The extraterrestrial hypothesis, or ETH, is formulated consistent with the
accepted scientific framework for hypothesis induction. The null hypothesis
to explain UFOs is that they are random, disparate misidentifications of
atmospheric or artifical terrestrial phenomena. This is called the
misidentification hypothesis. If rejected on sufficient grounds -- and due
to the subjectivity we are probably facing a more Bayesian type of
inference than an objective test approach -- then we accept the alternative
hypothesis, which is that disk-shaped vehicles are in fact flying in our
atmosphere.

Note that at this point, we are not concerned with the origin, since the
alternative hypothesis is simply that the objects exist without regard to
the origin of the objects. Put simply, we don't need to know the origin of
the objects in order to determine their existence. In fact, nowhere in science
is it necessary to establish the origin of a phenomenon prior to
determining the very existence of the phenomenon. Yet skeptics contend that
the objects cannot exist due to interstellar travel considerations, which
is fallacious on two counts: first, for blending the two hypotheses into
one by using the possible origin to debunk the very existence, and second,
for establishing a rigid a priori probability of nearly zero for
interstellar travel despite a lack of sufficient information to make such a
determination.

After rejecting the null in favor of the alternative, which is that the
objects exist, a rank-order series of hypotheses are formulated to
hypothesize the origin of the objects. When guessing the origin, we see
three elements that are observed in the majority of radar-visual cases:

     Physical substance
     Intelligent control
     Propulsion technology beyond human grasp

This is why radar-visual cases are so unique in their evidential value.
Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions to defend
inducing the ETH; the question is the degree of corroboration for each of
the conditions. When ranking possible origin hypotheses, Occam's Razor is
the guiding principle here:

   1.American or foreign government craft
   2.Extraterrestrial craft
   3.Interdimensional craft

Once one replaces the null with the alternative and looks for a hypothesis
of origin, it is feasible to reject the first origin hypothtesis. It is
absurd to think these are government craft, since the so-called
"conspiracy" widens by a huge magnitude: the behavior of the flights are at
variance with accepted flight-test procedures (e.g. chasing civilians), and
the requisite physics for the observed propulsion would require enormous
leaps in 1947 in all sorts of technology that the civilian community still
has not grasped 50 years later.

The second hypothesis, that they are extraterrestrial craft, is the
"Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis", or ETH. Note that this is a specialized
sub-hypothesis within the broader, original "alternative hypothesis", which
is simply that the "saucers" do in fact exist. Some researchers, like
Vallee, reject this and move to the third hypothesis, though that is beyond
the scope of this article.

Falsifiability is a difficult area because the very approach to the subject
is more subjective and inferential (hence the Bayesian approach -- see
Sturrock, "Applied Scientific Inference", Journal of Scientific
Exploration, vol. 8, no. 4). The very nature of the problem -- the
vagueness, the lack of replicability on demand, and the elusiveness -- does
not lend itself with ease to direct and
irrefutable falsifiability.

However, there are certain "proxies" for falsifiability. It seems
reasonable to suggest that if there are extraterrestrial vehicles buzzing
through our atmosphere, the organization with the means and motive to
determine this, above all other organizations, would have determined this
by now. This organization is, of course, the US military. If there are
flying saucers, our military should show a high level of interest and
conviction that this is the case. Indeed, they do, at both the individual
level and at the organizational level, from 1947 through the present day,
as revealed through Freedom of Information Act documents and summarized in
our government pages.

Then there are certain other testable predictions based on the corollary
that the military and intelligence would conceal this knowledge. And they
have found sufficient cause to conceal it, as their early documents alluded
with references to "public panic" and "policies of public information to
minimize mass panic". So, do we see signs of official secrecy? What would
those signs be? One is leaks. We do, in fact, see quite a few highly
compelling leaks from such scientists as Dr. Robert Sarbacher, Dr. Eric
Walker, and other military and intelligence personnel on the military
quotes page.

Another means of indirect falsification would be the discovery of one or
more new terrestrial phenomena that are merely atmospheric in nature, but
can adequately explain the body of UFO evidence, from radar-visual to
ground-trace cases to machine-like disk-shaped vehicle mirages.

The very nature and structure of this phenomenon renders our typical
approach somewhat impotent, and we are mostly left with a Bayesian approach
that questions whether the body of evidence we do have is more consistent
with the objects existing or with the objects not existing. Looking at the
aggregate body of anomalous radar-visual cases, ground trace cases,
scientifically
tested photos and films from the military and civilian communities,
credentialed leaks, and evidence of military and intelligence duplicity, it
is more likely that something is indeed going on rather than not -- no
matter how falsifiable this hypothesis may be, it doesn't change the
aggregate body of evidence. The evidence is far more consistent with the
objects existing than not existing.

Our approach must accommodate the phenomenon -- not vice versa. If the
phenomenon cannot accommodate our approach, there is no sense in convincing
ourselves that the phenomenon must not exist. We must accommodate this
elusive, sporadic, and unreplicable but nonetheless existent phenomenon by
blending our approach between objective hypothesis falsification and
Bayesian inference.

As for the inductive reasoning, the approach is identical in process and in
validity to the Big Bang hypothesis which also has no physical proof. Both
induce a hypothesis to explain a set of observations without violating
known laws of physics according to our existing body of knowledge. Both
also make predictions that have been corroborated, and both explain the
observations superior to any alternatives. The misidentification hypothesis
is an utter failure in both logical process and in explanatory appeal, as
detailed in the page on skeptical logical trickery and as judged by the
inability to explain the most challenging cases, but the ETH is
scientifically valid and superior to the alternative. The problem with the
misidentification hypothesis is that the cases it fails to explain,
according to USAF's Project Bluebook Special Report #14, happen to be the
types of cases that the best observers were most likely to report and that
do not suffer from insufficient information, but rather appear to be from a
wholly different distribution than the eventually identified UFO reports,
based on a chi square analysis.

The misidentification hypothesis has a gaping flaw in its ability to
explain the observations, and the ETH is a scientifically valid hypothesis
that is the simplest available to explain globally repeating, highly
reliable observations by eminently qualified observers of solid objects
under intelligent control with propulsion technology irreproducible by
human knowledge. All possible predictions of the ETH have been
corroborated, and the inductive process is every bit as valid as the
process that led to the Big Bang hypothesis.

Illogical skeptics will complain that any hypothesis can be induced in this
framework, such as a giant purple unicorns or flying cats. But the problem
is that our current physics predicts that aliens exist, and we know that
interstellar travel is possible; it appears difficult, but it certainly is
possible, and many scientists like Tipler feel that it is almost
inevitable. This is why the ETH is the simplest hypothesis after the
misidentification hypothesis is discarded. Hypotheses in between, such as
an "unknown atmospheric phenomenon", are too vague and specious to be of
any value, since they are the logical equivalent of postulating an
"undetected flaw" in the analysis of a
radar-visual case; but most of all, such a hypothesis fails to explain
daylight sightings, and only relies on nocturnal luminosity reports, which
is a selective filtration of the observations. Therefore, only the ETH can
be of value after rejection of the misidentification hypothesis.

Send email to Brian Zeiler:

bdzeiler@anet-chi.com
 
 

back to Main Page