In the era of the Simulacrum, no one can tell what’s true anymore. We couldn’t even tell what was true with our own eyes before with the faulty nature of memory and perception, but now with digital editing, computer simulation, and enhanced visual techniques, telling a genuine from a hoax even in terms of a picture of a mundane object is becoming an increasingly difficult task.
So picture yourself walking down a country road at night, and you see something that looks like a flying saucer in the air. Are you more likely to lose your sense of focus and believe it is the real deal, or pay close attention to the fact that it may be some lights strung to a weather balloon by some merry pranksters?
Many may find the argument in the skeptic article condescending. The argument that we can’t trust our own eyes implies that we are all crazy or that what we see on an everyday basis can’t be discerned properly. However, things are compounded when it comes to UFOs. They are almost universally seen at night when visibility is low. Secondly, there are things in the air, such as meteors, comets, planes, helicopters, and flares, not to mention more exotic things such as stealth bombers and weather balloons, which may appear for a moment to be like a UFO.
The article makes the argument that something like a UFO is too good to be true. It plays too deeply into what we want to be true. People who saw a purposeful hoax when told it was a haox refused to believe it and instead made up pseudoscientific explanations.
However, as I stated in my article Physics and New Age pseudoscience- so what if time is relative?, there are legitimate philosophical takeaways from the new developments in physics that are then used by quacks and New Age devotees to justify their ideologies (and sell books). Are there, despite all the New Age hype surrounding UFOs and aliens, despite all the hoaxes and abduction memories caused by hallucinations, any evidence for extraterrestrial visitation?
My hypothesis is that if we can, as the article suggests, eliminate certain lines of “evidence” for UFOs as being inherently suspect, then we can create a typology of lines of evidence that hierarchizes which types are greater than others.
Here is my hypothesis for a ranking of this kind:
- Undeniable visitation: This would be as if aliens landed on the White House lawn and made first contact. This kind would not need to be substantiated because presumably there is “nothing to hide”
- Mass sighting involving mass media: This would be as if a flying saucer was hovering clearly over Los Angeles and stayed there during the day, inviting world wide press coverage. Presumably, there would be “nothing left to hide” here as well
Because these two have never happened, the only way UFO believers can justify the idea that sightings are real is that UFOs visit us “in secret”. They do not want to be found.
Why is this suspect on face value? Because if they are truly “in secret”, and have the technology to fly millions of light years to Earth, then presumably they would have the technology to never be seen by us. However, let’s continue with the typology.
3. Mass sightings involving multiple videos and pictures: These actually exist, although what is seen is always unproven and could always be some kind of military craft. The famous Phoenix lights appear to be lights on a giant craft, but could be some kind of strangely aligned flares. These are especially interesting before the advent of digital editing software.
4. Video evidence from a singular person: This kind of evidence is becoming increasingly suspect in and of itself. If it cannot be substantiated by independent people (and things can be still be staged by hoaxers), then odds are it is an elaborate (or increasingly, with digital technology, simple) hoax.
The simple logic goes like this. What is easier to believe, a single vast government conspiracy surrounding extraterrestrials (implying the outlandish existence of these beings), or a bunch of mini-hoaxes perpetrated by self-motivating individuals? More than likely, people get creative in their spare time with digital software these days.
Nevertheless, I have to confess that I do not have a definitive answer about whether I “believe” in UFOs or not. Much of it is of course fun speculation and hype, much like ghosthunting and other paranormal hobbies. Sometimes, it is not easy to tell between those who hunt for ghosts as a hobby and true believers, who are often New Age spiritualists. However, the jury is still out for me. I find that the skeptic article above makes a bad argument for the nonexistence of a “UFO cover-up” purely in terms of their rationale (I still don’t believe in one). Their argument goes that Edward Snowden released a huge amount of CIA files, but none of them pertained to UFOs. However, that was not his line of work, and hypothetically, if they wanted to cover it up, it would “Super Top Secret”, not for lowly workers like Snowden to hack and find. This just goes to show you that even the reasoning of hardened skeptics are not infallible. However, I find their argument about the fallibility of our perception especially interesting from a philosophical perspective. Perhaps those who long for something in the sky just yearn for something more fulfilling spiritually. As Carl Jung stated many years ago, perhaps UFOs are our collective projection of a wish for psychic wholeness. Jung’s theory to date is the most insightful on how modern spirituality intersects with the phenomenon of science fiction and UFOs.
That all being said, you still have to wonder…are they out there?