The Sign Of The Pyramid: A Semiotic Journey

A Semiotic Re-evaluation

Chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox, “From Sun Gods to StarChips,” presents a fascinating hypothesis. At its core, the text argues for a radical re-interpretation of ancient signs (pyramids, myths). It proposes a new code for their decoding – a code made available to us only through modern technology. We can powerfully illuminate this idea through the lens of Umberto Eco’s semiotic theory (A Theory Of Semiotics).

The Sign, the Code, and the Modern Interpretant

Umberto Eco

Umberto Eco posits that the relationship between a signifier (the physical form, like a word or image) and a signified (the concept it represents) creates meaning. Cultural codes govern this relationship. The text’s argument begins by establishing a new, contemporary code.

  • The Modern Sign: The “Breakthrough Starshot” initiative provides a new, tangible sign.
    • Signifier: The “StarChip” probe, a gram-scale, pyramidally-folded solar sail.
    • Signified (Denotation): An inexpensive, unmanned interstellar probe capable of reaching nearby stars within decades.
    • Code: 21st-century astrophysics and micro-engineering.

This modern sign acts as an interpretant – a new sign in our minds that allows us to re-evaluate older signs. The text successfully resolves “Sagan’s Paradox” not through philosophical argument. Instead, it demonstrates a shift in the technological code. Scientists can now achieve with a few kilograms of material what they once thought required ‘1% of the mass of all stars.’ This establishes the plausibility of the signifier (an interstellar probe) existing.

Aberrant Decoding: The “Cargo Cult” Hypothesis

The central thesis of the text is a classic case of what Eco termed aberrant decoding. This happens when someone interprets a message with a different code than the one the sender used. We hypothesize a prehistoric instance of First Contact as the ultimate example of this.

Imagine the following scenario:

  • The Sender (Hypothetical): An extraterrestrial intelligence.
  • The Message (Encoded): An autonomous probe, possibly resembling a “StarChip,” arrives on Earth. Its “meaning” is purely technological – a device for exploration. The code is one of advanced physics and engineering.
  • The Receiver: Ancient humanity.
  • The Decoding: Lacking the code of advanced technology, our ancestors could not interpret the object for what it was. They applied the dominant codes available to them: the mythological and the divine.

Thus, a technological artifact (the signifier) was aberrantly decoded. Its signified was not “interstellar probe” but “divine messenger,” “primordial creator,” or “celestial vessel.”

The Proliferation of the Sign: From Ur-Event to Cultural Memory

Eco’s concept of unlimited semiosis explains how a sign can generate an endless chain of subsequent signs (interpretants). The text argues that this single, misunderstood technological event (the “Ur-Sign”) rippled through human culture, creating a web of interconnected myths and symbols.

  • The Original Signifier: A pyramidal, reflective object descending from the sky and perhaps associated with a body of water (a common landing necessity).

This signifier generated multiple interpretants across different cultures, all retaining fragments of the original form and context:

  1. The Egyptian Interpretant: The signifier becomes the Benben stone, the pyramidal mound rising from the primordial waters of Nu, from which the sun god Atum-Ra emerges. The probe’s act of searching becomes the myth of the Eye of Ra. This is a “sentient probe” sent to find his lost children.
  2. The Abrahamic Interpretant: The signifier’s shape – a stable structure offering salvation from water – is remembered as Noah’s Ark. Recent analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests a “pyramid-like roof” that powerfully reinforces this connection. It is not that the ark was a pyramid. Instead, they mapped the memory of a pyramidal savior-object onto the story of the ark.
  3. The Universal Interpretant: The probe’s function as a traveler from an unknown place becomes the recurring motif of scout birds and divine messengers (e.g., the dove in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible). These birds were sent across the water to find a home for humanity.
Semiotic analysis of the cargo cult hypothesis

The Monument as Interpretant: Building the Sign

The most profound outcome of this aberrant decoding, according to the text, is not just mythological but architectural. Faced with an awe-inspiring event they interpreted as divine, ancient peoples sought to reconnect with it. They did so by recreating the signifier.

