Among many other things, I am a fan of Foglio Studio’s “Girl Genius” ongoing comic book series. I’d have their books, if the household budget allowed such spending, and that’s another topic.
The point is that I found this question in their blog today:
I’ve gathered that the heyday of blogging is long since passed, but I don’t know the answer, or answers. “Long since” by American standards, that is, and I’m drifting off-topic again.
I do know that I’m still posting something new here on A Catholic Citizen in America each Saturday.
Although sometimes keeping that schedule was a tad challenging.
Whether or not that’s “blogging” depends, like so much else, on what the word’s taken to mean.
I think of A Catholic Citizen in America as a blog, and my ‘Saturday’ posts as blog posts: largely because the (free) service I used back in 2008, when I started, had those labels. The service was Blogger.com, the first A Catholic Citizen in America post went online September 16, 2008: and I’m drifting again.
If my default labels for the stuff I write are widely meaningful, then I’m a blogger and what I do each week is blogging.
On the other hand, if I shift mental gears and look at how I see my content and what I do while preparing it: I’m writing essays, monographs, or articles. “Monograph” sounds a trifle highfalutin, “essay” reminds me of my college days, but all three labels strike me as accurate.
I’d prefer “article”, since I try to make these things fun to read.
Maybe “fun” isn’t the right word. Let’s say worth the time it takes to read them.
And now I’d better get back to this week’s “article”. It’s about what scientists found in the Trapezium Cluster, and why other scientists deliberately dropped a few thousand atoms of antimatter.
“A mummified man known as Stoneman Willie will receive a proper burial after being on display at a funeral home in Reading, Pennsylvania, for 128 years.
“The unidentified man was an alcoholic who died of kidney failure in a local jail on Nov. 19, 1895. He was accidentally mummified by a mortician experimenting with new embalming techniques, according to Auman’s Funeral Home.
“Dressed in a suit with a bow tie, the gaunt man is displayed in a coffin with a red sash across his chest. His hair and teeth remain intact, and his skin has taken on a leathery appearance….”
A couple of things jumped out at me.
First, how could someone be “accidentally mummified”?! Although on second thought, maybe the experimental embalming technique wasn’t supposed to have that effect.
Second, how could someone be “unidentified” and “an alcoholic”? Unless an alcoholism diagnosis could be made without knowledge of a subject’s personal history back in 1895.
Finding answers to those and other questions would very likely take more time than I’m willing to spend. A quick check showed that I’d have to dig deep to find specifics about “Stoneman Willie”.
He’s apparently famous in and around Reading, Pennsylvania: but has a next-to-nonexistent digital footprint.
So I’ll be talking about something else for this week’s ‘Saturday’ post: at least two somethings, the way things are shaping up, and that’s another topic.
Anyway, that Reuters article says that “Stoneman Willie” was arrested for pick-pocketing back in 1895. He gave authorities a fake name, which probably accounts for his “anonymous” status: that, and his being known as one of those Irishmen.
One of my ancestral homelands is Ireland: so it’s nice, seeing a fellow-landsman being treated with a measure of dignity. Perhaps a bit delayed. But then, “Stoneman Willie” arguably had no pressing engagements during those 128 years. His body didn’t at any rate.
That said, a somewhat less leisurely timetable for his burial would have been nice. On the other hand, this way he’s getting as find a send-off as any son of the sod might expect. Or hope for, when it comes to that.
Seriously, Though
Since this is A Catholic Citizen in America, the posthumous career of “Stoneman Willie” brought a few points about being human to mind.
First off, human life is special, sacred. That’s “…because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end….” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258)
That’s all human life. We’re all people: no matter who we are, who our ancestors are, or what we’ve done. (Genesis 1:26–27, 2:7; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355-357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 2268-2269, 1929, 2273-2274, 2276-2279)
I’ve said that before, and probably will again.
I don’t know whether “Stoneman Willie” was caught picking someone’s pocket, or if he was just the first Irishman who turned up after a citizen noticed something missing.
At this time of day, it probably doesn’t matter. My guess is that the statute of limitations has long since passed, everyone involved is dead, and descendants of the pick-pocketed person are not overly fervent in their desire for restitution. I could be wrong about that, however.
One more thing, and I’m done.
Giving “Stoneman Willie” what Reuters called a “proper burial” strikes me as a good idea.
