Primacy of the Social and Political Over Academic Science
Without the need for scientific validation and for its own interests and reasons, the regular Social & Political world can mandate and legitimize scientists approving them to conduct UFO research even into those aspects suggesting the validity of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. Society at large transcends and benefits from the activities of the scientific world and does not need to be suppressed, limited or thwarted by that world, by a priori pseudo-scientific biases, its in-group social control processes and its general unwillingness to take a serious look at upsetting, mystifying data. On the contrary, the scientific world requires the authority granted through social and political decision to stop treating as absurd the most anomalous UFO aspects and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. By “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis” (from now on “ETH”) I mean the hypothesis derived from the fact that some UFO activity indicates that we may in fact be currently visited by extraterrestrial beings displaying unconventional technologies that stupefy and stagger worldviews limited to classical perceptions. Moreover, I find it reasonable to include as part of those alleged technologies what we might call a mastery of a hyper physics in which the mind, non-locality, consciousness and “other dimensions” may intervene. Furthermore, along with such technologies we may be experiencing unconventional motivations and behaviors that do not agree with what we may normally expect in terms of contact protocols.
In the modern world scientists may assist the wider society’s attempts to make reasonable social and political decisions and to generate socially adequate policies but society itself functions as a much vaster entity transcending (even if accepting when need be) scientific validation. An massive amount of UFO reports in some cases providing anomalous empirical evidence accumulated in more than six decades while challenging cultural norms and worldviews (either as a modern myth or as a genuine physical phenomenon) is more than enough to warrant a serious investigation and to mandate the scientific community to engage in serious UFO research.
Capitalizing UFO issues through the entertainment industry has created an aura about them as being nothing but superficial, unimportant events; the realm of fantasy, hoaxers and the deluded. However, while that (perhaps accompanied by a covert effort to influence public opinion and to dismiss any serious undertaking of the ETH) has certainly hindered a social awakening, there’s no reason for society not to experience a shift in such popular attitudes, especially now that VIP witness testimony (for instance including government officials and generals) is beginning to gain momentum and more widespread recognition.
We must remember time and again that, while society may benefit from scientific findings, society itself doesn’t need the approval of the scientific world to proceed to mandate a serious investigation. Society, through policy creation can, nonetheless, ease the stigma associated with it and which prevents scientists from engaging in these matters. The potential benefits and implications (for instance as studied within exopolitics) may be outstanding and should be pursued.
Rational or Conventional?
Quite often when people experience an unequivocal UFO event which they cannot explain they say that there’s no “rational explanation” for it and by that they often mean a “conventional” and-or scientifically-validated explanation. However that is an inexact confabulation of meanings since “conventional” and “rational” are not synonyms. A valid, rational explanation can also well be one which still has not been accepted or validated by a majority of scientists. We must also remember that science itself is a work in progress whose explanations are constantly superseded by even better explanations, quite often after anomalies which demand a better perspective are unambiguously accepted. However, according to an ideal scientific methodology, not even a majority of scientists need to be in agreement for an explanation to be scientifically correct.
The ETH (about which I include possible interactions with other physical and non-physical realms of existence) can be a perfectly rational (albeit unconventional) hypothesis within and outside the realm of accredited scientists as – for instance – sober declarations for instance by the Air Material Command chief General Nathan Twining back in 1947 suggest. Also, more recent declarations in the 1990’s by the former British Admiral of the Fleet and NATO Head, Lord Peter Hill-Norton and quite recently by Canada’s former Minister of Defence, the Honorable Paul Hellyer) also suggest a serious engagement with the ETH. Can we dismiss them all along with former KGB and FIB Major General Vasily Yeremenko declarations about the Russian military recognizing (and increasing) the presence of extraterrestrial space craft in Russia? http://rbth.ru/science_and_tech/2013/04/12/former_kgb_agent_reveals_soviet_ufo_studies_24927.html Besides them, former Senator Barry Goldwater, astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, former Arizona Governor Fife Symington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SJXMBHByZY ) and even John Podesta (White House Assistant and Deputy Chief of Staff during the Clinton Administration and now special advisor in the Obama Administration) spoke about evidence that we are being visited or in favor of disclosure of secret research on UFOs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Sz-MgoFos. How many more declarations like these in addition to other forms of scientific and socially admissible evidence will we need to start really thinking more in rational rather than conventional ways? How long can some countries shun an international dialogue on UFO research and the ETH while other governments (like Brazil and Peru) are officially researching and-or releasing information?
