You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs
Originally Published 5-28-00
James Neff
4-20-10
Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in UFOs?" in
coversation I become immensely frustrated. To most of those who have
devoted even a reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding
of the phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and
should never, apply. To use this expression shoves the UFO over into
the category of religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more
inaccurate or counter-productive. UFOlogy is a scientific pursuit
like any other. It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering
of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is
already a proven reality: Unidentified Flying Objects of an inexplicable
class and character exist and are as real and verified as comets or
the rings of Saturn (and may have been around just as long).
The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be piloting
them) are a substantive, verified and massively documented phenomena
... but much of our culture and language perpetuate and cling to the
erroneous notion that we're dealing with some kind of specter or myth
of hysteria or mass-societal halucenation.
I'll go one step further. One might 'believe' in fire-breathing dragons
or fairies ... yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of
these exist. However, one need only look at the facts now in evidence
to see that actual 'flying saucers' (not merely "unidentified
flying objects") do, indeed, exist.
Those who know UFOs are 'real' need to make a serious effort to cease
using and condoning that negative terminology of doubt inspired by
our disinformation-driven culture. "Are you aware of UFOs?"
(ie, "have you been educated on the existence of flying saucers?")
should have replaced "Do you believe in UFOs?" in both text
and conversation long ago. We no longer are soliciting people to 'believe'.
Instead, we are (or should be) asking the uninformed to become educated
to the facts. The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever)
they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious,
or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important.
Flying Laboratories
It is simply a matter of education. The evidence we have for the existence
of unidentified flying machines of advanced technology, even if we
toss out all photographic evidence and all abduction accounts or close
encounter experience testimonies from the most reliable, credible
civilian experiencers, is... massive. Even if we dismiss the most
credible testimony and eyewitness accounts, the evidence is simply
enormous.
What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying
saucers (and other shaped craft of equally inexplicable propulsion
technology) under extremely scientific, verifiable, and examinable
circumstances. I am speaking of the countless military and commercial
pilot interactions with these remarkable, unknown machines, in situations
where often entirely empirical testing of data has been recorded.
One could not ask for a much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon
than in the cockpit of a military fighter or commercial airliner.
In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field
of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped
with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which
can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes,
longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously,
there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which
consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable
specialists interpreting data.
Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based
radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts
who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside
of the stratosphere.
From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the
'flying saucer' which would hold up in any court of law.
UFOs have entered practically every 'sensitive' international airspace,
been tracked on uncountable civilian and military radars, been pursued
by the finest and most advanced flying machines on the planet, eye-witnessed
by our best trained pilots, even fired upon (or so attempted) by pilots
dating all the way back to reports from WWI aviators over England.
Our visitors have been tracked at speeds exceeding all known propulsion
or contemporary technology and fully-defying the laws of *our* physics.
Flying Saucers have on scores of occasions brought military units,
including our nuclear forces, to full alert and then engaged those
forces in what appear to be tests of our technological capacity. Flying
Saucers of gargantuan size have been seen at close range by both civilian
and military professionals and verified by radar...both ground and
airborne. Some would even say our visitors have taunted and played
with our military...the reports of incursions into our SAC bases being
particularly extraordinary.
Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around
the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial interlopers.
Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus, 'heat inversions'
or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous.
The information and data, mountains of it, from these civilian and
military aviation and defense specialists regarding the UFO match
or exceed the information we have from "less than expert"
civilian eyewitnesses of UFOs, and only serves to validate and support
public accounts of UFOs and/or interactions with them. We accept without
reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic particles which
only a privileged handful of experts in that field of study have ever
'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation.
Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic
and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but data
is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting
and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists
and scientists involved. We accept the reality of these all but invisible
atomic and sub-atomic structures with no hesitation. And yet with
the flying saucer, we are not dealing with 'invisibles' at all.
At best, one must define the flying saucer as transitory, difficult
and evasive -- but nonetheless, a real part of our physicial universe.
Unlike the atomic particle which is governed by laws already understood,
or well on the way to being understood within the sheer mechanics
of the universe itself and its conditions and measures, the UFO has
behind it an intelligence of its own. We can no more easily reach
out and snatch a flying saucer for examination than we can ball lightning...
yet, both exist. (There is strong indication our military has had
examples of UFO technology ...and its flight crews...for more than
a half century, but that is another subject altogether).
Our public sector scientific evaluation of the flying saucer is therefore
more akin to hunting a rare and highly-advanced species of animal
formerly classified as 'cryptozooligical' but now definitely reclassified
as 'authentic' due to the sheer weight of verifiable and coherent
data from experts. Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"...
but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially
impossible.
Ours Or 'Theirs'?
It does appear that the U.S. military has developed craft with similar
appearance and capabilities as some 'flying saucers' (as reported
by many reasonable and credible individuals). However, history shows
us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on planet earth
for generations, and centuries, which rules out the idea that all
flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine technology.
Considering these realities, our language regarding UFOs should cease,
immediately, to reflect the elements of myth, legend or fantasy, and
fully embrace its definitive reality, helping to bring in a new cultural
era regarding the UFO. We must each arm ourselves with these most
primary facts when dealing with those uneducated, prepared to give
a rational defense of the subject.
