This is my third and final response to the UFO Iconoclast post opposed to the idea of man-made UFOs. (See Part 1 and Part 2). I just finished the new book by Vallee and Aubeck and will be writing a lengthy review of it.

My responses are at “MSH” and blocked off. I think you will see that these arguments lack persuasive power and can be turned back to anyone who makes them in such as a way as to demonstrate their un-compelling nature.

On the very face of it there are very fundamental reasons why such fantastic craft cannot be our own. If we have had such aerial abilities for so many decades:

1) Why do they fly in full view of civilian populations or within commercial air routes?

With all of the hundreds of thousands of square miles of Area 51’s and other such places, why fly publicly? It may test the “reaction” of the populace, but it would at the same time unnecessarily expose the technology and performance capabilities to enemy powers. In reality, security would never be compromised in that way.

MSH: I don’t find this at all persuasive. It compels us to believe that a sighting ranging from a few seconds to a couple of minutes will yield technological information. Unless observers have X-Ray vision, I don’t see how that is the case. Most of the best sightings are at high altitude, and so chances of detection are themselves minimal, and all the observer really knows is that “I’ve never seen one of those before,” or “we aint’ got one like that as far as I know.” Big deal. Now, the argument would be much better if there were USA-AF decals on the craft. THEN it would make sense to not fly these things anywhere they could be seen, because then you actually ARE risking sensitive information (like, “hey, this UFO is ours”). But without that, all a sighting does is perpetuate a mystery (or a convenient mythology; see below).

MSH: This argument can be reversed as follows: “Since civilians and other people, including commerical pilots, see UFOs, that means they cannot be man-made. Does that *really* make sense?

2) Why don’t we use this technology to transport our astronauts into space?

It makes no sense that if such UFO-like capabilities are man-made that they would not be applied in the exploration of the cosmos. Why continue to use “outdated” technology that relies on conventional combustion and thrust technologies, with extremely limited range and with significant safety issues?

MSH: This presumes speed is all one would need for space flight. There may very well be other technologically-related safety issues. It’s easy to presume there aren’t if one a priori assumes such craft are ET and are used to travel in deep space, but we don’t actually know that. At any rate, let’s assume they can do that. Then we are asked to believe that ineptitude on the part of the military is a reason to consider the craft extraterrestrial. Last time I checked, things like government waste, bureaucratic rivalry, and plain short-sighted stupidity are alive and well in the military and most other corporate entities. A bad decision does not an ET vehicle make. We also have to consider that, if these are man-made and there is some internal reason (comprehensible or sensible or not) for maintaining secrecy, that alone would be enough reason for whoever is in charge to remain using the old technology when it can get the job done.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology to send people to space, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Say what?

3) Why is the technology not used in warfare?

If such things have been developed by our government, why have they not been applied in national defense? It would have instantly ended conflicts in past decades in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. If another country has been the developer of UFO-like technology, why have they not exercised such amazing aerial superiority during conflict?

MSH: See my response above; it applies here as well. One could add that the reasoning might be the same as why we don’t just whip out an atomic bomb to end conflicts quickly and decisively. It may be too destructive. But my bet is on the fact that wars are inescapably political. Take the war on terror. We could end it in a day if we just nuked everybody, or if we took the handcuffs off our forces and allowed them to actually use the other weapons we have. But we don’t do that, and haven’t, since WWII.

Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for military purposes, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Ditto on “say what?”

4) Why don’t we use this technology in commercial air flight?

Such navigation and propulsion breakthroughs would revolutionize the flight of people and parcel. Billions would stand to be made- and everyone would appreciate shortened flights!

MSH: This is a better question, but still not very persuasive for simple reasons. So, we give our UFO technology to Boeing or Delta and then the technology is as close to falling into the hands of our enemies as a hijacking. Right. Good idea. Did Dilbert’s boss think of that plan?  I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to suggest that, if the military industrial complex is behind UFO technology we ought to expect it a reasonable thing to do would be share it with commerical entities. If the military industrial complex thought such technology gave us a military edge, they would withhold it from such public use, since that would invariably mean more porous security.

MSH: Reversal: Since *we* are NOT using UFO technology for commercial flight, that must mean *we* aren’t behind UFO technology. Really?  Is it that simple?

5) Why hasn’t the aerial technology been used to take over the world?

If the “controllers” of such technology are of nefarious intent (i.e. former Nazis, the Illuminati or even an enemy country) why have they not openly displayed their terror technology and by now have commanded the world’s allegiance?