The pyramids, therefore, are not alien artifacts. In semiotic terms, they are a monumental, physical interpretant. They are humanity’s attempt to reproduce the form of the divine visitor. This is a grand act of imitation meant to venerate the original event and perhaps solicit its return. The pyramids are the ultimate expression of a prehistoric “cargo cult” – a monument built not by aliens, but in memory of them.

Conclusion: A New Reading of History

By applying a semiotic framework, we can see that the argument in chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox is not a simple “ancient astronauts” theory. It is a more nuanced claim about meaning, memory, and interpretation. It suggests that our ancestors witnessed a signifier they could not comprehend. Consequently, they spent millennia processing it through myth, religion, and architecture and signs.

The “Cosmic Mirror” metaphor at the end is apt. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence forces us to re-examine our own signs. The “Breakthrough Starshot” project does not just offer a future of exploration. It also provides a new code, a key that might unlock the meaning behind our most ancient and enigmatic symbols. The pyramids cease to be just tombs or temples. They become signs of a profound encounter, not with alien builders, but with human awe in the face of the unknown.

#SaganParadox #CargoCultTheory #AncientMysteries #Semiotics #PyramidDebate #BreakthroughStarshot #StarChip #UmbertoEco #CosmicMirror #AlienOrigins

The Sagan Paradox Chapter 9: GOLDILOCKS IN OUR COSMIC NEIGHBORHOOD

The article moves from the general historical context of SETI to a specific, modern candidate for life, then to a mysterious signal from that candidate, critiquing the scientific response to potential extraterrestrial signals, presenting an alternative theory for the signal, and finally broadening the discussion to the overall limitations of the SETI methodology.

A Sagan-Sized Question

For decades, the search for extraterrestrial life was haunted by a daunting sense of scale. In a 1969 lecture that laid the foundation for modern UFO skepticism, Carl Sagan imagined our cosmic neighbors searching for us by a random principle: sending a spaceship to any old star and simply hoping for the best. More often than not, he assumed, they would find nothing. The universe was a colossal haystack, and intelligent life was a single, lonely needle.

It is a triumph of modern astronomy that this picture has been completely overturned. Today, we know of promising candidates for life-bearing planets right in our cosmic backyard. The proverbial haystack, it turns out, might just be a needle factory.

Proxima b’s orbit is in the habitable zone, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be habitable.

From Random Hopes to Targeted Searches

We are no longer searching blindly. Armed not with metal detectors but with powerful telescopes, we can pinpoint the most likely worlds to harbor life. An intelligent civilization on Earth would not send probes randomly into the void; we would send them to these promising targets. And there are many.

In 2016, astronomers discovered one such target: Proxima Centauri b in the Alpha Centauri system: a potentially habitable planet orbiting the closest star to our sun, a mere 4.2 light-years away. While its parent star’s fierce solar winds make surface picnics unlikely, life could theoretically thrive in subterranean shelters.

In an unrealized project, NASA studied in 1987 the possibility of reaching the orbit of Proxima Centauri b within just 100 years at 4.5% the speed of light. This project was named Longshot, and it was about sending an unmanned probe using nuclear propulsion.

If our initial observations of such a world prove inconclusive in the search for life, what would we do? We would do what we are already doing with Mars: we would send probe after probe until we could be certain. Why would an alien intelligence, having discovered a promising blue dot called Earth, be any different? And from a distance, what do our own Martian space probes look like, if not unidentified flying objects?

Human spacecraft approaches Mars, Enlargement of oil on canvas panel for NASA Headquarters. By Don Davis.

A Tantalizing Whisper from Proxima b

In a remarkable coincidence, just as we began to focus on Proxima b in the search for extraterrestrial life, a potential signal emerged from its direction. In April and May of 2019, the Parkes radio telescope in Australia detected a strange, narrow-band radio emission. Dubbed Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1 (BLC1), initially it was classified as a possible sign from an alien civilization.

Parkes Radio Telescope, by Diceman Stephen West, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The signal’s characteristics were puzzling. Its Doppler shift—the change in its frequency—appeared to be the opposite of what would be expected from the planet’s orbit. Curiously, the signal appeared 10 days after a major solar flare from Proxima Centauri, though no link has been established. The primary investigators were two interns, Shane Smith and Sofia Sheikh. They worked cautiously to rule out terrestrial interference.

Some senior researchers did review the results but found nothing of note.


