Alien Psychology

by Roderick R. MacDonald

  What about the evidence that seems to make sense? A massive problem today in education and the media is the extraordinary amount of pseudo—science that has saturated people's notions on what is and what isn't likely. Offering sweeping and revolutionary theories which brush aside staid, boring and unexciting conventional science, pseudo—science outwardly appears attractive and exciting, and is much more marketable to the general public. But pseudo—science has similarities to Stalinist Lysenko biology in that it is constructed by making the facts fit the theory. When examined in detail, big holes appear and the theories usually collapse in a dishonest heap but by this time, the exponent has often made enough money from the enterprise.

  A lot of pseudo—science appears unintentionally and even honestly propagated by some. In this case, the exponent frequently starts with some exciting revelation that has entered his or her head (they're usually males) and great subsequent efforts of research and study are devoted to proving this fanciful notion. Without a scientific background, most make glaring errors which invalidate everything quite quickly. I remember reading a booklet produced by an American medical person on the structure and evolution of the universe. There is no reason why someone so qualified shouldn't be able to do this, especially if he devoted years to the subject, but very soon into the text, pivotal ideas were put forward which simply didn't hold water; not only were they scientifically inaccurate, they were wrongly applied. The book became meaningless after fifteen pages which maybe explains why it was self published and given away free.

  Even with pure scientific research supposedly carried out in a tried and tested manner, errors or misconceptions can occur usually because there is a human involved. Humans make errors. Try as you like to lead an error free life, it is inevitable that you will make mistakes from time to time. Careless people make them frequently but even the most diligent, the most assiduous, will slip up. The way to avoid mistakes is to check and double check, again and again by numerous people and machines but more insidious than this is the error that isn't an error.

  Making sense of data or observations to prove a hypothesis is not quite so straight forward as imagined. Take a pattern of randomly spaced dots on a piece of paper and ask people to make sense of it. According to their individual psychological makeup, some will see patterns, probably wildly different patterns, while a few will see nothing. It is, however, a human trait to make sense of randomised patterns. This is the ability we have to take in our environment, making sense of diverse things, complicated things and things that really have no obvious meaning. We anthropormorphize the world we live in, which basically means, we give it human characteristics.

  The stars in the night sky are an example. To give meaning to their apparent random scattering, we've grouped them into constellations. There are eighty-eight accepted constellations visible in the northern and southern hemispheres. Our designated grouping of conspicuous stars originated in Mesopotamia and was later defined by the Greeks but other cultures had their own constellations, the Chinese for example, which were just as meaningful to them. No doubt, ancient people looked at stars to imagine mammoths and sabre tooth tigers but these constellations have been lost in antiquity.

  Having been agreed upon by international astronomical bodies, the modern eighty-eight constellations are now fixed and will likely remain unaltered for some considerable time. They provide a good way to identify and label stars, even those only visible in telescopes, but the constellations still remain human conceptions. The stars of a constellation usually bear no relation to each other. It's a line of sight phenomenon: some of the stars may be close to us, others very distant. In fact, the sun could be closer to some stars in a constellation than they are to other stars in the very same constellation. Despite what the astrologers may tell you, this arbitrary grouping of stellar objects gives them no special significance, no peculiar traits or properties, and certainly no effect on humans.

  There's also the old psychology trick with ambiguous pictures, one in particular which either shows a young attractive woman or an ugly old hag, depending on the way you look at it. Some psychologists used to infer an optimistic or pessimistic character according to the initial interpretation but this is probably nonsense. It does, however, illustrate two ways of looking at the same pattern.

  A table of scientific data is a lot more complex. When I was a chemistry student, I would do experiments where measurements were taken over a period of time following the progress of some reaction or another. Hopefully the results would work out OK, usually forming a curve or a straight line. Maybe out of twenty or so measurements, one or even two would deviate considerably from the rest. The temptation was always there to ignore spurious results because they didn't fit in with what you expected to find and, strangely enough, that's what I always did. For the experiments I carried out, the results were not of world shattering importance but, a couple of errors amongst twenty could be very serious elsewhere. Who is to say that the errors were not correct results and the others, although a majority, were not errors?

  Repeating the experiment would hopefully sort things out but there is an inherent danger in all scientific research for the experimenter to be selective in what they regard as results, especially if the majority of data fits in with a preconceived notion on how things should be or, even worse, the protected outcome of a favourite or pet theory.

  Science doesn't have real descriptions of the truth. Instead, it provides models to explain or illustrate phenomenon. We strain and strive to provide literal or pictorial descriptions for things in nature but the attempt always falls short because our descriptions are based on human conceptions of reality which, surprisingly, represent only a point of view and not the truth. For example, when we tried to get a picture of what was going on inside the atom, early ideas of the Bohr model had electrons whizzing around the nucleus like planets orbiting a sun. An atom, of course, is nothing like this at all but the description sufficed in an elementary way to show what happened when more electrons, protons and neutrons were added to make bigger atoms. Later models relied on things called orbitals, lobe or ring shaped areas around the nucleus to show where electrons would probably be found, but a better model was provided by quantum mechanics which gave a mathematical description of election probability and energy levels.

