Alien Confidential Multimedia/Alien Confidential Multimedia (Disk 1 of 9).adf/MISC/093

Text File | 1995-04-23 | 8.7 KB | 181 lines

Subject: Power Science & The UFO -- 1
Date: 20 Feb 1995 01:43:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 168
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <3i9dmh$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Germannvh)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com


                          Science, Proof And The "UFO"
            An Explication Of The So-Called "Lear Scenario"

       Here is one of the stickiest wickets in the whole field of
Ufology.  The debunkers all say "where is the proof?"  And the
"Ufologists" keep trying to turn themselves into physicists and
produce it.  But the plain facts are these:

       If there is a another, non-human intelligence operating on
the Earth then "science" could be of little help and there may be
no "proof" available except as these "others" desire. The concept
of "proof" requires that there exist a human agency possessing
the ability to determine with authority what is happening in the
world.  When "science" is dealing with things like sulphur
dioxide or chimpanzees there is no problem.  But if "UFOs" are
the products of a superior technology then where is the
"authority" to determine what is really going on?  We must
remember that scientists are neutral, objective observers only
within their narrow specialties.  They are all, regardless of
specialty, part of a self-selecting social elite.  They have a
position to protect.  Someone has to pay for "science" and every
last scientist.  Science and scientists are caught up in the
economic and military systems that dominate the United States and
most other nations.  These systems are paid for by the average
citizens of these nations and those average citizens must retain
confidence in that which is taking so much of their money.

       Who is the "jury" who must be convinced by "evidence" for
the existence of "UFOs" as "artifacts of another intelligence?"
The same people who would be severely damaged if that "evidence"
ever were to become "proof!"  It is not rational for "Ufologists"
to expect science and scientists to cooperate in their personal
diminuation.  It is not going to happen. The proof of a superior
technology and civilization operating on the Earth would be a
tremendous blow to all of our various elite groups, including
scientists.  This is so even though the first reaction of the
average man might be an "us against them" reflex that would
actually enhance the power of our current human leaders.  In the
long run (several decades) present human social arrangements
would have to change, and drastically, if we were to "make
contact" with another intelligence.  Those at the top of the
current heap understand that clearly, whether the rest of us do
or not.

       The statements of John Lear and William Cooper are
interesting and important mostly because they deal with the
issues above.  Is it conceivable, as these two men claim, that
our scientific and governmental elites have sold us out to
"others" from off the Earth?  "NO," say most of those who have
heard the charge.  But for many people, more and more all the
time, the answer is becoming, grimly, "Yes, it is possible."
This is UFOSearch's position, and the problem of what constitutes
"proof" provides an excellent avenue for explicating it.

The Three Arenas Of Proof:  1) Legal "Proof"

       In the legal profession "proof" does not exist until a
jury has been convinced and a conviction obtained.  Before that
time "proof" was simply "evidence."   Jurors hear the statements
of witnesses and experts.  The "physical evidence" in a trial is
given by a police expert and it is HIS credibility that makes the
evidence, whatever it is (ballistics, fingerprints, etc.), stand
up in court.  If the jury convicts evidence becomes "proof."
There is no such thing as "machine proof."  A human being always
has to testify as to what sophisticated machines are saying.
Machines cannot speak for themselves.  They are only tools and
have no legal standing to testify.  "Proof" at trial is a human
thing, not a machine thing.

       Let us take the legal paradigm and put it into the world
of the UFO.  Let us suppose that a "crashed disc" is brought
before the nation.  It looks for all the world like a Flying
Saucer.  Let us suppose further that it REALLY IS a Flying
Saucer!  What would make it real to the public at large?  Would
seeing it on TV be enough?  No, it would not.  The thing could be
fake, right?  Hollywood can make anything look real these days.

       No, it would be a statement of strangeness given by a
figure in authority that would make that "crashed disc" real.
The artifact in itself is NOT sufficient.  A human being in
authority has to PROCLAIM a mute physical thing to be what he
believes it to be! That puts it into the human system, that's the
proof!  This is the absolute core of the issue.

       In the modern world a thing is not necessarily what it IS
but what someone in authority SAYS it is.  The rest of us must
then take the word of this authority about the "reality" of any
artifact or process.  We, just like a jury at trial, have to take
someone else's word about nearly everything.  The only question
is: whose word are we going to take?

       In 1954 I saw a large, diamond-shaped object go over my
five-year-old head.  My best estimate is that this object was
some hundreds of feet across and several thousand feet above me.
I did not see it close to the horizon but had a sudden urge to
look straight, and I mean straight, up--to the zenith.  I had to
bend over backwards to do this.  Then and only then did I see
this thing.  It made no sound and was cruising smoothly and
rapidly under a solid overcast.  It frightened me deeply.

       For me, this event is experience--beyond proof.  I am a
witness.  The questions are: 1) Do YOU believe me?  2) Does my
sighting resonate with you?  3) Does it fit in with what you
believe to be the "reality" of the current human situation?  To
you my sighting is just a "story"--but so is much of the rest of
the world!

       It is unfortunate but true that as long as great numbers
of "Ufologists" continue to insist on "proof" we are going to
learn very little about what is actually happening.  "Proof" is
simply not available.  This is something that "they" (if they
exist) understand quite well and use against us.  Ufology has
been spinning its wheels for four decades, chasing lights in the
sky in a vain search for "proof," while the real action has been
right here on the ground. In the opinion of UFOSearch this has
not been an accident.


The Three Arenas Of Proof:   2) Scientific "Proof"

       The following is a quote from a letter I recently
received: "Ufology ought to be a scientific study of a
legitimately puzzling phenomenon."  You see, I just can't agree
with that.  In my opinion, "Ufology" can never be truly
"scientific."  This is because of the nature of science and the
probable nature of the "UFO."  If in fact the "UFO" represents
another intelligence of some kind then the fundamental
assumptions of "science" and "scientists" are null and void.
These assumptions are:

       1)  The universe is objective (totally material, in
effect, dead) and knowable with certainty by human beings, i.e.,
by scientists, who are the most human.

       2)  The scientific method is the best way to study the
universe and its language is quantification--mathematics.  The
ideal here is the "hard, physical evidence" that can be deemed
"proof" by the ultra-materialists of the world of science.

       3)  The highest form of "science" therefore is physics,
the most provable, with chemistry a strong second.

       But if the UFO is not "objective," if instead it is under
the control of an agency equal or superior in intelligence to
humans, then the UFO is not necessarily knowable at all, let
alone knowable with certainty.  Science assumes that humans are
at the top of the universal brain chain.  Science has not really
looked at what it might mean if we are not.

       The "scientific method" demands repeatability either of
experiment or observation. It assumes "control" of one kind or
another by human beings.  But if the "UFO" represents another
intelligence then that "control" may not be available.  And if
that control is not there then science is not going to give us
what we need.  We need more than science.

       In the final analysis science is not a whole lot different
from the legal profession. Both scientists and the jury at trial
see only a part of the real world and they both make rule- bound
assumptions concerning both evidence and the nature of that
world.  To the scientist the universe is a gigantic mechanical
device and the results of experiments and observations are valid
for that reason.  If enough evidence can be assembled then the
majority of scientists (the "jury" of science) will accept that
evidence as proof.  That's how it works.

End, Part 1