iPhone app,    iPad app,    Android phone app,    Android tablet app,     More

Secondary menu

You are here

The Pros and Cons of Alien Visitation

Primary tabs

Scott Corrales's picture

[Dr. Roque Mecoli penned this article a long time ago for INEXPLICATA and we are pleased to share it with our readers - SC]

by Dr. Roque Mecoli

Regardless of whether we are being visited or not by entities from outer space and/or other dimensions (a caveat I make out of respect for the beliefs of others, "yea" sayers and naysayers alike, since I have stated elsewhere that I have the impression that the polarities in this and many other aspects [of the UFO phenomenon] have existed for years, and I honestly do not want to engage in a debate because we are unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion for all the perspectives), there is a highly interesting which I have never seen mentioned in any bibliography or copious reports on the subject. 

When we speak of the intentions of the E.T.'s who are supposedly visiting us, there are certain matters to be taken into consideration.

Allow me for a moment, in the guise of a working hypothesis only, to accept beyond any doubt whatsoever that our world has been visited for centuries by nonhuman entities, hailing from cosmic space, hailing from other dimensions, or from wherever...What do we actually know about them? Quite a bit, and nothing to sneeze at. Let's see...

• If we take reports that discuss their behavior to be valid documents, it is plainly shown that to date, they have no intention to manifest themselves publicly and clearly to mankind as a whole. If they have the means and/or the technology to get here, it is absurd to suppose that they would not know how to do so or be unable to do so, since even by means of crude "radio" technology, emitting primitive signals that betray the existence of an intelligent pattern behind them, would suffice to begin an exchange.

• If we take the reports of cases in which vehicles and/or occupants have been taken by surprise by humans as true, their behavior has generally resulted in escape or avoidance, sidelining the abduction issue due to its polemical nature and to keep this analysis from becoming overly complex (Please note I said "taken by surprise").

• The luminous manifestations that would theoretically be identified as their craft and/or conveyances in our world, cannot to this day be satisfactorily explained by science, int the sense that many reports hint at a technology or handling of underlying physical laws which our own scientific development has not yet attained, at least to the level necessary to understand them (regardless of what said "lights" actually may be).

• The foregoing point, in turn, gives rise to this one: that any person having a knowledge of physics and other related sciences is aware that space travel per se is a matter of the utmost complexity. Things do not occur as they do in the movies, or in Star Trek, where building-sized vehicles move with the same ease as car. There is nothing more hostile, horrible and inhospitable than deep space, and it is necessary to possess advanced knowledge to cover sidereal distances, aside from having, of course, the scientific background to bring it into being in the first place. If we add to this cocktail the subject of interdimensional travel, then the degree of complexity increases exponentially and shockingly.

• In spite of the countless UFO reports in existence, showing the most diverse configurations imaginable (many of them perhaps fraudulent, others representing genuine enigmas), these entities have proven to be, to date, sufficiently intelligent as to not leave any tangible proof of their existence--some device, mechanism or even a screw left behind one night somewhere...enough to analyze in our laboratories and discover, at the very least, an alloy not of this Earth (we only have photographs and film clips which are largely useless).

• This point is likewise derived from the foregoing: the ability to avoid making mistakes of this nature renders the belief that their vehicles could come crashing to the ground as sheer foolishness; as if said vehicles were piloted by student drivers. If they have been able to overcome the bleakness of space and are not prone to minor errors as stated before, this agrees perfectly with a coherent set of suppositions, and I repeat, indicates concomitant intelligence and/or advanced knowledge. Therefore, my friends, I do not believe in the ubiquitous saucer crashes, one of them which has been highly touted.

• There are persons dubbed "Contactees", allegedly having the ability to make contact with these intelligences (or perhaps more aptly, they have the ability to reach Contactees!) through a variety of means, with the common denominator in this cases being some sort of teaching and/or advice and/or lessons given by these entities to mankind. There are also, it would seem, isolated individuals or groups who are in contact with these intelligences under certain circumstances.

To avoid overly extending this article, I will stop with the ones we have listed up to here in an effort to see if certain deductions can be made from them...although my sole interest is in articulating the following question: What inferences can be made concerning their intentions? This is the question I would like to address--one which has been a matter of exchange between researchers and enthusiasts for a long time now.