Long Delay

The BLC-1 signal was first reported publicly 1.5 years after its detection, and only because it was leaked to The Guardian newspaper. The public then had to wait another year for the final results. People were puzzled by the secrecy which fueled speculation.

Delays in announcing a discovery—or non-discovery—within SETI and astronomy are standard practice. Data are not released to the public until they have been verified. For instance, when radio stars were first discovered in 1967, it took two years before the discovery was published. The scientists held on to their data until they found what they considered a plausible natural explanation. The supposed Pulsar mechanism remains a mystery to this day.

This delay practice by SETI can give the impression that data are withheld until “natural explanations” have been found; radio-frequency interference (RFI) is one such explanation.

“Ultimately, I think we’ll be able to convince ourselves that BLC-1 is interference.”

– Andrew Siemion, SETI Principal Investigator for Breakthrough Listen

Within the SETI community, Siemion’s statement exemplifies scientific humility and the cautious process necessary to distinguish genuine signals from interference. Outside SETI, analogous statements can be understood as masking underlying biases or reluctance to accept paradigm-shifting discoveries. This highlights how context influences the interpretation of such remarks.


How long did Earth listen for the BLC-1 signal?

Breakthrough Listen reserved 30 hours on the Parkes telescope to observe Proxima Centauri, but the putative signal was detected during only about three of those hours—roughly 10 % of the total observing time.

During the next six months the team logged another 39 hours of follow-up observations. Out of the 4,320 hours in that half-year, just 0.9 % was spent searching for a repeat—about one-tenth of the effort devoted to the original scan.

The question remains: Was a longer campaign warranted? More generally, aren’t extended observing campaigns in radio-astronomical SETI necessary? We cannot presume that extraterrestrial civilizations broadcast continuous signals; those transmissions may be the only ones we ever detect, and even then only by chance.

BLC-1 has underscored that, when practicable, observations of potential technosignatures should be conducted from at least two different observing sites simultaneously. That this wasn’t done in the case of BLC-1 is inexplicable.

What would be the worst case when announcing the discovery of extraterrestrial technological intelligence?

A mass panic? That later investigations prove the discovery to be wrong and it has to be retracted? Thus discrediting the field of SETI? Or that humankind no longer occupies the pinnacle of evolution in the Cosmos? Would this discovery temper humankinds worst instincts, such as warfare, to the detriment of despotic rulers?


A “Galactic Communications Grid” and BLC-1

At first glance, detecting a narrowband radio signal (e.g., BLC-1) from Proxima Centauri—the star system next door—seems fantastically unlikely. Astrophysicist Jason T. Wright countered that, from an engineering standpoint, Proxima is exactly where we should expect to find such a transmission.

If a galactic communication network exists, Proxima would be the most likely “last mile” transmitter to the Solar System. Instead of every civilization trying to beam powerful, targeted messages to every other star system they want to contact, they would establish a network of communication nodes or relays.


Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”

Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”
In this scenario, Proxima Centauri—the closest star to our Solar System—serves as the logical “cell tower.” A message intended for our region of space would be routed through the galactic network to the Proxima Centauri system. A transmitter located there would then handle the “last mile” broadcast to the Solar System.

These nodes in the Galactic Communications Grid would need to ping each other regularly. But since radio waves travel at the speed of light, a single ping would take over eight years (accounting for the 4.24-light-year distance and signal processing time). Given this limitation, perhaps there’s another way to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)?

The speed of light is fixed for electromagnetic radio waves—but what about physical objects? And I’m not primarily referring to warp technology, but rather to objects that might already be here.


The Trouble with SETI

ET to SETI: can you hear us now?
ET to SETI: can you hear us now?

 SETI’s foundational premise is that extraterrestrial civilizations would likely be light-years away, not operating stealthily in Earth’s atmosphere. The hundreds of thousands of reported UFO sighting are perceived by SETI as being mostly the product of wishful thinking, misinterpretations and fakes.

Because UAPs/UFOs have no confirmed extraterrestrial link, SETI has no scientific basis for allocating resources to them. Consequently, no scientific efforts are undertaken to attempt contact with UAPs by radio or other signalling methods (e.g., lasers).

