Trusting Your Sources
With all of the information out there concerning the UFO/abduction phenomenon, complete understanding of its mechanism is a next to impossible task. Type “UFO” into Google and you will find almost four million sites on the subject. Most of these sites are nonsensical or highly speculative in nature. There are a lot of them, however, that offer well known or little known cases by respected scientists, UFOlogists, PhDs or honest, credible citizens who have witnessed unknown craft and/or their occupants. How does one discriminate between them?
Cynics and debunkers attack the data gathered by the open-minded investigator by use of antiquated protocols. To them, everything can be explained by fitting the evidence neatly into established “pigeonholes”. If it doesn’t fit, they make it fit. Certain elements of the evidence are altered or completely ignored until it does. If the square peg does not fit into the round hole, the corners are broken off and discarded until it does. When the evidence becomes too compelling, it is relegated to the category of “hoax” or “mental disorder”. All too often, if there is no established pigeonhole for the unorthodox evidence, it is dismissed out of hand from the outset.
Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly), this policy has been the standard of mainstream science since time immemorial. It is the reason that the wheels of science turn so slowly. As a rule, it takes at least a full generation for a newly discovered law of physics to be accepted as fact. The world must wait for the proponents of old world paradigms to die off before new truths can be acknowledged.
The lack of information offered by our government provokes UFOlogists to pick up the slack by assimilating what can be derived from leaked and declassified documents. The disinformation put out by those who would keep the secret covered up, puts the serious investigator in the time consuming position of separating the wheat from the chaff. This process is not always successful, which leaves them open to ridicule by their critics and even their peers within the UFO community. As a result, much high quality evidence is often rejected for safety’s sake. It is better to err on the side of caution than to declare a case as genuine only to have it revealed as a hoax later.
Although an estimated seventy-five percent of mainstream scientists accept the fact that there is an alien presence in our world, to publicly support such a hypothesis is tantamount to professional suicide.
Even well respected members of the UFO community play politics within their ranks when it comes to authenticating and divulging data on the subject. In the January 2004 issue of The MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) Journal, Stanton Friedman, a nuclear physicist, often referred to as “the father of Roswell”, fired back at Kevin Randle, another well recognized name in UFOlogy, for Randle’s questioning of the authenticity of certain MJ-12 documents due to conflicting versions of rank assigned to officers mentioned within the documents (as well as other petty arguments). One researcher will swear to the legitimacy of a given case while another expert insists it is a hoax.
Then there is the wrangling over the origin of the visitors: they are from another planet – no, another dimension – no, another planet through another dimension – no, they are time travelers from our own future. Lest we forget the agenda of the visitors; they are here to save our world from ourselves – no, they are here to take us over – to create a hybrid race to live among us – they are already living among us! They are all benevolent – they are all malevolent! They are either angels or demons!
In such an atmosphere, trusting any given source as gospel leaves the researcher open to debate regardless of the evidence or the genuineness of the researcher’s intent.
Until full disclosure of the alien presence in our world, by the “powers that be”, becomes history, we can expect to see more of these differences of opinion. For, indeed, that is presently the end product of all the information that is available to us – opinion. Mine may not be yours and yours may not be that of another. One may respect the conclusions of a given authority while the evidence suggests that that well-meaning authority has been duped. At the end of the day, one opinion is as good as the other.
Not even those “in the know” have all of the answers but they have a lot more than has been made public. Trusting your sources, when it comes to the truth involved with the UFO phenomenon, is a shell game. Only full disclosure and a mutual meeting of minds within the world community will eliminate most of these “shells”. Only then will there be a scientific awareness that will set our species on a mutual path of discovery.
Until then, we are chasing our tails.
David E. Twichell
Back to Articles PageBack to Homepage