There is absolutely no reason to ever feel awkward about the issue
simply because others are poorly-educated about the facts. And educating
them at every opportunity is paramount. The reality of UFOs is such
that its implications require every human being to become as aware
of it as their individual mental and emotional limits will allow.
Our place in the universe is likely to be defined by this very subject,
be it a truth we are ready to receive or a lie we are miserably destined
to suffer.
Either way, we don't "believe" in UFOs. No faith is required.
It is not a religion or occult pseudo science. It is a reality. What
we do with that reality is now squarely on the table.
A Rebuttal
Jim Foreman of The Skeptic Report. wrote to alert me to his rebuttal...
X-Sender: (on file)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 03:23:03 -0700
To: webmaster@sightings.com
From: "James H. Foreman"
It's been almost a year, but I'm still here, fighting the good fight.
The Daily Skeptic died a horrible, slow death, but it's been resurrected
as The Skeptic Report. You might be happy to know that I just completed
a story about your recent article that appeared on Sightings.com.
Your article is well written, but it's wrong in a lot of places. Check
out our rebuttle:
http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/
Enjoy!
Jim Foreman
Editor, The Skeptic Report
His rebuttal is published as follows...
M A Y 2 9 , 2 0 0 0
From the UFOs Suck File
SORRY, IT'S STILL A BELIEF
http://jebzingo.tripod.com/skepticreport/
James Neff, the webmaster of rense.com, is a gentleman with whom we've
clashed before. He's always been courteous and friendly in our dealings
with him (except for that time he got really pissed off at us*), and
he is one of the more intelligent, articulate paranormalites out there
in the Internet's electronic soup. He also does some nifty artwork.
The reason we bring him up is for this nice little article he wrote
for Jeff Rense's website (you can read it here) entitled "You
Don't Have to 'Believe' Anymore." This article basically extolls
the virtues of UFO worship, though he devotes the article to damning
that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all. According to
him, the existence of UFOs is a proven fact, not open to belief at
all. Here, Mr. Neff is just plain wrong.
OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying Objects)
do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see and
then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects are
vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent
species. Some of them. Maybe. Does this mean that those few that are
actually physical, manufactured objects made by humans? Probably.
Does this mean that they're created by aliens? Absolutely not.
But rather than condemn Mr. Neff without any corroboration, let's
let his own words convict him:
"It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination
or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven
reality: UFOs exist and are as real and the Pacific Ocean or the Rocky
Mountains..."
Dated Note: 12/18/03 -- Given time, I have revised this statement
based on empirical facts. I overstated the case. I have replaced it
with what I consider far more approriate and accurate descriptives...
"It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering of imagination
or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is already a proven
reality: Unidentified Flying Objects of an inexplicable class and
character exist and are as real and verified as comets or the rings
of Saturn (and may have been around just as long)." - James Neff
OK, maybe you're on to something there. Like we said, we'll admit
that people are seeing stuff.
"...(and may have been here just as long)."
What? Where's the corroboration for that? Does my rational mind accept
that? Hell, no! Sneaking in undocumented "whimsy" into a
somewhat corroborated statement of fact is just not very nice.
"The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever)
they originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious,
or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more important."
Ah, yes, an undocumented, unreliably recorded and outright unproved
event is definitely more important than, say, nuclear war or something.
Realize this, Mr. Neff, UFOs aren't alien creations until you (or
someone else) proves it. It ain't been proven yet. Case closed.
"What remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with
flying saucers (and other shaped craft) under extremely scientific,
verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the countless
military and commercial pilot interactions with these remarkable,
unknown machines, in situations where often entirely empirical testing
of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a much better 'test
lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a military fighter
or commercial airliner.
In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field
of atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped
with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which
can record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes,
longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and obviously,
there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar -- which
consitututes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and capable
specialists interpreting data.
Apart from pilots in their 'flying laboratories' and their ground-based
radar counterparts, there is now also the testimony of astronauts
who are increasingly detailing UFO evidence and information outside
of the stratosphere.
From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the
'flying saucer.' "
No, that's not true at all. Other than grainy photographs, radar ghosts
and eyewitness testimony (which is always highly questionable...ask
any lawyer) I am not aware of anything empirical or scientific. Simply
noting that something is there, flying around, or might be flying
around, in no way proves (or even logically suggests) that it is an
alien spacecraft.
"Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units
around the world from every advanced nation to intercept these aerial
interlopers. Countries do not spend that kind of money chasing Venus,
'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is simply preposterous."
Prove it. Can't? I didn't think so. It's not like a paranormalite
to cite national governments as reliable about anything. I guess they
do when it serves their purposes.
"We accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic
particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field
of study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation."
Uh huh. This doesn't explain why UFO supporters assume that because
these flying things are unidentified, that they also have little gray
men flying them around. That's "simply preposterous."
"Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of
atomic and subatomic particles than exists for flying saucers -- but
data is data, and evidence is evidence -- and we have no trouble in
trusting and being dependent upon the experiences and veracity of
the physicists and scientists involved."
I love it when paranormalites put the word scientific in quotations.
