In July 2018, the Unusual Aerial Phenomena Study Group (U.A.P.S.G.) started a Survey among Investigators and Scholars of the UAP or UFOs.
During the Survey, I made no comments and I refrained myself to participate with my own answers because what was important for us all was to get to know the experiences and ideas of the most important UFO investigators and scholars, as well as those of some serious investigators that are new in the field.
This exercise was intended to give us a hint about where we are in relation to the UFO subject, which are the coincidences and discrepancies among investigators and what could we expect from the future.
With that purpose, I’ve read more than once each and every answer given to the Survey and compared those between the participants.
But it is not enough to point out and emphasize the richness and unique character of this Survey, because it comprises a selected list of 21 people of 11 different nationalities, ages, and experiences. We have university professionals in the areas of Astrophysics, Anthropology, Physics, Chemistry, History, Psychology, etc.
The majority of them are people with decades of experience dealing with the UFO subject, but a few of them are relatively new, and we found very important to explore the way they deal with the issue.
All in all, this is a unique survey, for the first time developed in the world.
Our original idea was to submit a set of eight questions to a group of 6 people, but thanks to the very valuable suggestion of our colleague and friend Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, who provided me with a list of names, more people participated in the Survey.
The number of participants could have been higher, but as a sample –due the selective character implicated— it is well represented.
As general consideration, particular attention has to be given to the fact that a Ufologist not necessarily is dealing with the phenomenon physically considered (material objects or manifestations of energy), but also we find people studying the subject from a historical, literary, sociological or psychological viewpoints, which essentially emphasizes that we are dealing with a cultural issue.
Now I will intend to make a summary of the answers we collected, going question by question.
The first question was: Do you use the acronym UFO or another designation and if so, why?
The least I could say is that the results are impressive: 15 respondents use the acronym UFO. 4 or them use alternatively the acronyms UFO or UAP, or similar (Aerial Phenomena) depending if they are dealing with the public in general or referring to an audience of scientists or selected colleagues.
Manuel Borraz Aymerich (Spain) points out something significant: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to derive a positive definition of something that is described in a negative form.”
Only two definitely use only the acronym UAP.
Among those using the acronym UFO, many recognize that regretfully it is associated with the idea of extraterrestrial crafts, and one of them categorize the UFO as “pre-UFO”, “quasi-UFO” and “true-UFO”.
About the second question: Have your ideas of UFOs changed along the time?
Sixteen said yes. Some of them confess that when they were teenagers or in their youth, they accepted the idea that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin, but along the time, they became skeptical.
This is a process very common among ufologists that have been dealing with the subject through decades.
Nevertheless, as Edoardo Russo (Italy) points out: “it would be worrying if I still had the same opinions (and beliefs) I had as a teenager, though I have to admit I know of quite a few self-proclaimed “ufologists” who have remained where they were at that age, indeed.”
Instead, 5 respondents said that their idea about UFOs didn’t change, but for very different reasons.
For instance, from his position totally skeptical, Martin Kottmeyer (USA) never change his concept that UFOs do not exist.
Admitting some phenomenon could be called as UFO, Igor Kalytyuk (Ukraine) turns to what could be of interest for Meteorologists, the military or environmentalists, but “without any references to unknown technology and aliens”.
Clas Svahn (Sweden) affirms that “there are several phenomena that are unexplained at this point”. In other words, he continues to think as he did before.
Air Cdre. (RET) Rubén Lianza (Argentina) didn’t change his idea about UFOs, because he “regarded them as something not identified by the witness at the time of the sighting”. This means that when there is a good intervention of the investigators, whatever it was, it will end identified.
Lt. Col. Rodrigo A. Bravo Garrido (Chile) does not subscribe to any hypothesis, and that is why his idea about UFOs has not changed. On the other hand, he sustains that there are “still unexplained phenomena” in spite of all the rigorous investigation done.
Responding the third question: Should the UFO investigator became an expert in IFOs?