About the Feedback of Denial
The feedback cycle of denial between scientists and political leaders can be put to an end on the side of reason. That feedback cycle of scientists only willing to treat the most anomalous aspects of the UFO subject as fantasy, hoaxing, feeble mindedness or as misidentifications because political leaders are not willing to legitimize academic engagement in serious UFO research in turn because (in a roundabout way) until now the most anomalous UFOs suggesting a controversial ET presence have not been “proven” (or, rather, approved) by a majority of scientists…that feedback cycle of silliness and fear can end. Moreover, that cycle must end. It can end because society at large operating under its own social discourse procedures doesn’t really need scientific agreement or any form of “final proof” (if such a thing ever exists) to consider some aspects of empirical reality (however unconventional or strange) of relevant interest or to mandate political action and scientific research into the matter. It must end because a society needing to know information in order to come of age by adopting expanded concepts necessary to thrive as a complex interconnected planetary civilization cannot make it by allowing covert organizations permanently to hide the truth and said information, however challenging it might seem at first to be. This is a schizoid recipe for disaster; a recipe to remain in ignorance or in a species-wide infancy while destroying ourselves, other forms of life and our “home,” the environment; a recipe perhaps promoting the gradual emergence of a world dictatorial system in order to maintain a modicum of stability since we are still operating under cultural anachronistic ways stimulating primitive in-group-out group “tribal” tendencies.
Engaged by the need to control everything, we so much fear altering the system in unconventional ways that the system forces us instill greater levels of control while we forget how creative, adaptive and resilient we can be. Our attachment to a mechanistic ways of being and thinking imprisons us into forms of instability that may lead to lower levels of order and freedom. We forget that complex. Non-linear, open systems can also easily reorganize themselves constructively. Moreover, especially in still functioning democracies, society, or rather, organized, conscious individuals are ultimately sovereign over politicians and scientists. This means that being kept in ignorance while an ancillary group is semi-legally allowed to secretly research and regulate the most crucial socially transformative information required undermines the top-down role of the whole over its parts and promotes maladaptive dysfunctions. It provides excess power to parts over the destiny of the whole.
The Real and the Important
Not everything that is socially real or even physically real is explainable in conventional terms by contemporary science. Furthermore, it neither needs to be explained in conventional terms by contemporary science. Not everything that is important (and in that sense real) for society has been or needs to be scientifically proven. Even though nothing may be proven with a 100% certainty under a classical scientific approach, social & political events include things that are scientifically proven to various degrees and also those things that aren’t. Moreover, some things that have not yet been sufficiently scientifically proven can still be socially and politically relevant and “real” within societies including at times physically real events that have not yet been recognized under conventional science. There are empirical events that people repeatedly experience over time either individually or collectively. They are deemed to be “anomalous” partly because it’s difficult to anticipate them under a predetermined regularity and within a sufficiently short span of linear time allowing us to associate previous events with latter events under linearly related causes and effects.