First, may I remind the reader that these are completely a priori
suppositions, and should not be construed as my taking a stance on them. I only wish to reach, through simple logical reasoning, at least a single port having a certain degree of validity. To do this, my working method accepts and holds true many things which I am perfectly aware are not shared by others, but, I repeat, it is only a focusing point, whose foundations are perhaps incorrect (to some). With a bit of luck, we shall see if we can determine the point at which "there are errors in the hypothesis", since this would in itself imply a humble degree of progress in the subject.

Furthermore, throughout this entire analysis, I have stationed myself on a kind of "middle of the road" that is as logical and natural as possible, but I am fully aware that in doing so I'm putting aside numerous factors--perhaps some of them highly important.

My very personal, and perhaps debatable, manner of approaching an issue of this nature is to try and adopt the mindset or perspective of my opponent, and try to reach some possible solutions by this method. But, isn't it reckless or nonsensical to adopt the stance of an ET, of whom we know next to nothing aside from contactee-provided information? I don't think so, if we bear certain details in mind. 

While it is true that we don't known any life forms comparable to humanity at the level of development analogous to the development of a substantial culture or civilization, terrestrial science can fortunately assist us with a healthy dose of common sense.

Thus, through information provided by radio telescopes from distant and perilous places in the cosmos, we know that the molecules and atoms discovered so far prove that "there is nothing new under the sun". It is of no concern that the Orion Nebula has oxygen existing as a positive ion in its natural state, due to the formidable conditions reigning there, and which cause it to lose electrons--a fact which could only be duplicated on Earth under special laboratory conditions.

What matters is that oxygen is there and continues to be oxygen, even many light-years away. Furthermore, more complex molecules have been found, such as the simplest alcohols, cyanohydrin, and perhaps most interestingly, the precursors of the aminoacids, among others. To a chemist like myself, the observation of such molecules allows me to infer their bonds, energy, etc.--matters which are commonly known to modern chemistry. To summarize the chemical aspect, I will state that I'm convinced that regardless of the planets or places these life forms may hail from, they will be the product of the logical adaptation of their lives to their specific worlds, but will be unable to escape the laws of chemistry. Therefore, I do not believe at all (and this statement is just one example) that in any part of the Universe there could be complex silicon-based lifeforms, for the simple reason that the silicon atom's size, linked to its electronegativity, forbids the creation of long and stable atomic chains (as carbon is able to do) both here and in the most distant galaxy, in conditions which are analogous to our own.

I will brook no debate on this question, and any arguments to the contrary belong squarely in the realm of science fiction, for the moment. In any case, radiotelescope data serves to confirm my ideas, and that is why I mention it. My impression is therefore that an attempt must be made to understand the mental mechanisms of hypothetical creatures, very possibly different to us and having internal differences that agree to the external ones (the absence of a heart, or a heart having four ventricles, or anything you can imagine), but basically constituted by chemical parameters which could under no circumstances be opposite to our own. In this sense, I'm surprised-- and even suspicious, why not? -- that the entities described to now, which have been seen or allegedly seen, resemble us so closely...there is talk of the Chupacabras, etc., and even the notorious "Greys" having a decidedly humanoid appearance. Of course, I accept that someone can sustain the hypothesis that Life, as a universal phenomenon, may be almost identical throughout the universe as regards its appearance (a very respectable position, in fact), but I think its a flimsy hypothesis to uphold, aware as we are of the extraordinary complexity and diversity in the Cosmos. To summarize this item: these life-forms cannot have nightmarishly different thought processes from our own, despite having two heads and five arms, if you like. It is quite logical to suppose, based on their probable chemical framework, and on information which we already have, that they cannot be substantially different from us.

It is therefore that I risk putting myself in their position in an effort to answer the question stated earlier. At this purely scientific point of the matter I reiterate my strong-headedness, and will only accept strictly scientific rebuttals. I will accept, however, any theories different to my own or opposite to them, as well as the corresponding rebuttals.

