Friday, April 23, 2010
Mac Tonnies on the cryptoterrestrials
The latest from the Other Side of Truth podcast - the late Mac Tonnies discusses his cryptoterrestrial hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon, and compares it to the extraterrestrial hypothesis, in these excerpts from an interview I conducted with him in Kansas City, Missouri, in May, 2006.
Paul Kimball
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I wonder, Paul, if you, Nick Redfern, or Greg Bishop, have ever had any significant doubts or reconsidered the viability or veracity of certain elements of Mac's cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, in the sense that, as he says in his book and in the excerpt of the interview from May, 2006 you did with him as noted in your post, that he apparently believed ("I think they're flesh and blood. I think a lot of them could possibly pass for human." ... "I think they're nomadic."} that the cryptoterrestrials were or are an offshoot of the pre-human hominid line of evolution?
There has been some discussion in online posts, comments, and podcasts from and among the three of you, his best friends, that Mac did not take his hypothesis literally, but isn't that contradicted by various of his own statements, and sections in his book where he posits just such a scenario in part in order to deliberately distinguish his theory from both Vallee's and Keel's alternative hypotheses to the ETH?
Tonnies also proposed that the CT's were relatively few in number, and allegedly suffered from some proposed genetic malady that, to me, was merely an idea to respond to and incorporate aspects of the supposed abduction syndrome as suggested and detailed by Hopkins, Jacobs, and Strieber, all of whose research and techniques of exploring the "alien abduction" scenario I find both quite questionable and deeply troubling from an objective and scientific perspective. We really do not even know if such abductions, regardless of reputed source or origin (whether ET or CT, etc.), even actually occur in a real or externally physical sense, let alone what the alleged reproductive or genetic purposes might be, do we?
Take this quote for example from Mac's book:
"I propose that at least some accounts of alien visitation can be attributed to a humanoid species indigenous to the Earth: a sister race that has adapted to our numerical superiority by developing a surprisingly robust technology. The explicitly reproductive overtones that color many encounters suggest that these 'indigenous aliens' are imperiled by a malady that has gone uncured throughout the eons we have coexisted. Driven by a puzzling mixture of hubris and existential desperation, they seek to perpetuate themselves by infusing their gene-pool with human DNA. While existing at the very margins of ordinary human perception, they have succeeded in realms practically unexplored by known terrestrial science, reinventing themselves at will and helping to orchestrate a misinformation campaign of awe-inspiring scope."
On one hand Mac states they are comparatively few in number, nomadic, suffering from some unknown genetic malady, and yet, on the other, they have access to and use extraordinarily sophisticated technology of some kind to stage a wide and evolving variety of ufo flyovers, some of which have been detected on radar and other sensors (such as in the 1957 RB-47 case, for one example), and close encounter scenarios of such advanced and elegant finesse that no one as yet has publicly been able to provide convincing proof of same, all supposedly for the purpose of employing some misdirective psyop to convince humans they originate from anywhere but Earth. Yet, the staged aspect, especially in close encounters, seems to call intense individual and cultural attention to itself, even though most often in a plausibly deniable way. Why do that at all, if you're trying to remain hidden? Why be so provocative, regardless of origin--the sociological effect is the same: attention and interest.
Do you see how these conflicting statements and ideas are, at least, rather contradictory?
Hi Observer,
Thanks for the thoughtful question.
My answer is that a lot of people offer statements that seem contradictory when placed side by side with each other when dealing with a subject for which there are no clean and easy answers. Mac was one of those, particularly with respect to the CTH. It definitely remained an hypothesis for him, one that he found intriguing, moreso than others such as the ETH, in the final year of his life - but not to the exclusion of those other theories, which I think he makes pretty clear in the book.
I think part of the problem comes from the fact that he died before he had completed his book. Accordingly, as we all mentioned on the Paracast, I don't believe that the book represents Mac's final thoughts on the matter. Don't get me wrong - I think it is a "must-read," not just for his speculation about the CTH, but moreso for his commentary about the current state of affairs within ufological "research."
Mac was conducting a thought experiement when it came to the CTH. I think a careful reading of his book, and what he wrote on-line or said in interviews, makes it clear that he wasn't asserting the CTH as a CTFact, and that he would be appalled that someone like Ed Gehrman (at UFO Updates) has seemingly latched onto the Cryptoterrestrials as proof of his own ideas about a pre-human civilization.
I think that had Mac lived, he would have eventually reconciled the CTH with the ETH along lines I suggested to him a couple of years ago - the CTs are not indigenous to Earth, but rather are remnants of alien explorers who established themselves here many years ago, and then lost contact with the world they came from - kind of a "lost colony" if you will. That would explain much about the lack of any archeological record, and might also make sense in terms of what would be required to make such a space flight (think, perhaps, of a generational ship of some sort). I'll be expanding on these conversations with Mac in a future post.
Paul
How robust is the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis (CTH)? The merits of a similar hypothesis that modern humans hybridized with other indigenous hominids are being debated by mainstream scientists. A paper published in the latest issue of the journal Science announces that a large portion of the Neanderthal genome has been painstakingly sequenced. Obtaining this information from bone samples many thousands of years old was an amazing feat, but the analysis may reveal something truly astonishing. Although controversial, the evidence suggests that not only did modern humans and Neanderthals coexist, the two interbred and hybridized.
The debate regarding the relationship and implications of the Neanderthal genome has just begun, but it is clear that the possibility for past genetic interaction between indigenous hominids is taken seriously. Resolving the issue of interbreeding between modern human and extinct Neanderthal lineages will hinge on intense examination of the archaeological evidence and gene sequence data.
Although Mac Tonnies noted the CTH is in principle subject to experimental confirmation, resolving this matter is far more problematic. One fundamental problem for investigators is that for all practical purposes concerning the collection of corroborating data, the CTH is in essence a downsized version of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) confined to planet Earth. Investigators attempting to confirm the CTH would be looking in places already well-searched, seeking basically the same sort of elusive definitive evidence ETH proponents have never managed to find.
Tonnies apparently recognized a line of pursuit that although not constituting a direct proof of the CTH, might provide enormously important data – a search for genetic evidence. He did not elaborate, but a direct proof of alien intervention is possible if someone (anyone) can produce a hybrid or transgenic entity, or some of their cells, for genetic sequence analysis. Given the large number of claims, perhaps investigators will seize the opportunity to obtain incontrovertible, objective data by subjecting samples to genetic analysis.
Post a Comment