The answer was an overwhelming yes, 21 in 22 affirm the need to know the many things that could confuse an observer, leading him or her to report a UFO.
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos (Spain) says: “By necessity”, and more laconic, Thomas Tulien (USA) affirms: “By default”. Clas Svahn responds: “Absolutely. If not, he or she can not investigate reports”.
The same criterion is exposed by Edoardo Russo who says crystal clear: “if you are not knowledgeable of IFOs, you are not (you cannot be) a UFO investigator”.
Hans-Weber Peiniger (Germany) concurs: “A UFO investigator must have sufficient knowledge of IFOs. This is a basic prerequisite for being able to investigate UFO cases at all.”
Dr. Massimo Teodorani (Italy) emphasizes that: "Critical thinking and rigor joined with some healthy openness of mind, are the only prerequisites for the mental health of people and at the same time for the advancement of science in those territories that are still unexplored.”
Mauel Borraz says in a disillusioned tone: “it can turn out that becoming an IFO expert is the only thing a UFO investigator can aspire to.”
Only one respondent didn’t answer specifically the question: Anthropologist Ignacio Cabria (Spain), who says that "Not necessarily every researcher should focus on the observation, there are other valid approaches", i.e. the psychology of perception, sociology, and anthropology in particular." Leaving the physical aspects of the issue, Cabria points out to the inescapable focus of attention within a “UFO report” which is the witness him/herself. This is a very important venue scarcely explored by the investigators that potentially could bring an answer for the whole subject of the UFO phenomenon.
But, knowing as much as possible about IFOs, the door is not closed for UFOs in the consideration of some investigators.
For example, Jerome Clark (USA) says: -“one should be able to disentangle genuinely puzzling reports from those that only appear to be". (the cursive is mine).
This will appear more clearly reading the answers to question # 4: If there were still some unexplained phenomena, what could they be?
Dr. MassimoTeodorani considers “that most of all they could be natural phenomena that we are not able yet to interpret scientifically” but he coincides with Ignacio Cabria saying: “there are also unknown ‘psychic phenomena’ that are strictly related to many ufo incidents, which should be studied more in depth. Maybe the witness is the true biggest mystery?”
While Claude Maugé (France) still thinks that “the ETH is the best way to account rather ‘economically’ for a hypothetical fully abnormal phenomenon”.
Ignacio Cabria sustains that “The causes can be multiple, without having to resort to the improbable extraterrestrial hypothesis”.
Jan Aldrich (USA)speaks about “multiple unexplored answers” and brings a brief list of IFOs, adding “and maybe more exotic explanations like ET, etc.”
Dr. Robert Banchs group the answer to this question in three categories: “a) One or several physical phenomena still unknown; b) A social psychological phenomenon, driven by real observations of rare objects and molded by different interpreters; and, c) a non-human intelligence.” And he adds something important: “It is common to believe that there is a unique and genuine phenomenon, and not –as I suspect—a heterogeneous variety of a different nature.”
Leopoldo Zambrano Enríquez (México) points to: “Spheres of light, some kind of plasma or ionized air that in some way remains longer than sparkling floating and moving, even giving the appearance of being directed”.
George Eberhart (USA) answers: “Some may be extraterrestrial, other interdimensional, others psychic in nature, still others forms of unknown natural phenomena like earthlights, and others a psychological yet anomalous effect.”
Prof. Greg Eghigian (USA) says: “I myself seek explanations from the natural and behavioral sciences.” That goes more in the line of Anthropologist Ignacio Cabria.
From a totally different viewpoint, Martin Kottmeyer explains what is happening as “the dream-like bizarreness of the collection of unproven taken en masse, incongruities in form; behavior and premise; inadequate and improvisational physical evidence; a social environment of over-belief;.....New Age contaminations, and more.”
