Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Technology and Religion
UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

Last updated on: September 11, 2024 at 5:52 pm by Ted Peters

UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis 2024-09-11T17:52:10-07:00 Ted Peters

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

What do we call this mystery again? Flying Saucers? UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)? UAP (Unidentified Aerial or Aerospace or Anomalous Phenomena)? Whatever they’re called, we’ve got a new kid on the block. It’s called the “UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis” or CTH.

Since the advent of the new age of UAP with pilot Kenneth Arnould’s sighting of nine flying discs near Mount Ranier in June 1947, investigators have classified their hypotheses in three familiar categories. Now, do we need to add a fourth?

Explainable terrestrial phenomena. UFOs become IFOs (Identified Flying Objects)
As yet unexplainable extraterrestrial phenomena. ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis)
As yet unexplainable ultraterrestrial phenomena. UTH (ultraterrestrial hypothesis)
(3.a?) Cryptoterrestrial phenomena. CTH (cryptoterrestrial hypothesis)

This fourth category may actually be a subset within the ultraterrestrial hypothesis, according to Tim Lomas, Brendan Case, and Michael Masters writing in a recently published scientific article. What we think are space aliens are in fact tellurians, mysterious earthlings. Although the article is identified with Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, Harvard does not give it its imprimatur. Here is their definition of the UAP cryptoterrestrial hypothesis.

The UAP cryptoterrestrial hypothesis is the notion that UAP may reflect activities of [non-human] intelligent beings concealed in stealth here on Earth (e.g., underground), and/or its near environs (e.g., the moon), and/or even “walking among us” (e.g., passing as humans). (Lomas, Case, and Masters,”The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis,” 2024, 1)

UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

Two aspects of UAP suggest CTH. First, UAPs do more than just fly in the air. There are also unidentifiable submersible objects (USOs). USOs move underwater in ways that “defy explanation.”

Second, some UAP sightings involve craft and orbs that appear to enter and exit underground access points such as volcanoes (Lomas, Case, and Masters, “The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis,” 2024, 5-6).

Mac Tonnies in the Background

Mac Tonnies (1975-2009) provides background for the UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis now proffered by Lomas, Case, and Masters. In his blog, according to Wikipedia, Tonnies proposed that the beings that are speculated to be behind UFOs and alien abductions are actually mysterious and secretive races of earthly origin, technically speaking a type of cryptid (hence the name, from Ancient Greek: κρυπτός, kryptós “hidden, secret” and Latin: terrestris, “related to the Earth”).

The UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis in 2024

What might explain non-human intelligence (NHI) “actually having some durable concealed presence on Earth”? (Lomas, Case, and Masters, The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, 2024, 12). Four sub-hypotheses are adumbrated.

CTH1: Human cryptoterrestrials from a previously advanced civilization.
CTH2: Non-Human Intelligence or even animals still terrestrial in origin.
CTH3: Former extraterrestrial [ancient aliens from the past] or extratempestrial [time travelers from the future] cyptoterrestrials.
CTH4: Magical cryptoterrestrials such as earthbound angels or fairies, elves, or nymphs.(Lomas, McMasters and Masters, The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, 2024, 15-16)

The UltraTerrestrial or InterDimensional Hypothesis

Ultraterrestrial Hypothesis

The late 1960s was a time when kooky seers were flying recondite kites about the mysteries of quantum physics. Might there be multiple universes? Did the Big Bang kick out a series of universes, one after the other? Are there one or more parallel universes, each with differing initial constants? Do windows open between universes so that flying saucers can zip from one dimension to another?

Jacque Vallée along with dimmer lights brightened the UFO landscape with such speculations (Vallée 2014). Vallée even persuaded his friend and colleague, J. Allen Hynek, to entertain the ultraterrestrial hypothesis.

This indicates that Loma, Case, and Masters are hanging out in august company when placing the UAP cryptoterrestrial hypothesis within the ultraterrestrial hypothesis.

The UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis Gets Shaved by Occam’s Razor

William of Occam (1285-1347) shaving with Occam’s Razor

Does the UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis violate the Principle of Parsimony, otherwise known as Occam’s Razor? Accordingly, when two hypotheses are raised to explain one phenomenon, the simpler one should be preferred. The fewer assumptions the better. According to this principle, ETH does not violate Occam’s Razor, whereas both UTH and CTH do.

ETH depends on the known laws of physics and upon established knowledge of exoplanets along with the astronomer’s picture of the universe. It may be difficult to travel the long distances from one star system to another, but not impossible.

UTH depends on an as-yet unproven speculation, namely, that the multiple universes exist. Why would one float a hypothesis built on another unproven if not unprovable hypothesis?

CTH 2,3, and 4 all require unproven speculations as premises. CTH2 requires evidence of NHI equal to ours, which to date does not exist. CTH3 requires an ancient alien version of ETH plus/or the possibility of time travel, neither one of which are proven.

CTH 4 requires belief in magic. What does this require? It implies that scientific method is inadequate to investigating claims of magic. Now, one could demand that scientific method divest itself of its naturalistic assumptions in order to broaden its access to magic. But that’s a tall order. To fill this order requires a complex run around Robin Hood’s barn that the simpler ETH does not require.

In conclusion, of these various hypotheses, ETH should rank higher than either UTH or CTH.

