Why is there a UFO Cover-Up Anyway??--Here are 10 Major Reasons [Updated-1998]
Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A.
Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of free energy and
anti-gravity technologies.
2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions which
strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter with alien life
forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic influences" since some
Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the air." Influential religious
groups could ignite a religious war.
5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper class
elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying technologies work,
for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and delivery systems.
7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some other
country's military figures it out before "we" do.
8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The greatest
military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent "abductions" since
the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have superior flight and weapons
technology.
9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm environment
due to rapid overpopulation.
10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome might
adversely affect them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Re: Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <fzam...@fpsserv.com>
Art wrote:
> 1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of free
> energy and anti-gravity technologies.
Making the assumption that the aliens would be willing to share their
technology, or that we could get the technology in some other way,
neither of which can be assumed. In any case, many times in history, a
new invention has been seen as the thing that will collapse the economy
of all of mankind (the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the
advent of automated produection facilities, just to name a few). And
each time, new, sometimes related areas of economic growth have grown
from these advances. It's simply not a valid argument.
> 2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
The human race as a whole has been so conditioned through the popular
media to accept the possible existance of aliens that such a revelation
would not shock nearly as many people as you think. True, there would
be some incidents of mass shock and world-wide panic, but they would be
small pockets in the whole of our species. Some would say that this
conditiong is part of a mster plan. I don't know, but it's there none
the less.
> 3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
In some ways, this is true. In our own history, any time two seperate
groups of people have met, there is usually hardships in the beginning
while both sides tries to learn the others' ways. But we've gotten past
MOST of them (not enough unfortunately). We would do the same with an
alien species, MOST LIKELY. It could also be that they would be so
vastly different from ourselves in terms of their culture that we could
not overcome the differences. This would be, obviously, a very bad
circumstance.
> 4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions
> which strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter
> with alien life forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic
> influences" since some Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the
> air." Influential religious groups could ignite a religious war.
This is a very valid argument, although I don't like the way you use the
term "goofy religions". No religion should ever be called goofy as it
is just a system of beliefs for certain people. We need to be more
accepting of people that believe differently than we do, but I'm not on
some crusade to change anyone's opinion. There probably would be some
problems for the established religions of the world, however, would they
have any choice but to accept the existance of aliens when they land on
their own front lawns? As is the case throughout our history, things
will be interpreted by religions in the context of their beliefs. Yes,
some people would view aliens as demons, or even the opposite, angels.
Would there be religious wars? Perhaps, from some of the more radical
groups around the world, but again, I think your overstating a
reasonably small problem in terms of holy wars. We have them now, I
don't think they'd increase to any measurable degree.
> 5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper
> class elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
This is a reasonable concern. If aliens exist, and if the are visiting
earth, they obviously are atleast as advanced technologically as we are,
most likely more so. If their purpose was hostile, we would be in some
trouble, and I think it's reasonable to look at various scenarios for
defending ourselves seriously. They also may come down and be a bunch
of ET's, eating Reeses Pieces and talking funny, being no threat to us
at all. Invasion is a valid concern, but why is that a reason for a
cover-up? Indeed, if the government new there was an invasion imminent,
or even possible, they would do well to tell us. Unless they have some
sinister plan for world domination by taking advantage of a marauding
alien race, but that is quite far-fetched, and also highly stupid on
their part, and as much as I distrust any government, I don't think very
many are stupid outright!
> 6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying technologies
> work, for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and
> delivery systems.
Could be, but again, why cver it up? There is so much talent and
knowledge in the private sector they would again be well served to tell
us the truth and let us all try and figure it out. In fact, it would
very likely be a boom for the economy, since the defense industry would
again be a hot-bed of employment as it was in years past.
> 7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some
> other country's military figures it out before "we" do.
Again, could be, but see my argumnet from above. It applies here as
well.
> 8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
> especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The
> greatest military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent
> "abductions" since the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have
> superior flight and weapons technology.
This could be. Embarassment is often a reason for lying, especially for
the government.
> 9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm
> environment due to rapid overpopulation.