Wim van Utrecht (Belgium) talks about “eccentric natural phenomena” (which coincides with many other investigators an scholars), and then he adds: “while others may involve some type of ill-understood or not yet recognized hallucinatory experience”, what goes with the other side of the phenomena, the one that deals with the human being him/herself.
Salim Sigales Montes (México), points to three things not considered by other investigators and scholars, and that really deserve special attention, but that usually is kept away: a) Technological causes, for example, experimental military weapons; b) Astrophysical causes, for example, alterations of space and time; and c) Astrobiology causes, for example, a grouping of organic molecules.
Lt. Col. Rodrigo Andrés Bravo Garrido clearly considers that “There are still unexplained phenomena where, despite conducting a thorough investigation on each of them, the cause for these detected, registered and reported appearance could not be established.” And he adds: “it is entirely valid to say that the observation and registry of anomalous aerial phenomena remains.”
Instead, Air Cdre. (RET) Rubén Lianza, says: “another ‘target case’ that researchers should consider as a serious subject of study. With enough hard work, sooner or later they will find an explanation.....I found numerous cases (if not all) in which the researchers wrote: ‘Every ordinary cause has been ruled out’, a statement as precise as that of having also excluded THE true cause that originated the sighting.”
Hans-Werner Peiniger says from his experience: “We have analyzed the unsolved GOOD-UFO cases of the GEP and found no common anomalous features. Personally, I do not see any evidence for extraterrestrial visitors or any other exotic explanations in these cases.”
In a same negative way answers Borraz.
Igor Kalytyuk says: “Defined as non-periodic and transient occurrences observed in the environment, anomalous phenomena are phenomenological as well. With no explanation given in the conceptual framework and scope of the existing scientific paradigm, what remains is only a description of their parameters and characteristics which are, nevertheless, real.”
To question number 5: How do you consider this issue in general? What do you think about the whole subject?
Thomas Tulien says: “My guess is that understanding the origin and nature of the UFO phenomenon is more complicated, incorporating a mythology based on reason extending back to the post-Copernican concept of the plurality of worlds. And even the possibility, heretical, as it may seem, that some component of the phenomenon is a result of a terrestrial development program hidden while in plain sight.” (the cursive is mine).
Dr. Teodorani affirms: “I maintain the idea that the phenomenon must be studied scientifically (when it is possible, such as in recurrence areas o the world). The percentage of real UFOs is on one side very little and on the other side so scientifically interesting (both to physicists and to psychologists) that not studying it would be a crime against intelligence and curiosity.”
Maugé says: “An intellectually formidable puzzle and in any case an important sociological matter."
Cabria comments: “The causes can be multiple, without having to resort to the improbable extraterrestrial hypothesis.”
Jan Aldrich considers that: “It is akin to various phenomena which in the past were disregarded due to having no ready explanation.”
Banchs advocates for a study serious study “framed in a rigorous methodology”, and adds. “In my opinion, UFOs have become a cultural object, a product of popular confusion that tends toward a collective construction stimulated by events of different nature (the cursive is mine). I consider unlikely that they are extraterrestrial ships, as there is no proven scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. However, I encourage the possibility of finding in the set of reports, indications of some original and novel phenomenon. And, as bold as it may be, the contingency of finding ourselves facing an intelligence of a non-human nature.”
Russo affirms like many others that: “there exists a phenomenon worth to be studied”. He recognizes that there is an elevated percentage of IFOs, and that “parallel to the UFO phenomenon as above, a UFO myth has been developing all along the past 70 years (and even longer than that), implying extraterrestrial visitations to the Earth; it is unclear whether the phenomenon or the myth came first, but they have long been influencing each other.” And he adds: “that UFO myth is as worthy to study as the UFO phenomenon is.”
Along this line of thought goes Peiniger when he says: “In my opinion, the UFO phenomenon is influenced by sociological and cultural factors. It is in part also influenced by the media and has developed into a myth. Nevertheless, it is worth investigating. We have formulated numerous research questions that show that there is still a lot to learn about the UFO phenomenon or the UFO myth.”