MSH: This is also a better question, but one that presumes certain things in relation to the man-made argument it is targeting. For instance, one could take the targeted view and say something like, “since this technology derives from Nazi science, and since members of the teams who worked on projects that are related to exotic flight (see Farrell’s books here, e.g.), then it is possible that this technology may be in mutliple hands (U.S. included) or at least suspected of being in multiple hands.” In other words, one could apply the MAD logic to this question (Mutually Assured Destruction — anyone remember the Cold War?). But that’s guesswork. It also presupposes that anyone holding this technology is interested in world domination. Maybe they aren’t. Maybe they are content with their own little invisible empire that’s puttering along just fine while the rest of the known geo-political entities implode just fine on their own. But maybe they are interested in world domination and don’t think they can pull it off. Would 100 UFOs do that?  Last time I checked, all a UFO was really good for was SPEED. I don’t recall much in the way of any reports that UFOs were weaponized (they “are for peace, always,” right?). Let’s say some entity has 100 or 1000 of these craft. Now what? All one would need to do is find out where they are an nuke them. They aren’t indestructible (can we say “UFO crash”?). My point is that, since we are using our imaginations, if I had a UFO squadron I’d be pretty scared about anyone knowing about them, because they are quite destructible, and the facilities I have to make them and house them are also quite destructible. Hey, one piece of imagination is as good as another.

MSH: This one has another problem. It can be reversed very easily on the ET view: “If UFOs are ET vehicles, why isn’t ET using them to take over the world?” Hmmm.  Maybe they don’t want to.  And maybe the humans who might have them don’t want to, either. Oh, I forgot, ET is far more enlightened than we are. He told us so. If he exists. Or there’s this reversal: Since no single human group has taken over the world yet, none such group can be behind UFO technology. That one has some serious gaps of thought.

6) Why haven’t other scientists anywhere in the world “stumbled upon” such aerial breakthroughs in intervening decades?

It is inconceivable that only a very few working within deep black programs (or who were WWII Germans scientists, secret Tesla disciples or the like) could alone have discovered the secret to such propulsion without any other scientists or physicists in private or university employ ever having envisioned these same technologies after all of these years.

MSH: No, it isn’t inconceivable at all. My guess is that a reasonable number of people (working within the controlled sphere where it’s happening) would know about the technology. If it was at the highest level of security, the burden of proof is on the other side to tell us WHY it would become known to others — or that it has not become known. So let’s play with this one. Let’s say the US developed UFOs after WWII and no one else did. They were able to protect this knowledge for a couple of decades but, as espionage would have it, the secret leaked out to the Russians. What would the Russians do?  Tell the world? Aside from the fact that they’d expose their access to us by doing so, what good would it do? How would they prove themselves trustworthy without compromising the intelligence apparatus that allowed them to gain such closely-guarded secrets? They’d probably want MORE information, like how to take that piece of knowledge and make it their own reality. They’d already be decades behind, and losing their intelligence conduit would mean getting no further. And if they developed one, by the time they did, we’d be a few models ahead. And if they did tell tje world at any point, it would just be denied.

Frankly, this isn’t a coherent objection because the ETH defenders would want to build part of their case on secret information about aliens escaping the screcy placed upon it.  But then that undermines this very argument — about others stumbling upon the technology.  It’s further shown to be weak by the simple counter-assertion that man-made UFO technology *has* broken out, but there is still uncertainty about whether it is man-made. This is actually where find ourselves. We have had a number of insiders come forward and say “I saw this and that technology and I think it might be alien, but I’m not sure.” Great. So the fact that the technology has become known or exposed can’t tell us the point of origin in any regard. Let me illustrate:

* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) but it can’t tell us if it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it’s alien.
* Credible people have witnessed UFO technology up close (or “stumbled upon it”) and believe that it is man-made.

Question: HOW do any of these statements actually solve the riddle?  They don’t. Piont: allowing for such disclosures don’t compel any position; you need an actual alien to make that case. Otherwise, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The UFOI argument is that it is unreasonable to think that such knowledge could be maintained with complete security forever. I agree — but how does that help or compel a conclusion? It doesn’t.

The rest of the UFOI post aims to convince us that it is a lie that the U.S. Government wants us to believe in ETs for some internal purpose. On what basis is the claim made? Well, the post pokes fun at some attempts to articulate that conspiracy, and that’s pretty much it. I’d poke fun at some of what I saw there, too. But that isn’t a compelling answer or rebuttal. What I want to see is the UFOI group systematically show, by virtue of a systematic critique of Joe Farrell’s work and W. A. Harbinson’s non-fiction work, that a group of scientists, mostly attached to Nazi scientific teams, lacked the knowledge, funding, and wherewithal to keep working on these ideas. I would suggest that they had all three, but that of course doesn’t prove the man-made view.  As I said at the end of my second post on all this:

Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), we ought to be seriously asking if they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. But there is no reason at all to take the man-made view off the table. Since we know humans exist, and are not at all sure aliens actually exist, as things stand right now, I know which way Occam’s razor is cutting.