Think Anomalous
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Articles
  • About
  • Support
  • Contact
  • Survey
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Articles
  • About
  • Support
  • Contact
  • Survey

​​

.

Where's all the Physical Evidence for UFOs?

5/25/2016

1 Comment

 
     When asked about UFOs during a live-audience Q&A session at St. Petersburg College in 2009, Neil Degrasse Tyson, the ever-popular science educator and astrophysicist, took the opportunity to lay out his standard of evidence for a scientific appraisal of UFOs. (1)  His answer reveals a great deal about the the way that we approach the evidence for UFOs - and all anomalous phenomena - in public discourse.

    After a pot-shot alien joke to establish his light-hearted tone, Tyson took a well-worn route amongst science educators and stressed the unreliability - even worthlessness - of eyewitness testimony, and insisted on physical evidence as a prerequisite for scientific study. With the crowd in stitches, he begged all future abductees to “snatch something off the shelf” at their next examination - an ashtray, to use his example - before scientists could take any interest in their stories. 

​Tyson’s opinion seems to be that the only true test for the reality of UFOs involves a physical specimen and a lab-based analysis. Bringing an alien ashtray to the lab, according to Tyson, could not fail to reveal a wealth of information about UFO abductions that the abductees themselves could not. The scientific value of such a specimen is accepted as a given: “it’s not about eyewitness testimony at that point, because you have something of alien manufacture, and anything you pull off a flying saucer that crossed the galaxy is going to be interesting.”


    Tyson’s line of reasoning makes the epistemological assumption that physical evidence is inherently more valuable than eyewitness testimony, in any abundance. It is an assumption seemingly taken for granted by all science educators and many university scientists. (2)

    But this assumption cannot be justified epistemologically. Insisting on physical specimens as a prerequisite for scientific inquiry is a wholly arbitrary way of establishing a standard of evidence, and it precludes scientists from ever establishing the truth status of many anomalous and perfectly mundane experiences. More importantly, it distracts us from seriously engaging with scientific and epistemological questions like, “what’s the claim we’re trying to prove?” and, “what counts as evidence in its favour?” or, “what counts as evidence of its falsification?” These important questions are left unanswered when we insist on the old “show me the evidence” routine, and they will never be addressed until we give it up. 


Physical Evidence for UFOs?

    Perhaps the most obvious rebuttal to Tyson’s statement is to point out that we have lots of physical evidence for UFOs, and that none of that evidence seems to matter. The late Dr. Roger Leir has removed 16 different “alien implants” from the bodies of alleged abductees, and had them tested at some of the world’s most prestigious labs, including Los Alamos National laboratory, and the Material Sciences lab at the University of Toronto. Many of these tests returned some very puzzling results that have yet to be explained. (3)

    Ted Philips, a citizen scientist with the Centre for UFO Studies (CUFOS), spent years collecting physical traces from alleged UFO landing sites, and published his findings in a public CUFOS report in 1975.(4)  Philips documented 561 cases involving dehydrated soil, irradiated ground, scorched vegetation, and many more puzzling effects. A study directed by Physicist Peter Sturrock of Stanford University, published in book form in 1999, brought a wealth of new physical trace cases to the attention of the scientific community. (5) 

    To my knowledge, none of these cases have received more than cursory comment from debunkers, and certainly not from Dr. Tyson. 

    Why? Because physical evidence is not the silver bullet that science educators make it out to be, and insisting on it is merely another strategy for avoiding engaging with the evidence that we do have. Tyson’s arbitrary standard of evidence is a knee-jerk answer to the question never asked: what kind of evidence would prove the existence of something we can’t explain? This question requires a great deal more thought than most skeptics give it in their insistence on something - anything - physical. 


The Limitations of Physical Evidence

    Physical evidence can’t always tell us as much as we often assume, and it’s not the ideal form of proof for many types of claims. Rather than being the golden standard of scientific inquiry, it’s more fitting to think of physical evidence as one of many possible proofs available to the inquiring mind, and of laboratory analysis as one of many tools in the scientist’s arsenal. There are of course many forms of evidence -  observational, experimental, and anecdotal, to name a few - and their importance in any given case will vary with the nature of the claim.
​  
  The value of physical materials as a basis for new claims about the universe is highly dependent on the nature of the claim itself, and for many types of claims, the value is actually quite low. 


    Take the claim that there is life on Mars, for example. In this case, we could reasonably expect a simple and unambiguous proof in a physical specimen. Life, at least as we understand it, bears certain unmistakable signs in its physical makeup, and even the smallest sample would suffice to find them: a tuft of hair, or a piece of bone. There are other claims, however, for which physical evidence would not allow such unambiguous conclusions.