Svahn sees that there are “unqualified ‘researchers’ and too much speculation and wishful thinking”.
Eghigian points out a quite different approach: “I am interested in the UFO phenomenon as a sociological and historical phenomenon....how those concerned with studying and thinking about UFOs have gone about their work over the time. I consider the UFO enterprise to be a social attempt at deriving meaning from the cultural aspirations and challenges surrounding the space age.”
Van Utrecht says: “It remains a fascinating subject. It certainly thought me a lot about human perception and memory, about good and bad science, and about rare meteorological, astronomical, geophysical and psychosocial phenomena.” A really comprehensive vision of the whole subject.
Robert Powell (USA) agrees with many others that “There is a physical reality to the phenomenon” but he complains about the lack of resources to develop a "serious scientific investigation". And he emphasizes that "Hard data is needed: radar data, optical data, electronic measurements, etc."
Rubén Lianza considers a problem the assumptions on which “the ‘research’ is based” because it is “highly speculative”. And explains: “They present individual testimonies as if they were conclusive proof. They do not fulfill Occam’s razor strategy. They rather jump into the conclusion that unexplained = unexplainable (by everybody else).”
Salim Sigales Montes considers that “We must work very hard to generate one change and new knowledge.” And that “we must maintain international work groups and establish communication with institutions like UAPSG, CEFAe, CEFAA, GEIPAN”.
Igor Kalytyuk says: "I consider it appropriate to separate the UFO-identification and the AAP-study, from the quasi-scientific subculture, called ufology and put an end to this dispute. Show that it is possible to examine AAP and identify UFOs within the already recognized scientific disciplines, hence, there is no need to create a separate science to multiply what exists.” The AAP mentioned by this investigator is the acronym for Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena.
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos summarizes what –in his opinion-- UFOs are. He says: “UFOs are but a contemporary legend, or myth about visitors from far-away galaxies resulting from unfortunate treatment of the reports by the mass media, a process of uncritical replication by unskilled observers, terrible management by editorial world, the creation of lucrative niche for writers, the appeal of sensational news to the public, the theme attraction for the movie industry, a convenient cover for advanced weapons tests, etc. The combination of all these factors has resulted in a global non-event, that is, the belief that there are aliens visiting earth.”
The following is indeed a difficult question because it encompasses possibly the big challenge confronted by all those who work seriously with the UFO subject.
Is it possible to do something effective to bring the truth to the public and to change the mind of those who still proclaim or believe that extraterrestrials beings are living with us on Earth?
Dr. Massimo Teodorani gives an answer that in a certain way could surprise more than one.
On the one hand, he asserts that "people must be more educated in critical thinking, namely in methodology rather than worshipping the issue per se."
But then he adds: “And yet eliminating the idea that UFOs are of extraterrestrial or extradimensional origin is not scientific as well: even if so far no evidence about this is available. Science, in its pure conception, is just aseptic and every interpretation is only based on objective data of whatever origin.”
But one can think that precisely because science is aseptic and “every interpretation is only based on objective data”, the objective data accumulated during 71 years seems to create an intrinsic contradiction.
Claude Maugé is very expressive when he says: “Possibility of education of “believers”: For those for whom UFOs=$$$, no; conspirationists, no more; for reasonable people, probably for a part of them, by a progressive personal process."
Igor Kalytyuk affirms: “We need to educate.” And then explains his own work following that purpose: “For example, I’ve been working since 2013 in the Handbook “How to identify Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)?”; “How to investigate Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP)?”
In the opinion of Dr. Roberto E. Banchs “Instruction is not enough, there is a demand that goes beyond scientific knowledge and reason. Anyway, it’s about educating people.....I am convinced that we must move, then, towards a scientific ufology, founded, worthily recognized.”
