Author: ssgeneralsilva10

The Hebrew calendar, which is still in use to this day, is based on the Anno Mundi (“in the year of the world”) premise. Anno Mundi dates events from the beginning of the creation of the earth as calculated as best as possible through scripture.

Ancient civilizations derived their calendars based on the reign of kings or the cycles of the seasons as set by their various gods. In Mesopotamia one would have dated an event as “five years from the reign of King Shulgi”.

In Egypt, it would have been “three years after the last Opet Festival of Ramesses who was the second of that name”. Or perhaps “In the tenth year of the reign of Ramesses who triumphed at Kadesh”. This method of dating was continued by the Romans who counted their years according to three different systems in different eras including from the founding of Rome, and by emperors who ruled at a point in time.

It was Julius Caesar who reformed the calendar and renamed the months during his reign from 49-44 BCE (Before Common Era (BCE) or before Christ (BC)). This calendar remained in use, with periodic revisions, until 1582 CE (Common Era). This is the same as AD (anno Domini), which means “in the year of the Lord” in Latin. In 1582 CE, Pope Gregory XIII instituted the Gregorian calendar which is also still in use in the present day. Christians used the Anno Mundi calendar and the Roman calendar in the early years of the faith. In 525 CE, a new concept in dating was introduced by a Christian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (470-544 CE) which provided the foundation for the move to the BC/AD system.

Dionysius Exiguus invented the concept of Anno Domini (“in the year of our Lord”) or AD time in an effort to stabilize the date of the celebration of Easter. While he was working on this problem, Christians of the church of Alexandria were dating events from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian (284 CE). Ironically, this emperor often persecuted members of the new Christian faith. Dionysius Exiguus’s goal was to bring the eastern and western churches into agreement on a single day on which all Christians would celebrate Easter.

This goal had been decided upon by Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, but that goal had not yet been achieved. Dionysius Exiguus ultimately succeeded in changing the system of dating years from the Roman system and the Alexandrian system. This new system is centered on the Christian era starting with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. This choice also eliminated another Christian problem, which was the dating historical events based on the reign of an emperor who had killed so many Christians. [1]

The only problem with this dating system was that no one actually knew when exactly Jesus of Nazareth was born. Dionysius Exiguus himself did not know when Jesus was born, and his system made no claims or credits for dating that event definitively. He seems to have arrived at his calculations through a reliance on scripture and the known history of the time to create a Christian calendar which would be acceptable to both the western and eastern churches of the time for the celebration of Easter.

Dionysius Exiguus never made the claim that he knew the date of Jesus’s birth.  He did not begin his quest to reform the calendar for the purpose of accurately dating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.  He did it in accordance with the wishes of the pope of the time who wanted Constantine’s vision realized.

The Easter celebration of the resurrection was considered the most important celebration of the church. Constantine, and those in power who followed him, wanted Easter observed by all churches on the same day. It was Dionysius Exiguus’s job to make that happen. He tried to do this by making a new calendar system which involved calculating the date of Jesus’s birth. This was the means to his desired end, not the target end in itself.

The Bible does not specifically identify the year when Jesus was born.  It does, however, provide sufficient information to identify a relatively narrow range of dates. There is no true proof or agreement with Christian theologians on this matter. It is complicated and difficult to understand. One version of the deduction path to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ goes like this:

It was after Archelaus began to rule in Judea in 4 BC when Jesus returned to Israel from Egypt and settled in Nazareth. Before taking Jesus from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the Passover feast when Jesus was twelve years old (Luke 2:42). The Bible says that Joseph and Mary “went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover” (Luke 2:41)- every year.” This means that at least three prior Passover visits to Jerusalem before the visit mentioned in Luke 2:41 that took place when Jesus was twelve years old. If there had been only three prior Passover visits and the one mentioned in Luke 2:41 is the fourth, and if Archelaus began to rule in Judea just before Jesus settled in Nazareth, four years would have passed since Archelaus’ rule began in 4 BC, so the year would have theoretically been 0 AD. There is however, no such thing as a “zero” year. In this system, the year Christ was born is 1 A.D., and the year preceding it is 1 B.C.

Since Jesus is indicated as being twelve years old at this time, it would mean that Jesus was born in 12 BC. If there had been four prior Passover visits and the one mentioned in Luke 2:41 is the fifth, five years would have passed since Archelaus’ rule began in 4 BC, so the year would have been 1 AD. Since Jesus is indicated as being twelve years old at this time, it would mean that Jesus was born in 11 BC. Similarly, if there had been 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 prior Passover visits, Jesus would have been born in 10 BC, 9 BC, 8 BC, 7 BC, 6 BC, 5 BC, 4 BC, respectively. Since the “census” mentioned in Luke 2:2 took place in 8 BC, Jesus was born between 8 BC and 4 BC.[2] There are other versions of this calculation out there, but the results are similar[3].

The BC/AD system is fundamentally flawed in that it misrepresents the birth of Jesus by approximately 6 years, depending on your sources. The year of Jesus’s birth differs depending on which Gospel one reads. While the Gospel of Matthew states in chapter 2:1 that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, the Gospel of Luke states in chapter 2:1-2 that Jesus was born during the first census of the rule of Quirinius, governor of Syria. According to ancient sources, the date of this census is about 6 CE. The Bible is internally inconsistent regarding the year of Jesus’ birth.[4]  6 BC is most often considered the best educated and defensible guess as to the year of Jesus’s birth.

Fixing the date on which the Easter was to be observed and celebrated triggered a major controversy in early Christianity in which an Eastern and a Western position can be delineated. The dispute, known as the Paschal controversies, was not definitively resolved until the 8^th century. Christians observed the day of the Crucifixion on the same day that Jews celebrated the Passover offering which was the 14^th day after the first full moon of spring. Resurrection, then, was observed 3 days later, regardless of the day of the week.

In the West, the Resurrection of Jesus was celebrated on the first day of the week, Sunday, when Jesus had risen from the dead. Consequently, Easter was always celebrated on the first Sunday after the 14th day of the month. Increasingly, the churches opted for the Sunday celebration, and the Quartodecimans (“14^th day” proponents) remained a minority. In the end, it was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 21). Easter, therefore, can fall on any Sunday between March 22^nd  and April 25^th .[5]

The first full moon of April (the pink moon) is always the 3^rd full moon of the year. Jesus was resurrected on the 3^rd day after his crucifixion and that is what the Easter feast is all about. This year (2023) the first April full moon in the western hemisphere occurred on Thursday April 6^th and Sunday the 9^th is Easter Sunday, 3 days after the first full moon of April. The number 3 is a huge deal in Christianity and this Easter’s line up of the number 3 does not occur very often, making this year’s Easter celebration just a bit more special.

Happy Easter to you!

[1] LiveScience.com. Keeping time: The origin of B.C. and A.D.  Robert Coolman , Owen Jarus.  January 14, 2022

[2] Bible Verse Study. When was Jesus Christ Born? Author not cited. 2022

[3] Biblical Archeology Society. When Was Jesus Born—B.C. or A.D.? How the divide between B.C. and A.D. was calculated.  Megan Sauter. December 4, 2021

[4] World History Encyclopedia. The Origin & History of the BCE/CE Dating System. Joshua J. Mark. March 27, 2017

[5] Britannica. Easter Holiday. Hans J. Hillerbrand. April 7, 2003

Wilderness is essentially defined as an area undisturbed by human activity as a naturally developed ecosystem. The universe therefore is a wilderness; at least it is to us. As we move into the extraterrestrial wilderness, it is important to reflect upon our history as humans and our handling of our mother earth wilderness in terms of historical paradigms.

There was a time in history when “wilderness” on earth was a dark, dangerous and scary place. It was the place where monsters, wolves, and magical creatures lived. Outer space is our next and possibly our final wilderness. Over time, wilderness on earth became something to be conquered and controlled by humans. The conquest and control of wilderness on earth eventually got out of control and we learned that our earthly wilderness is something of great value and deserved protection from our impacts upon wilderness areas. We realized that wilderness has intrinsic value in and of itself. It is imperative that we pay attention to this lesson as we are in the infancy of our exploration of the universe and learn from our history in this regard.

Roderick Nash argues that wilderness is a basic ingredient of American civilization in his book; Wilderness and the American Mind. According to Nash; from the raw materials of the physical wilderness Americans built a civilization, with the idea or symbol of wilderness they sought to give that civilization identity and meaning.  Wilderness on earth currently enjoys widespread and growing popularity and respect. Ancient biases against the wild are deeply rooted in human psychology and in the human compulsion to understand, control and transform the environment in the interest of survival, and later, of success. Wilderness was the unknown, the disordered, and uncontrolled. A large portion of the energies of early civilizations was directed at defeating nature and controlling it for our benefit.

