Paranormal Human Hybrids: Old News on this Planet
zinc_chameleon
I actually agree with him about the secret (or not so secret presence) of
paranormal human/alien hybrids. But of course, not for the same reasons!
The theme is really quite old. Aliens from space have come hear to
interbreed with we humans probably since we stood upright. Why?
Well, it's probably the reason they used on 'Babylon Five': not every
sentient race develops psychics, and better yet, operant metapsychics.
(I'm using Julian May's terminology. If you don't know who she is, check
out 'The Saga of Pliocene Exile' sometime. Its in most major bookstores.)
Anyway, the point is that there's something in our genetic heritage that
locks onto whatever those energies are the constitute psychic phenomena,
and there's no a priori reason why sentience actually needs such a lock.
I could see a hive mentality suchs as a genetically engineered termite
developing sentience without such things.
But I digress as usual!
The point is we've got what some other species don't have, even though
we're smelly and ignorant and generally clueless about our place in the
Universe.
So their goal is to create a sentient being more along their lines, but
with access to the realm of the psychic powers. Better yet, a fully sentient
being who can access these powers in full consciousness, which is still nearly
unheard of here on the Home for Wayward Humans.
So that's all old Star Trek tapes. The only new crazy thing I've got
to add is that if I ran into one, their alien-ness would scream at me
like a fire alarm at a cigar convention.
Whatever these critters are, they're not really interested in our
soft fuzzy version of reality. They're hunting bigger game; they
just want to get into our genes.
Zinc out...
Empathos
zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com says...
Getting into our "genes", covers us either way, whether interbreeding
or knowledgeable manipulation. Unless there is a history of significant
parallel and related development among us, extreme differences in genetic
makeup would make normal avenues of propagation improbable.
The fact that consciousness and intelligence is progressive through the
levels of creatures, offers a glimpse of momentum. That, and assuming an
axiom that consciousness, intelligence and the abilities to manipulate a
situational advantage offers a higher probability of survival, then one
could postulate that sentience is natural development within a long-term
evolutionary project. This "project" is dependent on sufficient time and
reiteration of competitive events. The time factor becomes less
significant if expedited by one that has already reached higher states of
consciousness, knowledge, and intelligence.
Parallels may approach the same eventuality whether organic or some other
advantageous based ordered development. What wouldn't seem likely though,
would be the expectation of compatibility in propagational methods such
as sufficient genetic similarities. Such arguments though, become purely
academic with a historically significant common ancestry.
Efforts to "become as gods, knowing good and evil", rationalizing,
comparing, and intellectualizations leaves us babbling within to such an
extent that the "paranormal" capabilities may well be masked by the
incessant noise of our intellect. I might add, it "seems" some lower
animals, without the noise of intellect, have a measure of advantage.
What is often termed as "paranormal", particularly the "psychic"
attributes are contained within a confusing term we use, "spirit".
We apply the term in such a varied fashion that we can apply it to a
bottle of liquor, the undefined non-material residue of the deceased, the
will of the living, the influence of purpose, seasons, times of the day,
places, moods, and even the undefinable purposeful attributes of the
inanimate. We create the spirits, react to them, feel them, and sometimes
"see" them. Sometimes they even outlast their source, and are even
considered as beings, viewed at times as holy, and other times as evil.
Its meanings are varied, yet there is a common SPIRIT that runs through
them all. The cynical would greet such a concept with a SPIRIT of denial,
the truly skeptical with a SPIRIT of detachment, and others with a SPIRIT
of acceptance.
--
Empath
DanKettler
(zinc_chameleon) wrote:
<snip>
> ...we've got what some other species don't have, even though
> we're smelly and ignorant and generally clueless about our place in the
> Universe.
"Place in the Universe" Is that knowledge of our "place," akin
to "Cosmic Consciousness," as described in a book, of that title,
by Bucke?
You are saying, I presume, that's why aliens want to "get into
our genes."
>...their goal is to create a sentient being more along their lines, but
>with access to the realm of the psychic powers. Better yet, a fully sentient
>being who can access these powers in full consciousness, which is still nearly
>unheard of here on the Home for Wayward Humans.
Well, my view is that some of them have what you term "full
consciousness," (see my other post about "cosmic consciousness")
and from what I've read, nearly all of the species have psychic
powers already. There are other theories of why they want to
"get into our genes." One is that they feel some sort of
spiritual need to connect with us.
Google archives:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Interesting view you have about the spiritual evolutionary stage
we've reached on this planet. I've looked at it that way for
some time, now.
I wonder, sometimes, have so many races of aliens all evolved
spiritually? Haven't some only advanced technologically.
> ...if I ran into one, their alien-ness would scream at me
> like a fire alarm at a cigar convention.
I can see how they find us strange.
I still question what they are, however. Are they truly from
*outer* space, or rather inner space, another dimension, or
another time? See my recent post...
Does Time Really Exist? Wollman's
"Multiverse" Science's changing
paradigms
--
send private e-mail via web site
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
pz
zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> Well, darn it, Flaggy's caught my interest for once.
>
> I actually agree with him about the secret (or not so secret presence) of
> paranormal human/alien hybrids. But of course, not for the same reasons!
>
> The theme is really quite old. Aliens from space have come hear to
> interbreed with we humans probably since we stood upright. Why?
> Well, it's probably the reason they used on 'Babylon Five': not every
> sentient race develops psychics, and better yet, operant metapsychics.
> (I'm using Julian May's terminology. If you don't know who she is, check
> out 'The Saga of Pliocene Exile' sometime. Its in most major bookstores.)
Note to zinc_chameleon: Babylon Five and the Pliocene Exile series are
*fiction*.
I also don't think you can support your claim that this theme is old by
citing a pair of science fiction stories that came out in the last 20
years.
>
> Anyway, the point is that there's something in our genetic heritage that
> locks onto whatever those energies are the constitute psychic phenomena,
No, there isn't. You certainly haven't demonstrated such a thing.
> and there's no a priori reason why sentience actually needs such a lock.
There isn't even any a posteriori evidence for this ability.
>
> I could see a hive mentality suchs as a genetically engineered termite
> developing sentience without such things.
>
> But I digress as usual!
>
> The point is we've got what some other species don't have, even though
> we're smelly and ignorant and generally clueless about our place in the
> Universe.
What is this thing that we have? Do you have some evidence for it?
>
> So their goal is to create a sentient being more along their lines, but
> with access to the realm of the psychic powers. Better yet, a fully sentient
> being who can access these powers in full consciousness, which is still
> nearly
> unheard of here on the Home for Wayward Humans.
>
> So that's all old Star Trek tapes. The only new crazy thing I've got
> to add is that if I ran into one, their alien-ness would scream at me
> like a fire alarm at a cigar convention.
Star Trek is also science fiction.
>
> Whatever these critters are, they're not really interested in our
> soft fuzzy version of reality. They're hunting bigger game; they
> just want to get into our genes.
You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
--
pz
DanKettler
> In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
<snip>
> You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
>
> --
> pz
So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group.
His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
ideas, not for proof.
DanKettler
Zinc wrote:
<snip>
Aliens from space have come hear to interbreed
with we humans...
<snip>
> ... rationalizing,
> comparing, and intellectualizations leaves us babbling within to such an
> extent that the "paranormal" capabilities may well be masked by the
> incessant noise of our intellect. I might add, it "seems" some lower
> animals, without the noise of intellect, have a measure of advantage.
That has been my view, for quite some time.
<snip>
cu...@usenet-performance-art.org
"DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
news:3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com...
> pz wrote:
>
> > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
> >
> > --
> > pz
>
SLAP!!!1!!!]
Sorry bDan, you make a claim you back it the fuck up. Who the fuck elected
you Overseer? I'll let you know when you can dictate content. Free hint:
that'll be never. I have always decreed that everything is on topic except
you spamming your commercial URL's. Don't like it? Post to a moderated group
instead, asshole.
Why not just tell us what your psychic powers are?
--
Anticipation of interaction with me is enough to make most women squishy,
actual interaction definately makes them squishy! - Wollmann deluding
himself again.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
Alt.paranormal, Alt.astrology and Alt.astrology.metapsych
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
pz
DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
> pz wrote:
>
> > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
> >
> > --
> > pz
>
> So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group.
I didn't ask for proof. I asked for some reasonable observations and
evidence that would suggest that this speculation that aliens are
intentionally breeding with humans (silly as that sounds) was anything
more than the deranged invention of a fantabulist.
>
> His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
> ideas, not for proof.
"Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
*not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
reasonable?
--
pz
zinc_chameleon
> "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
> news:3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com...
> > pz wrote:
> >
> > > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> > > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> > > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> > > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
> > >
> > > --
> > > pz
> >
> > So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group. [SLAP, SLAP,
> SLAP!!!1!!!]
>
> Sorry bDan, you make a claim you back it the fuck up
Is this rough-tough statement aimed at me or at bDan? I can't tell.
No need to used harsh language.
Who the fuck elected
> you Overseer? I'll let you know when you can dictate content.
Gee, Cujo, where's your sense of fun? For once bDan was politely
engaging in conversation, trading ideas, etc. Give the guy a break.
Free hint:
> that'll be never.
Maybe you should re-read Phil Harrison's FAQ about alt.paranormal.
What's wrong with the free exchange of ideas on the Internet?
Are you a Commie or something?
I have always decreed that everything is on topic except
> you spamming your commercial URL's. Don't like it? Post to a moderated group
> instead, asshole.
Man, the trash talk that comes out of this boy.
Well, to quote My Man Jimi the Hendrix at Woodstock:
"You can leave, or you can crash. We're just jamming, man."
> Why not just tell us what your psychic powers are?
Maybe bDan won't tell you his, but I'll be certainly willing to tell
you mine.
But you can just do a Google search of www.deja.com and find out the
fast way.
Have fun!
Zinc out...
pz
zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> "Cu...@tsbbearings.net" <cu...@usenet-performance-art.org> wrote in message
> news:<9l92qt$ec5$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>...
> > "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com...
> > > pz wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> > > > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> > > > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> > > > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > pz
> > >
> > > So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group. [SLAP, SLAP,
> > SLAP!!!1!!!]
> >
> > Sorry bDan, you make a claim you back it the fuck up
>
> Is this rough-tough statement aimed at me or at bDan? I can't tell.
> No need to used harsh language.
Sure there is. It's all he can do.
>
> Who the fuck elected
> > you Overseer? I'll let you know when you can dictate content.
>
> Gee, Cujo, where's your sense of fun? For once bDan was politely
> engaging in conversation, trading ideas, etc. Give the guy a break.
>
> Free hint:
> > that'll be never.
>
> Maybe you should re-read Phil Harrison's FAQ about alt.paranormal.
> What's wrong with the free exchange of ideas on the Internet?
> Are you a Commie or something?
>
>
> I have always decreed that everything is on topic except
> > you spamming your commercial URL's. Don't like it? Post to a moderated
> > group
> > instead, asshole.
>
> Man, the trash talk that comes out of this boy.
That's Cujo -- he makes up for his deficiencies in intelligence and
perceptivity with the vociferousness of his profanity. He doesn't even
realize how predictable and tedious he is.
[snip]
--
pz
zinc_chameleon
pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-EAB45D.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>...
> In article <3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
> DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
>
> > pz wrote:
> >
> > > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> > > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> > > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> > > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
Oh PZ, say it isn't so! You mean I can't step into the Policeman's box
and call for help? I can understand wanting to do away with shoddy
work like Battlestar Galatica, but nixing the Doctor? That smacks of
heresy!
> > >
> > > --
> > > pz
> >
> > So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group.
>
> I didn't ask for proof. I asked for some reasonable observations and
> evidence that would suggest that this speculation that aliens are
> intentionally breeding with humans (silly as that sounds) was anything
> more than the deranged invention of a fantabulist.
>
Hey, that's my sane-sounding stuff! I get way more deranged than that,
but I charge by the hour....
And anyway, the plot line is original. Aliens interbreeding with us
because they need us more than we need them--smelly as we are--is a
nice twist.
> >
> > His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
> > ideas, not for proof.
>
> "Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
> *not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
> 'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
> reasonable?
What, it isn't? No more TVLand on cable for me...
But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to create an icon
of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as you. I enjoy your
posts and challenges immensely.
Zinc out...
Cujo
make it *global*!news:pzm-4D445F.1...@news.onvoy.net...
No, it's not. I just enjoy laughing at your *fellow* kooks, Peez. As for ZC,
I think the statement speaks for itself. I specifically asked *bDan* to back
up his ludicrous claims. It seems I don't get the bend-over-backwards
support that you give Tony even when I don't pull hissy-fit drama queen crap
like *he* does. Wanna claim your scientific non-bias and objectivity now,
asshole?
> >
> > Who the fuck elected
> > > you Overseer? I'll let you know when you can dictate content.
> >
> > Gee, Cujo, where's your sense of fun? For once bDan was politely
> > engaging in conversation, trading ideas, etc. Give the guy a break.
> >
> > Free hint:
> > > that'll be never.
> >
> > Maybe you should re-read Phil Harrison's FAQ about alt.paranormal.
> > What's wrong with the free exchange of ideas on the Internet?
> > Are you a Commie or something?
> >
> >
> > I have always decreed that everything is on topic except
> > > you spamming your commercial URL's. Don't like it? Post to a moderated
> > > group
> > > instead, asshole.
> >
> > Man, the trash talk that comes out of this boy.
>
> That's Cujo -- he makes up for his deficiencies in intelligence and
> perceptivity with the vociferousness of his profanity. He doesn't even
> realize how predictable and tedious he is.
Oh Peez! Taking this as a sign I'm like I post! How sad! I certainly hope
you and Tony aren't like you post. I don't know why you insist I'm like I
post in RL. I guess you and Tony are incapable of separating RL for Usenet.
