The Chance of Intelligent Life in the Universe is Zero

In order for life to exist in our universe, there are requirements that are sometimes loosely calculated by a formula called the Drake Equation.  It multiplies a sequence of numbers, each representing the likelihood of one particular requirement.  Each number is a fraction, and less than one.  The more times you multiply a sequence of such numbers, the smaller the result gets.  For example, if you multiply one-half times one-half, you get one fourth.  Multiply that, times one half, and you get one eighth.  Keep going, and you will get one sixteenth, one over 32, one over 64, and so on, ever smaller and smaller. 

The Drake Equation might start with the chance of a planet having a suitable atmosphere, the right amount of gravity, enough water, a protective magnetic field and so forth.  Each chance is less than one hundred percent, so the final chance gets less and less, closer and closer to zero.

In such an equation, however, one never actually reaches zero—unless one or more of the factors is itself zero.  So, the question arises, are there, in fact, any factors that equal zero?  Let’s get back to that later.

The technique I will use to make my point is first, to make the case for those who disagree with my proposition (that there is zero chance of intelligent life arising in the universe).  Having made the case for them, for those who disagree with me, then next, I will dig deeper, and show the flaw in their reasoning.  First, the case that supports my opponents.

Let us note that even the tiniest chance of something happening, means that it can happen.  As long as the chance is greater than zero, it can happen.  Whether it’s a chance in a million, or one in a billion, or one in trillions of trillions, it is still greater than zero, and that means that it can happen.

Let us also note that, although a chance in a billion seems impossibly small, if you have a billion of something, then that tiny chance increases to a very large chance.  For example, if you have a closed box that has one chance in a billion of having a gold coin in it, it is not even worth your time to open that one box.  However, if you have a billion such boxes, and you have a way of opening all of them in a short time, then the chance of finding at least one gold coin will exceed ninety percent.

The reason for mentioning this is because the Drake equation says that the likelihood of our finding another planet in our galaxy that could generate and sustain intelligent life is very tiny, for any one planet.  However, since the galaxy has billions upon billions of planets, that tiny chance begins to grow much larger.  If we include the billions of galaxies in our calculation, the chance grows enormously larger, Finally, if we theorize that there are uncountable billions of universes, the chance of there being intelligent life in the theorized multi-verse begins to approach one hundred percent, a dead certainty.  Indeed, there might be infinite numbers of technological alien civilizations.

It is for this reason that many people, including scientists, take it almost as a given that our galaxy alone might contain many, highly advanced, alien civilizations which travel among the stars and planets.

However, calculations of chance and probability can produce results that are contrary to expectations.  For example, suppose you have a sequence of fractions, such that each one in the sequence is smaller than the one before—but that sequence of fractions is infinitely large.  Must the total of all those fractions add up to at least one?  The answer is no.  You can indeed, have an infinite number of fractions that add up to less than one.  For example, the fraction one over three (1/3) can be expressed in decimal form as zero point three, followed by an infinite series of threes.  0.33333333333 and on forever.  Each three is a fraction that is smaller than the fraction before it.  There is an infinite sequence of those fractions, and yet, the total never exceeds one third.

Returning to the Drake Equation, then, we can apply this principle.  The equation can yield the result that no matter how many planets or universes one factors in, the increase in the chances of life diminish as one adds more factors.  They never reach one hundred percent.

In support of my opponents, the chance of life arising is, according to the Drake Equation, greater than zero.  Why are they wrong?

The more important principle, the overriding principle, is that life does not arise by chance, but for another reason.  It is caused to arise.  Something inherent in the universe requires life to arise.  As an example of an inherent tendency, planets are formed because gravity acts in the way it does, aggregating atoms and molecules through their mutual attraction.  Therefore, planets do not arise by chance, but because natural law makes their formation inevitable.

In a similar manner, it is theorized that the groups of planets called galaxies, are formed due to the properties of a mysterious particle or principle, referred to as dark matter (particle), or alternatively, as MoND (principle)—not by chance.

The laws of nature are inherent in the universe.  Such laws cannot reasonably be said to have arisen by chance, even in a multi-verse.  There is a law of nature that induces life to form, and once formed, induces it to advance to greater complexity.