    Let’s satisfy Tyson’s standards and say that someone did snatch an alien ashtray in the midst of an abduction experience, and carried it back for laboratory analysis. If the claim was that a race of extraterrestrials had taken the witness aboard a spaceship, then an ashtray would be of little value in establishing the truth of it. The most that any lab study could possibly conclude is that it was in fact manufactured (i.e., that something had created the ashtray), and further, that the ashtray does not match the composition or design of any known manufacturers.

    This conclusion would not, however, be proof of alien visitation, let alone abduction. There is no test that could positively identify a new civilization on the basis of an ashtray, or any isolated specimen, alone. One could always argue that the ashtray was a deliberate hoax, or some lost artifact from a long-defunct (human) manufacturer. 

    Furthermore, no sample can be identified without something to identify it with. We’ve yet to find or study any extraterrestrial beings, and therefore have no information on which to base our criteria for something being definitely alien in origin. With nothing to match the sample to, we couldn’t possibly identify a specimen as anything at all. 

    Besides, what elements could an ashtray possibly contain to match it back to an undiscovered civilization? As far as we know, all matter on other planets is composed of some combination of the same elements we’ve identified here on earth, and we have no reason to think another species would manufacture objects of radically different composition. Even if we did retrieve an alien artifact, it probably wouldn’t contain anything to rule out the possibility that it was made here on Earth. 

    Demanding physical evidence, in this case, would have the effect of privileging “mundane” explanations: if the specimen was, in fact, constituent of something known and ordinary, the analysis would probably provide definitive proof. But if the specimen was, in fact, something extraordinary, the most any analysis could possibly do would be to reach no conclusion at all. The specimen would remain forever unidentified, much like Dr. Leir’s alien implants, and debunkers would go on insisting that it’s probably just something man-made.


Sampling the Intangible

    The problem with physical evidence is not just that it can be ambiguous when obtained. In other instances - as in the study of energy fields, behaviours, and most psychological phenomena - direct, physical evidence is often impossible to obtain at all. Imagine asking Jane Goodall to provide physical evidence that chimpanzees exhibit social bonding. Would we be forced to conclude that chimpanzees are mindless beasts when she inevitably failed to place something in a petri dish? Of course not. It would be wrong in this case to conceive of the subject in a strictly material framework, and it would be fruitless to seek out physical proof. 

    Many anomalous experiences are similarly difficult to place within a material framework. Many are thought to occur solely in the minds of the witnesses, involving no external stimuli whatsoever. Others are thought to be composed of something other than matter. Ghosts, for example, are typically thought to be immaterial, or ethereal beings: perhaps something from another dimension. But whether they’re holograms, illusions, or disembodied souls, one would not be justified in expecting them to leave tangible proof of their passing through.
​
    But is it not fitting to think of UFOs as a primarily physical phenomenon? Not really. UFOs are often seen as structured objects, and they occasionally appear on radar, and leave physical traces in the environment. However, some UFOs don’t show up on radar, even when their presence is confirmed by other physical means. Other UFOs don’t even take a consistent form, but appear instead as amorphous blobs of light. Many UFOs are reported to blink in and out of existence, rather than propel themselves away, and others are visible only to certain witnesses, and unnoticed by other would-be observers. 

    These features have led thinkers like Carl Jung, Jacques Vallée, and John Mack to remark that UFOs are strangely both physically “real” and subjectively constructed in the minds of observers. (6) In other words, they may be caused by some objective, real-world stimuli, but they don’t come to us from elsewhere, as other stable, physical objects. Rather, they manifest themselves according to the subjective thoughts and experiences of their witnesses, in the place, time, and form that is appropriate for the immediate sighting.  
​
Picture

Carl Gustav Jung (1875 to 1961) was the first to question the physical stability of the UFO phenomenon.
 
Avoiding Materialist Assumptions

    If this dual conception of the UFO phenomenon is accurate, then we can hardly justify demanding physical evidence as proof of its existence. What if the activity we see is only an illusion, and its objective, physical appearance is completely different? What if there is no physical component to the sighting at all? What if, as many debunkers maintain, most anomalous sightings are purely hallucinatory in nature, and have no physical stimulus outside the brain? To prove any of these things, we would need to be open to subjective, psychological evidence, as well as the kinds of observations that come through in eyewitness reports. Building a research program on the basis of physical evidence alone would be failure by design. 

    Besides, without a good theory on what’s causing the reported experiences, we have no idea what we should be looking for. Expecting to find an extraterrestrial muffler, or an ashtray, as Tyson does, is only a reasonable standard if UFOs are in fact of E.T. origin, and operate in the purely material capacity that we assume them to. If they turn out to be anything else, the standard would be impossible to meet - much as it is now - and scientists would be wrongly convinced that they were justified in dismissing the phenomenon. 