Edoardo Russo says: "I'm afraid we can no longer reverse so widespread and acceptable a belief." He suggests that maybe the UFO myth should be studied in parallel with the UFO phenomenon "as a sociological side view". He says that he "never ceases to claim and explain the misunderstanding...separating the wheat from the chaff", which obviously implies an educational task. He recognizes that “It’s a rearguard battle” but he says he shares John Wayne’s opinion: “it’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it”.
In a very positive perspective, Leopoldo Zambrano Enríquez indicates: “You can always do something, for example, explain case by case publishing the results with the largest number of sources, schemes, comparisons, and demonstrations either in written form, in audiovisual media or in lectures having more contact with people.” But he realistically admits: “However, that is useless with those who do not want to see the subject explained, because they still follow the idea of the70s that the UFO is the greatest mystery of the Twentieth Century.”
In coincidence with previous opinions, Manuel Borraz Aymerich points out that: "It is possible to inform with more or less success and effectiveness but it is impossible to convince everyone. The reason is that for many it is a matter of faith, of belief, rather than a scientific controversy (how many times have we heard the question "Do you believe in UFOs?"...)"
George Eberhart is the opinion that “A scientific, replicable confirmation of the nature of anomalous UFOs will convince many people (if and when it happens) but there will still be those who will allege fake news or conspiracies.” And he concludes: “It’s not worth trying to convince anybody of anything. Maybe it’s better just to have a reasonable conversation.”
Prof. Greg Eghigian reflects that: “When it comes to persuasion, one can only do so much (politics, for instance, offers a good example of the limits of persuasion).” And then inserts a reflection: “In the end, I think it’s important to always listen respectfully to others with whom one disagrees and to address their concerns and notions in a fashion that does not try to diminish them as persons. Too often, discussions about such matters devolve into talking past one another and name-calling.”
Martin Kottmeyer brings a negative perspective when he says: “No, it is entirely futile. Belief is too ubiquitous.....Debunking is ineffective and skepticism is actively shunned, ignored, even insulted if one tries to insist. Ufo stories are perpetually recycled even when they have been confessed as hoaxes.” Therefore, he concludes: “Most ufo culture consumers will believe as they want to and I would be a fool to care”.
With great realism Wim van Utrecht replies: “Impossible to change the minds of those who believe that the scientific method is ‘just one way of approaching the mystery’.” But then he adds: “Informing the public is a must. Facts are facts, no matter where they take us.”
Hans-Werner Peiniger shares a general negative vision. He says: “The belief in aliens and the corresponding uncritical thinking have spread to such an extent that a comprehensive clarification is no longer possible.” And he adds: “Conspiracy theories are more exciting than solved UFO cases. Nevertheless... I see it as my task to separate the wheat from the chaff and, in case I am asked, to give an appropriate answer. Either you accept the assessment of an experienced UFO researcher or you don’t.”
Robert Powell also has a negative vision of the situation. He answers: "No. Those that want to believe that will continue to do so just as those who debunk de phenomenon without due consideration will continue to do so. Neither of those groups is important. It is the scientific community that must become involved."
Rubén Lianza starts to explain that the brain “has two ways of acquiring knowledge, which run sometimes overlapping and sometimes separate. One is the sensitive thinking....which Plato used to call ‘doxa’. The other is the intellectual knowledge, which Plato named ‘Episteme’.” After giving consideration to some examples, he concludes: “my wisest suggestion here is...‘bringing the truth to the public is a very praiseworthy act but keep in mind that not all of them will think the ‘episteme’ way, so stick to the intellectual type of people’”.
Salim Sigales Montes points to something very basic that no one else has dealt with. He says: “I think the principal problem is the ignorance. And we must change our methods of teaching in the schools and incorporate more science.” And he adds: “As a tactical note, I think it is necessary to make the people able to reach their own answers but based on science, not in speculations.”
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos makes an interesting analogy: “In the same way that space research does not stop because there are people who believe we never reached the Moon, more and more factual, serious, enlightened, purist research will be developed, both by professional and citizen scientists. This research will add force to the demonstration that coupling UFO to ETI is only fueled by imagination.”
