Thursday, April 28, 2005





Skeptics of alleged UFO crashes like to wonder why, if visiting ETs are vastly superior to us, they seem to crash their vehicles so alarmingly often. It's a fair question, and one that defenders of crash-retrieval cases have yet to adequately address. This is partly due to the prevalent tendency to assume that "flying saucers," given their existence, are necessarily extraterrestrial craft thousands of years in advance of earthly aircraft.

It's generally assumed UFO crashes are grievous accidents. I'm not so sure. Deliberately offering a crashed saucer (and its technological bounty) to an emerging civilization might be a rather artful form of misdirection. "UFO lawyer" Peter Gersten likens the so-called Roswell Incident to a viral infection introduced by an entity he terms "Silog" ("silicon organism"), whose role is to supplant carbon-based life with its cybernetic equivalent. He cites the rise of brain-machine interfaces as possible evidence that we're slowly but certainly merging with Silog -- perhaps recklessly.

A less malign reason to stage saucer crashes might be to inject terrestrial science with vital new ideas without the risk of (potentially disastrous) open contact. Purposefully crashed UFOs could also serve as a sort of invitation to officialdom, allowing the decision for open contact (or simply official acknowledgement) to be made by terrestrial leaders, an idea explored by Whitley Strieber in his fiction book "Majestic."

But there's a more esoteric consideration to explore. If UFOs represent a paranormal intelligence of the sort proposed by Jacques Vallee and John Keel, then operating within the confines of our universe may be surprisingly difficult, even clumsy; the aliens of close-encounter lore may be rather like astronauts forced to wear cumbersome spacesuits. Our familiar world of atoms and molecules may be decidedly foreign to our visitors, who may hail from higher-dimensional space. In their native environment, ufonauts may consist of pure thought; visiting Earth could entail "downshifting" to a gross level in which accidents can and do happen -- up to and including Roswell Incidents.

Additionally, throughout the history of the UFO phenomenon, one finds "aliens" behaving in bizarre fashion. Some "abductees" report alien beings wearing human clothes in an apparent attempt to fit in. Enduring Men In Black sightings, as recounted in Keel's "The Mothman Prophecies," indicate that unearthly intelligences have a limited understanding of human culture, revealed through anachronistic dress or evident incomprehension when faced with trivial activities.

One is forced to conclude that either the controlling intelligence/s wants to draw attention to itself or else it really is impaired in some way; either scenario could help provide a plausible explanation for saucer crashes, which seem all-too-frequent when viewed as nuts-and-bolts navigation errors.

17 comments:

JohnFen said...

Nice speculations.

Assuming that the saucers are high-tech alien visitors, I don't know why we would expect their saucers wouldn't crash. Being high-tech doesn't mean your machines are without fault. In fact, it appears just the opposite: as complexity increases, there's just more in the thing to go wrong.

Also, it isn't clear what percentage of saucers crash. How many saucers are there flying around that could crash. For all we know, it's a huge number and the saucers are actually extremely reliable.

Mac said...

Ken Jeffries, formerly of the Roswell Declaration, is an airline pilot and ended up denouncing the possibility of weirdness at Roswell based partly on the "ETs would never crash" argument.

I concur with JohnFen -- that's an idiotic assumption given what we know for sure (which is approximately zero).

W.M. Bear said...

Has anyone counted up exactly how many "crashed UFOs" the U.S. government purportedly has in its possession? Whatever the cause, I'd assume that every UFO that's crashed inside "our" borders has been scooped up forthwith by the military and shipped off to Area 51 or some such locale. Also, I can see the possibility of deliberate crashes as a kind of "technological seeding" of our culture but I'm not so sure about including UFOnauts in this kind of crash! Would the aliens ask for "volunteers"?! (Though, in this case, maybe UFO crashes are the ETI equivalent of whale strandings.)

BTW, Mac, that is simply a brilliant analysis of the whole issue. I hope you publish it elsewhere as well.

Mac said...

"I hope you publish it elsewhere as well."

I emailed it to the UFO UpDates mailing list.

JohnFen said...

Oh, and let's not also forget -- if there had been no reports of crashed saucers at all, then skeptics would point to that as evidence that they don't exist, too. It's a no-win kind of thing.

Paul Kimball said...

Mac:

The problem with crashed saucer stories is that not one of them can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probabilities. Some, like the Aztec case, are obvious frauds, whereas others, such as Roswell, have terrestrial explanations that are just as plausible as the ET one.

As I have written at my own blog, the crashed saucer angle of ufology has been a massive distraction from the real mystery over the past couple of decades.

Best regards,

Paul Kimball

infotheorem said...

Crashing your interstellar space craft is one of the many repercussions of drinking and flying.