If you haven't figured out why I fucking curse so much, you are the one
lacks the intelligence. Just more proof that a college degree is just a
piece of paper to whine about. Just like your buddy Wollmann, riding the
short bus to some stinking town that nobody ever heard of and whining about
it. I hope the winter in BUTTFUCKING Minnesota is nice and warm. Here's a
free clue: I make more in a year than you do in two years and I still have
time to laugh at kooks like you. HTH! It certainly sucks to be a fucking
kook. My condolances to your kids.
pz
zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
> Howdy doody PZ! Nice shootin' thar, Tex!
>
> pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:<pzm-EAB45D.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>...
> > In article <3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
> > DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
> >
> > > pz wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > I didn't ask for proof. I asked for some reasonable observations and
> > evidence that would suggest that this speculation that aliens are
> > intentionally breeding with humans (silly as that sounds) was anything
> > more than the deranged invention of a fantabulist.
> >
> Hey, that's my sane-sounding stuff! I get way more deranged than that,
> but I charge by the hour....
>
> And anyway, the plot line is original. Aliens interbreeding with us
> because they need us more than we need them--smelly as we are--is a
> nice twist.
Aliens: their existence has not been demonstrated.
Interbreeding with us: similarly not demonstrated, and rather remarkably
unlikely anyway.
That we have some unique genetically-determined paranormal ability:
simply absurd.
It is not sufficient support for these claims to simply say it "is a
nice twist".
>
> > >
> > > His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
> > > ideas, not for proof.
> >
> > "Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
> > *not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
> > 'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
> > reasonable?
>
> What, it isn't? No more TVLand on cable for me...
>
> But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to create an icon
> of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as you. I enjoy your
> posts and challenges immensely.
British drollery? Me?
The attempt at flattery will not draw my attention away from the fact
that you still haven't presented anything but television science fiction
to back up your ideas.
--
pz
DanKettler
>In article <3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
> DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
>> pz wrote:
>> > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
>> > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
>> > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
>> > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
>> > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
>> > --
>> > pz
>> So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group.
>I didn't ask for proof. I asked for some reasonable observations and
>evidence that would suggest that this speculation that aliens are
>intentionally breeding with humans (silly as that sounds) was anything
>more than the deranged invention of a fantabulist.
Well, first of all (and I know whenever I do this, you object to
it) please allow me to compliment you on being the only
consistently polite skeptic to post in alt.paranormal.
Indeed, pz, you are not fanatical in your pronouncements, and for
that I am grateful. You are one of the few rational people
around alt.paranormal, who call themselves skeptics.
Another comes to mind, now, but he has not posted in a long time.
His name is Phil Harrision, but he was not that consistent.
>> His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
>> ideas, not for proof.
>"Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
>*not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
>'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
>reasonable?
Again, the citing of science fiction is only to show a
correlation, not to present it as evidence.
Allow me to go back to a time when I saw the idea of abductions
(especially interbreeding) as quite bizarre, though UFO presence
was considered plausable. I, personally, have had no UFO
encounters, either remotely, or up close. Back in the late 80's,
I was acquainted with ESP, but I was extremely skeptical about
UFO abductions.
I remember seeing the BUD HOPKINS material on TV. I was
astounded. Before then, I'd thought this sort of thing was only
in the tabloids. Afterward, I contacted an acquantance, who over
a decade before, in person and for hours at a time, had been
talking with me about UFO encounters. This person is a serious
investigator, one with a PhD in psychology, who is very well
recognized and published both in the mainstream press, and in
subscribed (not on newstands--more credible) UFO literature.
He'd had a personal acquantance with J. Allen Hynek I'll not
mention his name here, for a number of reasons. I asked him
about the abduction phenomena. He concured that his
investigations, the hypnosis sessions he's done, and others of
his collegues, confirms the likelihood that the occurrances are
real. The man understands science, and the scientific method.
He's wary of kooks who infest the UFO field, and bring a great
deal of discrediting to the whole idea.
pz, there are degrees of likelihood. One does not just either
believe something or not. At this point, I have some skepticism
about UFO abductions, but a lot less than I did a decade ago. I
am still quite interested in this, and want to know more.
"...reasonable observations and evidence...
speculation that aliens are intentionally
breeding with humans... "
I suggest that if you want to know more about the evidence, look
at the web sites through the search engines, and then look to the
credentials of those doing the investigating. If you are still
skeptical, write e-mail to people, ask for data, and verify
credentials.
DanKettler
(zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>Howdy doody PZ! Nice shootin' thar, Tex!
>pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-EAB45D.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>...
>> In article <3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
>> DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
>> > pz wrote:
>> > > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
>> > > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
>> > > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
>> > > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
>> > > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
>Oh PZ, say it isn't so! You mean I can't step into the Policeman's box
>and call for help? I can understand wanting to do away with shoddy
>work like Battlestar Galatica, but nixing the Doctor? That smacks of
>heresy!
Now, when you get to cutting down Buck Rogers, that's really
hitting home, with me. I was a Buck Rogers fan, as a child. I
remember meeting the actor who played the part. He actually
helped teach me better methods of swimming in a pool. What was
his name? If forgot.
>> > > --
>> > > pz
>> >
>> > So what? This is a discussion group, not a proof group.
>>
>> I didn't ask for proof. I asked for some reasonable observations and
>> evidence that would suggest that this speculation that aliens are
>> intentionally breeding with humans (silly as that sounds) was anything
>> more than the deranged invention of a fantabulist.
>Hey, that's my sane-sounding stuff! I get way more deranged than that,
>but I charge by the hour....
Ha!
>And anyway, the plot line is original. Aliens interbreeding with us
>because they need us more than we need them--smelly as we are--is a
>nice twist.
Yeah.
>> > His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
>> > ideas, not for proof.
>>
>> "Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
>> *not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
>> 'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
>> reasonable?
>What, it isn't? No more TVLand on cable for me...
Gosh, Star Trek episodes aren't really happening?
>But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to create an icon
>of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as you. I enjoy your
>posts and challenges immensely.
>Zinc out...
Well, yes, he is kind of interesting. I think Luci did a parody
on PZ, and others. You should read it sometime, from a few years
back. I was in the parody, and some other USENET characters. If
you like this kind of humor, zinc, check it out...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Look up keyword "Lucianarchy" for the author.
Look up "pz" as part of the text.
Her web site is...
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/
zinc_chameleon
> On 13 Aug 2001 18:04:48 -0700, zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com
> (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> >Howdy doody PZ! Nice shootin' thar, Tex!
>
> >pz <p...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<pzm-EAB45D.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu>...
> >> In article <3B77E988.98CC42E4@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
> >> DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
>
> >> > pz wrote:
>
> >> > > In article <22a13757.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> >> > > zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > > You have compounded so many assumptions and presented them as if they
> >> > > were fact -- do you even have even one respectable observation to
> >> > > support this ludicrous mountain of wishful thinking? And no, citing
> >> > > Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, and Buck Rogers won't help.
>
> >Oh PZ, say it isn't so! You mean I can't step into the Policeman's box
> >and call for help? I can understand wanting to do away with shoddy
> >work like Battlestar Galatica, but nixing the Doctor? That smacks of
> >heresy!
>
> Now, when you get to cutting down Buck Rogers, that's really
> hitting home, with me. I was a Buck Rogers fan, as a child. I
> remember meeting the actor who played the part. He actually
> helped teach me better methods of swimming in a pool. What was
> his name? If forgot.
He was Buster Crabbe, and he was a world-class swimmer in his
twenties.
That's why he could wear that skin-tight Buck Rogers suit.
I mean it, though. PZ is classic because he's likeable. He's so
thoroughly scientific, yet at the same time he usually meanders off
and winds up contradicting himself on some inane detail, or getting
mad at a heckler.
That's why it would be hard to create a character is consistent as his
posts.
But definitely dressed in Harris Tweeds as an English country
gentleman smoking a pipe down at the pub.
It's too bad we don't have VRML personas yet. This is 2001, I'd
thought they'd be here by now! My Zinc Chameleon would feature some
very cool 3d effects!
Come to think of it, much of alt.paranormal is a sci-fi writers's
paradise for the arcane, the knowledgeable and the downright nuts.
>
> Her web site is...
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/
>
I'll check it out.
> --
>
> send private e-mail via web site
>
> www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
Zinc out...
Dan Kettler with a big ugly wig on his head
DanKettler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:52:30 -0500, pz <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>...This person is a serious
> investigator, one with a PhD in psychology, who is very well
> recognized and published both in the mainstream press, and in
> subscribed (not on newstands--more credible) UFO literature.
> He'd had a personal acquantance with J. Allen Hynek I'll not
> mention his name here, for a number of reasons. I asked him
> about the abduction phenomena. He concured that his
> investigations, the hypnosis sessions he's done, and others of
> his collegues, confirms the likelihood that the occurrances are
> real. The man understands science, and the scientific method.
> He's wary of kooks who infest the UFO field, and bring a great
> deal of discrediting to the whole idea.
>
> pz, there are degrees of likelihood. One does not just either
> believe something or not. At this point, I have some skepticism
> about UFO abductions, but a lot less than I did a decade ago. I
> am still quite interested in this, and want to know more.
>
> "...reasonable observations and evidence...
> speculation that aliens are intentionally
> breeding with humans... "
>
> I suggest that if you want to know more about the evidence, look
> at the web sites through the search engines, and then look to the
> credentials of those doing the investigating. If you are still
> skeptical, write e-mail to people, ask for data, and verify
> credentials.
It's kinda hard to verify credentials of people who'm you're inventing
from pure fantasy.
DanKettler
(zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>...tell you mine. [psychic powers]
>But you can just do a Google search of www.deja.com and find out the
>fast way.
>
>Have fun!
>
>Zinc out...
Yeah, have fun, cujo. Anyway, deja went out of business, and the
archives are moved over to google. The old ones going back to
1995 have been revived. I wrote the URL, in a recent post
directed to you.
DanKettler
WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
I wrote:
> There are other theories of why they want to
>"get into our genes." One is that they feel some sort of
>spiritual need to connect with us.
>
>Google archives:
>
>http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Now write:
Another theory is that they want us to be part of some galactic
federation, and to do so, they would have to eliminate some of
the strangeness that an alien feels about us, and what we feel
about them. That would be accomplished by interbreeding.
In all the literature I've read, by the way, the greys seem to be
quite adept at telepathy, and interact with humans exclusively
through telepathy. That may not be true of certain other
species.
Other ideas presented, indicate that certain species of aliens
are at war with other species. Some want to protect humans,
others want to use us.
DanKettler
(zinc_chameleon) wrote:
Oh, that's right. I remember. Anyway, he liked to volunteer to
give swimming lessons. I was the recipient of his lessons, and
much that I know today is due to him.
On second thought, there are a few other keywords. One is
"overseer," another is "believer," but I'm not sure of that one.
You might try "Kettler" as part of the text. "Myers" could be
another part of the text. Luci had me in a part interacting with
someone else. Try "knighted."
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
DanKettler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:58:00 GMT,
> WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > There are other theories of why they want to
> >"get into our genes." One is that they feel some sort of
> >spiritual need to connect with us.
> >
> >Google archives:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Not nececessarly endorsing all of the material posted by
Zinc at the top of the thread, I now write the following
in reply to Dan Kettler.
> Now write:
>
> Another theory is that they want us to be part of some galactic
> federation, and to do so, they would have to eliminate some of
> the strangeness that an alien feels about us, and what we feel
> about them. That would be accomplished by interbreeding.
What was found in relation to those studying paranornormal alien
human hybrids is that the various forms of beings encountered are
extremely similar to us, in fact some of them have been reported
to be *huminoid* in nature with only minor differences in organs,
and body features. Even the StarChild-Skull controversy shows DNA
similar to human like matter. If of course you are on the side that
feels that it was a human altogether, it still begs the question
of what could have resulted in the change in the genetic makeup
all together. It is often enough that skeptics are hit with these
difficult questions, and they resort to second hand thoughts/guesses.
Humanlike DNA, therefore it must be human. (Note: I do not necessarily
fervor StarChild as *absolute* evidence of paranormal alien visitation)
there are still many other pieces of evidence that I am taking in
consideration with my writings here.
> In all the literature I've read, by the way, the greys seem to be
> quite adept at telepathy, and interact with humans exclusively
> through telepathy. That may not be true of certain other
> species.
When it comes to interest of various forms of aliens to establish
direct contact with humans here on Earth, that has yet to be fully
established. To my knowledge at this time there have been no pre-planed
direct communications to the human population here on Earth. What I
mean by direct is a communication aimed at the masses or public as a
whole. Most of the said communication has occurred through relay contacts,
and those who had alleged to have been abducted and had witnessed the
hybridization programs already in progress. The site of such programs
being performed by alien races will make it obvious what their ultimate
interests may be. At this time they are seemingly studying us. They
are *gathering* information at this time.
> Other ideas presented, indicate that certain species of aliens
> are at war with other species. Some want to protect humans,
> others want to use us.
Where did you here this? How would a war benefit either side of
it when it only causes further complications and damage to both
societies simotaniously? Many people have oftened asked these
questions. A lot of effort is placed to help *prevent/disable*
the use of various forms of violent weapons.
**********************************************************************
* To preserve valuable time to engage in serious debates with *
* paranormalists on various newsgroups, I have recently come to *
* the decision of greatly cutting back on the number of replies *
* to various people who attempt to take me out of context and troll. *
**********************************************************************
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
"With the 2001 officialization of this great new millennium, it has
been shown that the paranormal is mostly what common science has yet
to discover. This is where many skeptics seem to be missing my point."
Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
Official Newsgroup ---> alt.paranormal
Official Usenet ID ---> paran...@flagship1.com
DrPostman
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>Not nececessarly endorsing all of the material posted by
>Zinc at the top of the thread, I now write the following
>in reply to Dan Kettler.
>
>> Now write:
You guys are really weird. Ya know that?
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Knight of the Potato Cannon, minion of the afa-b Army of Darkness
High Counselor of the New Usenet Order, Unpaid Disinformation Agent
Addicted to Art Bell? http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1282
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Many fabulous finds are being found."