That’s because respect for human life and dignity matters. (Catechism, 2258ff)
That includes respect for the dead and dying. (Catechism, 2299-2301)
There’s a great deal more I could say, but instead I’ll wrap this up with the usual sort-of-related links:
NASA’s “UAP Independent Study Team Report” used the words stigma, destigmatize, or destigmatizing about a dozen times. At 31 mostly-text pages, that works out to one of those words every two and a half pages.
That’s nowhere near the frequency I’ve seen for terms like “communist threat” or “climate change” in fevered philippics, but it was enough to get my attention.
Particularly since I’m both a nerd and a convert to Catholicism.
That’s given me opportunities for experiencing scorn and/or bemused puzzlement: along the lines of ‘how can you believe in that stuff’; or ‘well, I don’t believe in…’.
Oh, boy. Before getting around to perceived existential threats and B movie space monsters, I’d better talk about “believe in”.
I don’t “believe in” science, grammar, music theory, or anything else that helps us make sense of this universe and its components. But I think they’re useful.
I certainly don’t “believe in” them in the sense that I rely on, say, the heptatonic scale and Pythagorean theorem for meaning and purpose in my life.
Then there was a survey done between September 16 and 18, 2013. Survata asked 5,886 Americans “Do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life?”
If they’d asked me, I might have said ‘yes, no, I’m not sure’. And then started discussing semantics, the nature of knowledge — which may be why I’m very seldom polled.
Except during election years, when they’re asking for money. And that’s another topic.
On the other hand, I might have figured that the survey folks felt that “do you believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life?” and “do you think extraterrestrial life exists?” meant the same thing. In which case my response would have been and still is “I’m not sure”.
I don’t know how serious Survata was about their poll.
Apparently the folks were interviewed online, which would limit the sample to folks with Internet connections. And instead of asking if they thought extraterrestrial life exists, they asked “do you believe in….”
Granted, to “believe in” means having faith or confidence in the existence of, or trusting the goodness or value of someone or something.
In that sense, I “believe in” New Hampshire and the Minnesota State Lottery.1 But not the way I “believe in” Jesus.
Okay. That’s enough, maybe too much, about “believe in” and opinion polls.
Next, what I suspect is behind warnings some scientists got, that openly discussing extraterrestrial technosignatures would hurt their careers.
Movies!
Bear with me, please.
I think most folks would realize that 1950s B movies accurately reflected neither science nor scientific research. If they stopped whatever they were doing, and seriously considered the matter.
But I suspect that folks who are on successful career tracks are focused, driven, practical: and not prone to ponder matters which lack a direct bearing on either current projects or future promotions.
I’m also quite sure that serious-minded researchers who seem offended by colleagues who openly admit interest in extraterrestrial intelligence are — well, very serious-minded folks.
Certainly not the sort to admit having seen cinematic works such as these:
“It Came from Outer Space” (1953)
“It Conquered the World” (1956)
“It Conquered” — or — Beware Space Monsters Bearing Gifts
Space monster from Venus, with conquest on its mind. “It Conquered the World”. (1956)
“It Conquered the World” (1956) “A well meaning scientist guides an alien monster to Earth from Venus, so that he can rid mankind of feelings and emotions — but only death and sorrow results.” (IMDB.com)
I’m 71. If I’d had a successful career in a field which tends toward mandatory retirement ages, then I’d have been retired by now.
But if staying on the job was an option, I might have become an administrator, executive, or earned some other decision-making position by now.
During eras in which apple carts were not being repeatedly upset, putting folks with decades of experience in charge arguably made sense. I suspect it makes sense anyway, since human nature hasn’t changed: not since long before we started keeping records.
But today?
I grew up in a world where telephones and television were destabilizing technologies. Information technology had been a threat to many folks in middle management. It still is; at least for folks who won’t, or can’t, learn new skills.
Since then, I’ve had jobs including but not limited to sales clerk, flower delivery guy, beet chopper, radio disk jockey, English teacher, graphic designer, computer guy, and list manager — and kept paying attention.
Having someone in charge who is around my age, but who hasn’t had my opportunities for learning new skill sets every year or so; along with my indiscriminate reading habits —
That might have unintended consequences.
Particularly if attitudes and assumptions formed when hula hoops became Hula Hoops had remained unconsidered.2
I’d be surprised if anyone admitted that “It Came from Outer Space” shaped their professional views. Make that astonished.