It also would allow us to keep more livestock alive, probably give us
biological engineering capabilities to grow more food, etc., so world
hunger could potentially be reduced. So, the government is potentially
withholding knowledge that would save lives, which is the same thing as
murder to many people? Man, I HOPE your wrong about that one!
> 10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome
> might adversely affect them.
A joke, no doubt, but, I kind of agree!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
From: Wil Mobberley <moby...@mobydick.demon.co.uk>
In article <5nlg2j$tf0$1...@host-3.cyberhighway.net>, "Dr. Richard X.
Frager" <smq...@cyberhighway.net> writes
(SNIP 10 reasons)
You missed out number 11: Shame
The authorities handled our first major contact with visitors from
another world so appallingly badly that there would be a major outcry if
it were revealed just how crass the behaviour of the military had been.
Perhaps it may be a miracle that we are not engaged in a major
interplanetary war of our own making.
or number 12: Greed
The authorities have been so self seeking that the public would be
baying for blood if it knew how such a major event as contact with ETs
had been subverted for the selfish desires of a minority unfit to act on
our behalf.
or number 13: New religions
Idiots would worship the ETs thinking them divine.
or number 14: Extremist racial groups etc.
Aspects of the ET behaviour might be "politically incorrect". For
example, what if they abducted a statistically significantly lower
number of Afro Caribbeans or red heads, people from Belgium or any other
group you care to think of? Are there statistics which could be used to
further the aims of extremist groups? Hard to argue with a superior
technology. If they don't think it worth abducting a certain group,
maybe that group is inferior after all...
or number 15: The Shangri La syndrome
The ET way of life is gentler, kinder, less selfish and therefore not to
be placed before the public for comparison with our own governments.
or number 16: Nightmare
The truth is so awful, so terrifying and so inevitable that a high level
decision was made to allow the human race a couple more generations of
"happiness/blissful ignorance" before all hell is let loose, on the
basis that if we are powerless anyway why burden people with something
awful for which they can do nothing to prepare? One example could be the
need for ETs to acclimatise and assimilate our germs before they can
live down here. Perhaps the authorities know that the clock is ticking
and when the alarm bell goes off it's bad news for everybody.
or number 17: Incompetence.
Nobody will shoulder the responsibility of letting the information out.
It is so compartmentalised that nobody knows enough to act and would
lack the gumption if they did.
or number 18: Embarrassment to world press.
Disclosure of what many of us have suspected for so long, a final
admission, would show our media up as the spineless, witless bunch of
hypocritical cowards they really are. How on Earth did the powers that
be manage to hide everything and either secure the cooperation of (or
manage to outwit) for so long our politicians, our newspapers, TV news
stations, eminent scientists etc etc etc? When the truth finally comes
out, if I am still around, I will enjoy smirking in the faces of every
pompous Tom Dick and Harry who was so superior looking down on those of
us who knew that there was something going on. The worry for the
authorities would be that nobody would ever trust a newspaper headline
or government statement ever again. Almost certainly a movement would
begin demanding greater freedom of the press.
--
Wil Mobberley - 3D graphic artist
Web site: http://www.mobydick.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
twi...@worldnet.att.net
"Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A." <smqc...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
Why ain't you calling yourself Doctor Frager anymore, Doc?
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <6i17ak$tsh$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>, "Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A." <smqc...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>
>1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of free
> energy and
>anti-gravity technologies.
Dubious. Energy today is so cheap, compared to 200 years ago, that it might as
well be 'free'. Truly 'free' energy would just increase the
produce->consume->dispose->repeat cycle.
Anti-gravity would mean that everyone who currently owned a car would have to
run out and buy a FLYING car. No economic collapse there, either.
>2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
>
Why? It would be headline news for two weeks, then we'd be back to wondering
who Clinton was bonking.
>3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
>
That's the same as#2, above.
>4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions
> which
>strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter with
> alien life
>forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic influences" since
> some
>Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the air." Influential
> religious
>groups could ignite a religious war.
>
Christianity has managed to ignore Evolution, the Big Bang, and ten million
proofs that the Earth is 5-6 billion years old. I guarantee you, if aliens
appeared in Times Square tomorrow, Pat Robertson would find a passage in the
Bible 'predicting' it the day AFTER tomorrow. Then he'd try to be the first to
baptise the aliens.