Rodrigo Bravo Garrido calls to action when he says: "for me, the most important part is to confront all those ufologists, mystery propagators and charlatans who have taken over the subject. It is imperative to participate on ufology conferences and face them in debates; this way the public can learn that the ideas of believers and traders are not the only ones and that this phenomenon is being earnestly researched.”
Three investigators really did not answer directly but made comments that open different perspectives around the main subject posed by the question.
Ignacio Cabria said: “From my point of view, that of social sciences, an effort can be made to understand how beliefs in alien visitors are generated and how social phenomena such waves of UFOs are set in motion, among many others.”
Jerome Clark creates a doubt when he says: "I'm not sure what the "truth" is supposed to be here. I do think, however, that UFOs merit serious adequately funded scientific study.”
And from his perspective as a historian, Jan Aldrich says: “I am not concerned with beliefs, except to chronicle their origins and evolution.”
We wanted to explore the position of UFO investigators and scholars in reference to the scientific effort of SETI, without any intention to relate or link it with the UFO subject.
The question number 7 was: Do you think SETI and similar searches are valid pursuits?
Edoardo Russo replies: “They surely are.”
Thomas Tulien answers: "Certainly, in particular, the current Exoplanet explorations.”
Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos says: “Yes. The fact that certain people correlate UFO sightings to examples of extraterrestrial life, have nothing to do with the logical possibility of life (microbial or technologically advanced) existing elsewhere in the universe.”
Rodrigo Bravo Garrido answers: “Yes, I believe all scientific activity within the research methodology guidelines will help, one way or another to the increase of knowledge.....The search for life and intelligence in the universe is an agenda that should always exist.”
Salim Sigales Montes brings an eclectic reply: “This question is very difficult because first, we need to know if we are the first organic creatures with intelligence in the universe. If we are the first, it should be possible that the other systems were receiving our signals when our system doesn’t exist any longer. If you change my postulate, it is possible to receive signals from other universe creatures when they don’t exist any longe."
A little bit similar is the answer given by Rubén Lianza who offers different possibilities trying to explain why no signal coming from outer space has been detected so far: “1) ETs are not transmitting; 2) they use another band of radio wave; 3) they are so far away that their signal faints; 3) they are very intelligent but live under water covered by thick ice and have no idea of Outer Space; 4) there is no one out there.”
Hans-Werner Peiniger adds a new perspective on the subject. He replies: “Yes, these are certainly important research projects. The interesting thing is that amateurs worldwide can participate in the SETI project via their software.”
This participation of amateurs has been implemented since many years ago.
Robert Powell simply replies “Yes” to the question.
Clas Svahn answers: “Yes. Absolutely.”
In the same vein, Wim van Utrecht says: “Of course”, although he adds something important: “but I never made a direct link between UFOs and the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.”
Martin Kottmeyer says: “Knowing more about the universe is a good thing regardless of whether there are aliens somewhere in the vastness.”
George Eberhart Says: “Yes, especially as different techniques are now being used to creatively research for exoplanets, exobiology, and exotechnologies.”
Leopoldo Zambrano Enríquez says: “I consider the attempt valid, as well as the one that is made by looking for suitable planets for terrestrial life, regardless of whether it takes us 1 million years to reach them, or that when we arrive we find that they no longer exist.” But he adds a very transcendent reason for this exploration: “is not to start a conversation with other civilizations, but to know that humanity can survive in Space, we must disperse our seed to survive. It should be seen from that perspective.”
Dr. Roberto E. Banchs starts by saying that: “It is a theme of astrobiology”. He refers to the possibility to find a more developed civilization which will put us in serious danger as Stephen Hawking warned. And later adds: “Even when the issue is far from over, I continue with moderate interest the attempts of SETI....and I am excited about the idea of finding ourselves one day with the long-awaited news.”
Igor Kalytyuk reflects that: “The project SETI is very useful since it does not remove the issue of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life form from the agenda.”