To summarize from another perspective:

a) If they are very similar to us based on the idea that Life in the Universe follows similar patterns, regardless of any other factors, then this is a point in favor of the contactees, and it is neither difficult nor reckless to guess their thought patterns.

b) If on the contrary, this is not the case, there are weighty reasons to suspect that their basic chemistry cannot be so wildly diverging from our own--what is more, it should be almost identical (by this I don't mean metabolic or chemical processes, or anything similar) and only differences in structure and function by adaptation factors would be observable. They could have chloroplasts instead of mitochondria, or their aminoacids could be dextrogyrous and/or levogyrous, they could be anaerobic or aerobic, oviparous rather than mammals, etc. But the essence rests upon what its chemically known to us, and therefore, I don't believe their minds would consider it prudent to point their spaceships toward the core a nearby star to acquire a suntan for beauty purposes (?) in an act of cosmic madness (or would cosmic "incineration" be more appropriate?).

I don't wish to dwell on this point excessively, but I insist that chemistry could be of great help to us in this analysis. While I cannot continue abounding on this for reasons of time as so as not to abuse my readers' patience, it is still possible to pursue this analysis from a chemical perspective, approaching other aspects and details. This means that we can reach the same conclusion on different paths: they must have something (or enough) in common with us to try and speculate on their possible intentions, using our own brains as tools. But what if they're beings from other dimensions? What if their worlds are located in other dimensions? What if they are beings of raw energy? What if their spaceships or their travels are interdimensional?

I will discard nothing. What is more, I have heard the above from many contactees....Ahhhh!! Wait a minute....because in this case we have already detected a contradiction or at least a matter that is difficult to explain. Because if this is the point, then I don't understand what they would find of interest to them in the "physical" world (our own planet, of course). Why appear thousands of times in their shiny vessels if they could do the very same thing from a higher dimension, in principle, without being noticed, since dimensions are interpenetrating (from the physical and mystical standpoint alike) Why descend from their vehicles at night and engage in unfathomable motions and actions? This is utterly ridiculous!

Furthermore, haven't contactees themselves told us that their communications are almost 100% mental, telepathic, etc.? Or does a contactee have to board a saucer to receive instruction? I've never heard such a tale from any contactee...The moral here is that they are either not interdimensional, nor do they travel through other dimensions, or all the reports compiled to date are frauds, hoaxes or errors, or obey some hitherto unknown natural phenomenon having nothing to do with aliens, saucers, etc.

Under no circumstances can I believe that beings having such scientific and/or technological development would have the need to scorch some fields on lonely nights, nor mutilate cattle for God-knows-what reason. Such silliness eludes all logical thinking and does not deserve the slightest analysis, so one would have to choose to believe one thing or another, but I fear that it's impossible to believe both at the same time.

Furthermore, the alternative of the hypothetical interdimensional origin of the ETs with their constant public appearances in the world in which we live is incompatible or irreconcilable with the concept of Energy, which has been well studied by the science known as physics. It is evident for anyone who handles the most basic rudiments of this discipline that a fundamental question arises: regardless of the methods employed, nor the energy sources to which they have access, nor their advancement relative to our own...if a saucer, for example, must traverse the vast distances of outer space, this would imply a truly massive consumption of energy, as any astrophysicist, physicist or astronomer very well knows, and which can even be calculated according to the circumstances. If rather than travelling through space, we imagine travel across dimensions, jumps from one dimension to another, etc. (with all the materializations and dematerializations involved) and the plethora of fantastic statements which I have heard, according to what we known about the structure of matter and some of its laws, this would involve a far greater energy expenditure than conventional travel.

Therefore, unless ET's are certifiably insane (which I doubt), it is unreasonable to choose (even if they had the wherewithal to do so), a process involving greater energy consumption over one that involves less. These processes are truly exorbitant. Things are not handled this way in the Universe...nor can two-headed, five-armed creatures do it, as I stated earlier (unless they have a screw loose, lost in some field at night...)

Any thinking beings, regardless of their galaxy, having to abide by such choices, is condemned beforehand by supine idiocy to never reach space even in a primitive capsule, as we did. In fact, I believe they would never even manage to develop a moderately advanced civilization. These points having been cleared, let us return to our main goal.

To avoid writing countless additional reasoning, it will be most expedient, I think to move on to the matter that interests us most: whether these beings have good or bad intentions toward us. It is not an easy question to address, of course, but we'll give it a shot...

• What could be going through the minds of these beings that flutter around our world?
• Why do they do it, or have chosen to do it since the past, regardless of what point in the past?
• What could be so interesting and important about Earth to them?