  Quantum theory has been built up since the 1920's. It has become more and more elaborate with time and we are now at the stage where a multitude of particles exist to fulfil various functions of the theory. Are the particles real? Some seem to think they are. It's often the case that the theory will predict a specific particle. A search follows, sometimes using a particle accelerator like CERN beside Geneva then, lo and behold, the particle is found. With this kind of research, maybe there is a tendency to find exactly what you are looking for. It must be remembered though that quantum theory is a model, which describes the phenomenon of sub atomic particles. It may be predictable, it may allow calculations to be made, but it's not necessarily real.

  This is why research into UFO's and extraterrestrials must be carried out in the most rigorous of terms. A great deal of the evidence is examined by people with a desire to prove the existence of these things and this emotional driving force often makes them positively selective of the apparent facts, making them discard some that don't fit but select others that do. This is a very easy thing to do either unintentionally or intentionally. While most are sincere, there are a lot of confidence tricksters rummaging around in corn circles and flying hubcaps.

  The greatest error that's made when someone witnesses a strange object subsequently claimed to be a flying saucer full of aliens is to ask everyone to prove that it isn't just so. Naturally, the onus of proof should be with the person making the claims. In cases of extraterrestrials visiting us from space, the proof is absolutely minimal. Taking all the cases since 1947, nothing would stand up in court of law to prove beyond a doubt that extraterrestrials or some other type of being piloted the craft. It's no use saying that
an observed object made manoeuvres in the sky that apparently defied the laws of physics, so precluding it from being anything from earth and consequently dictating that it was an alien piloted spacecraft. This process infers a probable cause which is totally different from proving the same.

  In order to prove that a UFO was an alien craft, you would have to bring it to earth, show that the beings inside didn't belong to earth and also demonstrate the particular flight capabilities of the craft. This hasn't been done. People may say that it has but definite proof is lacking. It's not good enough to offer a few witnesses, some with second hand information, and show a film of dubious origin. The magnitude of what we are being asked to believe, i.e. extraterrestrials visiting earth, is so great that only proof which defies the most rigorous investigation will be accepted. This isn't any ordinary thing that's offered up for us to embrace, it's probably the most significant event in the history of humans and for that, there can be no room for equivocal evidence.

  * * *

  Phase 11

  What Remains?

  As argued in a previous chapter, alien spacecraft of the Exordican type (which I've also argued as the likely and only source of extraterrestrial visits to earth) wouldn't wish to advertise themselves. They would do their utmost not to be detected in any way so why then do we have many bright UFO sightings? Not just bright, but positively glowing in fact! Surely this goes against the logic of secrecy? It's not as if a UFO would need lights to find its way about in the dark like an automobile. Using a sophisticated imaging device, presumably they are able to fly without having an illuminated pathway?

  It's very likely the case that most UFO sightings are not extraterrestrial piloted space vehicles but aircraft, balloons or astronomical and astronautical objects. Aliens may well be there but we wouldn't be able to see them except on very rare occasions when, by accident, individuals are able to catch a brief glimpse of something dark and strange. Otherwise, we can forget about most of the reports. Many people will be annoyed at this claim, throwing up their arms in disgust at such a short-sighted view but, for those of such an opinion, there's worse to come. I would like to argue that even the holiest of them all, the Roswell incident, is a piece of nonsense akin to the Loch Ness monster. Sacrilege of this sort is no doubt equivalent to telling a religious person that god doesn't exist.

  Living about six miles west of Edinburgh airport, I'm able to see vast numbers of planes at all times of the year in various lighting conditions and weather patterns. My line of sight lies roughly along the length of the runway and virtually every night when low clouds are absent I can see planes coming in to land. Essentially, these planes are flying towards me, approaching the airport. When it's just about dark, the plane's lights are visible from miles away, maybe ten miles or so beyond the airport to the east. With lights shining directly in my direction, the plane appears as a very bright oval light in the sky. Being so far away that none of the other lights are visible, the two main aircraft lights merge to give just one which apparently hangs motionless for several minutes, sometimes appearing to move from side to side. Often there are more than one in the sky, giving the illusion that they are moving towards each other. Eventually they drop down below the horizon to land at the airport.

  Depending on their size, the planes appear very bright, probably much more so than the planet Venus at its best viewing time. I know what these objects are because I've experienced this display for twenty years but others seeing this for the first time are confused. With this being a line of sight effect, people living to the north or south don't witness the aircraft lights shining head on and they're often amazed to learn that they are just planes coming in to land. Now, if such events are witnessed by people new to an area, not realising an airport lies a few miles away, it would be natural for them to report a UFO. With so many planes, both civil and military, taking up air space, it's no surprise that observations of them under unusual conditions lead to UFO reports.