- a Bellphan waxes credulous
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerscams
> Oh, that's right. I remember. Anyway, he liked to volunteer to
> give swimming lessons. I was the recipient of his lessons, and
> much that I know today is due to him.
"Much that you know" is a laughable fiction. If you knew much, you'd be
someone else.
Anyway, show some respect for the dead. Blaming a DMF for even a small part
of your sorry state is disgusting.
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:58:00 GMT,
> WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > There are other theories of why they want to
> >"get into our genes." One is that they feel some sort of
> >spiritual need to connect with us.
> >
> >Google archives:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> Now write:
>
> Another theory is that they want us to be part of some galactic
> federation, and to do so, they would have to eliminate some of
> the strangeness that an alien feels about us, and what we feel
> about them. That would be accomplished by interbreeding.
You should know by now that humans can't fertilize other species. You
probably know someone who knows for sure that other species can't fertilize
humans. I know you don't have any use for information, especially when
formulating a "theory," but those things alone should show you the absurdity
of beliving that humans and aliens can breed successfully. (Go ahead and
make up some shit about how they'll just genetically reshape our hoses,
etc., if necessary.)
> In all the literature I've read, by the way, the greys seem to be
> quite adept at telepathy, and interact with humans exclusively
> through telepathy. That may not be true of certain other
> species.
Lizards and such?
So far, the only plausible theory about alien abductions is "hallucination."
It could be some other form of mind dysfunction, like an especially long and
vivid nightmare.
I would bet that the average body temperature of the "abductees" when they
wake up after the "abduction" is around 101. Feverish nightmares are the
worst kind, too often
featuring something the victim is afraid of. Yours, for example, would have
some of the normal people in this newsgroup terrorizing you by hurling true
statements at you.
It could be that the fact that a "grey" is described as about three or four
feet tall is a factor in your sexual attraction to them -- maybe the only
factor. I don't know. It just seems plausible.
> Other ideas presented, indicate that certain species of aliens
> are at war with other species. Some want to protect humans,
> others want to use us.
The invention of witches and angels is on another cycle. Whoopeedoo.
> I wrote:
> [ snipped stupid quote/scam site ad ]
DanKettler
> "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerscams
>
> > Oh, that's right. I remember. Anyway, he liked to volunteer to
> > give swimming lessons. I was the recipient of his lessons, and
> > much that I know today is due to him.
> "Much that you know" is a laughable fiction. If you knew much, you'd be
> someone else.
The PSF, truly are a bunch of idiots. They cannot read.
What is a PSF? In nearly any search engine...
" skeptics what they do and why "
"Much that you know" refers to the subject of swimming, fool.
<snip>
trippy
article <3B7A272E.404FD22A@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>, said the
following tripped out things:
>
> "Much that you know" refers to the subject of swimming, fool.
Well, that's good, because you sure as hell don't know much about
science or decency.
--
Trippy
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9/
Mr.T.t...@chorus.net
(I pity the fool, who doesn't take out Mr.T. before e-mailing me)
Skepticult # 365-12149-907
Rank : Seargent First Class
WORTHLESS SCUM #246
I'm spooge too.
Cool quote:
"I'd rather spend my time seeing how hard a
400-pound gorilla can tighten a vise around my penis before I pass out
from the
pain then be forced to slog through your orgasmic rants, now that you've
found
human contact."
--- myf...@aol.com (Charade)
Love from my fans:
"Please excuse the American slang, but you sir are a DICK!"
--- P...@P.net "P"
<b6nnctoik9spr7s93...@4ax.com>
"Declare victory and run! Thats all you Amerikkans know! It sure worked
for you in BVietname!"
--- P...@P.net "P", Acknowleging my victory
<3ad22d23...@news.alt.net>
"I have already states, yes I do want attention!"
--- sxw_...@hotmail.com (Brandon Hex), after morphing 4 times to avoid
an imaginary killfile.
<The-270601...@mplsapanas44poola83.mpls.uswest.net>
"You is smarter when YOU is on crack."
--- Jesus Slut Fucker <drap...@home.com>, weighs in on the drug debate.
<3B35F5B7...@home.com>
"Hurry, hurry, hurry...Heinie awaits with the soap!"
--- "Seafood" <na...@sanctum.com>, on his motivations.
<SioY6.73860$u34.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>
"You sure are a moron. Sollog was 20 days off on a event that occurs
once every 800 or so
days. That is a 95% accuracy rate."
--- fvcky...@hotmail.com (Fvck You Too), on prediction accuracy.
<80c04064.01062...@posting.google.com>
"Please, let's keep this to the privacy of alt.paranormal, they don't
need to know. Seems like I misjudged your chess like mind, is it not too
late to ask
you to withdraw my nomination? You have no idea what it will do to my
reputation."
--- "." (Bau...@virgSPAMin.net) Begging for mercy
<SgUP6.1441$lm5.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
She said come to me in the darkness
She said take my love from me
She said I'll be yours forever if you just believe in me
She said anyway you want me boy my love I give to you
I was born to love you take me anyway you choose
Heartbreak coming my way
Angel feels like my dying day
I don't need no doctor
I don't need no priest
All I need is my baby girl to bring it on home to me
I just need her lovin' each and every day
Only she can set me free and take these ol' blues away
Blue Murder -- "Jellyroll"
MEOW
DanKettler
What is a PSF?
It's a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC. More on this species, here...
In nearly any search engine, type...
" skeptics what they do and why "
John Griffin wrote:
<snip>
DK: > > Another theory is that they want us to be part of some galactic
> > federation, and to do so, they would have to eliminate some of
> > the strangeness that an alien feels about us, and what we feel
> > about them. That would be accomplished by interbreeding.
> You should know by now that humans can't fertilize other species.
PSF (pseudo-skeptic-fanatics) not only cannot read, they cannot think.
What does what I "should know" regarding earthly species,
have to do with alien species from outer space?
> You
> probably know someone who knows for sure that other species can't fertilize
> humans. I know you don't have any use for information, especially when
> formulating a "theory," but those things alone should show you the absurdity
> of beliving that humans and aliens can breed successfully.
If you could read, you would find that I don't "believe"
anything regarding interbreeding. I just speculate.
Now, that would require reading _and_ thinking. I don't believe you
PSF are capable of either, and the idea that you could do both, is
truly a wild assumption.
<snip>
DanKettler
> > >Google archives:
> > >
> > >http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
<snip>
DK: > > Another theory is that they want us to be part of some galactic
> > federation, and to do so, they would have to eliminate some of
> > the strangeness that an alien feels about us, and what we feel
> > about them. That would be accomplished by interbreeding.
> What was found in relation to those studying paranornormal alien
> human hybrids is that the various forms of beings encountered are
> extremely similar to us, in fact some of them have been reported
> to be *huminoid* in nature with only minor differences in organs,
> and body features. Even the StarChild-Skull controversy shows DNA
> similar to human like matter. If of course you are on the side that
> feels that it was a human altogether, it still begs the question
> of what could have resulted in the change in the genetic makeup
> all together. It is often enough that skeptics are hit with these
> difficult questions, and they resort to second hand thoughts/guesses.
> Humanlike DNA, therefore it must be human. (Note: I do not necessarily
> fervor StarChild as *absolute* evidence of paranormal alien visitation)
> there are still many other pieces of evidence that I am taking in
> consideration with my writings here.
DK: > > In all the literature I've read, by the way, the greys seem to be
> > quite adept at telepathy, and interact with humans exclusively
> > through telepathy. That may not be true of certain other
> > species.
> When it comes to interest of various forms of aliens to establish
> direct contact with humans here on Earth, that has yet to be fully
> established. To my knowledge at this time there have been no pre-planed
> direct communications to the human population here on Earth.
I was not referring to preplanned direct communication to the
general population.
I was referring, specifically, to the greys interaction
with individual humans during abductions.
> What I
> mean by direct is a communication aimed at the masses or public as a
> whole.
Yes.
> Most of the said communication has occurred through relay contacts,
> and those who had alleged to have been abducted and had witnessed the
> hybridization programs already in progress. The site of such programs
> being performed by alien races will make it obvious what their ultimate
> interests may be. At this time they are seemingly studying us. They
> are *gathering* information at this time.
My reference was in response to Zinc's comment that the aliens
(not greys specifically) needed to interbreed to obtain our
psychic cabability.
DK: > > Other ideas presented, indicate that certain species of aliens
> > are at war with other species. Some want to protect humans,
> > others want to use us.
> Where did you here this?
I've heard, and read, so much over decades, I cannot keep track
of all of it. It's just a theory. Theories are not important
enough to keep track of the persons who brought them up.
The data obtained through other means, is important.
> How would a war benefit either side of
> it when it only causes further complications and damage to both
> societies simotaniously? Many people have oftened asked these
> questions. A lot of effort is placed to help *prevent/disable*
> the use of various forms of violent weapons.
> **********************************************************************
> * To preserve valuable time to engage in serious debates with *
> * paranormalists on various newsgroups, I have recently come to *
> * the decision of greatly cutting back on the number of replies *
> * to various people who attempt to take me out of context and troll. *
> **********************************************************************
>
> --
> Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
>
> "With the 2001 officialization of this great new millennium, it has
> been shown that the paranormal is mostly what common science has yet
> to discover. This is where many skeptics seem to be missing my point."
>
> Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
> Official Newsgroup ---> alt.paranormal
> Official Usenet ID ---> paran...@flagship1.com
--
EVC
From: "Lucianarchy"
Date: 1998/07/18
Message-ID: <6opts1$5kq$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.astrology,sci.skeptic,alt.magick
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.paranormal]
Chaotica wrote in message <6nse62$s...@netaxs.com>...
>Anonym is more likely to sue than I am, because Lucian has
>already said he wouldn't use my work. I'm going to keep an
>eye out, though, and if he *does* use anything of mine, I'm
>quite willing to join anonym in a class-action suit.
Would you wear it to Court together? It would make a charming cover pic....
The following is an extract taken from the recently published, "Piechester
Chronicles" :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Two Usenet Geeks cross the Atlantic Ocean to take major UK publishing
house to task in the
Civil Courts."
"Today, at Piechester Civil Court, an anonymous Geek and a drunk Discordian
bound in a
cheap notebook, and shared suit stumbled into the hushed proceedings amid
fears that they
could jointly ring the death bell of one of the UK's largest and most
influential publishing
houses.
Judge Sheri Boundtightly called the Court to 'Order', only to be shrieked
at by the Discordian
on his discoverance that the power of the Court lay in the hands of a
woman.
"Bitch!!" , he cried.
His accomplice, unable to resist temptation, joined in;
"Motherfucking, anal crust licking, cunting mother joboy cunt fuck wank! "
"Shall I send you down?" Judge Boundtightly looked over the top of her half
moon glasses at
the two Geeks across the room.
"I've only just eaten." protested the Discordian.
She continued.......
"Please present your case."
The two Geeks struggled within the shared, and ridiculous looking cheap
suit.
"It's like this, see," Anonym wipes the steam from his glasses;
"I spend all my time hacking obscenities and harassment at people I don't
like, b,b, because, I
don't understand them and they, they, are a threat to my emotional
security. No, that's not it. (
cough, fart) I mean, um, oh yes, I am writing a book about Usenet and... no
that's not it." At
this point Anonym breaks down in tears. "It's just not.... FAIR!"
Boundtightly smiles benevolently at poor Anonym. " Oh, I seeee." (starts to
make note on
paper, and chuckles to herself.) "Call your first witness!"
Silence............
Sheri Boundtightly removed her glasses and cleared her throat.
"Hurumph!"
The punctuation woke The Discordian and the Geek, who momentarily forgot
they were in the
same suit and comically attempted to jump in different directions.
"Order!"
The Discordian couldn't believe his luck. " I'll have a..."
Before he could finish the sentence Boundtightly glared directly into the
squint. "Put a sock in
it!" she yelled in a deep masculine voice.
"Which one?" Again, the temptation was to much for the poor Troll. "Jason?
Keri? Megazoner
D Iconoclast?"
Before anymore could be said, the door at the back of the Court burst open
in dramatic style
and in bound the youthful, imposing, yet sickly pale figure of the great
and world renowned
Professor Myers(tm)
"I'm sorry I'm late, but there was an argument going on between two deaf
people, in the
hospitality lounge at Heathrow, and well, shucks, you know me! Couldn't
resist having my
say." Puffed the Great Man Himself.
"Are you a witness for the Geeks?"
"Yes, Ma'am. I am here to provide ' scientific evidence' that these two
heroic patriots of the
US of A are being fleeced of their literary Usenet genius by that
Goddamnliymmeesonofabitch,
Lucianarchy."
"A 'Scientist' eh?" Boundtightly's eyes darted to the thick studded belt
around Myers' fit young
waist. She grinned and licked her lips.
" Care for lunch?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The smoke clears.
It had been a long afternoon.
The Prof had taken the Boundtightly challenge and had returned with a
distinct spring in his
step.
The afternoon was drawing on, and no sign of Boundtightly. The gaggle of
geeks had nothing
better to do than sit and wait.
Eventually the boredom led to the ruminations of a divine
geekishness.......
" I've really fucking had it with all this "have a life", "get a life"
bullshit." Said the Geek, his
head bowed between his legs, looking for inspiration in the wilderness.
Megazoner™ had to agree, the atmosphere in the witness room was getting
decidedly dense, "
Nobody says "don't go there!", or "happy camper"anymore, so what the fuck
is that tired Troll
still doing hanging around?"
"You know who doesn't have a life?" s/he added. " Me, you, and the other
Usenet Geeks. See:
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html "
" Everybody else has a fucking life though."
The Prof filled his manly chest with air and prepared to intervene, " I
forget what you call it
when the mention of Irony kills a Usenet thread, but I think a flag oughtta
be called on the play
whenever " a TM™ " appears.......Whattya say, gang? "
"Go for it." A united chorus........