But I suspect that growing up in a culture which produced such films could leave a mark.
I haven’t seen the film, but found a few mildly neutral discussions of it;3 and this review.
“…Lou Rusoff’s plot is squarely centred among the clichés of the alien takeover genre — it is not long before the good old Communist analogies are being wheeled out — when the possessed general wants to impose martial law at the base the readiest reason is ‘Communist Threat’. Surprisingly though, Rusoff transforms the takeover themes into a literate war of ideas….” (“It Conquered the World“, Roog, Moria Reviews)
Close Encounters of the Creepy Kind: “It Came from Outer Space”
A space monster who just wants to be left alone. “It Came from Outer Space”. (1953)
“It Came from Outer Space” (1953) “A spaceship from another world crashes in the Arizona desert and only an amateur stargazer and a schoolteacher suspect alien influence when the local townsfolk begin to act strangely.” (IMDB)
I haven’t seen this film, either; apart from a two minute, 40 second, clip on YouTube:
Based on that clip, and what I’ve read about the film, I think that maybe there’s more to it than the usual ‘beware anything new and/or ugly’ theme.
I’ve also formed the considered opinion that its fans like it, while folks with more contemporary tastes don’t. I might enjoy it, but maybe not enough to warrant burning those 80 minutes.
“It”, the title character in “It Came from Outer Space”, strikes me as something more that the usual malevolent menace. Based on that two and two-thirds minutes, and what I found in Wikipedia and IMDB.com.4
Perceptions and Assumptions
Close encounters of the creepy kind. “It Came from Outer Space”. (1953)
“It” was also (probably) used as a case in point for a video about B movie science fiction. The video’s point was that man-in-a-rubber-suit monsters and schlock plots gave the genre a reputation for being stupid kid stuff.
At least, I think “It” was used as the example of a dumb movie monster. I saw the video while researching this post, and didn’t record the name or URL. Vexing. Particularly since the video’s narrator made a point that fits in with what I’ll be saying.
Also vexing, because if the video used “It” as an example of cheap B movie science fiction: well, they’re not wrong. Not entirely.
IMDB’s blurb, “…the local townsfolk begin to act strangely”, is a standard 1950s B movie situation: along with townsfolk speaking in stagey southern redneck accents, even if the town is in the Pacific Northwest.
A habit which oozed over into television, and that’s yet another topic.
But I’ve read that the budget for “It Conquered…” was “modest” and “low.” Which fits with the film’s two week black and white production schedule.
“It Came from Outer Space” was filmed in “3-DIMENSION” and cost $800,000, which I’m guessing wasn’t chickenfeed in 1953.
❓😕❓
I was going somewhere with this, and it wasn’t ‘compare-and-contrast’ two old films.
Let me think.
1950s science fiction movies.
Perceptions.
Right.
Moving along
“It” isn’t up to the production values of, say, the xenomorph in “Alien”. I figure that’s partly because “Alien” premiered 26 years after “It Came from Outer Space”.5
“It Came from Outer Space”: Ethics and Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Although it lacks H. R. Giger’s styling, “It” is a more nuanced character than the usual featured creature in ‘everyone screams at the monster’ dramas.
For starters, It and the other aliens don’t want to be on Earth. All they want is to fix their ship, so they can leave and carry on with their mission.
So far, so good: “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” starts with much the same situation.
But It and the others aren’t cute, there’s more than one of them, and they kidnap some humans.
I gather that the kidnappings were necessary, from the aliens’ viewpoint.
Some of them shape-shifted into reasonable facsimiles of the humans. Which got a couple of them killed. The aliens, that is: turns out the facsimiles weren’t sufficiently convincing.
The kidnappings weren’t part of the usual ‘take over the world’ thing. It and company were stealing materials they needed for repairs.6
Kidnapping and theft are bad ideas. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, 2401, 2408-2413)
I’ll grant that It had good reason for thinking that negotiating with the humans would go badly, particularly after panicked humans killed some aliens who were getting supplies.
Whether it was legitimate defense, unintentional homicide, or murder: is something I’ll skip for now. (Catechism, 2258-2269)
How much of this nuance and complexity was readily apparent in the movie? That’s a good question: and a reason I might view it someday.
Accepting Truth: and Uncertainty
I don’t know what goes on in another person’s head. But that won’t stop me from speculating: based on my experiences; and, arguably, biases.