This law of nature, or life force, may be purely physical, or it may be something more, something spiritual.  If scientists cannot find a natural explanation for nature, then they are force to look beyond nature. Clearly, nature cannot have come about by natural means, since there were none, until nature existed.

Five Alien Technologies That Will Make Us or Break Us

One of the standard themes in science fiction has been that of “Alien Invaders.”  So far, this has not happened, at least not in the form of overt military conquest.  But it could, couldn’t it? 

Perhaps so, but before losing any sleep over it, perhaps we should ask, why?  Why would a technologically advanced alien civilization attack us?  What do we have that they could hope to acquire?

Water?  According to some science-fiction portrayals, that would attract every thirsty alien in the galaxy (and beyond).  Planet Earth has abundant water.  With proper purification systems, and adequate conservation, we have enough water to supply an entire alien planet for many millions of years. 

No.  Water is a molecule composed of hydrogen which is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen, which is in plentiful supply.  Even if the oxygen supply runs low on Planet Zadar, the Zadarian technology, if advanced enough to attack us, is also advanced enough to make its own oxygen, and then combine it with hydrogen by lighting a match.  Voila, Zadar could swim in alien water.  They don’t need us for that.

Okay, then what about food?  Yes.  Aliens have to eat, and with six billion humans available---no.  The aliens can synthesize water in which to boil us, and they can also synthesize food, the exact food that will best suit their needs and desires.  Why would they eat us?  Yuck.

Likewise with gold, silver, uranium and any other element or molecule they could wish for, they can produce them.

Alright, then, how about our planet itself?  Real estate.  Surely the aliens look upon earth as the perfect habitat in which to raise their mini-alien offspring.

While the aliens might consider that as a reason for stealing our planet, there are some reasons why they would be better off designing and building their own habitats.  Is our gravity comfortable for them?  Is our atmospheric pressure and composition suitable?  And what about the kazillion other factors that make Earth just right for us, but possibly not for them?  Yes, they could likely transform our planet to suit their needs, and that might give them a reason to kill us off, but if they can transform other planets instead, they might prefer to do so, and leave Earth alone.

That is not merely wishful thinking, because we do have one set of things that no alien technology can manufacture.  Aliens could very well find it worthwhile to study us.  We have our history, our cultures, our philosophies and religions, literature and arts.  These might seem like things that no alien civilization would find worth preserving, but it is more likely that they would.  After all, if we humans find it useful and intellectually enriching to analyze foreign ways of thinking, then why would aliens not at least place some level of value on doing the same?

It should give us some comfort, then, that no alien armies have yet invaded us, despite millions of years in which they (in theory, at least) could have.  That in itself should indicate that they have found no reason to do so.  With their enormous technological superiority, they have no reason to fear us, no reason to preemptively attack us.  All in all, we are safe.

Let us then turn our attention to the possible benefits that alien technologies might offer us.  By using the word, “offer,” we need not imply that the aliens will come to us and show us their wares.  We are an inventive species, and we can produce our own technologies.  It gives us a great incentive, however, if we are convinced that the next invention is possible—indeed, if we believe it has been done.

So, for example, if we observe a very distant star, and conclude that a Dyson Sphere has been constructed around it, by aliens, then we might thereby be encouraged to undertake such a project ourselves, or at least to work toward it.  Such a star exists—if our observations are accurate and properly interpreted.  Even if not, we might give it a try, just because maybe, just maybe, the aliens did it.  Maybe.

In any case, the first step in making a practical invention is to imagine it, based on what we already know.  With that in mind, here are five technologies which we can reasonably suppose that alien civilizations have invented, which might have an impact on our own technological progress.

 

1S  Synthesization of elements

2.      Anti-gravity

3.      Artificial gravity

4.      Faster-than-light communication

5.      Faster-than-light travel

(1)    Synthesization of elements

We can make water out of hydrogen and oxygen, but we can make neither hydrogen nor oxygen from scratch.  Okay, hydrogen basically makes itself, so to speak, because it has one proton (and sometimes one neutron), but oxygen is a whole different thing.  It has eight protons and eight neutrons.  The universe creates oxygen through a series of thermonuclear reactions inside stars, but the details are not fully understood.  In other words, we cannot make oxygen atoms out of eight hydrogen atoms. 