    The same physical standard of proof cannot be applied equally to all disciplines, and it must be dejected from its privileged position as the golden standard in anomalistic research. We can’t justify waiting around for that alien ashtray. If we’re going to take a scientific approach to the UFO question, we’ll need to reconsider what it is we’re looking for, and question whether physicality is an appropriate measure.


- Jason Charbonneau





(1) Neil Degrasse Tyson, “Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson on UFOs,” YouTube video, 11:35, posted by “Camelot Radio,” July 7, 2011, accessed May 8, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o. And for the full video: Neil Degrasse Tyson, “Cosmic Quandaries with Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson,” YouTube video, 1:28:00, posted by “St. Petersburg College,” May 7, 2009, accessed May 24, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAD25s53wmE. Tyson’s answer to the question on UFOs begins around 55m. 

(2) For a few examples, see Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of our Time, (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002), 48; Carl Sagan Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Ballantine Books, 1996), 69; Terence Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), 257. From Shermer: “without corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. Anecdotes are told by fallible human storytellers”; and from Hines: “if eyewitness reports are unconvincing evidence for the reality of UFOs as extraterrestrial visitors, some sort of physical evidence could certainly settle the case.”


(3) Steve Colbern, “Analysis of Object Taken from Patient John Smith,” January 25, 2009, accessed May 16: http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/John-Smith-Implant-Analysis.pdf. The object in this report was shown to possess trace elements of iridium (something typically only found in meteorites), and to emit a range of radio waves while still inside the body.

(4) 
For selections from the original catalogue, see Paul Fuller, “Ted Phillip’s Physical Trace Catalogue,” project1947.com, accessed May 25, 2016: http://www.project1947.com/47cats/phillips.htm

(5) ​Peter Sturrock, The UFO Enigma: a New Review of the Physical Evidence (New York: Warner Books, 1999).

(6) 
See for example; Carl Jung, Flying Saucers: a Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky (New York: MJF Books, 1978); John Mack, Passport to the Cosmos (White Crow Books, 2011), and; Jacques Vallée, “Jacques Vallee - Thinking Allowed - Implications of UFO Phenomena,” YouTube video, 28:06, posted by “JoseEarly,” November 16, 2012, accessed May 4, 2016: https: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ETMzkhBQ6w
1 Comment

David Paulides in Toronto: Missing Persons, the Limits of Investigation, and the Myth of the “Forest Stairs”

5/22/2016

2 Comments

 

     Last night, David Paulides, author of the much discussed non-fiction series, Missing 411, gave a talk at the University of Toronto. The talk was organized by the folks at Conspiracy Culture bookstore, a hub for alternative thought in the downtown area which had previously brought the great Graham Hancock to the city. For $20, I thought it could make for an interesting evening.
​
    I first heard Paulides’ work mentioned in the comment section of a popular post on reddit submitted by an anonymous writer who claimed to be a  search and rescue officer at an unidentified U.S. national park in the U.S. The writer claimed to have worked on many cases of unexplained, and seemingly inexplicable, disappearances, and some that involved apparently supernatural phenomena. He or she also claimed, remarkably, that it was normal for search and rescue workers to encounter mysterious staircases deep in the wilderness which experienced officers admonished their juniors to avoid. A commenter mentioned the similarity of the writer’s stories to some of the cases presented in Missing 411, and I followed up on the reference.

    I’ve yet to read any of the books in the series, but my understanding is that  Missing 411 catalogues the hundreds of missing persons cases, primarily in North America, left unaccounted for by local investigators: sudden and inexplicable disappearances in which the body was either never found, or found only much later in highly unusual circumstances. Although Paulides was deeply involved in Bigfoot research for a number of years, he never ascribes a culprit to any of the disappearances he catalogues, but simultaneously insists that conventional explanations - murders, abductions, and suicides, for example - have all been ruled out.   

​     Paulides had a kind of understated presence, but spoke convincingly throughout. He said relatively little about himself, claiming only to have worked as a  police officer, an HR professional, and in some advanced position within an unidentified high-tech company. He said nothing of his Bigfoot research, perhaps in a effort to avoid discrediting himself to newcomers unsympathetic to anomalous phenomena, and did not discuss how he became interested in cases of missing persons (most likely because it came up during his investigations into Bigfoot encounters in national parks, something he’s admitted to elsewhere). 


