Windows

Is The Truth Already Here?

Posted by on Jul 5, 2007 | 5 Comments

I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, but I’m not so sure it’s visited us – and I’m definitely not sure it’s ever interacted with us. I want to believe – I really do. I’m looking for reasons to believe. I’ve watched the videos, I’ve listened to the enthusiasts, I’ve done my best to keep an open mind about the whole thing…

  1. The newly-released CARET documents are quite compelling, and highly detailed. Moreover, he seems to be about the only source that doesn’t have something to sell. If Isaac’s images are photoshopped (or even models), then that’s the world’s most talented artist.
  2. The 2002 (sealed) affidavit of Walter G. Haut could be the “smoking gun” documentation believers have been waiting for – but is it incontrovertible proof or even more hogwash?
  3. While I’m sure character assassinations and general discredit have already made the rounds, I’ve been quite drawn to the stories from the Disclosure Project. Hell, people have gone out of their way to discredit me in the past – and the worst I’ve done was stand naked on my private balcony on a cruise ship! I guess that means I don’t know what I’m talking about… ever?
  4. I don’t think all the people at O’Hare were nuts. Statistically, that must be close to improbable – unless the phenomenon was recorded on the perimeter of some local sanitarium. Maybe I give 99% of Americans too much credit for knowing the difference between weather oddities and hovering craft (especially THAT close to the terminal).
  5. At least some people are trying – with perfect theories or otherwise. Creationism is a theory, as is evolution. Theories propel knowledge.
  6. Only part of the Phoenix Lights experience has been properly explained (the flares which dropped behind the mountain range). However, even the Governor of Arizona has recently stepped forward and ADMITTED to seeing the large craft that hundreds (if not thousands) of citizens had reported hours before the flares were dropped.
  7. The objects seen at the 27-minute mark of this video seem to be rallying around one another in a less-than-random fashion (NOTE: the recording was originally broadcast by NASA).
  8. Paul Hellyer – why did he do what he did? Is “fame and fortune” truly a valid motivator with him?
  9. There are a few historical points (as well a cavalcade of impressive professional titles) featured in this particular expose: “UFO: The Greatest Story Never Told.” My eyebrows raised more than once, though I’m not sure how much of this compilation is a conspiracy theory – and how much of it is a conspiracy fact.

Science doesn’t know everything. Religion doesn’t know everything. Governments definitely don’t know everything (and gee, do they prove THAT on a regular basis). These are merely institutions and studies designed to help us make more sense of the world around us. We all learn something new every day. Max Planck, the Godfather of Quantum Physics, has been quoted as saying:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The truth is out there – or maybe it’s already here?

[tags]ufo[/tags]

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/shadowmyth/ shadowmyth

    I have never really had a choice as to whether to believe in aliens or not, as I have encountered them on occasion. The first time I was about 8 years old, and my family had gathered outside to see the re-entry of a satellite, or something they had out there in space. As we were seeing the object’s re-entry, another phenomena appeared. Way out in the far reaches of the sky; an object was traveling at high speeds in a linear fashion. Afterwards, we heard reports on the news, and I guess many people had witnessed it. Later as an adult I was to encounter them several times. About 15 years ago they appeared to me three times in one week. Two of these occasions were in my bedroom, and I was awoken to find them at the foot of my bed. The first one was very short, and I though at first it was one of my kids. The second time the being was extremely tall. When I tried to get up and chase after the tall one, the outside street light went out, and the thing ran very fast out of my room. I also have experienced two episodes of losing time, once for a total of three days. In these cases I cannot prove it was aliens, but I get the feeling that was the situation. No, I wasn’t on drugs. I think UFO enthusiast are nuts, I have no desire to encounter these beings again. Well, unless I get to steal their spaceship.

  • John Griese

    Hi Chris,

    I’ve been a gnomee since your days in Iowa. You may remember I offered assistance with the telescope you had purchased at the time. Now I am in graduate school working on a Ph.D. in the history of astronomy. I decided to respond to you comments regarding creationism and evolution. At the risk of being flamed or worse I just wanted to mention that in my field, creationism is generally considered to be religion cloaked in the appearance of scientific theory. Evolution is scientific theory and has so far stood up to all scientific tests. Creationism cannot be tested scientifically because it isn’t science.

    Best wishes,
    John

  • Wayne

    Creationism is NOT a theory, but rather something accepted on faith ala religion. A theory is supported by testing, research, scientific papers, and debate. Evolution is a theory as supported by the scientific method of research, testing and debate. Saying creationism is a theory just like evolution only gives fuel to the religious extremists who live in Kansas and are trying to turn back the clock on science classes in our public schools.

  • Bill Webb

    Hi Chris,

    While I have no opinion on CARET one way or the other, I do have to take exception to the lumping of it, Creationism and Evolution together as theories.

    The common usage of “theory” has nothing whatever to do with the scientific meaning. To a layperson, a theory is something that may or may not be true — the implication, in fact, is usually that it is in doubt, as in “It’s only a theory.”

    To a scientist, a theory is a description of a coherent body of knowledge, arrived at by careful observation of verifiable phenomena and repeatable by any competent observer. In order to qualify as an accepted theory, repeated testing must agree with the previous data in all essential respects, otherwise the body of knowledge is modified according to a new hypothesis, which then may or may not become a theory depending on its own solidity under testing. Scientific theory, in short, comes from observations of results that are predictable and repeatable.

    The CARET data do not fit those criteria, nor does Creationism. Both are data that are represented as proof (or partial proof) of a conclusion, but are not backed up by verifiable observation. In the case of CARET, in fact, considerable effort has been made to prevent verification of the data. They are, in short, opinions. While this does not mean they are false, they are far from the rigorous testing that would qualify them as theories in the scientific sense.

    Evolution, on the other hand, fits all the criteria, and observed phenomena fail to contradict it in any substantive way, although there are some aspects not yet understood.

    Most of the time I agree with you, but I couldn’t let this one pass.

  • dhensli

    ITA, Bill Webb et al. Creationism is an ‘antitheory’. Chris, please do not make the mistake of mentioning ‘creationism’ in the same sentence as ‘science’. You have nearly lost a subscriber here.