UFO Evidence
Richard Caldwell
evidence is available, what constitutes "good" evidence, and finally, why
the seemingly vast quantity of evidence for the existence of UFO's does
not seem to be sufficient to convince the resident skeptics of the
existence of UFO's, and even the truth of the ETH.
I have been thinking, lately, about how to explain the skeptics' position
on UFO evidence so that the rational ETH proponents can at least
*understand* our position, even if they don't agree with it. Of course,
I don't expect the irrational UFO "believer" fanatics to understand
*anything* about our position. Fanatics are like that. 8-]
For the sake of this argument, I use the term "UFO" to mean "Unidentified
Flying Object" and not the default "alien spacecraft" that seems to be
popular with some ETH proponents.
We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
reported as UFO's. This category accounts for a large majority (90%+) of
all UFO evidence/sightings. Anyone should be able to understand that
such a case has absolutely *no* value for proving *anything*. Thus, any
number of such cases, be it a thousand, or a million, is still worthless.
2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO sightings,
and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date. These so-called
"core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at least until they have
been adequately explained. As some skeptics have pointed out, it may be
that some of these cases will also move into category 1, eventually.
However, it is also possible that some of them will *not*, which leaves a
body of evidence that UFO's do actually exist.
For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that, hopefully,
most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena that have not yet
been discovered. At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all*
these "core UFO cases" will have a single explanation.
3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that seems, at
least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of artifical manufacture and
intelligently controlled, but not made on Earth or controlled by humans.
The big problem with this type of evidence is that it is very much a
matter of interpretation.
For example, what constitutes "intelligent control". If a UFO seems to
follow an aircraft, is that intelligent control, poor observation by the
witnesses, or is the UFO an optical phenomenon that is actually tied to
the aircraft or observers' position in some way? As you can see, this
sort of question is definitely open to argument and not as "cut and
dried" as some might think.
4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence exists, it is
certainly the smallest subset of all. This would include any evidence
that a UFO is undeniably a solid object, of artificial manufacture, and
of extra-terrestrial origin. Notice that I didn't include anything about
"intelligent control". That's because it's not an absolute necessity for
an object to be an extra-terrestrial artifact.
For example, if some kind of object simply "fell out of the sky", on a
simple, ballistic trajectory, and landed on the Earth, and if that object
was found to be an artifact that could not have been made on Earth,
instead of a metorite, that would constitute acceptable evidence for
Category 4. In other words, it doesn't have to be a "flying saucer"
piloted by "little green men" to be evidence for the ETH. Of course,
having aliens to talk to would be nice, and would certainly constitute
undeniable evidence, but would not be absolutely required.
We have seen claims of this kind of evidence posted on this newsgroup, on
TV programs, and in books. But I have not yet seen any evidence (that I
can believe) that any of these claims are true. I think I can speak for
all skeptics when I say that the same is true for them. You can say that
we're simply "hard sells", and I won't deny it.
The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the truth
of something, then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
check" for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
TV.
It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft finally
lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry that they
have proven wrong and will have to eat their words. That is not
altogether true.
First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever to
enter the Earth's atmosphere. That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
about all previous UFO reports, and the skeptics would probably gloat a
little. But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable proof
of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel. Great!", and
we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims, and let the
ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it. 8-]
Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
Richard
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
I think this is one of the reasons for the eth. Some reason that the eth,
is an identification for those ufos which some skeptics say have defied
explaination.
>
>
> For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that, hopefully,
> most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena that have not yet
> been discovered.
Me too. But my guess is, only some.
> At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all*
> these "core UFO cases" will have a single explanation.
So far they haven't. The trick is in determining which explaination is the
correct, or most correct one. It boils down to a matter of opinion in the end
alot of the time.
>
>
> 3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that seems, at
> least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of artifical manufacture and
> intelligently controlled, but not made on Earth or controlled by humans.
> The big problem with this type of evidence is that it is very much a
> matter of interpretation.
Yep, like many things.
>
>
> For example, what constitutes "intelligent control". If a UFO seems to
> follow an aircraft, is that intelligent control, poor observation by the
> witnesses, or is the UFO an optical phenomenon that is actually tied to
> the aircraft or observers' position in some way? As you can see, this
> sort of question is definitely open to argument and not as "cut and
> dried" as some might think.
This is one of the many reasons why I look into the little critter aspect
of the ufo topic. You know, the cases where little critters are reported to
of been seen on board, or reported to abduct people. The ufo sighting part of
the topic only is one aspect of ufology.
>
>
> 4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence exists, it is
> certainly the smallest subset of all. This would include any evidence
> that a UFO is undeniably a solid object, of artificial manufacture, and
> of extra-terrestrial origin. Notice that I didn't include anything about
> "intelligent control". That's because it's not an absolute necessity for
> an object to be an extra-terrestrial artifact.
>
> For example, if some kind of object simply "fell out of the sky", on a
> simple, ballistic trajectory, and landed on the Earth, and if that object
> was found to be an artifact that could not have been made on Earth,
> instead of a metorite, that would constitute acceptable evidence for
> Category 4. In other words, it doesn't have to be a "flying saucer"
> piloted by "little green men" to be evidence for the ETH. Of course,
> having aliens to talk to would be nice, and would certainly constitute
> undeniable evidence, but would not be absolutely required.
>
>
> We have seen claims of this kind of evidence posted on this newsgroup, on
> TV programs, and in books. But I have not yet seen any evidence (that I
> can believe) that any of these claims are true. I think I can speak for
> all skeptics when I say that the same is true for them. You can say that
> we're simply "hard sells", and I won't deny it.
As far as isotopic ratios, differing? I just know of claims.
>
>
> The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
> hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the truth
> of something,
I would just like to add that skeptic doesn't have to, but often does,
equal=non eth supporter.
> then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
> check"
Be careful, they think skeptics need a reality check just as much as a
skeptic thinks they need one, I'll bet.
> for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
> TV.
>
I don't personally know of anyone like this, do you? I do observe people
often times excepting data which already fits in with their preconcieved
notions. We all do this, I think to a degree.
> It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft finally
> lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry that they
> have proven wrong and will have to eat their words. That is not
> altogether true.
I won't be eating my words.
>
>
> First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever to
> enter the Earth's atmosphere.
What if it looks like a saucer and little greys pop out of it?
> That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
> about all previous UFO reports,
How would you determine if the craft was the first? How would they even
know? They meaning aliens.
> and the skeptics would probably gloat a
> little.
Some, would alot. Although I was surprised to see the easy response about
the face on mars. I was actually hoping the skeptics would woop it up a bit
more so people would remember that event.
> But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
> time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable proof
> of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel. Great!",
A skeptic would question wether or not the aliens are lying:)
> and
> we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims, and let the
> ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it. 8-]
Good article my friend.
>
>
> Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
>
> Richard
Nice picture of Twitch. (just kidding)
John Cason
<snip>
>For the sake of this argument, I use the term "UFO" to mean
>"Unidentified Flying Object" and not the default "alien
>spacecraft" that seems to be popular with some ETH proponents.
>We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
>1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and
>mis-identified mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes,
>etc.) that have been reported as UFO's. This category accounts
>for a large majority (90%+) of all UFO evidence/sightings.
Hoax UFOs cause a very low percentage of UFO sightings, but
they are a troublingly large fraction of claimed UFO evidence,
if we use UFOlogists themselves as judges of what cases are
hoaxes. There are literally hundreds of hoaxes that have been
identified as such by UFOlogists and are known to anyone who
follows the UFO question, but these are routinely given solemn
treatment by the UFO shows, the book sellers, and the producers
of UFO videos for only $39.95. The initially mis-identified,
mundanely caused, but finally properly sorted out UFOs are also
used to good effect by the purveyors of fraud.
I'm not sure where in the categories we can put fraudulent
documents, but that is also a huge problem within UFOlogy,
with many of the field's best books making use of them.
<snip>
>2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO
>sightings, and other evidence that has defied explanation, to
>date. <snip>
>3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that
>seems, at least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of
>artifical manufacture and intelligently controlled, but not
>made on Earth or controlled by humans. The big problem with
>this type of evidence is that it is very much a matter of
>interpretation. <snip>
>4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence
>exists, it is certainly the smallest subset of all. This
>would include any evidence that a UFO is undeniably a solid
>object, of artificial manufacture, and of extra-terrestrial
>origin. <snip>
Richard's list doesn't include related evidence, the Identified
Flying Object information that was developed in the course of
investigating UFO reports, and research in various other fields
that have implications for studying UFOs. Unfortunately for
"intelligently controlled, metallic structured craft"
arguments, identical characteristics have been reported for
many of the usual IFO suspects, and the study of perception
has lots of cautionary tales for the evaluation of UFO
reports.
The categories also don't specify the methods for sorting
evidence such as scientific standards, forensic or legal
standards, personal experience, revealed truth, etc., all of
which have figured in arguments about UFOs.
Richard's posts often demonstrate that skeptics *do* belong in
the UFO groups despite the whining from some who want their
views to be immune from criticism. It has been a very long
time since I saw an ETH proponent post a message taking a
large view of what it all means.
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
Good. I was hoping that my first response would come from an ETH
proponent of your caliber, and would not be a flame from some jerk.
> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
> > 1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
> > mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
> > reported as UFO's. This category accounts for a large majority
> > (90%+) of all UFO evidence/sightings. Anyone should be able to
> > understand that such a case has absolutely *no* value for proving
> > *anything*. Thus, any number of such cases, be it a thousand, or a
> > million, is still worthless.
> > 2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO
> > sightings, and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date.
> > These so-called "core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at
> > least until they have been adequately explained. As some skeptics
> > have pointed out, it may be that some of these cases will also move
> > into category 1, eventually. However, it is also possible that some
> > of them will *not*, which leaves a body of evidence that UFO's do
> > actually exist.
> I think this is one of the reasons for the eth. Some reason that the
> eth, is an identification for those ufos which some skeptics say have
> defied explaination.
The ETH is certainly proposed as one possible explanation of at least
*some* of the category 2 evidence. And, as long as we understand what
the "H" in ETH means, I have no problem with accepting it as such.
> > For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> > actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that,
> > hopefully, most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena
> > that have not yet been discovered.
>
> Me too. But my guess is, only some.
My guess is that there will *always* be a few UFO cases that *never* be
explained, even if the ETH were to be proven true.
> > At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all*
> > these "core UFO cases" will have a single explanation.
> So far they haven't. The trick is in determining which explaination
> is the correct, or most correct one. It boils down to a matter of
> opinion in the end alot of the time.
Agreed.
> > 3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that seems,
> > at least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of artifical
> > manufacture and intelligently controlled, but not made on Earth or
> > controlled by humans. The big problem with this type of evidence is
> > that it is very much a matter of interpretation.
>
> Yep, like many things.
Agreed.
> > For example, what constitutes "intelligent control". If a UFO seems
> > to follow an aircraft, is that intelligent control, poor observation
> > by the witnesses, or is the UFO an optical phenomenon that is
> > actually tied to the aircraft or observers' position in some way?
> > As you can see, this sort of question is definitely open to argument
> > and not as "cut and dried" as some might think.
> This is one of the many reasons why I look into the little critter
> aspect of the ufo topic. You know, the cases where little critters are
> reported to of been seen on board, or reported to abduct people. The
> ufo sighting part of the topic only is one aspect of
The presence of "critters" would certainly be a strong point in favor of
making a given sighting qualify as category 4. Unfortunately,
eye-witness reports of "critters in the portholes" are notoriously
unreliable.
> > 4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence exists, it is
> > certainly the smallest subset of all. This would include any
> > evidence that a UFO is undeniably a solid object, of artificial
> > manufacture, and of extra-terrestrial origin. Notice that I didn't
> > include anything about "intelligent control". That's because it's
> > not an absolute necessity for an object to be an extra-terrestrial
> > artifact.
> > For example, if some kind of object simply "fell out of the sky",
> > on a simple, ballistic trajectory, and landed on the Earth, and if
> > that object was found to be an artifact that could not have been made
> > on Earth, instead of a meteorite, that would constitute acceptable
> > evidence for Category 4. In other words, it doesn't have to be a
> > "flying saucer" piloted by "little green men" to be evidence for the
> > ETH. Of course, having aliens to talk to would be nice, and would
> > certainly constitute undeniable evidence, but would not be absolutely
> > required.
> > We have seen claims of this kind of evidence posted on this
> > newsgroup, on TV programs, and in books. But I have not yet seen any
> > evidence (that I can believe) that any of these claims are true.
> > I think I can speak for all skeptics when I say that the same is true
> > for them. You can say that we're simply "hard sells", and I won't
> > deny it.
> As far as isotopic ratios, differing? I just know of claims.
Of course, differing isotopic ratios is not conclusive proof, but it
would certainly qualify as credible evidence.
> > The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
> > hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the
> > truth of something,
> I would just like to add that skeptic doesn't have to, but often
> does, equal=non eth supporter.
It is true that some skeptics (in general) have become ETH proponents,
for their own reasons, while remaining skeptical on other issues. Those
persons tend to be more understanding of we non-ETH skeptics, because
they were once there themselves.
> > then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
> > check"
>
> Be careful, they think skeptics need a reality check just as much as a
> skeptic thinks they need one, I'll bet.
I'm talking about the more general situation here, not the UFO question
specifically. There are those who say that *anyone* with a brain should
be convinced of the ETH by the evidence that is available. It is that
argument that I am rebutting here. A true, honest skeptic will always
serve as a reality check for *any* assertion, because he/she requires
that you provide some kind of verifiable evidence of your assertion,
rather than just accepting your claims at face value.
This position is perfectly reasonable and rational, and anyone who
attacks it is just trying to discredit the skeptic as a means of
defending his/her claim, because they know that they have no verifiable
evidence. In other words, a good offense is the best defense.
> > for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
> > TV.
> I don't personally know of anyone like this, do you?
I have met a few.
> I do observe people often times excepting data which already fits in
> with their preconcieved notions. We all do this, I think to a degree.
Everyone has this tendency. The ability to guard against this tendency
in oneself is what we call "objectivity" or "open-mindedness".
> > It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft
> > finally lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry
> > that they have been proven wrong and will have to eat their words.
> > That is not altogether true.
> I won't be eating my words.
Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
> > First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever
> > to enter the Earth's atmosphere.
> What if it looks like a saucer and little greys pop out of it?
Then we have a puzzle. Either they are lying about being here before, or
we have evidence for a human ability to predict the future.
Another interesting scenario would be if they were *not* greys, we told
them of our UFO controversy preceeding their visit, and they said,
"You've seen the greys? They've visited us too, but we have never been
able to catch any of them. Do you know who they are?" Now *that* would
be *spooky*. 8-]
> > That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
> > about all previous UFO reports,
>
> How would you determine if the craft was the first? How would they
> even know? They meaning aliens.
I guess we could ask them. Of course, as you point out, it's possible
that they could lie, or that they would be completely different from the
greys. I wonder if grey sightings and abductions would continue after we
actually made contact with an alien species. That would be interesting.
> > and the skeptics would probably gloat a little.
> Some, would alot. Although I was surprised to see the easy response
> about the face on mars. I was actually hoping the skeptics would woop
> it up a bit more so people would remember that event.
The Mars face is a good example. I'm sure that a few skeptics gloated a
little, but not most of us. We have all been taken in by similar things
in our lives. I just hope that people remember Cydonia the next time
that Richard Hoagland starts spouting about something else.
> > But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
> > time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable
> > proof of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel.
> > Great!",
> A skeptic would question wether or not the aliens are lying:)
But he couldn't really question the fact that they were *here*, which
certainly would prove *something*.
> > and we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims,
> > and let the ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it.
> Good article my friend.
Thank you.
> > Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
> >
> > Richard
>
> Nice picture of Twitch. (just kidding)
Twitch lives in Texas, which is nowhere near the North Pole, even if it
feel like it right now (Brrrrr!). 8-]
Richard
E. L.
E. L.
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> Good. I was hoping that my first response would come from an ETH
> proponent of your caliber, and would not be a flame from some jerk.
Thanks.
>
>
> > Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
> > > We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
>
> > > 1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
> > > mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
> > > reported as UFO's. This category accounts for a large majority
> > > (90%+) of all UFO evidence/sightings. Anyone should be able to
> > > understand that such a case has absolutely *no* value for proving
> > > *anything*. Thus, any number of such cases, be it a thousand, or a
> > > million, is still worthless.
>
> > > 2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO
> > > sightings, and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date.
> > > These so-called "core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at
> > > least until they have been adequately explained. As some skeptics
> > > have pointed out, it may be that some of these cases will also move
> > > into category 1, eventually. However, it is also possible that some
> > > of them will *not*, which leaves a body of evidence that UFO's do
> > > actually exist.
>
> > I think this is one of the reasons for the eth. Some reason that the
> > eth, is an identification for those ufos which some skeptics say have
> > defied explaination.
>
> The ETH is certainly proposed as one possible explanation of at least
> *some* of the category 2 evidence. And, as long as we understand what
> the "H" in ETH means, I have no problem with accepting it as such.
Educated guess.
>
>
> > > For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> > > actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that,
> > > hopefully, most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena
> > > that have not yet been discovered.
> >
> > Me too. But my guess is, only some.
>
> My guess is that there will *always* be a few UFO cases that *never* be
> explained, even if the ETH were to be proven true.
I can see what you mean.
Witness declaration *alone* isn't much to go on.
Yeh, I've heard that you can even do some tampering in a lab and get
certain ratios.
Can't we tall if something is a meteorite, or comet?
>
>
> > > The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
> > > hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the
> > > truth of something,
>
> > I would just like to add that skeptic doesn't have to, but often
> > does, equal=non eth supporter.
>
> It is true that some skeptics (in general) have become ETH proponents,
> for their own reasons, while remaining skeptical on other issues. Those
> persons tend to be more understanding of we non-ETH skeptics, because
> they were once there themselves.
I started off as neither. I didn't know if ets were here or not. In a
certain sense I still don't know they are here. I also don't know that they
aren't.
>
>
> > > then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
> > > check"
> >
> > Be careful, they think skeptics need a reality check just as much as a
> > skeptic thinks they need one, I'll bet.
>
> I'm talking about the more general situation here, not the UFO question
> specifically. There are those who say that *anyone* with a brain should
> be convinced of the ETH by the evidence that is available.
> It is that
> argument that I am rebutting here. A true, honest skeptic will always
> serve as a reality check for *any* assertion, because he/she requires
> that you provide some kind of verifiable evidence of your assertion,
> rather than just accepting your claims at face value.
>
>
> This position is perfectly reasonable and rational, and anyone who
> attacks it is just trying to discredit the skeptic as a means of
> defending his/her claim, because they know that they have no verifiable
> evidence. In other words, a good offense is the best defense.
What's mentioned above happens on both sides of the fence.
>
>
> > > for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
> > > TV.
>
> > I don't personally know of anyone like this, do you?
>
> I have met a few.
RUN, from them.
>
>
> > I do observe people often times excepting data which already fits in
> > with their preconcieved notions. We all do this, I think to a degree.
>
> Everyone has this tendency. The ability to guard against this tendency
> in oneself is what we call "objectivity" or "open-mindedness".
I'm skeptical of that! just kidding.
>
>
> > > It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft
> > > finally lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry
> > > that they have been proven wrong and will have to eat their words.
> > > That is not altogether true.
>
> > I won't be eating my words.
>
> Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
This group can give you gas. PURNT!!
>
>
> > > First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever
> > > to enter the Earth's atmosphere.
>
> > What if it looks like a saucer and little greys pop out of it?
>
> Then we have a puzzle. Either they are lying about being here before, or
> we have evidence for a human ability to predict the future.
I thought the same thing.
>
>
> Another interesting scenario would be if they were *not* greys, we told
> them of our UFO controversy preceeding their visit, and they said,
> "You've seen the greys? They've visited us too, but we have never been
> able to catch any of them. Do you know who they are?" Now *that* would
> be *spooky*. 8-]
I thought about this as well.
>
>
>
> > > That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
> > > about all previous UFO reports,
> >
> > How would you determine if the craft was the first? How would they
> > even know? They meaning aliens.
>
> I guess we could ask them. Of course, as you point out, it's possible
> that they could lie, or that they would be completely different from the
> greys. I wonder if grey sightings and abductions would continue after we
> actually made contact with an alien species. That would be interesting.
Just as certain people say that even if they land and say "We come in
peace" (how they "say" it, I don't know). How will people of the Earth know
they are telling the truth? I usually mention this to people who use the
"fact they haven't landed at the W. house against the eth. I imply maybe
that's why. Maybe they are smart enough to know about the dilema. Pure
speculation though. It might just be that they are like me, and don't like
the pres that much, and rather visit some one else.
>
>
> > > and the skeptics would probably gloat a little.
>
> > Some, would alot. Although I was surprised to see the easy response
> > about the face on mars. I was actually hoping the skeptics would woop
> > it up a bit more so people would remember that event.
>
> The Mars face is a good example. I'm sure that a few skeptics gloated a
> little, but not most of us.
Not as much as I expected. I thought that I, or I should say the group,
would still be hearing about it.
> We have all been taken in by similar things
> in our lives. I just hope that people remember Cydonia the next time
> that Richard Hoagland starts spouting about something else.
I haven't been listening to him.
>
>
> > > But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
> > > time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable
> > > proof of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel.
> > > Great!",
>
> > A skeptic would question wether or not the aliens are lying:)
>
> But he couldn't really question the fact that they were *here*, which
> certainly would prove *something*.
He could question it, but I would question him:)
>
>
> > > and we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims,
> > > and let the ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it.
>
> > Good article my friend.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > > Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
> > >
> > > Richard
> >
> > Nice picture of Twitch. (just kidding)
>
> Twitch lives in Texas,
I knew he lived in that area.
> which is nowhere near the North Pole, even if it
> feel like it right now (Brrrrr!). 8-]
Man, it does here in Charlotte, NC today.
>
>
> Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Marty Fouts <al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>
> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
> > The debate has been going on for years on these newsgroups about
> > what evidence is available, what constitutes "good" evidence, and
> > finally, why the seemingly vast quantity of evidence for the
> > existence of UFO's does not seem to be sufficient to convince the
> > resident skeptics of the existence of UFO's, and even the truth of
> > the ETH.
>
> discussion. It is because of the terminology problem that we seem to
> trip over regularly here.
I agree that there is a problem with definitions of terminology on a.a.v.
in general, and that "UFO" is probably the best example of this. That's
why I am careful to specify what definition of "UFO" I was using in my
original post. I wanted to differentiate between "UFO" and "alien
spacecraft/artifact" or "flying saucer", because I talk about them as a
separate issue.
> The problem is the acronym UFO which has come to signify more than the
> phrase behind it literally means, as you point out. There is no doubt
> that "Unidentified Flying Objects" exist. They are reported every
> day. The real question, implicit in the way you use "UFO" throughout
> is "do the objects that observers failed to identify have a mundane
> explanation, or are they 'novel' in some way?"
First I address UFO's as a whole, and argue that we can throw out the
vast majority due to "mundane" explanations like mistaken identity,
optical illusion, hoax, etc. Then I address explanations that are
terrestrial in origin, but not mundane. Finally, I address the ETH. My
point is that each is a proper subset of the former.
> I quote the word 'novel' because it too can have many meanings. If
> you believe that some UFOs do not have mundane explanations, then you
> move on to the next question which is "if they aren't mundane, what
> are they?"
Exactly.
> It is in considering that question that the ETH arises. Also, once
> you've properly decomposed the problem you can easily see that the ETH
> is not the only possible explanation of the non-mundane UFOs. And
> that is my lack of comfort: the ETH is not the only non-mundane
> explanation possible for the non-mundane UFOs, if they exist.
And I *strongly* agree with you. My whole point was to show how each
category, UFO, novel, ETH, was a proper subset of the former.
> > I have been thinking, lately, about how to explain the skeptics'
> > position on UFO evidence so that the rational ETH proponents can at
> > least *understand* our position, even if they don't agree with it.
> > Of course, I don't expect the irrational UFO "believer" fanatics to
> > understand *anything* about our position. Fanatics are like that.
> As long as we are identifying positions, I take the 'neutralists'
> position. I believe that either extreme view has taken as true
> assertions that are not proven. I will argue that point in response.
The odd thing is that you see skeptics as taking an "extreme view".
Skeptics like myself see ourselves as taking the neutral position, just
like you. We do not deny the possibility of the ETH, but we are not yet
convinced of it. The extreme position, which some pro-ETH people seem to
ascribe to skeptics, would be that there are *no* other intelligent life
forms in the universe and there never will be.
Of course, we can divide the pro-ETH group into 2 groups also. The
rational group, which I call ETH proponents, say that the ETH is not only
possible, but that it is their preferred explanation for *some* UFO's.
They acknowledge the possibility that they are wrong.
The extremists, whom I call "believers", are absolutely convinced that
UFO's are here and interacting with humans, and have been for a long
time. It is they who go ballistic at the mere suggestion that they may
be wrong.
> > For the sake of this argument, I use the term "UFO" to mean
> > "Unidentified Flying Object" and not the default "alien spacecraft"
> > that seems to be popular with some ETH proponents.
> >
> > We can divide UFO evidence into 4 categories as follows:
> >
> > 1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
> > mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
> > reported as UFO's.
>
> Agreed. It, however, also includes those reports that should properly
> be labeled "insufficient evidence for determination."
Of course, but some of those cases could fall into category 2 as well.
> > This category accounts for a large majority (90%+) of
> > all UFO evidence/sightings.
>
> That the category a you defined it accounts for a majority of the
> sightings seems obvious. However, the caveat I would place is that
> there is no extent accurate determination of the number. No one has
> done the research to determine how many ex post facto
> reclassifications from unidentified to mundane are false positives.
That's true. Some cases that have been placed in category 1 may actually
belong in another category. Likewise, some cases that have been placed
in categories 2, 3, & 4 may actually belong in category 1. In the
absence of any kind of controlled study, I must assume that such mistakes
are randomly and uniformly distributed, and therefore can be ignored for
the sake of my argument. Of course, such mis-classifications can be
caused by the personal prejudices of the investigator(s), among other
causes. But, since the investigators come from both sides of the fence,
I still assume that the mistakes are evenly distributed, more or less.