However, besides some hoaxes and a besides great many conventional objects mistaken for anomalous ones, there is a great amount of serious research and reasonable evidence indicating that at least some anomalous aerial objects are best explained as advanced extraterrestrial technological devices defying gravity, inertia, momentum, Newton’s Laws of Motion and our first line of instinctual (bio psychic) predispositions best suited for such classical physics. That hypothesis is both reasonable and rational and – not surprisingly - more easily accepted by normal, thoughtful citizens reasonably considering the evidence with greater freedom and common sense. The web sites www.ufoevidence.org and http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html also gather good evidential information to be considered and demonstrate that Ufology and the ETH doesn’t need to be limited to a subject matter of popular belief. Another interesting web site (from Exopolitics Institute) is www.exopoliticsinstitute.org
The Burden of Proof
While “proof” and-or agreement by a scientific majority is not really needed for socially concerned citizens to mandate research, it is often said that the “burden of proof” is upon the “believer” (in UFOs linked with the ETH). However, in inferential statistics there’s a type of mistake often committed which is called a “Type Two Error.” Just as (in the case of a Type I Error) erroneously hypothesizing a causal relation from a data set can be an inferential mistake that will distort statistical interpretation and analysis, not hypothesizing a possible causal relation from a data set that allows for that possibility also constitutes a (Type II) error that will distort the statistical interpretation and analysis. In other words, given the amount of data - some of which could be rationally explained with the ETH - the “burden of proof” can also be placed on the shoulders of those who are simply too irrationally dismissive and excessively skeptical or simply unwilling to admit a rational possibility in favor of the ETH.
Once again, events leading to a reasonable support of the ETH do not need to be limited to scientific findings, especially if there has been little research and interest in the scientific arena. Above all they are a social & political issue and as such they must be treated within normal (albeit reasonable) standards of social & political discourse, not strictly limited to scientific agreement or standards of “proof” in order to be valid, vital and important. This is because in the social sciences and in political exchanges people aren’t just thought to be unreliable witnesses and so forth; they can also be completely correct and approximately correct and thus their testimonies are heard. Moreover, the social sciences are open to admit other forms of evidence even in an interdisciplinary manner.
In fact, there is enough accumulated empirical witness and experiencer evidence to reasonably warrant serious social and political concern. The 1978 United Nations Resolution of the General Assembly GA 33/426 to formally study UFOs (to which the U.S. opposed) is an indication that there are good social and political reasons to do that. If - as the 1999 French “COMETA Report” suggests - about 5% of the cases which their committee (related to France’s GEIPAN, a branch of France’s National Center for Space Studies, CNES) studied can best be rationally explained under the ETH, also is further indication that the ETH is not limited to deluded people. These position is also in general agreement with a 2010 report by France’s Astronomical and Aeronautical Association that some UFOs may well be of extraterrestrial origin and with the ETH considered (among other possibilities) in some Latin American research offices such as Uruguay’s Air Force “CRIDOVNI.”
Are all of them (and many more) deluded or are some closed-minded, “conventional truth keepers” deluding the rest of society? Only the rational possibility of an actual extraterrestrial presence (even if it doesn’t show up in ways we expect normally expect it to show up) has an enormous political and cultural importance which (once the giggle and entertainment factors are overcome) is more than enough to warrant a serious effort to take the lead on this issue and to creatively unravel the taboo unofficially established by silence in the upper echelons of government. It warrants taking a bold and historical political step by formulating a clear policy on this issue whether – at present – a sufficient number of accredited scientists and scientific institutions care about it or not. The real power is in The People who actually don’t need to wait for (normally fearful, dismissing and overly skeptical) academic research institutions to pronounce themselves notwithstanding the good examples of reasonable openness arising in France and in some other countries. Besides, as a sociologist I would say that - for the most part - traditional scientific research institutions tend to be unreliable in relation to data and evidence that challenge their fundamental assumptions. We should not expect them to know better and then to inform the rest of us.
The works of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos - for instance in relation to Karl Popper’s treatment of scientific “verification” and “falsifiability” - attest to the existence of some irrational aspects in an otherwise over-idealized scientific process which ought to be objective and based on empirical evidence. Moreover, research on “conformity” by social scientists like Solomon Asch and Muzafer Sheriff indicate that a group majority within a smaller collective can easily influence to various degrees independent thinking, assessments and even perceptions of most people. By educating ourselves on how we tend to “group think” we may learn to think more adequately.
