|23 Jun 2006 @ 18:34, by Craig Lang|
Here is a reply which I sent to space.com, in response to their article, Ten Alien Encounters Debunked
* * * * * * * *
Dear editor and staff of Space.com,
I read with interest, some of your articles debunking UFOs and alien encounters, especially your article, Ten Alien Encounters Debunked. I find your arguments fascinating. Furthermore, they are safely within the well within "the box" of the mainstream scientific thought.
Many of the arguments against UFO visitation are based upon the "there's no evidence for UFOs being extraterrestrial" claim. In part, this is correct - there is little hard scientific evidence to establish the origin of UFOs. However, even the most conservative scientist has to admit that there IS evidence of anomalous phenomena in the skies. Furthermore, in some cases, these phenomena exhibit intelligent behavior. The Sturrock Report offers some excellent cases of this very evidence. This report can be found on the Society for Scientific Exploration website at:
In addition, several governments have openly admitted that UFOs are a credible source for concern. One such is the French government, as indicated in the COMETA report. A good summary of this can be found on the UFO Evidence website at: http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Cometa.htm
In your "top 10" article, you speak of "critical thinking," which I agree is vital. Yet, In saying that there is no evidence, debunking authors are actually making a negative truth claim. To quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Given the evidence descibed above, critical thinking requires the investigator to be as skeptical of such negative absolute claims as of positive claims about UFOs. The honest investigator may need to seriously consider non-ordinary solutions to some of these mysteries. One nees to Follow critical thinking wherever it leads...
I am a contributing member of the SETI institute. I am also a field investigator for the Mutual UFO Network and have interviewed scores of sighting witnesses. I have also talked with people who have experienced the close encounter phenomenon first hand. Investigation and reading the literature will establish that the following is true:
1) We don't know what the close encounter phenomenon is, but in at least some cases, it is physically real.
2) Encounters are very real to the experiencer and leave a lasting traumatic effect.
3) The UFO and close encounter phenomenon does leave occasional physical evidence behind.
The above are all well documented by organizations such as the Mutual UFO Network, the Intruders Foundation, etc...
I can understand that skeptical articles on UFOs and encounters keep you in good relations with the scientific community. However, I would urge space.com to evaluate all sides of the question before publishing articles on the subject. Keep an open mind and examine the physical evidence - especially that which Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, Seth Shostak, and others say does not exist...
As I mentioned above, I am a member of the SETI institue. I also regularly visit space.com. I find that your articles on other topics are extremely useful and generally very insightful. Due to your tone on UFOs, I have occasionally re-evaluated my participation in the SETI institute and space.com. Yet I find that what you collectively do far outweighs your negativity on UFOs. Still, I would urge you please keep a positive tone - and let yourselves think outside the box.
Thank you and regards,
- Craig R. Lang