Frequently asked questions

A number of questions have been answered in detail in the texts. These include:


Other questions are listed below:

Q. Why do you call this science?

While the object of research may be unconventional, the methods to study this object are standard scientific procedures of political sciences. There is no argument about the fact that there is such a thing as a UFO phenomenon, or an abduction phenomenon. Well respected academics like, e.g., Professor David Jacobs (a historian), the late Professor John Mack (psychiatrist), Professor David Pritchard (MIT), Professor Thomas Eddie Bullard (study of folklore), e.a., have all investigated the abduction phenomenon, using scientific methodologies. The objects of study in exopolitics are the key individuals, institutions and political processes that are associated with extraterrestrial life, and these are studied using standard methodologies of political sciences.


Q. The wikipedia calls exopolitics a speculative science? Isn't it too speculative to be relevant?

Many new sciences go through an initial period where speculation is necessary. And in many existing fields of research, educated speculation is the very basis of research and further progress. Speculation is an essential phase of scientific research.
Having said that, it is also good to keep in mind that there is nothing speculative about describing how governments deal with, e.g., the UFO phenomenon: what instances within the government will deal with it? What policies have they followed in the past and are they following? Mapping all of this is an integral part of exopolitics, and is not as speculative as some like to make it seem.

With regard to relevance: what if an extraterrestrial civilisation officially contacts us in the near future? Doesn't it make more sense to be prepared for such an eventuality? With all the available evidence that extraterrestrial civilisations are already interacting with people on Earth, it would be foolish to NOT pay attention to what's going on.


Q. If the field of study involves extraterrestrials, shouldn't you prove their existence first?

This question needs an answer on three levels. First of all, the direct answer to that question is NO. To use an analogy: to study religions, you don't have to prove the existence of God. To study what people think about UFOs, you don't have to believe in them yourself, or prove they exist. In the same line, if you want to investigate who is doing what with regard to (even the possibility of) an extraterrestrial presence, it is not necessary to prove that presence first. It is perfectly possible to study the key individuals, institutions and political processes associated with extraterrestrial life, without proving the existence of extraterrestrial life. Commissions have been formed, reports have been written, and policies have been put in place that deal with extraterrestrial life. Take, e.g., the Condon Report or the Brookings Report. Those are all valid objects of investigation in themselves.

Secondly, it should be pointed out that there actually already is an abundance of proof available. Some of it is discussed in the page that deals with the extraterrestrial presence.

Thirdly, people who ask this question often have an agenda. This question is usually the first of a two-step approach. The second step then usually consists of demanding quantifiable proof, with the deliberate intention of dismissing the whole field of research. (Again, see the page on the extraterrestrial presence). The question itself, therefore, is actually a 'red herring,' used to mislead people, because a) no, strictly speaking it is not necessary to prove the existence of extraterrestrials to investigate what is being done, and b) proof is available, though it may not meet the criteria the debunkers want.


If you would like to submit a (serious) question, you can use the contact page.