As previously mentioned differently, the social & political interest about a feasible extraterrestrial presence may benefit from scientific standards of evidence but does not have to be restricted by them. Society and its functions provide a wider context within which scientific institutions are allowed to exist and, at this moment in time (February, 2014), witness testimony as well as other forms of (not only “soft” but also “hard”) valid evidence abound that would make the case for the ETH more than acceptable under a fair and reasonable court of justice.
Now, if there indeed exist non-human, technological objects that fly in our skies in modes that can be occasionally detected and in ways that sometimes interact with commercial and military airplanes, wouldn’t that in itself be reason enough to consider the matter important, especially under our modern laws pertaining to air safety and national sovereignty? I would also recommend finding more about this through the line of research adopted by experimental NASA scientist Richard Haines, PhD of NARCAP (the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena) which is also associated with the Chilean Air Force’s CEFAA (the Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena). Please go to: http://www.narcap.org/
Excessive scientific skepticism, avoidance, denial, bias, taboo and social control should not hinder a society’s need to know about this mystery and, on the contrary - through social policy - society should use the service of scientists and of their institutions in order to learn more about this crucial UFO phenomenon at the very least because there is a challenge to modern authority, organization, safety and, more importantly, because the ETH related to it (and if demonstrated to be true) is of paramount cultural and historical importance. We must stop being a society that allows too much power to those that subconsciously don’t want to know by (for instance, according to the detailed research of Timothy Good, Richard Dolan and Michael Salla) allowing secret subgroups to make decisions in lieu of a majority of us in order preserve our limited sense of self and reality.
A Hypothesis: In the absence of a clear national social policy due to an unconscious incapacity of government leaders (the “Sovereign” in Alexander Wendt’s terms) to acknowledge the ETH, a taboo ensues and - even if UFOs occasionally provide physical evidence that cannot be objectively ignored - they are treated as fantasy or as “non-objects.” They are treated as “TABOO” by the topmost authority or authorities and, in this situation, I hypothesize that in micro sociological events within institutions related to modern nation-states; inside institutions functioning more under (borrowing Durkheim’s term) ales formal “mechanic solidarity,” there is a response to the challenge of anomalous data by insisting on irrationally and implicitly preserving the established order, by suppressing dissenting voices and by limiting “legitimate” research to that which is already known.
When (again borrowing Durkheim’s terms) the most general rules in the “organic solidarity” of the larger society within which scientists and their institutions are embedded does not clearly specify whether some UFOs may be extraterrestrial or not (because its “sovereign” represented by a leader or leaders is unable to do so), leading individuals in institutions operating in close proximity to the undecided nation-state, institutions perhaps providing support and legitimacy for the nation-state’s epistemological foundations, may resort to cling on to what has demonstrably worked for the whole social system and culture until then. Through micro-sociological interactions they will resort to forms of social control that maintain the epistemological foundations of the nation-state.
As Alexander Wendt suggests, the inability of the “sovereign” to decide a “state of exception” (to decide whether some UFOs may be extraterrestrial or not) generates an implicit taboo which itself is required to withstand an internal contradiction between UFOs being real objects that provide sufficient empirical evidence (in line with the “objectivity” purportedly accepted by the modern state as one of its foundations) and a challenge against the modern state’s bias of anthropological preeminence (Wendt, 2008).
In my view, a stronger reason for the taboo is the bias that rational and credible individuals living in our modern world cannot be associated with things otherworldly and/or non-physical, including possible extraterrestrial “interdimensional” vehicles and a host of other phenomena.
In my view, the functionally adaptive role of making a decision on the matter is temporarily transferred to leading individuals within academic and scientific institutions providing epistemological stability to the modern nation-state. Their role now seems to be not to come up with research or evidence so that publicly forces the “sovereign” (the ruler) to make a decision on the key contradictions unconsciously challenging his rational authority. For Wendt it would instead be a challenge of the key idea that humans are the only creatures that can rule with “sovereignty.”
