SEEING IS BELIEVING?

The old saying "I don't believe before I see" is no longer valid - at least if believing means taking something as real. Seeing is not enough to prove an object or a phenomenon to be real. We now that some people can see visions, hear sounds that don't exist or even smell or taste imagined flavours. These false sensations are called hallusinations and people have them in altered states of consciousness. This kind of states can be caused by alcohol or drugs, mental ilnesses, strong exhaustion, a religious "extacy" and so on. With current technology it is also possible to intentionally produce things that can be seen or heard, but yet are not real (by using hypnosis, manipulation of the sight and hearing centers of the brains, holograms etc.)

Usually hallusinations are a related to false interpretations of real objects; fuzzy lights, shadows and forms in a fuzzy mind take a shape of a strange entity or object that the person wishes or is afraid to encounter. If there are other people present, they probably don't observe these things and this can be used to make the conclusion that they don't really exist. Afterwards the experiencer him/herself realizes that they were a product of imagination.

FEELING IS BELIEVING

What about hallusinatory sensations that are actually felt? Can our mind be tricked also this way? At least sensations of hot and cold are ofthe vague and can in an altered state even get mixed. But if you can really touch an object, can it be a hallusination anymore?

It's probably right to say that feeling is the one of our senses that best can assure us of the reality of something, both in a personal and objective level. To feel the surface of an object with your fingers, its temperature, hardness and roughness against your skin produces a strong confidence about its existance. Situations where one person can touch an object not observed by others must be very rare. In such a situation the outsiders would see the person press his/her hand on the surface of an invisible object. If they witnessed the resistance of the object to the person's hand, they would have to believe the object exists at least in some way even if they don't perceive it.

So to be able to touch something with your hand can be considered a rather reliable meter of reality.

Unfortunately the case very often is such that the observed objects are too far to be touched, the move too fast or are to frightening to approach. Then we have to depend on our eyes and ears. How can we be convinced of the reality of an observed target when it's not possible to touch it?

HALLUSINATIONS

If we see a familiar object in a natural place in a natural way, we trust our sight. Even if we know that our vision is not hundred percent reliable, we hardly bother to check the reality of each object we see by touching it! Especially if the object is immobile, not changing its shape, maintaining all its details, we can be be quite assured it really is where we see it.

Uncertainty about the reality of an object or phenomenon seen or heard is confronted when

• the properties of the target don't match our idea of reality
• the target behaves against familiar rules (for example floats in the air)
• the target is shimmering, flickering, changing its shape or is otherwise unstable
• the target is perceived differently by various observers or not observed at all by some

How in this kind of situation can you know if you observe something that really exists? What happens in your mind when you see an object that according to your idea of reality should not exist, but yet remains perceivable through senses no matter how you try to wipe your eyes or shake your head?

If the observer's mind is for some reason not functioning normally (as a result of intoxixation or something else), he can't perhaps analyze the situation rationally nor search for logical explanation for the vision. He may experience the situation "dream-like", unreal - maybe not at the moment but at least later. If the situation recalled later contains missing parts, feelings of twisted time or space etc. it might be sensible to consider the sighting as a hallusination and forget it (unless it can be confirmed that others have seen the same).

UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTINGS

But if the person is at the moment of the observation completely in a rational state of mind and the target doesn't seem to present an immediate threat, he can focus his senses and concentrate on following its appearence, estimating rationally the possibility of misinterpretation. The longer the target stays in field of vision (or hearing) the better the observer can memorize details that help to find an explanation. If the phenomenon doesn't seem to be very short-lasting, it is extremely useful to call someone else to see it if there is someone close enough. The more people observes the same target in a similar way at the same time, the more convinced each of them can be of its reality.

But is the witnessing of several observers enough evidence to prove the reality or absolute existence of the target? If it is a phenomenon that according to reason and all experience appears impossible after all attempts to explain it sensibly, how should one deal with it?

In this case the observer(s) may have to accept the holes in their understanding of reality. They must accept that something unexplainable based on their reason and empirical science has happened. To explain this simply as an hallusination is not a very good solution, especially if there have been more than one observer. Now we are talking about something that has been observed long and clearly enough to produce a clear image in the memory. If you interpret it as a hallusination you must be able to find the cause of the hallusination and the reason for it to be so convincing.

AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNEXPLAINED SIGHTING

Let us take a situation where two sensible people in a normal state of mind witness an object flying in the sky for three minutes. The object is big enough so that they can describe its shape, colour and other features. It is unidentified and behaves against common sense (makes too quick movements, changes its shape, howers in one place without visible propellers, what ever). Yet everything else is quite normal. Later they agree on what they have seen.

Assuming there is no other evidence (other witnesses, physical traces) possible explanations and problems with them are:

• how did they both see the same
• how could a non-existing object stay visible for three minutes maintaining its characteristics and sense of reality
• why didn't other things appear strange; why were there no other signs of hallusination
• what caused the hallusination

• how could the object behave against the "laws of nature"
• where did it come from
• why did nobody else observe it

• what is the cause of this major misinterpretation (the observers are assured it's not a plane, a bird, a satellite etc.)
• why didn't others see it

• why didn't others see it
• what is the reality or level where the object does exist
• why did it appear to exist in this reality at that particular time
• there are no proofs about parallel realities

If the observation was made in circumstances where it was very unlikely that someone else wouldn't look to the sky at the same time, but yet nobody else saw it, explanations 2 and 3 are not practical (though we must remember that people don't normally look to the sky unless there is something that really takes their attention). If the object was real in the sense we understand reality, it should have been visible to all (providing it was clearly something that could not be viewed only from one particular angle).

In this case the only explanation fitting the traditional idea of reality is hallusination. Then the problems associated to this explanation must be solved. This brings more questions.

1. How is it possible that two persons saw exactly the same?

• what's the motive?
• how long can you maintain a lie without anybody exposing it?
• can anybody be trusted (does eye-witness testimony have any value)?

• what triggers the hallusination at the same time for both?
• howcome nobody else recognizes the object based on the description?
• how did the hallusination appear so real?

• who has hypnotized and why?
• why don't they remember having been hypnotized?

It's obvious that from here on the questions as well as possible answers depend very much on the details of the observation itself, the conditions during the observation, the observants etc.

CONCLUSION

What is essential anyhow is that to explain an unexplained sighting as a hallusination is no explanation because an explanation to the hallusination must also be found. If such can be found, good (though even that doesn't prove anything!). If the hallusination explanation leaves unsolved holes, the case has not been solved. If no explanation can be found, it must be accepted that something beyond our current knowledge and reason actually took place. The more often and by more people this kind of sightings are made, the more seriously the study of these phenomena must be taken. Also the attitude of accepting the incompleteness of our understanding must be adapted.

While browsing the reports and stories of this kind of unexplained sightings available today, we can see that they have been recorded at least by thousands. People getting into this information, finding out this really is true have to find a way to deal with the following questions:

Martin Keitel, 1997