" Amazing. This is true objective quoting at it's finest." Said Fitz The
Prat™. "I'm really
hooked. You just can't learn this kind of thing in journalism school. You
have to really work at
it. They must teach you all sorts of things, like regarding the accepted
conventions of a forum
you participate in.... and then adding an artistic licence"
"I agree." The Geek concluded, blushing coyly ....
" .....now Jason™ has joined Kerri™ in my pants."
The embarrassed silence was punctuated by a flurry of noise as the
Discordian burst into the
room, waving a piece of paper wildly aloft.
"I've done it!!" he screeched. "I've made the grade!!. No more fucking
around with you guys
anymore, no siree. I've made me to the Proponent List!"
Fitz, Prof, Megazoner and The Geek stared blankly at the angst ridden
Troll.
"Mother Jo-Boy fuck wank poo tit." The Geek offered his appreciation.
The Prof intervened. "My boy, reconsider. Remember your studies are
important to your
future. You are still young. You cannot dally with the Woo-Woo's and not
get sucked into their
evil, debauched ways."
"He's right." added Megazoner, "No one enters the Lions Den and comes out
insane. Look at
their track record for Kerri's sake."
"I've been there," Fitz chirped in, "Proponents get used like kleenex. Get
off The List before
it's too late."
"Pish and posh!" The Discordian swept aside the comments with a delicate
flick of the wrist.
"My work with you is done. You are merely riding on my coat tails,
.......and holding me back
to boot."
Behind the closed doors where the the Discordian framed himself a golden
light seeped through
the cracks and the jam, and a light smokey mist crept along the floor,
bathing the feet of the
assembled rabble.
The group continued to stare at the Discordian, now with mouths agape... as
the doors behind
him majestically opened to reveal the sillouhetted figure of a plumpish,
slightly older character.
At first, the illusion of a golden halo suspended over the figures head
made the group gasp,
.....until the figure stepped forward, and the light no longer reflected
from the follicly challenged
source.
The gasp formed into a single word....
"Dan!!"
....who put his wise warm hand on the young Discordian shoulder and gave it
a friendly
squeeze.
He nodded and winked, "We meet at last. I have watched from afar. It will
be alright now. The
List has power and fortune beyond comprehension."
"I was doing alright on my own, y'know.." The Discordian lowered his tone,
staring at his feet,
"I faced up with Schuler, Shrill-Lying, Jason and the Arguenoughts......
and, and, I'm going to
try climbing the mountain to reach the eerie of the Eagle."
"Lordi, Lordi, white-boy! You am de honky bwa wid de great balls!"
The group looked in incoherent dismay at the Psychic Guru.
"Sorry about that..." Dan flushed. "It's that old racist SYNTATAXIA
flashback again. You
see....." He sat down on the floor, motioning the others to join him,
"....I once brushed with
Luci, many moons ago, after my Spam-a-thon, in the days of the Shrill-Lying
persecution
which lead to my medium being withdrawn."
"What ARE you talking about?" asked the Prof.
"I won't speak of it any more......" Dan waved the question aside and stood
up, hands on hips
in dramatic, heroic pose.
"Come, back into the Court.... " he continued, "We WILL have our day!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In desperation, a new Judge had been found.
Judge B.Rant sat down behind The Bench and shuffled the papers Boundtightly
had left in
disarray. "Will this take long?" he asked wearily, "Because I have another
case to hear later
with the Anonymous Geek Vs Head-Man of Astrology."
"He's involved in this case as well," Dan advised.
"Not any more!" The words of the Geek preceded the crisp rip of cloth as he
tore himself away
from the Discordian, leaving the suit in tatters. With surprising
athleticism, he leapt over the
Dock and ran past the security, arms flailing wildly.
"What's going on?" B.Rant failed to see the humour in the disparate
separation.
"He talks the talk, but can't walk the walk..." , the Discordian answered
with contempt.
"There are people who come to this Court to voice their opinions about
various topics and
would like to play 'Beat the Judge' " Judge Rant began, "I'm used to these
people saying all
kinds of garbage in response to judicial views. I'm also used to other
Judges pointing out if I
have made an error or disagreeing with me. That doesn't bother me and many
times I have
benefited from it."
"It's pretty easy to play 'Beat The Judge', " the Discordian replied, "
just point out that
Copyright is arbitrary and therefore no more valid than any other system of
Law. What I am
not used to is some supposed journalist using one of my posts and simply
re-using it without
even offering a payment."
" I find your general tone, your dogma, and your pseudo-intellectualism
obnoxious. If you've
got a problem with my dislike, please feel free to whine at anybody but me.
Well, you *can*
whine at me, but I just snicker at you." Rant responded, judging by your
attitude, you must
have tried the same thing with Shrill-Lying."
" Shrill was easy. I got her into a corner on the morality of skepticism
and she started
namecalling and eventually plonked me. I don't know why. You'd think she'd
be willing to
concede a point."
Judge Rant looked across to Lucianarchy, sitting at the back of the Court
making her own
transcript of the proceedings, " Luci, you can be a total asshole, and
you're right, there's
nothing I can do about it. So what? What kind of ambition is that? Anybody
can be an
asshole."
" But that's not the issue." Luci responded, " I was pointing out how
completely and utterly
useless Usenet whining is. My ambitions are hardly relevant."
The Discordian started to shake with Erisian rage as he turned on his
nemesis. " Your use of
my post, although legal, was totally uncalled for. It was unpreventable as
well as unnecessarily
rude. Your ad hominem implications were standard fare on Usenet as well as
unprovoked and
unfair."
"Awwww, poor baby," sniggers Luci.
"You don't own the newsgroup and I'm not going to allow your artistic
licence to dictate how
Usenet posts can convey humour or parody, or what posting personality I
should adopt. " Rant
bellowed, waving his little fist in the air.
Luci picked up her lap-top, still typing and walked to front of the Court.
She looked across to
Dan... "I could very easily turn these statements around and apply it to
you. It was your initial
assumption that you could exercise any sort of control on the newsgroup
that started this
argument."
"I vary the types of posts I make. " Dan blustered.
"Between what? Boring and humourless?"
"They range from the absurd to the sublime, from the deadly serious to the
totally frivolous. If
I choose to answer a post seriously and use my best writing skills, I don't
appreciate the
"I'm-so-intelligent" criticism." Protested the psychic Guru.
"These quotes," Luci replied, " for those interested, expose the
'I'm-an-intellectual in disguise'
idiots. Not the best insult I've ever done, but not too bad, either."
" Agreed, " Rant added, "I don't see anything obnoxious in parody, but
obnoxiousness *is*
something you seem to be aspiring to...as an example, at least two people
have informed you
(directly or indirectly), that it is considered rude to use other peoples
postings. In response to
those hints you have proudly lengthened and remastered these quotes. "
"Actually," replied Luci, "I am quite free to label you obnoxious - or
anything else that comes
to mind. Furthermore, since obnoxiousness exists only in perception, I am
the only one who
can judge whether or not I found your post obnoxious. So I am not only in
an excellent position
to judge you, I am in the default position to apply the label. How you
react to the parody is
entirely your responsibility. Note that I'm not writing long essays filled
with excess verbiage.
I'm using yours, that's just my way.
"At this point," Rant interjected, " I see you just as a troll, just like
Sherilyn. You people are so
like one another. Cosmetic individuality, at best. Now go ahead and say
something like "take a
pill" or "chill out." I won't see it."
"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" Luci threw her head back, " I win!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above is (c) of Lucianic@Large.™
Reproduction refused.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for all your kind contributions boys, reverse speech has nothing on
Geekspeak™
/repost
DanKettler wrote in message <3b79dce...@news.earthlink.net>...
DanKettler
<snip>
>But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to create an icon
>of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as you. I enjoy your
>posts and challenges immensely.
>
>Zinc out...
On that bit from Lucianarchy, which the whole of it includes "PZ"
and myself, here's part of it...
**********************************************************************
Check out GOOGLE for the rest...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
I like to encourage people to use GOOGLE, so they can get used to
using the archives. People who examine GOOGLE really know what
is going on in the newsgroups.
**********************************************************************
Subject: Whats the point ..........?
Lucianarchy (luc...@dial.pipex.com)
Date: 1998/07/18
Chaotica wrote in message <6nse62$s...@netaxs.com>...
>Anonym is more likely to sue than I am, because Lucian has
>already said he wouldn't use my work. I'm going to keep an
>eye out, though, and if he *does* use anything of mine, I'm
>quite willing to join anonym in a class-action suit.
Would you wear it to Court together? It would make a charming
cover pic....
The following is an extract taken from the recently published,
"Piechester Chronicles" :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Two Usenet Geeks cross the Atlantic Ocean to take major UK
publishing house to task in the Civil Courts."
"Today, at Piechester Civil Court, an anonymous Geek and a drunk
Discordian bound in a cheap notebook, and shared suit stumbled
into the hushed proceedings amid fears that they could jointly
ring the death bell of one of the UK's largest and most
influential publishing houses.
Judge Sheri Boundtightly called the Court to 'Order', only to be
shrieked at by the Discordian on his discoverance that the power
of the Court lay in the hands of a woman. "Bitch!!" , he cried.
His accomplice, unable to resist temptation, joined in,
"Motherfucking, anal crust licking, cunting mother joboy cunt
fuck wank! "
"Shall I send you down?" Judge Boundtightly looked over the top
of her half moon glasses at the two Geeks across the room.
"I've only just eaten." protested the Discordian.
She continued. "Please present your case."
The two Geeks struggled within the shared, and ridiculous looking
cheap suit.
"It's like this, see," Anonym wipes the steam from his glasses,
Silence............
" Care for lunch?"
(c)Lucianic@Large 1998.
DanKettler
(zinc_chameleon) wrote:
<snip>
Here's a part of the parody I was referring to, regarding "PZ"...
*****************************************************************
Before anymore could be said, the door at the back of the Court
burst open in dramatic style and in bound the youthful, imposing,
yet sickly pale figure of the great and world renowned
Professor Myers(tm) [That's "PZ"]
"I'm sorry I'm late, but there was an argument going on between
two deaf people, in the hospitality lounge at Heathrow, and well,
shucks, you know me! Couldn't resist having my say." Puffed the
Great Man Himself.
"Are you a witness for the Geeks?"
"Yes, Ma'am. I am here to provide ' scientific evidence' that
these two heroic patriots of the US of A are being fleeced of
their literary Usenet genius by that Goddamnliymmeesonofabitch,
Lucianarchy."
"A 'Scientist' eh?" Boundtightly's eyes darted to the thick
studded belt around Myers' fit young waist. She grinned and
licked her lips.
" Care for lunch?"
***********
end quote
**********
ZINC: But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to
create an icon of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as
you. I enjoy your posts and challenges immensely.
--
Pete Charest
news:8j8knt4hi0nd80651...@4ax.com...
> On or about Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:04:09 GMT, DrPostman
> <I...@mysig.emailthere> typed:
>
> Not as weird as "PF FLYER". How many ass-licks name themselves after
> a child's wagon??
Well, j.....you're probably thinking of Radio Flyer, the child's wagon.
PF Flyer was a sneaker....manufactured by Keds, if I'm not mistaken.
But in essence, you're right....only an ass-lick would choose a nym from a
smelly sneaker.
---
Pete Charest
Truth Terrorist©
Risen from the Dead®
If you're stupid, you won't find me funny.
pz
WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
You shouldn't be grateful. That I despise the tedious twits who post
strings of expletives and scurrilous, baseless accusations does not mean
that I regard empty-headed paranormal proponents like you with less
contempt. I have more than enough scorn to go around.
>
> Another comes to mind, now, but he has not posted in a long time.
> His name is Phil Harrision, but he was not that consistent.
>
> >> His "citing" was to show some correlation, to illustrate
> >> ideas, not for proof.
>
> >"Correlation" with the ideas of science fiction shows on television is
> >*not* meaningful. What next? Are you going to dissect an old episode of
> >'My Favorite Martian' to show that the possibility of life on Mars is
> >reasonable?
>
> Again, the citing of science fiction is only to show a
> correlation, not to present it as evidence.
I see. Do you? You are claiming a correlation between your beliefs and
the confabulations of fiction writers.
>
> Allow me to go back to a time when I saw the idea of abductions
> (especially interbreeding) as quite bizarre, though UFO presence
> was considered plausable. I, personally, have had no UFO
> encounters, either remotely, or up close. Back in the late 80's,
> I was acquainted with ESP, but I was extremely skeptical about
> UFO abductions.
>
> I remember seeing the BUD HOPKINS material on TV. I was
> astounded. Before then, I'd thought this sort of thing was only
> in the tabloids.
You are rather easily impressed. Budd Hopkins is a guy who makes up crap
about alien abductions, and credulous people believe him.
> Afterward, I contacted an acquantance, who over
> a decade before, in person and for hours at a time, had been
> talking with me about UFO encounters. This person is a serious
> investigator, one with a PhD in psychology, who is very well
> recognized and published both in the mainstream press, and in
> subscribed (not on newstands--more credible) UFO literature.
Oh, the unnamed source. Ho hum.
> He'd had a personal acquantance with J. Allen Hynek I'll not
> mention his name here, for a number of reasons. I asked him
> about the abduction phenomena. He concured that his
> investigations, the hypnosis sessions he's done, and others of
> his collegues, confirms the likelihood that the occurrances are
> real. The man understands science, and the scientific method.
> He's wary of kooks who infest the UFO field, and bring a great
> deal of discrediting to the whole idea.
Your description sounds vaguely like Mack or Jacobs. Neither are
regarded as people who understand either science or the scientific
method -- and that's clear from reading their work.
>
> pz, there are degrees of likelihood. One does not just either
> believe something or not. At this point, I have some skepticism
> about UFO abductions, but a lot less than I did a decade ago. I
> am still quite interested in this, and want to know more.
>
> "...reasonable observations and evidence...
> speculation that aliens are intentionally
> breeding with humans... "
>
> I suggest that if you want to know more about the evidence, look
> at the web sites through the search engines, and then look to the
> credentials of those doing the investigating. If you are still
> skeptical, write e-mail to people, ask for data, and verify
> credentials.