> The category, as I've defined it, at this point includes -every- UFO
> sighting so far reported, since, at this time, *no* UFO report fails
> to be either
>
> * known to be a misidentified mundane object
> or
> * backed by insufficient evidence to determine its nature
>
> It is, of course, the second class that is most tantalizing.
Sure, and it is these that I call category 2, since they still have the
"U" in the UFO.
> > Anyone should be able to understand that such a case has absolutely
> > *no* value for proving *anything*. Thus, any number of such cases,
> > be it a thousand, or a million, is still worthless.
>
> This is correct. But some skeptics often make the mistake of
> asserting that it proves that the remaining UFO sightings (my 'backed
> by insufficient evidence' class) should be considered mundane.
Some skeptics infer that, since *all* of the explained UFO cases
(category 1) have had mundane causes, it is only logical to assume that
at least *some* of the unexplained cases (category 2) would also have
mundane causes if enough information were available.
It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the category 2 cases are
the true unknowns. Thus, as more information becomes available, some of
them must necessarily move into the other categories, be it 1, 3, 4, or
your 5 & 6. It is logical to assume that a healthy percentage of these
will become category 1 cases, but any attempt to place any kind of number
on that distribution is pissin' in the wind, IMHO.
Also, as you point out, there is always the chance that some category 1
cases could move into one of the other categories, as more information
becomes available. Again, I think it's an exercise in futility to try to
estimate the actual numbers of cases that are likely to do this.
> That is the same error in logic that some believers make when they say
> 'if you can't explain it, it must be an ET'.
That's what I call the, "What else could it be?" argument, which I had
hoped to address as a separate issue.
> > 2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO
> > sightings, and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date.
> > These so-called "core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at
> > least until they have been adequately explained. As some skeptics
> > have pointed out, it may be that some of these cases will also move
> > into category 1, eventually. However, it is also possible that some
> > of them will *not*, which leaves a body of evidence that UFO's do
> > actually exist.
>
> Unfortunately, I have a harsher view. I dismiss these as 'backed by
> insufficient evidence'. At best, they suggest a non-mundane
> explanation, but give no proof.
My point is that they remain UFO cases until they can be explained, one
way or the other.
> As an observation for the skeptics who have pointed out some of the
> 'good' cases will eventually be mundane, I will note that it is just
> as certain that some of the 'explained' cases have been improperly
> explained.
Agreed. Of course, when these mistakes are corrected, many such cases
will still be category 1 cases as well. The explanation will just change
from one mundane cause to another.
> > For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> > actually believe that UFO's do exist.
>
> Given your earlier statement, I would think that this would be obvious.
And, since he and I have stated this outright on many occasions, it
should be well known by now. However, some posters still seem to be
trying to convince us that UFO's exist. Of course, part of the confusion
is due to the differences in the definition of "UFO", which we discuss at
the beginning of this article.
> > We also believe that, hopefully, most of them will be eventually
> > explained by phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
>
> Which suggests that good scientists need to explore these sightings,
> probably abandoning all of the poorly documented ones and starting a
> fresh search, or the phenomena will never be discovered.
I strongly agree.
> That being the case, do you argue for or against scientific research?
I argue in favor of scientific research on UFO's, especially those UFO's
which seem to be predictable as to location, if not time, like the Marfa
Lights. It may also be possible to correlate other classes of UFO's with
various kinds of meteorological conditions, which would make them more
predictable, if we knew what to look for.
> > At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all* these "core UFO
> > cases" will have a single explanation.
>
> Again, the evidence doesn't show this, but I too 'feel' that it is
> true.
>
> > 3. Bad ETH Evidence - [no comments, so snipped]
>
> > 4. Good ETH Evidence - [since I am unaware of any currently, snip]
>
> 5/6. Bad/Good evidence for other hypothesis
Of course. I just didn't talk about these other categories because it
didn't seem relevant to my argument.
> [snip]
>
> > First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft
> > ever to enter the Earth's atmosphere. That would prove the ETH
> > proponents wrong about all previous UFO reports, and the skeptics
> > would probably gloat a little.
>
> And neither side would be able to prove that it had been either the
> first or the Nth in a long string.
True. We would have to take the aliens' word for it, and you know how
those guys can lie with a straight face. 8-]
> > But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
> > time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable
> > proof of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel.
> > Great!", and we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven
> > claims, and let the ETH proponents gloat.
>
> One of the things that strikes me about *some* skeptics is that they
> are only skeptical in certain areas and just as gullible believers in
> others. Often within the same topic.
I don't call these people skeptics, just because they refuse to believe
certain claims. Their reasons are typically not rational for their
beliefs, one way or the other. They simply *do* believe in some things
and *don't* believe in others. For skeptics, the term "believe in" is
meaningless, because it implies faith. One can believe that a given
assertion is true, or likely, or unlikely, or false, and one can have a
high/low opinion of certain evidence. But, one does not "believe in"
*anything* about such a controversial subject.
> Take, for example, the weight placed on Hendry's book, which is good
> science, but not perfect science. But, because it asserts the
> skeptical position, *some* skeptics ignore the methodological
> questions that should be rightfully asked of it.
I think that the reason that skeptics place such weight on Hendry's book
is that Hendry is a self-described UFO proponent, but in his book, he
seems to say that he is forced by the evidence to adopt a skeptical
position. In other words, they see him as a "believer" who has been
forced to face the facts and admit it. That warms the cockles of the
skeptics' hearts. The believers on a.a.v. would react the same way if
Twitch were to post that he had been abducted the night before and that
he was now a confirmed believer.
> A problem with skepticism, and one that even as professional a
> scientist as Carl Sagan (in Demon Haunted Universe) has exhibited, is
> that skeptics have an emotional bias towards disprove and *often* are
> less likely to question attempts at disprove with the same vigor that
> they apply to attempts at proof.
That is true of skeptics, and of scientists in general. The reasoning is
that it is less damaging to science to dismiss a true hypothesis than is
is to accept a false one. This is similar to the legal principle that it
is better to free a guilty man than to hang an innocent one.
The point is that errors will always happen. So, we must choose which
type of error is more acceptable and intentionally bias our system toward
that type of error, and away from the less desirable type of error.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> Can't we tall if something is a meteorite, or comet?
Comets are pretty easy, since they appear in almost the same place for
several nights in a row, and are recorded by astronomical journals, like
Venus, the moon, and other such phenomena. Meteroite falls and satellite
re-entries are also reported in astronomical journals, if they are big
enough.
> I started off as neither. I didn't know if ets were here or not. In a
> certain sense I still don't know they are here. I also don't know that
> they aren't.
That is essentially the neutral position, which is the way that most
skeptics see themselves. They are not anti-ETH so much as they are
anti-bad evidence, hoaxes, mumbo-jumbo, and the rest of the BS that seems
to have attached itself to the UFO issue.
> > This position is perfectly reasonable and rational, and anyone who
> > attacks it is just trying to discredit the skeptic as a means of
> > defending his/her claim, because they know that they have no
> > verifiable evidence. In other words, a good offense is the best
> > defense.
> What's mentioned above happens on both sides of the fence.
Sure. All's fair in love, war, and UFO arguments. 8-]
> > > I won't be eating my words.
> >
> > Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
>
> This group can give you gas. PURNT!!
Maybe that's why I take a Tagamet every night. 8-]
> > Then we have a puzzle. Either they are lying about being here
> > before, or we have evidence for a human ability to predict the
> > future.
> I thought the same thing.
Great minds ... 8-]
> > Another interesting scenario would be if they were *not* greys, we
> > told them of our UFO controversy preceeding their visit, and they
> > said, "You've seen the greys? They've visited us too, but we have
> > never been able to catch any of them. Do you know who they are?"
> > Now *that* would be *spooky*. 8-]
> I thought about this as well.
Maybe we're telepatically compatible. 8-]
> > I guess we could ask them. Of course, as you point out, it's
> > possible that they could lie, or that they would be completely
> > different from the greys. I wonder if grey sightings and abductions
> > would continue after we actually made contact with an alien species.
> > That would be interesting.
> Just as certain people say that even if they land and say "We come in
> peace" (how they "say" it, I don't know). How will people of the Earth
> know they are telling the truth? I usually mention this to people who
> use the "fact they haven't landed at the W. house against the eth.
> I imply maybe that's why. Maybe they are smart enough to know about the
> dilema. Pure speculation though. It might just be that they are like
> me, and don't like the pres that much, and rather visit some one else.
They could say, "We come in peace, but even if we didn't, we can kick
your ass anyway, so you might as well just accept it." 8-]
> > The Mars face is a good example. I'm sure that a few skeptics
> > gloated a little, but not most of us.
> Not as much as I expected. I thought that I, or I should say the
> group, would still be hearing about it.
Naw. Most of us wanted to forget it long before then, but Hoagland, et
al, wouldn't let it drop.
> > We have all been taken in by similar things in our lives. I just
> > hope that people remember Cydonia the next time that Richard Hoagland
> > starts spouting about something else.
> I haven't been listening to him.
Good idea. If he can't make money off his BS any more, he'll have to get
a *real* job. 8-]
> > But he couldn't really question the fact that they were *here*, which
> > certainly would prove *something*.
>
> He could question it, but I would question him:)
That wouldn't be a skeptic. That would be an ostrich. 8-]
> > Twitch lives in Texas,
>
> I knew he lived in that area.
>
> > which is nowhere near the North Pole, even if it
> > feel like it right now (Brrrrr!). 8-]
>
> Man, it does here in Charlotte, NC today.
It's cold here in Oklahoma as well. We were scheduled to get some snow
today and on Christmas day, but now they are forecasting a high of 40 for
Christmas day, so I guess it's going to warm up faster than they thought.
Dallas had a really bad ice storm, yesterday. I-35 was closed from
Dallas into southern Oklahoma. You haven't had fun until you've tried
driving on "black ice". 8-O
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: John Cason <jkc...@negia.net>
> Hoax UFOs cause a very low percentage of UFO sightings, but
> they are a troublingly large fraction of claimed UFO evidence,
> if we use UFOlogists themselves as judges of what cases are
> hoaxes. There are literally hundreds of hoaxes that have been
> identified as such by UFOlogists and are known to anyone who
> follows the UFO question, but these are routinely given solemn
> treatment by the UFO shows, the book sellers, and the producers
> of UFO videos for only $39.95. The initially mis-identified,
> mundanely caused, but finally properly sorted out UFOs are also
> used to good effect by the purveyors of fraud.
Agreed.
> I'm not sure where in the categories we can put fraudulent
> documents, but that is also a huge problem within UFOlogy,
> with many of the field's best books making use of them.
To me, a fraudulent document is just another kind of hoax.
> Richard's list doesn't include related evidence, the Identified
> Flying Object information that was developed in the course of
> investigating UFO reports, and research in various other fields
> that have implications for studying UFOs. Unfortunately for
> "intelligently controlled, metallic structured craft"
> arguments, identical characteristics have been reported for
> many of the usual IFO suspects, and the study of perception
> has lots of cautionary tales for the evaluation of UFO
> reports.
I tried to use the word "evidence" instead of "sightings" whenever
possible, to make it clear that I was addressing *all* sorts of UFO
evidence, and not just sightings.
> The categories also don't specify the methods for sorting
> evidence such as scientific standards, forensic or legal
> standards, personal experience, revealed truth, etc., all of
> which have figured in arguments about UFOs.
Agreed. I was not trying to suggest a methodology for categorizing,
sorting, or analyzing UFO evidence in this short article. That subject
would require a book, at least. Instead, I was just saying that,
regardless of what methodology we use, the evidence must eventually fall
into one of the categories I listed.
> Richard's posts often demonstrate that skeptics *do* belong in
> the UFO groups despite the whining from some who want their
> views to be immune from criticism. It has been a very long
> time since I saw an ETH proponent post a message taking a
> large view of what it all means.
Thank you for the kind words.
Richard
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>The debate has been going on for years on these newsgroups about what
>evidence is available, what constitutes "good" evidence, and finally, why
>the seemingly vast quantity of evidence for the existence of UFO's does
>not seem to be sufficient to convince the resident skeptics of the
>existence of UFO's, and even the truth of the ETH.
>
>I have been thinking, lately, about how to explain the skeptics' position
>on UFO evidence so that the rational ETH proponents can at least
>*understand* our position, even if they don't agree with it. Of course,
>I don't expect the irrational UFO "believer" fanatics to understand
>*anything* about our position. Fanatics are like that. 8-]
>
>For the sake of this argument, I use the term "UFO" to mean "Unidentified
>Flying Object" and not the default "alien spacecraft" that seems to be
>popular with some ETH proponents.
Thank you, Richard, for once again spelling out that a UFO
starts with the letter U for a reason.
UFOs exist, what they are we don't know.
>
>We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
>
>1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
>mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
>reported as UFO's. This category accounts for a large majority (90%+) of
>all UFO evidence/sightings. Anyone should be able to understand that
>such a case has absolutely *no* value for proving *anything*. Thus, any
>number of such cases, be it a thousand, or a million, is still worthless.
>
While hoaxes seem relatively rare, they have an enormous
impact on the field. They seem to serve as attention
getters and cause more reports.
In 1947, there were a relatively large number of hoaxes that
got attention and look what they caused.
One very troubling thing is the number of hoaxed documents.
Not only that they exist but that they form such a large
portion of some of the more popular books on the subject. I
have yet to see a UFO writer come out and warn everyone that
the documents that he used to make his points were hoaxed.
The exact number of cases which fit this category (category
1 above) differs depending on what study you are talking
about, but 90% is probably low.
The AIAA UFO subcommittee, a team made up of UFO believers -
no skeptics allowed, came to the conclusion that the
"hard-core residue" made up less than 1% of the cases.
Trouble is, and this is a trouble that still haunts the
field, that they couldn't define what constituted a
hard-core case or even agree which cases were hard-core
cases.
Blue Book after being re-examined by Hynek after he had
become a believer and had founded CUFOS, found 5% of the
cases Unknowns. But the investigating into Blue Book cases
was rather lax for many years unless the AF thought that
they might be re-entering spacecraft. (I can post comments
from both believers and skeptics who were knowledgeable
about Blue Book to back up this assertion.)
Hynek later wrote:
"Of the 15,000 cases that have come to my attention, several
hundred are puzzling, and some of the puzzling incidents,
perhaps one in 25, are bewildering. I have wanted to learn
much more about these cases than I have been able to get
from either the reports or the witnesses."
So, according to that quote, perhaps 1% or so of the cases
were puzzling and, of those, perhaps 4% were bewildering.
4% of 1% is not a very high percentage.
The CUFOS study found just over 90% were IFOs. However,
they also found only about 1.5% the 'best' UFO cases.
I'd love to know what those "U"s were!
>2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO sightings,
>and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date. These so-called
>"core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at least until they have
>been adequately explained. As some skeptics have pointed out, it may be
>that some of these cases will also move into category 1, eventually.
>However, it is also possible that some of them will *not*, which leaves a
>body of evidence that UFO's do actually exist.
>
One problem has been that the evidence is frequently biased
by the investigator not really looking for a cause and just
assuming that a UFO is an alien spacecraft and that the
eyewitnesse are reporting accurately.
Sometimes, the investigator has also avoided presenting
evidence which differs from what he wants the item to be.
The Trans-en-Provence case, presented to the Sturrock
Workshop Panel, is an excellent example of this.
So, even in some of the cases which fit this category, we
have to dig out the evidence that the investigator hides.
>For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
>actually believe that UFO's do exist.
Definitely!
>We also believe that, hopefully,
>most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena that have not yet
>been discovered.
Definitely!
>At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all*
>these "core UFO cases" will have a single explanation.
Very probably they don't.
>
>3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that seems, at
>least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of artifical manufacture and
>intelligently controlled, but not made on Earth or controlled by humans.
>The big problem with this type of evidence is that it is very much a
>matter of interpretation.
>
Definitely!
Not only that, but once they make the interpretation that
there is intelligent control, they then "interpret" what
they see rather than just reporting it accurately.
Hendry found that if the people had reported just what they
could actually see his job would have been lots easier!
And, Hynek found out that this is frequently the case.
"One evening during his visit he was in a police cruiser
when a UFO report came over the radio. Several police
vehicles converged on an intersection, and officers leaped
out pointing and shouting excitedly at the mystery object.
Hynek, the professional astronomer, recognized it as the
star Arcturus."
>For example, what constitutes "intelligent control". If a UFO seems to
>follow an aircraft, is that intelligent control, poor observation by the
>witnesses, or is the UFO an optical phenomenon that is actually tied to
>the aircraft or observers' position in some way? As you can see, this
>sort of question is definitely open to argument and not as "cut and
>dried" as some might think.
>
And putting an interpretation on the event means that the
person is more likely to see what they think that they see
rather than what they really see.
>4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence exists, it is
>certainly the smallest subset of all. This would include any evidence
>that a UFO is undeniably a solid object, of artificial manufacture, and
>of extra-terrestrial origin. <snip>
This is what we are looking for. Finding it, if it exists,
is so hard because of all the bad evidence out there.
>We have seen claims of this kind of evidence posted on this newsgroup, on
>TV programs, and in books. But I have not yet seen any evidence (that I
>can believe) that any of these claims are true. I think I can speak for
>all skeptics when I say that the same is true for them. You can say that
>we're simply "hard sells", and I won't deny it.
Why should we be easy sells regarding what would be the most
important event in our lifetimes?
>
>The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
>hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the truth
>of something, then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
>check" for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
>TV.
>
>It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft finally
>lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry that they
>have proven wrong and will have to eat their words. That is not
>altogether true.
I will dance a jig!
>
>First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever to
>enter the Earth's atmosphere.
Very possibly.
But I'm not certain how we could know this.
>That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
>about all previous UFO reports, and the skeptics would probably gloat a
>little.
I'd be too happy to gloat.
>But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
>time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable proof
>of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel. Great!", and
>we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims, and let the
>ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it. 8-]
They certainly would!
I'd be too happy to let it bother me, however.
>
>Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
>
You too, Richard.
And good luck on your upcoming major event.
"It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
(Jerome K. Jerome)
Scott A. Munro
L.) wrote:
>So I just entertained the idea that one of these days something might
>happen with one (or more) of these "craft" which will convince humans
>that they are "somebody" else's property. Well, that hasn't happened
>but I did have two sightings, using binoculars. No bare eyes B.S. from
>me. So, now here I am still a skeptic (of other people's reports) but
>what I wasn't supposed to "believe" in moved into the I believe
>category. I can't explain UFOs to you and I can't convince you that
>"they" exist. You'll have to go through the experience yourself. To
>those who may say there is no experience to go through, you'll have to
>go through the experience to have an understanding you don't understand
>now. Confused? Wait 'til you see "one"! Edward Lopez, DOM
What exactly is it that you believe in? I don't think there is a
single skeptic that would doubt (at least prima facie) that you saw
things in the sky that you couldn't identify.
If you claim that they were alien spaceships, fairy carriages, or
angels, that's when the awkward questions will pop up.
-----
Scott A. Munro
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > Can't we tall if something is a meteorite, or comet?
>
> Comets are pretty easy, since they appear in almost the same place for
> several nights in a row, and are recorded by astronomical journals, like
> Venus, the moon, and other such phenomena. Meteroite falls and satellite
> re-entries are also reported in astronomical journals, if they are big
> enough.
I was refering to the chemistry of it. Like when we actually get our hands
on the rock.
>
>
> > I started off as neither. I didn't know if ets were here or not. In a
> > certain sense I still don't know they are here. I also don't know that
> > they aren't.
>
> That is essentially the neutral position, which is the way that most
> skeptics see themselves.
I'm nuetral when looking into individual cases, cause I know it could be
alot of things. I get asked if I believe aliens are here alot, and my
response is usually, that I'm pretty convinced. Notice the word "pretty", I'm
not completely convinced.
> They are not anti-ETH so much as they are
> anti-bad evidence, hoaxes, mumbo-jumbo,
Ufologists are too. "believers" and "skeptics" often vary in what they
consider bunk though.
> and the rest of the BS that seems
> to have attached itself to the UFO issue.
You will hear even pro guys talk out against bunk.
>
>
> > > This position is perfectly reasonable and rational, and anyone who
> > > attacks it is just trying to discredit the skeptic as a means of
> > > defending his/her claim, because they know that they have no
> > > verifiable evidence. In other words, a good offense is the best
> > > defense.
>
> > What's mentioned above happens on both sides of the fence.
>
> Sure. All's fair in love, war, and UFO arguments. 8-]
I see alot of unfairness in them, but it's in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
> > > > I won't be eating my words.
> > >
> > > Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
> >
> > This group can give you gas. PURNT!!
>
> Maybe that's why I take a Tagamet every night. 8-]
Is that like a rolaid? Haven't heard of them. Hope they work.
>
>
> > > Then we have a puzzle. Either they are lying about being here
> > > before, or we have evidence for a human ability to predict the
> > > future.
>
> > I thought the same thing.
>
> Great minds ... 8-]
Yep, no bias here.
>
>
> > > Another interesting scenario would be if they were *not* greys, we
> > > told them of our UFO controversy preceeding their visit, and they
> > > said, "You've seen the greys? They've visited us too, but we have
> > > never been able to catch any of them. Do you know who they are?"
> > > Now *that* would be *spooky*. 8-]
>
> > I thought about this as well.
>
> Maybe we're telepatically compatible. 8-]
Maybe.
>
>
> > > I guess we could ask them. Of course, as you point out, it's
> > > possible that they could lie, or that they would be completely
> > > different from the greys. I wonder if grey sightings and abductions
> > > would continue after we actually made contact with an alien species.
> > > That would be interesting.
>
> > Just as certain people say that even if they land and say "We come in
> > peace" (how they "say" it, I don't know). How will people of the Earth
> > know they are telling the truth? I usually mention this to people who
> > use the "fact they haven't landed at the W. house against the eth.
> > I imply maybe that's why. Maybe they are smart enough to know about the
> > dilema. Pure speculation though. It might just be that they are like
> > me, and don't like the pres that much, and rather visit some one else.
>
> They could say, "We come in peace, but even if we didn't, we can kick
> your ass anyway, so you might as well just accept it." 8-]
Mans' ego would then say "Oh yeh!, huh, huh, prove it" BOOM!
>
>
> > > The Mars face is a good example. I'm sure that a few skeptics
> > > gloated a little, but not most of us.
>
> > Not as much as I expected. I thought that I, or I should say the
> > group, would still be hearing about it.
>
> Naw. Most of us wanted to forget it long before then, but Hoagland, et
> al, wouldn't let it drop.
I know. I was actually very intrigued by the face. I didn't know if it was
artificial or not, but I was open to it. Dick seems to be getting kookier and
kookier.
>
>
> > > We have all been taken in by similar things in our lives. I just
> > > hope that people remember Cydonia the next time that Richard Hoagland
> > > starts spouting about something else.
>
> > I haven't been listening to him.
>
> Good idea. If he can't make money off his BS any more, he'll have to get
> a *real* job. 8-]
I find him boring, sometimes, and my eyes start hurting after rolling them
all night long. So I haven;t been tuning in when he's on Art Bell's show.
I've been listening to Howard Stern though.
>
>
> > > But he couldn't really question the fact that they were *here*, which
> > > certainly would prove *something*.
> >
> > He could question it, but I would question him:)
>
> That wouldn't be a skeptic. That would be an ostrich. 8-]
>
> > > Twitch lives in Texas,
> >
> > I knew he lived in that area.
> >
> > > which is nowhere near the North Pole, even if it
> > > feel like it right now (Brrrrr!). 8-]
> >
> > Man, it does here in Charlotte, NC today.
>
> It's cold here in Oklahoma as well. We were scheduled to get some snow
> today and on Christmas day, but now they are forecasting a high of 40 for
> Christmas day, so I guess it's going to warm up faster than they thought.
> Dallas had a really bad ice storm, yesterday. I-35 was closed from
> Dallas into southern Oklahoma. You haven't had fun until you've tried
> driving on "black ice". 8-O
It's still freezing here. I miss the spring.
>
>
> Richard
spacecoyote
----------
> From: Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us>
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic; alt.paranet.ufo; alt.alien.visitors;
alt.alien.research
> Subject: UFO Evidence
> Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:15 AM
>
> The debate has been going on for years on these newsgroups about what
> evidence is available, what constitutes "good" evidence, and finally, why
> the seemingly vast quantity of evidence for the existence of UFO's does
> not seem to be sufficient to convince the resident skeptics of the
> existence of UFO's, and even the truth of the ETH.
As i just started to read this newsgroup again, by "ETH" I
presume you mean "Extraterrestial Hypothesis".
> I have been thinking, lately, about how to explain the skeptics' position
> on UFO evidence so that the rational ETH proponents can at least
> *understand* our position, even if they don't agree with it. Of course,
> I don't expect the irrational UFO "believer" fanatics to understand
> *anything* about our position. Fanatics are like that. 8-]
>
The problem is that critical thinking in our society is lacking!!
I consider myself "skeptical" about UFOs but I believe in the
phenomenon. I would be interested in your definition of "skeptic".
The "fanatics" do more to destroy any credible attempt at UFO
research than the worst debunker. . .
> For the sake of this argument, I use the term "UFO" to mean "Unidentified
> Flying Object" and not the default "alien spacecraft" that seems to be
> popular with some ETH proponents.
>
> We can divide UFO evidence into 4 catagories as follows:
>
> 1. Bad UFO Evidence: This includes all hoaxes and mis-identified
> mundane phenomena (Venus, the moon, airplanes, etc.) that have been
> reported as UFO's. This category accounts for a large majority (90%+) of
> all UFO evidence/sightings. Anyone should be able to understand that
> such a case has absolutely *no* value for proving *anything*. Thus, any
> number of such cases, be it a thousand, or a million, is still worthless.
>
I don't think that these cases are worthless because it would
be useful to know the mechanisms responsible for these
misidentifications. Misidentifications obviously don't prove the ETH,
which I assume is your point.
> 2. Good UFO Evidence: These are the small minority of UFO sightings,
> and other evidence that has defied explanation, to date. These so-called
> "core" UFO cases do provide evidence for UFO's, at least until they have
> been adequately explained. As some skeptics have pointed out, it may be
> that some of these cases will also move into category 1, eventually.
> However, it is also possible that some of them will *not*, which leaves a
> body of evidence that UFO's do actually exist.