>5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper
> class
>elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
>
This is more plausible. However, it's sort of moot -- if they had the power to
enslave/imprison us, then they couldn't have been kept 'under wraps' this long
by the government. If there IS a coverup conspiracy, the only way it is
feasible is the aliens are not much more advanced than we are -- perhaps the
secret to interstellar flight is actually quite simple, and their other
technologies are equal to ours or even inferior. What if, for example, they
don't have nukes or the means to defend against them?
>6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying
> technologies work,
>for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and delivery
> systems.
>
Sure, but why keep it secret? That limits the number of people who can work on
developing the new weapons and slows the progress of research due to secrecy
concerns. Better to openly announce it, and show some demos of the simpler
stuff to the press. This also serves to intimidate our enemies. "Hey! Saddam!
Ever see a plasmatic biphase disintegrator cannon? Well now you have! Ha ha
ha!"
>7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some
> other
>country's military figures it out before "we" do.
>
Again, secrecy slows this down. You want every top brain you can get working
on the project, and you can't keep a secret with that many people doing it.
Also, scientific progress comes from sharing research -- the physics behind
the A-bomb, for example, were all public knowledge long before the Manhattan
project. Only the implementation details were secret.
>8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
>especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The
> greatest
>military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent "abductions"
> since
>the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have superior flight and
> weapons
>technology.
>
Then how are we keeping them 'under wraps'? We have to have some 'control'
over them, or they would have landed in great big motherships in the middle of
every major city on the planet by now. And why wouldn't our enemies -- Russia,
Iraq, etc -- be trumpetting our 'failure'? "Ha ha, feelthy American pig dogs!
You cannot even protect your people from flying saucers! I spit in your eye,
you sons of diseased leprous camels!"
>9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm
> environment
>due to rapid overpopulation.
>
Not really. We live twice as long as we used to, but we don't breed twice as
fast -- just more of our children survive infancy. Population in industrial
nations (those with the most advanced medical care and the longest lifespans)
is *declining*, if you don't count immigration. All population growth is in
the Third World. Longer lifespans would mean less of a need to have children,
since your 'biological clock' wouldn't tick so fast. Besides, with 'free
energy', environmental concerns fade away -- all that nifty alien technology
should be able to repair the ozone layer, breakdown greenhouse gasses, and
otherwise 'green' the Earth without making any of us give up our cushy
lifestyles.
>10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome
> might
>adversely affect them.
I have yet to see a 'debunker' on this ng who wouldn't be thrilled beyond
words to actually have proof of alien intelligence and contact. I know I'd
consider the single most amazing (and good!) event in human history.
Jerry Bryson
<liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
> Dubious. Energy today is so cheap, compared to 200 years ago, that it
> might as well be 'free'. Truly 'free' energy would just increase the
> produce->consume->dispose->repeat cycle.
Also, the petro-chemical industry would still have a market for oil.
The stuff is too valuable to burn, as it is.
>
> Anti-gravity would mean that everyone who currently owned a car would have
> to run out and buy a FLYING car. No economic collapse there, either.
AG would likely be rather expensive, for a while. Thing is, it takes a
while to impliment a technological transfer.
-- Failure doesn't mean you can't; It just means you haven't
James J. Smith
Theres a multitude of reasons.
1.) does the phase Indians mean anything? look at us the new england
settlers we eventually phased out thier old and primative society and turnd
it into a casino crazy people.
2.) governments like to keep us away from things like that hell i dont know
why but maybe thier acting on the princible above they dont want to see this
shit hole of a society we have now go away.
3.) thinking there maybe alien races i an THERES GOTTA BE MORE THAN ONE
imagion the scandal well bring to them i can see it now clinton getting into
truble..........OH my god could it really happen to the point where the
WEEKLY WORLD NEWS IS REALLY NEWS?!?!?!?!?!?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4.) techonigly is a dangerous thing and when we try and unravel a lil black
box and it turns the planet inside out what will they say? oops?
5.) I know you dont want to see the M.I.B. franchise get any bigger so well
there ya go.
