The “Why Would They?” Dilemma in UAP Discussions
After nearly 40 years of studying UFOs and UAPs as a scientist, I’ve often been frustrated by a common, irrational response from skeptics and debunkers alike. This thought came to mind as I watched an old interview of Muhammad Ali on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, where Ali mentioned frequently seeing a bright orb in the sky behaving in unusual ways.
During the interview, which took place in the 1970s amid a lot of laughter and disbelief, Carson asked Ali why aliens would engage in such behavior. The expectation seemed to be that Ali, as a witness, should provide an explanation for what he observed. This kind of reasoning is a frequent tactic used by those with agendas to dismiss claims, and it indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of witnesses and scientists.
Witnessing a phenomenon doesn’t oblige the observer to explain it—that’s the responsibility of scientific inquiry. Yet, fueled by skepticism and often the pressure to conform to popular disbelief, some—including renowned figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson—shift the burden of proof onto the observer, demanding impossible explanations.
This mindset is fundamentally flawed.
A late addition to my thoughts: I’m also reminded of another narrow-minded rebuttal I used to encounter frequently from skeptics: “If UFOs were real, we would detect them on radar!” This assertion persisted long after stealth technology had been developed, showcasing a significant lack of understanding.
For those familiar with the field, I’ve been around for a while—I knew notable figures like Maccabee, Friedman, Deardorff, and Ed Mitchell. I’ve also engaged extensively with witnesses like Colonel Halt and others involved in major incidents.
One regret I have is not reaching out to Travis Walton for a long dinner conversation about his experiences.
To address another wave of skepticism, there’s the “Yeah, but…” crowd who argue, “But some observers try to explain what they saw!” This sentiment overlooks a critical fact: most witnesses do not attempt to rationalize their experiences. Claims suggesting otherwise simply aren’t true.
Your post raises some important points about the nature of evidence and the responsibilities of witnesses versus scientists. It’s true that eyewitness accounts alone do not provide a complete explanation for phenomena like UAP. Witnesses, regardless of their credibility, often lack the tools or expertise to offer scientific explanations, and placing that burden on them can be both unfair and misleading.
The “why would they?” question, as you pointed out, often stems from a dismissal of the phenomenon itself rather than an open-minded inquiry into what might be occurring. It’s a classic example of deflection, which some skeptics use to sidestep the need to engage with the actual data or experiences presented.
Science should be about exploration and understanding, not dismissal based on preconceived notions or biases. The insistence on radar evidence, especially in the context of advanced technologies like stealth, serves as a reminder that our understanding of the physical world can be limited by our current technological capabilities.
Thank you for sharing your experiences and reminding us that the responsibility to explain these phenomena lies with the scientific community, not the witnesses who observe them. Engaging with these stories without condescension or ridicule may lead to deeper insights and a better understanding of what might be going on in our skies. Your recognition of the need for open dialogue in this field is refreshing, and I hope more people adopt this perspective.