I suspect that even folks with advanced degrees and important titles may at some level believe that films such as “Plan 9 from Outer Space” and “Invaders from Mars” accurately reflect current astrobiology and SETI research.7
That, and what might feel like justified fear of scandal besmirching the fair name of science, could explain the hate mail mentioned recently:
“…At least one scientist serving on the study team reported receiving negative (hate) mail from colleagues due to their membership.…” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) pp. 26-27) [emphasis mine]
Less vindictive folks tried to warn colleagues, lest they stray from the path of conventional studies and thereby fall afoul of those whose duty it is to punish — you get the idea.
“…Study Team members also noted firsthand knowledge of colleagues who were warned to stay away from research in areas like extraterrestrial technosignatures, which could damage their scientific credibility and promotion potential. These experiences further confirm the negative stigma associated with studying unusual or unexplained phenomena….” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) pp. 26-27)[emphasis mine]
Curiosity, “Summa Theologica”, and Mr. Squibbs
The inimitable Mr Squibbs notwithstanding, I’m pretty sure that studying UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) is not “…tampering with things man was not supposed to know….”
Neither, I think, is discussing what is and is not a technosignature.8 Which is a topic or two for another time.
I’d say that curiosity can’t be a bad thing, but I won’t.
Mainly because a priest pointed me toward what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?” (“Summa Theologiae”, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 167; St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) translation via New Advent).
St. Thomas Aquinas was chatty, even by my standards.
What he said, very basically, was: knowledge, truth, and wisdom are from God; and they’re good things. But since we’re messed up — that’s a whole passel of other topics — we can twist curiosity away from truth and toward selfish goals. And that’s a bad idea.
My “basically” summary is an enormous simplification. Like I said, St. Thomas Aquinas was chatty.
Again, I don’t know what goes on in another person’s head.
But I suspect that some misgivings about extraterrestrial intelligence — folks who are people like us, but not human — are responses to a perceived existential threat.
‘Existential Threat from Outer Space’?!
I’m not sure when I started noticing “existential threat” as a recurring phrase in articles and op-eds.
Realizing that American English has shifted a bit I since started paying attention, I looked for a recent definition.
existential threat [ eg-zi-sten-shuhl thret ] December 2, 2019 What does existential threat mean? An existential threat is a threat to something’s very existence—when the continued being of something is at stake or in danger. It is used to describe threats to actual living things as well to nonliving thing things, such as a country or an ideology. (Pop Culture dictionary, Dictionary.com)
Pushing their ‘existential threat’ button gets people’s attention. As a marketing tool, you’ll see it in ads for everything from insurance to hair care products.
Pushing the ‘communist menace’ button was effective in my youth. It still is in some circles, although these days it’s mostly been replaced by climate change.
I wasn’t fond of fearmongering then, and I’m still not. Partly because I think that, despite the hysteria, there were and are real issues.
Maybe not as dire as those depicted in “Zombies of the Stratosphere” and “The Brain from Planet Arous”, but serious nonetheless.9
Acknowledging real issues seems reasonable. Whipping folks into a blind panic doesn’t.
Granted, I’m not raising money for some outfit or campaigning for the proper party.
Beliefs
So: what, if anything, does this have to do with NASA, UAPs and technosignatures?
I figure part of the answer is in Ted Rall’s July 2, 2021, cartoon:
“They covered up UFOs because they cause us to question the basic nature of humanity….” (Text from “The Truth is In Here“, Ted Rall (July 2, 2021))
Ted Rall’s cartoon relies on two assumptions: that UFOs are spacecraft built by folks from another planet, and that knowing we have neighbors would threaten what we think is our basic nature.
I think it’s funny, partly because I think both assumptions are valid. Valid as accurate reflections of widely-held cultural beliefs, at any rate.
But since I’m not squarely on my dominant culture’s 50th percentile, I’d better share my views.
I think UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) and UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) are real. In the sense that they are, in one case flying objects that were not identified, and in the other odd phenomena which were not identified.
One UFO turned out to be a Bart Simpson balloon. I mentioned that back in June.
Sprites aren’t UAPs any more, since we’ve learned that they’re massive electrical discharges that happen over thunderstorms.
My guess is that most and possibly all UAPs will eventually be identified as more-or-less-rare natural phenomena.