But in theory, it can be done (after all, the universe does it), and therefore, we can and should consider it likely that space-faring aliens have found a way to do it.

By extension, we can and should consider it likely that space-faring aliens have found a way to make any element from hydrogen, that is, from protons and neutrons and electrons.  They can make gold and silver and uranium.  They can make aluminum and iron and copper.  Given that, they can combine atoms to make any molecule such as water, salt, and any food they can desire.

That power would enable them to conquer other civilizations (including ours).  It would also make it unnecessary.  Our only worry, then, would be aliens who conquer and destroy just for fun.  It seems, however, that that has not happened, perhaps because there is good reason for them not to do so.

(2)    Anti-gravity

Many science fiction authors find it necessary, or at least convenient, to include anti-gravity in their stories.  It saves on gas (or petrol).  Some see no other way that the Pyramids could have been built.  It also comes in handy to launch mega-sized spacecraft off of any planet.

While we have never found any practical anti-gravity force in nature, scientists do claim to have found dark energy, a sort of anti-gravity field that permeates the universe, causing the expansion of the universe to pick up speed, to accelerate.  If that assessment is correct, then it is sort of a proof-of-concept phenomenon that allows efforts to develop anti-gravity generators to proceed.

Dark energy is, however, such a mystery to science that some scientists claim that it does not exist.  Even if they are right, however, anti-gravity might still exist.  If it does, the aliens almost surely have it.

(3)    Artificial gravity 

Unlike as with anti-gravity, actual gravity does indeed exist.  Furthermore, the effects of gravity can be artificially simulated with centrifugal force by spinning.  But it’s not the same; it’s artificial, but it’s not really gravity.  Actual gravity is a property of the way mass interacts with (and bends) space.  Wow, that almost sounds like I know what I’m talking about, even though (I assure you) I do not. 

We feel gravity as a force, but relativity tells us that it is not a force acting at a distance, but instead, that space-bending thingy.  I think that idea is wrong, but I’m wrong on a lot more than just that.

Getting to the point, science-fiction writers need artificial gravity to keep Captain Kirk from floating out of his space-ship command-chair when the Romulans attack.  In more practical terms, our experience with the orbiting space-station has shown that there are adverse long-term health effects for astronauts who spend a lot of time in zero-gravity.  These can be partially compensated with certain exercises, but the only truly effective remedy is actual gravity—or in the context of this commentary, artificial gravity.

Artificial gravity in a space-ship would consist of either a very large centrifuge (astronauts living inside a gigantic spinning wheel), which would be possible but would pose its own problems—or a flat platform which would gravitationally pull everything straight down along a planar surface.  The latter is presently not possible, but it would make small space-craft more ergonomic for astronauts.

The aliens must have this.  Surely, they must.

(4)    Faster-than-light communication

It’s not possible.  Einstein proved that.  The very fabric of the universe makes the transmission of information (in any form) utterly impossible.  Forget it.  End of discussion.

Except that it makes science-fiction almost impossible to write.  How would Galactic Headquarters know that the Romulans are attacking in Theta Sector in time to react—or at least in time for the evening news?

Well, information cannot travel faster than lightspeed—inside our own universe.  It would rip the fabric  of space-time.

But what if there are parallel universes in which we could take a shortcut?

Think about it.  How else could ET phone home?

(5)    Faster-than-light travel

If information cannot travel faster than lightspeed, then there ain’t no way in heck that we could.  Oh yeah, smarty-pants?  I’ll bet that the aliens have it figured out.  So there.

The only way in which the aliens have developed faster-than-lightspeed travel is if they have discovered fundamental laws of nature that we may not suspect exist.  Might they have done so?

One of the most exciting things any young physicist can say, is the phrase, “new physics.”  They hunger for it.  Examples include theories of dark matter and dark energy, and by contrast, theories that claim those do not exist, but that something equally strange (or more so) might exist instead.

