Probing Questions: Do Extraterrestrials Use Anal Probes on All Animals or Only Humans?
Despite offering only one sentence on the subject, Carl Sagan is generally regarded as the father of modern probe theory. In his award-winning PBS television series Comos, first broadcast in 1980, Sagan famously said, "It is the height of arrogance to believe that extraterrestrials only use anal probes for research on humans and not all animal species."
For over a decade, Sagan's assertion that extraterrestrials use anal probes to study all creatures on our planet went unchallenged by the scientific community, but another quip from a famous scientist changed the way the world viewed alien anal probes. Though probe theory isn't mentioned in Hawking's book A Brief History of Time, in the film version, produced in 1992, Hawking states, "It's absurd to think that extraterrestrials would use anal probes on all of the animal species they study."
With all of our advancements in probe theory, it's difficult now to understand how revolutionary Hawking's statement was in 1992. By that time, Sagan's suggestion that "It is the height of arrogance to believe that extraterrestrials only use anal probes for research on humans and not all animal species" was widely taught to school children and was his most often quoted saying. This author, along with many other young space enthusiasts who shopped at Spencer Gifts, even had a poster of Sagan and his saying on his bedroom wall in high school.
The popular press interpreted Hawking's statement as a shot at Sagan and ran stories about bad blood between the two. Many scientists, however, saw merit in Hawking's new line of thinking and quickly designed experiments to demonstrate the impracticality of using probes on all animals. A team of researchers at Stanford University studied the size variation of all the known animal anuses on Earth and estimated an extraterrestrial would need a whopping 4,000 different sized probes to explore them all effectively. Other scientists picked away at the edges, arguing that certain species were too large or too small to be practically studied. A blue whale, for example, was considered far too big to be beamed onto a ship for study, not because of the theoretical strength of a ship's tractor beam, but because of the inefficiency of intergalactic travel in a ship with enough empty space to put a 29-meter whale.
As probe theory grew in popularity, the United States government funded over $60 million in research by the end of the century. Controversy arose as the work became less theoretical, and many animal rights groups argued it was cruel for zoos to leave animals out at night for possible abduction. A five-year, $3.1 million NIH-funded effort that failed to effectively insert a probe into a flea led to a barrage of jokes on late-night talk shows.
Funding started to dry up in the late 1990s as innovative probe theory research became rare, and in a post-9/11 world, the public consciousness dramatically shifted. Probe theory was essentially dead. Alien anal probes, darlings of the scientific community in the 1990s, were now considered a quaint relic of a simpler time. Even researchers who had built their careers in the field publicly wondered if there was anything left to say.
However, probe theory was only dormant, not dead, and it would be revived twelve years later by an unlikely information source: Twitter. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said in a series of tweets, "There is no scientific reason for anal probes to be used repeatedly over decades. Particularly for a civilization with the advanced technology to visit other planets. The only plausible explanation is sexual."
Everything we understood about probe theory was turned on its head. The possibility that extraterrestrials may use anal probes on only humans hadn't been seriously considered since the 1970s. Suddenly, the scientific community went from having all of the answers to having none of the answers. In many ways, the field was even more wide open than in the golden age of probe theory. If the anal probes are sexual in nature and extraterrestrials are attracted to humans, what else might they be attracted to? Monkeys? All animals? Greek statues?
Now, there is a sense in the scientific community that we are on the cusp of a breakthrough, but it will require new ideas to carry the field forward. One promising study seeks to review records from the world's space agencies to see if the many animals launched into space may have returned with overlooked signs of abduction and probing. However, an influx of proposals with dubious scientific merit shows signs of the cash grab of the late 1990s, such as one study that (if funded) would collide pairs of gerbils in the Large Hadron Collider.
Simply educating the public about probe theory may be the ultimate solution. Victims of alien abductions inevitably ask the wrong questions once aboard the spaceship, like "Where am I?" or "What’re you going to do with that probe?” instead of practical questions, like “Are you attracted to monkeys?”
Of course, science often surprises us, and the next great leap forward in probe theory may come from an entirely unexpected source. However, I can confidently say that we’re closing in on the answers to some of our most probing questions.
We at the International Black Hole Registry put Albert Einstein and Sherlock Holmes at the top of the list of the most intelligent people of all time. Other great minds are worth a mention, but if you ever do something really stupid, people will sarcastically call you Einstein or Sherlock, not Newton or Da Vinci. For the sake of this article, we don’t want to get caught up in the ranking of the most intelligent people—that’s more of a matter of debate rather than science—but Holmes’s legendary smarts merit consideration for the top spot in any such list.
Even a genius like Holmes has a maximum amount of information he can store in the ol’ hard drive in his head, and you may be surprised to know his strategy to deal with the limits of his brain led to some embarrassing gaps in his knowledge. In A Study in Scarlet, Dr. Watson—who is Robin to Holmes’s Batman—discovers that the widely-respected genius does not know that the Earth revolves around the sun:
“I found incidentally that [Holmes] was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.”
For reference, A Study in Scarlet was published in 1887. Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model of the universe in 1543, and Galileo popularized the idea in the 1630s.
However, Holmes isn’t a science-denier; he simply has decided such celestial thoughts aren’t worth his time. When Watson tells Holmes the Earth revolves around the sun, Holmes replies that he’ll do his best to forget that fact. His reasoning: “There comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
Holmes, it would seem, does not have a basic understanding of how the universe works because he doesn’t believe it will help him in his work.
We don’t mention this incident to discredit Holmes’s genius. We only point this out because no matter how bad we screw up any scientific fact, we will still be vastly more knowledgeable about space than Sherlock Holmes, whom we all agreed might be the most intelligent person of all time. Maybe we can’t solve crimes (maybe we can?), but just the modest info on our FAQs page might be enough to overflow Holmes’s brain and render him incapable of solving the case in the Hound of the Baskervilles.
In many ways, understanding the universe is about perspective. It’s about particles so small and systems so big that the human mind struggles to comprehend them. Or, in the case of this blog, it’s about comparing ourselves to Sherlock Holmes and coming out very favorably.
Also, while we’re talking about how much greater we are than the incredible Sherlock Holmes, we’d like to point out that Holmes had a cocaine and opium addiction (also referenced in A Study in Scarlet), and we at the International Black Hole Registry don’t even know where to buy opium.
Dr. Hans Wilhelm Rossi; Postdoc Sophie Summerville; Karl [Last Name Unknown], the mathematician down the hall who will crunch some numbers if we ask but doesn't really contribute any ideas; et al.