>
Some cases will forever defy explaination by scientific means,
usually from a lack of verifiable data. Of course this does not
necessarily make them alien spacecraft!
> For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that, hopefully,
> most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena that have not yet
> been discovered. At any rate, it is virtually certain that not *all*
> these "core UFO cases" will have a single explanation.
>
There is no question in my mind that this is true. I would
tend to say *some* but not *most*.
> 3. Bad ETH Evidence - This is the subset of category 2 that seems, at
> least to some, to indicate that the UFO is of artifical manufacture and
> intelligently controlled, but not made on Earth or controlled by humans.
> The big problem with this type of evidence is that it is very much a
> matter of interpretation.
>
Absolutely!
> For example, what constitutes "intelligent control". If a UFO seems to
> follow an aircraft, is that intelligent control, poor observation by the
> witnesses, or is the UFO an optical phenomenon that is actually tied to
> the aircraft or observers' position in some way? As you can see, this
> sort of question is definitely open to argument and not as "cut and
> dried" as some might think.
It might help to further study human optical perception.
>
> 4. Good ETH Evidence: If any of this type of evidence exists, it is
> certainly the smallest subset of all. This would include any evidence
> that a UFO is undeniably a solid object, of artificial manufacture, and
> of extra-terrestrial origin. Notice that I didn't include anything about
> "intelligent control". That's because it's not an absolute necessity for
> an object to be an extra-terrestrial artifact.
>
> For example, if some kind of object simply "fell out of the sky", on a
> simple, ballistic trajectory, and landed on the Earth, and if that object
> was found to be an artifact that could not have been made on Earth,
> instead of a metorite, that would constitute acceptable evidence for
> Category 4. In other words, it doesn't have to be a "flying saucer"
> piloted by "little green men" to be evidence for the ETH. Of course,
> having aliens to talk to would be nice, and would certainly constitute
> undeniable evidence, but would not be absolutely required.
>
This seems reasonable.
> We have seen claims of this kind of evidence posted on this newsgroup, on
> TV programs, and in books. But I have not yet seen any evidence (that I
> can believe) that any of these claims are true. I think I can speak for
> all skeptics when I say that the same is true for them. You can say that
> we're simply "hard sells", and I won't deny it.
>
There is nothing wrong with that!! I only wish that people
would use critical thinking AND keep an open mind at the
same time!! The fanatics/true believers and debunkers do
neither!!
> The world needs its skeptics, to ask the embarrasing questions of the
> hoaxers and charlatans. If we are the last to be convinced of the truth
> of something, then that is the price we pay for serving as a "reality
> check" for those who seem to believe everything that they read or see on
> TV.
>
Agreed, but the problem is that one man's truth is another
mans lie! It seems that people are more concerned with being
right than with the facts. Such is human nature, I guess.
> It has been said here, many times, that when an alien spacecraft finally
> lands on the Whitehouse lawn, all the skeptics will be sorry that they
> have proven wrong and will have to eat their words. That is not
> altogether true.
>
> First of all, the alien spacecraft may be the *first* such craft ever to
> enter the Earth's atmosphere. That would prove the ETH proponents wrong
> about all previous UFO reports, and the skeptics would probably gloat a
> little. But, even if the aliens admitted to having been here for a long
> time, the skeptics would simply say, "Finally, we have acceptable proof
> of alien life and the possibility of inter-stellar travel. Great!", and
> we would go on being skeptical about other un-proven claims, and let the
> ETH proponents gloat. After all, they would deserve it. 8-]
>
> Everybody have a safe and happy Christmas. o<|8-]>HO!HO!HO!
>
> Richard
>
I hope we can discuss this further!!
spacecoyote
Aaron LeClair
spacecoyote wrote:
> ----------
> > From: Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us>
> > Newsgroups: sci.skeptic; alt.paranet.ufo; alt.alien.visitors;
> alt.alien.research
> > Subject: UFO Evidence
> > Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:15 AM
> >
> > The debate has been going on for years on these newsgroups about what
> > evidence is available, what constitutes "good" evidence, and finally, why
>
> > the seemingly vast quantity of evidence for the existence of UFO's does
> > not seem to be sufficient to convince the resident skeptics of the
> > existence of UFO's, and even the truth of the ETH.
>
> As i just started to read this newsgroup again, by "ETH" I
> presume you mean "Extraterrestial Hypothesis".
>
> > I have been thinking, lately, about how to explain the skeptics' position
>
> > on UFO evidence so that the rational ETH proponents can at least
> > *understand* our position, even if they don't agree with it. Of course,
> > I don't expect the irrational UFO "believer" fanatics to understand
> > *anything* about our position. Fanatics are like that. 8-]
> >
>
> The problem is that critical thinking in our society is lacking!!
> I consider myself "skeptical" about UFOs but I believe in the
> phenomenon. I would be interested in your definition of "skeptic".
> The "fanatics" do more to destroy any credible attempt at UFO
> research than the worst debunker. . .
I say they do around the same amount of damage. The fanactics make every
body and the media run away, or roll their eyes. While the fanatical debunker,
whos narrow mind, and rigid thinking, deter people from coming forward due to
their ridicule, and die hard debunking. That was just the tip of the ics berg
of course.
John No Spam
中嶋 革 wrote:
> Please show me UFO's photo.
> Anyone have those?
David
sweatsocks.
’†“ˆ @Šv
akasu37
lisfan
>
>Please show me UFO's photo.
>Anyone have those?
Not on hand, but I can custom make some for you. My Tupperware soap dish
makes a particularly convincing UFO when held aloft by fishing line. :)
Brother Blue
wrote:
>Is there UFO realy?
You mean Martians...? Flying Saucers...?
No.
These are merely cultural artifacts; an inacurate transliteration of
ancient and enduring transmundane phenomena viewed through the
societally inculcated perceptual matrix of our times -- through the
goggles of STNG's Geordi LaForge, if you will.
Had you asked, however, are there elfs or faeries or gnomes or
leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
angels/daemons, the answer -- when viewed through the through the lens
of the larger historical bandwidth -- would be a resounding yes.
Think about it.
-Brother Blue
http://www.brotherblue.org/
Brotherhood of Galactic Science
"Where Adamski meets Crowley at Langley"
Walt Williams
There are many good photographs of machines-which-are-not-from-around-here available on the InterNet.
Please do not be offended by those who have not seen or experienced a close encounter and who are
vociferous skeptics.
Best Wishes,
Walt, 98.12.28
dfh...@pacificnet.net
=================================================
In article <J5Dh2.744$x5.13...@news1.i1.net>, lis...@i1NOSPAM.net says...
John No Spam
leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
although inaccurate.
Rob Warren
>
> Maybe they are one in the same. Elfs or faeries or gnomes or
> leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
> angels/daemons are desriptions of what we now call aliens. Due to the
> knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
> although inaccurate.
Spirits.
Rob
--
ICQ : 20237214 AOL: Aleris23
Email: ale...@iag.net
Site : .. coming soon ..
Richard Caldwell
From: Marty Fouts <al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>
> i think that, as far as this discussion, you and I are in
> agreement on most of the points.
>
> [snip]
> > The odd thing is that you see skeptics as taking an "extreme view".
>
> some_ skeptics. There are, among the skeptical community, some
> who've slipped into dogmatic views that are no more justified by
> evidence than those who take the extreme view that the ETH has been
> 'proved.'
I'm just pointing out that lumping *all* skeptics into one group is just
as dangerous as lumping the rational ETH proponents in with the people
who claim to be channeling Commander Zork from the Galactic Federation of
Free Planets.
> > Skeptics like myself see ourselves as taking the neutral position,
> > just like you. We do not deny the possibility of the ETH, but we
> > are not yet convinced of it. The extreme position, which some
> > pro-ETH people seem to ascribe to skeptics, would be that there are
> > *no* other intelligent life forms in the universe and there never
> > will be.
>
> You've made a jump that I don't think you intended. The ETH has to do
> with visitation, the existence of intelligent ET life is required for
> the ETH in its strong form, but one can think of scenarios with in
> which intelligent ET life exists but intergalactic travel is
> infeasible.
Sure, but that's an intermediate position. I was trying to describe the
*most* extreme skeptical position, which would be that no such
intelligent life exists, therefore it couldn't be visiting the Earth.
> It is odd that there are those who are skeptical about the ETH but
> strongly believe the 'probability 1' scenario, which is based on just
> as flimsy evidence.
The probability of ET intelligent life is just that, a *probability*.
There is no evidence, flimsy or otherwise, offered in its defense. It is
only an attempt at *estimating* the probability that such life exists.
As such, some skeptics believe that the chances are pretty high, while
others are more dubious. But please understand that *no* rational person
thinks that the Drake Equation actually *proves* anything.
Now, if you want to estimate the probability that the ETH is correct,
then we can start working on that one. In fact, we can begin with the
results of the Drake Equation and extrapolate from there, if you want.
> That's a good starting point for categorization. Of course, there are
> other groups that neither believe that all UFOs are mundane nor than
> the ETH explains them. Valee (sp?) fits that category.
That's called "keeping all your options open". 8-]
> > Some skeptics infer that, since *all* of the explained UFO cases
> > (category 1) have had mundane causes, it is only logical to assume
> > that at least *some* of the unexplained cases (category 2) would also
> > have mundane causes if enough information were available.
> Right, and that inference is not 'logical', although it is
> persuasive. logic says 'if i don't know, i don't know'.
See below.
> > It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the category 2
> > cases are the true unknowns. Thus, as more information becomes
> > available, some of them must necessarily move into the other
> > categories, be it 1, 3, 4, or your 5 & 6. It is logical to assume
> > that a healthy percentage of these will become category 1 cases, but
> > any attempt to place any kind of number on that distribution is
> > pissin' in the wind, IMHO.
>
> I utterly agree.
> Yes, which is why I believe that some skeptics have slipped into
> dogmatism. Twitch, for example, likes to cite percentages, and seems
> unwilling to acknowledge the false-positive possibility. IMO, that is
> dogmatism rather than skepticism.
I agree that Twitch likes to cite percentages. However, you must observe
that, in *no* case, does he arrive at 100% mundane explanations. That
means that some UFO cases will *always* remain in the "Unknown" category,
unless we come up with some new explanations, be they terrestrial in
origin or not. So, we can trim off all the fat we want to, but we are
always left with a few "core" cases.
Twitch doesn't deny this, in fact the freely admits that he believes that
a few UFO cases do *not* have mundane explanations. What he an I do
agree on, and what was my motivation for starting this thread, is that
the assertion of ETH proponents that a "huge volume of evidence" exists
to support the ETH is simply not true. That "huge volume of evidence"
consists of a *vast majority* of cases that have mundane explanations
and, therefore, are absolutely *worthless* in support of the ETH.
> > That's what I call the, "What else could it be?" argument, which I
> > had hoped to address as a separate issue.
> Ah. I think it would be reasonable for you to go ahead and post
> something specifically on that topic, if you have the time and
> inclination.
I'm still thinking about how best to explain my position on that one.
> Agreed. Also, I feel, from some of Twitch's posts, and some of the
> concerns he has ignored, that you and he differ, in practice, if not
> in theory, on the issue of false-positives.
I think that any rational person who understands such things allows for
the possibility of false positives/negatives in *any* such study. I'm
sure that Twitch is quite comfortable with it, since he spent most of his
professional career in laboratory situations. However, both he and I
agree that the ETH proponents can't build their case on the possibility
that *some* mundane explanations of *some* UFO cases are in error.
The simple matter of fact is that the *vast* majority of UFO cases are
due to mistaken non/mis-identification of mundane aerial objects by the
witnesses. That means that, if you want to rest your case on the margin
of error, the odds lean *heavily* in favor of mundane causes and *not*
the ETH. If you want good ETH evidence, you need to find cases that are
*absolutey* devoid of even the *possibility* of any mundane cause.
> > I don't call these people skeptics, just because they refuse to
> > believe certain claims. Their reasons are typically not rational
> > for their beliefs, one way or the other. They simply *do* believe
> > in some things and *don't* believe in others. For skeptics, the term
> > "believe in" is meaningless, because it implies faith. One can
> > believe that a given assertion is true, or likely, or unlikely, or
> > false, and one can have a high/low opinion of certain evidence.
> > But, one does not "believe in" *anything* about such a controversial
> > subject.
> I almost agree with you, with a couple of expansions. There are
> people who are proper skeptics in some areas, but not in others. Many
> of my jesuit scientist friends fit that category. They are very good
> scientists within their discipline, having learned to separate that
> from the things they believe in, but they also have their areas of
> 'faith'.
Absolutely. And a person who is a complete skeptic about most
"paranormal" things could be a "true believer" with regard to one
specific area, usually because he/she has had a convincing personal
experience in that area.
> Look at some of the discussions we've had here about UFOs, the ETH and
> the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligent life, and you can see
> the same sort of sometimes-skeptical/sometimes-believing attitude.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between accepting something
as a very likely probability and accepting it as fact. This distinction
seems to escape a lot of people on a.a.v.
> I think we all have areas where we don't apply the rigors of skeptical
> thought.
Sure. These are called "blind spots".
> > I think that the reason that skeptics place such weight on Hendry's
> > book is that Hendry is a self-described UFO proponent, but in his
> > book, he seems to say that he is forced by the evidence to adopt a
> > skeptical position. In other words, they see him as a "believer"
> > who has been forced to face the facts and admit it. That warms the
> > cockles of the skeptics' hearts. The believers on a.a.v. would react
> > the same way if Twitch were to post that he had been abducted the
> > night before and that he was now a confirmed believer.
> Agreed. And, I think, you've pointed out one way in which we all
> exhibit bias, being a little less skeptical of those we agree with,
> if there is a 'special pleading' related to that agreement.
Agreed.
> My view, is that the 'neutral' position is to ignore Hendry (or any
> other supposed researcher) when they describe themselves as believers
> or skeptics, and to evaluate their writing based solely on its
> content.
Of course. As you point out, it shouldn't really make his analysis any
more or less credible. I think that what it *does* do is to make it more
emotionally satisfying for some skeptics.
> An example at the other extreme is Corso. I can form an opinion of
> Corso's book based entirely on a comparison of its contents to what is
> known to be historically true. I can do that without any recourse to
> arguments about his credibility. In his case, the glaring number of
> technical and historical errors is sufficient to dismiss the book. So
> why waste any time trying to attack his credibility. We are engaged
> in scientific speculation here, after all, not courtroom
> cross-examination.
I agree that liars can accidentally do good science and good scientists
can sometimes do bad science. We/they are all human. An argument should
be considered only on the weight of its evidence and logic alone.
However, too often, we are expected to accept someone's word based solely
on their credentials.
> > That is true of skeptics, and of scientists in general. The
> > reasoning is that it is less damaging to science to dismiss a true
> > hypothesis than it is to accept a false one. This is similar to the
> > legal principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to hang
> > an innocent one.
>
> Interesting way to consider the conservatism inherent in science.
> Having not thought about it that way, I shall have to consider it for
> a while before I form an opinion. Thanks for the provocation.
I can't take full credit for this analogy. I was taught this principle
in a History of Science class that I took in college. I applied the
legal parallel.
The point is that, if scientists accept a false hypothesis, then they
begin to use it as the foundation for further research and hypothesizing.
That soon leads to a whole area of scientific work that is based on a
false pretext. If, on the other hand, we reject a true hypothesis, no
other hypotheses are based on it and no research is done based on false
understanding. The assumption is that, if the hypothesis is true, it
will ultimately come to be accepted anyway, because of the weight of
evidence in its favor. The one big shame is that the original person to
propose it may not get credit for it, or may be dead by the time it is
accepted.
Richard
Rob Hafernik
> Maybe they are one in the same. Elfs or faeries or gnomes or
> leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
> angels/daemons are desriptions of what we now call aliens. Due to the
> knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
> although inaccurate.
Yeah, right. Don't forget that Trolls were considered to live under
bridges and incubi would sneak up on women and have sex with them as they
slept. Leprechauns gave you good luck and vampires looked more or less
human.
Doesn't fit the "grey" mold very well...
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> I was refering to the chemistry of it. Like when we actually get our
> hands on the rock.
Well, we haven't actually gotten any "hands-on" samples of comets. We do
analysis of their contents by studying absorption spectroscopy of light
from stars, as it passes through their tails. With meteorites, we've
amassed quite a lot of hands-on Info. We can even tell what planets some
meteorites came from, like the Martian metorite that got so muc attention
recently.
> > That is essentially the neutral position, which is the way that most
> > skeptics see themselves.
>
> I'm nuetral when looking into individual cases, cause I know it could
> be alot of things. I get asked if I believe aliens are here alot,
> and my response is usually, that I'm pretty convinced. Notice the word
> "pretty", I'm not completely convinced.
That's a perfectly rational position, IMHO, even if I don't currently
agree with it.
> > They are not anti-ETH so much as they are
> > anti-bad evidence, hoaxes, mumbo-jumbo,
>
> Ufologists are too. "believers" and "skeptics" often vary in what
> they consider bunk though.
That is inevitable, especially for those with the most extreme views on
the subject. For the irrational (or fanatical), "bunk" can be defined as
anything that disagrees with their point of view.
> You will hear even pro guys talk out against bunk.
Yes, and I think that this is a healthy trend. It behooves us *all* to
get rid of the hoaxers.
> > Sure. All's fair in love, war, and UFO arguments. 8-]
> I see alot of unfairness in them, but it's in the eye of the beholder.
Exactly.
> > > > Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
> > >
> > > This group can give you gas. PURNT!!
> >
> > Maybe that's why I take a Tagamet every night. 8-]
>
> Is that like a rolaid? Haven't heard of them. Hope they work.
Tagamet is one of the drugs that actually *prevents* stomach acid,
instead of simply neutralizing it, like Rolaids does. Tagamet was the
first, AFAIK, but there is also Zantag and Pepcid. Tagamet HB and Pepcid
AC are available OTC, but the stuff I take is *much* stronger. I take it
to prevent acid re-flux at night.
> Mans' ego would then say "Oh yeh!, huh, huh, prove it" BOOM!
That's gotten us into trouble more than once. It could happen again.
> I know. I was actually very intrigued by the face. I didn't know if
> it was artificial or not, but I was open to it. Dick seems to be
> getting kookier and kookier.
Agreed. The point is that all of us have seen rock formations, on Earth,
that look like something else, like a human face or an animal of some
kind. When we see it on Earth, we say, "Gee, isn't that interesting.",
take a snap-shot of it, and go on about our business. We don't start
talking about space-aliens carving faces in the rocks.
But when we spot a similar formation in a picture of Mars, guys like
Hoagland go nuts. Why? Because it sell books and video tapes. Hell, I
saw an add for the Hoagland "Cydonia" video on the Sci Fi channel over
the Christmas holiday. So, he's still making money off of it. The add
didn't bother to mention that there are later photos available for free
from JPL. The funny thing is that it wasn't all that good a face to
begin with. The only thing that made it sellable was the fact that it
was on Mars, which has been the subject of all sorts of "little green
men" speculation since the discovery of the "canals" a long time ago.
> I find him boring, sometimes, and my eyes start hurting after rolling
> them all night long. So I haven;t been tuning in when he's on Art
> Bell's show.
> I've been listening to Howard Stern though.
I don't listen to *either* of them.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: spacecoyote <ackt...@yahoo.com>
> As i just started to read this newsgroup again, by "ETH" I
> presume you mean "Extraterrestial Hypothesis".
Yes.
> The problem is that critical thinking in our society is lacking!!
Agreed.
> I consider myself "skeptical" about UFOs but I believe in the
> phenomenon. I would be interested in your definition of "skeptic".
> The "fanatics" do more to destroy any credible attempt at UFO
> research than the worst debunker. . .
My definition of "skeptic" is someone who is has not yet been convinced
of a given assertion. Or, more generally, someone who is not easily
convinced of things without good, solid evidence.
> I don't think that these cases are worthless because it would
> be useful to know the mechanisms responsible for these
> misidentifications. Misidentifications obviously don't prove the ETH,
> which I assume is your point.
Yes, my point is that they are worthless as evidence for the ETH. They
obviously have value in studying the whole UFO issue, as a social
phenomenon.
> Some cases will forever defy explaination by scientific means,
> usually from a lack of verifiable data. Of course this does not
> necessarily make them alien spacecraft!
Exactly. So far, we agree completely.
> > For this reason, many, if not most skeptics, including Twitch and I,
> > actually believe that UFO's do exist. We also believe that,
> > hopefully, most of them will be eventually explained by phenomena
> > that have not yet been discovered. At any rate, it is virtually
> > certain that not *all* these "core UFO cases" will have a single
> > explanation.
> There is no question in my mind that this is true. I would
> tend to say *some* but not *most*.
Playing it safe, huh? 8-]
> It might help to further study human optical perception.
I agree.
> There is nothing wrong with that!! I only wish that people
> would use critical thinking AND keep an open mind at the
> same time!! The fanatics/true believers and debunkers do
> neither!!
I agree that all fanatical positions, be they for or against, are based
on pre-determined positions. Those people are not willing to listen to
reason, of any kind, so it's best just to ignore them.
> Agreed, but the problem is that one man's truth is another
> mans lie! It seems that people are more concerned with being
> right than with the facts. Such is human nature, I guess.
Sure, but there are objective criteria for determining truth/lie about a
given statement. If such criteria are not available, then the statement
is a matter of opinion, not fact. I will accept almost *anything* that
someone wants to post, as long as they provide the proper caveats that it
is a matter of opinion, or speculation.
> I hope we can discuss this further!!
As long as this thread continues we can. I hope to start other threads
on other features of the UFO debate that I find interesting, puzzling, or
just plain silly. You are free to join in on those as well.
This thread is partially a response on my part to the assertion by some
posters that this newsgroup (a.a.v.) contains nothing but SPAM and flame
wars, and is not host to any sort of contstructive, rational discussion
of the issues.
I wanted to prove that such discussion was possible, and that there are
people on both sides of the fence who are perfectly capable of
participating in and contributing to such a discussion. Hopefully, if
they like this thread, others will start other, similar threads, dealing
with other parts of the UFO issue.
And, hopefully, those will be thought provoking and will help us to reach
some kind of basis for agreement. If we all recognize the things that we
agree about, then carefully define the things that we *don't* agree
about, then perhaps we can proceed to analyze those disagreements and
come up with some meaningful results, at least philosophically.
Personally, I'm tired of reading one guy saying, "His feet stink, and he
don't love Jesus!" about another guy. 8-]
Richard
Jerry Bryson
>
> Sure, but that's an intermediate position. I was trying to describe the
> *most* extreme skeptical position, which would be that no such
> intelligent life exists, therefore it couldn't be visiting the Earth.
That isn't a skeptical position. A true skeptic would be VERY skeptical
that we are alone in e Universe.
Am alien is the only confident proof of the existance of aliens we can
ever hope for. Until then don't bet the farm on any position, especially
of "no ET".
--
Failure doesn't mean you can't;
It just means you haven't
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > I was refering to the chemistry of it. Like when we actually get our
> > hands on the rock.
>
> Well, we haven't actually gotten any "hands-on" samples of comets.
We haven't? I figured we did, but come to think of it, no examples come to
mind.
> We do
> analysis of their contents by studying absorption spectroscopy of light
> from stars, as it passes through their tails. With meteorites, we've
> amassed quite a lot of hands-on Info. We can even tell what planets some
> meteorites came from, like the Martian metorite that got so muc attention
> recently.
>
> > > That is essentially the neutral position, which is the way that most
> > > skeptics see themselves.
> >
> > I'm nuetral when looking into individual cases, cause I know it could
> > be alot of things. I get asked if I believe aliens are here alot,
> > and my response is usually, that I'm pretty convinced. Notice the word
> > "pretty", I'm not completely convinced.
>
> That's a perfectly rational position, IMHO, even if I don't currently
> agree with it.
That's fine. If I'm not correct, I hope I will find out. One thing that I
defently cannot prove to my satisfaction is that aliens are not here.
Therefore I do not conclude that.
>
>
> > > They are not anti-ETH so much as they are
> > > anti-bad evidence, hoaxes, mumbo-jumbo,
> >
> > Ufologists are too. "believers" and "skeptics" often vary in what
> > they consider bunk though.
>
> That is inevitable, especially for those with the most extreme views on
> the subject. For the irrational (or fanatical), "bunk" can be defined as
> anything that disagrees with their point of view.
One man's bunk, is another guy's truth.
>
>
> > You will hear even pro guys talk out against bunk.
>
> Yes, and I think that this is a healthy trend. It behooves us *all* to
> get rid of the hoaxers.
There is a show on Fox tonight that is dealing with hoaxes. Tune in if you
can. I am interested in seeing the Bigfoot segment.
>
>
> > > Sure. All's fair in love, war, and UFO arguments. 8-]
>
> > I see alot of unfairness in them, but it's in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > > > Yours would not be as indigestible as some I have read. 8-]
> > > >
> > > > This group can give you gas. PURNT!!
> > >
> > > Maybe that's why I take a Tagamet every night. 8-]
> >
> > Is that like a rolaid? Haven't heard of them. Hope they work.
>
> Tagamet is one of the drugs that actually *prevents* stomach acid,
> instead of simply neutralizing it, like Rolaids does. Tagamet was the
> first, AFAIK, but there is also Zantag and Pepcid. Tagamet HB and Pepcid
I have some Pepcid, it's pretty good for acid gut, I guess.
> AC are available OTC, but the stuff I take is *much* stronger. I take it
> to prevent acid re-flux at night.
>
> > Mans' ego would then say "Oh yeh!, huh, huh, prove it" BOOM!
>
> That's gotten us into trouble more than once. It could happen again.
>
>
> > I know. I was actually very intrigued by the face. I didn't know if
> > it was artificial or not, but I was open to it. Dick seems to be
> > getting kookier and kookier.
>
> Agreed. The point is that all of us have seen rock formations, on Earth,
> that look like something else, like a human face or an animal of some
> kind. When we see it on Earth, we say, "Gee, isn't that interesting.",
> take a snap-shot of it, and go on about our business. We don't start
> talking about space-aliens carving faces in the rocks.
It wasn't just the face alone. I haven't found anything on Earth that has a
series of objects in a local region that seem to be artificial, that is
actually not. If you think of any let me know. I never used that arguement
against the rocks on mars. I am quite convinced that the Cydonia region is
"natural" now though. Thanks to actually going there again. I didn't like
people jumping to conclusions before actually going there again. I find this
to be guess work.