  Most people you see go about minding their own business, too preoccupied with their own thoughts to notice what's going on in the sky. Understandably, cars, or the avoidance of them, has a higher priority than objects floating about up there, and, as a consequence most people don't have much of an idea of the order of things we should be able to see in the heavens. Amateur and professional astronomers are well acquainted with the planets, stars and occasional objects such as comets, fireballs, strange cloud formations and meteors. Years spent watching the sky gives them the edge for recognising phenomenon which others would question and label as UFO. For example, the planet Venus can be strikingly bright in the morning or evening sky, so much so that it's often mistaken for a UFO especially when observed from a moving vehicle. We've all experienced the sun or moon apparently keeping up with us as we travel along a road; the disks fly past trees, houses and factories. We know they're not really moving: it's just an illusion. When Venus is low in the east or west and the same illusion happens, it can easily resemble a UFO keeping pace with the car. We slow down, so does it and when we speed up, the same happens bestowing an intelligent purpose to its motion. It's a UFO piloted by extraterrestrials and they're after us! Unfortunately, the only so called intelligent motion comes from the car.

  This has happened several times, even to police in their vehicles. I remember a case some years ago in England when two hapless policemen chased Venus all over the countryside in their patrol car. Not knowing what it was, observing it against a black sky, it would have been impossible to tell if it was forty yards or forty million miles away. The elusive planet was never caught and, of course, it eventually disappeared below the horizon. An astronomer or even someone with a reasonable knowledge of the sky wouldn't be caught out like that.

  Satellites and space objects are also mistaken for UFO's. The space shuttle Columbia, mission STS -9, commanded by John Young took off from the Cape on November 28th 1983 at 11 a.m. EST. With an orbital inclination of 57 degrees, I was able to see it late that afternoon GMT from Scotland. It was quite an impressive sight: the shuttle, a dazzling white object, speeded across the darkening sky followed closely by the brown/orange cigar shaped external fuel tank. They obviously weren't planes and they travelled too fast to be a satellite and had it not been known that the shuttle was expected, they could easily be taken as UFO's, especially since it was very unusual for a large spacecraft to be at this high latitude shortly after launch.

  Another incident I recall as a teenager was in September 1970 when I witnessed from Edinburgh the re-entry of a Russian satellite. It was only by chance that I saw the object while walking through the meadows area of the city. Taking less than a minute to do so, a very bright light, much brighter than Venus, sped across the early evening sky from north to south; too slow to be a meteor and too fast and bright to be an ordinary satellite, it could only be something entering the earth's atmosphere. The object also varied in intensity in a regular manner as if rapidly rotating in sunlight. Waiting around to see if it would make another orbit, nothing occurred and I concluded that it must have burnt up somewhere to the south. Later, after making some enquiries, I found out that it was indeed a man made Soviet satellite but I'm sure by its pulsating appearance and rapid motion it could easily have ended up in the UFO files.

  Surprisingly, the area in which I live in Scotland produces many UFO reports. Around Falkirk in Central Region, devotees to the cause report dozens of cases, none of which has received substantial support. If the objects were common as they are claimed to be, many more people would be reporting them. Knowing several people from this area, none have ever seen a UFO and neither have their chain of relatives and associates. Perhaps the UFO objects are seen by some and not by others, possibly by way of a psychological quirk.

  Bob Taylor, a forester who used to live near Dechmont in West Lothian, was witness to strange objects in local woods back in 1979. A large spinning top apparition released glowing spheres resembling sea—mines, one of which attacked his legs. After blacking out, he eve
ntually made it home in a terrible state. Having spoken to local people with knowledge of this man, they all attested to his good character, stating that making up or imagining this scene just wasn't realistic. What did actually attack him that night? Police examined the area but it wasn't thorough by any means and certainly wasn't forensic. Maybe he was a witness to a curious electrical phenomenon similar to ball lightning? Whatever it was, the likelihood of aliens being responsible is exceptionally slim.

  Going further into UFO files, it's probably best to discuss the idea that governments and/or the military are involved, especially the USA military and the so-called “dreamland” at Area 51. This top secret USAF base is supposedly the place where captured alien spacecraft have been disassembled and backengineered to produce weird and wonderful flying machines the like of which we've never seen before. Apparently a ramshackle place on the surface, underground you'll find cavernous working quarters where the two thousand employees flown in from Las Vegas on a daily basis are employed. They're all sworn to secrecy but some have let slip gems of information, including crashed spaceships in hangers and even alien technicians offering assistance to human engineers.

  Anyone trying to gain unauthorised access to the area is immediately repulsed by unfriendly guards. Try to get there in a plane and you'll be shot down by an F -16 or even a missile. Try to crawl in through the brush and sophisticated detection devices will get you before you're hardly through the wire perimeter. What's really going on there? Obviously it is a top secret military base and, with the general public denied access and information, there exists an open canvas on which we can paint astounding pictures without being disproved one way or another. Let's face it, should a book be written about Area 51 claiming alien shenanigans, the military will hardly bother to confirm or deny it. In fact, they may be privately pleased because if the general public believe aliens are involved, it will be an excellent cover for the real purpose of the base.