A senior SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) astronomer not too long ago posted an essay on UFOs in the Huffington Post exactly where he 1st stated: “Let me to 1st note that this is a phenomenon worthy of consideration. If aliens are genuinely hanging out in our 'hood, it is challenging to consider any other reality extra worthy of study.” Then he concludes with: “The reality is, if you are specific that our planet is hosting alien guests, the way to achieve acceptance for your point of view is to prove it, not insist that the issue lies with third parties. The blame game is a cop-out.”

WTF is this guy saying? UFOs are vital but it is up to other individuals to do all the challenging yards and prove that UFOs and aliens are connected. You can just about hear the writer scream out WE Call for PROOF as lengthy as the burden is on other individuals to come up with the smoking gun!

WE Call for PROOF! That is all fine, effectively and fantastic in theory, an in an perfect planet, except the typical member of the terrific unwashed does not have the name-brand, academic bona-fides or sources expected. No matter what 'proof” the terrific unwashed offer you up, the WE Call for PROOF demands of the numerous (scientists) outweigh the skills of the handful of (the terrific unwashed) to proved the expected goods. If I ring up a top rated scientist at a top rated university and say I have a piece of an alien spaceship, do you honestly assume they will listen to me or slam down the telephone uttering “a further bloody wacko wasting my time”! So the 'blame game' is maybe extra a plea for these with the scientific bona-fides, and the sources and the credibility and respected household institutions to take the terrific unwashed a tad extra seriously when it comes to UFO experiences and get their hands dirty studying the topic.

I play the blame game. I place blame on these who could, but will not get their hands dirty. It really is intellectual cowardice pure and very simple. The pretty clear if unstated message is I am interested in ET, I am a SETI scientist by profession, but I am not interested in UFOs unless a person else delivers the proof that there is an actual alien connection. I am not interested in UFOs due to the fact I will not get external funding to study them. That is due to the fact I've got as well a great deal on my plate currently. That is due to the fact I'd rather sit on my ass and let the terrific unwashed do the dirty function. That is due to the fact a person could make exciting of me, like my experienced colleagues. The sociology (workplace politics) of the science neighborhood commonly runs one thing along the lines of never stray beyond the mainstream never assume out of the box never rock the boat or you will finish up like Jonah and tossed overboard with no a whale in sight.

So holier than thou essays like that posted by 'Mr. SETI' are not genuinely beneficial relevant scientists require to place up some legit science or shut up considering that if they are clearly not portion of the option, they are portion of the issue standing in the way of a option!

Let's overlook the terrific unwashed for the moment let's speak nerdy speak and deal with proof, not proof, just proof, that one thing strange is afoot by way of observations from astronomers, experienced colleagues of SETI scientists, and their reported anomalous observations that are in the scientific literature. Now albeit it is 'colleagues' from various generations ago and way just before modern day SETI instances, but that does not alter their academic bona-fides nor what they reported in the experienced literature.

I refer to the several historical sightings of Neith (reported satellite of Venus) and the intra-Mercurial planet Vulcan along with several other sightings of alleged planets inside the orbit of Mercury. Not one particular, or two but multi-dozens of reports are in the scientific literature for each. That is in addition to these multi-dozens of sightings of unpredicted by uncharted and unknown objects that produced unexpected transits of the Sun and Moon. So, experienced astronomers are on record as possessing observed, for all sensible purposes, unidentified 'aerial' phenomena. Now we know there is no Neith and there is no Vulcan, and so on. so specifically what did scientists in the astronomical profession observe? A UFO by any other name is nonetheless a UFO. Okay, that is just proof, not proof. Nevertheless, UFO observations are not exclusively the house of the terrific unwashed.

WE Call for PROOF! Okay, even if scientists never want to actively participate, their demand WE Call for PROOF (lay it on the slab in my lab) sounds affordable, till you realise that these very same scientists accept the reality of numerous other factors that they equally can not study on a slab in the lab, factors that only can be observed or photographed.