To qualify as a genuine ETI radio signal, the signal must come from far away and its detection must be reproducible. Otherwise it risks being classified as interference outright.

Highly directional, sensitive radio telescopes are not suited for close-range communication. For this reason, the Contact Project has suggested involving amateur radio operators (hams), whose omnidirectional antennas could be used in communication attempts with UAPs.

SETI with directional AND omnidirectional antennas, for far-and close-range Rx/Tx searches

Scientific Observational Attempts to Detect UAPs/UFOs

Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb has been leading the Galileo Project, one branch of his project is the detection of possible radio emissions from UAPs.

With new observatories online Avi Loeb is challenging the scientific establishment by taking UAPs seriously.

He sensationally declared he’s looking for intelligent life in deep space, blasting: “I’m interested in intelligence in outer space because I don’t find it very often here on Earth!”

The definition of his job is simple. “What is it to be a scientist?” he asks. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the privilege of being curious.” It is this foundational principle that now drives one of the most ambitious and controversial scientific endeavors of our time: the Galileo Project. In an age of polarized opinion, the project aims to rise above the noise by focusing on a single, unimpeachable authority. “In science,” he declares, “the arbitrator is the physical reality.”

The project, which is now in full swing in the summer of 2025, was born from a frustration with a scientific community he sees as often too quick to dismiss the unknown. The turning point was the baffling 2017 interstellar visitor, ‘Oumuamua. Its strange, flat shape and its acceleration away from the sun without a visible cometary tail led him to suggest it could be an artifact of an alien technology. The backlash was swift. He recalls a colleague, an expert on rocks, confiding that ‘Oumuamua was “so weird I wish it never existed”—a statement project leader Avi Loeb sees as the antithesis of scientific curiosity.

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 6: Explaining Away Alien Sightings

“Alien lifeforms would visit Earth only if life in the universe is rare,
but then there wouldn’t be enough alien visitors to explain the countless UFO reports.”

Did Carl Sagan privately believe in UFOs, despite his public skepticism? 🤔 Dive into ‘The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 6,’ which explores Sagan’s famous argument against extraterrestrial visits and fascinating claims about his alleged private views. Investigative journalist Paola Harris shares an account from Dr. J. Allen Hynek, suggesting Sagan might have admitted to believing UFOs were real, but couldn’t risk his research funding by speaking openly. Discover the tension between Sagan’s public stance and these intriguing allegations.

Sagan’s Defining Argument

The “Sagan Paradox” was first formulated in 1969 at an American symposium on the UFO phenomenon in Boston. Carl Sagan and Thornton Page served as co-chairs of this event. It was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The title of the symposium was: UFOs – The Scientific Debate

It was here that the renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan advanced an argument. The argument was meant to explain why there could be no extraterrestrially crewed “flying saucers.”

The Boston War Memorial Auditorium, site of the AAAS symposium in December 26.-28. Dec. 1969

The Rare Earth Hypothesis: Sagan’s Core Premise for
“THE SAGAN PARADOX”

Carl Sagan argued that the Earth had to be somehow special in the cosmos to attract the attention of aliens. The special position of the Earth is its life on it, which Sagan said is very rare in the cosmos.

Because life in the cosmos is so rare, according to Carl Sagan, there are not enough extraterrestrial civilizations in the vicinity of the Earth. Therefore, they cannot visit us in the huge numbers that the thousands of UFO sightings every year since 1947 suggest (~2312 yearly).

On the other hand, if there were actually as many alien civilizations as the number of sightings suggests, then life on Earth would not be special. Consequently, our planet would not be worth visiting with a spaceship.

As a result, UFOs controlled by aliens could not exist but are exclusively false alerts, implied Sagan.


Mock-up and additional enhancement of the famous British Calvine UFO photo, after Nick Pope. The original six photos are in color. The MOD has blocked their release until 2072. Wikipedia

The core of this paradox, as presented by Sagan, lies in the tension between the potential number of advanced technical civilizations in the galaxy and the lack of convincing evidence for frequent visits to Earth.

Sagan’s Skepticism: Witness Testimony

Carl Sagan regarded witness evidence for UFOs as insufficient to constitute robust scientific proof. He attributed accounts to human fallibilities, including emotional desire, boredom, paranoia, and a low tolerance for ambiguity. Consequently, these factors often result in self-deception and the misinterpretation of ordinary phenomena.

