 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDITORIAL THE PROBLEM OF PALEOVISITS: This RB issue (as well as the next one) deals with the problem of paleovisits (PV)—hypothetical
extraterrestrial expeditions to the Earth in ancient times. This problem has arisen as a result of the contradiction
between the theoretical possibility of such events and the lack of their indubitable traces. In short it may be
formulated as the question of whether the Earth had been visited in the past by extraterrestrials, and if so, what
these visits were like.
Science did not pay much attention to this problem. In the late 1950s Dr. Matest M. Agrest, a mathematician and
participant of the Soviet nuclear project, tried to convince the scientific community that the paleovisit hypothesis
was worthy of serious attention,1 but failed for a number of reasons. One of these was the formation
of the first ("radio") paradigm of SETI studies.2 It is not uncommon that a new paradigm
expels competitive approaches from science. The paleovisit idea has found its "refuge" among "amateurs",
in the field of the parascientific Ancient Astronaut Theory (AAT).3
It was only the scientific consideration of the "Fermi paradox" (the "if-they-existed-they-would-be-here"
thesis) that partly cleared the way to a serious discussion of this problem within science. This argument has been
reconsidered since 1975, causing the boat of SETI studies to change course considerably. It led some scientists
(to begin with M.H.Hart who was the first to raise this dilemma definitely and bluntly in his work4)
to the conclusion of our civilization's cosmic solitude, and others, to the assumption of an actual presence of
extraterrestrials in the Solar System. As a result, there was laid a foundation for a second SETI paradigm, fundamentally
different from the first one. In it interstellar flights, not interstellar radio communications, are supposed to
be the main method of contacts between cosmic civilizations. Since we terrestrials have no starships as yet (the
"Pioneer" and "Voyager" probes do not count, of course), we should look for extraterrestrial
probes/starships/cosmic stations moving through (or staying in) the Solar System at present—or for traces of such
visits in the past.5
However the words "in the Solar System" proved to be not sufficiently indefinite to justify fully such
an approach in the eyes of the scientific community. Our planet is certainly a part of the Solar System; but any
ET probes near the Earth are indistinguishable from UFOs, and any supposed traces of past ET visits to the Earth
are legitimate spoils of AAT amateurs. Few scientists would dare to take the risk to look so unscientific. In result,
the "second SETI paradigm" has taken a place at the periphery of SETI studies, being admissible "in
principle", but not affecting as yet the research policy of the SETI establishment. It is developed basically
in its "cosmic" aspects (the further away an object of study, the better), except, perhaps, for an interesting
"intermediate" research direction—the search for ET artifacts among the so-called pseudometeorites. From
time to time this direction attracted the attention of some investigators; recently it was theoretically substantiated
by A.Arkhipov.6
As for the problem of paleovisits as such (that is, past ET visits to the Earth), it still remains alien
to science. PV investigators are concentrating around the Ancient Astronaut Society (AAS) that was founded in 1973
by the American lawyer Dr. Gene M. Phillips. Being a free association of lay persons and specialists in various
fields of science and technology, the Society gives its members (at its regular conferences, as well as on the
pages of its two journals) broad opportunities for generating original PV-related ideas and—alas—lesser ones for
their critical evaluation.
More than once I criticized weak points of the parascientific approach to the paleovisit problem.7
And I must admit this criticism still remains basically valid. But the problem itself is a real and serious one.
If the scientific community in general and scientific establishment in particular stubbornly pursue an "ostrich
policy" in respect of it, they must thank nobody but themselves for the results.
Of course, a great part of "cosmic" interpretations of ancient texts and monuments, suggested by proponents
of the AAT is rather naive (and yet more naive is their firm belief that the AAT is a miraculous instrument that
can easily solve all enigmas of the past). But where science stands still, these proponents are moving. An open
mind is no guarantee of a correct course of motion, but a closed one is a guarantee of the reverse.