An clear case in point is these stars in the evening sky. You see them you can photograph them, but to date you can not study the physical object in the laboratory! You can not place a star on the slab. So, if stars are acceptable, why not UFOs? Effectively, stars can be consequently they are UFOs can not be consequently they are not*.

Scientists have a readymade excuse for not becoming in a position to confirm the bona-fides of stars as laboratory specimens they are out of attain – way as well distant to grab hold of. But they nonetheless argue that stars are not illusions or misidentifications or all-in-the-thoughts or hoaxes due to the fact astrophysical theory supports stars becoming what scientists think they are. Of course in a manner of speaking starlight can be 'captured' and analysed in the lab, and at least stars have the decency of creating their look on schedule. Nevertheless, you can not examine up close and private the physical star itself.

So as a generality, in defence to an anti-UFO stance, scientists will say there are theoretical factors for accepting the reality of factors they can not place their mitts on, implying that there are no theoretical factors supporting the UFO ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis). Alas and alack, as an further counterattack, as stars (and rainbows – see under) are supported by astrophysics' theory, there is also an actual theoretical situation that practically demands that there be UFOs and that UFOs be extraterrestrial spacecraft – it is identified as the Fermi Paradox. That just essentially says that even if there is only one particular sophisticated technological civilization 'out there' with the capacity to “boldly go”, then the time it would take to discover (even at low sub light velocities – say 1% to 10% the speed of light) and colonize finish-to-finish our galaxy is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. So exactly where is everyone? They ought to, if they exist at all, by rights be right here. Why would they spend unique consideration to the third rock from the Sun? Even though stars and planets are dimes-a-dozen, abodes with biospheres are almost certainly as uncommon as hen's teeth – that is why. Planet Earth is a hen's tooth! Alas, whilst astrophysical theory passes their muster, the Fermi Paradox does not reduce their mustard apparently.

Okay, for terrestrial scientists, physical star-stuff can not be placed on the lab's slab. But there are parallels a great deal closer to household exactly where that excuse of intense distance falls far brief. Now here's a parallel. The rainbow is the case in point. If scientists can play UFO skeptic, I can play the part of rainbow skeptic.

If you say you have observed a rainbow, you can not prove that to me considering that you can not bring the rainbow, or any portion of it (like say the linked pot-of-gold), into my lab and location it on the slab for me to hammer away at or place beneath the microscope. You clearly think in the reality of rainbows, however you can not place the one particular you see in the sky on your lab's slab either. Okay, you know and I know that rainbows exist, but the essential point is that you can not prove to me (or any person) that you saw a rainbow. We all know eyewitness testimony, ain't worth the price tag of spit in a bucket. As for photographs, becoming the grand skeptic I am, no doubt your photographs of rainbows are fakes, pure and very simple. I Call for PROOF of rainbows and you can not give it.

Can you capture and place an actual rainbow in the sky into a laboratory atmosphere and topic it to cruel and uncommon punishments? You can artificially produce one particular in the lab, but that is not pretty the very same issue – it is not the genuine McCoy. And what about that linked physical trace – the pot-of-gold at the finish of the rainbow? I've however to study of any laboratory evaluation of that pot and that gold. How do we know it is genuinely gold with no slab-in-the-lab evaluation? Perhaps its fool's gold! And just like Pandora's 'box' is genuinely a jar and not a box, possibly the 'pot' is genuinely a bowl! Of course the scientists can not pretty get at the pot-of-gold considering that it is guarded by a leprechaun, and no scientist is going to admit becoming thwarted by a tiny green man (or abducted by a tiny grey one particular either for that matter).

Okay, I would be foolish not to think your observation and to deny the reality of rainbows, however its okay for scientific skeptics to ignore the rainbow parallel when it comes to UFOs. Eyewitness testimony with regards to UFO sightings is not worth the expense of the paper it is printed on photographs of UFOs are certainly pure Photoshop fakery.