6.) Microwavs? Radar? where did these come from? according to history the
microwav came from radar uh huh so where did the rest of the tech come
from?.
7.)im running a lil low here HELP ME!
AgentOdd human being
R. S. Huber
In article <1d86enk.13m...@pm1-48.richmond.infi.net>,
jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry Bryson) wrote:
> <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dubious. Energy today is so cheap, compared to 200 years ago, that it
> > might as well be 'free'. Truly 'free' energy would just increase the
> > produce->consume->dispose->repeat cycle.
What form of energy from1798 are we comparing with 1998? Were horses
really that much more expensive than today's cars? What were the
insurance premiums like on souped up Stallions anyway?
What a stupid comparison.
--
All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself
to deviations. It simply _is_. Take it moment by moment and you will
find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber.
(paraphrased from a Tralfamadorian zoo keeper)
James Braun
Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A. wrote:
>
> Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>
> 1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of >free energy and anti-gravity technologies.
I assume you mean to claim that these aliens have some. And if
they do, it's a big step from publicly admitting the existence of ETs to
distributing their technology. It seems much more likely to me that the
authorities would pulicly admit to the existence of ETs, sell these
"free energy" technologies to big business, and let them make a fortune
charging us for power that they can produce at will.
Hell, the ET angle would even make a pretty spiffy ad campaign.
>
> 2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
Mass shock? Considering the phenomenal prevalence of belief in
ET life and visitation already, this seems hardly likely.
> 3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
>
What interaction? The ETs themselves haven't exactly made a
public declaration of their OWN existence, and I find it hard to believe
that a handful of national governments are preventing their doing so.
Why would a government declaration change this situation at all?
> 4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions which
> strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter with alien life
> forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic influences" since some
> Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the air." Influential religious
> groups could ignite a religious war.
What? And divert precious men and weaponry away from all the
other religious wars?
> 5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper class
> elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
Again, the implication here is that a simply public announcement
is holding back the floodgates of alien contact, invasion, and
colonization. The reasoning is flawed on several levels:
a) That obviously technologically superior beings are being held
at bay by primitive humans.
b) That by acknowledging the ETs existence, we would no longer
be able to hold them at bay.
> 6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying technologies work,
> for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and delivery systems.
>
This can be done without hiding the existence of alien beings.
For example, the Americans were able to keep the Manhatten project
secret
in spite of a wealth of academic evidence about the power of atomic
energy.
Government can easily admit to the existence of ETs without
admitting that they are developing weapons based on the technology of
said aliens. Just because they publicly admit their existence does not
mean they have to detail their contact with these beings.
> 7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some other
> country's military figures it out before "we" do.
>
Again, this can be done without hiding their knowledge of the
existence of ETs.
> 8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
> especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The greatest
> military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent "abductions" since
> the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have superior flight and weapons
> technology.
>
I won't sidetrack the debate by questioning the supremacy of the
American military, but I have to wonder why another power would deny the
existence of ETs.
> 9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm environment
> due to rapid overpopulation.
>
Please refer to the response from your first reason.
> 10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome might
> adversely affect them.
>
<giggle>
I'll give you one good reason why the governments of the world continue
to deny the existence of UFOs and ET life and visitation:
THEY HAVE NO FIRM EVIDENCE.
--
The Mad Philosopher
James Braun
"You are a subject of the Divine, created in the image of the masses,
for
the masses, by the masses. Be thankful we have commerce. Buy more.
Buy
more now. And be happy."
-The Divine, THX-1138
"Television is the opiate of the people."
-Chairman Grossberg, Max Headroom
Yvon Decelles
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:09:25 GMT, liz...@mrlizard.com wrote:
>Dubious. Energy today is so cheap, compared to 200 years ago, that it might as
>well be 'free'. Truly 'free' energy would just increase the
>produce->consume->dispose->repeat cycle.
Free??? Every time I fill up my gas tank, that I pay my Hydro or gas
utility bill I could SWEAR that it's far from free. Most especialy
during winter.
200 years ago, if you wanted "energy" you went out and chopped some
wood. All it cost was a few hours labors.