The origins of European and American thoughts about nature and wilderness can be traced back to Greek philosophers, as well as to the principles provided by the Judeo-Christian tradition, that came to dominate Europe. The conceptual separation of humankind from the natural world received much attention in classical Greek philosophy and came to provide an important influence upon the development of European wilderness values. A major contribution of Greek philosophy to European thought was the application of reason. Whatever the Greeks borrowed from either the ancients or their contemporaries, they transformed through their commitment to reason. Greek rationalism is often presented as a unique vantage point from which to view the evolution of the European mind towards civilization. The historical documents that survive show a clear break away from primitive attitudes into progress and elementary science, from myths into disciplined acquisition of knowledge about the universe.  There is within the Greek tradition, a tension between the Dionysian and Apollonian worldviews. The Apollonian, after the Greek god Apollo, represents a calm, reasoned, and structured form of art while the Dionysian, after Dionysus, is a deeply emotional and ecstatic one.

The result shows humankind turning its attention inward, away from the world that surrounds it, and towards self-conscious reason. Although human life was lived among an ever-changing and material world, Socrates identified this as a problem for the soul to overcome.

Knowledge, and a rational understanding of a wise course of action, depended on forms from outside of nature. Socrates argued that everything for mankind seemed preordained and that nature was provided by the gods for humanity’s use. Plato continued in the Socratic tradition in viewing nature as something that could be acted upon by humans and maintained that humans could improve upon nature. Aristotle expresses the idea of purpose in nature, including the relation of plants and animals to the needs of man. According to Aristotle: In like manner we may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of man, the tame for use and food, the wild, if not all, at least the greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing and various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete and nothing in vain, the inference must be made that she has made all animals and plants for the sake of man.

The fusion of Greek rationalism with Judaic and early Christian thought provided the genesis of the idea of wilderness that has come to rule Western civilization for the past two millennia. We are compelled to recognize that Christianity is not one specific thing, but a combination of historical determinants, including human nature and the agricultural revolution, which together introduced a historically unprecedented direction to human relations with wild nature. The natural world came to be conceived as valueless until humanized. Judeo-Christian faith claimed nothing from nature, for God alone was important and human attention shifted from the intuitive, mystical, and physical to the supernatural and transcendental. Early Christian thinkers readily accepted this worldview that desacralized nature and placed humankind above nature without hesitation. What was important to these thinkers was humankind’s personal relationship with God and not with the physical world which surrounded it.

With the advent of the scientific revolution came the perception of the world and universe as machines that could be simply understood if broken down into their component parts. Capitalism and democracy coalesced with machine technology to effect the conversion of nature into simple components in an economic formula, devoid of any intrinsic value, which has market value only. Modernism completes the intellectual divorce of humankind from nature and defines nature and wilderness in terms of man’s designs upon it. It is this “modern” tradition that the Europeans brought with them to the New World that helped to define the foundations of its dominant social paradigm.[1]

The universe beyond earth is our next wilderness and just look at what we are doing to it right out of the gate. The night sky is a shared wilderness. On a dark night, away from the city lights, you can see the stars in the same way as our ancestors did centuries ago. We can see the Milky Way and the constellations associated with stories of mythical hunters, sisters and journeys.

But like any wilderness, the night sky can be polluted for the sake of nothing more than monetary gain and political power.  Since Sputnik 1 in 1957, thousands of satellites and pieces of space junk have been launched into orbit. For now, satellites crossing the night sky are largely a curiosity. But with the advent of satellite constellations containing hundreds or thousands of satellites, this could change.

The recent launch of BlueWalker 3, a prototype for a satellite constellation, raises the prospect of bright satellites contaminating our night skies. At 64 square meters, it’s the largest commercial communications satellite in low Earth orbit, and it is very bright. While spotting satellites in the night sky has been a curiosity, the increasing number of satellites in orbit means pollution of the night sky could become a serious problem.

On a clear night, particularly near twilight, you can see satellites travelling across the night sky. These satellites are in low Earth orbit, just a few hundred kilometers above Earth and travelling almost 8 kilometers every second. Apps and websites allow us to identify or predict the arrival of particular satellites overhead, and it is genuinely interesting to see the International Space Station travelling by; understanding that on that speck of light there is a crew of astronauts.

In the past few years, the pace of satellite launches has accelerated. SpaceX has made satellite launches cheaper, and it has been launching thousands of Starlink satellites that provide internet services. Roughly 50 Starlink satellites were launched into orbit by each Falcon 9 rocket, and they initially produce a bright train of satellites. These initially produced UFO reports, but are now sufficiently common to not be particularly newsworthy. Once the Starlink satellites disperse and move to their operational orbits, they will near the limit of what can be seen with the unaided eye.

These satellites are bright enough to produce trails in images taken with telescopes. The trails overwrite the stars and galaxies behind them, which can only be remedied by taking additional images. Short transient phenomena, such as a brief flash from a gamma-ray burst could potentially be missed. Starlink is the largest satellite constellation in service, with thousands of satellites in orbit, others are planned.

Amazon’s Blue Origin plans to launch more than 3,200 Project Kuiper satellites, and AST SpaceMobile plans to launch 100 BlueBird satellites (and perhaps more). The recently launched BlueBird prototype, BlueWalker 3, has produced genuine alarm among astronomers.

While BlueWalker 3 was initially quite faint, it unfolded a 64 square meter communications array which is roughly the size of a squash court. This vast surface is very good at reflecting sunlight, and BlueWalker 3 is now as bright as some of the brightest stars in the night sky. It is possible the operational BlueBird satellites could become even bigger and brighter.

At its brightest, BlueWalker 3 is brighter than all but a few stars in the night sky.  Large numbers of satellites this bright could be a problem — a big problem. If there were thousands of satellites this bright, sometimes you would be unable to look at the night sky only seeing bright satellites. We would lose that sense of wilderness, with an almost constant reminder of technology in our sky. This would have a massive impact on professional astronomy for the purpose of short-term financial gain.

Brighter satellites do more damage to astronomical images than faint satellites. Furthermore, many of these satellites broadcast at radio frequencies that could interfere with radio astronomy, transmitting radio waves above remote sites where radio observatories scan the heavens.

For now, under dark skies, we can see the Milky Way as people have seen it for millennia. What happens next is uncertain. The International Astronomical Union has communicated its alarm about satellite constellations, and BlueWalker 3 in particular. The approval of satellite constellations by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has had relatively little consideration of environmental impacts. This has recently been flagged as a major problem by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, but whether this leads to concrete change is unclear.

We may be on the edge of a precipice. Will the night sky be cluttered with bright artificial satellites for the sake of internet or 5G? Or will we pull back and preserve the night sky as a globally shared wilderness with intrinsic value also?[2]

[1] University of Montana. McGovern, Patrick Joseph, “Paradigms and the politics of wilderness preservation” (1993). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5583. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5583

[2] Space.com. Michael J. I. Brown, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Monash University\. BlueWalker 3, an enormous and bright communications satellite, is genuinely alarming astronomers.  January 8, 2023. This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

 

The discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life on another planet might seem incompatible with a belief in God; yet many theologians are now openly acknowledging the existence of extraterrestrials.

Belief in God and Extraterrestrials and Science are not mutually exclusive positions. In fact, Christian leadership has made public that they also believe there must surely be intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe that is not of this earth. Conversely, Science has also yielded to accept and include God within its traditionally closed minded scientific considerations on the subject of extraterrestrial existence and communication with beings not of this earth.

Father Emmanuel Carreira, the Vatican’s chief astronomer, stated publicly that there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of “extraterrestrial brothers” that are perhaps more evolved than humans. Father Carreira operates the telescope at the Vatican Observatory in Castelgandolfo, south of Rome.

Reverend Jose Gabriel Funes is a 45-year-old Jesuit priest who manages the Vatican Observatory south of Rome and in Arizona. These observatories are actively seeking other life in the universe and even the origin of the universe itself. Funes was also a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict. He told Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano in an interview. “In my opinion this possibility (of life on other planets) exists. How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere?” He explained that the substantial number of galaxies with their own planets made this possible. When asked if he was referring to beings similar to humans or even more evolved than humans, he said: “Certainly, in a universe this big you can’t exclude this hypothesis. Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent beings, created by God. This is not in contrast with our faith because we can’t put limits on God’s creative freedom. Why can’t we speak of a brother extraterrestrial? It would still be part of creation.”

During the interview headlined “The Extraterrestrial is my Brother,” he said he saw no conflict between belief in such beings and faith in God. He held out the possibility that the human race might actually be the “lost sheep” of the universe. “There could be other beings that remained in full friendship with their creator,” he said.

Christians have sometimes been at odds with scientists over whether the Bible should be read literally and issues such as creationism versus evolution have been hotly debated for decades.

Funes said dialogue between faith and science could be improved if scientists learned more about the Bible and the Church kept more up to date with scientific progress. He said he believed as an astronomer that the explanation for the start of the universe was “the big bang”, the theory that the universe exploded into existence from dense matter billions of years ago. He did clarify this position and said this was not in conflict with faith in God as a creator. “God is the creator. There is a sense to creation. We are not children of an accident. As an astronomer, I continue to believe that God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the product of something casual but children of a good Father who has a project of love in mind for us.”

That is a huge shift in Christian policy given that there was a time in the history of Christianity not so long ago,  when such statements would be considered heresy and one could be tortured and burned at the stake for making such comments. This openly recognized Church position makes this subject more applicable to this Extraterrestrial Communication Group project, given that the Christian Church is now a safe harbor on earth for the simultaneous belief in both angels and extraterrestrials.