But in reality, UFOs offer you up way extra physical proof than the rainbow. In spite of that pot-of-gold at the finish of a rainbow legend, rainbows leave behind no physical traces no physiological effects, and no electromagnetic effects they make no sounds, and so on. UFOs are not so hampered. So, if crunch-comes-crunch, the reality of UFOs have a lot extra going for them in terms of physical proof than the reality of rainbows. Of course no scientist in their correct thoughts would exhibit scepticism of the existence of rainbows even with no any physical proof backing them up, but when it comes to UFOs, that is a distinct horse of a further colour – but is it genuinely a distinct horse, and is it genuinely of a distinct hue?

Of course one particular explanation physical scientists accept the reality of the rainbow is that they've observed one particular themselves (numerous most most likely) and seeing is believing as lengthy as it is they who are undertaking the seeing. If they themselves had witnessed a UFO occasion they (and their colleagues) could not determine then I am confident they would be a great deal extra open and inclined to accept another's eyewitness testimony. A bit of a double typical there of course but that is human nature and scientists are not exempt from that weakness. Regrettably, UFOs have a tendency to be a rarer commodity than rainbows and consequently witnessed way significantly less generally, which includes viewings by scientists.

Even though UFOs have a larger physical proof quota than rainbows, they also have a larger strangeness quota as well, which is not to say that rainbows never have a strange mythological aura about them. I wonder if the scientist who accepts the reality of the rainbow also accepts that the rainbow is a bridge to heaven (Asgard) according to Norse mythology and produced well-known in the conclusion to Richard Wagner's 1st “Ring Cycle” opera “Das Rheingold”. Christian mythology has the rainbow as a sign that at least the subsequent time God lays waste to the planet it will not be by way of the Massive Wet, even though I doubt you will locate that in any textbook on optical and atmospheric phenomena. And if you are into cryptozoology, the Australian aborigines have a Rainbow Serpent (which doubles as a creator deity), but then once again, scientists are not noted for their curiosity into the actual existence of unknown mega-fauna or polytheistic creator deities** either for that matter. In reality, you name the culture you will locate a rainbow mythology contained inside. Rainbows are linked with spirits and demons and all manner of omens from the fantastic, to the negative and the ugly that scientists will reject as portion and parcel of their belief program.

So, exactly where do scientists draw the line? Rainbows – yes rainbow serpents and rainbow bridges – no. And this distinction is rightly so, IMHO. But when they reject out of hand a phenomenon that in fact has extra and superior proof than say rainbows (auroras and sprites would be other circumstances in point) then eyebrows will have to be raised and queries asked – like please clarify your logic.

Even though on the topic of factors mythological, let's go harking back to the stars and planets and other celestial objects. There is a huge mythology from numerous ancient cultures that commonly goes hand-in-hand with how these celestial objects and evening sky patterns came to be. Astronomers never assistance these tall tales either considering that they have other extra scientific theories that clarify the origins of stars and constellations. Nevertheless, its two competing theories of how to account for say, the Pleiades star cluster. As soon as upon a time it was Zeus. Currently it is astrophysics. Who's to say considering that neither situation can be subjected to a definitive WE Call for PROOF slab-in-the-lab test.

By the way, as a final counterattack, I have not however observed any SETI scientist come up with proof good on ET, so IMHO it is nonetheless a tied ball game. But rather than have two opposing teams, SETI scientists could as effectively study UFOs as effectively considering that SETI to date has a batting typical of zero. Probably that is what comes from scientists placing all their ET eggs in just the SETI basket.

*And the Sun can not have sunspots considering that we all know that the Sun is best meteorites can not exist considering that we all know stones can not fall from the sky

**Although faith in the reality of God is hardly unknown to exist in some physical scientists, even though like stars and rainbows, they can not place God on the slab in their lab either. Somehow the WE Call for PROOF criteria never matter in this case.