To judge by the available information, we can observe an attitude of investigation: they want to know our world, our cities, our soil, our atmosphere, our traits...things that are natural and reasonable in my view. If we someday manage to travel great distances and stumble across a planet inhabited by beings having certain sophistication, we would probably behave in much the same way. It is obvious that "they" would have realized that we are not only underdeveloped, not only technologically, but that we are unfortunately a race unable to overcome its warlike nature and a series of "bad habits" that makes us worthy of being kept at arms'length. This crucial point enables us to make a deduction from both the technological and temporal standpoints--given the extensive amount of time they have spent among us, they have had the occasion and the means to conquer us and/or enslave us. If they haven't done so it's because the have chosen not to...or because they don't exist...it's just that simple (at least for the time being).

What I really don't understand are the arguments wielded by so many people in the sense that it is illogical that after the tremendous effort involved to reach us, in energy alone, they should not show themselves openly and boldly.

Friends...if I was an ET and reached a planet having characteristics like our own, I might behave exactly the same way. I would carry out my assigned tasks (most likely of a scientific nature) and would have nothing at all to do with the planet's occupants, or would at least try not to. At most, I would try to take some random specimens for a more detailed study (abductions? kidnapping? Hmm. Rather interesting variables...)

Up to this point everything would appear to run smoothly in our line of reasoning, but there are certain matters that interfere with this line of thought. Firstly, Contactees tell us of the existence of supposedly telepathic channels that exist between themselves and the aliens. By means of said exchange, we now have enough information concerning their thought processes, intentions, purpose on Earth, etc. Are such exchanges at all feasible?

I would think so (since it has nothing to do with the subject of interdimensional travel or similar absurdities), since I don't have any elements that let me discard, ipso facto, a mental resonance between a human being, in this case, and an ET aboard a spacecraft circulating in our own atmosphere. I am well aware that this is a highly controversial subject, since telepathy is not scientifically proven in the lest...I am employing a rather unscientific argument which feels satisfactory to me. A case in point: I've lost count of the times that for various reasons I've thought of my beloved cat Ro-Ro (an animal!) only to have her, don't ask me how, pick up my thoughts and respond to them. If this isn't a mental link between myself and her, then somebody please explain to me what it is! (my apologies for such a simple example, but i have no inclination to steer from this subject and have to write many additional pages).

In any case--I repeat and I stress--my intention is not to unleash an argument on this point. I'm merely expressing my opinion freely, accepting that there are ideas diametrically opposed to mine.

Retaking the path of our analysis, I think that there is a vital key concealed herein to answer our initial question.

• It is indispensable to create interdisciplinary scientific teams to engage in a serious, rigorous and unprejudiced study of the Contactee phenomenon.

Said teams, after detecting and discarding hoaxers and impostors (of which I am not sure) must probe to the fullest extent possible, after a arduous, difficult and prolonged process, these people and the messages they receive. It is obvious that three conclusions will we reached, among others:

a. That it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions (which I doubt).
b. That reasonable conclusions can be drawn which frame, within a reazonable percentage of certainty, that we are being visited by aliens.
c. That conclusions can be drawn as to the whole thing being explainable through alternative mechanisms, and that it is almost a certainty that there are no aliens to speak of.

It is almost childish to hint at the importance of these conclusions, regardless of alternative "b" or "c" being the winner.

Since I cannot constitute on my own, or insanely take on the faculties of an entire high-pressure work team in action, it becomes obvious that I lack the elements to judge the contents of the messages as being true. Doing so is meaningless in the context of being unable to support them by facts or serious studies made in this regard. I further understand that all of this exposition has
left many loose ends, which I myself have left untied. But the fact remains that it is a very complex matter and tying them up would mean retracing my steps and writing a whole lot more...an activity for which I unfortunately lack the time.

I can neither confirm nor deny that there are ETs spinning around out there, but if so, I tend toward believing that their activities are not unwholesome toward us. At least, as far as we can tell or guess at now, whether because their moral fiber is such...or because there are simply no ETs at all out there. All is relative, and it could be that the facts will prove me wrong tomorrow...I don't know...in fact, I have no reason to know...the progress of the events shall ultimately be the factor that determines the ultimate truth of the matter. 

Author articles