UFOs: Too Weird to be Extraterrestrials?
But that weirdness is not a reason for rejecting the ETH, unless one is viewing possible alien life and through the prism of human understanding. By doing so, both Tonnies and Vallee evince a very 1950s / 1960s sci-fi outlook of what alien life would be like. In short when they state that the weird behaviour of some UFO cases seems to rule out ET as the cause, they are assuming that aliens will more or less act like us, or at least in ways that we can understand.
Although I think Paul's reasoning is sound enough, I don't think it addresses the sort of weirdness I had in mind. (Or, more likely, I simply didn't make myself clear.) Rather than seeking an alternative to the conventional version of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis because I find UFO behavior too weird, I feel compelled to seek out alternatives because I find UFOs too normal (in the sense that many credible sightings conform to Space Age pop mythology of the 1950s and 60s).
More to the point, I wouldn't expect alien visitation to be readily understood as such. Like Carl Sagan, I expect contact to be lavishly strange (and can't refrain from noting that, in an interesting twist of logic, the UFO phenomenon has been dismissed by many Sagan disciples precisely because it's strange).
But if we're dealing with an extraterrestrial presence of the sort generally espoused by ufology's old guard, the fact that UFO behavior seems at least partly comprehensible veritably shouts at researchers to address the phenomenon anew. Hence my recent speculation about interstellar AI: certainly a more exotic prospect than "mere" aliens in fancy spaceships, and one more in keeping with contemporary technological futurism.
Elliptically enough, Paul's critique would seem to compliment my own musings. (I think.) In any case, it appears I potentially have a welcome dialogue on my hands.