EDITORIAL

LOOKING FOR THE FACTS

The current RB issue deals with two main questions: possible reproducibility (and, therefore, predictability) of the UFO phenomena and search for ET traces on the surface of the Moon. Being rather different, these questions have, nonetheless, something essential in common. First, if (some) genuine UFOs are ET spacecraft (and one can hardly reject this hypothesis a priori), alien activities on the Moon should in fact be expected. Some data seem to confirm this thesis (see, for example, RB, 1995, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 8-10).

Second, what is in some sense even more important: when examining these questions, we are building—from different directions—a real empirical basis for non-classical SETI. There are various empirical data worthy of attention in this respect—UFO reports, photographs of more or less enigmatic structures on other planets, etc, etc—but these data can so far be considered rather as "raw material", than as a systemized body of knowledge.

On the other hand, it is evident that "non-classical" SETI has accumulated a much larger amount of this "raw material" than its "classical" counterpart. Paradoxically enough, established science ignores the former, continuing its search for radio-messages from extraterrestrial civilizations. Although still lacking any piece of observational verification, the model of the radio-search for ETIs, proposed by G.Cocconi and P.Morrison almost 40 years ago, has remained basically the same (except for some local modifications). It seems to be unduly rigid and immune to empirical data (or their absence, which sometimes is even more significant). The radio-search for ETIs is certainly not blameworthy in itself; but the desire to consider it as the only allowable method of SETI certainly is.

For decades our terrestrial radio astronomers have been looking for extraterrestrial ones with the help of sophisticated equipment. Not finding them in a series of experiments, the researchers either continue to hope for a further series of experiments, or deny the very existence of ETIs. A simple idea that perhaps radio astronomers are not the only intelligent species in the Universe (nor even on the Earth) falls outside the accepted paradigm and therefore cannot be taken into account.

At the same time, a serious ufologist cannot but envy the lack of the real pseudoscience around the radio astronomical search for ETIs. (Not to mention the pseudo-ufological nonsense, so common for some newspaper pages. A year file of any tabloid—American or Russian, it is at present of no difference—can fully explain and to some extent excuse an active reluctance of professional scientists to become in any way associated with this heavily contaminated field.) Radio astronomy is far from everyday life; ufology is, let's say, up to the ears in it, and it can be "scientized" only with much effort.

An "intermediary" position in this list is occupied by the "cosmic enigmas"—real (e.g., the "Mars Face"), or doubtful—such as the "Moon spires" discussed on pages 6-9 in the paper by M.Granger (France) and R.Dehon (Belgium). This is, to my mind, an example of really good investigative journalism, with a detailed exposition of the story and sufficiently concrete conclusions. I think these conclusions will be of interest to our readers; the more so, that some authors still hold the "spires" to be a manifest ET artifact. Once again, not the hypothesis should be blamed, but rather the lack of strong evidence in its favor. Currently the tendency to see extraterrestrial structures everywhere on the Moon has become more than popular in the anomalistic community, but these hypothetical constructions are scarcely persuasive.

Does all this mean that we should not look for possible ET traces on the Moon? Not at all; please see the letter by A.V.Arkhipov published on page 10 as an example of the reverse. A serious work in this direction is always welcome. Its results may far exceed our expectations.

Well, the "cosmic enigmas", although rather distant from the terrestrial observers, at least do not try to leave their native places, peacefully awaiting future space probes to photograph and study them in detail. UFOs are essentially different objects: elusiveness is, in some sense, their modus vivendi; they constantly run away from the observer. Under such conditions, even a hint concerning recurrent phenomena of this kind is of much value. In this respect, the report about the UFO landings on the Mzha river, which opens this RB issue, seems to be worthy of attention. Whether or not the events will in fact recur, still remains unknown; but if yes, we must be ready to that.

— Vladimir V. Rubtsov 

To download RB, Vol. 2, No. 4, containing this paper, please click here:
http://www.geocities.com/riap777/EPRB-24.pdf (988 KB)

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: 

https://order.kagi.com/?4FZ&lang=en

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.