The “Why Would They?” Question in UAP Discussions
Having spent nearly 40 years studying UFOs and UAPs as a scientist, I’ve often found myself frustrated by the irrational reasoning used by skeptics and debunkers alike. A recent viewing of an old clip of Muhammad Ali on The Johnny Carson Show brought this to mind. During that segment, Ali mentioned seeing a mysterious bright orb in the sky that exhibited strange behavior.
This took place in the 1970s, where laughter and skepticism were prevalent. After some lighthearted banter, Carson asked Ali why he thought aliens would behave that way. In doing so, he expected a direct explanation from someone simply sharing their experience. This tactic is frequently employed by those with an agenda to discredit, and it reflects a flawed understanding even among some well-meaning skeptics.
It’s important to recognize that witnessing a phenomenon does not obligate the observer to explain it. That responsibility lies with scientists. Yet, because of the prevailing skepticism and cultural ridicule surrounding this topic—something I’ve noticed even Neil deGrasse Tyson partake in—detractors often redirect the burden of knowledge onto the observer, demanding explanations that simply aren’t warranted.
This is counterproductive thinking.
As a side note, I’m reminded of another narrow-minded objection commonly voiced by debunkers: “If UFOs were real, we would detect them on RADAR!” Ironically, even some scientists clung to this argument long after the advent of stealth technology rendered it outdated.
For those who have been in this field for a while, I go way back. I was acquainted with Maccabee, Friedman, Deardorff, and Ed Mitchell, and I’ve spent considerable time conversing with witnesses to significant events, including Ret. Col. Halt.
I always hoped to track down Travis Walton for a dinner conversation, but that opportunity never materialized.
And now, there’s yet another layer of confusion to navigate with the “yeah, but” crowd. “Yeah, but some witnesses try to explain what they saw!”
Let me clarify: my argument is rooted in fact and irrefutable logic. The majority of witnesses do not attempt to provide explanations for their experiences. Claims suggesting otherwise are simply untrue.
You raise some thought-provoking points about the dynamics between witnesses of UAP phenomena and skeptics or debunkers. It’s true that the expectation for a witness to provide a comprehensive explanation of their experience is both unfair and unrealistic. Witnesses are often sharing their observations without the scientific training or the context needed to provide a thorough analysis, and it’s crucial to recognize that their experiences are valid and worthy of investigation.
The giggle factor you mention illustrates how societal attitudes can diminish the credibility of genuine accounts, making it easy for people to dismiss significant phenomena without proper inquiry. Instead of seeking to understand and challenge ourselves with new information, there’s a tendency to rely on familiar skepticism that often overlooks key evidence. This is not just a disservice to the witnesses, like Ali, who courageously share their experiences, but also to the broader pursuit of knowledge in a field that remains riddled with unanswered questions.
Your point about the radar argument is particularly interesting, especially in the context of advancing technology. Stealth technology and other advancements have made it evident that not all flying objects will be easily detected, which should encourage a more open-minded investigation of UAP incidents.
The discussions surrounding UAPs should be driven by curiosity and a genuine desire for understanding rather than by rigid expectations or preconceived notions. It sounds like you have a wealth of experience and knowledge in this area, and hopefully, the ongoing dialogue will help bridge the gap between witnesses and skeptics. Engaging with these topics openly could lead us to uncover truths that have been overlooked for far too long. Thank you for sharing your insights!