>Why? It would be headline news for two weeks, then we'd be back to wondering
>who Clinton was bonking.
We panick when we see some unknown person walking "suspiciously" at
night, what makes you think that we would be more pragmatic about
weird looking aliens?
>Sure, but why keep it secret?
For the same reason that composition of stealth fighter structure is
kept under wrap. The less people know about something, the less people
will mimick you, detect you, prevent you from using this to gain an
advantage, etc. You get the drift.
>Not really. We live twice as long as we used to, but we don't breed twice as
>fast -- just more of our children survive infancy. Population in industrial
>nations (those with the most advanced medical care and the longest lifespans)
>is *declining*, if you don't count immigration.
Have you see the latest population projection for the next 20 years?
Did you know that if it wouldn't be for the over utilisation of fields
so that we can get more and more crops we couldn't even feed all the
people that are currently fed? Each year, 1000's of acre of lands turn
sterile due to over fertilisation, increase use chemical and nuclear
grow agents and over utilisation of fields. Trust me, another 30-50
years at the rate we're going now and we will start to LIVE the days
of "soylent green".
>I have yet to see a 'debunker' on this ng who wouldn't be thrilled beyond
>words to actually have proof of alien intelligence and contact. I know I'd
>consider the single most amazing (and good!) event in human history.
On this at leat we agree.
Blue Resonant Human
"Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A." <smqc...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>Why is there a UFO Cover-Up Anyway?
Because it's fun!
Patches
<snip>
in RE: to debunking debunkers (patches), I offer my gratitude to
Mr.. Braun.
patches
Duane Laviniere
James J. Smith wrote:
> 1.) does the phase Indians mean anything? look at us the new england
> settlers we eventually phased out thier old and primative society and turnd
> it into a casino crazy people.
And if the superior aliens had this in mind, they couldn't march in here
like the son of sam and kill us all, RIGHT? Ok, what's your real
excuse?
> 2.) governments like to keep us away from things like that hell i dont know
> why but maybe thier acting on the princible above they dont want to see this
> shit hole of a society we have now go away.
Hey, I don't want to see rape and pillage go away either ;) Anyway, the
real conspiracy is the way the government will let Social Security
slowly run out until one day we won't have retirement benefits. Oh the
horror.
> 4.) techonigly is a dangerous thing and when we try and unravel a lil black
> box and it turns the planet inside out what will they say? oops?
Yup, like tv, rock n' roll and those blue floaty things you put in your
toilets. Damn technology, it will be the end of us all. Damn this
computer I'm typing.....nevermind ;)
> 5.) I know you dont want to see the M.I.B. franchise get any bigger so well
> there ya go.
MIB? Manudo Is Back? Alright, I've been looking forward to their bad,
bad music for years now.
> 6.) Microwavs? Radar? where did these come from? according to history the
> microwav came from radar uh huh so where did the rest of the tech come
> from?.
Hmmm, from the electromagnetic spectrum maybe? Right along with cosmic
rays, gamma rays, uv rays, visible light, infrared rays, microwaves,
radio waves and television waves. Mother nature and her damned
scientific technology will surely be the end of us.
> 7.)im running a lil low here HELP ME!
UFO loons running amuck in our city streets...possibly naked (shudder).
Nope, that's about my greatest fear nowadays...that and getting calls
from phone companies trying to change me from AT&T. Damn AT&T and their
space-age technology. It will surely be the blah blah blah. PEACE.
--
o Duane Laviniere
| email: lavind1@[NO-SPAM]us.ibm.com
| "Life sucks, wear a helmet."
Duane Laviniere
Yvon Decelles wrote:
> 200 years ago, if you wanted "energy" you went out and chopped some
> wood. All it cost was a few hours labors.
Even better than that would be a fission plant that gets us many miles
to the refuelling, but we've got environmentalists who hamper progress
on that front. Personally, I like my dino juice. Just that it's
running out.
> We panick when we see some unknown person walking "suspiciously" at
> night, what makes you think that we would be more pragmatic about
> weird looking aliens?