A rational attitude to the problem of paleovisits (and science is the rational form of knowledge par excellence,
isn't it?) lies in serious research work in this field, not in mere allegations, expressed before—or even instead
of—any investigations. For our institute paleovisitological studies are one of the central directions of research.
We are engaged both in theoretical work in this area, and in examination of supposed ET traces.
By analogy with the well-known division of historical sources into direct and indirect, one may select two types
of these possible traces. These may be also direct (for instance, the remains of devices, or skeletons of extraterrestrial
beings) and indirect (any alteration of a terrestrial object resulting from a paleovisit, such as: traces of radioactivity;
evidence of genetic manipulations in living beings; various images of extraterrestrials made by earthlings; descriptions
of them in oral or written texts; etc.).
Direct PV traces are of special interest. It is a general opinion among SETI-specialists that only "an undeniable
artifact is a necessary and sufficient condition to prove a direct contact".8
Such a rigoristic point of view seems to be rather disputable, but importance of direct PV traces is quite evident.
There exist a number of supposed ET artifacts.9 Although any suspicious object of such type would
a priory deserve serious examination, in practice only a few of them have been studied in detail. One of
these rare exceptions is the investigation of the so-called Black Ball, made some years ago in Moscow by a research
team under the guidance of Dr. Valentin N. Fomenko, now a member of the RIAP Scientific Council. Due to certain
circumstances, the work was not accomplished in full, but the results obtained appear to be very intriguing. I
think, they will be of interest to RB readers. In this issue of our bulletin we publish Dr. Fomenko's research
report on his investigation, and in the next one a sequel to it.
The reader will also find here a very informative—even if preliminary—report of Robin Collyns, a well-known researcher
and author from New Zealand, about a baffling object, found in his country. Unfortunately, this find has not been
thoroughly studied as yet, but at least it is at the disposal of an experienced researcher. Let's hope, it will
not disappear without trace, as happens sometimes with such finds, and that in time it will be examined. Curiously enough, some self-styled "experts", demanding to be shown an "indubitable ET artifact", do not want, at the same time, even to look at strange but real objects whose origin remains unknown. Does the word "indubitable" mean in fact "not requiring any intellectual efforts to understand its nature"? If so, the paleovisit idea has a good chance to remain a sort of heresy for a long time, if not for ever. Well, as it was once said (with regard to another problem) by the famous Soviet anomalist Professor Boris F. Porshnev, "formerly it seemed that some "defendants" would have to bring a "proof" to some "judges", after which these experts would deign to take further development of the studies into their own scholarly hands. Now it is obvious that only the "defendants" are the true specialists and experts in the field. Their community will gradually grow up... And the "judges" will doze, sitting in their armchairs in an empty hall." Notes and references 1 Agrest M.M. The Cosmonauts of Yore. — In: Na Sushe i na
More, Vol. 2, Moscow, 1961. — Vladimir V. Rubtsov
To download RB, Vol. 3, No. 1-2, containing this paper, please
click here: RIAP Bulletin is published two to four times per year. You can pay your subscription online and purchase back RB issues safely and securely with your Credit Card (as well as by checks, MOs, and cash) via the following secure order page: All transactions are conducted over SSL encrypted servers, providing the highest level of protection available for your credit card transactions. Please note: the transaction fee (10 to 12.5 percent) will be paid by RIAP; so, you should NOT add anything to the sum payable. The RB PDF files downloadable from this site are password-protected. Passwords are sent to RB subscribers immediately after their subscription sums are received and processed. If there happens any problem with downloading, please let us know and we will be glad to send you the RB files you selected as attachments to e-mail. Or, if you prefer, we will send you their print version. |
|
|
Home |
General Overview | Research Staff | RIAP Bulletin
| RIAP Anthology |
|
Please feel free to link to this site. Copying or redistribution
of the material contained herein is encouraged,
Web design by Valentin Andreev. Best at screen resolution of 800 x
600. |
