data. There are data from target computers in fighter planes. The critical mass of evidence is so high that any skeptic will have to think twice about doubting the data, without losing his own credibility. But it continues to be criticized at the lowest level – the researches and arguments of the skeptics are so bad, that it is absolutely ridiculous …
UAPs – A Conspiracy?
What is striking: A lot of these witnesses are mainly secret service staff and some senior military officials who have broken their vow of silence to share the extraordinary experiences with all! These are state-funded studies, or investigations made with former state employees. Governments are most interested in potential threats and opportunities. Of course, conspiracy theories are not far away!
Now imagine the following:
You are a head of government of a state in the late 1940s. You are a patriot, love your country and are fully aware of the responsibility of your country. You remember a recent war that claimed many victims. You know that this war could have been very different in its result. They still have a smoldering conflict with another, very powerful state. The people in your state are happy, but a little „thin-skinned“. The newspapers and news are increasingly reporting on flying saucers that have technology, far superior to their own. You also remember Orson Welles radio play fiasco in one of your cities and the panic, that triggered it.
Now, one of these aircraft crashes in your country – just in the vicinity of the site where a bomber fleet armed with nuclear bombs is stationed – which is currently the only one in the world! What would you do? As head of government I personally felt the need to miss the press officer and the head of the base a slap for the insensitive handling of the incident!
If I do not know who they are, what their intentions are and how far they are developed, then I can not say anything about the danger potential. So it’s time for a lot of intuition in order to examine all of them as secretly and quietly as possible.
And just imagine the resource requirements you would need to recreate a $ 25 smartwatch in the 1950s – how can you secretly implement a project of that size? Furthermore, strategies have to be developed in order to enable one to examine the phenomenon in peace. Critics are right in saying that it is unrealistic to believe, that projects that require a scale in which the entire world economy must be included without it being known, could be kept secret.
The ridiculousness, misinformation and real information of people whose credibility can be easily undermined have proved very effective. Totalitarian states like Russia and China can just be silent – governments of democratic countries have to lie, to investigate something secretly! It has not kept everything secret, it has just exposed it to ridicule or make it unbelievable and then kept silent …
Of course, it is hard for a European to understand how the people of the United States tend to believe in conspiracies. But in Europe there were no scandals like MK-Ultra …
Is it a conspiracy, if the reason for the investigation, is the prevention of a panic? I want to deliberately leave the question unanswered, because quite different things have happened because of this secrecy. So many things have happened in history in the name of good intent …
A word at the end: If you run a 70 year disguise strategy based on ridicule, lies and misinformation, you need not be surprised, that if you want to turn back time to tell people something about the phenomenon, you will not get immediately believers … the mistrust is very big!
What can eliminate this mistrust?