New physics may also include things that only recently have been considered to be a part of physics, such as theories of consciousness.  Given that consciousness is the only known phenomenon that observes itself, and that it does so from within itself, we may even be on the cusp of a paradigm shift, one which may force physicists to recognize that there is more to physicists than can ever be explained by physics.

I am simply not smart enough to say whether physicists are wrong.  I cannot say with any reasonable degree of certainty whether aliens exist.  Maybe they don’t.  Maybe we’re it, and there ain’t no more.

But if there are aliens, I’m pretty sure that they know more than we do.

 -

-

 

The Fatal Defect in the Drake Equation

The problem with searching for alien civilizations is that, while there seem to be lots of reasons to suppose that they exist, the evidence, at least the evidence available to the public, the hardest evidence, is feeble.  Indeed, there are those who make a credible case that no such aliens exist at all.

A recent article on Space dot Com states that, “Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens.”  The “rare earth hypothesis” proposes a very similar idea, that only a minuscule portion of planets can sustain life.  If these ideas are correct, the vast size of the universe allows us to assume, nevertheless, that even if alien civilizations are exceedingly rare, they may number in the thousands, even millions.  Is that assumption reasonable?

At first, it seems reasonable enough.  Recent discoveries of exoplanets suggest that planets are common, and therefore, planets capable of hosting life may be abundant on the grand scale of things.  If only one planet in a million has an alien civilization, then with many millions of planets in the galaxy, there could be many alien civilizations.  Right?

But not so fast.  The number of planets in the galaxy (and in the entire universe) is presumably very large, but even so, there is a limit to that number.  The probability of any given planet meeting all the many, many requirements to support life is exceedingly small.  If there are a kazillion planets, but the odds of life are one in a trillion kazillion, then that leaves us with one chance in a trillion, which is statistically zero for most purposes.  Even if you hate math, you can quickly see the point.

Okay, so far, we have established that there may possibly be many alien civilizations, and we have also established that there may not be any.  How do we choose which of those “maybes” is the more reasonable?

Many people employ wishful thinking.  Even skeptics admit that the prospect that there may be aliens is an exciting one (or dreadful, if they are hostile), but the idea that we might possibly encounter them would revolutionize human history (or perhaps end it).  Whether we wish they are there, or wish they are not, however, is not very reliable.

A less fanciful way is to make what we think are reasonable assumptions.  The very famous “Drake Equation” has been, for many years, used as a “starting point” for estimating how many (if any) alien civilizations are “out there.” 

The concept is simple.  Start with the idea that there are many planets.  Then continue with the idea that a certain fraction (of those planets) has water (or some other necessity for advanced life as we know it).  Of those planets that have water, estimate how many have an atmosphere that can sustain life.  Then ask, what fraction of those planets are close enough to their sun (star) to provide life-sustaining warmth.  The series continues, each time reducing the number of planets that can sustain life.  The more requirements there are, the fewer planets that can fulfill all of them.  If there are only ten requirements, one could get a large number of candidate planets.  If there are a hundred requirements, the number diminishes to a tiny amount.  If there are thousands of requirements, the number of planets that can sustain life approaches zero.

Then there are factors that preclude life, even if all the requirements are met.  If the host star explodes, that will surely preclude life.  If the host star emits harmful radioactivity, or has wildly fluctuating temperatures, or the planet is bombarded by meteors and comets—you get the idea.  A lot of things could destroy a civilization before it even gets started.

The question then is, how likely is each factor in the equation?  We do not know.  Even if each factor is fifty-percent, which is large, even then, multiplying all those fifty-percent factors together, soon results in a very tiny chance of an alien civilization existing.

The Drake equation, however, may be making some false assumptions.  For one thing, it assumes that life on any given planet arises (or fails to arise) by chance.  In doing so, it dismisses the idea that life requires something more than the “requirements” of life.  There may be a property of nature that leaves no room for chance when it comes to generating life, or at least for generating intelligent life.  Life may arise, or fail to arise, due to something other than chance.  That “something other” might make life exceedingly common, but it could also limit it to just one planet in the entire universe.

In biology, both evidence and theory have merged into the conclusion that life evolved from nonliving matter, and then without conscious guidance, progressed from the simplest forms, to the most complex forms, including humans.  This paradigm is infused into the assumptions of the Drake Equation.