As for the position of science; NASA actually awarded $1.1M to the Center for Theological Inquiry, an ecumenical research institute in New Jersey, to study “the societal implications of astrobiology”; which is a code phrase for intelligent extraterrestrial life. Some scientists were as expected, enraged. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFR), which actively promotes the division between Church and state, asked NASA to revoke the grant, and threatened to take legal action if NASA didn’t comply. While the FFR stated that their concern was the commingling of government and religious organizations; the FFR also made it clear that they thought the grant was a waste of money. “Science should not concern itself with how its progress will impact faith-based beliefs.”

The FFR’s argument might be easily undermined by people of faith; however, when the day comes that our all-inclusive humanity has to respond to the discovery of extraterrestrials, that discovery will raise numerous complex questions that will exceed the theological limitations of science. For example, when we ask, “What is life?” are we asking a scientific question or a theological one? Questions about life’s origins and its future are complicated, and must be explored equally across disciplines; which includes the way we respond to the discovery of extraterrestrials in the consideration of the origin of “Life.” This is not just a fictional or esoteric fantasy. Many scientists now contend that the detection of extraterrestrial life is more a question of when, and not if.

There are several reasons for this scientific confidence, but the primary reason is mostly about the speed at which scientists have been discovering human-habitable planets outside of our own Solar System. In 2000, astronomers knew of about 50 of these “exoplanets”. By 2013, they had found almost 850, located in over 800 planetary systems. That number may reach one million by the year 2045, says David Weintraub, associate professor of Astronomy at Vanderbilt University, and author of Religions and Extraterrestrial Life. “We can quite reasonably expect that the number of known exoplanets will soon become, like the stars, almost uncountable,” he writes. Of those discovered so far, more than 20 are earth-sized exoplanets that occupy a “habitable” zone around their star, including the most recently (in 2016) discovered Proxima B, which orbits Proxima Centauri. It seems that the more we are able to peek out deeper into space, the more certain we become that our planet is not the only one suitable for life as we know it.

With few exceptions, most of the discussions about SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) tend to stay within the boundaries of the traditional sciences. The implications of SETI however, extend far beyond the biology and physics; reaching to the humanities and philosophy and even theology. As Carl Sagan has pointed out in his book, The Cosmic Question, “space exploration leads directly to religious and philosophical questions”. We would need to consider whether our faiths could accommodate extraterrestrials; or if it will shake our faiths beliefs to their core.

Finding answers to these questions might be a new science called exotheology or astro-theology; terms defined by Ted Peters, Professor Emeritus in theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, to refer to “speculation on the theological significance of extraterrestrial life”. As he notes, Peters isn’t the first or only one to use the term, which dates back at least 300 years, to a 1714 publication titled ‘Astro-theology, or a “Demonstration of the being and Attributes of God from a Survey of the Heavens”.

What issues might the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrials raise? Let us start with the question of our uniqueness which is an issue that has troubled both theologians and scientists for a very long time.

There are three principals guiding SETI, as Paul Davies explains in the book Are We Alone? First, there’s the principle of nature’s uniformity, which claims that the physical processes seen on earth can be found throughout the universe. This means that the same processes that produce life here on earth produce life everywhere in the universe.

Second, is the principle of plenitude, which asserts that everything that is possible will be realized eventually. For the purposes of SETI, the second principle claims that as long as there are no impediments to the forming of life, then life will form; or, as Arthur Lovejoy, the American philosopher who coined the term, puts it, “no genuine possibility of being can remain unfulfilled”. That is because, claims Sagan, “The origin of life on suitable planets seems built into the chemistry of the universe.”

The third guiding principal is the mediocrity principle which claims that there is nothing special about earth’s status or position in the universe. This could present the greatest push-back from the major Abrahamic religions, which teach that human beings were and are purposefully created by God and occupy a privileged position in relation to other creatures.

With the loud protests of a small number of religious groups over teaching scientific concepts like evolution and the Big Bang in public schools, and the equally loud proclamations of a few scientists with personal, anti-religious philosophies, it can sometimes seem as though ​​science and religion are at war. News outlets offer plenty of reports of school board meetings, congressional sessions, and Sunday sermons in which scientists and religious leaders launch attacks at one another. But just how representative are such conflicts? In reality, the attention given to such clashes hides the far more numerous cases in which science and religion harmoniously, and even synergistically, coexist.

In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the ​​natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and ​​supernatural and therefore, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, a person doesn’t have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths. Some scientists, like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest, have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface and sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict.

Though such clashes may warrant publicity, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks view the natural world through an ​​evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.³

References:

¹ Reuters. Vatican scientist says belief in God and aliens is OK. Philip Pullella, Reporting. May 13, 2008

² BBC. If we made contact with aliens, how would religions react? Brandon Ambrosino. December 16, 2016

³ Berkley.edu: Understanding Science. Science and religion: Reconcilable differences

 

BBC News

Tamlin Magee. November 1, 2022

---

Humans are still searching for signs of Intelligent Life on other planets – but how would we react towards it if we ever did make contact?

According to many of our cultural touchstones, there’s only one thing for it if extraterrestrials ever take a cosmic detour to our planet: heavy artillery fire.

But from the sugary 1980s blockbuster ET the Extra-Terrestrial and the decades of Star Trek episodes to the books of Isaac Asimov and Ursula K Le Guin, science fiction writers have long wrangled with the question: how would we really treat them?

In popular culture, extraterrestrials are often cast as second-class citizens as or less than human. If it weren’t for the intervention of ET’s human friend, the titular Extraterrestrial would have been cut open on an operating room table. In the 2009 film District 9, millions of Extraterrestrial “prawns” are packed into South African slums – an allegory for human bigotry and cruelty in real life.

Evidence of extraterrestrial life has not yet been found, although we are certainly looking for it. In any case, anything we find in the near future is more likely to consist of the signs of microbial life that may have once existed on Mars than the humanoids depicted in films and TV shows.

But according to the Drake equation, there’s a decent chance, statistically speaking, that intelligent extraterrestrials are out there somewhere – even if the stars would have to align for us to find and contact each other, given the vastness of our galaxy and enormous distance between planets. “Finding life or making contact is always going to be highly unlikely until the day we do it,” says John Zarnecki, emeritus professor of space sciences at the Open University in the UK. “It reminds me of exoplanets: as a young researcher, it was a topic we talked about, and we all suspected exoplanets were out there, but there was no way that we’d ever find one because it was technically far too difficult.”

We now know exoplanets are out there, and some are even potential candidates for life because they host water. So with the search ongoing for   life and the possibility remaining that we encounter it, it’s not amiss to consider how we might react if we ever did make contact – especially considering an intelligent Extraterrestrial species is likely to be very different to our own human one.

Non-human rights

Writers don’t seem to have too much hope that humans would treat Extraterrestrials very well. Perhaps that’s because our track record of affording rights to the inhabitants of this planet, human or otherwise, has been so poor throughout history, despite the international legal conventions supposedly safeguarding them. The granting of inalienable, universal rights – that is, the rights guaranteed to all people no matter what – were enshrined by the international community into law through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 after the horrors of World War Two.

However, except for sanctions, there are limited means to enforce these rights even for humans. While these laws state that people are supposed to have rights like liberty and freedom from enslavement, afforded to each of us from birth to death, some political philosophers have suggested that in practice, these only really exist on paper.

A clue for how we might treat Extraterrestrials we ever do have contact with may lie in the rights we’ve afforded non-human species on our planet. Although many countries now recognize animals ranging from gorillas to crows as sentient, it’s only recently that animal rights groups have made some legal headway in affording “rights” to animals based on this sentience – loosely defined as their ability to experience comfort or distress.

We search the Universe to discover ourselves, because it forces us to reflect back on how we relate to each other, how we relate to our environment, and how we relate to other species and people – Jill Stuart

Some ethicists are already considering how the rights of a completely unfamiliar Extraterrestrial species would fit into our legal and ethical frameworks. But there’s been little in the way of open international discussion around Extraterrestrials. A question was raised at a United Nations General Assembly session in 1977 by the prime minister of Grenada, Eric M Gairy, who believed UFO sightings may have been signs of hostile extraterrestrial life on our planet, and suggested establishing an official investigation body through the UN. But no policy was adopted, and he was pressed to drop the topic by British diplomats, before being deposed in a coup the following year.

Some governments are taking an interest though. Back in 1999, journalist Leslie Kean was leaked a French dossier on UFOs showing generals and admirals believed the unexplained phenomena could potentially be extraterrestrial. Earlier this year, for the first time in decades, the US Congress publicly debated what to do about these mysterious flying objects; although there’s no evidence they’re of extraterrestrial origin.

Jill Stuart, a specialist in outer space law at the London School of Economics, doesn’t believe that humans will make contact with extraterrestrials within our lifetimes. But she still thinks considering what we would do in this situation is a conversation worth having. “We search the Universe to discover ourselves, because it forces us to reflect back on how we relate to each other, how we relate to our environment, and how we relate to other species and people,” she says. “These future-focused scenarios may never happen, but the whole process has value in and of itself.”

