The Specter of Revelations
New -- 1 May 2007
Mainstream science, NASA, and numerous government and private organizations throughout the world have provided major funding in mankind’s quest to discover life in the solar system and beyond. Much of this effort – for example, the SETI project (i.e., the Search For ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) – has been to discover intelligent life. But as Pogo Possum’s friend so aptly noted:
Indeed it is. It is also one of the reasons that NASA and other acronyms are extraordinarily conservative when it comes to any speculation concerning the discovery or even the barest suspicion of discovery of extraterrestrial intelligent life. It’s entirely one thing to espouse learned treatises on the possibility of spores of life reaching earth from the planet Mars. It is quite another to talk about intelligently directed spores.
For example, even the penultimate example of knee-jerk conservatism in mainstream science, Scientific American, has recently (November 2005) published an article by David Warmflash and Benjamin Weiss  which states that the very idea that…
Panspermia or exogenesis one thing. Directed exogenesis or actual intervention by an intelligence in the evolutionary process of Earth and/or humans is quite another. This fact has led to a type of disclaimer that is inevitably included in the vast majority of mainstream publications who are attempting to avoid like the plaque any such notion, i.e.,
The first sentence is of course ludicrous on the face of it. The fact of the matter is that there is “no undisputed evidence” of anything has ever been published anywhere. In other words, there is always someone or some group who will dispute any and all theories, observations, and evidence. This includes the 1969 moon landing, the “Face on Mars”, and/or the fantastical notion that the planets revolve around the sun, just as the four largest moons of Jupiter revolve around the giant planet. On the other hand, there has been ample evidence published in mainstream scientific journals concerning possible visitations by intelligent extraterrestrials. It’s just that such evidence has always been disputed. Big deal.
Also extremely important in the act of burying of one’s allegedly scientific head in the sand is that inevitably in the case of visits by extraterrestrial intelligent life, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity comes to the rescue. The true believers claim that the Special Theory says uncategorically that no advanced civilization could possibly find a way around this relatively [pardon the pun] weak theory and thus the very idea of a visitation by intelligent extraterrestrials is unlikely in the extreme. Einstein’s name is often used, of course, because it supposedly carries so much authority. Unfortunately, in the end it comes down to: What a load of barn carpeting!
Even purveyors of alternative and rational theories tend to be hoisted up on the same petard. Richard Hoagland and The Enterprise Mission have, for example, been enthusiastic promoters of some very alternative scientific views – from the Face on Mars to the anomalies of Earth’s Moon to the Moon with a View, Iapetus – in which the case of clear evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence is advocated. At the same time, however, these credible and credentialed scientists feel compelled to establish not only the observations which lead to some rather astounding conclusions, but also to incorporate a host of related mainstream scientific facts, theories, and discoveries in order to make their case sound more plausible. This is typical of any group trying to maintain a credible scientific reputation, but it’s also rather curious.
Why, one might ask, is it that humans -- when confronted with an amazing phenomena such as the possibility of definitive evidence of extraterrestrials in the local neighborhood – will attempt to explain how this might have come to be based on humankind’s limited and wholly incomplete understanding of the physical laws of the universe? It’s as if by being able to present a plausible theory based on our current understanding of modern science that we can somehow justify the possibility of an extraterrestrial artifact in full view and in an unexpected location. At the same time, if our limited understanding of science does not provide such an explanation, then we tend to doubt the observation itself. Worse yet, science inevitably tries to argue against the barest possibility of an extraterrestrial presence – especially one that violates our current, neophyte science – by all manner of counter arguments. In effect, mainstream science often works diligently to avoid admitting aloud that our current knowledge just doesn’t measure up to that of any advanced race of extraterrestrials!
For example, Hoagland  states that,
Science fiction writers, however, are not constrained by science's current guess work. This includes those with strong, credible scientific backgrounds or leanings (such as Arthur C. Clarke). The key factor, however, is that science fiction recognizes that known, mainstream science is a passing fad and that possibilities which directly contradict the so-called “laws of physics” will as likely or not become reality in the far or near future. There are already, for example, numerous challenges to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and consequently the so-called "speed of light limitation' on travel and/or communication among the stars is about as restrictive as a 30 mph sign posted on the German Autobahn.
The relevant question is, “Why search for intelligent life in the universe if the possibility of finding such intelligence is so adamantly rejected by those funding the research? When one discovers what looks astoundingly like a gigantic “Face on Mars”, why is there no eagerness to go back and take a second, detailed look? Why also is there, as Hoagland puts it with regard to the moon of Saturn, Iapetus, such a…
And, according to Hoagland ,
A highly relevant question is to what extent is the problem one of the destabilization of governments and to what degree the destabilization of religions? In other words, is the Brookings Report religiously inspired or motivated? Inasmuch as religion is so routinely used for political, i.e. government purposes, it may be that the concern for destabilization is due to the fact that religions may find truths which are totally incompatible with their faiths. And in the event of a worldwide crisis in religion, it is a short leap to chaos and anarchy.