We won't, but who's to say they're here to be assimilated into our
culture? It's not like Zeta Reticuli transplants are gonna be living
next door, just that we can steal their technology and then destroy
their race muahahahaha.
> For the same reason that composition of stealth fighter structure is
> kept under wrap. The less people know about something, the less people
> will mimick you, detect you, prevent you from using this to gain an
> advantage, etc. You get the drift.
And why would aliens give us their technology by the same token? Or did
we steal it? If we stole it, they could easily steal it back or
threaten to destroy our planet. A bit inconsistent aren't we?
> Have you see the latest population projection for the next 20 years?
> Did you know that if it wouldn't be for the over utilisation of fields
> so that we can get more and more crops we couldn't even feed all the
> people that are currently fed? Each year, 1000's of acre of lands turn
> sterile due to over fertilisation, increase use chemical and nuclear
> grow agents and over utilisation of fields. Trust me, another 30-50
> years at the rate we're going now and we will start to LIVE the days
> of "soylent green".
And how many of America's farms undersell their produce? Thank you very
much. 30-50 years we should be running out of dino juice anyway (or so
I heard). That's a bit more depressing than a food shortage, because
then we'll be forced to used electric or methane cars, and that would
just suck. I like my polluting road demons. Besides, have you ever
been around that EV1? Scary. Imagine a highway full of silent
killers. Walking along the street one day, and the next thing you know,
you're sideswiped by a tank that doesn't make any noise. I guess they
could put some artificial sound in there. Scary.
> >I have yet to see a 'debunker' on this ng who wouldn't be thrilled beyond
> >words to actually have proof of alien intelligence and contact. I know I'd
> >consider the single most amazing (and good!) event in human history.
>
> On this at leat we agree.
You're damn right. I want a flying car. I want free energy. I want to
wipe out another species <grin> but none of this will ever happen IMO.
Then again, I never predicted that Michael Jackson would ever get
married. The future really is a mystery. PEACE.
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <huber-28049...@dial-11.r1.scflr.southtech.net>, hu...@southtech.net (R. S. Huber) wrote:
>In article <1d86enk.13m...@pm1-48.richmond.infi.net>,
>jbr...@richmond.infi.net (Jerry Bryson) wrote:
>
>> <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > might as well be 'free'. Truly 'free' energy would just increase the
>> > produce->consume->dispose->repeat cycle.
>
>really that much more expensive than today's cars?
Lots, compared to what they needed to eat relative to the energy they
produced. If not -- we'd still be using horses, rather than engines, to do our
work. We use engines because they are more efficient (cheaper) ways of turning
stored energy (oil) into work. A horse is a very inefficient (expensive) way
of turning stored energy (grain) into work.
Try riding a horse 70 miles a day, every day. You'd end up going through 3-4
horses a week. A lot more expensive than a car TO DO THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.
Get it?
There wasn't enough energy produced in the whole world in 1798 to build
something like the Empire State building or an transcontinental highway.
What were the
>insurance premiums like on souped up Stallions anyway?
>
>What a stupid comparison.
>
What a stupid person.
Andrea Chen
-- Duane Laviniere wrote:
>
> Yvon Decelles wrote:
>
> > 200 years ago, if you wanted "energy" you went out and chopped some
> > wood. All it cost was a few hours labors.
>
More than 200 years ago Ben Franklin invented his stove because even in
Philadelphia wood was getting increasingly expensive and scarce. Imagine
te situtation in Europe. And a few hours of labor isn't a small
expense when it has to be done over and over and over again. Did you
ever try to saw and chop wood by hand?
> > Have you see the latest population projection for the next 20 years?
> > Did you know that if it wouldn't be for the over utilisation of fields
> > so that we can get more and more crops we couldn't even feed all the
> > people that are currently fed? Each year, 1000's of acre of lands turn
> > sterile due to over fertilisation, increase use chemical and nuclear
> > grow agents and over utilisation of fields. Trust me, another 30-50
> > years at the rate we're going now and we will start to LIVE the days
> > of "soylent green".