A Missing Plan

There are no international agreements or mechanisms in place for how humanity would handle an encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence, says Niklas Hedman, executive director of UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa). That’s not to say a framework could never exist. The UN, as the “prime global intergovernmental organization”, would be a fit for such mechanisms, he adds, but ultimately action and debate “boils down to the will of member states”.

Currently, all international space law relates to human activity, says Hedman. The first Outer Space Treaty was signed through the UN in 1967 by the UK, the Soviet Union, and the US, in response to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could reach targets in space. It serves as the basis for all existing space law, which has developed over time as new possibilities and concerns around space emerged.

All five of the major space treaties, which now cover everything from the prohibition of weapons through to liability for damage and debris from spacefaring nations, center around what humans do in space and how this affects other humans.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence group at the International Academy of Astronautics did adopt a post-detection framework in 2010, building on decades of prior debate. In the case of any detection of signals from intelligent extraterrestrial life, this recommends creating a forum for international coordination through the UN and its Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (Copuous).

Stuart believes it’s unlikely any widely accepted international framework will be developed until it needs to be. People like having material, real-life scenarios to consider in order to bring new ideas into law. Should contact happen, it’s possible that the existing legal frameworks that govern human rights could be extended and adapted to those of Extraterrestrials.

One major consideration in this case would be the intent of the Extraterrestrials: in short, whether they were benign or hostile. This feeds into the debate over whether we should actively be attempting to contact extraterrestrials, or passively looking for signals of their existence, Stuart says – an ongoing contentious question amongst space experts.

When it comes to Extraterrestrials, we have to ask: what kind of intelligence do they have, and why do they have it? – Susan Blackmore

So what would happen if a flying saucer suddenly crash-landed somewhere on Earth? No protocols have been set out or even suggested, but hypothetically, it’s possible that the country it landed in would find itself having to lead initial discussions for how to respond, says Stuart.

“There wouldn’t be any precedent or legal background for there to be responsibility,” Stuart says, adding that if a UFO had been shot down and landed in a nation state, there may be a case that the country should take responsibility for the fallout.

In a 2011 paper for The Royal Society on “supra-Earth affairs”, former Unoosa director Mazlan Othman proposed that the interest of countries in combating the dangers of near earth objects – i.e. asteroids – could offer a model for international cooperation if the existence of extraterrestrial life or intelligence is ever established.

With little in the way of agreed principles about how we would collectively treat any extraterrestrials we encounter, one approach could be simply applying the rights granted to humans. Fitting this into the existing legal framework would make sense, says Stuart.

It’s a reasonable assumption that any species that could travel to Earth would be of a high level of intelligence and sentience, and therefore should be treated akin to humans. This could support a case for “human rights” to evolve into “sentient rights”.

We would also need to take into account the various types of possible intelligence and sentience. Even on our own planet, there are all sorts of intelligences we are only just coming to recognize. The debate continues over whether octopuses, long famous for their intelligence, also have consciousness and can feel pain. The growing practice of mycology, meanwhile, indicates that some fungi show aspects of intelligence, such as having a capability to learn and engage in decision-making.

“When it comes to Extraterrestrials, we have to ask: what kind of intelligence do they have?” says Susan Blackmore, a writer and visiting professor at the University of Plymouth in the UK, who researches consciousness. “Why do they have it? I think we must assume these Extraterrestrials would have evolved by Darwinian evolutionary processes, because that’s the only process we know that will produce living intelligent things.”

Extraterrestrial sentience

In a recounting of a supposed Extraterrestrial encounter in Varginha, Brazil, set out in the 2022 UFO documentary Moment of Contact, a story is told about a mysterious creature claimed to have been found near a crash site clearly in some kind of physical pain. Whatever you think of the sighting, it could be a capacity for pain and suffering that might better guide our approach to affording rights to any visitors from other worlds.

“Could Extraterrestrials suffer?” Blackmore asks. “If so, we should have some moral obligation towards them, and perhaps even build legal frameworks on the basis of [this].”

The ethicist Peter Singer, who has written on the subject of inalienable rights for extraterrestrials as well as animals, says that sentience would ultimately be the key consideration. “Assuming that the extraterrestrial being is sentient, in the sense capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and has other desires and interests that it may take us some time to ascertain, the fundamental ethical principle we should apply is equal consideration of similar interests,” he says.

This term, based on a concept set out by Singer back in 1979, means that all beings capable of enjoyment or suffering deserve to have their interests equally taken into account in any moral decision that affects them. “In other words, the pain of an extraterrestrial counts as much as the pain of an Earthling.”

The difficult issue here would be establishing what interests the extraterrestrials had, he adds. “A lot would depend on the cognitive capacities of the extraterrestrials, which may be far more advanced than those of dolphins, or humans, for that matter – and if they are far more advanced than our own, we may not be able to grasp what they are.”

The Nonhuman Rights Project, a US organization which aims to secure rights for nonhuman animals, believes the starting place for these rights is autonomy, a concept valued in US courts which means an individual has the ability to choose what to do, where to go, how to act, and memory of events that have previously occurred. Consciousness, meanwhile, is far too broad a category to serve as a legal criterion for rights, because no one agrees on what it actually is.

“Today, at least in the United States, every human is born with the inalienable right to liberty, but it wasn’t always the case that all humans had that right,” says Jake Davis, attorney at the Nonhuman Rights Project. “It took many years, it took a civil war, and an immense amount of struggle for every human to be put on equal footing as far as the right to bodily liberty and integrity goes.

“My wish is that if an extraterrestrial species reached out to us, and they weren’t hostile, that we wouldn’t just assume that they are like nonhuman animals – things with which we could do whatever we wanted, because we are human, and they are not. My wish would be that we would evaluate them as peers to the extent that they show those capabilities [such as autonomy] and go from there.”

According to Lori Marino, a former director at the Nonhuman Rights Project, even intelligence and sentience are difficult concepts for experts to agree on. “They are both fuzzy concepts,” she says. “But I would feel confident saying intelligence is how one processes information and sentience is the ability to feel and be aware of feeling.”

In the case of finding multicellular organisms on another planet, provided they are moving, it’s a good bet they are intelligent and sentient, she argues. They would need some form of intelligence in order to exist at all, she suggests. “We should make the assumption that they are sentient and, therefore, capable of suffering, and leave them alone. Of course I am not so naïve to think we will, but that is morally what we should do.”

The idea that humans should ourselves avoid interfering with the natural development of Extraterrestrial civilizations itself has a long history in science fiction, such as in Star Trek’s “Prime Directive” – although in this fictional world, the principal can be overridden if the Extraterrestrial species is deemed too dangerous. Similar ideas are already considered in our own world today, however – NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection, for example, aims to protect both explored planets and Earth.

If Extraterrestrials can make it to our planet, though, perhaps it’s not their rights we should be worrying about.

Seth Shostak, senior astronomer for the SETI Institute, a non-profit research organization which aims to understand and explain the origin and nature of life in the Universe, is optimistic for some contact in our lifetime. But it’s important to differentiate between two kinds of contact, he says.

It’s more likely that we would receive signs and signals from technologically advanced civilizations than receive an Extraterrestrial visit. If we received signs, there would not be any great urgency, because any signal we do send would take so long to arrive that we’d have plenty of time to be deliberate about what we say back.

An Extraterrestrial visit, however, would mean the Extraterrestrial civilization has access to technology far beyond what we’re capable of. When ET’s pals at last pick up the hapless creature at the end of the blockbuster, they probably could have obliterated Earth on their way back “home”, if they had had the inclination.

“If they arrive, personally, I’m going to buy a lot of frozen pizza and head for the hills,” says Shostak. “If they can get here, as opposed to transmitting a message, they are more advanced than we are by an enormous margin.”

In this case, a more appropriate question might be: would our new Extraterrestrial overlords afford us rights?

“What are you going to do if they’re aggressive?” asks Shostak. “It’d be like Neanderthals trying to meet with the US Air Force: the Neanderthals could have all the policies they want, but it wouldn’t matter.”

The following is an abbreviated version of a Declassified NASA document originally published as Classified in 1975. Declassification date is unknown. The entire original document can be found at: NASA Document 3052333 Declassified

This document provides much support for some of the key points made in my Extraterrestrial Communication Code book such as:

1. Extraterrestrials probably left us a message to find and respond to; which we have not.
2. The messages we are sending are way too complicated to be interpreted as intended if found by extraterrestrials.
3. Back to Basics approach to the problem

NASA Document: 3052333 : FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Lambros D. Callimahos: 

Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence

We are not alone in the universe. A few years ago, this notion seemed far-fetched; today, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is taken for granted by most scientists. Even the staid National Academy of Sciences has gone on record that contact with other (extraterrestrial) “civilizations” is no longer something beyond our dreams but a natural event in the history of mankind that will perhaps occur in the lifetime of many of us. Sir  Bernard  Lovell, one of the world’s leading radio astronomers, has  calculated that, even allowing for a margin of error of 5,000%, there must be in our galaxy about 100 million stars which have planets of the right chemistry, dimensions, and temperature to support (extraterrestrial) organic evolution. If we consider that our own galaxy, the Milky  Way, is but one of at least a billion other galaxies similar to ours in the observable universe, the number of stars that could support some form of (extraterrestrial) life is, to reach for a word, astronomical. As to advanced forms of (extraterrestrial) life—advanced by our own miserable earth standards—Dr. Frank D. Drake of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank, West Virginia, has stated that, putting all our knowledge together, the number of (extraterrestrial) civilizations which could have arisen by now is about one billion. The next question is, “Where is everybody?”