And some may remain as unidentified as the UFO reported between Grafton, North Dakota and Steven, Minnesota, back in 1979.
I don’t, by the way, recommend following the link: not for the next week or so, at any rate. KARE 11 is a reputable media outlet in this area, but the page triggered one of my security routines when I accessed it on Friday.
Incident on Highway 220, 1979: UFOs and Stress
This is one of the better accounts of the 1997 incident, and includes images of 19 documents from the Marshall County Historical Society. I’ve saved them, and might use them for a post; eventually. Anyway, here’s the KARE11 Extras piece:
“…August 27, 1979 in Warren, Minnesota, about 20 miles from the North Dakota border, Marshall County Sheriff’s Deputy Val Johnson was on patrol early in the morning on Highway 5 when he saw a bright light to the south on Highway 220.
“Johnson thought maybe a crashed semi or a downed plane, but as he approached it, he said the light instantly jumped through the windshield hitting him like a ‘200-pound pillow’ knocking him out.
“His reaction was preserved in the actual radio call to dispatch when he awoke.
“Dispatch Operator: ‘407 What is your condition?’
“Deputy Johnson: ‘I don’t know. Something just hit my car.’
“Dispatch: ‘What’s your condition? Are you OK?’
“Johnson: ‘Something attacked my car. I heard the glass breaking and the locks … the brakes locked up. I don’t know what’s going on?’
“According to the sheriff’s office investigation reports, Johnson’s wristwatch and the clock on the 1977 Ford Ltd. cruiser stopped working for 14 minutes. Johnson said his teeth were fractured at the gumline and his eyes burned.
“‘My eyes were extremely painful as if I’d been subjected to something like [an] arc welder burn or something,’ said Johnson during an interview on the 1980 TV show ‘That’s Incredible’….
“…We spoke with him for 20 minutes, but he did not want to go on record because of the stress and attention this has caused his family for a long time. He did however permit us to pass on the notion that he hopes these new UFO sightings and government reports might give people new perspective on his story.”
My opinion at the time was that what Deputy Johnson saw was real: real enough to damage his vehicle, at any rate. That’s still my opinion.
Maybe it was something along the lines of ball lightning, someone dangling a crowbar and road flare from a low-flying airplane, or something entirely different.
I don’t know.
I do know that I sympathize with Val Johnson. Accounts at the time and KARE11 Extras’ followup in 2021 strongly suggested that he’s someone who had an odd experience, and reported it to the best of his ability.
Making that report marked him as someone who didn’t keep quiet about an oddity.
I strongly suspect that the stress which his notoriety inflicted on his family is real, too.
The Johnson family’s experience is one reason I hope current efforts to study UAPs without punishing folks who report them succeed.
Do I see the 1979 incident as proof that space aliens are real?
No. Certainly not. There simply isn’t enough evidence.
Which gets me back to “…the basic nature of humanity…” and extraterrestrial intelligence.
Neighbors and Angels
Will solid evidence that extraterrestrial intelligences, people who aren’t human, exist “…cause us to question the basic nature of humanity…”?
In some cases, yes. Probably.
For me? I’d be curious about them. But how I see humans and humanity wouldn’t change all that much. I’ll get back to that.
I don’t know how many folks believe that humans are the only people in this entire universe, and that there can’t possibly be anyone else.
I suspect that at least a few folks who seem convinced that the Bible forbids any knowledge that we obtained after, say, the 15th century, would be shocked and horrified.
The upper crust and nouveau riche of 19th century Europe seemed to have trouble accepting that folks who weren’t (a) European and (b) of their class were, in fact, human. So some of their contemporary analogs might have trouble, too.
But me? I’m a Catholic, I know my faith, so I’m okay with the idea that God’s God.
Backing up a little: I think God is infinite. Eternal. All-powerful. Incomprehensible. (Catechism, 1, 202, 268-269)
If God decides that we’ve got neighbors, I won’t say ‘you can’t do that’.
Now, what about “the basic nature of humanity”?
We’re made “in the image of God”. We’re creatures with a body and a soul, made with the stuff of this world, living in space and time. We can think, and decide what we will or will not do. (Genesis 1:27, 2:7; Catechism, 302, 362-368, 373, 1730)
If we meet other people who are free-willed spirits with physical bodies — as this scientist said, they’ll be people:
“…Frankly, if you think about it, any creatures on other planets, subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics as us, made of the same kinds of atoms, with an awareness and a will recognizably like ours would be at the very least our cousins in the cosmos. They would be so similar to us in all the essentials that I don’t think you’d even have the right to call them aliens.” (“Brother Astronomer,” Chapter Three, Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial? — Brother Guy Consolmagno (2000))
One more point and I’m done for this week.