Who says as advanced as an alien civilization might be, they (or their technology) dont have their faults too.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic or 'human-centric' here but
I find it hard to beleive that being technologically advanced is inversely proportional to the amount of faults a species may have, or on the same token, directly proportional to overall 'superiorness'.

How do we know that the types of technology produced by another species can cover, aid or wipe out their faults or that they are even interested in developing these types of technologies? Maybe as its our (humans) modus operandi to try to use technology to make our lives easier, it's their m.o. to make things as challenging as ferasible on themselves.

W.M. Bear said...

An interesting question just occurred to me. What are some plausible CAUSES for a UFO crashing (assuming the crash is not deliberate)?
1) Pilot error -- You mean these advanced beings are still doing seat-of-your-pants (or gray jumpsuits or whatever) flying in interstellar spacecraft? Just for the kicks?
2) Autopilot error -- You mean these advanced beings still, STILL don't have all the bugs worked out of the system (entirely possible of course, given info's take on the subject).
3) Magnetogravitic/mechanical failure -- See 2)

So, actually, these possibilities are cause for hope. Because if they're that similar to us, maybe they're not all that "advanced" after all!

Mac said...

Paul--

Thanks. I purposefully assumed, for purposes of my thought experiment -- that UFOs have indeed crashed. I agree with you that the hard evidence is lacking.

Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

After a century of ever advancing aerospace technology our airplanes still crash on a regular basis and our spacecraft (from the Shuttle and the Beagle2 to the latest Dart mission) also fail with unpredictable predictability. A universe in which all possibility of accidents has been eliminated seems to me to be as much an unattainable fantasy as any other utopian dream of a perfect world. So, if anything, it actually seems more reasonable to me to suppose that UFOs (if they exist) must have occasional accidents - no matter how far advanced their technology - rather than the opposite.

The accident hypothesis does not explain one thing, however, and that is the preponderance of crashes that have been reported in the USA and not elsewhere. If the crashes were all randomly accidental then presumably there would be reports from all over the world, including from countries without the equivalent of an Area 51 to hide the wreckage away from an inquisitive public. Of course, there may have been a greater concentration of UFOs over the USA, for obvious reasons, but the observational UFO phenomenon is, and has been, worldwide.

The answer given to this problem by many reports (see the archives at Earthfiles.com) is that the crashed UFOs, including the Roswell UFO, were actually shot down by the US military during the jittery period of the post WW2 UFO flap when they were seen as a completely unknown threat to (US) national security. Interestingly, there is evidence that the number of crashes of US commercial airliners (pilots reported that they lost air bouyancy shortly after takeoff) soared immediately after the reputed Roswell crash, such that the government even ordered the temporary cancellation of all civilian flights. This was, apparently, interpreted as being the UFOs' revenge and/or warning in response to the unprovoked aggression.

Those who have difficulty accepting that UFOs could crash by accident might also have difficulty accepting that they could be shot down by late 1940's technology, but can anyone say that a musket-ball or even a neolithic hand-axe could not terminally cripple our most advanced aircraft and spacecraft if they managed to hit a vulnerable spot? The UFOs do not seem to be designed primarily as warships (wouldn't we know it by now if they were?), so any blow from an exploding missile or even an AA shell might easily have knocked out vital systems (quite possibly the occupants themselves) even if it failed to penetrate the UFO's skin.

W.M. Bear said...

If their intentions are basically peaceful and they have "outgrown" war, they might not have anything like "deflector shields" anyway.

JohnFen said...

I also like the idea that powerful radar systems messed up the saucers of the day (but that they have since become resistant to them). It does seem to be true that the US crashes have occurred within reasonable proximity to unusually powerful military radar systems.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a number of these craft were "induced" or helped down either being in proximity to nuclear test activities and or through direct military efforts to bring them down.

Anonymous said...

What better way to bring down a craft than to detonate a nuclear blast in the desert when it is close in. The huge EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) would disrupt any electrical and magnetic equipment the a device would be using and could cause it to lose control. I suppose the military of today could bring of of thes down with the newer starts wars lasers, or other EMP devices they now have.
In other words, any or all crashes may not be due to craft failures.

Anonymous said...

Surely you should begin from the other end of the argument: first find a scrap of evidence and then wonder how it got here.

Otherwise I might as well claim interstellar shopping carts fall to Earth all the time and then speculate about whether the government knows more than it's telling. You might sell more articles and find more believers than me, but which of us would be able to "prove" our story better?

Find your bits of debris first, then think about its origin.

Chris Aubeck caubeck@gmail.com

Mac said...

"Find your bits of debris first, then think about its origin."

Sorry, Chris. I like speculating and thinking about weird things.