>
Nuclear grow agents? I believe the major cause of destroyed farm land
is loss of top soil. This isn't new, it's been happening for thousands
of years and some of the worse cases are in places like Africa and the
forests of Asia where primitive methods are often used. This doesn't
mean that there are not serious problems with present methods of
agriculture. However this is a complex issue. The highest producing
fields are in Japan and I believe they are mantained in a way that's
sustainable. One thing I know for sure: if people spout off end of the
world warnings with inaccurate facts and claims, they do succeed in
dulling people to various ecological threats. In the early seventies
many people proclaimed the near end of the world including famine in a
few years. It didn't happen. Nowadays you get little kids talking
about recycling of their soda pop cans, but very few people seriously
advocating significant changes in lifestyle and the underlying
technology of society. The last of Carter's alternative energy products
(a fusion reactor at Livermore) is being scrapped right now. This
doesn't mean that there are no long term energy issues, but claims that
we would be out of oil by the nineties proved false, they create a deep
skepticism which makes people ignore long term dangers. One wishes
knowledgeable statements. Why should we trust you? What is your
expertise. On the issues you commented on you seem to be fairly
ignorant. I personally feel your approach undermines environmental
awareness by using predictions of doom based on questionable facts
rather than informed analysis of events which could indeed lead to major
collapse.
-ac-
Jan Lee
I Agree 100%!
Jerry Bryson
James Braun <zam...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> What interaction? The ETs themselves haven't exactly made a public
> declaration of their OWN existence, and I find it hard to believe that a
> handful of national governments are preventing their doing so. Why would a
> government declaration change this situation at all?
>
Unless the aliens themselves document unfortunate consequences of
premature public contact. Unless we are the first they've run into,
they probably have some pretty convincing case studies to support the
"Prime Directive(C)"
James J. Smith
Did you ever notice how the government hates to show thier screw ups?
Concider this: Abductions : If most are real encounters and not a Shrinks
misenterpritation of child molestation would you see th logic in the
government letting them use us as genetic cattel in exchange for certain
things? and if this happend how much would you bet that the idiot signed
it thinking only 3000 people and not 30,000,000?
oops
AgentSmith
Dan Wojciechowski
Art Wholeflaffer A.S.A. wrote:
>
> Why UFO Cover-up/10 Major Reasons
>
> 1) Possibility of world-wide economic collapse due to introduction of free energy and
> anti-gravity technologies.
>
technologies?
Why would this cause world-wide economic collapse? Sure some industries
would
end, but new ones would spring up. So you claim that an unsubstantiated
economic
collapse due to unsubstantiated technology from an unsubstantiated
source is
a reason for unsubstantiated actions by the "government"? Why don't I
find
this overly convincing?
> 2) Mass shock and world-wide panic.
>
Why? Some surveys claim that half the country already believe in
aliens.
> 3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
>
Actually this is probably quite true. Still most of the public seems
unprepared for interaction with people from other countries, but we
don't try to hide them.
> 4) Trepidation from fundamental sects of Christianity and other goofy religions which
> strongly believe extraterrestrial life impossible. Any such encounter with alien life
> forms would be considered contact with "demons and satanic influences" since some
> Biblical authorities teach that Satan is "prince of the air." Influential religious
> groups could ignite a religious war.
>
There may indeed be a minority with this opinion. But for the most
part, I
don't think major religions see aliens as having any bearing. If they
agree, WOW, proof! If they don't, well, another conversion opportunity.
Also, aliens would provide theologians with endless employment
discussing
whether they have souls/karma/whatever.
> 5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper class
> elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
>
Apprehension would definitely exist. But come, if the aliens are going
to announce themselves anyway, what's to be gained? If you presume that
some "upper class" humans would benefit, isn't this apprehension exactly
the "martial law" event that the "One World Government conspiracy"
believers
say that the government needs to effect the World Government? In
any case, warning people before they see the aliens will be much
less shocking than just springing aliens on them.
> 6) The Military wants to figure out how the crafts and accompanying technologies work,
> for weapons development. They would make top-of-the-line weapons and delivery systems.
>
This one actually makes sense in the "crashed alien ship" scenarios. In
all the
others, no dice. However, we have no substantiated crashes, no
substatiated
ships, and no substantiated technology.