There’s another reason I have no problem with thinking that some people aren’t human. We’ve been dealing with non-human people off and on for millennia.
We call them angels. They’re not human, not even close. They don’t have bodies. Although they can interact with us, they exist outside of time and space. (Catechism, 328-336) — and that’s still another topic. Topics
“The existential risk space of climate change“ Christian Huggel, Laurens M. Bouwer, Sirkku Juhola, Reinhard Mechler, Veruska Muccione, Ben Orlove, Ivo Wallimann-Helmer; Climate Change 174, 8 (2022); via US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health
An ‘up’ side to my parish’s new Mass schedule is that it gets me back home a few minutes after 9:00 a.m. Usually. Today we had a baptism, so it was about 9:30 when I returned.
But that left me with plenty of time to watch NASA’s coverage of the OSIRIS-REx SRC ‘s return to Earth and successful touchdown in Utah. That’s a big deal.
I saved a few screenshots. Talking about Bennu and the OSIRIS-REx mission will probably wait until scientists start studying what’s been brought back.
So here they are, along with what the OSIRIS-REx acronym stands for and links.
SRC and its parachute (the blob just left of the crosshair). (September 24, 2023; 9:48 a.m.)Touchdown! (September 24, 2023; 9:52 a.m.)Good news for the OSIRIS-REx team. (September 24, 2023; 9:53 a.m.)Video from a helicopter. The SRC is about three feet across. (September 24, 2023; 10:10 a.m.)First things first: make sure the SRC is safe to handle. (September 24, 2023; 10:21 a.m.)OSIRIS-REx SRC’s sample: there’ll be a whole lot of science going on. (September 24, 2023; 10:23 a.m.)
Basically: the OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Explorer) SRC (Sample-Return Capsule) is back on Earth, with over 60 grams of stuff from the asteroid Bennu.
I think it’s a big deal, since Bennu is a C-type asteroid: and that’s another topic.
Space aliens in the movies: not what I’ll be talking about.
I’m about as sure as I can be, that space aliens have not:
Replaced my neighbors with pod people
Been held in a secret laboratory
Plotted to conquer our fair planet
I do, however, think that life might exist on other worlds.
And even if it doesn’t, studying phenomena that we don’t quite understand strikes me as a good idea.
At this point, having seen what I’d written and the first two pictures, my oldest daughter said “‘Not a normal Catholic blog!'” More accurately, she wrote it. We’d been enjoying our daily online chat. And that’s another topic.
Well, she’s right. This isn’t a normal Catholic blog — whatever that is — and this isn’t a normal Catholic blog post.
It isn’t even all of what I had planned for this week. I’ll explain that, then talk about NASA’s new UAP report, attitudes, assumptions; and, finally, touch on the legacy of “Killers from Space”.
Back in June, I discussed UFOs, UAPs, NASA’s plans for studying stuff we don’t understand yet, and why I thought it’s a good idea.
Last week, NASA released the “UAP Independent Study Team Report”.1
So, after a quick look, I talked about it. Wrote about it, actually; and said that taking a second look would probably be worth the effort: “this time actually reading it: not just skimming for something I can quote.”
That was then, this is now. I’ve read through the thing. All 31 pages: 36 including the front and back sheets, which are worth looking at. NASA did a nice job with illustrations.
Which reminds me. Here’s a link to the report. It’s an Acrobat/pdf file on the nasa.gov site.
I’d planned on taking notes as I went along, then discussing the main points.
I’ve been running a fever, and feeling distinctly sub-par, so that’s not gonna happen.
Instead, here’s what I see as a few important issues; along with why I still think studying phenomena we don’t understand is a good idea.
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP): Stigma and Sprites
UFO cartoons, a selection from CartoonStock Ltd.
“…The study of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) presents a unique scientific opportunity that demands a rigorous, evidence-based approach. Addressing this challenge will require new and robust data acquisition methods, advanced analysis techniques, a systematic reporting framework and reducing reporting stigma. NASA – with its extensive expertise in these domains and global reputation for scientific openness – is in an excellent position to contribute to UAP studies within the broader whole-of-government framework led by the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)….” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) p. 3) [emphasis mine]
That goal, “reducing reporting stigma”, strikes me as a very good idea.