Yet, there are other merges of evidence and theory that explain the origin and development of life.  One of these holds that life, consciousness and volition (free will) are three fundamental properties of nature.  In this paradigm, there is a life force (élan vital) which acts in a manner loosely analogous to gravity, or even dark matter, to structure atoms into the molecules associated with biochemistry.  This theory eliminates the dependence on chance, that is, on chances that are so small as to approach zero.  Instead, it posits that the universe appears to be the product of intent and purpose because—because it is that product.

If life does not arise by chance, but only by cosmic intent, with a purpose, then the Drake Equation is leading us toward a futile end.  We should not rely on it blindly.

 

Does Infinity Exist?

by Robert Arvay

While infinity is a valid mathematical concept, that is not the same thing as saying that it is real in the physical sense.

Even in the abstract mathematical sense, infinity presents some paradoxes.  For example, in mathematics, it is said that there are an infinite number of positive, finite integers.  That is a paradox, because it implies that there can be an infinite series of finite integers (or anything else).  Why is that a paradox?  If every item in the infinite series is finite, then how can the series be infinite?  Infinity can never be reached, but only approached.  (Even THAT is a paradox, because how can one approach something, yet never get any closer to it?  One is always an infinite distance short of infinity.)  It has no finality.  By definition it has no end.  If one can never get there, is “there” even a “there?”  The semantics are maddening.

How does this apply to the physical world?  In the physical sense, it is speculated, by cosmologists, that the universe may extend forever in all directions.  In the hypothetical, infinitely large universe, we must ask, is that possible?  If the universe is indeed, infinitely large—physically—then infinity has been reached.  It physically exists.  Paradoxically, the endless has been both reached, and yet, can never be reached.

Consider this thought experiment, a test of that principle.  Imagine that you are in a spaceship, traveling in a straight line, in an infinitely large universe.  No matter how far you travel, you will never travel the infinite distance that defines the universe’s reach.  You will never reach the end, because by definition, there is no end.

But wait.  What if you travel at an infinitely fast speed?  What would happen then?

To answer that, let us first look at another, paradoxically infinite universe, one that is both infinite and finite at the same time.  Let us consider a ruler that is twelve inches in length.  Why is this both finite and infinite?  It is infinite, if you measure its length by the number of geometric points along its length.  There are an infinite number of such points.  A geometric point results if one divides the ruler in halves an infinite number of times.  This results in a point having a length of zero.

So, if one begins at one end of the ruler, and begins traveling toward the other end, point by point, then it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the other end.  Indeed, it would take an infinite amount of time to get anywhere along the ruler.  We know this simply by multiplying the speed of movement by zero.  Any amount, any number of points, times zero, is zero.  Since each geometric point is of zero length, then one could never move even as far as one point along the line.  So, one could never move any finite length, if one moves zero length at a time.  To move at all, one would have to move an infinite number of points at a time, all at once;  that is, at infinite speed.

But wait again.  If one moves an infinite number of points all at once, then he has moved a finite distance—but what is that distance?  Is it one foot?  One inch?  One mile?  A billion miles?

Of course, the distance moved would be arbitrary.  One could never specify how far that distance would be.  It could be ANY finite length.

Returning to our spaceship, what would happen if we increased the speed to infinity?  How far would we travel?  If we travel an infinite distance, in an infinitely large universe, then where would we be?  Some random place?  Back where we started?  Outside the universe?  More than one place at one time?  Everywhere?  Where?

What all this tells us is that our intellect is far too limited to understand an infinite reality.

=

Video: Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on Alien Megastructures

Sabine Hossenfelder may be the heir to Carl Sagan's role as science popularizer,

Click on the link below:

Alien Megastructure Candidates – Not as Crazy as it Sounds! (youtube.com)

Do Vatican Records Contain Information About UFOs?

It is well known that the Vatican archives are highly restricted.  The authorities in the Roman Catholic Church maintain strict control over access to its documents, both the old ones and the more recent.  For centuries, there have been rumors and speculations as to what these records might contain.  A recent news item claims that the Vatican has information about UFOs dating from the 1930s, and that it has shared such information with the United States.