If the “sovereign” representing the larger society cannot make up his or her mind that some UFOs implicitly suggest the ETH, the functional need for social stability perhaps also becomes an unconscious urge within individuals in non-ruling-but-supportive academic and scientific institutions; an urge to adopt a conservative stance, insisting upon forms of conventional knowledge that has hitherto functionally served society to continue in a state of gradual development within an adaptive dynamic equilibrium.
The problem is that the uncertain, evolving and dynamic complex state of the world requires new premises and new forms of organization quite likely in accord with many of the principles of complexity science, complex thought and integral thinking. In another essay I have suggested that at a minimum extraterrestrials interacting with the Earth environment and humanity would already have incorporated some of these principles into their thinking, organization, activities and science (Piacenza, 2013). Thus, we would need to “catch up” culturally.
The Taboo is Overcome by Institutionally Unhindered Individuals
Taboos are useful to support some crucial functional adaptations even at the expense of other adaptations but taboos can also linger beyond their usefulness. Not knowing instead of knowing may end up being deleterious and maladaptive for the whole and more poignantly so in modern societies in which one of its mainstays is the rational recognition and use of empirical evidence. There is a limit to how much empirical evidence we can deny without becoming dysfunctional.
Being aware that we just don’t want to deal with a reasonable possibility for which there’s a great amount of empirical data is deleterious to our self-perception and to a nation’s character. We live in self-reflective, modern societies and must be allowed to know in order to “grow up” or evolve our perspectives or else, we’ll adapt into a continuous state of cynicism, into a continuous democratic apathy and to a surrendering of individual responsibility into the hands we allow to be “in the know,” a.k.a. “the powers that be” whether or not they are the most appropriate individuals to represent all of us or not and whether or not they have outlived their - perhaps once – partially necessary function even after being appointed outside of the republic’s spirit of checks and balances.
Taboos that have outlived their usefulness are often sustained the most by those associated with the ruling classes and with institutions closely associated, dependent, or influenced by the ruling classes. Fear of ridicule, loss of credibility within a highly competitive, status-seeking environment and the oddity of the phenomenon itself (not coinciding with the taboo against things otherworldly and with classical mechanistic theories) limit serious research efforts within institutions so that much of the available scientific opinion on the issue comes out as flawed, unreliable, uninformed, distorted or, simply, non-existent.
No questioning of classical scientific assumptions or of procedures in order to research in a different scientific manner something that doesn’t fit the norm is allowed. And with no academic and scientific backing under a self-deceiving mindset that erroneously promotes that for “anomalous” (and even “paranormal”) socially recognized situations “science” (which in itself is a socially agreed theoretical abstraction providing methods) must first determine whether the phenomenon is real or not, few well-adapted, savvy politicians risk taking a strong stand.
However, the taboo can perhaps be ended by a statesman responding to the deepest needs of The People, a respected individual capable of speaking as the voice of an abstract father (and-or mother?) figure representing the highest political authority of the archetype of “The Sovereign.”
While good empirical evidence on genuine anomalous phenomena is - for the most part - avoided by many nation-state accredited scientists working for nation-state accredited academic institutions, or perhaps working for the government and even for large corporations oftentimes contracted by the government, much of the best evidence is more easily gathered at liberty by intelligent (and diligent) ordinary citizens and non-scientists. They are capable of being daring and of responding with reasonable openness or with a healthy agnosticism. Among them, leaders of principle can challenge the taboo and the appropriation of knowledge because their livelihood, status, accepted roles, self-images and careers do not depend on the social acceptance of institutionally bound scientific peers competing with each other for recognition and resources. Among these people, those more capable of sustaining contradictions and ambiguity, of being open to spiritual, conceptual and practical approaches with an objective and critical mind; those capable of analysis and of rationally contrasting and associating many factors without dismissing crucial aspects to enhance their preferred perspectives will (until the taboo is lifted) most likely be the ones to make progress in many more ways than constrained, organized, accredited scientists.
