The Science of Chasing UFOs: “Abducted in Arizona”

“Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc,” or the Correlation Fallacy

“With this, therefore because of this.”

When looking into unknowns of any sort, it is worth specific mention that a correlation between two variables does not demonstrate that one causes the other.  This is a logical fallacy exemplified by the Latin phrase above, which is frequently used in science, statistics, and law to help show erroneous thinking.  Understanding this flawed reasoning is extremely important not only when thinking about “UFOs,” but also climate change, vaccinations, nuclear power, and it is commonly misunderstood by many, both in antiquity as well as during the modern era.

So, what does this all mean?  In short, just because two things occur at the same time (or one right after the other), it is not necessarily true that those two things are in any way related.  Coincidence occurs all the time in nature, and most processes, circumstances, and situations are much more complicated than they first appear.

How can and do we avoid this faulty thinking?  -Meticulous fact-finding and experimentation.  One must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions.  In order for a correlation to be confirmed as indicating a cause-and-effect relationship, there must be an identified mechanism for this to occur that agrees with the physical laws of nature.  Otherwise, we’re simply creating our own answers that conveniently agree with observations without putting in the time or effort to figure out what is really going on.

This concept bears specific relevance to several aspects of this episode.

Aerostats and the “Phoenix Lights”

When people think about lighter-than-air craft, many assume little progress has been made beyond the Hindenberg and the Goodyear Blimp.  However, research and development concerning aerostats has continued – in some cases with surprising fervor.  Organizations are even developing airships designed to go to space.

Take for example the reality that aerospace contractors and even volunteer organizations have conducted research on spaceflight “airship-to-orbit” programs based exclusively on giant, silent, V-shaped aerostats.  The military has tested similar airships for deploying mobile communications and radar stations to support ground troops.

While unusual and exotic by today’s expectations, the fact that these craft have been and are currently being tested supplies a likely explanation for large, silent, V-shaped UFOs, such as that (those?) allegedly seen during the first sighting of the Phoenix Lights event.  Certainly, these terrestrial aircraft, which match many if not all of the reported characteristics of the Phoenix sighting, must be ruled out before claiming that a sighted object is an extraterrestrial, large, silent, V-shaped craft.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Chasing UFOs team at Meteor Crater, AZ. (Credit: NGT/Dave West)

Extraterrestrial Impacts, Persistence, and the Planetary Fingerprint

To my great delight, our travels took us by Arizona’s Meteor Crater, (or Barringer Crater), which is the site of a powerful extraterrestrial impact some 50,000 years ago.  Though the nickel-iron meteor was small compared to the size of the crater it created, it struck with such speed that the resulting explosion is estimated to have been equal to a 10-megaton bomb, or more than 500 Hiroshima explosions.

Determining what caused the crater, while obvious to us now, is another example of methodically working against the correlation fallacy introduced above.  Discovered in the 19^th Century, the crater was first believed to be volcanic in nature.  However, in the early 20^th Century, the idea that it might be the result of a meteorite impact was proposed.  This concept was hotly debated for decades, with even the presence of meteorite fragments on the surrounding plains being considered coincidental until more evidence was discovered.  Finally, as planetary science matured in the 1960s, the discovery of minerals that could only be formed during an instantaneous over-pressure shock of incredible magnitude confirmed that the impact hypothesis was correct.

This take-home here is that science already studies ET events.  In my opinion, for those who believe we are being visited by extraterrestrials, the search for and analysis of similar types of evidence would be the only way to cross the divide between pseudoscience and true science approaches.

With this in mind, how else are ET events such as impact craters and meteorites now studied and confirmed?  As detailed in last week’s blog post, the ratios of stable chemical isotopes can be used to determine on what planet geologic material originated.  This, and using physics and geology to rule against a hypothesized scenario (such as the minerals mentioned above) are the scientific methods used to determine if and when something “out-of-this-world” actually occurred.

Having an opportunity to highlight the process of scientifically-establishing a true ET event is why I felt it was so important to visit Meteor Crater.

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

The Chasing UFOs team with research chemist Phyllis Budinger. (Credit: NGT/Dave West)

Meeting with Phyllis Budinger

During the course of this episode, I learned that one industry scientist has raised a banner for investigating the allegedly strange and unusual.  Her name is Phyllis Budinger.

I myself was quite curious to learn how a career scientist came to be involved in such an apparently niche pursuit.  As it would turn out, after a longstanding career in the petroleum industry, Phyllis took the initiative and acted on her own lifelong interest in UFOs.   After retiring in early 2000, she opened her own analytical firm to support what she viewed as a market need for scientists willing to analyze alleged evidence of the extraordinary.

To date, her work has included assessing samples from claimed animal mutilations, UFO landing and abduction sites, and yes – even alien “implants.”

When considering collecting evidence to analyze at the alleged Travis Walton abduction site, she advocated using ICP Mass Spectrometry to identify the current chemical composition of the soil and plant material at ground zero.  Despite time elapsed, she felt this might identify any trace elements that may have been deposited in the area during an unusual event.

This was in my view a sensible enough suggestion, though exotic evidence would have to be detected in order to begin to suggest to me that a truly unusual event had occurred.  The more extraordinary the claim, the more substantial the evidence must be to support it.

From the perspective of a science-based approach, this mentality helps highlight the scientific hurdle that any of these extraordinary claims must overcome - crossing a divide of logic and physics.  When considering the alleged Travis Walton event, the noteworthy fact that all men passed lie detector tests is weighed against the proposition of ET visitation.  Quite simply, one cannot escape the reality that it’s a far easier task for a group of men to defeat lie detectors, a known reality, than it is for alien life to have technologically evolved and crossed unfathomable spans of space and time, which involves unknown (alien life) and unproven (interstellar travel) assumptions.

Tree and Soil Sample Analysis, and Final Thoughts

Travis Walton claims that in the years immediately after his alleged abduction, plant-life experienced accelerated growth in the area of the event.   This, again, immediately smacks of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, for I have yet to hear any logical explanation of why a spacecraft in proximity for only a short amount of time might cause plants to grow faster years after an encounter.  This certainly isn’t the case with our spacecraft.

However, to at least confirm or deny Walton’s claim of accelerated growth, we collected a series of soil samples and tree-ring cores.  While analytical results failed to detect any unusual chemical elements in the soil or on the trees, a cursory evaluation of the tree rings appeared to indicate that at least some of the trees did grow quickly in the late 1970s and early 1980s as compared to earlier and later time periods.

Now, this is where science, speculation, and logical fallacies diverge.  It should be noted that these results were qualified without considering measurements of the annual changes in snowpack, temperature, or the presence or absence of natural predators (insects, fungal infections), etc.  Making the immediate leap to say that this growth somehow indicates the presence of an alien spacecraft is to abandon reason entirely.  All other, terrestrial explanations for apparently-accelerated growth must be identified, addressed, and ruled out (in addition to hypothesizing and promoting a physical mechanism by which a spacecraft might cause this growth) prior to claiming proof of the so-called extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Should someone be truly committed to the idea of ET visitation, scientifically-eliminating conventional possibilities and publishing the results under scientific peer-review should be the first priority.

To do any less is the very essence of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc error. 

Semper Exploro!

Ben McGee

_____

Ben McGee is a member of the Chasing UFOs team.  A true skeptic by nature, Ben is Chasing UFOs’ resident scientist. 

Get to know Ben and the rest of the Chasing UFOs team, Fridays at 10P et/pt. And be sure to check back to the blog Friday night for Ben’s post-show wrap-up.