Unless we are terribly conceited (a very unscientific demeanor), we must assume that the “others”(extraterrestrials) are far more advanced than we are. Even a 50- year gap would be tremendous; a 500-year gap staggers the imagination, and as for a 5,000-year gap… (By the way, if they are as much as 50 years behind us, forget it!) It is quite possible that “others” have satellite probes in space, retransmitting to “them” anything that sounds nonrandom to the probe. But they  have probably  called  us several thousand years ago, and are waiting for an answer;  or  worse  yet, they  have  given   up;  or,  more probably, they (extraterrestrials) have reached such impressive technological advances that they have destroyed themselves. In this connection, Professor Losif Shklovsky, Russia’s greatest radio astronomer, has cited the profound crises which lie in wait for a developing civilization, any one of which may well prove fatal:

1. Self-destruction as a result of a thermonuclear catastrophe or some other discovery which may have unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences;
2. Genetic danger;
3. Overproduction of information;
4. Restricted capacity of the individual’s brain, which can lead to excessive specialization, with consequent dangers of degeneration; and
5. A crisis precipitated by the creation of artificial intelligent

Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti were the targets on which Dr. Drake focused his attention in the spring of 1960 in Project Ozma, an attempt to detect possible intelligent signals from outer space.

The growing presumption that (extraterrestrial) life exists in other worlds led, in 1971, to a six-nation multidisciplinary conference held in Soviet Armenia on Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The U.S. delegation of about two dozen scientists was headed by Dr. Carl Sagan of the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell University. The report of this conference, published in 1973 by MIT, deals with such subjects as the evolution of intelligence, the lifetimes of technical civilizations, and the number of advanced galactic (extraterrestrial) civilizations. Last November (1974)  a group of scientists at Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico sent a three -minute message beamed at Messier 13, and this represented man’s first attempt to take the initiative in communicating with another civilization. The project was conducted by the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, which operates the Arecibo Observatory for Cornell University and the National Science Foundation. Actually, the main purpose of the experiment was to dramatize the capabilities of the world’s  largest antenna at the Arecibo Observatory at that time. The message, consisting of 1271 binary digits or “bits,” is shown in Figure 1. Since 1271 has but two prime factors, 31 and 41, we would naturally be lead to write out the message in raster form, in 41 lines of 31 bits each, or in 31 lines of 41 bits each; the latter case reveals a greater non-randomness in the patterns disclosed, indicating that these are the correct dimensions.

Figure 1 (See Original Document Link)

If another (extraterrestrial) civilization were trying to establish communication with us, it would first embark on attention-getting signals of such a nature that we could distinguish them from random cosmic noise; once we receive a recognizable signal, we have a good chance of understanding the message. For example, they could start with trains of signals corresponding to the natural number 1, 2, 3…, followed perhaps by prime numbers. They might continue with equal-length extended signals consisting of start and stop impulses, with occasional pulses in between; when these signals are aligned flush over one another, they would show a circle, the Pythagorean Theorem, or similar geometric design. ”these attention-getting signals would be followed by what amounts to early “language lessons,” interspersed with items of technical information to help bring us up to the level of our superiors, “them.”

In Figure 2 is shown the write-out of the message, in which the binary 1’s have been replaced by a dot and the 0’s left as blank spaces.

Figure 2 (See Original Document Link)

Now for its interpretation: (Way too Complicated)

There are dots at the four corners of the pictogram as reference points, marking the outlines of the rectangle. At the upper left is a representation of the sun; directly underneath in a column are dots representing 8 planets, identified by the appropriate binary coding to their left, preceded by a binary point as a marker. The erect, two-legged beings illustrated are obviously bisexual and mammalian.  One hand of the male figure points to the fourth planet where they apparently reside. At the top of the pictogram may be seen representations of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen atoms, indicating that the chemical structure of life on their planet is similar to ours.  From the third planet there emerges a wavy line, showing that it is covered with water; the fish shows that they must have visited us and therefore have space travel. One hand of the female figure points to a six (preceded by the usual binary point), perhaps implying that there are six fingers on each hand;  we  could   therefore  assume  that  their number system is probably to the base 12. At the right of the female figure may be seen a bracket, in the middle of which is eleven in binary form (preceded by a binary point): this implies that the beings are 11 units high. A reasonable interpretation is that the unit is 21 cm, the wave length of the transmission, making them about 2-feet tall, which should be all right for average Martians.

In 1952 the British scientist Lancelot Hogben delivered an address before the British interplanetary Society entitled “Astraglossa”, or First Steps in Celestial Syntax. Hogben pointed out that number is the most universal concept for establishing communication between intelligent beings, therefore mathematics forms the basis for the first steps in extraterrestrial communication;  he then illustrated how he could transmit pulses representing integers, and distinctive signals or “radioglyphs” representing ” —{- ”, ”— ”, ”= “, and so on. Morrison later carried out the basic idea a little further, using different pulse shapes to represent elementary mathematical symbols. An entirely different approach was developed by Hans Freudenthal, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Utrecht, who in 1960 published a book entitled Lincos- Design of a Language for (osmic Intercourse. ”Lincos,” an acronym of “lingua cosmica,” tries to establish a communication of ideas through symbolic logic, but the general consensus of those who have taken the trouble to study his book is that his plan is too difficult. After all, the object of the exercise is getting ideas across to another party, whose thinking processes may be entirely different from our own. In other words, what we need to develop is an “inverse cryptography,” or communication symbolism specially designed, not to hide meaning, but to be as easy as possible to comprehend. Cleverness on the part of the sender is then the important factor, not reliance on ingenuity of the recipient. (Back to Basics Approach)

The inverse cryptographer—somehow, this term doesn’t  sound quite right—must make his meaning clear to the recipient, even if the latter does not possess a cosmic equivalent of the Rosetta Stone.

As an illustration of how much information could be conveyed with a minimum of material, and as an example of facile inverse cryptography, let us consider a message I have devised to be typical of what we might expect of an initial communication from outer space. In Figure 3 is shown a series of transmissions which could have come from another inhabited planet, many light years away.

Figure 3 (See original Document Link- Still way too Complicated)

The 32 arbitrary symbols are representations for the 32 different signals (combinations of beeps, or distinctive pulse shapes) heard on a frequency of 1420.4 megacycles.

The punctuation marks are not part of the message, but here represent different time lapses: adjacent symbols are sent with a short pause (1 unit) between them; a space between symbols   means   a   longer   pause   (2   units); commas, semicolons, and periods indicate pauses of 4, 8, and 16 units, respectively.  Between transmissions (numbered here for reference purposes) there is a time lapse of 32 units.

The first transmission, (1), is obviously an enumeration of the 32 different symbols which will be used in the communications; in transmission (2) is the clear implication that A represents the integer 1, B the integer 2, and so on to J being the integer 10. In transmission (3), the symbols K for a plus sign and L for “equals” are introduced; in (4), the symbol M stands for “minus”; in (5), the symbol N stands for the concept and sign for zero. In (6), the concept of decimal notation is introduced; in (7), the symbol O must stand for the multiplication sign; in (8), the symbol P must stand for sign for division; in (9), the symbol Q must represent a sign for the reciprocal; and in (10), the symbol R must stand for a decimal point. In the next ten transmissions there are introduced the concepts and symbols for inequalities, approximations, nested parentheses and brackets, powers and roots, factorials, and infinite series defining pi and e. Transmission (21) adds nothing new to the 31 symbols recovered thus far, but  it does quote one of the most beautiful concepts in pure mathematics, Euler’s identity, e —[-  1  =  0.   With this they are telling us that, if they can teach us such a complex notion at this early stage, we will be staggered by what they will teach us by the 200th or 2000th transmission.