Credentials aren't important, the data are. I've looked. There isn't
any. In particular, if you are going to make extravagant claims about
aliens interbreeding with people (may I suggest that you try to get some
rudimentary background in biology to understand just how ludicrous that
suggestion is?), you darn well better have something more substantal to
back it up than pathetic 'correlations' with science-fiction stories.
--
pz
DrPostman
>On or about Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:04:09 GMT, DrPostman
><I...@mysig.emailthere> typed:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:01:33 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
>><paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not nececessarly endorsing all of the material posted by
>>>Zinc at the top of the thread, I now write the following
>>>in reply to Dan Kettler.
>>>
>>>> Now write:
>>
>>
>>You guys are really weird. Ya know that?
>
>Not as weird as "PF FLYER". How many ass-licks name themselves after
>a child's wagon??
>Answer: one
Never heard of a PF Flyer.
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
DanKettler wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> > Most of the said communication has occurred through relay contacts,
> > and those who had alleged to have been abducted and had witnessed the
> > hybridization programs already in progress. The site of such programs
> > being performed by alien races will make it obvious what their ultimate
> > interests may be. At this time they are seemingly studying us. They
> > are *gathering* information at this time.
>
> My reference was in response to Zinc's comment that the aliens
> (not greys specifically) needed to interbreed to obtain our
> psychic cabability.
Most people understand that they may already have such technology, and
may also be just an advanced version of the modern day humanoid. In
recent posts I had discussed the similarities that may exist between
us and the Zetas.
> DK: > > Other ideas presented, indicate that certain species of aliens
> > > are at war with other species. Some want to protect humans,
> > > others want to use us.
>
> > Where did you here this?
>
> I've heard, and read, so much over decades, I cannot keep track
> of all of it. It's just a theory. Theories are not important
> enough to keep track of the persons who brought them up.
> The data obtained through other means, is important.
I for one have yet to acknowledge any war-like action that may be occurring
between various species of alien races. Of course it is arguable however
that such events are still possible, outside our current exploration. Whose
to say that there isn't another place just like Earth out there in our mist.
Such issues like this have baffled me for times. What will their take on
war be? What would motivate them to engage in such activity? Why would
they allow conflict over resolution?
[Snip]
Lou Minatti™
>
> Subject: What's the point ..........?
> From: "Lucianarchy"
Sheesh, Rob, why do you even try when you're so easy to figure out? The
"EVC" isn't remotely clever. So what's the point of your constant
morphing? I know you fancy yourself as a rebellious "discordian" and
"anarchist", but you just come off looking rather stupid.
So far, I count 13 of your suck puppets over the past 2 years. Have I
missed any?
"EVC" <........@......net>
Easy Vegan Cooking
Dr. Wilson
Peek at you
Phil
Lucy9254
Roald Humberg <Ro...@humberg.fsnet.co.uk>
Belvedere <xz...@zoom.co.uk>
Thomas Hunter <tom...@virgin.net>
Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com>
D. Leary <le...@madasafish.com>
Various frogged misspellings of Lou & Wally's names
"bb" <yb...@dial.pipex.com>
Robbin Roberts <robbin...@dial.pipex.com> <---- the only one NOT a
suck puppet
--
Fly Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH):
http://www.watchingyou.com/houstoninter.html
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
> John Griffin wrote:
>
> > "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerscams
> >
> > > Oh, that's right. I remember. Anyway, he liked to volunteer to
> > > give swimming lessons. I was the recipient of his lessons, and
> > > much that I know today is due to him.
>
> > "Much that you know" is a laughable fiction. If you knew much, you'd be
> > someone else.
>
> The PSF, truly are a bunch of idiots. They cannot read.
>
> What is a PSF? In nearly any search engine...
>
> " skeptics what they do and why "
>
> "Much that you know" refers to the subject of swimming, fool.
Since "much that you know" is such a joke, cretin, you probably think that
was apparent, or worse yet, that it should have been taken that way. Damn,
you are one thick cretin. There is little doubt that the guy you were
talking about knew more than you do about absolutely everything.
"PSF" cracks me up. You're a veritable flood of idiocies - an Idiotic
Gullible Lunatic.
The Surfer Dan Spammed
DanKettler, Kook of the Month, Kook of the Year, and spamming fraud, wrote:
>
> John Griffin wrote:
>
> > "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerscams
> >
> > > Oh, that's right. I remember. Anyway, he liked to volunteer to
> > > give swimming lessons. I was the recipient of his lessons, and
> > > much that I know today is due to him.
>
> > "Much that you know" is a laughable fiction. If you knew much, you'd be
> > someone else.
>
> The PSF, truly are a bunch of idiots.
Oh, look.
Name-calling.
>They cannot read.
Not your insane formatting and incoherent blather, that's for sure. It's
hard on the eyes.
The Surfer Dan Spammed
Big Fat Liar and Fraud with no psychic powers DanKettler wrote:
>
> What is a PSF?
A Person who is Sick of your Fraudulence.
The Surfer Dan Spammed
There's no such thing, you fucking kook.
The Surfer Dan Spammed
DanKettler wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 2001 18:04:48 -0700, zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com
> (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >But seriously PZ, as a writer, I'd be hard-pressed to create an icon
> >of British drollery as fastidiously scientific as you. I enjoy your
> >posts and challenges immensely.
> >
> >Zinc out...
>
> On that bit from Lucianarchy, which the whole of it includes "PZ"
> and myself, here's part of it...
God DAMN you are one incoherent fuck!
The Surfer Dan Spammed
DanKettler wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 2001 18:04:48 -0700, zinc_ch...@mailandnews.com
> (zinc_chameleon) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Here's a part of the parody I was referring to, regarding "PZ"..
Here it is snipped, because it's fucking stupid.
Dan Pressnell
news:3B7A8FBE...@flagship1.com...
> I for one have yet to acknowledge any war-like action that may be
occurring
> between various species of alien races. Of course it is arguable however
> that such events are still possible, outside our current exploration.
Whose
> to say that there isn't another place just like Earth out there in our
mist.
Yeah, you never can tell what's out there in our mist.
> Such issues like this have baffled me for times.
Yes, I know.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> > I remember seeing the BUD HOPKINS material on TV. I was
> > astounded. Before then, I'd thought this sort of thing was only
> > in the tabloids.
>
> You are rather easily impressed. Budd Hopkins is a guy who makes up crap
> about alien abductions, and credulous people believe him.
Yes, and Kettler calls those people "true skeptics."
Dan
digger
> So far, I count 13 of your suck puppets over the past 2 years. Have I
> missed any?
>
> "EVC" <........@......net>
> Easy Vegan Cooking
> Dr. Wilson
> Peek at you
> Phil
> Lucy9254
> Roald Humberg <Ro...@humberg.fsnet.co.uk>
> Belvedere <xz...@zoom.co.uk>
> Thomas Hunter <tom...@virgin.net>
> Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com>
> D. Leary <le...@madasafish.com>
> Various frogged misspellings of Lou & Wally's names
> "bb" <yb...@dial.pipex.com>
> Robbin Roberts <robbin...@dial.pipex.com> <---- the only one NOT a
> suck puppet
"." <Bau...@virgSPAMin.net>
Amazingly enough, another "." posted "Psychics WANTED" screed on
a.p. just before Luci/Robbin assumed that name.
Is Luci also running a paranormal psychic phone scam? Is it a
paranormal conspiracy? The ever-growing mounds of paranormal
evidence have yet to be refuted.
DanKettler
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
DK: >> My reference was in response to Zinc's
DK: >> comment that the aliens
DK: >> (not greys specifically) needed to interbreed
DK: >> to obtain our
DK: >> psychic cabability.
FS: >Most people understand that they may already
FS: >have such technology... <snip>
My understanding is that greys, especially, are very adept with
telepathy, and utilize it exclusively as their mode of
communication.
<snip my speculation, ideas, theories, etc.>
===============================================================
Now, I'm going to explain how the scientific method is utilized
in the UFO field.
Fringe groups are often mistaken as being representative of the
entire UFO field, in the view of both the general public, and
skeptics.
A scientist, examining UFO phenomena, will utilize the scientific
method. A serious UFO researcher is a scientist. I will not
attest to the present methods of MUFON as being sound, today.
However, years ago, when I was acquainted with them, they
insisted upon scientific methodology for their researchers.
There would be certain common data about UFO encounters withheld
from the general public. Each certified investigator would look
for this common thread in the reports of those who had witnessed
UFO's. The common psychology of hoaxers, their usual behavior
patterns, would be looked for, and after certain reports were
eliminated, what remained were the more credible reports.
Though every report remaining could not be necessarily be
considered definately authentic, the data had more credibility
than if it had not been put through this process.
There are many fringe groups involved with the UFO field. They
tend to bring a discrediting to serious UFO research groups, and
the more serious of them do their best to keep their distance
from such groups. Many of these fringe groups are quite
credulous, looking to any channeling message they can read as
being the gospel from their "space brothers."
My suggestion is that when you speculate, keep that as a cateorgy
of speculation. When you find serious data, put that in the
category of carefully researched, and independently verified
data.
The scientific method requires independently verified data. One
person, I know, requires that if two people were part of an
abduction experience, before they have a chance to discuss the
encounter, they should be independently questioned by separate
persons.
I suggest that a person looking at all this, not get confused by
the abundance of material without carefully sifting through it,
and examining the history of the organization that brings forth
the data.
An esteemed scientist, Dr. J. Allen Hynek (technical consultant
for the movie: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND) is one example
of a scientific examiner of the UFO phenomena. I suggest you
look to persons, and organizations, that follow in his footsteps,
and don't become taken in by fringe groups. Don't give much
credence to fringe group material.
I'm not saying that you should not read fringe material. I'm
saying that when you do, consider it with a great deal of
skepticism.
The spiritual percepton that some have can be utilized to
ascertain the truth, or falsehood, of certain material, also.
I have some excellent UFO material on my site. At...
http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
...click at the reference: "THE TRUTH."
>**********************************************************************
>* To preserve valuable time to engage in serious debates with *
>* paranormalists on various newsgroups, I have recently come to *
>* the decision of greatly cutting back on the number of replies *
>* to various people who attempt to take me out of context and troll. *
>**********************************************************************
--
send private e-mail via web site
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
pz
WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
Uh, Dan, nowhere in the above text did you describe anything like the
scientific method. Do you even know what it is? Hint: it's not a
protocol for interviewing people.
--
pz
The Doctor Who Pronounced Kettler Insane
DanKettler wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:05:34 -0400, Flagship1 of the Paranormal
> <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
>
> DK: >> My reference was in response to Zinc's
> DK: >> comment that the aliens
> DK: >> (not greys specifically) needed to interbreed
> DK: >> to obtain our
> DK: >> psychic cabability.
>
> FS: >Most people understand that they may already
> FS: >have such technology... <snip>
>
> My understanding is that greys, especially, are very adept with
> telepathy,
There's no such thing as "greys", kook.
Except in people's imaginations.
John Griffin
Charlatan "DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerscams> babbled
> Now, I'm going to explain how the scientific method is utilized
It was really amusing to see you claim that you could do that.
It was hilarious to see you try.
Bruce Hutchinson
somehow managed to cough up the following:
>Now, I'm going to explain how the scientific method is utilized
>in the UFO field.
I don't think I have read anything more amusing- and totally wrong- in a
long time.
I am not, however, surprised that it came from you.
hutch
(Remove The Beast for email)
Sometimes, it is better to light a flamethrower
than curse the darkness. --- Terry Pratchett
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
If the goal is after all to convince the skeptics (not referring to PSF)
then technically the standardized scientific methods will be very
helpful. I agree.
> There would be certain common data about UFO encounters withheld
> from the general public. Each certified investigator would look
> for this common thread in the reports of those who had witnessed
> UFO's. The common psychology of hoaxers, their usual behavior
> patterns, would be looked for, and after certain reports were
> eliminated, what remained were the more credible reports.
Yes we do have our selection of hoaxers. Some of those hoaxers
are people who I believe to be responsible of intentionally trying
to set up _smoke screens_ and to intentionally try to create more
skepticism to help possible cover-ups, etc. Of course any honest
researcher logically making use of the standardized scientific
method and not coming to any _absolute_ conclusions either
positive or negative help in this agenda.
> Though every report remaining could not be necessarily be
> considered definately authentic, the data had more credibility
> than if it had not been put through this process.
I agree. We do not know at this time with _absolute_ certainty that
we are being visited by paranormal aliens. Skeptics should note however
that were are likewise not _absolutly_ certain that we are not. It
still remains an unanswered question. This is one reason why we
consider it to be paranormal in nature. If you are going to ask me
if I _believe_ in paranormal alien visitation, I would say yes.
Of course there is the evidence that suggests that we are being visited,
such as all the data that is being presented by various people. To
just assume without even researching the evidence that its all
bunk, is not at all logical either. Though we don't know with
absolute certainty at this time, we are still willing to accept
the likelihood and continue our research.
> There are many fringe groups involved with the UFO field. They
> tend to bring a discrediting to serious UFO research groups, and
> the more serious of them do their best to keep their distance
> from such groups. Many of these fringe groups are quite
> credulous, looking to any channeling message they can read as
> being the gospel from their "space brothers."
Like Heaven's Gate Cult, etc?
> My suggestion is that when you speculate, keep that as a cateorgy
> of speculation. When you find serious data, put that in the
> category of carefully researched, and independently verified
> data.
I agree.
> The scientific method requires independently verified data. One
> person, I know, requires that if two people were part of an
> abduction experience, before they have a chance to discuss the
> encounter, they should be independently questioned by separate
> persons.
Yes, this is why whenever I stumble upon evidence of some kind, I
always refer it to a group of people to look over. In extreme cases
this happens well before I introduce a new topic to be discussed
on usenet.
> I suggest that a person looking at all this, not get confused by
> the abundance of material without carefully sifting through it,
> and examining the history of the organization that brings forth
> the data.