>
>
> But when we spot a similar formation in a picture of Mars, guys like
> Hoagland go nuts. Why? Because it sell books and video tapes.
I don't know, if Dick is sincere or not. My guess is, that he is, and not
only writing what he's writing for money. Maybe it is a little of both.
> Hell, I
> saw an add for the Hoagland "Cydonia" video on the Sci Fi channel over
> the Christmas holiday. So, he's still making money off of it. The add
> didn't bother to mention that there are later photos available for free
> from JPL. The funny thing is that it wasn't all that good a face to
> begin with. The only thing that made it sellable was the fact that it
> was on Mars, which has been the subject of all sorts of "little green
> men" speculation since the discovery of the "canals" a long time ago.
>
> > I find him boring, sometimes, and my eyes start hurting after rolling
> > them all night long. So I haven;t been tuning in when he's on Art
> > Bell's show.
>
> > I've been listening to Howard Stern though.
>
> I don't listen to *either* of them.
Stern is intentionally funny, while Dick is less so.
>
>
> Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Jerry Bryson <jbr...@richmond.infi.net>
> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
> > Sure, but that's an intermediate position. I was trying to describe
> > the *most* extreme skeptical position, which would be that no such
> > intelligent life exists, therefore it couldn't be visiting the Earth.
> That isn't a skeptical position. A true skeptic would be VERY
> skeptical that we are alone in the Universe.
There you go again, arguing my point for me. I've been trying to say all
along that the skeptics don't account for the extreme anti-ETH positions
on this newsgroup, but rather that such people should be labeled
"disbelievers", or something like that. Skeptics, in general, tend to be
rational people, so we avoid taking irrational stances.
> An alien is the only confident proof of the existance of aliens we can
> ever hope for. Until then don't bet the farm on any position,
> especially of "no ET".
My daddy told me never to gamble if I couldn't afford to lose, so I'm not
going to bet the farm on *anything*. However, I think it might be
possible to infer the existence of alien intelligence, without actually
having one on the autopsy table. It might make an interesting thread to
discuss what kinds of evidence could prove (for all intents and purposes)
the existence of EBE's, without actually having one in captivity.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > Well, we haven't actually gotten any "hands-on" samples of comets.
>
> We haven't? I figured we did, but come to think of it, no examples
> come to mind.
I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly through
a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data on the
sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
> > We do analysis of their contents by studying absorption spectroscopy
> > of light from stars, as it passes through their tails. With
> > meteorites, we've amassed quite a lot of hands-on Info. We can even
> > tell what planets some meteorites came from, like the Martian
> > metorite that got so muc attention recently.
> > That's a perfectly rational position, IMHO, even if I don't currently
> > agree with it.
>
> That's fine. If I'm not correct, I hope I will find out. One thing
> that I defently cannot prove to my satisfaction is that aliens are not
> here. Therefore I do not conclude that.
Well, it's virtually impossible to prove that something is *not*, so
you're pretty safe there. Personally, I hope that you are eventually
proven correct. I just don't think that has happened, yet.
> > That is inevitable, especially for those with the most extreme views
> > on the subject. For the irrational (or fanatical), "bunk" can be
> > defined as anything that disagrees with their point of view.
> One man's bunk, is another guy's truth.
There ya go. 8-]
> > Yes, and I think that this is a healthy trend. It behooves us *all*
> > to get rid of the hoaxers.
> There is a show on Fox tonight that is dealing with hoaxes. Tune in if
> you can. I am interested in seeing the Bigfoot segment.
I'll try to catch it on my local Fox station, tonight.
> > Tagamet is one of the drugs that actually *prevents* stomach acid,
> > instead of simply neutralizing it, like Rolaids does. Tagamet was
> > the first, AFAIK, but there is also Zantag and Pepcid. Tagamet HB
> > and Pepcid
> I have some Pepcid, it's pretty good for acid gut, I guess.
I've never tried it.
> > Agreed. The point is that all of us have seen rock formations, on
> > Earth, that look like something else, like a human face or an animal
> > of some kind. When we see it on Earth, we say, "Gee, isn't that
> > interesting.", take a snap-shot of it, and go on about our business.
> > We don't start talking about space-aliens carving faces in the rocks.
> It wasn't just the face alone. I haven't found anything on Earth that
> has a series of objects in a local region that seem to be artificial,
> that is actually not. If you think of any let me know.
I'm sure that you could look at an aerial photo of North America or
Africa, or some other place as large as the area covered by the Martian
photos, and find plenty of objects that might be construed as artificial,
especially if the resolution was poor enough.
> I never used that arguement against the rocks on mars.
Did it ever occur to you that some people were looking around for other
stuff, just to build a better case for the face? Isn't Hoagland the same
guy who said that there were big towers on the Moon?
> I am quite convinced that the Cydonia region is "natural" now though.
> Thanks to actually going there again. I didn't like people jumping to
> conclusions before actually going there again. I find this to be guess
> work.
I thought that the area was interesting enough to justify getting some
better photos of it, from a geological point of view. I considered the
possibility that the formations might be artificial, but could find no
reason at all to think so. When it comes to guess work, it's better to
guess on the side of the mundane than the bizarre.
> > But when we spot a similar formation in a picture of Mars, guys like
> > Hoagland go nuts. Why? Because it sell books and video tapes.
> I don't know, if Dick is sincere or not. My guess is, that he is, and
> not only writing what he's writing for money. Maybe it is a little of
> both.
If he actually believes what he is writing, he's not just crooked, but
crazy as well.
> > Hell, I saw an add for the Hoagland "Cydonia" video on the Sci Fi
> > channel over the Christmas holiday. So, he's still making money off
> > of it. The add didn't bother to mention that there are later photos
> > available for free from JPL. The funny thing is that it wasn't all
> > that good a face to begin with. The only thing that made it sellable
> > was the fact that it was on Mars, which has been the subject of all
> > sorts of "little green men" speculation since the discovery of the
> > "canals" a long time ago.
> > I don't listen to *either* of them.
>
> Stern is intentionally funny, while Dick is less so.
I have seen some of Stern, while surfing the channels on my cable box.
Mostly, he has women with too much bosom and too little clothing and
brains on his program, and he asks them questions that are too personal.
If that's what turns you on, I guess it qualifies as entertainment. But,
personally, I find it pretty boring.
Richard
lisfan
>
>Earth is being visited.
Proof, please.
>
>There are many good photographs of
machines-which-are-not-from-around-here available on the InterNet.
All I've seen are the usual fuzzy photos with nothing in them to show
any scale, or the standard squiggly light photos. The photos are, to a
one, unimpressive.
>
>Please do not be offended by those who have not seen or experienced a
close encounter and who are
>vociferous skeptics.
The implication here is that you have seen or experienced a close
encounter. If you're making that claim, where is your proof? We can't
just go on your word, after all.
Richard Caldwell
From: Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:04:03 -0600, Richard Caldwell
> <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> put paid to all suspicions, thus:
> <snip>
> >Twitch doesn't deny this, in fact the freely admits that he believes
that
> >a few UFO cases do *not* have mundane explanations. What he an I do
> >agree on, and what was my motivation for starting this thread, is that
> >the assertion of ETH proponents that a "huge volume of evidence"
> >exists to support the ETH is simply not true. That "huge volume of
> >evidence" consists of a *vast majority* of cases that have mundane
> >explanations and, therefore, are absolutely *worthless* in support of
> > the ETH.
> Pardone Moi for leaping in like this, but a nice rational conversation
> is a relative rarity.
Feel free to join in. I just hope that you and Brother Blue don't turn
this thread into a contest to see who can pull who's leg the hardest. 8-]
> Although I'm generally of restricted seriousness, one of the things I
> like to point out at this juncture is that I'm also looking for
> extraterrestrials, I just have a higher criterion of 'proof' than a lot
> of people.
I'd say that's a fairly good description of a skeptic with an
over-developed sense of humor. 8-]
> I think one thing that the majority fail to realise is that the
> skeptiks aren't here because they like raining on parades, it's just
> that they're as interested in the *possibility* as the next
> channeling-fixated loon, but they try to ground their ideas with 'what
> we know' rather than endlessly speculate about 'what we don't know',
> or 'what we could find out if the government came clean', etc.
Agreed. Many of the "believers" and ETH proponents have a hard time
believing that we skeptics would be just as thrilled as *any* of them if
contact were to be made with an ETI, but it's true.
> In final analysis, 'UFOlogy' is a joke. The big promoters will always
> tar those that seek to reduce the impact of a cash cow, and this is
> where the fights start, with people being dragged along for the ride
> in a similar fashion to one of my favourite mass-hysteria events, the
> Salem witch trials. UFOlogy is ruled by credulity, and this is the
> thing that people like tested the least in as much as they don't like
> to know that there really is a naked guy standing in front of them.
> (cf. Hans Christian Anderson).
Again, I agree that UFOlogy has this poor reputation, and I think it's a
shame. I'd like to see the serious UFOlogists break out their tar and
feathers and ride the hoaxers out of town on a rail. Then, we could
*all* get busy working on some *serious* UFO research.
Unfortunately, the hoaxers seem to be making more money than the serious
researchers, and finding backing for UFO research isn't easy, especially
in these days of Govt. cutbacks. If backing were available, I can be
ready to go as of February 1, 1999, 'cause I'm joining Twitch in the
ranks of the retired. 8-]
Richard
BlueBird
wrote:
>Yeah, right. Don't forget that Trolls were considered to live under
>bridges
Or under Dulce, new Mexico.
>and incubi would sneak up on women and have sex with them as they
>slept.
Or had sex with them during their "abduction."
>Leprechauns gave you good luck and vampires looked more or less
>human.
>
>Doesn't fit the "grey" mold very well...
Ah, the little people! And the blood-draining cattle mutilators.
You been kissing the Blarney Stones again, Rob?
Polar Bear
: You mean Martians...? Flying Saucers...?
: No.
How do you know this? Is it really possible to denounce
life on other planets just based on those in our
own solar system? 1 solar system does not make a
convincing statistical sample at all.
I saw 11 kangaroos while I was down-under. 8 were dead,
run over by cars, only 3 were alive. Can I then conclude
that most kangaroos in Australia are dead?
Colin.
--
Believers will be given the power to perform miracles:
They will drive out demons in my name; they will speak in strange tongues;
if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed;
they will place their hands on sick people, and these will get well.
-- Mark 16:17-18
Jerry Bryson
>
> My daddy told me never to gamble if I couldn't afford to lose, so I'm not
> going to bet the farm on *anything*. However, I think it might be
> possible to infer the existence of alien intelligence, without actually
> having one on the autopsy table. It might make an interesting thread to
> discuss what kinds of evidence could prove (for all intents and purposes)
> the existence of EBE's, without actually having one in captivity.
I think we are the best evidence of ET. If we happened, somebody else
probably has. That isn't air-tight, of course, but I do think it's the
best we can do.
Jerry Bryson
>
> There you go again, arguing my point for me. I've been trying to say all
> along that the skeptics don't account for the extreme anti-ETH positions
> on this newsgroup, but rather that such people should be labeled
> "disbelievers", or something like that. Skeptics, in general, tend to be
> rational people, so we avoid taking irrational stances.
Fine. Glad to have helped. Some of the hoaxers around here try to
redefine words, a' la' Ken Starr. State any position, and the skeptic
rightly wants to see some evidence.
S.D. Williston
change. I don't know how you can establish concrete evidence to prove this
phenomenon. So many people have had personal experiences that they can't
prove, but feel very emotional about. We can't all be crazy and delusional.
When you ask people to deny their personal experiences because there's no
concrete proof, well I think you're expecting an awful lot. I don't think
you can reduce this to a science experiment. If you really want to
understand it, I think you better start listening to people instead of
labelling them all as "fanatics". If you can just imagine for a moment that
Ets do exist and are here, do you really think that your scientific criteria
would be applicable to them. Don't you think they'd be just a little bit
more advanced than us. I'm afriad they'd be functioning on levels that we
can't even begin to imagine, much less analyze.
S.D.
Grrr
>Maybe they are one in the same. Elfs or faeries or gnomes or
>leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
>angels/daemons are desriptions of what we now call aliens. Due to the
>knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
>although inaccurate.
I wonder if aliens beleive in leprechauns.
ca...@tref.nl
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:27:07 -0000, "akasu37" <ekx9...@okhotsk.or.jp>
>
> wrote:
>
> >Is there UFO realy?
>
> You mean Martians...? Flying Saucers...?
>
> No.
Flies are UFO's. Look in their eyes.
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
> > > Well, we haven't actually gotten any "hands-on" samples of comets.
> >
> > We haven't? I figured we did, but come to think of it, no examples
> > come to mind.
>
> I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly through
> a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data on the
> sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
It is either a comet or an asteriod, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
forget the details, but I've heard about it.
>
>
> > > We do analysis of their contents by studying absorption spectroscopy
> > > of light from stars, as it passes through their tails. With
> > > meteorites, we've amassed quite a lot of hands-on Info. We can even
> > > tell what planets some meteorites came from, like the Martian
> > > metorite that got so muc attention recently.
>
> > > That's a perfectly rational position, IMHO, even if I don't currently
> > > agree with it.
> >
> > That's fine. If I'm not correct, I hope I will find out. One thing
> > that I defently cannot prove to my satisfaction is that aliens are not
> > here. Therefore I do not conclude that.
>
> Well, it's virtually impossible to prove that something is *not*, so
> you're pretty safe there.
I understand what you mean. I'm really not worried about being safe though.
> Personally, I hope that you are eventually
> proven correct. I just don't think that has happened, yet.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder, there is still a flat earth society.
Even if we get a actual alien body, I'm sure some will say it is a fraud, or
a demon, or perhaps a genetically manufactured being, time traveler, or what
ever. People interpret things in their own light. I hope sometime very soon,
we will have the goods on this alien business. I don't plan on studying this
thing for too much longer. If it doesn't show up, I will go on doing other
things. I am interested in the "implants". What do you think of them so far?
>
>
> > > That is inevitable, especially for those with the most extreme views
> > > on the subject. For the irrational (or fanatical), "bunk" can be
> > > defined as anything that disagrees with their point of view.
>
> > One man's bunk, is another guy's truth.
>
> There ya go. 8-]
>
> > > Yes, and I think that this is a healthy trend. It behooves us *all*
> > > to get rid of the hoaxers.
>
> > There is a show on Fox tonight that is dealing with hoaxes. Tune in if
> > you can. I am interested in seeing the Bigfoot segment.
>
> I'll try to catch it on my local Fox station, tonight.
I watch it. I was dismayed by alot of it. Not that I think what they
presented was legit, just by the way they hyped stuff up as if they were the
ones that exposed this stuff. I've known the Mier thing was a hoax, for
awhile. I knew about the Sea Monster touch ups too. It would have been nice
to see Patterson on the Pay roll of that production co. instead of hear say.
The guy that was supposedly in the suit, said that it wasn't him. I could go
on...... but won't other than saying, "Duh, the alien autopsies a fraud".
Hey, thank you Fox for showing me this, the 3rd or 4rth time around. Hope
they made a good bit of money off of it.
>
>
> > > Tagamet is one of the drugs that actually *prevents* stomach acid,
> > > instead of simply neutralizing it, like Rolaids does. Tagamet was
> > > the first, AFAIK, but there is also Zantag and Pepcid. Tagamet HB
> > > and Pepcid
>
> > I have some Pepcid, it's pretty good for acid gut, I guess.
>
> I've never tried it.
Stick to what you got if it works.
>
>
> > > Agreed. The point is that all of us have seen rock formations, on
> > > Earth, that look like something else, like a human face or an animal
> > > of some kind. When we see it on Earth, we say, "Gee, isn't that
> > > interesting.", take a snap-shot of it, and go on about our business.
> > > We don't start talking about space-aliens carving faces in the rocks.
>
> > It wasn't just the face alone. I haven't found anything on Earth that
> > has a series of objects in a local region that seem to be artificial,
> > that is actually not. If you think of any let me know.
>
> I'm sure that you could look at an aerial photo of North America or
> Africa, or some other place as large as the area covered by the Martian
> photos, and find plenty of objects that might be construed as artificial,
> especially if the resolution was poor enough.
I've seen isolated structures, but not groups of them together.
>
>
> > I never used that arguement against the rocks on mars.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that some people were looking around for other
> stuff, just to build a better case for the face? Isn't Hoagland the same
> guy who said that there were big towers on the Moon?
Yes that occured to me. Jesse Marcel jr. had a pic of one of these"towers"
at a syposium I went to. He didn't endorse the idea, he was just curious
about it it seems. I'm not sure if Dick talks about the towers. I know Dick
debated Ed Mitchel on the glass houses (snicker) on the moon. It wasn't
Dick's work on the Mars face that I thought was as plausible as other
people's. I never purchased his video or anything. I knew about his theories
due to interviews with him and other people's comments about him.
I wasn't sure what the Mars face was.
>
>
> > I am quite convinced that the Cydonia region is "natural" now though.
> > Thanks to actually going there again. I didn't like people jumping to
> > conclusions before actually going there again. I find this to be guess
> > work.
>
> I thought that the area was interesting enough to justify getting some
> better photos of it, from a geological point of view. I considered the
> possibility that the formations might be artificial, but could find no
> reason at all to think so. When it comes to guess work, it's better to
> guess on the side of the mundane than the bizarre.
If every one did that, I doubt we would have went and got the pics. It is
the guy who is lofty and says "There is gold in that cave" that is more
likely to go look for it. He may or may not find it.
>
>
> > > But when we spot a similar formation in a picture of Mars, guys like
> > > Hoagland go nuts. Why? Because it sell books and video tapes.
>
> > I don't know, if Dick is sincere or not. My guess is, that he is, and
> > not only writing what he's writing for money. Maybe it is a little of
> > both.
>
> If he actually believes what he is writing, he's not just crooked, but
> crazy as well.
My judgements differ slightly.
>
>
> > > Hell, I saw an add for the Hoagland "Cydonia" video on the Sci Fi
> > > channel over the Christmas holiday. So, he's still making money off
> > > of it. The add didn't bother to mention that there are later photos
> > > available for free from JPL. The funny thing is that it wasn't all
> > > that good a face to begin with. The only thing that made it sellable
> > > was the fact that it was on Mars, which has been the subject of all
> > > sorts of "little green men" speculation since the discovery of the
> > > "canals" a long time ago.
>
> > > I don't listen to *either* of them.
> >
> > Stern is intentionally funny, while Dick is less so.
>
> I have seen some of Stern, while surfing the channels on my cable box.
> Mostly, he has women with too much bosom and too little clothing and
> brains on his program, and he asks them questions that are too personal.
Yep, that's the visual stuff for tv. .
> If that's what turns you on, I guess it qualifies as entertainment. But,
> personally, I find it pretty boring.
I actually like the farting contests, And the prank calls, and the honesty
and forth rightness of the show. The chicks aren't bad either. Plus, it beats
alot of the other radio shows that are on. It can get old at times as you've
mentioned, and boring.
>
>
> Richard
Spence Sanders
Definitely, all kinds, everyday. At least once an hour, somewhere in the
world, someone will see an unidentified flying object. Then after a moment
they will say something like, "Oh, it was just a bird". A which time it
will become a IFO. Identified Flying Object.
Next question requiring an earth shattering revelation.
Spence
Richard Caldwell
From: "S.D. Williston" <ma...@golden.net>
> It would be nice to see some serious discussions on this newsgroup for
> a change.
I agree, as long as you allow a little room for humor, from time to time,
as long as we keep it polite.
> I don't know how you can establish concrete evidence to prove this
> phenomenon.
That depends on what phenomenon you are trying to prove. The ETH would
be harder to prove than some hypotheses, but then some other hypotheses
might be even harder to prove than the ETH.
> So many people have had personal experiences that they can't
> prove, but feel very emotional about.
That's part of the problem. Emotion is out of place in a scientific
discussion or scientific research. We must allow for people's feelings
when discussing things like abduction, without degenerating into a puddle
of sympathetic acceptance. I have discussed their personal experiences
with (alleged) abductees before, and did not find this too hard to do.
> We can't all be crazy and delusional.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that one's personal interpretation is
absolutely accurate either. We all know that people have inaccurate
memories of auto accidents and other traumatic experiences. Maybe I
should say that we're *all* crazy, at times. 8-]
> When you ask people to deny their personal experiences because there's
> no concrete proof, well I think you're expecting an awful lot.
Agreed. I would never ask anyone to deny thier own memory of their own
personal experiences. I would just ask that they are equally
understanding of my position and don't insist that I accept it as
absolute, objective fact. Is that fair?
> I don't think you can reduce this to a science experiment.
Maybe not, but one should be able to perform *some* experiments that give
one insight into *some* of the answers.
> If you really want to understand it, I think you better start listening
> to people instead of labelling them all as "fanatics".
Listening to people is what head shrinkers do. I am not a head shrinker.
Instead, I am willing to discuss people's experineces, and ask my own
questions in an attempt to clarify my (and maybe their own) perception of
those memories. I am not saying that I will arrive at any hard or fast
answers, but I am willing to assume that there is some valuable
scientific information mixed in with all the emotional baggage.
> If you can just imagine for a moment that ET's do exist and are here,
> do you really think that your scientific criteria would be applicable
> to them.
Yup. Science is science, anywhere you go.
> Don't you think they'd be just a little bit more advanced than us.
Sure, and they didn't get that way by being "touchy-feely". They got
that way by doing hard science. So they should understand my position.
> I'm afriad they'd be functioning on levels that we can't even begin to
> imagine, much less analyze.
That depends on what you mean by "levels". There is no reason to assume
that a technically advanced species would be more advanced than us on a
spiritual or philosophical level. They could be even more cold-blooded
and unsympathetic than the *worst* skeptic on a.a.v. Or, they could be
very sympathetic types. Personally, if even *some* of what we hear from
(alleged) abductees is true, I wouldn't call them too damned friendly.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
> <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> put paid to all suspicions, thus:
> > Feel free to join in. I just hope that you and Brother Blue don't
> > turn this thread into a contest to see who can pull who's leg the
> > hardest. 8-]
> No competition. BRH is light years ahead of this worthless entity
> that likes to indulge in the occasional piece of consenting consensual
> UFOlogy know and then.
Careful, there, you might get us moved to an alt.sex.? group. 8-]
> >Agreed. Many of the "believers" and ETH proponents have a hard time
> >believing that we skeptics would be just as thrilled as *any* of them
> >if contact were to be made with an ETI, but it's true.
>
> Defining moment in the history of the world, IMO, although we're quite
> likely to either bomb the crap out of a diplomatic mission or sell
> them used automobiles.
I have an '86 Buick Regal that I'll sell them. 8-]
> >Again, I agree that UFOlogy has this poor reputation, and I think it's
> >a shame. I'd like to see the serious UFOlogists break out their tar
> >and feathers and ride the hoaxers out of town on a rail. Then, we
> >could *all* get busy working on some *serious* UFO research.
> Well, the unfortunate deal is that the marginally honest hoaxers are
> having a heck of time convincing proponents and promoters that they
> are creating things, while the likes of Sean David Morton are using
> material that is 'manufactured', knowing full well that it's
> manufactured to build up their own small empires. This one is fact,
> BTW.
Did you see the show about Billy Meier, the Alien Autopsy Film, and other
hoaxes on Fox last night?
> I've considered making inroads into formalising some of the smaller
> associations I have either country, or Worldwide, but I have neither
> the time nor the energy to devote to an ultimately fruitless
> endeavour. One of the major problems is that you can't change
> people's expectations, beliefs or ideas, firstly because you
> shouldn't, but more importantly because they're generally stubborn in
> thinking that they're right. I don't have that problem as I _know_
> I'm right.
I am not concerned with changing peoples' minds, and no scientific
research should have that as an objective. Instead, I am interested in
finding out the truth about *some* UFO's, whether the ETH is true or not,
and publishing that information in a reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific
journal.
> That was actually a joke, and I'm pointing that out for the humourless
> that occasion this group.
I think that a good sense of humor, on the part of some, would help to
reduce the general level of flaming on this NG.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
> > I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly
> > through a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data
> > on the sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
> It is either a comet or an asteroid, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
> forget the details, but I've heard about it.
I think we have 2 different probes, 1 to a comet, and 1 to Eros, which is
a large Earth-crossing astroid. Nemesis may be the one that's going to
Eros. Another poster said that the one to the comet won't go until 2012,
which is a ways off yet. I hope I'm still around to see the results.
> > Personally, I hope that you are eventually
> > proven correct. I just don't think that has happened, yet.
>
> Proof is in the eye of the beholder, there is still a flat earth
> society.
Sure, and their is a Procrastinator's Club, which hasn't had their 1992
convention yet. That doesn't mean that the members take it seriously.
> Even if we get a actual alien body, I'm sure some will say it is a
> fraud, or a demon, or perhaps a genetically manufactured being, time
> traveler, or what ever.
All those possibilities must be considered (except maybe demon), and
eliminated, of course. But, if the body comes out of a crashed
spacecraft, that would go a long way to proving it is an ET.
> People interpret things in their own light. I hope sometime very soon,
> we will have the goods on this alien business. I don't plan on studying
> this thing for too much longer. If it doesn't show up, I will go on
> doing other things.
I don't expend any large portion of my time keeping up with the UFO
issue. I am interested, and try to stay current, but I have a life of my
own and other interests, some of which demand more time. That doesn't
mean that I will ever give up my interest in UFO's.
> I am interested in the "implants". What do you think of them so far?
I am interested in the whole abduction phenomenon, whether or not it is
actually related to the UFO issue. As for the implants, I have seen
photos and X-rays of some. None of them have been particularly
intriguing to me. Frankly, they look like metallic slivers/splinters
that, in most cases, could easily have been inserted by the implantee or
an another person.
> I watched it. I was dismayed by a lot of it. Not that I think what they
> presented was legit, just by the way they hyped stuff up as if they
> were the ones that exposed this stuff.
That's typical of such sensationalistic shows. Unfortunately, that's
about the *only* kind of show that ever deals with the UFO issue. More
bad Rep. that needs to be dealt with.
> I've known the Mier thing was a hoax, for awhile.
Most of us have, but these kinds of shows seem to like to re-hash old
news a lot.
> I knew about the Sea Monster touch ups too.