Beginning   with   transmission   (22), words and word-cluster concepts are introduced, so that by the time we come to transmission (30) we are now understanding, in a manner of   speaking,    pure    Venerean   sentences. Greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes. Furthermore,  we can  now see  how we could  recover the It will not be difficult for “them” (extraterrestrials)  to demonstrate their code  they  are  using  on  us,  and   which  will  obviously intellectual and technological superiority (first of all, consist of thousands  upon  thousands of code groups with don’t forget it was they who were able to call us!). If different  meaning;  this  is  easily  appreciated by anyone “they” but know the seventh digit of the “fine” structure who  takes  the  trouble  to  fathom  the  meaning of all 30 constant, ” they are ages ahead of us (we know only the transmissions in the foregoing example first five for  sure,  suspect  the  sixth). This  number, even  right after  this first series of transmissions, if we 137.039…, is the ratio, among  others,  of  the speed  of are  in  direct  communication  with  that  planet,  we shall light to the speed of the hydrogen electron; it may take a have questions  to  put  to  ”them” (extraterrestrials):  the  proof of Fermat’s century to calculate this constant to 9 digit. And after we Last  Theorem,  Goldbach’s  conjecture,  and  many other resolve our pressing scientific questions, it might be unsolved    problems   in   mathematics   and   the   natural appropriate to make discrete inquiries as to how we could sciences.  By the way, Goldbach’s  ’ notorious” conjecture live in harmony and peace with our fellow man—that is, is called by that adjective only because other if we aren’t eaten or otherwise ingested by the superior mathematicians weren’t  imaginative  enough  to make the civilization that had the good fortune to contact us. But as conjecture themselves; it states that every even number far as the cryptologist is concerned, he (and generations of his descendants who might  experience  the  supreme  thrill of their lives when we hear from  “them” (extraterrestrials)  must  keep  a  level head, not get excited, and be prepared to cope with problems the likes of  which  he  has  never  seen. 

Mr. Callimahos won world renown as a flute virtuoso before serving in the Army cryptologic unit in World Wars II. The author of many textbooks, monographs, studies and articles, including the ones on cryptology in the World Book Encyclopedia, Collier’s Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, he has for twenty years taught NSA’s senior course in cryptanalysis.

 

 

 

 

Area 51 website owner who says armed feds raided his homes speaks out: ‘It could be your door next’

Arnu says all he knows is that the investigation was related to something he posted online

Fox News / Andrew Mark Miller / November 20, 2022 7:47am EST

 The owner of a prominent Area 51 website is speaking out after he says federal government agents raided his homes at gunpoint and broke down the doors while investigating a crime he still does not know the details of.

“I discussed the case with an attorney specialized in Federal cases,” Joerg Arnu, proprietor of the website Area-51 themed website Dreamland Resort.com, said in a statement to Fox News Digital on Saturday.  “What I learned is truly incredible and in my opinion a much bigger story than the raid of my homes. What was done to me and my girlfriend, two unarmed, innocent, cooperating senior citizens, is apparently totally within the law. Truly incredible!”

It was reported earlier this week, that Arnu claimed 15-20 armed federal authorities from the U.S. Air Force and FBI raided two Nevada homes belonging to him and his girlfriend including a home he was present in where he says agents busted through his door and yanked the pair outside where they were “detained and treated in the most disrespectful way.”

Arnu said on Saturday that he still does not know what specific crime he violated and only knows what an agent told him during the raid that the incident was “related to images posted on my Area 51 website.”

(L) Joerg Arnu,(R) Door on Joerg Arnu’s property 

Arnu claims that between the damages to his houses, including the broken down door, and the value of the hard drives, cameras, and other equipment, amounts to a dollar value of around $25,000. “I have not been charged with a crime and all my attempts to reach out to the FBI to at least get my much-needed medical and financial records and passwords stored on the seized computers were in vain,” Arnu said. “Crickets from the feds!”

In photos provided to Fox News Digital, doors to Arnu’s homes can be seen bent and damaged where he says agents stormed into his dwelling. Arnu explained earlier this week that his girlfriend was “led out into the street barefoot and only in her underwear in full view of the neighbors” during the raid and that he was led outside “handcuffed and only in a T-shirt and sweats in sub-freezing temperatures.”

“The federal government has the right to harass and traumatize random citizens that are not accused of any crime,” Arnu said. “Kick in their doors, manhandle them and take whatever they want from them. Said citizens have no rights whatsoever to reimbursement of their damages, return of their property or compensation for the trauma they were subjected to.”

Lt. Col. Bryon McGarry, Nellis Air Force Base spokesperson, confirmed to Fox News Digital that there is currently an open investigation into Arnu but did not provide details as to the specific crime.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation multiple times but did not immediately receive a response.

Arnu started Dreamland Resort in 1999 and the site features videos of drone footage from around Area 51, satellite images of the base, discussion forums, and articles on various rumored top-secret projects involving UFOs. The site also features photos of “super-secret” aircraft being developed by the U.S. military.

Arnu says that he took down some photos from this website following the raid in an attempt to “diffuse” the situation but does not believe he posted anything illegal.

Arnu created a GoFundMe to raise money to replace the items he says that his lawyer told him he is unlikely to get back. “By the time you get your laptops back they will be obsolete,” Arnu says his lawyer told him. “IF you get them back.” Arnu has suggested that he will take legal action in order to recover his property.

“This is America, land of the free,” Arnu said. “Not so much from where I am standing right now. Everyone should know about this injustice. It could be your door that is kicked in next!”

Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

 

UFOs Have Landed in Congress, where Legislation addressing them will be considered

Lawmakers want to know exactly what threat ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ may pose.

Reference: Chad Pergram / Fox News / August 29, 2022

Masked in turgid language deep inside next year’s Senate intelligence authorization bill lays the following sentence: “Cross-domain trans-medium threats to United States’ national security are expanding exponentially.” What if I decoded that sentence to tell you that lawmakers are petrified about growing threats to the U.S. from UFOs?

Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray explains a video of an unidentified aerial phenomenon as he testifies before a House Intelligence Committee subcommittee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on May 17, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

For the first time in history, Congress is recognizing that unidentified aerial phenomena, or “UAPs” as they’re now called, may exist. And, if Congress approves the intelligence bill, lawmakers will mandate the creation of a special government office to determine what’s terrestrial and what’s extraterrestrial. The truth may be out there. But you can’t find it without first filleting the otherworldly, legislative bill text.

Unidentified Flying Objects have stumped military pilots for decades. They defy physics. Perform impossible aerodynamic maneuvers against the wind. They zip around at staggering speeds. That’s why lawmakers are compelling the military to unravel what we don’t understand.

“There are unexplained events out there,” said former CIA officer and Senate leadership intelligence adviser Ron Marks. “And if you can’t explain it, then, as a good intelligence person, you should analyze it to know what’s there and what’s not.”

Lawmakers have long been skeptical of whether the military and intelligence communities were fessing up about what they knew, or conceding what they didn’t know, about stuff that could be flying around overhead. That’s why the House Intelligence Committee conducted the first hearing on UFOs in more than 50 years back in May. “When we spot something we don’t understand or can’t identify in our airspace, it’s the job of those we entrust with our national security to investigate and to report back,” said Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

But the hearing may have created more questions than answers.

Pentagon hearing shows UFOs spotted using both human and two technical sensors, May 17, 2022. (FOX News)

Military officials played two videos at the hearing. One depicted a UFO event that they were able to explain as a visual anomaly, thanks to night-vision goggles and recording equipment. The other episode remains a mystery. However, the videos shown at the hearing were challenging to decipher. “Congress is responding to classified data because the unclassified data that we had all seen includes fuzzy images that are not very convincing,” said Avi Loeb, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at Harvard University. “And I wouldn’t expect such a bill to be authorized unless there was much more convincing evidence, which I’m sure there is.” There’s concern the military may be hiding something. “I’ve always felt that it was the military attempting to, to some extent, disguise advanced programs that they were working on,” said Marks. “But there are some things that do need to be explained.” Lawmakers also worry that if the technology isn’t emanating from the U.S. or outer space it could be the Russians or Chinese; and that could pose an even bigger threat.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the top GOPer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested as much in 2020 during an interview with CBS.

“Frankly, if it’s something outside this planet that might actually be better than the fact that we’ve seen some sort of technological leap from the Chinese or Russians or some other adversary that allows them to conduct this sort of activity,” said Rubio three years ago. “That to me is a national security risk and one we should be looking into.” This is why lawmakers and others who study the cosmos say it’s incumbent upon the defense and intelligence communities to identify the unidentifiable.

“The government is the organization that monitors the sky all the time for national security purposes,” said Loeb. “So, you would expect those people who have their day job to monitor the sky to find such objects first. We just need to figure out what these objects are.” Loeb said the government isn’t a “scientific organization,” adding officials are worried about “national security.” He says that enhances the onus on the government to try to figure some of this out.

It’s one thing to have people in Roswell, N.M., back in 1947 see things or even have sightings in the mid-1970s after the release of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” It’s another thing for people to spot things today. Loeb says that’s why the government should be able to better explain some of the events. “I think there is much better data now than there used to be decades ago. So, rather than worry about reports that took place decades ago that were not of high quality and that were anecdotal, now we have excellent instrumentation that was not available,” said Loeb.

At the springtime hearing, lawmakers said that there was still a bias inside the military. Navy and Air Force pilots feared their credibility was on the line when they reported seeing strange things in the skies. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., who led the hearing, said some pilots worried that their superiors would describe them as “kooks.” Ron Marks invoked resistance among government officials to fully investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or explore the POW/MIA issue. While there’s far from anything conclusive, Loeb suspects that people resist possibilities that could shift established paradigms.

No one believed Nicolaus Copernicus and his idea that the Earth and planets

revolved around the sun in the 16th century. He faced trials from the Catholic Church. Galileo was placed under house arrest for his beliefs. “There is a stigma and there is some ridicule in discussing the possibility of extraterrestrials. But the point is, whatever it is; we should figure out what it is rather than ignore it,” said Loeb. “We should be open-minded because we may not be the smartest kid on our cosmic block.”