>
> An esteemed scientist, Dr. J. Allen Hynek (technical consultant
> for the movie: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND) is one example
> of a scientific examiner of the UFO phenomena. I suggest you
> look to persons, and organizations, that follow in his footsteps,
> and don't become taken in by fringe groups. Don't give much
> credence to fringe group material.
Those interested may also be interested in CSETI's Disclosure project.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have missed it you can watch it on-line with Real Video at
this URL: http://www.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/
The official CSETI website can be found at: http://www.cseti.com/
Disclosure Project site is at http://www.disclosureproject.org/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Originally Broadcast Live on Wednesday, May 9, 2001
On Wednesday, May 9th, over twenty military, intelligence, government,
corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press
Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial
vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy
and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony,
along with supporting government documentation and other evidence,
will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena,
according to Dr. Steven M. Greer, director of the Disclosure Project
which hosted the event.
Watch and decide for yourself which view to take.
> I'm not saying that you should not read fringe material. I'm
> saying that when you do, consider it with a great deal of
> skepticism.
Also be aware that some larger groups may have hidden contracts
with the sub_governments, etc. Before looking at the group, you may
also wish to review its history. You may once again want to refer
to CSETI's Disclosure project and view the conference which is
archived on the web in Real Video. Please keep in mind even when
watching that, various people may also be disinformation agents,
while others may be legitimate.
> The spiritual percepton that some have can be utilized to
> ascertain the truth, or falsehood, of certain material, also.
>
> I have some excellent UFO material on my site. At...
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
>
> ...click at the reference: "THE TRUTH."
**********************************************************************
* To preserve valuable time to engage in serious debates with *
* paranormalists on various newsgroups, I have recently come to *
* the decision of greatly cutting back on the number of replies *
* to various people who attempt to take me out of context and troll. *
**********************************************************************
--
DanKettler
<paran...@flagship1.com> wrote:
Actually, no, that's not the goal. Everyone should be skeptical
of the data. You should, and so should I. That way, only the
more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
believe.
>> There would be certain common data about UFO encounters withheld
>> from the general public. Each certified investigator would look
>> for this common thread in the reports of those who had witnessed
>> UFO's. The common psychology of hoaxers, their usual behavior
>> patterns, would be looked for, and after certain reports were
>> eliminated, what remained were the more credible reports.
>Yes we do have our selection of hoaxers. Some of those hoaxers
>are people who I believe to be responsible of intentionally trying
>to set up _smoke screens_ and to intentionally try to create more
>skepticism to help possible cover-ups, etc.
Well, yes, that does happen. However, the main type I was
referring to, were those who have quirks in their psychological
make-up.
> Of course any honest
>researcher logically making use of the standardized scientific
>method and not coming to any _absolute_ conclusions either
>positive or negative help in this agenda.
Well, it's degrees of likelihood that people come to when they
sift through the evidence, and find which is more, or which is
less, credible.
>> Though every report remaining could not be necessarily be
>> considered definately authentic, the data had more credibility
>> than if it had not been put through this process.
>I agree. We do not know at this time with _absolute_ certainty that
>we are being visited by paranormal aliens.
We do know, however, that something is going on. It's very real
to a large number of very credible people. It's worthy of, and
does get, a great deal of effort by people with credentials.
>Skeptics should note however
>that were are likewise not _absolutly_ certain that we are not... <snip>
>> There are many fringe groups involved with the UFO field. They
>> tend to bring a discrediting to serious UFO research groups, and
>> the more serious of them do their best to keep their distance
>> from such groups. Many of these fringe groups are quite
>> credulous, looking to any channeling message they can read as
>> being the gospel from their "space brothers."
>Like Heaven's Gate Cult, etc?
Like them, and there are a good many other cults that are
involved in a fanatical way.
>I agree.
Yes.
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>If you have missed it you can watch it on-line with Real Video at
>this URL: http://www.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/
>The official CSETI website can be found at: http://www.cseti.com/
>Disclosure Project site is at http://www.disclosureproject.org/
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Originally Broadcast Live on Wednesday, May 9, 2001
> On Wednesday, May 9th, over twenty military, intelligence, government,
> corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press
> Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial
> vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy
> and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony,
> along with supporting government documentation and other evidence,
> will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena,
> according to Dr. Steven M. Greer, director of the Disclosure Project
> which hosted the event.
>Watch and decide for yourself which view to take.
I heard the announcement on the Art Bell show, before it was
first aired on mainstream media.
>> I'm not saying that you should not read fringe material. I'm
>> saying that when you do, consider it with a great deal of
>> skepticism.
>Also be aware that some larger groups may have hidden contracts
>with the sub_governments, etc. Before looking at the group, you may
>also wish to review its history. You may once again want to refer
>to CSETI's Disclosure project and view the conference which is
>archived on the web in Real Video. Please keep in mind even when
>watching that, various people may also be disinformation agents,
>while others may be legitimate.
>> The spiritual percepton that some have can be utilized to
>> ascertain the truth, or falsehood, of certain material, also.
>> I have some excellent UFO material on my site. At...
>>
>> http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
>>
>> ...click at the reference: "THE TRUTH."
>
>**********************************************************************
>* To preserve valuable time to engage in serious debates with *
>* paranormalists on various newsgroups, I have recently come to *
>* the decision of greatly cutting back on the number of replies *
>* to various people who attempt to take me out of context and troll. *
>**********************************************************************
--
send private e-mail via web site
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
DanKettler
>Uh, Dan, nowhere in the above text did you describe anything like the
>scientific method. Do you even know what it is? Hint: it's not a
>protocol for interviewing people.
I know more about the scientific method than you think. If you
examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
about what it is...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
I have discussed it in reference to psychic phenomena, and how
skeptical scientists examined the data with scientific
methodology as the criteria.
I know what real scientists, looking at the UFO phenomena, can do
with the data that is available: looking to statistics, examining
sightings that occur in certain areas during the same period of
time that witnesses could not have hoaxed, since they did not
have any knowledge of each other. I know how important an
independently duplicated study is, in scientific method.
Science does not have a rigid definition. It's not a religion,
with a bible. One esteemed scientist's science, could be another
well recognized, and esteemed scientist's, pseudo-science. So,
although we may disagree about the _details_ of science's
definition, so what? Neither of us is _right_. There are basic
understandings of what science is, and those we agree with. The
fine details are just your "bible." I don't necessarily follow
your "bible." You and I agree, I would presume, upon certain
types of controls. Whether they could not apply to witness
testimony, that's just your opinion.
All the UFO witness testimony examination is done with scientific
protocol, just like scientific protocol is utilized in
examination of psychic phenomena. You and I have discussed Dr.
Ray Hyman, on USENET. The thing he agrees about, is that
scientific methodology has been utilized properly in the
examination of it. That he disagrees with the results, really,
is not important.
For more on this, see links from...
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Lou Minatti™
> Actually, no, that's not the goal. Everyone should be skeptical
> of the data. You should, and so should I. That way, only the
> more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
> skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
> believe.
What is your definition of credible data, DAN?
> > Originally Broadcast Live on Wednesday, May 9, 2001
> > On Wednesday, May 9th, over twenty military, intelligence, government,
> > corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press
> > Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial
> > vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy
> > and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony,
> > along with supporting government documentation and other evidence,
> > will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena,
> > according to Dr. Steven M. Greer, director of the Disclosure Project
> > which hosted the event.
>
> >Watch and decide for yourself which view to take.
>
> I heard the announcement on the Art Bell show, before it was
> first aired on mainstream media.
Art Bell - isn't he the guy who made a mint by promoting the Y2K hoax?
The same guy who promoted the Hale-Bopp hoax that drove the Heaven's
Gate UFOologists off the edge? THAT Art Bell? With Art's record, why
would you treat anything he says seriously?
Dan Pressnell
news:3B7C01A4...@flagship1.com...
> Yes we do have our selection of hoaxers. Some of those hoaxers
> are people who I believe to be responsible of intentionally trying
> to set up _smoke screens_ and to intentionally try to create more
> skepticism to help possible cover-ups, etc.
Darn. Can't fool you, can they?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> Well, yes, that does happen. However, the main type I was
> referring to, were those who have quirks in their psychological
> make-up.
Yeah? Like who?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> My understanding is that greys, especially, are very adept with
> telepathy, and utilize it exclusively as their mode of
> communication.
So much for your understanding.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
news:3b7c7cfc...@news.earthlink.net...
> Now, I'm going to explain how the scientific method is utilized
> in the UFO field.
Oh, goody!
> An esteemed scientist, Dr. J. Allen Hynek (technical consultant
> for the movie: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND) is one example
> of a scientific examiner of the UFO phenomena. I suggest you
> look to persons, and organizations, that follow in his footsteps,
> and don't become taken in by fringe groups. Don't give much
> credence to fringe group material.
>
> I'm not saying that you should not read fringe material. I'm
> saying that when you do, consider it with a great deal of
> skepticism.
Yes, by all means be skeptical of fringe groups, and believe stuff like
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.
Science... sometimes you just gotta let yourself believe.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
scientific method.
Dan
"DanKettler" <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote in message
news:3b7d7c73...@news.earthlink.net...
Bruce Hutchinson
(DanKettler)"
somehow managed to cough up the following:
>>> Now, I'm going to explain how the scientific method is utilized
>>> in the UFO field.
For those of you are confused by the terminology used by Flaggy and Dan,
don't feel lost, they are too.
You can find definitions to the missued terminology at
http://ufokooks.50megs.com/dictionary/
HTH
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
DanKettler wrote:
>
[Snip]
Yes, I have (in the past) referred to that as Devil's Advocate. We
should not jump to any absolute conclusions until the facts come in.
I have always stated this fact.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dictionary.com
skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the
uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either
in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim
of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3.Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In *true* skepticism one does not make any absolute conclusions either
positive or negative until all of the data is accounted for and analyzed.
> That way, only the
> more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
> skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
> believe.
>
> >> There would be certain common data about UFO encounters withheld
> >> from the general public. Each certified investigator would look
> >> for this common thread in the reports of those who had witnessed
> >> UFO's. The common psychology of hoaxers, their usual behavior
> >> patterns, would be looked for, and after certain reports were
> >> eliminated, what remained were the more credible reports.
> >
> >Yes we do have our selection of hoaxers. Some of those hoaxers
> >are people who I believe to be responsible of intentionally trying
> >to set up _smoke screens_ and to intentionally try to create more
> >skepticism to help possible cover-ups, etc.
>
> Well, yes, that does happen. However, the main type I was
> referring to, were those who have quirks in their psychological
> make-up.
Even the data from those who may have been reported to have so-called
psychological disorders should also be evaluated with care. Though,
I would not just accept verbal testimony, I also require hard evidence
to work with. There have actually been studies in the past that have
shown that people with various disorders may actually be a little
more receptive of supernatural occurrences. All of this should be
taken into consideration as well.
I agree.
[Snip]
ArtBell has been all over this. He has had Dr Greer on at least twice
since the May 9th Broadcast. Due to my time-zone, I usually listen to
various shows on the following day in Real Audio. Art comes on at
1:00am - 6:00am where I am at.
The Doctor Who Pronounced Kettler Insane
FuckStick1 of the Jackoffwaymorethannormal wrote:
>
> Re: The more credible UFO reports
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dictionary.com
>
> skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism
>
> 1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
> See Synonyms at uncertainty.
> 2. Philosophy.
> a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the
> uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
> b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either
> in a particular domain or in general.
> c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim
> of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
> 3.Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> In *true* skepticism one does not make any absolute conclusions either
> positive or negative until all of the data is accounted for and analyzed.
Wrong, fuckhead.
Re-read your definitions again. Not *one* of them says which definition
is for "*true*" skepticism.
"True" skepticism can be any one of those definitions, dolt.
The primary kind practiced by skeptics on these newsgroups is C:
methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim
of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
Acquiring approximate or relative certainty does NOT equal "accounting
for and analyzing all of the data", you fucking stupe.
trippy
<3B7C82...@yahoo.com>, said the following tripped out things:
> DanKettler wrote:
>
> > Actually, no, that's not the goal. Everyone should be skeptical
> > of the data. You should, and so should I. That way, only the
> > more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
> > skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
> > believe.
>
> What is your definition of credible data, DAN?
Anything he can get $0.03 spamming?
--
Trippy
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9/
Mr.T.t...@chorus.net
(I pity the fool, who doesn't take out Mr.T. before e-mailing me)
Skepticult # 365-12149-907
Rank : Seargent First Class
WORTHLESS SCUM #246
I'm spooge too.
Cool quote:
"I'd rather spend my time seeing how hard a
400-pound gorilla can tighten a vise around my penis before I pass out
from the
pain then be forced to slog through your orgasmic rants, now that you've
found
human contact."
--- myf...@aol.com (Charade)
Love from my fans:
"Please excuse the American slang, but you sir are a DICK!"
--- P...@P.net "P"
<b6nnctoik9spr7s93...@4ax.com>
"Declare victory and run! Thats all you Amerikkans know! It sure worked
for you in BVietname!"
--- P...@P.net "P", Acknowleging my victory
<3ad22d23...@news.alt.net>
"I have already states, yes I do want attention!"
--- sxw_...@hotmail.com (Brandon Hex), after morphing 4 times to avoid
an imaginary killfile.
<The-270601...@mplsapanas44poola83.mpls.uswest.net>
"You is smarter when YOU is on crack."
--- Jesus Slut Fucker <drap...@home.com>, weighs in on the drug debate.
<3B35F5B7...@home.com>
"Hurry, hurry, hurry...Heinie awaits with the soap!"
--- "Seafood" <na...@sanctum.com>, on his motivations.
<SioY6.73860$u34.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>
"You sure are a moron. Sollog was 20 days off on a event that occurs
once every 800 or so
days. That is a 95% accuracy rate."
--- fvcky...@hotmail.com (Fvck You Too), on prediction accuracy.