For society at large, witness evidence is adequate social & political evidence. Documentary evidence (like both leaked and declassified documents that have been carefully analyzed) is adequate social and political evidence. Pilots, generals, astronauts, priests, ministers, commoners speaking about secret UFO research or unique personal encounters constitute more than adequate evidence under social and political standards and that has to be emphasized. It also has to be emphasized that those standards may be more adequate than scientists’ if the latter are cognitively and socially impaired by a restrictive culture engaged in conservatively maintaining the status quo and the taboo.
Please study the material provided by the Disclosure Project or read books chock-full of credible testimonies about the reality and strangeness of the UFO phenomenon like Leslie Kean’s “UFO’s: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.” The many dozen respectable individuals with respectable careers willing to testify under oath to the U.S. Congress about their involvement with UFOs or personal experience and research on this matter, even by heroically risking their reputations, perhaps their retirement and more is adequate social and political evidence! Serious, concerned citizens don’t need the consent of (biased and fearful) scientists while –in order to cease functioning as stability supporters due to a sovereign’s nation-state taboo - the opposite may be true. This means that experiencer citizens can also make a contribution through their testimonies and own research. For the former case we have thousands of testimonies accruing in a survey like that of the Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial Encounters (F.R.E.E.) (www.experiencer.org).
Moreover, for anyone willing to take their time to look at the best evidence carefully, there also is serious physical evidence (landing traces, radar and visual detections, photographic analysis, EM effects, recovered and analyzed implants of probable abductees) and, furthermore (since society may incorporate and transcend objective and scientific evidence as well) this physical evidence can also be currently used by the citizenry and its political leaders as adequate social & political evidence.
Once again, the social & political world at large is more inclusive and legitimizing of the scientific world; not the other way around. Social and political decisions don’t require absolute evidence from the natural sciences. Social and political decisions can be made without full agreement and participation from the scientific community both by people "in government" and by regular, concerned citizens. It is the larger social and political context within which science is accredited and practiced; not the other way around. Therefore, the social and political world can and should take control of the situation instead of being disadvantaged by the lack of information stemming from avoidance, disinformation, suppression, ridicule, fear of ridicule and other forms of social control vigorous in taboo-ridden and biased, less intellectually inclusive, uninformed academic institutions.
Is it Worth It?
Is the ETH of value to warrant time, energy and effort in the midst of our daily “real world” economic, political concerns? Well yes, by all means. We just need to recognize key transformative possibilities in all of this and these possibilities – providing information to create enhanced worldviews - may be just what we need in order to survive in the complex, non-linear planetary society we are creating. We must learn to think differently. Learning what is behind the most anomalous aspects of the UFO mystery (those pointing to the ETH) may inspire us to enhance all forms of metaphysical assumptions in the grand, cohesive, integral manner we need to thrive in complexity.
Do we know who we are and do we know why we do what we do? Is there a larger reality in which we fit and which can help us explain this? Are we being used and experimented upon by a subset of beings within extraterrestrial groups? From a relative, dualist stance, do we already have friends and foes in the universe? Is there available technology that may not be weaponized by which may instead assist us in formulating non-polluting forms of production, saving lives, species, averting global warming and replacing organic fuels?
Do other beings which may have been here on Earth before us have a right to crisscross ‘our’ skies, live in underground bases within ‘our’ modern nation-state territories and interact with us as they see fit? Are some of them more in favor of allowing us to achieve our own social-planetary maturity as a species while others may not trust or like what we may become and prefer to use us as resources? Do we still need to grow up in wisdom in order to achieve “sovereignty” in terms of a complex, space-faring, cosmic society?
Denial or rejection of the otherworldly seems to be alive and well in modern conservative and progressive leaders alike. Neither wants to be accused of being “irrational” but perhaps the undercurrent of denial about the dangers of human-induced climate change shows that many extreme conservatives may have in fact fallen into a pseudo conservative attitude inimical with preserving life on the planet. Would they also reject the possibility of an intelligent extraterrestrial presence more than progressive democrats?
Are we prepared if some of these likely inter-reality and/or trans-reality extraterrestrial decide to show up in unambiguous ways? What do we need to know about ourselves as a species and about a possible complex cosmic history in order to develop into a more unified planet-wide species? Are some citizens being individually abducted by varieties of less amicable beings while others are being peacefully contacted by more amicable ones in a sort of “Galactic Diplomacy?” Are at least some of us capable of parsing these categories more carefully?