> 7) The Military needs to know how to defend against the same systems if some other
> country's military figures it out before "we" do.
>
Hmmm. I suppose if this were true, I'd want every good scientist and
engineer on the problem. Let's see. The best way to accomplish that
would be...to not tell anyone!
> 8) Mistrust and lack of confidence in the military might of the United States,
> especially after spending $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years. The greatest
> military force in the world would have to admit it cannot prevent "abductions" since
> the aliens that pilot the extraterrestrial crafts have superior flight and weapons
> technology.
>
Lack of confidence in the military preventing something they
by your definition cannot prevent. Uhmm, doesn't that just
make sense? So you want people to have confidence that the
military can prevent something which the public knows it cannot?
Again, what's to gain?
> 9) New technology to prevent disease and increase aging would further harm environment
> due to rapid overpopulation.
>
Wow, once again you presume a problem that we have no
evidence exists. Who says that aliens would give us
(or could give us) technology to prevent disease and
increase aging (presuming you mean longgevity)? And
if they are willing to help us out, doesn't the fact
that they can give us interstellar travel, kind of
solve the overpopulation problem? And wouldn't they
give us the solution to pollution, and teraforming,
and efficient recycling, and the will to not over
populate? (If you can invent something they can
give us, so can I.)
> 10) Debunkers would have to find real work, plus the "egg-on-the-face" syndrome might
> adversely affect them.
Well, I for one have had egg on my face enough
times to know it's not fatal. I suspect any
real adult has the same opinion.
So, snide aside aside. }:) Cute, huh? Your
entire point is to try to come up with reasons
for something that isn't shown to be happening.
Its like trying to come up with reasons why
Dan is retiring from major league ball. Shouldn't
you first determine if Dan is even playing
major league ball? But I suspect that this
entire urban legend has long since grown past
the point of rationality.
...
--
Dan (Woj...)
dma...@lucent.com
================================================================
"I felt so symbolic, yesterday.
If I knew Picasso,
I'd buy myself a grey guitar and play."
================================================================
Tiberius
>>3) Public unprepared for interaction with an alien species.
Maybe. Most of the public is unprepared for interaction with their
next door neighbors.
>>5) Apprehension of invasion. Concern of human slavery, especially by the upper
>> class
>>elites, and subsequent imprisonment by the colonizing alien races.
>>
>This is more plausible. However, it's sort of moot -- if they had the power to
>enslave/imprison us, then they couldn't have been kept 'under wraps' this long
>by the government. If there IS a coverup conspiracy, the only way it is
>feasible is the aliens are not much more advanced than we are -- perhaps the
>secret to interstellar flight is actually quite simple, and their other
>technologies are equal to ours or even inferior. What if, for example, they
>don't have nukes or the means to defend against them?
True. If in fact the speed of light DOES hold as the speed limit, then
wherever they are from, it is going to be a long and expensive trip.
Thus, even with superior technology, they would be very limited in
numbers and equipment.
If so, they would also need to replenish food and/or energy "in the
field" (that is, here).
---------
You forgot REASON NUMBER 11 though: were aliens really to arrive
publicly, we would finally have a real Miss Universe contest that's
worthy of the name!!
Jerry Bryson
Dan Wojciechowski <Dan.R.Woj...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Dan is retiring from major league ball.
Why, Dan, WHY? You were just at your prime!!!
What kind of ball?
James Braun
Jerry Bryson wrote:
>
> James Braun <zam...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > What interaction? The ETs themselves haven't exactly made a public
> > declaration of their OWN existence, and I find it hard to believe that a
> > handful of national governments are preventing their doing so. Why would a
> > government declaration change this situation at all?
> >
> Unless the aliens themselves document unfortunate consequences of
> premature public contact. Unless we are the first they've run into,
> they probably have some pretty convincing case studies to support the
> "Prime Directive(C)"
Well, maybe and maybe not, but that's really irrelevant to the
question. What's being asked here is why terrestrial governments would
attempt to hide the existence of ETs from the people; whether or not
these presumed ETs wish to inform us of their own existence is another
matter.
--
The Mad Philosopher
James Braun
"You are a subject of the Divine, created in the image of the masses,