Likewise.
> It would have been nice to see Patterson on the Payroll of that
> production co. instead of hearsay.
Agreed.
> The guy that was supposedly in the suit, said that it wasn't him.
> I could go on...... but won't other than saying, "Duh, the alien
> autopsies a fraud". Hey, thank you Fox for showing me this, the 3rd or
> 4th time around. Hope they made a good bit of money off of it.
Hey, it's a dead time for TV. They needed *something* to fill air time.
> > Did it ever occur to you that some people were looking around for
> > other stuff, just to build a better case for the face? Isn't
> > Hoagland the same guy who said that there were big towers on the
> > Moon?
> Yes that occurred to me. Jesse Marcel jr. had a pic of one of
> these"towers" at a symposium I went to. He didn't endorse the idea,
> he was just curious about it it seems.
I think that Jesse Jr. is trying to use his father's story to gain fame
for himself. It's a pity that so many people are so desperate for their
15 minutes (a la Andy Warhol).
> I'm not sure if Dick talks about the towers. I know Dick debated Ed
> Mitchel on the glass houses (snicker) on the moon.
I thought that the towers and the glass houses all came from the same
pictures.
> It wasn't Dick's work on the Mars face that I thought was as plausible
> as other people's. I never purchased his video or anything. I knew
> about his theories due to interviews with him and other people's
> comments about him.
Good. He's not living off of me either.
> I wasn't sure what the Mars face was.
I wasn't absolutely positive, but my opinion was that the chances of it
being artificial were negligible.
> > I thought that the area was interesting enough to justify getting
> > some better photos of it, from a geological point of view. I
> > considered the possibility that the formations might be artificial,
> > but could find no reason at all to think so. When it comes to guess
> > work, it's better to guess on the side of the mundane than the
> > bizarre.
> If every one did that, I doubt we would have went and got the pics.
There are plenty of *really* interesting things in this solar system to
study without having to make up stories about Martian faces. The problem
for a lot of people is that they are not interested in ordinary old
scientific questions. Instead, they have to have stories about little
green men building giant pyramids to get their attention. What a pity.
We were going anyway. We got pics anyway. It's not like they sent a
whole mission, just to find out about Cydonia. Don't read any more into
it than is there.
> It is the guy who is lofty and says "There is gold in that cave" that
> is more likely to go look for it. He may or may not find it.
And, if another guy says, "No gold, but some very interesting artifacts
from an ancient race who lived there thousands of years ago.", then the
gold hunters may leave it alone long enough for the archaeologists to
actually *learn* something.
> > If he actually believes what he is writing, he's not just crooked,
> > but crazy as well.
>
> My judgements differ slightly.
That's why God gave us separate brains. 8-]
> > If that's what turns you on, I guess it qualifies as entertainment.
> > But, personally, I find it pretty boring.
> I actually like the farting contests, And the prank calls, and the
> honesty and forth rightness of the show. The chicks aren't bad either.
> Plus, it beats a lot of the other radio shows that are on. It can get
> old at times as you've mentioned, and boring.
The only radio I listen to is the local oldies station (KOMA, 1520 AM).
I got burned out on talk radio a long time ago.
Richard
Vasynchuk Serhiy Mykolajovych
new year is coming
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Brother Blue wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:27:07 -0000, "akasu37" <ekx9...@okhotsk.or.jp>
> wrote:
>
> >Is there UFO realy?
>
> You mean Martians...? Flying Saucers...?
>
> No.
>
> These are merely cultural artifacts; an inacurate transliteration of
> ancient and enduring transmundane phenomena viewed through the
> societally inculcated perceptual matrix of our times -- through the
> goggles of STNG's Geordi LaForge, if you will.
>
> Had you asked, however, are there elfs or faeries or gnomes or
> leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
>> Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
>> > I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly
>> > through a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data
>> > on the sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
>
>> It is either a comet or an asteroid, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
>> forget the details, but I've heard about it.
>
>I think we have 2 different probes, 1 to a comet, and 1 to Eros, which is
>a large Earth-crossing astroid. Nemesis may be the one that's going to
>Eros. <snip>
The NEAR spacecraft just passed Eros and photoed it. The
orbiting of it didn't work out and they hope to orbit it now
in either mid 1999 or 2000.
"It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
(Jerome K. Jerome)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snip>
>Unfortunately, the hoaxers seem to be making more money than the serious
>researchers,
How true.
>and finding backing for UFO research isn't easy, especially
>in these days of Govt. cutbacks.
Agreed. The hoaxers and the wackos selling books make it
difficult to get funding if you have a legitimate research
proposal.
I agree with the Condon Conclusion that any serious
researcher who has a concrete research proposal should
receive the same consideration as anyone else in getting
funding.
The reputation of UFOlogy, largely deserved, makes this
difficult.
>If backing were available, I can be
>ready to go as of February 1, 1999, 'cause I'm joining Twitch in the
>ranks of the retired. 8-]
>
And a welcome addition you will be, Richard!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <36873FAC...@no-s.pam>, John No Spam <jo...@no-s.pam> wrote:
>
>> Maybe they are one in the same. Elfs or faeries or gnomes or
>> leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
>> angels/daemons are desriptions of what we now call aliens. Due to the
>> knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
>> although inaccurate.
>
>Yeah, right. Don't forget that Trolls were considered to live under
>bridges and incubi would sneak up on women and have sex with them as they
>slept. Leprechauns gave you good luck and vampires looked more or less
>human.
>
>Doesn't fit the "grey" mold very well...
The descriptions don't but the pattern of sightings actually
do.
A survey of UFOlogists at a UFO conference showed the
following:
The UFO phenomenon is attibutable to:
"An exterrestrial source - 53%
Other - 53%
No Answer - 4%
A civilization on Earth - 2%"
(Mulitple answers were permitted and are included)
What was other? Mostly they were regarding the paranormal.
The pro-paranormal UFO investigators insisted that the ETH
was not the answer and that UFOs were psychic apparations.
"Strong parallels can also be drawn between the appearance
and behavior of UFOnauts and the fairy/gnome/elf legends of
earlier times. Both phenomena speak of diminutive creatures
with large heads and eyes, even pointed ears. Sightings of
both UFOs and fairies have:
*** come in waves
*** had mulitple witnesses
*** been reported all over the world
*** included close encounters
*** produced alleged photos
*** indirect association with circular patches on the ground
*** frequently disappeared as ascending reddish fireballs
*** had civilian groups collect reports of "sightings"
Consequently, some figures in the UFO community have
proposed that a single paranormal source is responsible for
both UFOs AND the fairies of an earlier period. Since our
cultural context has changed from a close relationship with
nature to a technological space age, it is submitted that
the fairies have NOW assumed the guise of "UFOnauts" to be
RELEVENT TO THE TIMES."
From book on CUFOS study of UFOs.
Rob Warren
>
> Brother Blue <Blue...@bb.gov.mil> wrote:
>
> : You mean Martians...? Flying Saucers...?
>
> : No.
>
> life on other planets just based on those in our
> own solar system? 1 solar system does not make a
> convincing statistical sample at all.
>
> I saw 11 kangaroos while I was down-under. 8 were dead,
> run over by cars, only 3 were alive. Can I then conclude
> that most kangaroos in Australia are dead?
Scientifically there is a distinction between SETI research and the whole "UFO"
craze. A world of distinction.
Everything in science comes down to reliability of information sources. Truth
is, there isn't a whole lot of credibility in the UFO movement.
Rob
--
ICQ : 20237214 AOL: Aleris23
Email: ale...@iag.net
Site : .. coming soon ..
Rob Warren
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:27:07 -0000, "akasu37" <ekx9...@okhotsk.or.jp>
> wrote:
>
> >Is there UFO realy?
>
>
> No.
>
> ancient and enduring transmundane phenomena viewed through the
> societally inculcated perceptual matrix of our times -- through the
> goggles of STNG's Geordi LaForge, if you will.
>
> leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
> of the larger historical bandwidth -- would be a resounding yes.
That's one theory, one of the more popular ones lately.
There are others.
Brother Blue
<sem...@Class.Class.Lviv.UA> wrote:
>new year is coming
Wow -- you sure have a LOT of consonants in your name!
Are you a Martian?
Harry Bosch
>
> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Unfortunately, the hoaxers seem to be making more money than the serious
> >researchers,
>
> How true.
>
> >and finding backing for UFO research isn't easy, especially
> >in these days of Govt. cutbacks.
>
> Agreed. The hoaxers and the wackos selling books make it
> difficult to get funding if you have a legitimate research
> proposal.
>
> I agree with the Condon Conclusion that any serious
> researcher who has a concrete research proposal should
> receive the same consideration as anyone else in getting
> funding.
>
> The reputation of UFOlogy, largely deserved, makes this
> difficult.
>
> >If backing were available, I can be
> >ready to go as of February 1, 1999, 'cause I'm joining Twitch in the
> >ranks of the retired. 8-]
> >
> And a welcome addition you will be, Richard!
>
> of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
> (Jerome K. Jerome)
Right on Richard, hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
Regards,
Harry
--
==========================================
If light travels at 186,000 miles per sec.
What's the speed of dark?
har...@chatlink.com
==========================================
Lou Minatti™
>
> new year is coming
I bet Vasynchuk Serhiy Mykolajovych is easy for you to say.
--
The few. The proud. The Fighters For Frager!
http://www.watchingyou.com/frager.html
Join us and save the world!
Polar Bear
: Scientifically there is a distinction between SETI research and the whole "UFO"
: craze. A world of distinction.
: Everything in science comes down to reliability of information sources. Truth
: is, there isn't a whole lot of credibility in the UFO movement.
True. Unfortunately I've yet to see enough proof that they
*don't* exist. So I'm keeping an open mind to it.
God Bless,
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
what you mean is are there artificial objects from other worlds visiting
our planet I would say no. Others disagree.
tim gueguen 101867
Aaron LeClair
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> >
> >> > I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly
> >> > through a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data
> >> > on the sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
> >
> >> It is either a comet or an asteroid, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
> >> forget the details, but I've heard about it.
> >
> >I think we have 2 different probes, 1 to a comet, and 1 to Eros, which is
> >a large Earth-crossing astroid. Nemesis may be the one that's going to
> >Eros. <snip>
>
> The NEAR spacecraft just passed Eros and photoed it. The
> orbiting of it didn't work out and they hope to orbit it now
> in either mid 1999 or 2000.
>
> "It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
> of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
> (Jerome K. Jerome)
That's it. I knew it started with a Ne.
Richard Caldwell
From: Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk>
> Well, imagine it for a moment. The banks will want to know what to do
> with their currency, they'll be a trade deficit the size of
> Holeflapper's lunacy, and they'll be contacted by every intelligence
> service offering large amounts of raw materials to off the oppositions
> weaponry from orbit. SALT never mentioned anything about
> extraterrestrials.
Yes, there would be some issues to be resolved, especially if they wanted
to start trading with us immediately. I would hope that contact would be
limited to an exchange of scientific Info. and researchers, to study each
other's culture to begin with.
Commercial trade would have to wait for a while. Also, there would have
to be a treaty banning their participation in all military/political
activities signed by them and all the members of the UN. Sort of a
self-imposed "Prime Directive".
> Despite my fond wishes, I hope they stay well away from this little
> mudball, because if they got off-planet, they're doing better than us.
No question that they would be more advanced than us, at least in some
areas of technology. However, it is possible that we might be more
advanced than them, in some areas.
> Of course, they could have solved their problem by whacking their
> politicians, in which case I'd ask for a demonstration...
Since politicians are just lawyers that made C's in law school, why not
get rid of most of the A's, B's, and D's too, while we're at it? 8-]
> The last two letters in the Email address should answer that question
> for you. We have yet be recognised in our unofficial status as the
> fifty-second state, although it would be preferable over the threat of
> having to speak french.
I agree with the part about French, but I thought that the Fox Network
might make it to the UK now, what with satellites and all.
> Oh, come on. _All_ scientific research is about changing people's
> minds, most notably those of other scientists.
No, some research is actually into areas that are totally unknown, and
for which there are *no* established opinions in place, only guesses.
However, for the most part, I agree with you.
> Follow the Big Bang/Steady State debate for an interesting viewpoint of
> angry cosmology.
Yes, Einstein was a Steady State fan.
> However, UFOlogy is not a science.
Obviously. It is simply a mystery that science might be able to help
answer some questions about.
> UFOlogy is a pseudoscience that tends to attract attention as a
> microcosm of human behaviour.
As currently practiced, I agree.
> Attempts to shift UFOlogy into a scientific frame have met with
> resistance from the peanut gallery. See how Paul Hill's book is
> used as a reference point _without_ any real critical analysis,
> when half of the bloody thing is outright speculation, and
> out-of-date speculation at that.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that science can't be applied to the
question of UFO's.
> I agree on your final point, but I think you may be shooting too high
> in that as Twitch points out, the whole idea of UFOlogy is repugnant
> to scientists, but even more repugnant to those that control the purse
> strings.
I don't think it is really all that repugnant to all scientists. I know
some who are interested in it, but they are afraid to express their
interest openly, because of the stigma attached to the subject. It is
that stigma that we must work to eliminate.
As for the purse strings, those bean counters are opposed to *any*
research that doesn't have a promise of substantial return on investment.
After we are done with the lawyers, we need to start in on the
accountants and auditors. 8-]
> >I think that a good sense of humor, on the part of some, would help to
> >reduce the general level of flaming on this NG.
> 'Course it would. However, it requires a certain kind of sense of
> humour as well.
I'm not particular. Any flavor is better than none at all. 8-]
Richard
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>Vasynchuk Serhiy Mykolajovych wrote:
>>
>> new year is coming
>
>I bet Vasynchuk Serhiy Mykolajovych is easy for you to say.
>
If you say it backwards very quickly, it is proof that the
greys are about to attack.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>> >
>> >> Richard Caldwell wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly
>> >> > through a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data
>> >> > on the sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
>> >
>> >> It is either a comet or an asteroid, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
>> >> forget the details, but I've heard about it.
>> >
>> >I think we have 2 different probes, 1 to a comet, and 1 to Eros, which is
>> >a large Earth-crossing astroid. Nemesis may be the one that's going to
>> >Eros. <snip>
>>
>> The NEAR spacecraft just passed Eros and photoed it. The
>> orbiting of it didn't work out and they hope to orbit it now
>> in either mid 1999 or 2000.
>>
>> "It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless
>> of course, you are an exceptionally good liar."
>> (Jerome K. Jerome)
>
> That's it. I knew it started with a Ne.
>
The latest press release that I have seen was the following:
The Next Rendezvous Maneuver
December 28, 1998
http://near.jhuapl.edu/news/flash/98dec28_1.html
On Dec. 27, 1998, both NASA and The Johns Hopkins
Applied Physics Laboratory agreed that the NEAR
spacecraft will attempt a rendezvous maneuver during a
window of opportunity opening Dec. 31, 1998, and closing on
Jan. 10, 1999. A successful maneuver during this
period will allow the NEAR spacecraft to begin its orbit
around asteroid Eros in Feb. 2000.
All indications are that the spacecraft and
instruments are operating properly.
Aaron LeClair
caught the end of it though.
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> >> >
> >> >> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I think we recently launched a probe that was/is supposed to fly
> >> >> > through a comet's tail, capture some of the gas, and send back data
> >> >> > on the sample, but I don't think that has happened yet.
> >> >
> >> >> It is either a comet or an asteroid, I forget. Is it called Nemesis? I
> >> >> forget the details, but I've heard about it.
> >> >
> >> >I think we have 2 different probes, 1 to a comet, and 1 to Eros, which is
> >> >a large Earth-crossing astroid. Nemesis may be the one that's going to
Richard Caldwell
I said in my "UFO Evidence" thread that I wanted to discuss this issue in
a separate thread, so here goes. It's not really as big an issue as the
subject of UFO evidence, in general, but it is an argument that I see
used on a.a.v. a lot, and I think it deserves to be rebutted in a more
general fashion, rather than just pointing it out as false each time that
it is used.
Some ETH proponents and "believers" on a.a.v. seem to like to try to put
the ball into the skeptics' court by asking the skeptics to come up with
a better hypothesis than the ETH to explain the core UFO cases.
Essentially, the argument goes along the lines of:
"I say that this UFO is an alien spacecraft, and if you say it isn't,
then you have to come up with an explanation that fits the evidence
better than the ETH." Or, as I like to call it, the "What else could it
be?" argument.
The point is that the skeptics are not arguing that a given UFO case is
not strong enough to qualify as solid evidence for the ETH, and that,
therefore, rather than accept it as inadequate ETH evidence (my Category
3), it should remain in the "unknown" category (my Category 2). In other
words, it is good evidence for UFO's, but there is not enough information
for it to make the leap to being good evidence for alien spacecraft.
The ETH proponents, and more often the "believers" seem to think that if
one can't explain something, then it must have an extra-terrestrial
cause. However, at the same time, they are always pointing out how much
we don't know about how the universe works. If that is the case, then
there is surely enough room in our ignorance to allow for terrestrial
phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
So, rather than force these cases into an 'either/or' situation WRT the
ETH, I, and other skeptics, would prefer to give them the benefit of the
doubt and leave them in the 'maybe-yes/maybe-no' situation and say that
the jury is still out.
I agree that this is a matter of interpretation, and the ETH proponents
are certainly free to draw their own conclusions. So, my suggestion is
to say, "We agree to disagree." and go on, rather than get into a flame
war over something that can never be resolved without more information.
Richard
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> I said in my "UFO Evidence" thread that I wanted to discuss this issue in
> a separate thread, so here goes. It's not really as big an issue as the
> subject of UFO evidence, in general, but it is an argument that I see
> used on a.a.v. a lot, and I think it deserves to be rebutted in a more
> general fashion, rather than just pointing it out as false each time that
> it is used.
>
> Some ETH proponents and "believers" on a.a.v. seem to like to try to put
> the ball into the skeptics' court by asking the skeptics to come up with
> a better hypothesis than the ETH to explain the core UFO cases.
>
> Essentially, the argument goes along the lines of:
>
> "I say that this UFO is an alien spacecraft, and if you say it isn't,
> then you have to come up with an explanation that fits the evidence
> better than the ETH." Or, as I like to call it, the "What else could it
> be?" argument.
What else could it be, is a good question, if you were to ask me.
>
>
> The point is that the skeptics are not arguing that a given UFO case is
> not strong enough to qualify as solid evidence for the ETH, and that,
> therefore, rather than accept it as inadequate ETH evidence (my Category
I'm a little confused about the wording you used. Did you mean to have 2
"nots" in the above paragraph?
> 3), it should remain in the "unknown" category (my Category 2).
I liked it when Don Berliner mentioned in effect how science is suppose to
explain things, but when it comes to ufos, they act as if labeling something
unknown, or unidentified, is an explaination.
I agree with you in some cases, if you do not use the eth, it is unknown.
That is one reason why I use the eth. I use the label 'undetermined' when
more than one explaination works, or the data is insufficient.
> In other
> words, it is good evidence for UFO's, but there is not enough information
> for it to make the leap to being good evidence for alien spacecraft.
Then I would consider it insufficent data, or undetermined.
>
>
> The ETH proponents, and more often the "believers" seem to think that if
> one can't explain something, then it must have an extra-terrestrial
> cause.
"Something"? you mean any something in general? No people like that come
to mind. Hopefully you are refering to sighting reports of u.f.o.s Many use
a form of deduction. That is, when all else fails, use the only concievable
thing that is left, until something else comes along. Then insert foot in the
mouth if you feel like it. I've seen people, conclude it is alien due to a
belief that what they saw, is way in advance of human tech. In some cases,
due to the little guys on board the thing.
> However, at the same time, they are always pointing out how much
> we don't know about how the universe works. If that is the case, then
> there is surely enough room in our ignorance to allow for terrestrial
> phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
Sure.
>
>
> So, rather than force these cases into an 'either/or' situation WRT the
> ETH, I, and other skeptics, would prefer to give them the benefit of the
> doubt and leave them in the 'maybe-yes/maybe-no' situation and say that
> the jury is still out.
Ok.
I hope you guys get your alien body and good piece of wreckage some day.
>
>
> I agree that this is a matter of interpretation, and the ETH proponents
> are certainly free to draw their own conclusions. So, my suggestion is
> to say, "We agree to disagree."
I'm not ok, and your not ok, and thas alright.
Rabbe Fogelholm
says...
>
> I said in my "UFO Evidence" thread that I wanted to discuss this issue in
> a separate thread, so here goes. It's not really as big an issue as the
> subject of UFO evidence, in general, but it is an argument that I see
> used on a.a.v. a lot, and I think it deserves to be rebutted in a more
> general fashion, rather than just pointing it out as false each time that
> it is used.
>
> Some ETH proponents and "believers" on a.a.v. seem to like to try to put
> the ball into the skeptics' court by asking the skeptics to come up with
> a better hypothesis than the ETH to explain the core UFO cases.
>
> Essentially, the argument goes along the lines of:
>
> "I say that this UFO is an alien spacecraft, and if you say it isn't,
> then you have to come up with an explanation that fits the evidence
> better than the ETH." Or, as I like to call it, the "What else could it
> be?" argument.
>
> not strong enough to qualify as solid evidence for the ETH, and that,
> therefore, rather than accept it as inadequate ETH evidence (my Category
> for it to make the leap to being good evidence for alien spacecraft.
>
> one can't explain something, then it must have an extra-terrestrial
> there is surely enough room in our ignorance to allow for terrestrial
> phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
This is definitely a sensible position. However, to me it is
interesting only in the context of existing UFO reports. Put it this
way, if all UFO reports from this century could be turned IFOs by
careful scrutiny then I would probably have left this NG by now.
I thus think it is important to apply openness to alternate hypotheses
to "really difficult" UFO events.
What is "really difficult"? To me it is a report that is credible,
contains observations well above limits of human perception,
is ETH-compatible, and as yet unidentified.
By ETH-compatible I mean that the report *could be* explained in terms
of one or several mobile vehicles controlled by non-human intelligent
entities. Loosely speaking, ETH as we know it from cartoons and other
UFO reports of varying credibility.
Here is a really difficult UFO event, it seems to me. It contains,
among other data, a small element of my favourite ET-vehicle
fingerprint, namely EM disturbances:
http://home.fuse.net/ufo/Trumbull_Index.htm
I propose the ETH to explain it. "What else could it be?". I welcome
skeptics and believers alike to propose alternate hypotheses. I will
consider all hypotheses with great interest.
--Rabbe Fogelholm, Sollentuna, Sweden
> So, rather than force these cases into an 'either/or' situation WRT the
> ETH, I, and other skeptics, would prefer to give them the benefit of the
> doubt and leave them in the 'maybe-yes/maybe-no' situation and say that
> the jury is still out.
>
> I agree that this is a matter of interpretation, and the ETH proponents
> are certainly free to draw their own conclusions. So, my suggestion is
> to say, "We agree to disagree." and go on, rather than get into a flame
Steve Zinski
> Personally, if even *some* of what we hear from (alleged) abductees
> is true, I wouldn't call them too damned friendly.
What strikes me odd is that they [the aliens] always seem to release
their victims the way the Game Department tags and releases animals. If
they were truly evil beings they would abduct an individual, perform
their horrific experiments, then simply allow them to die.
--Steve
--
===========================================================
To reply via email, remove one 'r' from my address:
szi...@rrichmond.edu
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> What else could it be, is a good question, if you were to ask me.
I agree. It is a *very* good question. In fact, it is the central
question of this newsgroup. My point is that, "I don't know." is a
perfectly good answer to that question. One is not *required* to have a
better answer, and the default is *not* "alien spacecraft".
>> The point is that the skeptics are [not] arguing that a given UFO case
>> is strong enough to qualify as solid evidence for the ETH, and
>> that, therefore, rather than accept it as inadequate ETH evidence
>> (my Category
> I'm a little confused about the wording you used. Did you mean to
> have 2 "nots" in the above paragraph?
No, the one that I enclosed in brackets should not have been there. I
sometimes get ahead of myself when writing an article. After all, I can
think a lot faster than I can type. 8-]
> > 3), it should remain in the "unknown" category (my Category 2).
> I liked it when Don Berliner mentioned in effect how science is
> suppose to explain things, but when it comes to ufos, they act as if
> labeling something unknown, or unidentified, is an explaination.
There are a *lot* of things that science has not yet explained, and still
have the label "unknown" hanging on them. Science is often slow and
methodical in the way it attacks such questions.
For one thing, it is often obvious that we can't make any headway until
we figure out how to gather more data. In the case of astronomy or
cosmology, that may mean that we have to wait until we can send an
unmanned probe or even a manned mission to a particular body. The
astronomers just have to be patient.
In the case of UFO's, we need to come up with a way to gather hard
evidence in some sort of predictable fashion. I have often used the
"tornado chasers" that operate out of the NSSL, a couple miles from my
house, as a parallel. They don't know when there will be a tornado to
study. But, at least they have a good idea where to base their vans, and
what time of year to be ready to roll. If similar programs could be set
up to track and study UFO's, we might get some better data.
Unfortunately, the bad reputation that UFOlogy suffers from has caused
ligitimate scientists to avoid it like the plague. They don't want to be
painted with the stigma of "crack-pot". I *hate* that, and even more, I
*hate* the hoaxers and charlatans that have caused it.
> I agree with you in some cases, if you do not use the eth, it is
> unknown. That is one reason why I use the eth. I use the label
> 'undetermined' when more than one explaination works, or the data is
> insufficient.
So, our only difference is our judgment of when the "data is
insufficient". Evidently, you think that, for some cases, the data is
sufficient to merit an ETH conclusion. I do not.
> > In other words, it is good evidence for UFO's, but there is not
> > enough information for it to make the leap to being good evidence for
> > alien spacecraft.
> Then I would consider it insufficent data, or undetermined.
That's what I am saying.
> > The ETH proponents, and more often the "believers" seem to think that
> > if one can't explain something, then it must have an
> > extra-terrestrial cause.
> "Something"? you mean any something in general?
No, I mean a UFO "something".
> No people like that come to mind. Hopefully you are refering to
> sighting reports of u.f.o.s
Yes.
> Many use a form of deduction. That is, when all else fails, use the
> only concievable thing that is left, until something else comes along.