And who represents the interests of the Earth and humanity at large? From the perspective of a complex cosmic society with a variety of members probably sharing some common interests on us and probably operating under more philosophically advanced rules of engagement, is diplomatic contact with individuals already partly expressing a more ‘planetary’ wide or ‘universal’ mindset as valid as contacting elected officials with limited, local interests?
How can our metaphysical, epistemological, scientific, religious and spiritual assumptions expand to accommodate a probable science that overcomes classical material limits, apparently making use of what today we call “paranormal” effects, perhaps interacting with consciousness, non-locality and the mind? Is our human capacity to access actualizing potentials of consciousness what really matters in one way or another to many varieties of our alleged “visitors?”
Those ‘In The Know’
Even if there was an understandable need to suppress and to discredit the ETH (which in the 1940’s was usually referred to as the “interplanetary hypothesis”) for a combination of reasons: to avoid panic, to gain some time to find out who “they” and their intentions were (especially in the beginning of a polarized Cold War with the Soviet bloc), to learn about their technology in order to defend ourselves in case of them being hostile, to keep that technology out of the hands of real and potential human enemies and so on, there’s no need to continue suppressing the basics of what has been found.
There’s a limit to what can a secret council or committee (like what could have been and might still be what was called “MJ-12”) apparently coordinating different areas of secret research do to adequately represent the good of society as a whole. Most likely an open acknowledgement of the extraterrestrial presence would have been necessary at some earlier point for the next stage of human social development to naturally ensue. Even more so, instead of mainly becoming a destabilizing force leading to chaos after WWII it might have gradually become a unifying force in the long run if disclosure had taken place in a well-managed, constructive manner from the very beginning; providing a reference point external to all human societies at large, a reference point towards which we would have grown into and integrated with as unique, co-equal, respected participants.
While I think it would be extremely foolish to share with the world at large technology that can be weaponized, I also think that society needs to be informed of everything else that has been found. The whole of society needs to know more in order to culturally adapt and evolve to new circumstances rather than being denied, suppressed and distorted by smaller institutional elements acting as “ignorance guardians” and as defenders of ideals which can only last in a less evolved expression if unrelated to the truth. But (if the ETH is not only valid but also a necessary step needed to recognize an actual reality) the larger extraterrestrial context that summons us to grow up needs to be recognized for nation-state societies to adapt to a high degree of interrelatedness demanding the more advanced integral creation of a mindset of unity in diversity. We would need that knowledge of being embedded within a vaster extraterrestrials context in order to maintain a meaningful coherence as a planetary society.
Extrapolating from Gödel’s theorems we would need to know ourselves as parts within a larger context to either maintain a sense of consistency or completion. We would need to know the reality of the extraterrestrial presence in order to survive as a civilization by maintaining an internal state of meaningful coherence.
How long can elements of the whole control the whole for the good of the whole without that whole becoming dysfunctional? Assigning by presidential order a temporary unacknowledged committee like MJ-12 supervising and coordinating unacknowledged research on the subject even if legally allowed and useful under some unique circumstances would cease to be functional in time if it thwarts what society needs to know in order to adapt and evolve.
After a possible threat and meaning of an extraterrestrial presence has been assessed and knowledge continues to be indefinitely diverted from the larger society who is to tell that secret research teams with little communication with one another even if coordinated by an overseeing committee will perpetually be what society at large needs to handle the extraterrestrial presence? Basically (delving into historian Richard Dolan’s concept of a “run-away society”) I concur that a danger exists that a secondary, unsupervised, unacknowledged/unofficial society entrenched in its unwillingness to ever inform of its findings to the larger society that engendered it may perhaps split of while still using the parent society as its “supply store.” If more advanced technology and knowledge is involved (potentially providing independence and the power to pursue a different path), how long can such a subset society remain faithfully in service of the main society that originated it? Was this also being warned about by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech?
