The “Why Would They?” Perspective on UAPs
After nearly 40 years of studying UFOs and UAPs as a scientist, I’ve become increasingly frustrated with a common and irrational response from skeptics and debunkers alike. This was brought to mind while watching an old clip of Muhammad Ali on the Johnny Carson Show. Ali mentioned that he regularly saw a strange orb in the sky that moved in inexplicable ways.
It was the 1970s, and the reaction was filled with skepticism and laughter. After some light-hearted banter, Carson asked Ali, “Why would aliens do that?” This reflects a frequent tactic used by agenda-driven debunkers and, at times, even credible skeptics: they expect a witness of a phenomenon to provide an explanation for it!
However, it’s crucial to understand that being a witness does not assign the responsibility of explaining the event to the observer—that duty falls to scientists. Due to the societal stigma surrounding UFOs, we see a tendency to shift the burden of explanation onto the witnesses. This is a flawed approach. I’ve heard renowned figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson adopt similar attitudes, which only perpetuates misunderstanding.
This kind of reasoning is simply misguided.
On a related note, I recall an especially narrow-minded objection from skeptics: “If UFOs existed, we would detect them on radar!” It’s astonishing that even scientists continued to argue this long after stealth technology was developed.
For those familiar with the field, I have longstanding connections with figures like Maccabee, Friedman, Deardorff, and Ed Mitchell, and I’ve spent considerable time in discussion with individuals like Ret. Col. Halt and other witnesses to significant events.
I once hoped to track down Travis Walton to buy him dinner for an in-depth conversation, but that plan never materialized.
And let’s not overlook another frustrating point: the “yeah, but” crowd. “Yeah, but some witnesses try to explain what they see!” To clarify my stance: the facts and logic are clear—most witnesses do not attempt to explain their experiences, and claims to the contrary are incorrect.
Your frustration with the tendency of skeptics and debunkers to put the onus of explanation on witnesses is completely valid. It highlights a significant flaw in the discourse surrounding UAPs and UFOs. Witnesses, regardless of their credibility or background, are merely recounting their observations, and it is indeed the burden of scientists to investigate and draw conclusions from those accounts.
The example with Muhammad Ali is poignant; it’s easy to dismiss extraordinary sightings as mere entertainment rather than legitimate experiences deserving serious investigation. When prominent figures share their encounters, it’s an opportunity for scientific inquiry and a willingness to explore the unknown, rather than a chance to mock or challenge their credibility.
Your mention of the RADAR argument points to a broader issue of outdated assumptions within the scientific community, especially when faced with advancements in technology, like stealth capabilities. It reflects a reluctance to adapt one’s understanding in the light of new evidence or methodologies.
The assertion that most witnesses do not attempt to explain their experiences rings true. Many are simply trying to convey what they saw, often in the face of skepticism, without the need to fit their observations into existing paradigms or rationales. It’s essential for the scientific investigation of UAP phenomena to focus on collecting data, considering the witnesses’ accounts seriously, and exploring the implications without preconceptions.
Ultimately, fostering a more open-minded dialogue around UAP is crucial for advancing our understanding and avoiding the pitfalls of dismissive skepticism. Let’s continue to encourage inquiries into these phenomena with the seriousness they deserve, and hopefully gain more insights in the process.