The Vatican's UFO links and secrets kept hidden by church for decades - Irish Star

The Hunt for Alien Technology Continues

Click this link for the source article: 

Scientists have found 'evidence' of advanced alien civilisations (msn.com)

[An] international team of researchers, based in Sweden, India, the US and the UK, have devised a way to search for unimaginably complex extraterrestrial megastructures, known as Dyson spheres.

And, after sifting through millions of potential space objects, they believe that they’ve identified seven of these behemoths lurking in the cosmos.

When Things that Cannot Be, Are

While I have become a UFO skeptic, I retain an open mind.  My skepticism is a product of the persistent lack of hard evidence.  My open-mindedness stems from government obstinacy, refusing to open the “unclassified” reports to the public.  Time will tell, one way or the other.

There is another facet of this.  Nobody likes paradigm shifts, at least not at first.  We feel secure and comfortable when our most cherished beliefs are upheld by observation.  We feel the opposite when we have to confront uncertainty, a new and scary reality that imposes itself in our minds, when we have to get up off the couch, so to speak, and venture hot and itchy, into unmapped terrain.

Every once in a while, we hear reports from “whistleblowers,” people who work in secret research laboratories, who tell fantastic stories that defy belief—at first.  For a brief time, they are in the news, but then they fade from public consciousness, without their claim ever having been decisively substantiated or refuted.

To understand this phenomenon, we must begin with less spectacular stories that involve scientific research that is not secret, but still represent a massive change in the way scientists view physics.  One of these is “dark matter.”  Dark matter is an unresolved mystery of science.  It is a theory which is used to explain the way that gravity behaves weirdly, in outer space.  It proposes that more than five sixths of all matter in the universe is invisible, but exerts a gravitational force.  There is an alternate theory that also explains the same thing, but is also paradigm-shifting.  It simply says that the accepted mathematics governing gravity is wrong, and that a different formula (MoND) must be used instead.

The point is that both of these theories, whichever one is correct, tells us that the entire way physics has modeled the universe is wrong.  To some scientists, that is an unnerving reality.

Getting back to UFOs, let us quote from the famous science-fiction author, Arthur C. Clarke:

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”

He was referring, of course, to the hypothesized existence of space aliens, more specifically, advanced technological civilizations on other planets.  Either way, we are confronting an unnerving reality.

The mainstream scientific opinion on the matter is that we have no hard evidence that any such aliens exist.  No radio signals, no unimpeachable photographs or videos, no physical objects that we can hold in our hands, and verify as being manufactured by intelligent beings “not of this earth.”  That is my opinion also.

There are, however, claims that we do, indeed, have hard evidence, that we have in our possession, not merely objects, but actual space-craft, and even dead alien corpses, and finally, live aliens themselves.

Those are astounding claims, and as such, require extraordinary evidence, which has not been made publicly available, perhaps because no such evidence exists.

That is not, however, the end of the story.  Most of the scientists who demand hard evidence of any extraordinary claim, also admit that, based on statistics alone, there “must be” alien civilizations somewhere in the universe.  I liken this to someone discovering a large pond in a field, and feeling quite certain that there “must be” fish there.

In other words, the specific claims seem outlandish, and yet, the general possibility is accepted as a matter of course.  This seems to leave somewhat of a gap between observation and theory, a gap known as Fermi's Paradox.

Let us retreat to the least spectacular claims, which is that the government has, in its possession, some form of physical evidence, for example some kind of material that cannot have been made on earth, and does not occur in nature.  Somebody, or some-thing, made it.

Even if that is some golf-ball size component, something which has properties or characteristics that defy anything known to our scientists and engineers—even that would be incontrovertible hard evidence that intelligent alien creatures have arrived on earth.

We would have to get off the sofa.

-

Underwater UFOs (called USOs)

Click on the Link for details:

 Former US Navy admiral leads search for underwater alien USOs (msn.com)

“As represented by multiple credible military personnel, objects have been recorded by sonar moving at speeds underwater that are far beyond our best submarines or other hardware."

AARO's Definition of "Evidence" Excludes Evidence

Published in American Thinker dot com

by Robert Arvay

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, according to the adage.  AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) seems a little bit unclear on that. 