    The vast majority of Paulides’ talk was spent on reviewing the data he’s collected, with very little in the way of either introductory or concluding remarks. He began by showing a few maps of where the disappearances were clustered (around the Rocky and Appalachian mountain ranges, with virtually no incidents in the Canadian prairies or through the American mid-west), then highlighted a few trends in the data. For example, he mentioned that in cases where a body was eventually found (most cases), autopsies often revealed that the person was not at the location of discovery for all, or even most of the time they were missing. More interestingly, there seems to be some sort of a connection to water: cases do not occur far from any large bodies of water (the prairies), and many bodies are eventually found floating in shallow bodies of water such as rivers, ponds, or marshes. All cases were investigated by local police departments and/ or search and rescue teams, and most were cleared of any suspicion of “foul play.”      

Picture

David Paulides taking questions from the audience during his talk at the University of Toronto, May 21, 2016. Photo by the author.

​
    Throughout his talk, Paulides reminded the audience why these kinds of cases weren’t compiled earlier: local departments, he claimed, thought locally, and weren’t particularly concerned with - or even aware of - what similar things may have happened on the other side of the continent, or 50 years prior. Their job is to provide details in the case that might help lead to evidence of foul play. If none are found, their job is over, even if other aspects of the case are left unexplained. 

    Given the great span of time and space over which these disappearances have occurred (Paulides mentioned that the earliest ones go back at least as far as the 19th century), federal investigations units like the FBI have no reason to suspect the work of a serial killer or a secret cult. The cases are effectively disregarded, and inevitably forgotten, much like anomalies in scientific disciplines. As a remedy, Paulides proposed a national, or trans-national investigations unit that could be notified and dispatched in all cases that matched a similar profile. This unit could then test for otherwise unscreened factors (like the presence of GHB, the “date rape” chemical) that Paulides suspects might provide clues as to what is going on. 

    Paulides offered almost nothing in the way of explanation, although he did highlight a few strange trends in the data. Few of these trends, however, offer any obvious clues in the identification of a culprit, motive, or mechanism for the disappearances. A large percentage of missing persons were runners, physicians, or hunters, for example. There are other clusters of sex and age consistency that are equally as puzzling. Victims tend to be bright, happy, and upstanding people, with no reason for ending their own life. They tend to disappear one-at-a-time (rarely in pairs), and strangely, their shoes are almost never found. Most bodies, when discovered, are found in socks or barefoot, and often completely naked. Often they are found miles from the place of disappearance, across natural barriers they could scarcely have traversed on their own. Other peculiar details are far too varied and nuanced to list here. 

    Pauldies spoke for a little more than an hour and a half, then allowed some time for Q&A. I was pleased when an audience member asked Paulides about the alleged forest stairs made popular in the reddit post mentioned above. I had wanted to ask him about this myself, but wasn’t sure if I’d get a chance at the mic. Paulides immediately identified the forest stairs as a myth, propagated by fans of his work looking to generate a few easy hits, or up-votes, as it were, online. He didn’t dwell on the subject for more than a few sentences, but he insisted that the hundreds of search and rescue workers he’s interviewed in his career have never mentioned any such phenomenon. I left feeling as though the anonymous, reddit-famous search and rescue officer was likely little more than a clever charlatan with a penchant for supernatural horror tales. Oh well, I guess some things are just too intriguing to be true. 

    All in all, it was a great evening, and I walked away convinced that there was a genuine, undiscovered phenomenon at the heart of these disappearances. I also couldn’t help but be impressed by the bullet-proof nature of the evidence. Contrary to most UFO sightings, for example, in which something comes and goes often without any contact with the surrounding environment, Paulides’ cases involve undeniable deaths and disappearances, often with recovered bodies. These are data that can't be dismissed, and are very difficult to explain away: how could any debunker presume to provide an explanation that the coroner, family, and investigators couldn’t give themselves?

    Unfortunately, I did not walk away with a copy of any books in the Missing 411 series, as Paulides misjudged the demand and brought too few copies. I wasn’t particularly disappointed, however, as I felt that Pauldies had provided an adequate review of the data in his talk alone. Whether I ever buy his books or not, I’ll certainly keep an eye on developments in Paulides’ work. You should too. 

    And I highly recommend that you read into some of the cases chronicled in Missing 411, or watch one of Paulides’ talks on YouTube. The specific circumstances of some of the disappearances are truly bizarre, and far more unsettling than they might seem when discussed as a whole, as I’ve done here. Just don’t be surprised if you lose your enthusiasm for camping. 


- Jason Charbonneau
2 Comments
    Picture

    Articles

    All Think Anomalous articles are written or edited by site founder and film maker, Jason Charbonneau. Jason is a freelance Foley artist and sound editor living in Toronto, Canada, and an anomalist by hobby.

    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Book Review
    Debunking Debunkers
    Evidence
    Intellectual Freedom
    Missing Persons
    Opinion
    Skepticism
    Terminology
    Theory And Method
    UFO

    Archives

    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016

    RSS Feed


    Picture
    Become a Patron
Picture
Copyright Think Anomalous, 2016 - 2025