My argument is that "only conceivable thing" is far too subjective to be
useful. If one is pre-disposed to look for "liggle green men", then that
will be the "only conceivable thing". My point is that there is *no*
requirement that we hang *any* explanation on a particular case. It is
perfectly OK to leave it as "undetermined", rather than classify it as an
ETH case, just because someone can't think of anything better. Our own
ability to imagine possible causes should not be the ultimate yardstick
of the truth.
> Then insert foot in the mouth if you feel like it. I've seen people,
> conclude it is alien due to a belief that what they saw, is way in
> advance of human tech.
If you assume that a stange light dancing in the sky is an artificial
craft, it is easy to assert that it has abilities far beyond those of any
terrestrial aircraft. However, I can shine a light on a wall and move it
around in such a way that it will have those abilities too. If you can't
prove that the UFO was an artifact, then its "performance" is irrelevant.
> In some cases, due to the little guys on board the thing.
If one actually *sees* beings through portholes, that is certainly hard
to argue with. If those "beings" are humanoid, then my first assumption
must be that they are humans. I have no reason to suspect that aliens
would be humanoid. I think that this anthropomorphism is just a matter
of physio-centric thinking. In other words, "Anything that's smart must
look something like us." 8-]
Also, all the "little guys in the windows" cases that I know of have
turned out to be hoaxes, or it has turned out that the portholes and
occupants were the products of vivid imaginations.
> > However, at the same time, they are always pointing out how much
> > we don't know about how the universe works. If that is the case,
> > then there is surely enough room in our ignorance to allow for
> > terrestrial phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
> Sure.
> > So, rather than force these cases into an 'either/or' situation WRT
> > the ETH, I, and other skeptics, would prefer to give them the benefit
> > of the doubt and leave them in the 'maybe-yes/maybe-no' situation and
> > say that the jury is still out.
> Ok.
>
> I hope you guys get your alien body and good piece of wreckage some
> day.
Damn! Me too. Personally, I'd prefer that they just land somewhere and
hold a press conference. I'd prefer a *live* alien, that we could ask
questions of, to a dead body.
> > I agree that this is a matter of interpretation, and the ETH
> > proponents are certainly free to draw their own conclusions.
> > So, my suggestion is to say, "We agree to disagree."
> I'm not ok, and your not ok, and thas alright.
OK. 8-]
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Steve Zinski <nos...@see.sig.to.reply>
> On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 07:37:43 -0600, Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > Personally, if even *some* of what we hear from (alleged) abductees
> > is true, I wouldn't call them too damned friendly.
>
> What strikes me odd is that they [the aliens] always seem to release
> their victims the way the Game Department tags and releases animals.
> If they were truly evil beings they would abduct an individual,
> perform their horrific experiments, then simply allow them to die.
>
> --Steve
If they were *truly* evil, people would simply disappear, and never be
heard from again. Why bother to bring them back? Just dump the body in
the incinerator, or feed it to the family pet, when you're done with it.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Rabbe Fogelholm <Rabbe.F...@ellemtel.se>
> This is definitely a sensible position. However, to me it is
> interesting only in the context of existing UFO reports. Put it this
> way, if all UFO reports from this century could be turned IFOs by
> careful scrutiny then I would probably have left this NG by now.
Likewise.
> I thus think it is important to apply openness to alternate hypotheses
> to "really difficult" UFO events.
Agreed. However, some people seem to think that the ETH is the *only*
"alternate hypothesis" worthy of consideration. It is that attitude that
I am disagreeing with here.
> What is "really difficult"? To me it is a report that is credible,
> contains observations well above limits of human perception,
> is ETH-compatible, and as yet unidentified.
Yup. That's a good UFO case.
> By ETH-compatible I mean that the report *could be* explained in terms
> of one or several mobile vehicles controlled by non-human intelligent
> entities. Loosely speaking, ETH as we know it from cartoons and other
> UFO reports of varying credibility.
Sure, the ETH is *one* possible hypothesis for these cases. I don't deny
that. What I do argue with is the assertion that it is the *only*
possible hypothesis. Just because we can't dream up anything else
doesn't mean that no other explanation exists.
In fact, people have posted ideas *other* than the ETH on this newsgroup,
and it is amusing to watch the UFO "believers" attack them without mercy,
in the same way that they accuse the skeptics of attacking them.
> Here is a really difficult UFO event, it seems to me. It contains,
> among other data, a small element of my favourite ET-vehicle
> fingerprint, namely EM disturbances:
>
> http://home.fuse.net/ufo/Trumbull_Index.htm
>
> I propose the ETH to explain it. "What else could it be?". I welcome
> skeptics and believers alike to propose alternate hypotheses. I will
> consider all hypotheses with great interest.
Most of what I read was talk about AF coverups and interactions between
the local police and various other Govt. agencies. Very little of what I
read had anything to say about the actual UFO, except to say that whoever
was witnessing it didn't know what it was. Hopefully, some of the
regulars on this NG have read books/articles about this case and can
summarize the particulars for us. I am not interested in any Govt.
cover-up conspiracy speculation. I want to know physical descriptions of
the UFO(s) and its/their behavior.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
> <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> put paid to all suspicions, thus:
> >Yes, there would be some issues to be resolved, especially if they
> >wanted to start trading with us immediately. I would hope that
> >contact would be limited to an exchange of scientific Info. and
> >researchers, to study each other's culture to begin with.
>
> Even this would cause a vast destabilisation in that there are
> currently debates about the copyright on sections of the human genome
> to the extent where people with immunities should consider taking out
> trademarks. Imagine the change in research topics _overnight_ as very
> human greed drives the effort to get to the new toys.
No question about it. However, our genetics may only be of interest to
the aliens from a research perspective. It may not be of any practical
use to them, in which case this selling of genes thing may be strictly an
in-house market.
> Even the most cursory of primary contacts could be fraught with
> danger. We've been spoilt by the rubber-bits aliens of so many TV
> shows that we expect them to learn mid-west american and generally
> respect human values. Imagine a race that practises the culling of
> it's own larval stage, or one that recycles it's dead.
Absolutely. There is the chance of all sorts of cultural, economic,
religious, and other conflicts between our species and theirs. That's
why I think that contact should by *very* limited, at first. I would
hope that scientists, on both sides, could be prepared, mentally, for
these differences. I am certain that the "man on the street" would not
be, which could lead to all sorts of strange, and possibly dangerous
situations.
> Imagine that those details filtered down to the public.
We wouldn't want to just publish that sort of thing in Time/Newsweek,
without come careful consideration, would we. 8-]
> >Commercial trade would have to wait for a while. Also, there would
> >have to be a treaty banning their participation in all
> >military/political activities signed by them and all the members of
> >the UN. Sort of a self-imposed "Prime Directive".
>
> Ah, the UN. "Stop or I'll shout stop again."
> Problem being that the UN has never had the power to stop or censure
> _covert_ activity of any kind, which is why it's covert. <shrug>
>
> In fact, the UN has never had the power to uphold any of it's current
> notices, and would be largely ineffectual at stopping such a thing.
I didn't mean to imply that the UN would be the sole enforcer of this
treaty, only that it would be the logical contact point to get all the
nations of the Earth to sign the treaty. Of course, there would be
attempts by some countries to circumvent the treaty, in order to gain an
unfair advantage over others. That's human nature, unfortunately.
It would be up to the aliens to enforce the treaty, by refusing to deal
with *anybody* except through approved, controlled channels. So, if the
aliens are sneaky, untrustworthy, greedy, blood-thirsty, or have any
other bad intentions, we're screwed. Of course, if that is true, we're
screwed anyway. They'll exploit us as they will, with our without our
Govt's. cooperation.
> >No question that they would be more advanced than us, at least in some
> >areas of technology. However, it is possible that we might be more
> >advanced than them, in some areas.
> Possibly true, although I don't generally hold with the idea that you
> can be more sophisticated in certain areas. I imagine that the only
> possible advantages would be in physical/biological terms.
Agreed. Although, I suppose it would be possible for us to be more
advanced in something like artificial intelligence or something like
that, but I doubt it.
> >Since politicians are just lawyers that made C's in law school, why
> >not get rid of most of the A's, B's, and D's too, while we're at it?
8-]
> Considering I have lawyer problems at the moment, I'll go for that...
There's no such thing as "lawyer blessings". 8-]
> >I agree with the part about French, but I thought that the Fox Network
> >might make it to the UK now, what with satellites and all.
> Ah, well, they might have, but I can't tell. I have to stick with the
> normal five channels for a moment...
So, you have 5 broadcast channels in the UK? In my area, we have 4 VHF
channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS) and 2 or 3 UHF channels. Since I am on the
cable, I sometimes have trouble telling the difference between local
channels and some cable channels. The Fox Network is carried by one of
the local UHF channels, while the other carries UPN.
> >No, some research is actually into areas that are totally unknown, and
> >for which there are *no* established opinions in place, only guesses.
> >However, for the most part, I agree with you.
> But those guesses are opinions in their own right, hence you get very
> public fights between scientists, such as Dawkins and Jay Gould. The
> only reason for having those arguments is to curry support.
Sure, even scientists are human. Part of science is defending your
opinions in an open debate. So, you try to sell your ideas to as many
peers as possible. If this is done in a fair, honest, and civilized way,
there's nothing wrong with it. However, boys will be boys, and they
don't always play nice. 8-]
> >Yes, Einstein was a Steady State fan.
>
> He just got the willies whenever anyone mentioned 'infinity'.
Hubble and someone else (I forget his name) had to almost tie him to a
chair to get him to listen to the evidence for the Hubble Effect, which
shows that the universe is expanding, and which Einstein refused to
believe until they hit him in the face with the proof. That just proves
that *all* scientists have their biases, even the revolutionaries.
> >Sure. But that doesn't mean that science can't be applied to the
> >question of UFO's.
>
> Absolutely not, which is one of the reasons I'm here. However, we've
> gotten past the point where you can positively _train_ people to be
> critical about sightings, hence my comment about accusing witnesses of
> misidentification as being akin to stamping on puppies.
No matter how well-trained they are, witnesses will still mis-identify
things, especially if there is a lot of emotional baggage associated with
the subject. You must admit that there is all sorts of emotional baggage
associated with the UFO issue. Still, I read some witness reports that
sound very objective. It's nice to be able to read the actual report, as
opposed to someone's *interpretation* of that report.
> >I don't think it is really all that repugnant to all scientists.
> >I know some who are interested in it, but they are afraid to express
> >their interest openly, because of the stigma attached to the subject.
> >It is that stigma that we must work to eliminate.
>
> I don't honestly think that it can be done. UFOlogy is established as
> one of those areas that people simply accept despite there being
> little evidence to back up it's 'reality', a lot like horoscopes.
> I do read my sun-signs, however. <g>
My wife reads them. I sometimes laugh at them, but usually ignore them.
To me, they have no more bearing on the truth than the little slips of
paper that come in fortune cookies. Now I'm sure I'll be flamed by the
astrology buffs on a.a.v. 8-]
> >As for the purse strings, those bean counters are opposed to *any*
> >research that doesn't have a promise of substantial return on
> >investment. After we are done with the lawyers, we need to start in
> >on the accountants and auditors. 8-]
>
> That's commercial research. What's needed is a form of tenured
> research with a specific budget, or status for an organisation as
> non-profit that allows for commercial backing. Heck, Microsoft funded
> SETI for a while.
Sure, because it was a subject that was near and dear to Bill Gates, and
most of his employees. However, he/they looked upon it as a charitable
contribution, and not in investment in research.
> Of course, this does tend to encourage the idea of corporate entities
> as government, but I'm straying...
Many large corporations, at least in the US, are beginning to become
sensitive to the idea of corporate citizenship and their responsibility
to support altruistic efforts, either nationally or in the areas local to
thier plants/offices.
In most cases, this manifests itself in the form of corporate support for
a favorite charity. But, there is no reason why it could't expand to
support for scientific research into areas where no direct economic
return is anticipated. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, that sort of
thing. It's good for the corporate image.
Richard
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > What else could it be, is a good question, if you were to ask me.
>
> I agree. It is a *very* good question. In fact, it is the central
> question of this newsgroup. My point is that, "I don't know." is a
> perfectly good answer to that question. One is not *required* to have a
> better answer, and the default is *not* "alien spacecraft".
I say, I don't kow alot of the time. Sometimes, I have a couple of answers,
but I don't know which of the 2 it is, like with the Belgium triangle case, I
say, it is either alien, or ours.
>
>
> >> The point is that the skeptics are [not] arguing that a given UFO case
> >> is strong enough to qualify as solid evidence for the ETH, and
> >> that, therefore, rather than accept it as inadequate ETH evidence
> >> (my Category
>
> > I'm a little confused about the wording you used. Did you mean to
> > have 2 "nots" in the above paragraph?
>
> No, the one that I enclosed in brackets should not have been there. I
> sometimes get ahead of myself when writing an article.
Ok, just making sure. I get ahead of myself alot. Brain storming can be a
bitch with horns.
> After all, I can
> think a lot faster than I can type. 8-]
Me too.
>
>
> > > 3), it should remain in the "unknown" category (my Category 2).
>
> > I liked it when Don Berliner mentioned in effect how science is
> > suppose to explain things, but when it comes to ufos, they act as if
> > labeling something unknown, or unidentified, is an explaination.
>
> There are a *lot* of things that science has not yet explained, and still
> have the label "unknown" hanging on them.
Could you give me some examples that doesn't have it's share of theories
in attempt to kill the unknown label? That is how I see the eth.
> Science is often slow and
> methodical in the way it attacks such questions.
>
> For one thing, it is often obvious that we can't make any headway until
> we figure out how to gather more data. In the case of astronomy or
> cosmology, that may mean that we have to wait until we can send an
> unmanned probe or even a manned mission to a particular body. The
> astronomers just have to be patient.
I know. I'm for more investigation on this ufo topic.
>
>
> In the case of UFO's, we need to come up with a way to gather hard
> evidence in some sort of predictable fashion. I have often used the
> "tornado chasers" that operate out of the NSSL, a couple miles from my
> house, as a parallel.
Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo? It's neat.
Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from what I understand. (That is,
if you ignore the eth.)
> They don't know when there will be a tornado to
> study. But, at least they have a good idea where to base their vans, and
> what time of year to be ready to roll.
Yeh, sky watches happen all the time and there is tons of video of "ufos".
It doesn't satisfy alot of skeptics though. Especially this day and age,
cause things are easier to hoax on computer.
> If similar programs could be set
> up to track and study UFO's, we might get some better data.
They are set up. I think we need more. It would help if reputable scientist
would do it, but the ridicule from many people seem to turn these people
away.
I have been trying to set up a surveilence project at an abductee's house
(stake out), but there is alot of hurdles to jump. It attracts cops.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the bad reputation that UFOlogy suffers from has caused
> ligitimate scientists to avoid it like the plague. They don't want to be
> painted with the stigma of "crack-pot". I *hate* that, and even more, I
> *hate* the hoaxers and charlatans that have caused it.
I hate it too.
>
>
> > I agree with you in some cases, if you do not use the eth, it is
> > unknown. That is one reason why I use the eth. I use the label
> > 'undetermined' when more than one explaination works, or the data is
> > insufficient.
>
> So, our only difference is our judgment of when the "data is
> insufficient". Evidently, you think that, for some cases, the data is
> sufficient to merit an ETH conclusion. I do not.
Tentative conclusion, yes. It is enough to end the ridicule, and knee jerk
responses about this subject. Once that ends, better investigation and more
info. will come out.
>
>
> > > In other words, it is good evidence for UFO's, but there is not
> > > enough information for it to make the leap to being good evidence for
> > > alien spacecraft.
>
> > Then I would consider it insufficent data, or undetermined.
>
> That's what I am saying.
Ok.
>
>
> > > The ETH proponents, and more often the "believers" seem to think that
> > > if one can't explain something, then it must have an
> > > extra-terrestrial cause.
>
> > "Something"? you mean any something in general?
>
> No, I mean a UFO "something".
>
> > No people like that come to mind. Hopefully you are refering to
> > sighting reports of u.f.o.s
>
> Yes.
>
> > Many use a form of deduction. That is, when all else fails, use the
> > only concievable thing that is left, until something else comes along.
>
> My argument is that "only conceivable thing" is far too subjective to be
> useful. If one is pre-disposed to look for "liggle green men", then that
> will be the "only conceivable thing". My point is that there is *no*
> requirement that we hang *any* explanation on a particular case.
I agree there is no requirement. It is up to the individual.
> It is
> perfectly OK to leave it as "undetermined", rather than classify it as an
> ETH case, just because someone can't think of anything better. Our own
> ability to imagine possible causes should not be the ultimate yardstick
> of the truth.
I also think that one shoudn't be so hell bent as to expect only certain
narrow avenues of evidence before entertaining notions. Well, then again,
they have that right, I won't try to take it from them.
>
>
> > Then insert foot in the mouth if you feel like it. I've seen people,
> > conclude it is alien due to a belief that what they saw, is way in
> > advance of human tech.
>
> If you assume that a stange light dancing in the sky is an artificial
> craft, it is easy to assert that it has abilities far beyond those of any
> terrestrial aircraft. However, I can shine a light on a wall and move it
> around in such a way that it will have those abilities too. If you can't
> prove that the UFO was an artifact, then its "performance" is irrelevant.
The ol lights in the sky. Those cases don't interest me as much as the
stuff that is caught on a multitude of cam corders. And, or the radar cases.
>
>
> > In some cases, due to the little guys on board the thing.
>
> If one actually *sees* beings through portholes, that is certainly hard
> to argue with. If those "beings" are humanoid, then my first assumption
> must be that they are humans. I have no reason to suspect that aliens
> would be humanoid.
I do, that is what the only data that I have suggest.
> I think that this anthropomorphism is just a matter
> of physio-centric thinking. In other words, "Anything that's smart must
> look something like us." 8-]
I don't disagree. I will add that I don't ignore data due to preconcieved
notions about how the data should turn out. I once heard some one say that
are chances are low that we are going to shake hands with a pancake. But then
again, maybe that light in the sky, you mentioned earlier is it:)
>
>
> Also, all the "little guys in the windows" cases that I know of have
> turned out to be hoaxes, or it has turned out that the portholes and
> occupants were the products of vivid imaginations.
I wasn't aware the Betty Hill case turned out to be a hoax.
What about the Zomora case?
I think it is time now, to include the abduction phenomenon in the thread,
since that is where "aliens" and ufos/craft/lights/ whatever, is all found
together.
>
>
> > > However, at the same time, they are always pointing out how much
> > > we don't know about how the universe works. If that is the case,
> > > then there is surely enough room in our ignorance to allow for
> > > terrestrial phenomena that have not yet been discovered.
>
> > Sure.
>
> > > So, rather than force these cases into an 'either/or' situation WRT
> > > the ETH, I, and other skeptics, would prefer to give them the benefit
> > > of the doubt and leave them in the 'maybe-yes/maybe-no' situation and
> > > say that the jury is still out.
>
> > Ok.
> >
> > I hope you guys get your alien body and good piece of wreckage some
> > day.
>
> Damn! Me too. Personally, I'd prefer that they just land somewhere and
> hold a press conference. I'd prefer a *live* alien, that we could ask
> questions of, to a dead body.
Well, I rather me or you ask the questions, then alot of these media
people. "Who are you pulling for in the Super Bowl Zork?" kinda trivial
stuff.
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> I say, I don't kow alot of the time. Sometimes, I have a couple of
> answers, but I don't know which of the 2 it is, like with the Belgium
> triangle case, I say, it is either alien, or ours.
When a UFO is obviously a solid artifact, with a definite shape like
that, I'd say that it's pretty likely to be one of those 2 options.
> Could you give me some examples that doesn't have it's share of
> theories in attempt to kill the unknown label? That is how I see the
> eth.
Well, let's see. There are some theories about "dark matter", but they
are really more like guesses, and nobody really knows which one, if any,
will turn out to be true.
Nobody has a clue what happened to all the water on Mars. They know it
had a lot, at one time. But, nobody knows where it went.
Nobody still knows what a Quasar is, although there have been a few
guesses put forward. These guesses really haven't progressed to the
point of being a formal hypothesis, because they can't think of any way
to test them yet.
There are several such things for which we don't yet have answers, or
even enough information to formulate a good hypothesis. Some people have
proposed some guesses, but they don't have enough confidence in them to
put their names on them as formal hypotheses.
> I know. I'm for more investigation on this ufo topic.
So am I.
> Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo? It's
> neat. Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from what I
> understand. (That is, if you ignore the eth.)
No, I haven't seen or heard of such video from the people at the NSSL.
It may be that the video you speak of was taken by some other tornado
chasers. There are several different groups that do it, for various
reasons.
> Yeh, sky watches happen all the time and there is tons of video of
> "ufos". It doesn't satisfy alot of skeptics though. Especially this day
> and age, cause things are easier to hoax on computer.
I agree that video is easy to hoax. But, I'm not talking about video
alone. I'm talking about a whole array of instruments, like specialized,
short-wave radar, x-ray, infra-red, MAD's, and other kinds of detectors
that could be directed at a UFO to gather data. If it only shows up on
video, in the visible spectrum, then we can assume that it's an optical
phenomenon (for that one sighting only, of course), but if it shows up on
other detectors, we can infer more things about it.
> They are set up. I think we need more. It would help if reputable
> scientist would do it, but the ridicule from many people seem to turn
> these people away.
Agreed.
> I have been trying to set up a surveilence project at an abductee's
> house (stake out), but there is alot of hurdles to jump. It attracts
> cops.
I hadn't thought about the cop angle, but I got involved in a discussion
of how to go about monitoring an on-going abductee case to try to "catch
'em in the act". One thing I suggested was to use pneumatic tubes to
switch on/off mechanical (spring driven) cameras loaded with films that
were sensitive to different parts of the spectrum, and other kinds of
detectors. If you assume that the abducters could farkle with electronic
equipment, simple plastic tubes full of pressurized air should give them
some problems.
> Tentative conclusion, yes. It is enough to end the ridicule, and knee
> jerk responses about this subject. Once that ends, better investigation
> and more info. will come out.
Any time a group of people are gathering data and/or evidence of some new
phenomenon, hoping it will lead them in one direction or another, you can
assume that various members of the team have their own favorite theory
that they are betting on, or pulling for. That's only human. However, it
should not cloud their objectivity in gathering the data in the first
place. As long as they keep their priorities straight, there's no harm
in having side-bets on which theory will win out. 8-]
> > It is perfectly OK to leave it as "undetermined", rather than
> > classify it as an ETH case, just because someone can't think of
> > anything better. Our own ability to imagine possible causes should
> > not be the ultimate yardstick of the truth.
> I also think that one shoudn't be so hell bent as to expect only
> certain narrow avenues of evidence before entertaining notions.
> Well, then again, they have that right, I won't try to take it from
> them.
The main point is that our personal idea of what will ultimatlely be
found should not blind us to evidence that may point in an entirely new,
and unexpected direction.
> The ol lights in the sky. Those cases don't interest me as much as the
> stuff that is caught on a multitude of cam corders. And, or the radar
> cases.
Of course, SLITS can be caught on camcorders as well. For that matter,
strange light sources can appear as shiny, metallic balls to some kinds
of video equipment. They *look* solid, but they are not.
The radar cases are interesting, because they show that the UFO is opaqe
to radar, as well as visible light. It is still possible that it is not
a solid object, depending on the type of radar, but 2 sources of data are
at least *twice* as valuable as only 1.
> > If one actually *sees* beings through portholes, that is certainly
> > hard to argue with. If those "beings" are humanoid, then my first
> > assumption must be that they are humans. I have no reason to suspect
> > that aliens would be humanoid.
> I do, that is what the only data that I have suggest.
But, until you actually *prove* that they exist, you do not have *any*
data. That's one of the big pitfalls of UFOlogy. Too many people try to
use unproven hypotheses as evidence for still other unproven hypotheses.
It's a logical "house of cards". Guesses based on guesses.
> > I think that this anthropomorphism is just a matter of physio-centric
> > thinking. In other words, "Anything that's smart must look something
> > like us." 8-]
> I don't disagree. I will add that I don't ignore data due to
> preconcieved notions about how the data should turn out. I once heard
> some one say that chances are low that we are going to shake hands with
> a pancake. But then again, maybe that light in the sky, you mentioned
> earlier is it:)
Perhaps. Personally, I think that if the ETH is correct, the vast
majority of alien craft are un-manned (for lack of a better term) probes.
That means that they would be controlled remotely, or by artificial
intelligence. It would also go a long way toward explaining how they can
perform incredibly high-G maneuvers. Any organic being would be squashed
(into a pancake ;-) by such maneuvers, unless they have discovered a way
of damping the effects of inertia.
> > Also, all the "little guys in the windows" cases that I know of have
> > turned out to be hoaxes, or it has turned out that the portholes and
> > occupants were the products of vivid imaginations.
>
> I wasn't aware the Betty Hill case turned out to be a hoax.
Betty Hill didn't see any little men through a porthole. She saw them up
close and in person. That makes the Hill case an abduction case, not a
UFO case. AFAIK, the Hills didn't see the ship flying through the sky.
They only claim to have flown while *inside* the ship. The distinction
may be a fine one, but I prefer to keep abductions separate from UFO
cases whenever possible. Lumping them together just adds another room to
that logical "house of cards" that I spoke of.
That goes even more strongly for crop circles and animal mutilations. I
don't associate them with UFO's unless a witness says that they actually
*saw* a ufo hovering over the sight, which is true in a few cases.
> What about the Zomora case?
That's a goodie. I wish it hadn't happened so long ago, and I wish that
it had been more thoroughly investigated. It is one of my favorites. I
still can't conclude that it's an ETH case, but it's one of those "one or
the other" cases that we mentioned earlier.
> I think it is time now, to include the abduction phenomenon in the
> thread, since that is where "aliens" and ufos/craft/lights/ whatever,
> is all found together.
I am against including abductions with UFO's, simply because it assumes
to know the answer to one of the main questions of the abdution mystery,
which is, are they really due to actions by outside agents?
> > Damn! Me too. Personally, I'd prefer that they just land somewhere
> > and hold a press conference. I'd prefer a *live* alien, that we
> > could ask questions of, to a dead body.
> Well, I rather me or you ask the questions, then alot of these media
> people. "Who are you pulling for in the Super Bowl Zork?" kinda trivial
> stuff.