Congress must first approve the intelligence bill before anything happens. But just the existence of the language in this bill denotes a key shift in thinking about the unexplained. Perhaps this is one small step that could become a giant leap when it comes to UFOs.

Chad Pergram currently serves as a senior congressional correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.

Taken from the Exordium (Preface) of my new book in progress,  Angel Communication Code:

The obvious and intended messages of Scripture and angels are about how we get to the eternal life in heaven. If we are looking for it, we can see that the history and structure of angels may also be pointing us in the direction of ET communication and our place in the universe via a specific coded message, and not just the way to heaven.  This book will examine the historic evidence and reveal new evidence that may have been provided by angels or by those humans who defined the structure of angels. This will be accomplished by way of establishing links to the unique discoveries presented in my first book entitled “Extraterrestrial Communication Code”. Extraterrestrial Communication Code is about the discovery and interpretation of a possible ET crafted cypher and how its solution leads to a response to that ET message intended to establish two-way communication with Ets.  The cypher and its message are derived by uniquely linking information from science, history, mathematics, geography, and logic. The code was discovered and then decyphered to reveal what might be the solution to establishing active communication with our ET brothers in our lifetime. It is a new and untested scientific hypothesis. The book concludes by designing and proposing an experiment to put the hypothesis to the test.

At the heart of Extraterrestrial Communication Code’s premise is the use of prime number 3 and the first three prime numbers in series, 2, 3, and 5. These numbers are the root of the code’s discovery and development.

Clues have been presented throughout human history that can and should be considered obvious, direct, and credible evidence that supports the theory of a historic presence and direct contact with ETs here on earth. Of this there can be no doubt as the evidence is overwhelming. There are many ancient writings, including the Bible, that talk about gods and visitors from the sky coming to earth and interacting with humans. That has not so much been the case however, since the time after the global flood during the time of Noah.

The ETs and “gods” communicated directly and walked among humans, did their thing, and then disconnected from earthlings for the most part. There is a difference between contact and communication. One of the most important unsolved mysteries in the contemporary ET communication quest is  the lack of two-way communication with ETs in the contemporary era. Why is it not happening anymore? What are we doing wrong in our efforts to re-establish open communications?

There are numerous former government agents, military personnel, astronauts, and commercial airplane pilots that are now speaking out and divulging information about what they know. These are eye-witness accounts coming from extremely qualified and credible people describing direct observation of ETs in action and their technology. Not a single one of these accounts discuss that there was any meaningful and open two-way communication with ETs; at least in this “dimension of consciousness”. There are those that claim they can enter their minds into another dimension of consciousness and actually communicate with ETs via a higher level of consciousness. This is discussed in some detail this new book.

We absolutely know that there are pieces of our recorded history, including the Bible, that are not completely accurate either deliberately or because of blind bias, blind faith, translation issues or by the inclusion of inaccurate information (unintentional or otherwise).  We are past the point of questioning ET existence in the universe and the fact that they have been to earth. There is no need to continuously re-hash the same evidence repeatedly. We get it; and we accept the fact that ETs exist in the universe and have been to earth.   The time has come to move forward and focus on establishing two-way communication with them. To that end, there is evidence to suggest that ETs and / or angels, left clues for us to discover and decipher that when accurately interpreted, reveal a way to establish direct two-way communication with them. There are many reasons why Ets  might have taken this approach that are detailed in the Extraterrestrial Communication Code book.

The concepts and facts sited this second book, Angel Communication Code, may encroach upon traditional Christian interpretations of angels and their role in human history. As is the case with Extraterrestrial Communication Code; there are discoveries revealed in this book that are unique and directly apply to this two-way ET communication project.

There is room for a broader interpretation of traditionally accepted Christian (and all religious) teachings and beliefs regarding intelligent extraterrestrial life in the universe and the role of angels in the whole thing. These interpretations can be made without challenging or undermining the fundamental beliefs and teachings of any religious faith and their respective equivalents to Christian “Angels.”

The intent of the presentations made in this book is not to undermine any person’s faith or beliefs regarding Christian Angels or angel equivalents from other world religions. The intent is to present the applicable facts in a way that legitimizes the possibility that humans have been provided clues that point to a “code” that unlocks a way to establish meaningful communication with intelligent life from places far from earth. The hypothesis alluded to in this book is that angels (and other Biblical characters) may have been involved in the deposition of some of these clues. This book is not about faith or religion. This book is about finding a code that the angel themselves or the use of angels as messengers may have provided for us to find, figure out and use to establish two-way ET communication.

Extraterrestrial Communication Code reveals and deciphers a code for establishing communication with extraterrestrials; however, there is very little discussion in that book about angels playing a role in any of it.  The facts and interpretations presented in this new book will strengthen the Extraterrestrial Communication Code’s findings and further support the hypothesis and the experiment proposed to test the hypothesis consistent with  the accepted scientific method.

Religious teachings and beliefs can and do co-exist with the existence of ETs. This synergy is woven into the multi-dimensional fabric of the universe and all life within the universe.

 

The Government Is Officially Preparing For First Alien Contact

Advancements in technology have made the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI) more likely to result in alien contact than at another point in our history as a species. Science has made it so that astronomers are able to detect the makeup of planets outside of our solar system. As a result, a new research hub dedicated solely to the quest for alien life has been established in Scotland.

According to an interview with VICE, John Elliot, an honorary research fellow at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland has realized one of his dreams and officially established an alien contact research center. The SETI-Post Detection Hub focuses on what comes after first contact with an alien species has been established. The science at the new research center deals with how to communicate, not only with an alien species but with humans. Convincing a skeptical populace that aliens are real and contact has been made is a tricky proposition that crosses into multiple fields of study.

Elliot and his team are operating under the assumption that alien contact is inevitable. If other scientists are working hard on the actual finding of life, it stands to reason that someone needs to be prepared for what comes next. Going beyond science, the SETI-Post Detection Hub is attempting to answer the legal, ethical, and logistical problems from realizing that humans are not alone in the universe.

Part of the SETI-Post Detection Hub’s research is on human behavior after alien contact has been established. To that end, Elliot’s team is not only comprised of scientists, but also lawyers, sociologists, and UFO enthusiasts from around the world. The hope is to address an issue science cannot solve: conspiracy theorists that will insist a signal, even after verification, is being faked.

The joint collaboration came after Elliot received encouragement from other members of the United Kingdom’s SETI Network to draft a plan and formulate a response for when alien contact is confirmed. Scientists working on SETI worry that the original strategic plan, drafted in 1989, has not kept pace with the advance of science over the last 30 years. Currently functional, the SETI-Post Detection Hub is already experimenting with potential methods of communication regarding an alien signal.

Back in 1989, social media misinformation was not a concern for researchers. Today, Elliot says a strategy is needed to handle the extensive, complicated web of social media and modern ways of viewing information. The science behind this is not exact and a lot depends on the method of alien contact.

According to Eliot and his team, detecting fossilized remains of microbes is one thing, but an intelligent species reaching out to planet Earth is a much different issue. NASA’s latest missions to Mars, for example, may find ancient remains of aliens, but that is a different type of alien contact that is much easier to handle with traditional scientific methods. Inter-disciplinary methods are required where science alone is not enough and that is where the SETI-Post Detection Hub is focusing its efforts. Hollywood has shown different versions of what a post-contact world may look like, but now there is a dedicated team trying to make that our reality.

MSN.com, Jonathan Klotz 

Sharing this important publication from Scientific American with the ET Comm Group:

Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

“The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the forthcoming report concludes. So what’s going on?

For more than a decade, the U.S. Department of Defense has been quietly cataloging and investigating scores of bizarre encounters—most from the U.S. Navy—of ships and fighter jets tangling with, or being tailgated by, unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Beginning in 2017, videos and eyewitness accounts of these weird sightings found their way into public view, ultimately spurring Congress to demand that the Pentagon produce a report summarizing all that the U.S. government knows about so-called unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP (an alternate term with considerably less stigma than the much maligned “UFOs”).

Produced under the auspices of a Pentagon group called the UAP Task Force, an unclassified version of the report is expected to be released later this month. Upon establishing the task force, the DOD released an accompanying statement explaining the justifications for its existence:

“The safety of our personnel and the security of our operations are of paramount concern. The Department of Defense and the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously and examine each report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.”

ASSESSING THE “ALIEN” HYPOTHESIS

Meanwhile all this strangeness has garnered considerable media attention, from front-page stories in the New York Times to 13,000-word articles in the New Yorker, as well as prominent coverage on 60 Minutes and other prime-time television programs. Through it all, a sizable contingent of true believers have steadily proclaimed, “We told you so,” insistent in their conviction that, whether called UFOs or UAP, the entities seemingly slipping through our skies are actually alien spacecraft—and have been visiting Earth for a very long time.