What Can We Do?
What can we do? We can change the situation. At least as individual participants in the more encompassing “formal” or “official” society we can start by recognizing that, within our social and political democratic processes, we don’t need to wait for scientists validate what we think is important. We don’t need to wait for them to come to a final determination in order to legitimize our interest in the ETH. We can indeed proceed under the assumption of reasonable possibilities whose implications can be important for us whether most scientists approve of these possibilities or not. Under the standards of social and political discourse there already are more than enough reasons to treat the ETH issue as legitimate and socially relevant issue.
Moreover, if we consider that, in spite of scientific blindfolds, fears and reluctance, there is sufficient evidence to accept the ETH we can also try to verify it by attempting to make contact with those alleged extraterrestrials beings who (from a reasonable and common sense human perspective) seem to respect our conscious will. According to many abduction experiencer & voluntary contactee accounts many of these alleged beings (whether abducting or preparing and inviting individuals to a friendlier contact) seem to have no qualms surpassing conventional diplomatic channels as they may already be interacting in different degrees and ways with many human individuals around the world. We would need to grow up and to learn to think less dichotomously in order to interact with them under conditions of dialogue and mutual respect.
One important line of evidence for this has been Dr. Roger Leir’s work extracting and having reputable scientists and laboratories analyze genuinely anomalous physical objects from people that claim to have been abducted by aliens (Colbern, 2008). Another important line of evidence has been collectively given in a peaceful manner by non-abducting, human-looking, alleged extraterrestrials within contactee groups in Latin America and in different countries with Spanish-speaking groups (Salla, 2013). Thus, in terms of social and political concerns, besides attempting to verify a unique presence through “nuts & bolts” Ufology we shouldn’t underestimate experiencers and-or contactees that seem to be rational and coherent and that may provide forms of evidence and prima facie experiential insights unto the nature of our alleged “visitors.”
I think that –if there indeed are extraterrestrial visitors as the ETH and a range of evidence suggests - wanting to know about this, caring about this subject, treating it with respect, respecting researchers, abduction experiencers, contactees, former cover-up participants wanting to come out clean, and also adequately seeking a possible contact on a voluntary, mutually-respectful basis, would speed up the “visitors” decision to finally show up in an unequivocal way for most humans to come to terms with what they may have unnecessarily denied for decades.
Colbern, Steven (2009). “Analysis of Object taken From Patient John Smith.” http://www.alienscalpel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Analysis-of-Object-Taken-from-Patient-John-Smithv51.pdf
Dolan, Richard (2000-2013). “Writings & Articles Index” http://richarddolanpress.com/category/richard-dolan-writings/
Good, Timothy (1996). “Beyond Top Secret.” London: Pan Books.
Greer, Steven M. (2001). “Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History” Crozet: Crossing Point, Inc.
Harris, Paola (2014). “Luis Fernando Mostajo Maertens Interview” http://paolaharris.com/english/home-page/paolas-latest-research-human-type-aliens-messages-from-latin-america
Kean, Leslie (2001). “UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record.” New York: Harmony Books.
Piacenza, Giorgio (2013). “Integral Exopolitics.” Exopolitics Journal. http://www.exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-4/vol-4-2-Piacenza.htm
Salla, Michael (2013). “Extraterrestrial message for Humanity: Report on Ricardo Gonzalez’s Workshop at Mt. Shasta” http://exopolitics.org/extraterrestrial-message-for-humanity/
Salla, Michael E. (2013). “Galactic Diplomacy: Getting to Yes with ET.” Kealakekua: Exopolitics Institute.
Wendt, Alexander (2008). “Sovereignty and the UFO,” Political Theory. Retrieved from http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/36/4/607.full.pdf
Hatzopoulos, Dimitris “Best UFO Resources: Executive Summary and Essential Readings on UFOs.” Retrieved from http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html
UFO Evidence: Scientific Study of the UFO Phenomenon and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life http://www.ufoevidence.org/