Media people are the *last* ones I would let talk to them. I'd let them
do a short, sweet "We come in peace." type of press conference, and then
announce that they would be working with scientific representatives from
all over the Earth, and that results would be announced in briefing
sessions, sorta like the way they handled the Gulf War. That way,
we/they could control what got out and what spin was placed on it. Like
you said, we don't want the aliens asking someone if they would like to
volunteer to *be* dinner that night. 8-]
Richard
John Cason
<snip>
>Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo?
Aaron, it really would make things easier if you included a URL
or a reference whenever you introduce a new case into a thread.
>It's neat. Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from
>what I understand. (That is, if you ignore the eth.)
What discussion of this UFO have you seen?
Interesting UFO reports are often well publicized, sometimes
even on the front page of newspapers. UFO explanations aren't
so interesting and are often buried in the middle of the paper.
There are lots of websites with unexplained UFO reports. There
are not very many with explained UFO reports.
I found several mentions of an incident that sounds like what
you referred to, but only one that had much information:
http://www.debshome.com/StormChaser_Object.html
The person who made the tape sells videos of storms.
The information concerning this amazing UFO video was posted
about a year and a half ago. Nothing since then. I remember
seeing a still from the video, but it seems to have disappeared,
so the initial excitement about this sighting has dried up.
If I remember correctly, the video was taken beside a highway,
looking diagonally back across the road at a fairly close storm
front. Approaching cars had their lights on. A small, bright
fuzzball moved horizontally across the clouds for a very short
length of tape. No one who was present saw the UFO, so the
first sighting was when the tape was viewed.
Maybe the UFO was a reflection from a headlight on one of the
cars. Should the ETH always be the default explanation when
there is a UFO sighting?
What else could it be?
<snip>
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
> > I say, I don't kow alot of the time. Sometimes, I have a couple of
> > answers, but I don't know which of the 2 it is, like with the Belgium
> > triangle case, I say, it is either alien, or ours.
>
> When a UFO is obviously a solid artifact, with a definite shape like
> that, I'd say that it's pretty likely to be one of those 2 options.
Yeh, I can't think of anything else.
>
>
> > Could you give me some examples that doesn't have it's share of
> > theories in attempt to kill the unknown label? That is how I see the
> > eth.
>
> Well, let's see. There are some theories about "dark matter", but they
> are really more like guesses, and nobody really knows which one, if any,
> will turn out to be true.
Yeh, I know of that, but I thought it was tied into the eth. If not, that
would work for the void like cases. But, if I remember corrcectly (which I
might not right now, cause it's new years and I'm drunk) dark matter would
have more noticable effects on us. Or am I thinking of antimatter? hicup.
>
>
> Nobody has a clue what happened to all the water on Mars.
Well I'd say they might. There are alot of good ideas floating around, but
I just might be dumb. Such as, the planet was bigger and got hit, by an
asteriod, and became smaller, lost gravity, and lost water. Somthin like
that. I forgot, how many moons does Mars have?
> They know it
> had a lot, at one time. But, nobody knows where it went.
Green little men got thursty.
>
>
> Nobody still knows what a Quasar is,
Good, cause when I first came to these groups I asked what one was and got
no response. Now I don't feel ignored. Actually I knew nobody knew, I just
wanted to test it. I'm very interested in that type stuff btw.
> although there have been a few
> guesses put forward. These guesses really haven't progressed to the
> point of being a formal hypothesis, because they can't think of any way
> to test them yet.
One guess is, that they are early galaxies, right? Or what happened before
things expanded enough for things to shape the way the are now. In other
words, What we see is the past. Is this right? If I remember correctly,
another is, that quasers are beginnings of the first black holes. Oh, I might
be makin this up, sorry.
>
>
> There are several such things for which we don't yet have answers,
Well, even that which we do, we could get better ones for.
> or
> even enough information to formulate a good hypothesis. Some people have
> proposed some guesses, but they don't have enough confidence in them to
> put their names on them as formal hypotheses.
P*ssys. This aint a sport. Spill their guts is what I say, and stop holdin
back.
>
>
> > I know. I'm for more investigation on this ufo topic.
>
> So am I.
This is very nice to hear. Some say this, but I feel that they don't really
mean it. That is why I haven't had problems with you or some other people in
the group. You guys are interested and aint arrogant enough as to think you
have all the answers, and want further investigation. I think Twitch is like
that too. I just get pissed at the people that act as if it is a done deal
that every thing is prosaic, then they leave out the relevent data. That
irritates me. I try challenging these people too, I always shut them up so
far. Toot my own horn.
>
>
> > Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo? It's
> > neat. Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from what I
> > understand. (That is, if you ignore the eth.)
>
> No, I haven't seen or heard of such video from the people at the NSSL.
> It may be that the video you speak of was taken by some other tornado
> chasers. There are several different groups that do it, for various
> reasons.
It might have been ametuers, I'm not sure. It's good video, well worth a
look.
>
>
> > Yeh, sky watches happen all the time and there is tons of video of
> > "ufos". It doesn't satisfy alot of skeptics though. Especially this day
> > and age, cause things are easier to hoax on computer.
>
> I agree that video is easy to hoax. But, I'm not talking about video
> alone. I'm talking about a whole array of instruments, like specialized,
> short-wave radar, x-ray, infra-red, MAD's, and other kinds of detectors
> that could be directed at a UFO to gather data. If it only shows up on
> video, in the visible spectrum, then we can assume that it's an optical
> phenomenon (for that one sighting only, of course), but if it shows up on
> other detectors, we can infer more things about it.
I think that it is possible for some type of stealth. I keep this in mind.
>
>
> > They are set up. I think we need more. It would help if reputable
> > scientist would do it, but the ridicule from many people seem to turn
> > these people away.
>
> Agreed.
Thank you for not ridiculing people. I talk to many, who are very timid
about coming forward due to some people's niave response towards this topic.
>
>
> > I have been trying to set up a surveilence project at an abductee's
> > house (stake out), but there is alot of hurdles to jump. It attracts
> > cops.
>
> I hadn't thought about the cop angle,
Yeh, man. It's a bitch. I bought a cam-corder and everything. Even Derrel
Sims knows about it. I offered him money and everything, and he wasn't too
responsive due to the hurdles. You can get put away in jail.. Plus, MUFON
says it's "sticky". I'm still tryin though, but it aint easy.
> but I got involved in a discussion
> of how to go about monitoring an on-going abductee case to try to "catch
> 'em in the act". One thing I suggested was to use pneumatic tubes to
> switch on/off mechanical (spring driven)
Whow. Don't know nothin about that stuff.
> cameras loaded with films that
> were sensitive to different parts of the spectrum, and other kinds of
> detectors. If you assume that the abducters could farkle with electronic
> equipment, simple plastic tubes full of pressurized air should give them
> some problems.
Ok. I don't know nothin about this.
If you care to go into more detail, I'll listen.
There is also 1 or 2 more hurdles, that I would like to get your advice
on, but please don't laugh. Ok, you can laugh just go along with it.
>
>
> > Tentative conclusion, yes. It is enough to end the ridicule, and knee
> > jerk responses about this subject. Once that ends, better investigation
> > and more info. will come out.
>
> Any time a group of people are gathering data and/or evidence of some new
> phenomenon, hoping it will lead them in one direction or another, you can
> assume that various members of the team have their own favorite theory
> that they are betting on, or pulling for.
Yeh, this is what came to my mind too.
> That's only human. However, it
> should not cloud their objectivity in gathering the data in the first
> place. As long as they keep their priorities straight, there's no harm
> in having side-bets on which theory will win out. 8-]
What do you think of the Intruders case? I have been trying to explain
this case, in other ways for many years. But haven't so far. Any specualtaion
is welcome. Also, comments on the Edwards AF base incident, and the Allagash
abduction case are welcome too. I have many more that interest me greatly to
if you care to hear about them.
>
>
> > > It is perfectly OK to leave it as "undetermined", rather than
> > > classify it as an ETH case, just because someone can't think of
> > > anything better. Our own ability to imagine possible causes should
> > > not be the ultimate yardstick of the truth.
>
> > I also think that one shoudn't be so hell bent as to expect only
> > certain narrow avenues of evidence before entertaining notions.
> > Well, then again, they have that right, I won't try to take it from
> > them.
>
> The main point is that our personal idea of what will ultimatlely be
> found should not blind us to evidence that may point in an entirely new,
> and unexpected direction.
Yes, I think so too. I am always, in fact daily, trying to think of other
explainations. I haven't, therefore I have been using the eth. Like with the
Intruders case above. Maybe you can help me out.
>
>
> > The ol lights in the sky. Those cases don't interest me as much as the
> > stuff that is caught on a multitude of cam corders. And, or the radar
> > cases.
>
> Of course, SLITS can be caught on camcorders as well. For that matter,
> strange light sources can appear as shiny, metallic balls to some kinds
> of video equipment. They *look* solid, but they are not.
Are they cylinder and shoot out boomerangs?(like the Colorado case,
Sylido sp?)
Some of what is shot is stuff thatis also described by the person with
the naked eye, that which is caught on tape. I have no evidence some of these
people are lying.
>
>
> The radar cases are interesting, because they show that the UFO is opaqe
> to radar, as well as visible light. It is still possible that it is not
> a solid object, depending on the type of radar, but 2 sources of data are
> at least *twice* as valuable as only 1.
Yep. Everything you want is there, besides an alien, wreckage, and good
piece of abduction (or alien) tape.
>
>
> > > If one actually *sees* beings through portholes, that is certainly
> > > hard to argue with. If those "beings" are humanoid, then my first
> > > assumption must be that they are humans. I have no reason to suspect
> > > that aliens would be humanoid.
>
> > I do, that is what the only data that I have suggest.
>
> But, until you actually *prove* that they exist, you do not have *any*
> data.
I do so have data. Data is info., correct? Info. can be interpreted. I
never say I have proof. I will say I have evidence or data. Just as the OJ
case had evidence. It was interpreted in different ways though.
> That's one of the big pitfalls of UFOlogy. Too many people try to
> use unproven hypotheses
If it was proven my friend, it wouldn't be a hypotheses.
> as evidence for still other unproven hypotheses.
> It's a logical "house of cards". Guesses based on guesses.
Yes. Do you recommend we don't try and guess what's going on?
>
>
> > > I think that this anthropomorphism is just a matter of physio-centric
> > > thinking. In other words, "Anything that's smart must look something
> > > like us." 8-]
>
> > I don't disagree. I will add that I don't ignore data due to
> > preconcieved notions about how the data should turn out. I once heard
> > some one say that chances are low that we are going to shake hands with
> > a pancake. But then again, maybe that light in the sky, you mentioned
> > earlier is it:)
>
> Perhaps. Personally, I think that if the ETH is correct, the vast
> majority of alien craft are un-manned (for lack of a better term) probes.
Here's a guess.
> That means that they would be controlled remotely, or by artificial
> intelligence.
Ignore the greys then.
> It would also go a long way toward explaining how they can
> perform incredibly high-G maneuvers.
Stanton Friedman deals with this. If you wish to ask him about it, I'll
give you his e-mail address. I could answer it for you if you want but not
right now, cause I've been drinking.
> Any organic being would be squashed
> (into a pancake ;-) by such maneuvers, unless they have discovered a way
> of damping the effects of inertia.
How much physics have you studied?
>
>
> > > Also, all the "little guys in the windows" cases that I know of have
> > > turned out to be hoaxes, or it has turned out that the portholes and
> > > occupants were the products of vivid imaginations.
> >
> > I wasn't aware the Betty Hill case turned out to be a hoax.
>
> Betty Hill didn't see any little men through a porthole.
Barney did. He saw them through portholes with binoculors.
> She saw them up
> close and in person.
Yes, according to her. So did Barney
> That makes the Hill case an abduction case, not a
> UFO case.
I will consider it both, in a general sense.
> AFAIK, the Hills didn't see the ship flying through the sky.
> They only claim to have flown while *inside* the ship.
They reported seeing the ship in the sky. That is why they pulled off the
side of the road. Barney tried to explain it away as a Piper cub.
> The distinction
> may be a fine one, but I prefer to keep abductions separate from UFO
> cases whenever possible.
This is what I do not do. I look at everything on the table. If you want to
know what ufos are. Talk to the people who've been right up there and met the
drivers. Dismiss it if you will, but some people's reports I am very
compelled by. Call me gullible.
> Lumping them together just adds another room to
> that logical "house of cards" that I spoke of.
Seprerating them creates a bigger stack I think. I recommend you look
into the Hill case my friend. You aren't remembering it correctly. Please
don't take my word for it either. If you find out other wise, then please let
me know. I will be suprised.
>
>
> That goes even more strongly for crop circles and animal mutilations. I
> don't associate them with UFO's unless a witness says that they actually
> *saw* a ufo hovering over the sight, which is true in a few cases.
So what of those few cases?
>
>
> > What about the Zomora case?
>
> That's a goodie. I wish it hadn't happened so long ago, and I wish that
> it had been more thoroughly investigated. It is one of my favorites. I
> still can't conclude that it's an ETH case, but it's one of those "one or
> the other" cases that we mentioned earlier.
I'm actually not as impressed with it as many people are. It is just what
came to me at that time.
>
>
> > I think it is time now, to include the abduction phenomenon in the
> > thread, since that is where "aliens" and ufos/craft/lights/ whatever,
> > is all found together.
>
> I am against including abductions with UFO's,
So would you expect aliens to not have a ship/ufo?
> simply because it assumes
> to know the answer to one of the main questions of the abdution mystery,
> which is, are they really due to actions by outside agents?
>
>
> > > Damn! Me too. Personally, I'd prefer that they just land somewhere
> > > and hold a press conference. I'd prefer a *live* alien, that we
> > > could ask questions of, to a dead body.
>
> > Well, I rather me or you ask the questions, then alot of these media
> > people. "Who are you pulling for in the Super Bowl Zork?" kinda trivial
> > stuff.
>
> Media people are the *last* ones I would let talk to them.
> I'd let them
> do a short, sweet "We come in peace." type of press conference, and then
> announce that they would be working with scientific representatives from
> all over the Earth, and that results would be announced in briefing
> sessions, sorta like the way they handled the Gulf War. That way,
> we/they could control what got out and what spin was placed on it. Like
> you said, we don't want the aliens asking someone if they would like to
> volunteer to *be* dinner that night. 8-]
I said that? Don't remember, but ok.
Hey Rich. I recieved a e-mail tonight about you. In this e-mail this
person told me that you gather all of your info. (or most) from the NGs. Is
this true? I didn't think it was. I won't give there name, since I haven't
asked if I could yet.
>
>
> Richard
Aaron LeClair
John Cason wrote:
> Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo?
>
> Aaron, it really would make things easier if you included a URL
> or a reference whenever you introduce a new case into a thread.
They don't make urls for everything I discuss. I didn't get this from
the net.
>
>
> >It's neat. Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from
> >what I understand. (That is, if you ignore the eth.)
>
> What discussion of this UFO have you seen?
Sightings tv show.
>
>
> Interesting UFO reports are often well publicized, sometimes
> even on the front page of newspapers. UFO explanations aren't
> so interesting and are often buried in the middle of the paper.
Ok, I don't know where you live though.
>
>
> There are lots of websites with unexplained UFO reports.
Yep.
> There
> are not very many with explained UFO reports.
Semantics.
>
>
> I found several mentions of an incident that sounds like what
> you referred to, but only one that had much information:
> http://www.debshome.com/StormChaser_Object.html
>
> The person who made the tape sells videos of storms.
Don't blame him. People want to buy them.
>
>
> The information concerning this amazing UFO video was posted
> about a year and a half ago. Nothing since then. I remember
> seeing a still from the video, but it seems to have disappeared,
> so the initial excitement about this sighting has dried up.
As it sometimes goes.
>
>
> If I remember correctly, the video was taken beside a highway,
> looking diagonally back across the road at a fairly close storm
> front. Approaching cars had their lights on. A small, bright
> fuzzball moved horizontally across the clouds for a very short
> length of tape. No one who was present saw the UFO, so the
> first sighting was when the tape was viewed.
I haven't looked at the page yet, you kindly provided (thanks), but
this doesn't sound like what I'm talking about. I'll look at the page,
and then comment.
>
>
> Maybe the UFO was a reflection from a headlight on one of the
> cars.
Not what I'm talkin about. It was grey.
> Should the ETH always be the default explanation when
> there is a UFO sighting?
No. I never said it should. This is a common mis-interpretation of
people I think.
>
>
> What else could it be?
>
> <snip>
When I find out I'll let every body know.
Aaron LeClair
Well I didn't see a pic of the "ufo"
I'm not sure if it is the same thing I am talking about or what. I
might still have it on tape. I'll try looking tommorow if I have time.
John Cason wrote:
> Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Have you seen those tornado chasers' video footage of a ufo?
>
> Aaron, it really would make things easier if you included a URL
> or a reference whenever you introduce a new case into a thread.
>
> >It's neat. Nobody can think of what it can be so far, from
> >what I understand. (That is, if you ignore the eth.)
>
> What discussion of this UFO have you seen?
>
> Interesting UFO reports are often well publicized, sometimes
> even on the front page of newspapers. UFO explanations aren't
> so interesting and are often buried in the middle of the paper.
>
> There are lots of websites with unexplained UFO reports. There
> are not very many with explained UFO reports.
>
> I found several mentions of an incident that sounds like what
> you referred to, but only one that had much information:
> http://www.debshome.com/StormChaser_Object.html
>
> The person who made the tape sells videos of storms.
>
> The information concerning this amazing UFO video was posted
> about a year and a half ago. Nothing since then. I remember
> seeing a still from the video, but it seems to have disappeared,
> so the initial excitement about this sighting has dried up.
>
> If I remember correctly, the video was taken beside a highway,
> looking diagonally back across the road at a fairly close storm
> front. Approaching cars had their lights on. A small, bright
> fuzzball moved horizontally across the clouds for a very short
> length of tape. No one who was present saw the UFO, so the
> first sighting was when the tape was viewed.
>
> Maybe the UFO was a reflection from a headlight on one of the
> cars. Should the ETH always be the default explanation when
> there is a UFO sighting?
>
Andreas Klokkaris
stories?
Rob Hafernik <shok...@well.com> wrote in article
<shokwave-281...@as7-dialup-24.io.com>...
> In article <36873FAC...@no-s.pam>, John No Spam <jo...@no-s.pam>
wrote:
>
> > Maybe they are one in the same. Elfs or faeries or gnomes or
> > leprechauns or vampires or ghouls or goblins or incubi/succubi or
> > angels/daemons are desriptions of what we now call aliens. Due to the
> > knoledge of the observer at the time, this was the common desription
> > although inaccurate.
>
> Yeah, right. Don't forget that Trolls were considered to live under
> bridges and incubi would sneak up on women and have sex with them as they
> slept. Leprechauns gave you good luck and vampires looked more or less
> human.
>
> Doesn't fit the "grey" mold very well...
>
S.D. Williston
them? They want to track them for precisely the same reason that people tag
animals. They don't understand anything about us and they are trying to
learn. Who knows for what purpose, future control perhaps. It's obvious that
they have about as much respect for us though, as most of us have for
animals. I guess what goes around comes around.
S.D. Williston
>> What strikes me odd is that they [the aliens] always seem to release
>> their victims the way the Game Department tags and releases animals.
>> If they were truly evil beings they would abduct an individual,
>> perform their horrific experiments, then simply allow them to die.
>>
>> --Steve
>
>If they were *truly* evil, people would simply disappear, and never be
>heard from again. >Richard
>
>
E. L.
Brother Blue
[...]
>The pro-paranormal UFO investigators insisted that the ETH
>was not the answer and that UFOs were psychic apparations.
>
>"Strong parallels can also be drawn between the appearance
>and behavior of UFOnauts and the fairy/gnome/elf legends of
>earlier times. Both phenomena speak of diminutive creatures
>with large heads and eyes, even pointed ears. Sightings of
>both UFOs and fairies have:
>
>*** come in waves
>*** had mulitple witnesses
>*** been reported all over the world
>*** included close encounters
>*** produced alleged photos
>*** indirect association with circular patches on the ground
>*** frequently disappeared as ascending reddish fireballs
>*** had civilian groups collect reports of "sightings"
>
>Consequently, some figures in the UFO community have
>proposed that a single paranormal source is responsible for
>both UFOs AND the fairies of an earlier period. Since our
>cultural context has changed from a close relationship with
>nature to a technological space age, it is submitted that
>the fairies have NOW assumed the guise of "UFOnauts" to be
>RELEVENT TO THE TIMES."
>
>From book on CUFOS study of UFOs.
Precisely. cf: http://www.brotherblue.org/brethren/profblue.htm
E. L.
E. L.
Tallyman
gOd MaN
Why? Because by pushing the lie that aliens are paranormal apparitions
(ghosts) it furthers the presumption that holy spirits exist therefor
the bible and god are real. Give me a break, they believe in ghosts but
not in non earthly intelligent life forms!
twi...@worldnet.att.net
As always, I heartedly recommend Brother Blue's web site
with all of its info and total Blueness.
I even agree with some of it!
Shannon Newell
the air. It was unidentified. Until it hit me then I realized it was a
garbage can lid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Shannon Newell
1-888-324-7800
243-7075
sk...@ebicom.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 30 Dec 1998, TIMOTHY GUEGUEN wrote:
> akasu37 (ekx9...@okhotsk.or.jp) wrote:
> : Is there UFO realy?
> If you mean are there unidentified flying objects the answer is yes. If
> what you mean is are there artificial objects from other worlds visiting
> our planet I would say no. Others disagree.
>
> tim gueguen 101867
>
>
Stanley L. Moore
Shannon Newell wrote in message ...
>I beleive in Unidentified Flying objects. I saw this round thing flying
in
>the air. It was unidentified. Until it hit me then I realized it was a
>garbage can lid.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<
I had a similar experience but I was struck by the physical emissions
(exhaust) of a Unidentified Flying Object. I am uncertain to this day
whether the identity of the UFO was a blue jay or a vireo. <G>
Stanley L. Moore
--
"The eye strays not while under
the guidance of reason." Publius Syrius
www.imagephysique.com
Photography is my passion
Lou Minatti™
>
> Kathleen Pensyl (James....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : I have been tagged by THEM. I have a 1-inch-diameter mole on my left elbow.
> : Microscopic examination reveals some precise lattice work reminiscent of a
> : large SHF antenna. I have not been a victim of horrific experiments other
> : than to eat some alien food. But it all tasted like chicken. And usually
> : after that my toenails seem to grow at 5 times the normal rate.
>
> Thannk you for this report Kathleen. I can't help but wonder if
> the food you were given was made fromn "Greys", because we know now
> that Greys taste like chicken.
Kathleen's story raises an interesting point. All these years we thought
the Greys were harvesting boving anuses and lips. What if they're
harvesting human toenails?
--
The few. The proud. The Fighters For Frager!
http://www.watchingyou.com/frager.html
Join us and save the world!
Kathleen Pensyl
Microscopic examination reveals some precise lattice work reminiscent of a
large SHF antenna. I have not been a victim of horrific experiments other
than to eat some alien food. But it all tasted like chicken. And usually
after that my toenails seem to grow at 5 times the normal rate.
S.D. Williston wrote in message <76isga$l01$1...@cougar.golden.net>...
Mark Shippey
: I have been tagged by THEM. I have a 1-inch-diameter mole on my left elbow.
: Microscopic examination reveals some precise lattice work reminiscent of a
: large SHF antenna. I have not been a victim of horrific experiments other
: than to eat some alien food. But it all tasted like chicken. And usually
: after that my toenails seem to grow at 5 times the normal rate.
Thannk you for this report Kathleen. I can't help but wonder if
Mike Combs
>
> A survey of UFOlogists at a UFO conference showed the
> following:
> The UFO phenomenon is attibutable to:
> "An exterrestrial source - 53%
> Other - 53%
> No Answer - 4%
> A civilization on Earth - 2%"
> (Mulitple answers were permitted and are included)
>
> What was other? Mostly they were regarding the paranormal.
>
> The pro-paranormal UFO investigators insisted that the ETH
> was not the answer and that UFOs were psychic apparations.
Which just goes to underscore a disturbing trend. UFOlogy used to be a
pseudoscience. Now it no longer even qualifies as a legitimate
pseudoscience.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember, the Borg are people too... well, partly...
Richard Caldwell
From: Marty Fouts <al...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>
> Richard Caldwell <rcal...@oklaosf.state.ok.us> writes:
> [snip]
> > The probability of ET intelligent life is just that, a
> > *probability*. [details]
>
> I agree with you, yet, 'probability 1' is the title of a book, by a
> statistician, no less, that claims otherwise.
Well, any good statistician should know that the probability of an
unknown is *never* 1 and *never* 0, so I'm not sure how much stock I
would place in the opinions of the aforementioned statistician. 8-]
> [snip]
> > [...] So, we can trim off all the fat we want to, but we are always
> > left with a few "core" cases.
>
> Yup. And proponents do themselves no favor when they fail to let go
> of the obviously bad stuff in favor of the 'core' cases.
Agreed.
> > [...] the assertion of ETH proponents that a "huge volume of
> > evidence" exists to support the ETH is simply not true. That "huge
> > volume of evidence" consists of a *vast majority* of cases that have
> > mundane explanations and, therefore, are absolutely *worthless* in
> > support of the ETH.
>
> My latest UFO sighting: 29 Dec 98, about 10:45 am daylight, clear
> visibility, driving south on CA state route 178, aproximately 2 mi N
> of Searles dry lake, at the top of 'mountain pass', saw an object at
> 15 degrees left of the road, height aproximately 75 degrees, no
> informatio available for judging distance/size. Object was clearly
> visible for 15-20 seconds, and suddenly turned, apparently at 90
> degrees, traveled for another 5-10 seconds, and disappeared from view.
This is a very typical UFO sighting. I have had similar sightings, both
in the day and at night.
> It's a UFO, 'cuz I never did find out what it was. A lot of
> proponents would say that it was evidence of an intelligently guided
> ET vehicle, since terrestrial vehicles "can't do that." I say that I
> was 10 miles NW of China Lake and it was probably an F18 diving and
> losing the angle that allowed the sun to reflect off of it towards
> me.
I agree with you. Your UFO probably had a mundane explanation like the
one that you suggest. You can't be sure what it was, so it remains a
UFO, but there's certainly nothing about the case that suggests that it
might be a new phenomenon, ETH or otherwise.