Those deeply entrenched public beliefs, paired with the apparent reinvigoration of investigative interest in these incidents at the highest levels of government, can lead to dazzling speculations. Might we be on the verge of a formal disclosure—backed by irrefutable evidence—that humankind is not alone and is indeed being monitored by extraterrestrial civilizations? Or could it be that UAP are entirely homegrown products of revolutionary and clandestine technological advances, whether by other countries now challenging American airspace or by the U.S. itself as part of some super-secret domestic program meant to detect flaws in the nation’s defenses? The mind boggles.

Although the task force’s unclassified assessment is not expected until June 25, the New York Times provided a cursory preview of its contents in an article on June 3. Citing anonymous senior officials familiar with the report’s contents, the story said that the assessment has come up short of explaining what UAP are and that it provides no evidence to link them with any putative alien visitation—despite reviewing more than 120 incidents from the past 20 years. The report’s firmest conclusion, it seems, is that the vast majority of UAP happenings and their surprising maneuvers are not caused by any U.S. advanced technology programs.

Lastly, according to the New York Times article, the final report includes a “classified annex” of information deemed unsuitable for public release—leaving more than enough room for die-hard UFO advocates to remain convinced that the U.S. government is hiding the truth.

NO “BIG REVEAL”

Andrew Fraknoi, an astronomer at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco, echoes the widely held sentiment among scientists that, for decades, the media has lavished too much attention on sensational claims that vague lights in the sky are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft. “Recently, there has been a flurry of misleading publicity about UFOs [based on military reports]. A sober examination of these claims reveals that there is a lot less to them than first meets the eye,” Fraknoi says. Given sufficient evidence (which, arguably, many of the recent reports fail to provide), UFO sightings can essentially always be tied to terrestrial or celestial phenomena, such as lights from human-made vehicles and reentering space junk, he adds.

There is not going to be any “big reveal,” says Robert Sheaffer, a leading skeptical investigator of UFOs. “There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot ‘disclose’ what it does not have. Some people think that the government knows more about UFOs, or UAP, than the public, but it’s clear that they know less on the subject than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more.”

The DOD employs some very competent photographic analysts and other technical experts, “none of whom obviously were consulted in this comedy of errors,” Sheaffer says. “The Pentagon has already suffered enough embarrassment from the [apparent] incompetence of its UAP Task Force.” He says it is time to rein in such “rampant foolishness” and ensure that proper experts will shape the task force’s conclusions rather than “clueless, self-important people who don’t even recognize out-of-focus images when they see them.”

REAL ISSUES

Skeptical science writer Mick West has taken on the chore of analyzing the spate of UAP videos released by the U.S. military, steadfastly investigating how some of the incidents could merely be mirages from flaws in newly deployed radar systems, as well as various sorts of well-understood visual artifacts regularly seen in cameras. Despite his work to debunk the recent claims, West maintains that reports of mysterious aircraft stalking military assets should be taken quite seriously.

“Firstly, there’s a set of very real issues that could be grouped together as ‘UAPs’ or ‘UFOs,’” West says. “Any time something unidentified shows up in restricted airspace, then that’s a real problem that needs solving.” There have been many reports of drones above or near restricted areas, he notes. “We know that drones have been used for terrorist attacks, and drones will very much be a significant factor in future conflicts,” West says. “So we need to figure out how to identify and mitigate such things.”

Another real issue is that pilots sometimes see things that they cannot readily identify, West says, and they may misidentify such objects. Regardless of what such pilots actually observe, this is a problem. “If something there is hard to identify—like a novel drone—then we need to figure out how to identify it,” he says. “If the pilots are making mistakes, then we need to figure out why.”

THE “DISCLOSURE” FEEDBACK LOOP

“The advocates of alien disclosure are encroaching on these real issues of UAPs,” West says. These believers take mundane videos of incidents that are simply unidentified, he says, and then reframe them as evidence of extraordinary technology—which, of course, is intended to mean “aliens,” even if enthusiasts for that hypothesis will not explicitly say so. This cultivates credulous media attention, which in turn creates a feedback loop of public interest, more media and then pressure on politicians to “do something.”

“All the while, the military makes no comments, because that’s their modus operandi. Military things are assumed classified by default, and there is nothing compelling them to clear things up,” West says. In the end, he hopes that the forthcoming report represents the views of serious people finally stepping in to clear up what is—and is not—going on.

“I expect much discussion and information about the real issues of unidentified flying objects. But I do not anticipate it will have much that will please the UFO enthusiasts,” West says.

WAIT AND SEE

One person who is taking a “wait and see” attitude about the upcoming report is Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, a research scientist in planetary studies at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The history of scientific studies of UAP in the U.S. is not limited to the recently released video snippets, which is a good reminder to avoid painting the whole phenomenon with one broad brush, he says. Additionally, this is not a U.S.-specific issue, nor is it limited to observations by U.S. armed forces.

“There may not be a single explanation to all such observations. What I would suggest is that we not leap to any conclusions when the findings of the report are made public,” Kopparapu says. “The report would be immensely helpful if the data that informed it are made publicly available so that more experts and scientists can look at it and hopefully reach a scientific consensus on the nature of some of the unexplained events. Otherwise, there will always be conspiracy theories shrouding, and inhibiting, a proper scientific investigation of UAPs.”

A similar view is held by Mark Rodeghier, scientific director of the Center for UFO Studies, who says openness should be prioritized as much as possible in future investigations. “We don’t know whether the UFO problem is an intelligence one, due to foreign adversaries, but we do know, from its long history, that it is absolutely a scientific problem that deserves serious attention,” he says. “In a subject that has been too long ignored, downplayed and ridiculed, the government and scientific community should study UFOs openly and, importantly, with an open mind.”

WANTED: SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Harvard University astrophysicist Avi Loeb says the significance of the UAP Task Force report will depend on the evidence it discloses, which at the moment remains mostly unknown. “But this focus on past reports is misguided,” he says. “It would be prudent to progress forward with our finest instruments rather than examine past reports. Instead of focusing on documents that reflect decades-old technologies used by witnesses with no scientific expertise, it would be far better to deploy state-of-the-art recording devices, such as cameras or audio sensors, at the sites where the reports came from and search for unusual signals.”

Loeb goes a step further, saying he is willing to sign up to help unravel the UAP/UFO saga. “Personally, I will be glad to lead scientific inquiry into the nature of these reports and advise Congress accordingly,” he says. “This could take the form of a federally designated committee or a privately funded expedition. Its most important purpose would be to inject scientific rigor and credibility into the discussion.”

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

For some seasoned investigators, such as William Hartmann, a senior scientist emeritus at the Planetary Science Institute, headquartered in Tucson, Ariz., the current dustup over an influential government report on UFOs is a reminder that, eventually, everything old becomes new again.

Hartmann was a photography consultant and a co-author of the University of Colorado UFO Project’s report Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Funded by the U.S. Air Force from 1966 to 1968, that investigative effort was led by physicist Edward Condon, and it had dismal effects on subsequent scientific investigations. The extensive study of UFOs, Condon and his co-authors concluded, is simply not a fruitful field in which to seek major discoveries and “probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

Reflecting on his work for the project, also called the Condon committee, Hartmann says that none of the photographic evidence he examined could establish anything extraordinary about the observed phenomena. “We proved that some of [the cases], including classic photos still being trotted out, were fake,” he says. “That fact alone makes it extremely difficult to apply straight scientific techniques because we know some, not necessarily all, of the data we were given were carefully prepared to delude us. [That is] not quite like astronomy, where we can assume that the photons coming through our telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii are not put in there by a hoaxer.”

“To put it another way, if you think there could be a real alien spaceship among a pile of photos you are given, but you know that some of the photos are fakes, then it is very hard to prove that any single one of them is proof of an alien visitation,” Hartmann says. “I’d want to see multiple, clear photos or detections by witnesses who don’t know each other, from multiple cities, viewing from multiple directions, before getting very excited.”

Still, he adds that ever since his experience working on the Condon committee, he cannot escape “the feeling that there may be electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere that we still don’t understand.”

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Sarah Scoles is author of the recently published book They Are Already Here: UFO Culture and Why We See Saucers. Although the report’s full details remain to be seen, she senses it will not be as revelatory as some hope.

“At various times during the 20th century, the military has undertaken studies of UFOs to determine, largely, whether what people are seeing represents a national security threat,” Scoles says. “This report doesn’t, then, seem seminal, because it’s doing a 21st-century version of that same thing.” That said, Scoles feels an unbiased analysis of available data could shed light on the true frequency of UAP observations—and perhaps on the characteristics and possibly identities of these sightings. “One problem with UFO/UAP research is that it often doesn’t resemble traditional scientific research in terms of rigor,” she says.

The task force report could quantify and analyze a wide swath of data, Scoles hopes, with the requisite background knowledge of sensor capabilities, current domestic and foreign military capabilities, and so on. If so, that would be a welcome change from previous high-profile studies, she concludes.

Where does this leave us? The truth, of course, is somewhere out there, whether or not it appears in the pages of the UAP Task Force report. But for now, the odds seem to be against the U.S. government knowing what it is, let alone revealing it anytime soon.

Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

Author: Leonard David

Publication: Scientific American

Publisher: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, a Division of Springer Nature America, Inc.

Date: Jun 8, 2021

Copyright © 2021, Scientific American, Inc.