Photographic Evidence

Sagan also found UFO photographs unconvincing, due to their poor quality and ease of manipulation. Moreover, the lack of physical evidence and the influence of psychological and cultural factors were concerning. They all failed to meet the high standards required for extraordinary claims under the scientific method.

Would Sagan Have Accepted the Pentagon’s UAP Videos?

What would Carl Sagan have thought of the Pentagon videos, confirming sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:?

“Gimbal” is one of three US military videos with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) that have gone through the official US government review process and have been cleared for release.

The Legacy of Sagan’s Public Stance

Regardless of Carl Sagan’s private views, his public stance on UFOs was unequivocal. He dismissed them as either misidentifications or deliberate hoaxes. This position dominated UFO discourse for decades. Moreover, it continues to influence the field, where the default approach among many researchers remains the systematic debunking of sightings—often without thorough evaluation.

This mindset, reinforced by ‘Sagan’s Paradox’ and his famous dictum ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,’ gave rise to a peculiar scientific orthodoxy. While the existence of extraterrestrial life is deemed plausible, any connection between UFOs and alien intelligence is treated as inherently implausible. This conclusion is enforced rather than investigated.

Sagan was convinced that given the number of stars in the universe—”billions and billions” as he used to say—the chances are very high that highly developed civilizations must exist. He simply doubted that emissaries from these civilizations had a habit of appearing at distant farms. He also doubted their emergence above Uncle Fritz’s garden, as popular reports often claimed.

Speaking of the back garden

UFO sighting by Dennis & Mandy. The object was seen within just a few meters from the backyard of the authors house. The author didn’t see this UFO himself. What he and his wife did notice at night was a strange “hum”, that persisted for long periods of time.

Sound of the “hum”.

The sound and, for instance, the UFO pictured here, remained in place for over 20 minutes. Planes don’t remain stationary for such extended periods of time.

“Erich” marks the location of the author’s house. “Dennis and Mandy” witnessed the UAP sighting—initially unknown to the author. He later interviewed them in person because he suspected he was being pranked.

Carl Sagan’s Alleged Private Beliefs on UFOs: An Examination

Renowned astronomer and astrophysicist Dr. Carl Sagan revealed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek that he believed UFOs were real. However, he avoided any public statements to prevent the loss of academic research funding.

This allegation suggests a divergence between Sagan’s public skepticism and his private views.

Paola Harris’s Account: Sagan’s Alleged Admission

Investigative journalist Paola Leopizzi-Harris met astronomer, professor, and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek in 1978 at CUFOS, the Center for UFO Studies. Upon learning Harris was Italian-American, Dr. Allen Hynek enlisted her for translation work. Moreover, she was his assistant in UFO investigations. Their collaboration occurred mainly from 1980 to 1986. This association provided her with significant exposure to UFO research and key individuals involved in the subject.

According to Paola Harris :

“My recollection is that Hynek said it was backstage at one of the many Johnny Carson Tonight shows Sagan did. He basically said (to Hynek) in 1984, ‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’ ”
Paola Leopizzi-Harris

This quote has been verified by Paola Leopizzi-Harris.

Another correspondent, Bryce Zabel, said Sagan had to downplay his passionate belief in extraterrestrials. This was in order to avoid being written off as a crank—a cool crank but a crank nonetheless: “The truth of the matter, to me, is that he felt giving any quarter on the UFO issue could kill his career.”


DEEP DIVE

The following is a fact check of this anecdote:
Dr. J. Allen Hynek once remarked about Carl Sagan: “I knew Carl Sagan. We had lunch one day and he said that UFOs were bunk. I asked him his thoughts on a multitude of cases and he said, ‘don’t know anything about it”. Then I said, ‘Carl, you know we scientists are not supposed to comment on anything we haven’t sufficiently studied and he said, ‘yes, I know, but I don’t have the time’.
True or false?

Hynek vs. Sagan: UFOs, Science, and the Battle for Belief

Reference:
UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, Papers presented at a symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Boston on Dec. 26-27, 1969, Pages 265 – 275, https://archive.org/details/ufosscientificde0000unse