The recent statement of the official government "UFO Hunters," AARO, is that it has not found any “empirical” evidence of any technology "not of this earth."  If, by evidence, one means incontrovertible, physical proof beyond any doubt, then, yes, we have no evidence.  If instead, one uses a more reasonable definition, such as credible eye witness accounts by experts, by means of air, ground and radar observations, all at the same time and place, then there are massive amounts of evidence, and the reports keep coming in.

None of which are proof, but many of them are indeed evidence. 

AARO, almost from its beginning, has suffered from what might be called, a lack of candor, when making statements to the public.  It dutifully reports, and correctly so, that the great majority of UFO accounts are readily explainable as ordinary phenomena—but it gratuitously adds that those few which are not explained, probably could be, if more data were available.  “Probably could be” is not a scientific statement, and does not reflect the rigorous, disciplined analysis which AARO claims as its mantle.  Moreover, it sounds very much as if its conclusions have already been reached beforehand.

For context, remember that AARO is dealing with a subject matter that could potentially change the course of human history.  It deserves much more intensity than a routine procedural inquiry.  If it actually does find, and reports, that there is a significant likelihood that even one UFO sighting, even without proof, is evidence of interplanetary spacecraft from another planet—one cannot overstate the implications.  AARO’s secondary mission, then, is to instill confidence in the public mind that it has no hesitation in reporting all the facts, accurately, no matter what they are, nor whose apple cart is upset.

Is it doing that?

No.  From its beginning, AARO was openly disinterested in revisiting government records of past UFO reports, and instead stated that it would be focusing only on new reports as they come in.  In open testimony before Congress, some officials amazingly seemed unaware of the cumulative historical data that are available, much of it professionally documented, which might offer clues not only as to what UFOs are, but how best to proceed investigating them.  When pressed, they reluctantly agreed to “look into” reports that congressmen specifically mentioned, but seemed remarkably incurious.  There was no indication that they would be turning over every stone.  The attitude seemed to be, that’s not my job, but if you really must insist, a routine inquiry will be made; we hope that satisfies you.

At the least, knowing what mistakes have been made in the past (such as intimidating witnesses, jumping to conclusions, and failing to gather all available data), can be used to create effective protocols and policies going forward.  Numerous forensic clues for which technology did not exist in the 1950s might be applied now, to what criminologists might call, cold cases.  Possibly, they could solve some of the most spectacular UFO sightings, for example those which occurred over the White House decades ago.  Doesn’t AARO consider that worth looking into?  Apparently not.

That lack of interest in historical context is a glaring omission, which AARO seems, appallingly, to shrug off.

It is no wonder, then, that some potential witnesses indicate a distrust of AARO, and therefore, will not report to it.  If “the truth is out there,” then the bureaucratic attitude might be, that’s a good place for it.

The situation is made more complicated by hordes of hoaxsters and UFO cultists, who clutter up the files with false and misleading reports.  Unfortunately, there is a tendency to indict honest and competent reports by association with them.

The UFO phenomenon, whatever it turns out to be, if ever we find out what it is, may fall into the category of so-called “far out physics,” something so unlike what we might expect, that we have nothing in our experience to which to relate it.  For example, dark matter, dark energy, and singularities in the cosmos, are in that category.  Our best scientists have failed to solve those mysteries.

Until we get a reliable agency, with aggressive methods of getting at the truth, we may not know whether we are simply uninformed, perhaps by an incompetent agency, or are being stonewalled.  AARO can do much to dispel such notions, but only by expressing more curiosity about UFOs.  

In order to succeed, it needs to go where no investigation has gone before.

Nat Geo VIDEO: UFOs Are A Hazard to Aircraft Safety

 The Global Threat (Full Episode) | UFOs: Investigating the Unknown (youtube.com)

The UFO Hunter Has Quit

This commentary was sparked by the following linked article.

Here's What I Learned as the U.S. Government's UFO Hunter | Scientific American

My comments follow.

By now, I have become a UFO skeptic, but that has not changed my skepticism about government agencies.  I do not necessarily believe anything they claim, nor anything they deny.  They lie.