Sidebar on Scientific Method

At this point in time, ufologists are for the most striving to maintain the rigorous standards of conventional empirical science. Yes, in the recent past ufologists and scientists did not attend each others barbecues. There was a rivalry, as pointed out by Greg Eghigian at Penn State University. Scientifically oriented ufologists’…

“…collecting, analyzing, and distributing information were inspired by academic precedents and can be seen as expressions of fondness and respect for science….By and large, their disdain has been reserved for scientists, not science. To academicians, of course, ufologists are only amateurs playing at being scientific researchers.”

If science is the lens through which ufologists must view the phenomenon, then reforming science would require a new eye test and perhaps a new prescription. This is a matter examined carefully by Kimberly Engels.

“If we are indeed dealing with an intelligence, (and I think there are good reasons to suggest we are), the scientific method alone will never be able to fully account for the entire scope of the experience. Thus, we will need the tools of theologians, philosophers, historians, and literary scholars, among others, to help fill in the gaps.”

Until those gaps within the current scientific method are filled in, hypotheses such as CTH will have to stand in line.

Conclusion

One of my favorite conversation confreres in UFO discussion is Jensine Andressen, author of numerous works on this subject (Andresen 2023). She’s an expert. She believes the ETH is much stronger than the alternatives, including CTH.

So, does my critique render the UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis false? By no means. Rather, it ranks ETH higher on our list of possibilities.

Patheos SR 1186 UFO 16 UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

UFO Whistleblowers

Pentagon, show us the aliens!

UFOs on Capitol Hill

UFOs and Atomic Weaponry

Are UFOs demonic?

UFOs and Aliens at the Vatican

No! No! UFO

Are UFOs our Celestial Saviors?

UAP Transparency Act

SR 1186 UFO 16 UAP Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

SR 1187 UFO 17 Scientizing Ufology

SR 1188 UFO 18 Are UAP from Outer Space?

SR 1189 UFO 19 Are UAP from future time?

▓

UFOs–God’s Chariots? For the book, click here.

Ted Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, with Robert John Russell on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). Along with Martinez Hewlett, Joshua Moritz, and Robert John Russell, he co-edited, Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Intelligence (2018). Along with Octavio Chon Torres, Joseph Seckbach, and Russell Gordon, he co-edited, Astrobiology: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Scrivener 2021). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics (Lexington 2022). Look for his newest book, The Voice of Public Theology, a collection of previous articles. See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

Regarding UFOs, he is author of UFOs: God’s Chariots? Spirituality, Ancient Aliens, and Religious Yearnings in the Age of Extraterrestrials (Career Press New Page Books, 2014). He served as Louisiana State Director for MUON and is currently a member of two UFO investigation organizations, Society for UAP Studies and Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.

▓

References

Andresen, Jensine. 2023. Hyperconvergenece: Religion, Politics, and UFOs. Independent: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/197292604-hyperconvergence.

Lomas, Tim, Brendan Case, and Michael Masters. 2024. “The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.” Philosophy and Cosmology, June: 1-42; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381405238_The_cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis_A_case_for_scientific_openness_to_a_concealed_earthly_explanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena.

Peters, Ted. 2014. UFOs–God’s Chariots? Pompton Plains NJ: New Page Books.

Vallée, Jacques. 2014. Dimensions: A Casebook on Alien Contact. Kindle. San Antonio TX: Anomalist Books.

Technology and Religion

cryptoterrestrial hypothesis

About Ted Peters

ed Peters directs traffic at the intersection of science, religion, and ethics. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, with Robert John Russell on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. He authored Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2nd ed., 2002) as well as Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003). Along with Martinez Hewlett, Joshua Moritz, and Robert John Russell, he co-edited, Astrotheology: Science and Theology Meet Extraterrestrial Intelligence (2018). Along with Octavio Chon Torres, Joseph Seckbach, and Russell Gordon, he co-edited, Astrobiology: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Scrivener 2021). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics (Lexington 2022). Look for his newest book, The Voice of Public Theology, a collection of previous articles. See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com. Regarding UFOs, he is author of UFOs: God's Chariots? Spirituality, Ancient Aliens, and Religious Yearnings in the Age of Extraterrestrials (Career Press New Page Books, 2014). He served as Louisiana State Director for MUON and is currently a member of two UFO investigation organizations, Society for UAP Studies and Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. You can read more about the author here.

Previous Post

July 7, 2024

ChatGPT Theology's Image of God?

Next Post

July 15, 2024 Trump, Unity, and the Scapegoat

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Afterlife America in Crisis Ancient Alien Apocalypse Art Artificial Intelligence Astrobiology Astrotheology Atheism Big History Buddhist Catholic Christian Nationalism Christmas Comparative Theology Death Ecology Ethics ETI Evangelical Evolution Existential Questions Free Will General Christian Hermeneutics Hindu https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2020/12/sins-we-need-to-talk-about/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Christians+For+a+Better+Christianity&utm_content=43&lct Interreligious Islam Jewish Justice Latter-Day Saints Literature Literature and Theology Lutheran Methodism Mormonism Nonreligious ontology Orthodox Pagam Prayer progressive Christian PT 6 Dignity Public Theology Race racial justice Religious Liberty Romance Satan Scapegoat Science & Religion Science and Religion social justice Spirituality SR 8 Transhumanism Systematic Theology Taoism Ted Peters UAP UFO Uncategorized War

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What queen visited Solomon to test his wisdom?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Queen of Sheba Queen of Tyre Queen of Egypt Queen Esther