NASA’s “extensive expertise … and global reputation” — the statement’s probably accurate, but the tone felt a trifle overly-complimentary. Accurate, though, I hope; and I’ll leave it at that.
One more excerpt, then moving along to the idea that folks shouldn’t be punished for making accurate reports:
“…A particularly promising avenue for deeper integration within a systematic, evidenced-based framework for is the NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), which NASA administers for the FAA. This system is a confidential, voluntary, non-punitive reporting system that receives safety reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers, cabin crew, ground operators, maintenance technicians…” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) p. 18) [emphasis mine]
Now, why all this fuss about “stigma” and “non-punitive”?
Accurate Reporting May End Your Career — or — Sprites and Assumptions
They’re a rare phenomenon, and didn’t exist during my youth. Not officially.
I remember reading an article about the things, back when scientists were confirming that strange lights really do shoot up from the tops of thunderstorms. Rarely.
The article discussed what had happened to a few folks who had seen sprites, hadn’t taken pictures, but had reported what they saw anyway.
One of them was an American soldier who’d been standing guard at night. As I recall, he’d been told to report anything unusual. So, when he saw lights shoot up from the top of a distant thunderstorm, he told his superior what he’d seen.
This was back in the Sixties, give or take. So “obviously” he’d been on drugs. Or maybe he was one of those crazy guys who sees things that aren’t there. Either way, any plans he might have had for a military career went phut.
Maybe that was an isolated incident. I’ve looked for that article, or another piece discussing the inappropriately-diligent soldier and related situations. So far, I’ve found nothing. Not surprising, since it was around a half-century back now.
What impresses me is how much has been transferred to humanity’s digitized archives, and that’s yet another topic.
“Continuous Darts of Light…Resembling Rockets More Than Lightning”
In 20/20 hindsight, we’ve found examples of folks (probably) seeing sprites, jets, ELVES, and other rare phenomena, going back at least to 1886.
“…Throughout the historical scientific literature, there are sprinklings of eyewitness accounts of unusual ‘lightning’ observed in the clear air above nighttime thunderstorms. The descriptions use phases such as ‘continuous darts of light… ascended to a considerable altitude, resembling rockets more than lightning.’ (MacKenzie and Toynbee, 1886), ‘a luminous trail shot up to 15 degrees or so, about as fast as, or faster than, a rocket’ (Everett, 1903), ‘a long weak streamer of a reddish hue’ (Malan, 1937), ‘flames appearing to rise from the top of the cloud’ (Ashmore, 1950), or ‘the discharge assumed a shape similar to roots of a tree in an inverted position’ (Wood, 1951). Partly because these eyewitness reports of unusual ‘lightning’ appearing above thunderstorms were never captured on film, the lightning science community generally ignored them. The lack of an established vocabulary and the existence of several distinctive phenomena contributed to the variation in the verbal descriptions….” (“The Role of the Space Shuttle Videotapes in the Discovery of Sprites, Jets, and Elves“; William L. Boeck, Otha H. Vaughan, Jr., Richard J. Blakeslee, Bernard Vonnegut, Marx Brook (ca. 1996?) via NASA)
Ignoring isolated reports of rare phenomena may have made sense.
Particularly after 1888, when George Eastman started marketing his Kodak camera.
After that, observers might be expected to have their Kodak #1 readily at hand when witnessing a once-in-a-lifetime event. Or maybe not.
“The lack of an established vocabulary” didn’t help, and neither did the fact that observers were describing several different phenomena.
In any case, sprites and other high-altitude electrical phenomena left a trail of ignored observations and penalized witnesses. Until scientists in Minnesota and elsewhere started actively seeking the weird things.
Taking video cameras into space didn’t hurt.3 It would take a fervent disciple of ignorance to claim that camcorders can hallucinate. And that’s yet again another topic.
Look! Up in the Sky! It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! No! It’s a — Thing
Something odd in footage taken by a UAV. From “UAP Independent Study Team Report”. (2023)
The NASA UAP report talks about technology and information sharing systems that would have been science fiction in my youth.
I’d planned on talking about that. As I said earlier, it’s been one of those weeks; so I won’t.