While I guard against being overly cynical, there is ample reason to guard against being gullible when it comes to government agencies.  Rarely, if ever, has any agency head admitted that the need for his agency has diminished to the point that it should be abolished.  Almost all of them request more money than they received the year before, not less.

When it comes to UFOs, however, there may actually be some justification for the practice of  deception.  If hostile foreign nations believe that we are on the cusp of retro-engineering some vastly advanced technology, they may fear us.  At the least, they may waste time and effort attempting to discover what we have.

On the other hand, it may be our own Congress that is wasting our tax dollars rummaging around looking for planetary aliens, instead of solving the real problem with earthly illegal aliens.

"Jelly-Fish" UFO: Controversy and Mystery

Video of "Jellyfish UFO" and interview with "second-hand" witness. Click on the link below the image,

Warning:  the video linked below contains some vulgar spoken words.

WEAPONIZED : EPISODE #47 — WEAPONIZED (weaponizedpodcast.com)

They’re Back. Secret UFO Hearings Held in Congress

for American Thinker

by Robert Arvay

Whatever the UFOs are—or are not—they continue to generate controversy. Congress held secret, closed-door hearings on January 12, 2024, about them. We are not being told much more than that.

I have gradually become a UFO skeptic, based on news releases and documentaries, both recent and over the years. Most of them tend toward the assumption that UFOs are space-craft, built by technologies “not of this earth.” My reasons for being skeptical are detailed here on my UFO blog.

Being a skeptic does not mean denying that there are unexplained aerial phenomena in our skies. The video and eye witness evidence is compelling in that regard. My skepticism is based on one simple fact: there is no public, verifiable, physical evidence of nonhuman advanced technology—anywhere. By physical evidence I mean such things as metal objects, or objects composed of other material, something so substantial that you can hold it in your hand and (in principle) hit it with a hammer. Such items of evidence, were they to be credibly presented, would have to fit at least two, preferably more, of the following criteria:

1. They would be clearly artificial, intelligently manufactured objects, not produced by nature, but made by no known earthly technology.

2. They would be tangible, physical objects.

3. They would not be merely photographic or computer-generated images, or testimony.

4. They would be clearly designed to perform some purposeful function, even if we could not discern what that function is.

5. They would possess physical properties, or performance characteristics, that cannot be explained by presently understood laws of nature.

6. They would be coherent, assembled, systems or devices, such as flyable vehicles.

7. They could include biological materials clearly unlike any known earthly forms of life. Complete organisms, whether dead or alive, would be the most definitive evidence.

As far as I know, no such objects (or samples) exist. It seems implausible that any person or government could possess them and maintain secrecy for very long.

The more of these criteria that are met, the more credibly we could ascribe to such objects an origin from another planet. The complete absence of such evidence undermines the validity of the off-world hypothesis. Worse yet for UFO believers, no witnesses (to my knowledge) under oath have publicly testified that they have put their own hands on such objects, and independently found (by unbiased experiment) that they meet the specifications listed above.

This is not to say that there are no known natural anomalies that defy physical description. There are. Dark matter and dark energy are two of them. Both are so controversial that some reputable scientists say that they do not exist. Most, however, can make a very strong case for them, despite not being able to define precisely what they are. From an engineering perspective, even something so obviously real as the Great Pyramid of Egypt could not today (according to many credentialed experts) be made without modern technology, or perhaps, even with it.

As a UFO skeptic, I place the UFOs in a similar category, that is to say, of real phenomena that defy explanation. UFOs are the “dark matter,” so to speak, of aerial phenomena. Absent tangible physical evidence, all the logic goes against UFOs being space-craft. For one thing, any technology capable of making them, could also make them undetectable. If, on the other hand, the supposed aliens intended to be detected, or did not care one way or the other, then we should see them often, under such conditions that no one would bother to deny their existence.

Therefore, if the UFOs are under intelligent control, we should either never see them, or else quite frequently (and verifiably) see them. It makes no sense that they act as if they wish not to be seen, and then get seen anyway, but only under disputed circumstances.

All this having been said, one must ask, given that UFOs are real, but their behavior seems paradoxical, then what are they?

I will answer that, as soon as I can work out what dark matter and dark energy are.

-