Like it's just some buzz word that scientists attach to things to
make them seem valid.
"Like the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"...
but to capture one for more advanced study proves to be essentially
impossible."
Uh, the Tasmanian Tiger "isn't," anymore, since it's extinct,
and we know for a fact that it was wiped out by Europeans, since we
still have their pelts. I met a guy who said he had an alien pelt
once, but it looked more like a bolt of suede leather left out in
the rain.
"However, history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming
and going on planet earth for generations, and centuries, which rules
out the idea that all flying saucers are manmade craft of a clandestine
technology."
Pure speculation. There's no evidence for any of that at all. There
are also some pretty cool accounts of vampires, but close examination
by scientists familiar with body decay and pathology have shown that
vampires probably weren't supernatural. Thus, historical accounts
can't be trusted without modern analysis.
What really saddens us about the flavor of this whole article is the
tendency for the people responsible for the dissemination of UFO information
to wholly embrace the scanty evidence for Unidentified Flying Objects
and then similarly assume, without any corroboration, that the objects
are alien in origin. That's inexcusable, unscientific, and just plain
unfair.
Reply
I love a skeptic, and consider myself one. A big one. It takes alot
to convince me of anything. I'm not even sure you are real, Jim :)
You write:
"This article basically extolls the virtues of UFO worship, though
he devotes the article to damning that anyone could "believe"
in UFOs at all.
God forbid ANYONE "worships" UFOs as you claim I have encouraged!
My entire point is that the UFO is undeserving of such mentality...
because of the weight of evidence.
Now, allow me to defend myself only on two points, the rest of which
I'll leave to the readers to evaluate using that wonderful gray matter
between their ears. My admonition: BE SKEPTICAL. That's the entire
point. EDUCATE yourself on the facts. Once the facts are in evidence,
you will come to the same conclusion. Either that, or, turn in denial
and ignore the truth.
(1) I make it very clear that we have in no way defined the ORIGINS
of the UFO; this has NOT been verified or proven -- admittedly it
is entirely speculative that they are "alien" craft from
other planets or 'outer space'. But what I DO say is that since these
craft have been recorded historically dating far beyond our own industrial
revolution, much less the invention of manned flight, we can surmise
that these are not all "ours" (ie, man made craft). You
immediately debunk this idea. Well, history is on my side here. Anyone
can crack a Bible and read about Ezekiel's UFO experience... anyone
can read the Upanishads of the Hindu's and read about 'air cars' powered
by an energy source called 'sidis'... and if one really wants to educate
oneself on the true history of UFOs, you can read quite a lot in this
excellent NIGHTWATCH article entitled "UFOs Through The Ages...A
Timeline." Because human beings have been describing this same
phenomena for so many centuries persuades me that the phenomena is
at the very least not a production of modern technology. It remains
to determine what they are, where they come from, etc. So we are in
agreement -- your first statement is:
"OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying
Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people
see and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects
are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent
species."
(2) My second point is to rise to your challenge of proof that the
military/air forces around the world spend millions of dollars dealing
with the UFO phenomena. These events are on record. Stanton Friedman
and many other researchers have amassed such data, and this is nothing
new or earthshaking (to the UFO educated). Iraqi & Israeli Air
Force, as well as the French government, have been entirely open about
their UFO encounters. Several of our own astronauts have openly told
about their encounters with UFOs when in the Air Force. Major Donald
E. Kehoe spent the latter part of his life documenting such cases
provoked by personal experience. Filer's Files frequently and archivally
have records of such events. These aren't buried someplace! They've
been known to anyone wanting to learn about it for years. Do you have
any idea how much it costs to send your best fighters after a radar
detected interloper traveling at 3000 mph over sensitive airspace
(only to close in on it and discover it's not a missile, but a silver
disc with brilliant lights playing cat and mouse)? Any person in the
air force will confirm this fact: it costs millions, even if it only
happens a few times a year. This website is overflowing with these
cases and accounts, as are many others. The documentation is openly
available. The witnesses, expert. The accounts, verified.
I will not defend the idea that UFOs are proven to be alien spacecraft.
I don't know what they are. I simply know they 'ARE' and that historically
the evidence for their existence reveals that, whatever their origin,
it is entirely unrelated to our own technological status here on earth.
Hence, it is not a "belief" system. It is a rational assembly
of facts with a reasonable conclusion. Flying Saucers (and other shapes
and forms of this same aerial phenomena) EXIST. They being of extraterrestrial
origin is, indeed, a speculation; as is, a metaphysical conclusion;
as is a phenomenon of nature. My personal speculation, based on the
evidence, is that these are craft with intelligent occupants and/or
guided by intelligent means which is not human; there is ample evidence
of intelligent control behind these devices.
As I said, what we do with this reality is squarely on the table.
I appreciate your skeptical proddings. Keeps me on my toes :)
PS: The Tasmanian Tiger is "believed" to be extinct. But
so was the damned Coelacanth, captured in 1938.
*This "pissed off" issue was a FORUM abuse related issue.
I could not link to their example because of the kind of frames The
Skeptic Report was using, but anyone interested in such soap opera
and longdead issues can find it at the original posting of Jim's rebuttal
to my piece.