McKenna is one of my heroes (and there aren’t many of those). Far more people in ufology (particularly those with abduction interests) need to read his works.

Best,
Nick

You wrote:

“The thing is, the traditional ET hypothesis may just turn out to be correct, or at least partially correct.”

I’ve never disputed that, but with each passing day I come to see it as more and more unlikely. Still, it’s a valid hypothesis.

The problem I have is that some people, particularly within American ufology, persist on treating it - and presenting it publicly - as a proven fact, when it’s not, at least not in any objective sense.

Best regards,
Paul

The thing is, the traditional ET hypothesis may just turn out to be correct, or at least partially correct. Aside from collecting, analyzing and publishing the data, what method of research do you propose as being more effective?

The concept of SETI has an Achilles heel, namely, would we recognize and agree upon a signal as being intelligently contrived if we ran across one? Pulsars certainly had us fooled when they were first discovered. Chaos number theory has demonstrated the exquisite capability of randomness to produce structure and symetry. How would we definitively distinguish noise from intelligent signal? Prime numbers? Pi to the hundredth decimal? Only if ET sets out to be found, and whatever UFOs turn out to be (and that could be many things,) the phenomenon as a collection of things appears to have a real aversion to being pinned down in the spotlight.

Perhaps a more disconcerting thought is, What if our governments humor us? What if they admit that ET is real and the proof has been in our hands for decades? I see a very real danger of our accepting that proof as the whole story. In fact it seems more likely to be just one page in a very large book.

“In 1979 psychologist Jack Baird was part of a NASA study group to explore the feasibility of detecting radio signals from extraterrestrial civilizations. One of the few social scientists represented, he soon discovered to his dismay that the engineers, physicists, and astronomers in the group quickly settled on a narrow set of conceptions as to what form a message from outer space might take. Little consideration was given to the fact that our view of how aliens might communicate is totally subjective and earthbound. Baird realized that even with the best scientific apparatus, this lack of introspection might lead to an inability even to recognize an extraterrestrial message, much less understand its contents.”

or, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, “If ET could talk, we could not understand him.”

Probably still not so much related to the “ETH crowd”, but there certainly are some ufological groups who have taken the more hands on effort you talk about - Project Hessdalen and Bob Bigelow’s NIDS studies spring to mind. I agree with Nick though, ufology needs to take stock and look at new approaches.

Nick: Terence McKenna said it best I think - “To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant.”

The following sentences from that quote are equally interesting, especially in light of some of Greg (Bishop’s) recent posts: “And yet, this has been chosen as the avenue by which it is assumed contact is likely to occur. Meanwhile, there are people all over the world — psychics, shamans, mystics, schizophrenics — whose heads are filled with information, but it has been ruled a priori irrelevant, incoherent, or mad. Only that which is validated through consensus via certain sanctioned instrumentalities will be accepted as a signal. The problem is that we are so inundated by these signals — these other dimensions — that there is a great deal of noise in the circuit.”

Kind regards,
Greg

I know it makes sense to them - it just doesn’t make sense objectively given the “evidence” (a word I’ve taken to putting in quotation marks when referring to UFOs, because ETHers seem to have a different definition of “evidence” than most other people).

Here’s the difference between the ETHers and SETI - the former have reached a conclusion, and then use the available “evidence” to support that conclusion, whereas SETI works it the other way - they are looking (probably, as Nick suggest, in vain) for evidence that will support a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.

Best regards,
Paul

I’m not advocating that we throw SETI away. Any good diagnostician will tell you that when you face a problem whose nature and attributes are complete unknowns, initially, you throw out the widest net you can and gather in all the possibilities. In that sense, SETI is one of the pieces of that web.

The problem is in narrowing that focus down to SETI, the whole SETI, and nothing but SETI. Dyed in the wool advocates of SETI often carry on as if the limits of our own science, technology and paradigm of the nature of the universe give us give us the inside track on exactly what the capabilities of other species “out there” are capable of and hence, we know exactly where and how to look for signs of their existence. That’s nothing but human pride and arrogance. It narrows the net we cast, just as does presuming that all truly unidentified objects MUST be ET.

I can’t put words in Friedman’s mouth, but I’ve read enough of the literature from him and from others who hold similar views that I think I could make a few guesses as to how he would respond to the question you posed as to what Friedman et al are doing to “seek out” ET, as you put it.

First, he has stated numerous times that he has no doubts whatsoever that some UFOs are in fact extraterrestrial vehicles flying in our atmosphere or at least within close proximity to our planet. Whether or not you or I personally accept that as fact, he is 100% convinced of it.

Futhermore, he has also stated on many occasions that he is absolutely certain physical evidence for the existence of ET is already in the hands of governments and military/intelligence agencies around the world.

Again, whether or not you and I believe that to be the case, he is certain of it.

If someone does happen to subscribe to those views, then what is the most reasonable course of action leading towards unquestioned verification of these facts? It certainly wouldn’t be searching the cosmos on the off chance you would stumble over an errant radio signal. That wouldn’t just be putting the cart before the horse; it would be sticking the horse behind the cart, which is even more ineffective. The proof is already here (in their view.) There are groups who know and can prove it by virtue of the bits and pieces of technology already in their possession, possibly even of ET bodies, and perhaps even with live ETs working here as liaisons.

The most cost-effective, rational course of action would be:

1) To amass enough evidence in the form of eye witness testimony, trace evidence and photographic/movie materials, rigorously studied and evaluated to insure its accuracy and,

2) To get all of these kinds of evidence out into mass circulation so that,

3) The people can put pressure on the governments and groups who have the concrete proof of ET and force the release of that information. In that context, SETI could conceivably become one piece of that evidence, but the chances of it are slender at best.

If you or I don’t agree with the entire ET hypothesis in the way Friedman and Co. do, then we may see their approach as being more of a “do nothing but criticize” effort. But from their perspective all that research and collecting of stories and evidence, while minimizing (not completely eliminating) areas that don’t look as promising (read here, SETI,) makes terrific sense.

Personally, I think SETI is a long shot, but I believe the possibility they might turn up something is just worthwhile enough that I let them use my CPU down time to crunch their numbers. Might as well make certain I’m getting my full money’s worth out of Comcast.

Humans think very small at times.

I think it’s fair to say that we need a radical overhaul of ufology to get ANY firm answers. Collecting reports etc., is fine. But, as you know, it just results in more reports and ever-more-bulging filing cabinets, and no firm answers.

I’m not sure how we go about getting answers rather than just more testimony, etc. But I do know that unless the ufo “community” begins to think radically outside of the box and takes a new approach even the youngest ufologist alive today will go to his or her grave (just like Hynek, just like Stringfield, just like Gordon Creighton - the list goes on) after having devoted their lives to the subject but having absolutely and utterly failed to get the answers.

And this doesn’t just apply to the ET angle, but any and all theories for UFO encounters.

Very good points. I think many pro-SETI people simply don’t realize the variables at work that might prevent contact. Or it may be more correct to say that they realize, but that is rarely translated to (and subsequently by) the media.

The media often discusses SETI, and particularly on late-night TV documuentaries on alien life, UFOs etc. But seldom is the problem of “what if the aliens don’t use radio?” discussed.

Usually, it’s just pointed out that Seti-type ops use radio and it’s assumed that ET is doing the same.

So, I think people need to understand more the issue of how tough it could be to contact aliens even if they are there.