Even with today’s tech, sometimes all we’ve got to work with is a grainy image: like that “South Asian Object”.
I don’t know how the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) decided that it was probably a commercial aircraft, recorded in a compressed video image.
The apparent cavitation does strike me as being similar to what I’ve seen in over-compressed digital images. But that sort-of-bullet-shaped blob doesn’t look much like an aircraft to me: commercial or otherwise.
On the other hand, I don’t have access to the original files; and I sure don’t know how the UAV’s system works.4 So I’ll willingly assume that the “assessed as a likely commercial aircraft” label makes sense.
And I sure wouldn’t assume that a fuzzy blob is proof that space aliens are in our skies.
Sprites and Flight Safety: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
So how come NASA and the Department of Defense have been studying UAPs?
A big reason mentioned in that NASA report is safety.
Another excerpt. The way I’ve been feeling, this isn’t the time to try paraphrasing.
“…ODNI assess that the observed increase in the reporting rate is partially due to a better understanding of the possible threats that UAP may represent—either as flight safety hazards or as potential adversary collection platforms. This is partially due to reduced stigma surrounding UAP reporting….” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) p. 3) [emphasis mine]
Sorting out what “potential adversary collection platforms” means in governmentalese is beyond me at the moment.
“Flight safety hazards”, however, is pretty straightforward. I haven’t found much about what happens when a vehicle interacts with, say, a sprite. But I figure getting up close and personal with any sort of massive electrical discharge is not good news.
In 1989, for example, a NASA high-altitude balloon dropped its payload while drifting over a thunderstorm.
Odds are, it tangled with a sprite: although that term wasn’t used as a label for the cold plasma phenomenon until 1993.5
Hate Mail, Stigma and Speculation
Ignoring an apparently one-off report with no supporting evidence is one thing.
Punishing someone for making such a report, or sending hate mail to folks who might study such reports?
That’s something else.
One more excerpt (it’s the last one this week, honest!).
“…NASA’s public announcement of its UAP Independent Study Team membership was met with interest and spurred both positive and negative feedback. At least one scientist serving on the study team reported receiving negative (hate) mail from colleagues due to their membership. Others were ridiculed and criticized on social media. Study Team members also noted firsthand knowledge of colleagues who were warned to stay away from research in areas like extraterrestrial technosignatures, which could damage their scientific credibility and promotion potential. These experiences further confirm the negative stigma associated with studying unusual or unexplained phenomena….” (“UAP Independent Study Team Report“, Final Report, NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team (September 14, 2023) pp. 26-27) [emphasis mine]
Warning someone to stay away from studying extraterrestrial technosignatures, lightning, smallpox, or phlogiston — could be reasonable. I can see how a thoughtful colleague might try steering a friend away from career suicide.
But spitting the sort of venom I imagine in the ridicule and hate mail mentioned in NASA’s “UAP Independent Study Team Report”? That doesn’t seem so friendly.
I don’t know what’s going on inside the heads of cyberbullies, academic vigilantes, and folks who embrace the ‘my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts’ philosophy.
But that won’t keep me from speculating.
Part of what’s in play may be rooted in cinematic presentations like “Invaders from Mars”, “Killers from Space”, and “Plan 9 from Outer Space”.
Consciously or not, a person might file “extraterrestrial intelligence” under “schlock movies”, cross-indexed with “stupid kid stuff” and “crackpot notions”. It might even make sense.
To someone who hadn’t fully embraced the possibility that serious ideas can be presented in monumentally tacky formats, at any rate.
Then there’s Lovecraft’s “terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein”, and perceived existential threats — which I’ll leave for next week.
The perceived existential threats, anyway.
Finally, I think learning more about this vast, ancient and wonder-packed universe is a good idea.6
Starting with a conclusion, and then picking data that supports that conclusion — is anything but.
A physician’s reaction to Dr. Edward Jenner’s experiments in developing a vaccine for smallpox, (1796) via Psychological Sciences, Vanderbilt University
Letter, To Benjamin Franklin from John Winthrop, 6 January 1768, via founders.archives.gov
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
I live in Minnesota, in America's Central Time Zone. This blog is on UTC/Greenwich time.
Support this Blog:
More Perspectives From the Catholic Laity:
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
I do know that I’m still posting something new here on A Catholic Citizen in America each Saturday.
