The more I research the history and morphology of "alien" contact, the more I'm convinced the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is profoundly lacking. But even the most lucid opponents of the EH, aside from offering vague (albeit endlessly enticing) references to "other dimensions" and "parallel universes," seem dumbstruck by the phenomenon's absurdity; I have yet to read of a plausible means by which the "aliens'" home world could intersect our own, allowing a steady stream of ufonauts.
We typically assume interdimensional travel must involve arcane cosmological machinery such as a wormhole or "stargate." But, increasingly, I'm drawn to the idea that our visitors' method of travel is less flashy (from a technical perspective) and more understandable in terms of quantum neurology -- a field we humans have barely skimmed, let alone utilized.
This leads to my suspicion that the "aliens" are less technologically advanced than they lead us to believe. In fact, I think a case can be made that we're dealing with a surprisingly vulnerable intelligence that relies largely on subterfuge and disinformation to achieve its goals.
And as outlandish as it may seem, I've been forced to wrestle with the notion that our relationship with these "others" is far more widespread and intimate than even paranoid dramatizations of the UFO spectacle would have us believe.
These dawning suspicions are borne out, at least in part, by world folklore (with its preoccupation with "little people" in our midst) as well as by recent discoveries that suggest the history of our species is more enigmatic than we'd like to admit. We may well share our planet with cryptohominids that have mastered the art of camouflage in order to coexist with us. More portentously, their agenda may be within our ability to grasp. But to do so, we must suspend the assumption that we're dealing with something as quaint as ET astronauts.
The truth, unnervingly, seems much closer to home, threatening to displace our sense of self in a most unexpected manner.
11 comments:
Mac:
Very interesting. Despite my refusal to embrace the ETH like Stan Friedman does, however - largely because he and I use different standards of proof - I still believe that it is the most plausible non-terrestrial (i.e. non mundane) explanation, simply because we already know the basics of how to do it.
Paul
I think the UFO phenomenon is probably due to a combinaion of factors. ET aliens are very likely part of the overall spectacle.
But I think many of the encounters with humanoids that fall under the "Oz Factor" rubric can be explained -- tentatively -- by a secretive terrestrial intelligence. I'm going to devote at least a couple chapters in my new book to seeing where this angle takes us.
Yes, Mac!
You're getting very near what I consider to be the most plausible explanation, indeed.
While I don't rule out actual extraterrestrials, I've seen very little reason to place that at the top of the list of possible explanations. Particularly if we confine the definition of "ET" to mean "life from outside our solar system," on the grounds that any hominid life strongly resembling us that happened to live on, say, Mars, would be very likely to be our biological relatives (ancestors?)
Panlives--
"Supernatural" isn't on the shelves in the US, so I just might take up your very generous offer. I've read reviews and it looks like an exciting book.
I'm gearing up to finish my own book on the subject of aliens -- my second -- and would certainly enjoy Hancock's perspective. I just hope he hasn't beaten me to all the really cool ideas! ;-)
JohnFen and WMB--
Excellent ideas.
Great Post! I'm definitely in the "They're from Here" camp. Time travellers, maybe, recovering extant DNA samples needed in the future. But why do they only start appearing in recent history, some might ask. Well, that depends. Records of visitations from "supernatural" beings go back as far as our ability to pass on myths and legends.
I like the idea of them relying on subterfuge to coexist with us. If we could only train our minds to think in a certain way, I wonder if they'd suddenly leap out at us, like a pattern out of chaos?
It boggles my mind why the nuts-and-bolts explanation, i.e. the ETH, is seen as less likely than the EDH by some (an increasing number these days, it seems), particularly when the best evidence - namely, of structured vehicles - seems to indicate otherwise.
With respect, I think the EDH says more about the people who buy into it than it does UFOs, and their probable explanations.
I often agree with you Mac, but I think you're off the mark this time, at least in terms of the relative merit of the two theories.
Paul
The likelihood of the relative merits not necessarily being directly connected with the reality of the phenomena, of course.
After all, matter as we know it seems more and more to considered a freaky anomaly in the universe. What was it, something like 4% compared to dark matter?
Thanks to everyone who's commented on this post (both pro and con). I should note that I'm not necessarily endorsing the model in question; I simply feel that it offers the chance to take a serious look at popular notions of "other dimensions" and what they may entail for we native Earthlings.
In the final analysis, I anticipate the so-called "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis will play a significant role in establishing the origin of our visitors, but I'd be the first to argue that it won't be the final word.
I'll be returning to this theme in future posts, and in my book-in-progress.
Excellent post. The Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis does not reject other possibibilities, in fact, it can incorporate them, in my opinion. You bring up very good points and interesting ideas.
Doc--
Thanks!
Post a Comment