Ignacio Cabria says: “Of course, SETI is an unquestionable initiative for the understanding of our place in the universe.”
Astrophysicist Massimo Teodorani answers: Absolutely yes. Astrophysical techniques allow us not only to search for possible intelligent signals coming from exoplanets but also to verify if their mother star has been engineered and if artificial planetoids are sent from there into deep space.” And adds: “I believe that this has nothing to do with UFOs that are seen inside our atmosphere.”
We can comfortably summarize that there is a general consensus that the SETI project and the exploration for exoplanets are valid and positive activities.
Only three differ from various reasons with the previous opinions.
Claude Maugé starts saying: "SETI as a valid activity: A priori, yes; the question is: after several decades of unsuccessful results when will be reasonable to stop the quest?
Jan Aldrich poses a valid doubt: “I am not sure about searching for radio waves from other possible ET civilizations. A sufficient high technical civilization might communicate by some other means.”
Prof. Greg Eghigian says: “I remain skeptical about SETI. The effort strikes me as more than a little overly ambitious.”
And Jerome Clark worries about the money spent on SETI and replies: "Maybe. I'd like to see a good chunk of that funding go to research into the most anomalous UFO reports."
And we arrive at the final question: What is our idea about multiple universes?
This question possibly took by surprise some of our respondents.
Summing-up, 13 of them have no opinion because they don't know about the subject, because it is out of their scope or because it belongs to physicists or astrophysicists. One respondent is out of the question.
But 9 of them give answers, and they deserve to be succinctly mentioned.
Rodrigo A. Bravo Garrido considers that it is: “More than an idea, I think they are possibilities, but as long as they are not backed by research and theoretical evidence they will always be no more than possibilities.”
As a general idea, Clas Svahn says: “There can very well be other parallel universes. Cosmos is stranger than we can fathom at this point in our history.”
George Eberhart answers: “Unproven, but the debate is intriguing. I’ve heard Neil de Grasse Tyson and Michio Kaku go on quite reasonably about multiverses via string theory.”
Claude Maugé reflects: “Basically, a concept valid in mathematics; but in the physical world, nobody knows.”
Leopoldo Zambrano Enriquez answers: “Those are conjectures that sound very fantastic on paper, like many other things in classical physics and quantum mechanics, but, as Dr. Miguel Alcubierre Moya said: ‘many things are obtained on paper. It does not mean that they actually do’.”
Jan Aldrich says: “It is a theoretical construct with no obvious way yet to test the theory.”
Salim Sigales Montes replies: “This is a theory full of controversy since it is considered alien to science for its lack of evidence. However, science should not rule it out and, on the contrary, continue research to corroborate or discard it.”
Dr. Roberto E. Banchs gives more consideration to the question, and says: “It is a fascinating hypothesis for physics.” He then enters in the environment of the String theory that considers “all the subatomic elements –photons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc.— as different manifestations of a single primordial element called “string” which is not verified in a universe of 4 dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal, but only in one of 11 dimensions (10 spatial and 1 temporal), then there is the concern about where the other 7 ‘hidden’ or compact dimensions are.” He continues saying that the Large Hadron Collider has not provided so far an answer.
Finally, he poses the question: "Do these theories, even without proof, have to do with the UFO phenomenon? At the moment, the scaffolding that supports both issues is weak and its connection is fortuitous.”
And on purpose, I left the last answer to Astrophysicist Dr. Massimo Teodorani who says: “There are several models about this....Theoretical physicist Hugh Everett Jr. ....postulated the existence of many (or even infinite) dimensions that are parallel to ours. Superstring theory postulates up to 26 dimensions. They are all mathematics models, but so far there is no experimental proof of multiple universes or dimension."
What will follow to this Summary is an Evaluation.
I am working on that and probably together with illustrations and 4 hyperselected UFO cases not explained until today, all the material will become a book.
Milton W. Hourcade