When it comes to the existence of extraterrestrial or alien artifacts in our neighborhood, the priests of traditional or orthodox science are indeed exceptionally gun shy at admitting to even the barest possibility that this presence might be true. There is, on the one hand, the stated desire of science to search high and low (or mostly high) for intelligent life in the universe. And yet the idea that such a search might be successful – particularly if the intelligent life is clearly far superior in intelligence and technology to ours – is something that too many scientists would do everything possible to avoid. It’s the Pogo Possum’s dilemma brought home to roost.
Accordingly, when the suggestion is made that an artifact, such as the so-called “Face on Mars” in the Cydonia region of the planet, is artificial, i.e. made by intelligent beings who are not human, NASA and the bulk of scientists who are eager to keep their jobs deny even the slightest possibility that such a suggestion might be correct. Only those who have nothing to lose seem to be willing to entertain the possibility that the earth has been visited – or even is currently being visited – by intelligent (and in all likelihood superior) extraterrestrials. One example is Carl Sagan, who in his earlier years would have likely dismissed the Face of Mars controversy in a nanosecond, nevertheless in his last book, just before his death, advocated a closer look at Cydonia. (Obviously, one might surmise that he too had little to lose at that stage in his life.)
The apparent revulsion by NASA and orthodox scientists (aka the scientific priesthood) at the possibility or even a debate concerning artifacts within this solar system of technologically superior extraterrestrial intelligence may be due in part – as Hoagland has pointed out -- to “the Brookings Report” .
This report suggested that many elements of society – from the highly religious to the scientists and engineers who should know better – would be devastated by the discovery of creatures of superior intelligence (and/or presumably technology). Inasmuch as NASA and other space programs are predominantly composed of scientists and engineers – many with serious religious leanings – the possibility of utter devastation occasioned by the discovery of superior intelligence close by cannot be dismissed. Nor can the possibility that NASA and others might withhold information of such discoveries if only to protect their jobs -- not to mention their sanity! Such withholding would of course be rationalized as being for the best for society, but the fact remains that scientists and engineers are some of the most likely to see their career achievements made totally irrelevant by astounding new technologies. This is the same reason, for example, that Egyptologists are so incensed and defensive when outsiders, such as Immanuel Velikovsky, challenge the seriously flawed, orthodox version of ancient Egyptian history
The Brookings Report was submitted on April 18, 1961 [the day this portion of the webpage was written, some 46 years later]. The former might thus be assumed to be a product of its time, i.e., the early 1960s, and that subsequently there may have evolved a somewhat more open mind in the intervening decades. And yet the current behavior by NASA and other “official” sources suggests that there has been no such evolvement. One could even jest that NASA has come out adamantly opposed to at least one form of evolution. NASA, by the way, is within the Department of Defense and as such is loyal first and foremost to the Pentagon. In general, military minds are disciplined, but very much disinclined to entertain novel and paradigm-shaking ideas.
Excerpts from the Brookings Report have been provided by Hoagland , selected portions of which are repeated here. These excerpts make for some interesting reading.
One is reminded of Fred Hoyle – the late world famous astrophysicist – and his fictional novel, The Black Cloud. In essence, the novel tells the story of the Earth being confronted by a vast intelligence (as it makes a pit stop at the local sun) who becomes aware of the puny humans, and possibly just for kicks agrees to download a massive amount of science into a single human being of our choice. It turns out that the chosen, brilliant scientist ultimately reacts by dying, commenting just before his expiration that a better choice would have been a local, uneducated gardener – who because of his lack of preconceived notions and understanding of the universe – would have been better able to tolerate the new science.
One suspects that Fred Hoyle understood scientists as well as science.
After all, is there any particular reason that our most brilliant scientific minds would not suffer the same disadvantage? After all, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a whole lot of knowledge can be fatal. It takes a very open and an extremely flexible mind to download an alien technology without going completely bonkers. [There is, of course, the suspicion that the higher echelons of NASA are already bonkers – thus leading to the rational consideration that they have already been exposed.]
The end result is not to expect too much point blank revelation from NASA.
Consider one small point. Richard Hoagland  has written:
And yet, this group of independent scientists still appear to have considerable access to the raw data, images, and so forth... from NASA. Is it possible – with or without Hoagland’s knowledge – that NASA is delighted to have Hoagland and others like him widely disseminate the truth, and at the same time allow NASA to retain plausible deniability? NASA may indeed provide official pronouncements opposing alternative theories, but still allow the information to be obtained, analyzed, and the more credible conclusions reached. Perhaps it’s just a new technique in the art of revelations.
Wouldn't it be a kick if we could say, "We have met the ET, and they are us!"
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]