<80c04064.01062...@posting.google.com>
"Please, let's keep this to the privacy of alt.paranormal, they don't
need to know. Seems like I misjudged your chess like mind, is it not too
late to ask
you to withdraw my nomination? You have no idea what it will do to my
reputation."
--- "." (Bau...@virgSPAMin.net) Begging for mercy
<SgUP6.1441$lm5.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
She said come to me in the darkness
She said take my love from me
She said I'll be yours forever if you just believe in me
She said anyway you want me boy my love I give to you
I was born to love you take me anyway you choose
Heartbreak coming my way
Angel feels like my dying day
I don't need no doctor
I don't need no priest
All I need is my baby girl to bring it on home to me
I just need her lovin' each and every day
Only she can set me free and take these ol' blues away
Blue Murder -- "Jellyroll"
MEOW
DanKettler
> DanKettler wrote:
> > Actually, no, that's not the goal. Everyone should be skeptical
> > of the data. You should, and so should I. That way, only the
> > more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
> > skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
> > believe.
You know, you do this again and again. You, and the
other PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF), are too lazy to read
the entire posts. Then you ask for answers to
questions that had been answered in the very
post you are supposedly answering.
Look to GOOGLE for past posts...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
And, do you ever wonder why people hardly ever
reply to you?
In a recent post, from you, I read one of the most
ridiculous examples of a lack of logical analysis.
You say the Art Bell show, supposedly, is not credible.
Well, I won't dwell on the argument about that point,
because it's not relevant...
Greer, supposedly, is not credible because he was on
a show that was not credible: The Art Bell Show.
Jeeeez, how can you wonder why I say so many of
you people cannot think, or read. At least I
know this much about you: you can read. You
are just too lazy. If you don't give the respect
it takes to actually read what someone writes, how
can you expect much respect in return?
Let's look at what was written about Greer, what
we're referencing here:
> > > Originally Broadcast Live on Wednesday, May 9, 2001
> > > On Wednesday, May 9th, over twenty military, intelligence, government,
> > > corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press
> > > Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial
> > > vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy
> > > and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony,
> > > along with supporting government documentation and other evidence,
> > > will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena,
> > > according to Dr. Steven M. Greer, director of the Disclosure Project
> > > which hosted the event.
FS: > > >Watch and decide for yourself which view to take.
DK: > > I heard the announcement on the Art Bell show, before it was
> > first aired on mainstream media.
> Art Bell - isn't he the guy who made a mint by promoting the Y2K hoax?
> The same guy who promoted the Hale-Bopp hoax that drove the Heaven's
> Gate UFOologists off the edge? THAT Art Bell? With Art's record, why
> would you treat anything he says seriously?
Again, this is irrelevant. Again and again, you people come up
with "red herrings," "straw men," and "ad-hominem" logical
fallacies, and then wonder why we advocates call you fools.
To begin, you jerks started calling us "kooks." The difference, here,
is that we have evidence that you are the one's who ___are___ "kooks."
More on logical fallacies, here: http://www.psicounsel.com/logic.html
Now, let's just for the sake of argument, assume that most of the
material presented on Art Bell's show lacks credibility. Do we,
therefore, assume that it all lacks credibility? That's what you
are hinting at, here. No-one can assume, with any degree of
rational ability, that _all_ of what is broadcast on Art Bell
is not credible. The show would not be broadcasted on hundreds
of radio stations for this many years.
If a person lacks credibility, because of a past
history, does everything they say lack truth? No,
if what they say is important, we investigate. If
a crazy person says, "the house is on fire," isn't
that important enough to sniff, and look, to see
if it is? Isn't the data surrounding Greer important
enought to look into, even if all you assumed about Art
Bell were true? However, the mentality, the
indoctrination, of PSF tells them not to look
at data, just the source. It's incredible.
Art Bell is a talk show host. He's not a Guru, and he
himself will tell you that he does not attest to the
truth of everything that is on his show. There is some
very credible data coming through his show. The writer
of "CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE" -- Radin is one example. Greer
is another.
You people, however, are incredible, in a the most
negative way. It's kind of like "The Amazing Randi,"
your Guru. "Amazing," indeed.
More on PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) here...
In nearly any search engine, type:
" skeptics what they do and why " (SWTDAW]
See a detailed psychological profile from the link near
the top of the page: "why."
> --
> Fly Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH):
> http://www.watchingyou.com/houstoninter.html
--
Dan Pressnell
> In a recent post, from you, I read one of the most
> ridiculous examples of a lack of logical analysis.
>
> You say the Art Bell show, supposedly, is not credible.
You gotta be kidding! You mean somebody actually said that? I wonder why!
Dan
Dan Pressnell
news:3b7f5555...@news.concentric.net...
> >The show would not be broadcasted on hundreds
> >of radio stations for this many years.
>
> Brucie, have you ever heard of ratings?
I think Kettler is illustrating his "scientific" approach. If a program is
on a lot of radio stations, it must be representing the truth.
Dan
Thecopwhoarrested Flyspecks
DanKettler wrote:
>
> "Lou Minatti™" wrote:
>
> > DanKettler wrote:
>
> > > Actually, no, that's not the goal. Everyone should be skeptical
> > > of the data. You should, and so should I. That way, only the
> > > more credible data will be taken seriously by us. To hell with
> > > skeptics, or pseudo-skeptics, and what they do, or do not,
> > > believe.
>
> LM: > What is your definition of credible data, DAN?
>
> You know, you do this again and again.
Yes, he asks you extremely simple questions, and you are too extremely
stupid to answer them.
nightbat
Or maybe it has a great sponsor base reflective of ratings
not necessarily truth based but still due to interesting or entertaining
content.
the nightbat
pz
WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:50:25 -0500, pz <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Uh, Dan, nowhere in the above text did you describe anything like the
> >scientific method. Do you even know what it is? Hint: it's not a
> >protocol for interviewing people.
>
> I know more about the scientific method than you think.
No, you know less than you think. I've seen what you call 'good
science', and it is a serious indictment of your cluelessness.
> If you
> examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
> about what it is...
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Why, oh why, do you do this? You make some specific claim, and then to
support it, you post a link to allow one to search all of usenet! It's
just plain stupid. It's also counterproductive: to humor you, I tried it
and searched for all posts that mentioned Kettler and the scientific
method. What mainly comes up is a lot of posts from other people
pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the scientific
method.
>
> I have discussed it in reference to psychic phenomena, and how
> skeptical scientists examined the data with scientific
> methodology as the criteria.
>
> I know what real scientists, looking at the UFO phenomena, can do
> with the data that is available: looking to statistics, examining
> sightings that occur in certain areas during the same period of
> time that witnesses could not have hoaxed, since they did not
> have any knowledge of each other. I know how important an
> independently duplicated study is, in scientific method.
You do? I don't think so. You seem to regard an accumulation of sloppy
anecdotes to constitute replication. It isn't.
>
> Science does not have a rigid definition. It's not a religion,
> with a bible. One esteemed scientist's science, could be another
> well recognized, and esteemed scientist's, pseudo-science. So,
> although we may disagree about the _details_ of science's
> definition, so what? Neither of us is _right_. There are basic
> understandings of what science is, and those we agree with. The
> fine details are just your "bible." I don't necessarily follow
> your "bible." You and I agree, I would presume, upon certain
> types of controls. Whether they could not apply to witness
> testimony, that's just your opinion.
No, from what I've seen, we don't agree on anything. Your version of the
scientific method is a hodge-podge of guesswork to support your silly
beliefs. You *lack* a basic understanding of science.
>
> All the UFO witness testimony examination is done with scientific
> protocol, just like scientific protocol is utilized in
> examination of psychic phenomena.
Oh, please. You simply do not have a clue. What is this "scientific
protocol" you are talking about? Be specific.
> You and I have discussed Dr.
> Ray Hyman, on USENET. The thing he agrees about, is that
> scientific methodology has been utilized properly in the
> examination of it.
No, he does NOT agree with that. There may be a few studies that he
agrees have been competently done (with ambiguous results), but that's
the best you'll get. For the most part, UFOlogy and parascience are a
vast wasteland of bungled, incompetent work.
> That he disagrees with the results, really,
> is not important.
>
> For more on this, see links from...
>
> SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
>
...which is nothing but a list of links to other credulous twits.
--
pz
digger
That's what makes the National Enquirer such a widely respected
institution of journalistic accuracy and integrity.
You can even see for yourself that the Enquirer has a bigger
circulation than the New York Times. Even Bruce can tell us which
of these publications is credible and which is just passionately
credulous.
Dan Pressnell
news:3b7e82d1....@news.gci.net...
Don't forget the Weekly World News, either. It's at so many supermarket
checkouts. I'm sure that it wouldn't be there if it were not credible.
We need to thank Bruce Daniel Kettler for his scientific method in
evaluating the credibilty of news sources!
Dan
Dan Pressnell
news:pzm-6BB1BC.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > If you
> > examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
> > about what it is...
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> Why, oh why, do you do this?
He's already said why he does it. He's stupid and lazy. The proof is at
http://groups.google.com.
Dan
pz
"Dan Pressnell" <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're either being stupid and lazy, or you're being cynical and ironic.
--
pz
...I don't think Kettler is smart enough to be cynical and ironic, at least.
Dan Pressnell
> In article <_7yf7.2854$yK4.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>,
> "Dan Pressnell" <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzm-6BB1BC.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> >
> > > > If you
> > > > examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
> > > > about what it is...
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> > >
> > > Why, oh why, do you do this?
> >
> > He's already said why he does it. He's stupid and lazy. The proof is
at
> > http://groups.google.com.
> >
>
> You're either being stupid and lazy, or you're being cynical and ironic.
My mistake. I didn't give a specific enough url. Try this one:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Dan
pz
"Dan Pressnell" <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:pzm-81DE1D.1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > In article <_7yf7.2854$yK4.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Dan Pressnell" <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pzm-6BB1BC.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > >
> > > > > If you
> > > > > examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
> > > > > about what it is...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> > > >
> > > > Why, oh why, do you do this?
> > >
> > > He's already said why he does it. He's stupid and lazy. The proof is
> at
> > > http://groups.google.com.
> > >
> >
> > You're either being stupid and lazy, or you're being cynical and ironic.
>
> My mistake. I didn't give a specific enough url. Try this one:
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
That helped. Thanks.
I should warn you, though: when I searched for "stupid lazy dan", the
first things to come up were a bunch of posts by you. I figured I must
not have been specific enough, so I tried "stupid lazy kettler", and
still the first posts to come up were by you.
It's really spooky.
And hey...have you ever noticed that your name is Dan, and Kettler goes
by the same name? I think Kettler would call that synchronicity.
--
pz
Dan Kettlers Coherent Brother
pz wrote:
>
> In article <_7yf7.2854$yK4.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>,
> "Dan Pressnell" <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "pz" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:pzm-6BB1BC.0...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> >
> > > > If you
> > > > examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
> > > > about what it is...
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> > >
> > > Why, oh why, do you do this?
> >
> > He's already said why he does it. He's stupid and lazy. The proof is at
> > http://groups.google.com.
> >
>
> You're either being stupid and lazy, or you're being cynical and ironic.
You're *definitely* stupid and lazy if you can't figure it out.
Dan Kettlers Coherent Brother
Quit trying to kiss Dan Pressnell's ass, you geek.
digger
It is now known, from applying the scientific method, that a
publication's credibility is enhanced when it's sold in
supermarkets.
**************************************************************
To Buy This Book, and find a link to read details of the
author in the text from this series of posts, click here:
http://www.psicoXXXXXXXX<-------NCAT HAPPENS........
"REMOTE VIEWING" is getting to be so popularly known, that there
was a $6.00 book in SAFEWAY, a *SUPERMARKET*
REMOTE VIEWERS
"The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies"
by
Jim Schnabel (a DELL paperback)
Joseph McMoneagle, author of MIND TREK, was featured
on the ABC special, "Put to the Test," and he was also on
NIGHTLINE: "Psychic Spies."
**************************************************************
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3848e808.24177082%40news.compuserve.com
Lou Minatti™
ROFL.
DanKettler
>In article <3b7d7c73...@news.earthlink.net>,
> WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com (DanKettler) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:50:25 -0500, pz <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, Dan, nowhere in the above text did you describe anything like the
>> >scientific method. Do you even know what it is? Hint: it's not a
>> >protocol for interviewing people.
>> I know more about the scientific method than you think.
>No, you know less than you think. I've seen what you call 'good
>science', and it is a serious indictment of your cluelessness.
You wish I was clueless.
I posted this, and I understand it well...
====================================================
It's at... http://www.psicounsel.com/inte02.html
****************************************************
*************
begin quote
*************
The Scientific Method
[Bracketed writing are my comments -- BDK]
[from the sci.skeptic FAQ]
1.1: What is the "scientific method"?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for
winnowing the truth from lies and delusion.
[It's the best way the writer, and many of those reading
this, know of. Still, with that opinion, we have intelligent
life on the NET]
The simple version looks something like this:
1.Observe some aspect of the universe.
2.Invent a theory that is consistent with
what you have observed.
3.Use the theory to make predictions.
4.Test those predictions by experiments or
further observations.
5.Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6.Go to step 3.
This leaves out the co-operation between scientists
in building theories, and the fact that it is
impossible for every scientist to independently do every
experiment to confirm every theory. Because life is short,
scientists have to trust other scientists. So a scientist who
claims to have done an experiment and obtained certain
results will usually be believed, and most people will
not bother to repeat the experiment.
Experiments do get repeated as part of other experiments.
Most scientific papers contain suggestions for other
scientists to follow up. Usually the first step in doing
this is to repeat the earlier work. So if a theory is the
starting point for a significant amount of work then
the initial experiments will get replicated a number
of times.
Some people talk about "Kuhnian paradigm shifts".
This refers to the observed pattern of the slow
extension of scientific knowledge with occasional sudden
revolutions. This does happen, but it still
follows the steps above.
Many philosophers of science would argue that there
is no such thing as *the* scientific method.
