This is a draft of my article for The CE4 Corner - July/August, 2014
Prophecies and Hypotheses - What should we expect from contact cases?
(c)2014 by Craig R. Lang, MS CHt
Comments are always welcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent weeks, I have been the recipient of a storm of e-mails
regarding the Billy Meier case. The mega-dialog began with a note from an
advocate and representative of Billy Meier in the English-speaking world. In
his note to a large e-mail list regarding the Billy Meier case, he stated that
he believes the Meier case to be the only legitimate case of ET contact, and
was critical of other UFO investigative organizations for ignoring it.
Needless to say, a significant, rather acrimonious dialog ensued, escalating
until finally put to rest with a peace call from the MUFON executive director.
Following the peace agreements, as it were, I received an e-mail asking some
interesting questions. Since in my book, The Cosmic Bridge, I state that any valid hypothesis
needs to provide verifiable predictions and tests, what did I think would
constitute tests of the Billy Meier case? To me, this raises a greater question
- what would constitute validation tests of any contact case?
How can we validate a "Secret" experience, which only the
experiencer has undergone? At its very core the contact experience seems
designed to confound the scientific method? Yet to satisfy the criteria of
science, we need to apply exactly that method to the alleged events of the
contact.
Generally speaking, the MUFON field
investigation process is designed to do exactly this. Field investigation
of sightings and close encounters has evolved quite a bit in the nearly twenty
years I have been involved with MUFON. From a relatively informal process, it
has evolved a rather high degree of rigor. While there is probably a ways to
go, the intent is to maintain a very high degree of integrity in the collection
of data and interactions with the witnesses/experiencers of the phenomena.
Validation Criteria
There are several areas of validation that, alone or in combination,
make a sighting or encounter case credible (or otherwise). These include (but
are not limited to) some of the following criteria
1 - Consistent narratives from each witness
The narrative must pass tests of forensic interviewing. These are quite
well documented in the MUFON field investigator manual, so I won't go into
great detail on them here.
2 - Corroboration from other witnesses
The best sightings involve multiple independent witnesses. In these
cases, the witness accounts must agree to a high degree of detail when elicited
under clean forensic interviewing techniques (a'la the MUFON FI Manual).
3 - Physical evidence
Any ground traces, physical objects, or other evidence must be
carefully acquired, and associated with a solid investigation. The chain of
acquisition and custody needs to be clearly documented and verified, from its
origin to/through the collection and analysis process. Anything short of that
casts significant doubt on the validity of the case.
4 - Photographic evidence
Photographs need to be thoroughly documented and combined with
investigation results as described above. They need to be subject to the same
evidence documentation and custody criteria as physical evidence. It needs to
be clearly established that the photographs are/could-not-be hoaxed, requiring
investigation and analysis of the camera, metadata (for digital photographs)
and related information. For a photograph to be taken as legitimate evidence
for an anomalous event, these criteria must all be met.
5 - In cases of contact (or abduction), where information is obtained
from the entities with which/whom the
experiencer has allegedly interacted, that information needs to be clearly
captured during the witness interview, and/or recorded as quickly as possible.
And here is where contact research gets particularly interesting.
Testing Contactee Claims
In many cases of UFO abduction, I have heard claims made supposedly by
the visitors themselves. These include their location of origin (e.g. another
star system, dimension, time, etc.), the nature of their mission, their purpose
for being here, etc. When distinct information has been provided, it is often
possible to compare that information with the best information we have to date.
This suggests several hypothesis tests for the narrative.
ü The
"Origin Test"
in many cases, a location of origin for the beings is claimed. Is it
possible to verify whether or not that location exists? Are there, or could
there be, planets surrounding that star? We are just beginning to be able to
detect planets around other stars. Thus, as our capabilities advance, we should
be able to verify ever more clearly whether or not a life-supporting world
might be present at that location.
Some potentially testable origin claims have been offered to date.
·
In the Hill abduction case, Marjorie Fish's
analysis of the Hill star map has suggested Zeta Reticulii as a
possible location of origin.
·
In the Billy Meier case, the claim is that his
visitors came from a star somewhat beyond the Pleiades star cluster.
I suspect several other cases exist, which also provide similar claims.
When the claim is that "They" originate from another time or
dimension, it becomes difficult to impossible to prove. Thus the "origin
test" has minimal use in the more metaphysical or other-than-physical
origin claims. Yet in my view, we need to document these claims thoroughly, so
that as our technology advances sufficiently we might be able to test/verify
them in the future.
ü The
"Prediction Test"
Many experiencers describe being shown specific prophecies of events on
Earth, to happen in the near future. When such predictions occur, are they
objective forecasts of events to occur, are they metaphorically true, are they
some type of warning parables, or do they have another explanation? If they are
predictions, then we need to carefully record the events, locations and dates,
to verify as the time comes to pass, whether or not the events occurred as predicted.
If they don't then is it clear why? Were they conditional on other
actions - human or otherwise - occurring before the predicted moment? In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, prophecy is generally not a specific forecast of
events, but rather a warning to society - "Change your ways or else
"x" will happen" (and usually "x" is rather
unpleasant).
ü The
"Technology Test"
Many experiencers also describe observing extraordinary technoogy, or
being given specific information about science, engineering, mathematics, etc.
In such cases, is it possible to verify the information? Again, it may not be
possible to fully verify with present knowledge, yet it should be thoroughly
documented so that in the future, if/when the capability develops, this
knowledge can be verified.
In addition, the investigators need to establish whether the
experiencer had been exposed to the advanced knowledge prior to the event?
While someone with an eighth-grade education may not have formal training in
quantum physics, perhaps they have a deeper understanding or exposure to it
than even the experiencer, his/herself knew.
Subjective Considerations
Many other logical tests could be probably applied to a specific
experiencer narrative. But in the end, the account is often largely subjective.
It is the story of what the person has experienced. And assuming that the
experiencer is telling the truth as he/she believes it, then for them it is
true - regardless of whether or not it is objectively verifiable. In such
cases, the account probably needs to be taken at face value, added to the
massive body of data already present and left at that. Even then, it is
valuable as statistical or correlative material for future researchers.
Applying the Tests
So how can we apply these tests to the case of Billy Meier,
or any other contact claims? Fortunately, Meier case and similar
Pleiadean/Plejaren contact cases, as well, offer some testable claims.
1) The Meier case is the only legitimate case of contact
This claim is potentially easy to test. If any other cases cases of
contact or abduction turn out to be true, then at least part of the case is
falsified. Since I work with experiences on a regular basis, I see some cases
that are rather clearly supported by evidence. This alone would suggest to me
that the "exclusivity claim" is false, casting doubt on the whole
Meier scenario.
2) The visitors come from a world just beyond the Pleiades star
cluster.
If this is true there should be a star system at that location which
would include at least one habitable world. As long as the claims state that
this world is a physical place, then at least in this aspect, the Meier case
provides a scientifically testable prediction. Otherwise, it ceases to be
within the realm of science and becomes metaphysical - essentially a form of
religion.
3) Specific predictions in contact prophecies
Assuming the prophecies are thoroughly documented, and include events
to occur in the relatively near future, it should be possible to track these
and verify whether they actually come topass. While I am not very familiar with
the Meier prophecies, presumably others are, and could provide validation
tracking of any predictions.
These are just a few potential ways to validate/falsify contact
scenarios. They provide a few ways to determine whether we are being visited,
by whom, for what reason, and from what origin. It is a quick look into a realm
of contact, a study of prophecies and hypotheses.
