The CTH - On the Other Hand...

I think a few people have misunderstood me lately, and assumed that by discussing the difference between proven fact and an unproven but valid hypothesis with Stan Friedman, I am somehow a supporter of the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. I'm not - I simply think that people, like Jerry Clark, should suspend judgment until they read Mac's work in its entirety. That's what I'm doing.

However, as Mac is happily blogging away some of his CTH ideas, I feel free to comment on them, particularly as it relates to the general commentary on my general commentary on the ETH lately.

Recently he wrote:

I've always been intrigued by the essentially clumsy methods employed by the purported aliens. Their induced amnesia has a way of crumbling over a curiously brief period of time. Their craft -- which proponents of the ETH would have us believe are arbitrarily more advanced than our own -- tend to leave incriminating scars on the terrain, if not crash with worrisome frequency. Coupled with their occupants' human mannerisms, such seeming anachronisms suggest that we rethink an extraterrestrial origin; instead of dealing with beings wielding technology "indistinguishable from magic," UFO files reveal beings with surprisingly limited capabilities.

Indeed, their arsenal of gadgets, while impressive, is only a few decades in advance of our own. This observation, culled from a near-inexhaustible catalog of close encounters, hints that the phenomenon is at least partly physical, yet extraordinarily unlikely to represent ET visitation.

The same logic that applies to Stan Friedman applies to Mac here with the use of the term "extraordinarily unlikely". Indeed, here Mac comes perilously close to doing to the ETH what Jerry Clark did to the CTH (although, to be fair, at least Mac is familiar with the ETH) - he presents an absolute conclusion, or one pretty close to it, instead of a more nuanced, "who knows?"

I see nothing "extraordinarily unlikely" about the ETH based on the various reports. Let us suppose, for example, and just for the sake of argument, that the aliens are perhaps no more than 30 or 40 years more advanced than us. This is not unreasonable, at least as a hypothesis. Who knows where we will be in 30 or 40 years? Perhaps we will discover a technology that allows us to travel to the nearest stars within a reasonable period of time, but not to solve all of our other problems. In other words, we will be a significantly improved version of ourselves in terms of technological knowledge, but not so significant as to be unrecognizable as human.

And here's a thought about supposed crashes - Murphy's Law probably applies to any alien space travellers, should they exist, just as it is likely to apply to us (indeed, it does - just ask NASA). That may seem trite, but it covers a host of possibilities - indeed, probabilities, although I admit that I find it unlikely the aliens would just leave a crashed spaceship lying around for humans to discover it, a la Roswell, especially as they supposedly have huge motherships (just ask Stan).

The point is, I wouldn't rule it out. Indeed, I still think it more likely than the other paranormal explanations on offer. But unlike some, I don't rule those other explanations out, because I genuinely understand that we are still dealing with an enigma here, in all respects. That leaves all options open (although some are, logically, more open than others) - including the option that it can all be explained prosaically.

In presenting a theory that competes with, or questions, the ETH, however, one should always be careful not to do what the ETH as ETF advocates do - overstep the evidence, and dismiss the possibilities. Including the ETH.

Further, one should make one's case stand or fall not on the weaknesses of other possible explanations, but on the strength of their own.

Which is, the slight hiccup above notwithstanding, what I expect Mac is going to do.

Paul Kimball