[The above paragraph is an *excellent* point.]
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a
hypothesis?
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy
sort of fact. But to a scientist a theory is a
conceptual framework that explains existing facts
and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw
the Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained
by the theory that the Earth is round and spins on
its axis while orbiting the sun. This theory also
explains other facts, such as the seasons and the
phases of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about
what will happen tomorrow.
This means that in some ways the words fact and
theory are interchangeable. The organisation of
the solar system, which I used as a simple example
of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact
that is explained by Newton's theory of gravity.
And so on.
A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet
been tested. Typically, a scientist devises a
hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water" by
testing it against available data. If the hypothesis
does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a
theory.
An important characteristic of a scientific theory
or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means
that there must be some experiment or possible discovery
that could prove the theory untrue. For example,
Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions
about the results of experiments. These experiments
could have produced results that contradicted Einstein,
so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.
*****************
end quote
*****************
I've commented, many times on USENET, about evidence, and what it
takes to refute evidence. I've commented upon the burden of
proof being on the person making the claim. I've discussed all
this, quite thorougly, many times on USENET.
I also posted the following about science, and it involved my
editing. Are you going to tell me that I don't understand
science, after editing the following?
This is how you find past posts...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
**********************************************************
The following is at http://www.psicounsel.com/sciart.html
**********************************************************
begin quote
************************
Joseph Abbott <slow...@my-deja.com> (edited by Dan Kettler)
wrote:
Even scientists, atheists and skeptics are full of beliefs.
Unfortunately they lack the structured beliefs developed
over thousands of years that are necessary for truly healthy
minds. Evidence for that is in the writings of Carl Jung on
the subject.
Science works for some mundane physical things. Most of
the principals used in navigation are not even correct.
They are just gross generalisations that basically work
out. That's a bit different than claiming absolute "truth"
or "understanding.
The "self-correction" of science is merely admitting a
belief is wrong and adopting another, probably wrong,
belief to take its place. It doesnt make any of them
not beliefs. Therefore they are not better than anyone
elses beliefs.
Some aspects of science are tested, but not all.
Everyone requires different degrees and
different kinds of proof to convince them.
Even scientists. Thats why there are so often
disagreements amoung scientists. Take for example
the isue of global warming. Most scientist think
it is happening, but not all do. Why not? Either
the proof is there or its not, right? Wrong. We
all require different kinds/amounts of proof.
For many people, this fake kind of scientific truth
and knowledge is not the be all and end all of existence.
For many people, indeed for the vast majority of human
beings, spirituality is of vital importants for happiness
and healthly mental development. Many psychologists, such
as Carl Jung, have said that modern scientific atheism is
directly to blame for many of moral crisis faced by the
modern world and modern man. Many many people who study
the human psyche have said that spritituality is a *vital*
belief for a healthy human mind.
The brief period of time science has been in
existence is nothing in comparison to the
life of the universe.
A recent theory proposes that the speed of light
actually changes as the universe ages. This new
theory even fits empirical data than the
traditional "speed of light is a constant" theory.
All science, and thus all skepticism, is based on unproven
assumptions and intuitions. Science is not some absolute. It
is merely a point of view, no more "true" or "correct" than
any other. But this sophistication is lost of 99.9% of skeptics,
most of wich have little formal training in science, let alone
the philosophy of knowledge.
Science has solved many problems, but human society has
yet to put them all to use. People still die from
tuburulosis in the USA too.
Most skeptics I have had contact with are as bad as
Jehoviah Witnesses it terms of shoving their own
belief system down your throat and believing that
their own belief system is the only correct one.
So-called skeptics are no better than religious
people who it comes to holding onto unproven beliefs.
Skeptics require others give proof for their beliefs,
but dont require any proof for their own beliefs.
I think basic morality has remained unchanged throughout
history. The basics: dont murder, dont lie, dont cheat,
etc, have been pretty consistent.
Science transends morals. If something can be done,
it is. Cloning, genetic engineering, nuclear bombs,
etc. Science just goes ahead and does it, and once
the technology is out there, it has never, in
the history of the world, even once, been taken
back. Technologies are only replaced when a new
technology is invented that can do the same
thing either better or cheaper. Without exception.
Most people I know and have talked to want the same
thing: happiness. I even know people who have
told me that happiness is more important to them
than money. I say: Money is a real thing that exists
in the real world. Happiness is just a feeling, some
brain cells firing or releasing a chemical. Its not
real at all. Its imaginary! How can something totally
imaginary be more important than something real and
quanitifiable like money?
But that's what they tell me.
So maybe all this dry, dead knowledge isn't so important.
Maybe just *feeling* a certain way is more important. If
certain beliefs, no matter how "wrong," help people achieve
what is most important to them, then how can they be wrong?
But the ancient world had something the modern world has
lost. I think they knew themselves better. They knew who
they were and how they fitted into their world. We may
know all about planets and stars and what makes flowers
grow, but who cares about all that if we have lost the
truly important self-knowledge?
Unfortunately traditional religions have also lost touch
with the primative spiritual knowledge.
People are not text books. Filling us full of facts isnt
enough. People need spirtitual belief just as much as
they need medicines and cars and computers to be healthy
and happy. When skeptics try to say that everyone who has
non-scientific beliefs is wrong and stupid and ignorant
and foolish, they are causing harm.
There is a socialogical behaviour known as "obedience to
authority". 2/3 of the world population exhibits this
behaviour.
Just as Catholics burned innocent women as witches, (a
well known psycholoical pheneomena known as scapegoating),
so also do skeptics scapegoat the problems of the world.
I'm an ex-skeptic who realised the folly of a close-minded
belief system.
The laws of physics may not be invarient. Especially not
over billions of years.
The tenants of science are not "tested".
The whole concept of "testing" is nothing more than a
cultural belief. Nothing can ever be truly proven
100%. Nothing can ever be absolutely known. Any
"knowledge" we have is merely a concensus of belief.
You may think your methods for reaching consensus
are better than someone elses, but when it comes
down to it, its all just belief.
The modern view of science is that of a constantly
developing model for reality, with an ultimate appeal
to evidence. Let's examine this.
They say all theories are subject to
scrutiny, and the accepted one is the
one makes the most accurate predictions,
and is therefore is accepted by science.
What about time? Is the existence of time
falsifiable? Where does time come from? What
makes it work? What does it exist and is its
existence falsifiable?
Or what about the concept of infinity, which
is the basis for much of our mathematics and
thus science. Is infinity falsifiable? How do
we know it exists? I've never seen any proof
it exists.
Or what about "cause and effect"? Science is
based on the intuition that every effect has
a cause. Is this falsifiable? If you cant find
a cause, say, for example, the big bang. If you
cant find what caused the big bang will that
falsify "cause and effect"? No, because if you
cant find the cause of the big bang, scienctists
will just say "we're still looking". And effect
that doesnt have a cause, and there may be
billions of them, is outside the scientific
method.
*************************
end quote
************************
>> If you
>> examine GOOGLE sometime, you will find I have written, in detail,
>> about what it is...
>> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>Why, oh why, do you do this?
Professor, your are a professor, and you cannot
figure this out?
Don't you think I find my time valuable? Who's is
obligated, when they need some evidence of what I've
written, to find that evidence? It's supposedly me?
I don't _think_ so.
I believe it's quite obvious that I do not wish to take
the time looking these things up. That is an answer to
your "oh why."
>You make some specific claim, and then to
>support it, you post a link to allow one to search all of usenet!
Common sense shows it's likely to be alt.paranormal.
The GOOGLE computer is so efficient, it searches all
of usenet almost as fast as one newsgroups.
You make such a _big deal_ about this.
For the most part, I do this for the multitude of liars and fools
who post in alt.paranormal -- so-called "skeptics." For the most
part, that's those who you refer, above, to as "one." You are
not, from what I see up to now, a liar, and I don't believe you
are a fool.
>It's
>just plain stupid.
Oh, and recently, I've been pointing out, and proving, the idiocy
of so many of those who post in alt.paranormal, and call
themselves "skeptics." You probably have the intelligence, and I
know the education, to know that my evidence that they are
idiots, is actually reasoned out quite well. It probably
irritate you, though.
Just recently you had to criticise both anonym and Widdershins
for their stupidity, in public posts. anonym was writing to
child abuse groups about something that I'd never written -- the
usual hateful lies, and Widdy was disputing something that zinc
wrote, that showed Widdy's clueless. I don't even read
Widdershins anymore, he's so stupid.
And, so Professor, which is stupid, that I go through hoops for
people and find my past posts that many of them, usually, never
read when I do post them, or just ask them to go look for
themselves. Isn't it intelliegent for me to be using my time
productively, rather than wasting it looking up evidence that
they, and you, should find for themselves?
Do you really think that, on usenet, evidence for what I've
written is _that_ important to me?
See, you are a professor, and the other clowns are just fools.
You are "big fish to fry" (as the "amazing" James Randi is so
fond of saying) so because you are making such an issue, now, I
make a special effort here, mainly for others reading this.
>It's also counterproductive: to humor you, I tried it
>and searched for all posts that mentioned Kettler and the scientific
>method. What mainly comes up is a lot of posts from other people
>pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the scientific
>method.
Oh, and when we look, carefully, we find that most of the
so-called "skeptics" who write about me, actually, are fools.
A sampling of their writing, is here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/intelllig.html
And, to be thorough, anyone looking for my past posts should use
more than one criteria. A listing of addresses used by me are
at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html#accuse
Also, note I post as "DanKettler" these days.
>> I have discussed it in reference to psychic phenomena, and how
>> skeptical scientists examined the data with scientific
>> methodology as the criteria.
>>
>> I know what real scientists, looking at the UFO phenomena, can do
>> with the data that is available: looking to statistics, examining
>> sightings that occur in certain areas during the same period of
>> time that witnesses could not have hoaxed, since they did not
>> have any knowledge of each other. I know how important an
>> independently duplicated study is, in scientific method.
>You do? I don't think so. You seem to regard an accumulation of sloppy
>anecdotes to constitute replication. It isn't.
You wish that serious UFO research consisted of "sloppy
anecodtes." It seems, to me, that you just read the literature
that supposedly debunks UFO phenomena. It does not seem that you
actually read the research, itself. I have, however.
Researchers are very careful to be sure that there is was no
contact, and no acquaintance, between people who witnessed
certain sightings at the same time in an area. The similarity of
the sightings is noted, and statistical analysis is then taken
into account. Radar contacts are verified, carefully, as well as
tapes of contacts between ground control and aircraft.
Scientific method is utilized to be sure that other objects, such
as aircraft, stars, planets, or other illusions were not
mistaken.
Replication is crutial to scientific methodology. An example
would be keeping secret certain common, yet detailed, experiences
for abuctees. Thus, when there is duplication of this unknown
factor, it points to the more credible accounts.
Another method of determining replication, is to note the
detailed accounts of isolated cultures, both from the distant
past, and during the recent periods.
I cannot attest to the MUFON field investigators manual, today,
but years back, it was extremely rigid in its scientific
methodology for UFO investigators.
As I wrote previously, there are a lot of UFO cults that "muddy
up the waters" so to speak, and people get confused about what is
real, and what is not.
Seems to me, pz, you should get your head out of the cult
literature like "SKEPTICAL INQUIRER" and into the actual data.
>> Science does not have a rigid definition. It's not a religion,
>> with a bible. One esteemed scientist's science, could be another
>> well recognized, and esteemed scientist's, pseudo-science. So,
>> although we may disagree about the _details_ of science's
>> definition, so what? Neither of us is _right_. There are basic
>> understandings of what science is, and those we agree with. The
>> fine details are just your "bible." I don't necessarily follow
>> your "bible." You and I agree, I would presume, upon certain
>> types of controls. Whether they could not apply to witness
>> testimony, that's just your opinion.
>No, from what I've seen, we don't agree on anything. Your version of the
>scientific method is a hodge-podge of guesswork to support your silly
>beliefs. You *lack* a basic understanding of science.
Again, that's just your opinion -- evidently based upon nothing.
I do not make up a supposed scientific method to support beliefs.
In fact, I've exhibited much skepticism in my posts on USENET.
If you read GOOGLE archives carefully, I don't _have_ any
"beliefs" regarding UFO phenomena. In my mind, I have degrees of
likelihood, regarding this. I have never witnessed a UFO, and
certainly, to the best of my knowledge, I've not been abducted.
>> All the UFO witness testimony examination is done with scientific
>> protocol, just like scientific protocol is utilized in
>> examination of psychic phenomena.
>Oh, please. You simply do not have a clue. What is this "scientific
>protocol" you are talking about? Be specific.
Okay, now, PZ, just go to to this web site, look at the links,
and see Brian Zeiler's debate, as well as other references on
certain pages to Professor Ray Hyman, as quoted at Professor
Utt's site...
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Read what Professor Utt's write about statistical methods. If
you have questions, write to her.
I'm tired of babying you. Find the references yourself, now.
I've spent quite a few minutes on this post already.
>> You and I have discussed Dr.
>> Ray Hyman, on USENET. The thing he agrees about, is that
>> scientific methodology has been utilized properly in the
>> examination of it.
>No, he does NOT agree with that.
Professor, get your head out of the sand. Go check the
references, above. Ask questions of the people involved. Why
should I be the one you question? I don't have first hand
knowledge. They do.
Read this FAQ regarding evidence. See if it makes sense to
you...
http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
>There may be a few studies that he
>agrees have been competently done (with ambiguous results), but that's
>the best you'll get. For the most part, UFOlogy and parascience are a
>vast wasteland of bungled, incompetent work.
Again, that's your opinion regarding "ambiguous results."
Esteemed scientists disagree with you.
>> That he disagrees with the results, really,
>> is not important.
>> For more on this, see links from...
>>
>> SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
>>
>> http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
>>
>...which is nothing but a list of links to other credulous twits.
We are talking about esteemed scientists, here. We are not
talking about "credulous twits." The readers may look to the
links, and decide for themselves.