The Hesitant Headline · chapter 4

Unscientific demands for evidence due to stigma

It is remarkable how high the standards of proof are for UFO and extraterrestrial life research. While we live in an era where technological advances make it possible to explore space like never before, witnesses are being taken seriously, and knowledgeable investigators have presented a credible model for how the vast majority of physical evidence is handled by the world's most powerful military powers, skeptics and consensus continue to dismiss all forms of evidence that do not fit into their narrow framework.

The world-famous Peruvian mummies, or rather the Tridactyl team that works for their good memory, has recently launched a new website¹⁷. Here you will find scientific reports, data and information about a Mexican hearing - all presented on a nice and clear page. Despite this, it seems that many are still reluctant to take this evidence seriously.

I find it hard to understand the plausibility of so many of my friends getting articles and videos in their feeds claiming that the mummies are cakes or dolls. Those are previous isolated finds that were obviously fakes, but not these latest presented results. It raises questions about the motivations behind such clips and articles. Are these accusations a way to divert attention from the real discussion of evidence and research?

Here is a presentation from archaeologist Ed Casas¹⁸, influencers Jay Anderson¹⁹ and Jesse Michaels²⁰, who have visited the site and reported, and the subject's possibly foremost journalist Ross Coulthart has recently done the same, although his report has not yet been broadcast.

A local example of a researcher contributing to this important issue is Beatriz Villarroel²¹, an astrophysicist who has done significant work in the study of extraterrestrial life. Her work has focused on analyzing anomalies in astronomical data, which has led to insights that question our current understanding of the existence of life in the universe. Villarroel has also been a strong voice in raising awareness of the importance of taking UFO sightings seriously and investigating them scientifically. Without shortcuts away from the subject through stigma and slang categories for the unknown. Her research results challenge the traditional stance and open doors to new possibilities and theories. The latest are now peer-reviewed and published in, for example, Nature, but the arXiv platform arbitrarily chose to refuse, so strong is the stigma.

The prevailing narrative claims that only scientific evidence according to the positivist method counts for knowing things, i.e. repeatable measurement data, but it doesn't have to be that way at all. A large part of society and scientists and women worship this method almost religiously, often without even being aware of it themselves. We can arrive at knowledge and know things according to other methods, we apply this daily in the legal system and our everyday lives regarding most things. We don't need positivist scientific evidence in general, if you think about it, there is a lot that we consider ourselves to know that we don't have as strict requirements for today already. Basically, this is a (meta)physical question really.

It is time that we start valuing the research that is being done and the evidence that is available, instead of dismissing it out of hand due to ridiculous influence operations. We need a more open dialogue about UFO and ET phenomena, where we can discuss and analyze evidence without letting prejudices control our understanding. Let's give these issues the serious treatment they deserve, let's start the Swedish debate.

The whole book is also available as a PDF.