> > I'm still thinking about how best to explain my position on that one.
> >
> OK. I'm looking forward to it.
I have started a thread called "What Else Can It Be?" You may want to
contribute, if you haven't already.
> > [...] the ETH proponents can't build their case on the possibility
> > that *some* mundane explanations of *some* UFO cases are in error.
>
> Yup. If the skeptics aren't allowed to say it was Saturn when they
> weren't there, the ETH proponents shouldn't be allowed to say it was
> Chewbaca, unless he stopped and signed something for them.
Or maybe they got a sample of his fur. 8-]
> > [...] If you want good ETH evidence, you need to find cases that are
> > *absolutey* devoid of even the *possibility* of any mundane cause.
>
> Agreed, so long as you don't turn around and use the *possibility* of
> mundane cause as 'proof' of mundane cause. That's where I and Hendry
> part ways, and, unlike Twitch, I think Hendry's methodology falls
> down. Most of his 'post facto' IDs belong in the "can't tell"
> category.
I agree that the possibility of a mundane explanation is not *proof* of a
mundane explanation. However, if a mundane explanation is possible, that
seems to be a more reasonable guess than to assume that one must come up
with an unprecedented explanation. Occam's azor says that, given the
choice, we should choose the mundane over the exotic and bizarre.
> > I think we need to make a clear distinction between accepting
> > something as a very likely probability and accepting it as fact.
> > This distinction seems to escape a lot of people on a.a.v.
> Good point.
> [snip]
> > I agree that liars can accidentally do good science and good
> > scientists can sometimes do bad science. We/they are all human. An
> > argument should be considered only on the weight of its evidence and
> > logic alone. However, too often, we are expected to accept
> > someone's word based solely on their credentials.
>
> Which is also wrong. It's the argument, not the proponent of it that
> matters. The only place I make an exception is that I will try to
> reframe an argument for someone who doesn't have the credentials to
> debate it, 'cuz you might loose good info through poor telling.
Too true.
> [snip]
> > The point is that, if scientists accept a false hypothesis, then they
> > begin to use it as the foundation for further research and
> > hypothesizing. That soon leads to a whole area of scientific work
> > that is based on a false pretext. If, on the other hand, we reject
> > a true hypothesis, no other hypotheses are based on it and no
> > research is done based on false understanding. The assumption is
> > that, if the hypothesis is true, it will ultimately come to be
> > accepted anyway, because of the weight of evidence in its favor.
> > The one big shame is that the original person to propose it may not
> > get credit for it, or may be dead by the time it is accepted.
> Yeah. That actually happens a lot, where one person saw clearly but
> too soon, their work is forgotten, and then rediscovered latter when
> the community is ready to understand it.
I agree that the scenario happens all too often. I think it's a matter
of the world, or the world of science not being ready to make the leap
that is sometimes necessary to accept a new hypothesis/theory.
Einstein's STOR is a good example. When he published it, in 1905, people
were still riding around in horse-drawn buggies. Many scientists didn't
accept it for a long time. But, the math was irrefutable and,
eventually, it was accepted. Today, highschool kids are taught about
Relativity, and don't have too much trouble accepting it, even if they do
have some problems grasping it. But these kids grew up with Star Trek
and NASA, a far cry from 1905.
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Love Lies Squealing <Lo...@corrode.demon.co.uk>
> I wasn't on about our genetics, but the genetic material that would
> arrive with the aliens (assuming that there would be some
> compatibility, which raises more concerns). There would be a heck of
> a scramble to obtain, map and manufacture items from the alien genome.
Possibly. As you say, that would depend on the compatibility. I don't
accept the proposal that the famous double-helix of our DNA is the *only*
possible configuration for a self-replicating molecule that could provide
the basis for life. It's possible that another planet's life could be
built around a totally *different* shaped molecule with totally different
nucleic acids and proteins.
> Time/Newsweek have their own agenda's, and despite some people talking
> to the contrary, they don't always do things that the government tells
> them to. The UK press takes great delight in trying to work around
> restrictions at times.
Agreed. That's why I suggested that the information should be carefully
controlled, both in *what* is released, and in the *way* it is released.
> Imagine that coupled with a _world_ press. Can of worms alert.
Tell me about it. 8-]
> >I didn't mean to imply that the UN would be the sole enforcer of this
> >treaty, only that it would be the logical contact point to get all the
> >nations of the Earth to sign the treaty. Of course, there would be
> >attempts by some countries to circumvent the treaty, in order to gain
> >an unfair advantage over others. That's human nature, unfortunately.
>
> Not only that, but bear in mind that the only currently effective
> space agency is civilian...
Yes, but they work pretty damned closely with our military, when it's
necessary. Note the highly classified military hardware that they
routinely place in orbit with the Space Shuttle, for example.
> You mean if they display any _human_ value structure? :o)
I mean if they display *any* values that we can recognize. AFAIAC, that
is *much* more important than their physiology. In other words, better
they're nice spiders than nasty humanoids. 8-]
> > Of course, if that is true, we're screwed anyway. They'll exploit us
> > as they will, with our without our Govt's. cooperation.
> This interests me beyond measure. I've often extolled the virtues of
> having some form of 'high guard' in orbit to defend earth from falling
> rocks; chance encounters or not so chance encounters.
Falling rocks would make a good show of force. But, I think that they
would first give us the chance to surrender. No point in screwing up the
landscape unnecessarily, especially if you want to exploit that landscape
for your own ends.
> >Agreed. Although, I suppose it would be possible for us to be more
> >advanced in something like artificial intelligence or something like
> >that, but I doubt it.
>
> I occasionally try to think how you could do things a little
> differently in certain fields, and with the exception of a GUT that
> works and a _totally_ different system of doing math (Intuitive
> fractions based around a base 3 system?), we should have a great deal
> in common as regards the scientific development. That is given a
> similar starting habitat.
If the aliens were a naturally hearty species, with very little in the
way of natural diseases, then I wouldn't expect them to be as advance as
us in the area of medicine. On the other hand, they could be even *more*
advanced, medically, and relatively backward in space travel. There's no
reason to assume that space travel would be their *best* area of
expertise, just because they are way ahead of *us* at it.
Similarly, if they had virtually no history of warfare on their planet,
they could be virtually devoid of weapons, or the knowledge of how to
fight a war. If that were the case, they should be pretty damned scared
of us, and rightfully so.
> >So, you have 5 broadcast channels in the UK?
> 5 paid by 'license', which avoids commercials on the first two
> channels. Channel 3 (regional), Channel 4 and Channel 5 are all
> funded by commercial advertising and sponsorship.
Well, we have PBS, which is publicly funded. All the rest of our
channels are commercial. Some of the so called "premium" cable channels
are supported totally by subscriber fees, so they don't run commercials.
> Satellite TV adds loads more channels, but the best are subscription
> only, and the same with the digital channels. Cable is largely
> landline satellite channels.
Same here.
> >No matter how well-trained they are, witnesses will still mis-identify
> >things, especially if there is a lot of emotional baggage associated
> >with the subject. You must admit that there is all sorts of emotional
> >baggage associated with the UFO issue. Still, I read some witness
> >reports that sound very objective. It's nice to be able to read the
> >actual report, as opposed to someone's *interpretation* of that
> >report.
> Exactly the problem. I recall sitting in an audience when a
> regressionist started to explain her findings with, "And this
> means...". I lost interest when I discovered that it was evidence
> overlayed with subjective interpretation.
My point exactly. I just want to know what is observed/experienced.
What any of it *means* is something for all of us to speculate about. I
don't want to hear *their* interpretation until later, when we all get an
even shot. There's no reason to assume that their powers of
interpretation are any better than mine.
> > My wife reads them. I sometimes laugh at them, but usually ignore
> > them. To me, they have no more bearing on the truth than the little
> > slips of paper that come in fortune cookies. Now I'm sure I'll be
> > flamed by the astrology buffs on a.a.v. 8-]
> Possibly, but one of the things I do is (idly) correlate things to see
> if there's anything to it. There doesn't appear to be apart from the
> fact that I'm an aquarian with an interest in communications, which is
> apparently the norm. However, I doubt if there are a greater or
> lesser number of aquarians connected to the net.
My wife is an aquarian, and I am a Capricorn. I always jokingly tell her
that you can tell a Capricorn by the fact that he/she doesn't believe in
astrology. 8-]
> > Sure, because it was a subject that was near and dear to Bill Gates,
> > and most of his employees. However, he/they looked upon it as a
> > charitable contribution, and not in investment in research.
> Yes, but that's the way it should go. Avoid taxes and fund research
> at the same time. It's a dream ticket.
Works for me.
> > Many large corporations, at least in the US, are beginning to become
> > sensitive to the idea of corporate citizenship and their
> > responsibility to support altruistic efforts, either nationally or in
> > the areas local to thier plants/offices.
> > In most cases, this manifests itself in the form of corporate support
> > for a favorite charity. But, there is no reason why it could't
> > expand to support for scientific research into areas where no direct
> > economic return is anticipated. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge,
> > that sort of thing. It's good for the corporate image.
> Bingo, although it does allow for patronage to a high extent.
Agreed. Also, a corporation could use opinion polls to determine what
kinds of research actually appeals most to its potential customers,
thereby maximizing the positive economic impact of their charitable
activities. Thus, if computer geeks like research into space aliens, it
behooves Microsoft to support SETI. 8-]
Richard
Richard Caldwell
From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
> Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > When a UFO is obviously a solid artifact, with a definite shape
> > like that, I'd say that it's pretty likely to be one of those 2
> > options.
> Yeh, I can't think of anything else.
There is always the possibility that the witnesses are mistaken about
the shape and surface features. Imagination can do that, sometimes.
But, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I can't think of anything
else either.
The fact is, whenever I see still photos or video of a UFO that's just
a little bit *too* good, the first thing I want to rule out is a hoax.
> > Well, let's see. There are some theories about "dark matter", but
> > they are really more like guesses, and nobody really knows which
> > one, if any, will turn out to be true.
> Yeh, I know of that, but I thought it was tied into the eth. If not,
> that would work for the void like cases. But, if I remember
> corrcectly (which I might not right now, cause it's new years and
> I'm drunk) dark matter would have more noticable effects on us. Or
> am I thinking of antimatter? hicup.
Dark matter is what is postulated to make up the lion's share of the
mass of the universe. It seems that the rate of expansion of the
universe and the rate of rotation of the galaxies is far too slow for
the observed bodies to account for all the mass. So, the rest of the
mass must be something else. For lack of a better name, astronomers
have dubbed it "Dark Matter". It's not the same as anti-matter.
> > Nobody has a clue what happened to all the water on Mars.
>
> Well I'd say they might. There are alot of good ideas floating
> around, but I just might be dumb. Such as, the planet was bigger and
> got hit, by an asteriod, and became smaller, lost gravity, and lost
> water. Somthin like that. I forgot, how many moons does Mars have?
It has 2 very small moons. But, there is no geological evidence of
such a *huge* impact catastrophe as you describe.
> Green little men got thursty.
Exactly, but where did they pee? 8-]
> > Nobody still knows what a Quasar is,
> Good, cause when I first came to these groups I asked what one was
> and got no response. Now I don't feel ignored. Actually I knew
> nobody knew, I just wanted to test it. I'm very interested in that
> type stuff btw.
Me too, but I'm not sure I'll live to learn the answer to that one.
> > although there have been a few guesses put forward. These guesses
> > really haven't progressed to the point of being a formal
> > hypothesis, because they can't think of any way to test them yet.
> One guess is, that they are early galaxies, right? Or what happened
> before things expanded enough for things to shape the way the are
> now. In other words, What we see is the past. Is this right?
Yes, one theory is that they are galaxies "being born".
> If I remember correctly, another is, that quasers are beginnings of
> the first black holes. Oh, I might be makin this up, sorry.
I believe that some of the hypotheses involve black holes. Another
says that they may be colliding galaxies. I would think that stars
slamming into each other would release a lot of energy. 8-]
> > There are several such things for which we don't yet have answers,
> Well, even that which we do, we could get better ones for.
That's *very* true.
> > or even enough information to formulate a good hypothesis. Some
> > people have proposed some guesses, but they don't have enough
> > confidence in them to put their names on them as formal
> > hypotheses.
> P*ssys. This aint a sport. Spill their guts is what I say, and stop
> holdin back.
Some of them don't mind speculating out loud, as long as nobody holds
them to it. Others are pretty closed-mouthed about such things. It's
more a matter of individual personality than a rule of science.
> > So am I.
> This is very nice to hear. Some say this, but I feel that they don't
> really mean it. That is why I haven't had problems with you or some
> other people in the group. You guys are interested and aint arrogant
> enough as to think you have all the answers, and want further
> investigation.
Absolutely. It would be a pretty boring universe if we had all the
answers.
> I think Twitch is like that too. I just get pissed at the people
> that act as if it is a done deal that every thing is prosaic, then
> they leave out the relevent data. That irritates me. I try
> challenging these people too, I always shut them up so far. Toot my
> own horn.
A rational argument will always win out over an irrational one, IMHO.
And it doesn't matter *which* side of the fence you are sitting on.
If you are willing to admit the possibility that you are wrong, then
you are always more credible than the person who posts everything as
if they were in sole posession of THE TRUTH.
> > No, I haven't seen or heard of such video from the people at the
> > NSSL. It may be that the video you speak of was taken by some
> > other tornado chasers. There are several different groups that
> > do it, for various reasons.
> It might have been ametuers, I'm not sure. It's good video, well
> worth a look.
Another poster said it was taken by one of the guys who chases
tornados for the purpose of obtaining and selling the video, a
"free-lancer".
> > I agree that video is easy to hoax. But, I'm not talking about
> > video alone. I'm talking about a whole array of instruments, like
> > specialized, short-wave radar, x-ray, infra-red, MAD's, and other
> > kinds of detectors that could be directed at a UFO to gather data.
> > If it only shows up on video, in the visible spectrum, then we can
> > assume that it's an optical phenomenon (for that one sighting
> > only, of course), but if it shows up on other detectors, we can
> > infer more things about it.
> I think that it is possible for some type of stealth. I keep this
> in mind.
It's hard to believe that an aircraft is employing stealth technology
when it is clearly visible. Stealth is an "all aspects and all
emissions" kind of thing. That's why our known stealth aircraft are
designed to be quiet and hard to detect in the IR and visible
frequencies, as well has having a low RCS.
> Thank you for not ridiculing people. I talk to many, who are very
> timid about coming forward due to some people's niave response
> towards this topic.
I don't claim that I *never* ridicule anyone.
These types of posts generally fall into 2 categories. One is the
poster who claims to know THE TRUTH, and has dropped in on a.a.v. to
illuminate us about the Galactic Federation and such drivel. I give
those posters the respect that I think that they are due, which is
none. Usually, I just ignore them altogether and hope that they will
go away. Most of these are trolls anyway.
However, if someone posts a description of their own sighting(s)
and/or experience(s), without too much interpretive baggage, and asks
for suggestions/comments from the readers, I try to give them the
benefit of the doubt.
> > I hadn't thought about the cop angle,
> Yeh, man. It's a bitch. I bought a cam-corder and everything. Even
> Derrel Sims knows about it. I offered him money and everything, and
> he wasn't too responsive due to the hurdles. You can get put away in
> jail.. Plus, MUFON says it's "sticky". I'm still tryin though, but
> it aint easy.
> > but I got involved in a discussion of how to go about monitoring
> > an on-going abductee case to try to "catch 'em in the act". One
> > thing I suggested was to use pneumatic tubes to switch on/off
> > mechanical (spring driven)
> Whow. Don't know nothin about that stuff.
Such pneumatic controls are used in laboratories that deal with
high-voltage electricity, where the voltage is likely to leak into the
control circuits and screw with the instruments. One very high-profile
kind of research that uses pneumatic controls is lighning research.
> > cameras loaded with films that were sensitive to different parts
> > of the spectrum, and other kinds of detectors. If you assume that
> > the abducters could farkle with electronic equipment, simple
> > plastic tubes full of pressurized air should give them some
> > problems.
> Ok. I don't know nothin about this.
> If you care to go into more detail, I'll listen.
You can place mats on the floors, under the carpets, that are
connected to tubes running to the controls on cameras and other
instruments. When anyone steps on one of the mats, the
cameras/instruments turn on. You can even use it to control light
switches or other electronic stuff. But, if you assume that they have
an electrical 'damping' field, that wouldn't work very well.
Most of the stuff I was discussing was about monitoring the abductee
from *inside* their residence, rather than monitoring the residence
from the outside. I can see where outside surveillance might attract
some attention, if you didn't clear it with the cops first.
> There is also 1 or 2 more hurdles, that I would like to get your
> advice on, but please don't laugh. Ok, you can laugh just go along
> with it.
Sure, you can E-mail me about it, if you prefer. That way, my
laughing would be private. 8-]
> What do you think of the Intruders case?
Is this a specific case? If so, may have heard of it, but not by that
title. If you are talking about abductions in general, that's another
issue.
> I have been trying to explain this case, in other ways for many
> years. But haven't so far. Any specualtaion is welcome. Also,
> comments on the Edwards AF base incident, and the Allagash abduction
> case are welcome too. I have many more that interest me greatly to
> if you care to hear about them.
Sure, I'm all eyes/ears. If you have transcripts of any of these
cases, it might be better to E-mail them to me.
> > The main point is that our personal idea of what will ultimatlely
> > be found should not blind us to evidence that may point in an
> > entirely new, and unexpected direction.
> Yes, I think so too. I am always, in fact daily, trying to think of
> other explainations. I haven't, therefore I have been using the
> eth. Like with the Intruders case above. Maybe you can help me out.
Maybe so. If I can read a brief description of the particulars of the
case.
> > Of course, SLITS can be caught on camcorders as well. For that
> > matter, strange light sources can appear as shiny, metallic balls
> > to some kinds of video equipment. They *look* solid, but they are
> > not.
> Are they cylinder and shoot out boomerangs? (like the Colorado case,
> Sylido sp?)
They can have various shapes, and they can appear to have protrusions
or to "shoot out" other light sources. I have watched video tape,
after reading someone else's description of what they saw. After I
watched the tape, I asked, "So, where were these things that you
described to me?" The other person would say, "You mean you didn't
see them?" The simple fact is that, when I watch a tape, I don't see
all those neat features and goings on that others seem to see.
A good example are the Billy Meier tapes. When he shows UFO's
suddenly appearing and disappearing in the frame, some people buy his
explanation that the UFO's are doing this while the camera runs
continuously. I say, "But you can see that the entire frame jumps
every time one of the UFO's appears or disappears. That means that
the camera was stopped, the number of UFO's was changed, and the
camera was started up again." In that case, I see something that the
other observers do not.
I never fail to be amazed at such simple things that others miss, or
at the things that others see that simply are *not* there. I freely
admit that my eyes are not what they once were, but pullleeease, give
me a break. 8-]
> Some of what is shot is stuff that is also described by the person
> with the naked eye, that which is caught on tape. I have no evidence
> some of these people are lying.
In such a case, there's not much that you can do. Another thing that
I find amusing is when 2 or more people are observing a UFO, and one
of them is using a cam-corder. He shouts to the others, "Come here
and look through this and you'll see what I'm talking about!" The
fact is that he is seeing camera artifacts that the others do not see,
and he assumes that the camera is giving him a better view of the
object than they aregetting with their unaided eye. The fact is that,
in almost *all* cases, the naked eye will give you a more undistorted
view of an object than a video camera. If something looks different
through a cam-corder's viewfinder, it's usually a fault of the
cam-corder.
> > The radar cases are interesting, because they show that the UFO is
> > opaqe to radar, as well as visible light. It is still possible
> > that it is not a solid object, depending on the type of radar, but
> > 2 sources of data are at least *twice* as valuable as only 1.
> Yep. Everything you want is there, besides an alien, wreckage, and
> good piece of abduction (or alien) tape.
Well, I would go *quite* that far, but it's better than just a
sighting.
> > But, until you actually *prove* that they exist, you do not have
> > *any* data.
> I do so have data. Data is info., correct? Info. can be interpreted.
> I never say I have proof. I will say I have evidence or data. Just
> as the OJ case had evidence. It was interpreted in different ways
> though.
Agreed. My point is that you cannot say, "I have evidence that ET's
*may* exist, and that they *may* be humanoid, and therefore I must
conclude that humanoid aliens are not only possible, but likely.",
without bending a few rules of logic. The fact is that you have no
*solid* evidence that ET's exist at all. You have eyewitness
accounts, of *very* dubious value, and abduction claims, also of
*dubious* value. If you call that "data" about the physical
characterisitcs of possible ET life forms, that is *extremely* tenuous
reasoning.
> > That's one of the big pitfalls of UFOlogy. Too many people try to
> > use unproven hypotheses
> If it was proven my friend, it wouldn't be a hypotheses.
> > as evidence for still other unproven hypotheses.
> > It's a logical "house of cards". Guesses based on guesses.
>
> Yes. Do you recommend we don't try and guess what's going on?
I don't mind guessing. In fact, I can guess with the best of 'em,
when I want to. My point is that one must be *very* careful about the
difference between pure speculation and building a case from evidence.
> > Perhaps. Personally, I think that if the ETH is correct, the vast
> > majority of alien craft are un-manned (for lack of a better term)
> > probes.
> Here's a guess.
Yes, but based on some knowledge of the subjects involved.
> > That means that they would be controlled remotely, or by
> > artificial intelligence.
>
> Ignore the greys then.
I didn't say *all*, I said *most*. However, "greys" are the
abductors. They are not described as pilots of UFO's, except by the
assumption that the 2 phenomena are connected.
> > It would also go a long way toward explaining how they can
> > perform incredibly high-G maneuvers.
> Stanton Friedman deals with this. If you wish to ask him about it,
> I'll give you his e-mail address. I could answer it for you if you
> want but not right now, cause I've been drinking.
I've read Stan's explanation, and some others. One or more of them
may be true. My argument is that building unmanned probes is a *much*
simpler way to explain it, and simpler is usually better.
> > Any organic being would be squashed (into a pancake ;-) by such
> > maneuvers, unless they have discovered a way of damping the
> > effects of inertia.
> How much physics have you studied?
Enough to have a bachelor's degree in Physics. How about you?
> > Betty Hill didn't see any little men through a porthole.
> Barney did. He saw them through portholes with binoculors.
Interesting. I hadn't read/heard that.
> > She saw them up close and in person.
> Yes, according to her. So did Barney
Agreed.
> > That makes the Hill case an abduction case, not a UFO case.
> I will consider it both, in a general sense.
It is certainly one of the few abduction cases, like Travis Walton's,
which is directly connected to a UFO sighting. Of course, in the case
of the Hills, the UFO was only sighted by them, which is weaker.
> > AFAIK, the Hills didn't see the ship flying through the sky.
> > They only claim to have flown while *inside* the ship.
>
> They reported seeing the ship in the sky. That is why they pulled
> off the side of the road. Barney tried to explain it away as a Piper
> cub.
I thought they first saw it sitting in the middle of the road in front
of them.
> > The distinction may be a fine one, but I prefer to keep abductions
> > separate from UFO cases whenever possible.
> This is what I do not do. I look at everything on the table. If you
> want to know what ufos are. Talk to the people who've been right up
> there and met the drivers.
Or *claim* to have met them, for whatever good that does.
> Dismiss it if you will, but some people's reports I am very
> compelled by. Call me gullible.
Glad to meet you, Gullible. Call me Richard.
> > Lumping them together just adds another room to
> > that logical "house of cards" that I spoke of.
> Seprerating them creates a bigger stack I think.
A stack, yes, but a stack of cards lying flat on top of each other, as
in an un-dealt deck.
> I recommend you look into the Hill case my friend. You aren't
> remembering it correctly. Please don't take my word for it either.
> If you find out other wise, then please let me know. I will be
> suprised.
It's been a *long* time since I read about the case, so I'll take your
word for it on the details. Remember, I was in highschool when that
case happened. My youngest child is in highschool now. 8-]
> > That goes even more strongly for crop circles and animal
> > mutilations. I don't associate them with UFO's unless a witness
> > says that they actually *saw* a ufo hovering over the sight, which
> > is true in a few cases.
> So what of those few cases?
The question then becomes, are the 2 really related, or are they
coincidental, or did the presence of one lead to the imagining of the
other?
> > > What about the Zomora case?
> >
> > That's a goodie. I wish it hadn't happened so long ago, and I
> > wish that it had been more thoroughly investigated. It is one of
> > my favorites. I still can't conclude that it's an ETH case, but
> > it's one of those "one or the other" cases that we mentioned
> > earlier.
> I'm actually not as impressed with it as many people are. It is just
> what came to me at that time.
It's one of the oldest cases that's stood up to *all* attempts to give
it a mundane explanation. For that reason, it deserves to be on
everyone's "top 10" list, IMHO.
> > I am against including abductions with UFO's,
>
> So would you expect aliens to not have a ship/ufo?
If you *assume* that abductions are done by ET's, then it is logical
to assume that they would need transport. The problem is, if you make
that assumption, then you have solved the alien abduction problem by a
leap that I am not willing to make.
In other words, you are selling out on the abduction issue, so that
you can use it to support the ETH. Another story on the "house of
cards".
> > Media people are the *last* ones I would let talk to them.
> > I'd let them do a short, sweet "We come in peace." type of press
> > conference, and then announce that they would be working with
> > scientific representatives from all over the Earth, and that
> > results would be announced in briefing sessions, sorta like the
> > way they handled the Gulf War. That way, we/they could control
> > what got out and what spin was placed on it. Like you said, we
> > don't want the aliens asking someone if they would like to
> > volunteer to *be* dinner that night. 8-]
>
> I said that? Don't remember, but ok.
Not in so many words, but you mentioned possible cultural differences,
like cannibalism or recycling of the dead for other purposes.
> Hey Rich. I recieved a e-mail tonight about you. In this e-mail this
> person told me that you gather all of your info. (or most) from the
> NGs. Is this true? I didn't think it was. I won't give there name,
> since I haven't asked if I could yet.
I gather most of my Info. on *some* subjects from the NG's. This is
*not* true for UFO's, since there is precious little Info. on them
available on USENET. Some of the other newsgroups that I subscribe to
are much more informational, and far less controversial than this one.
In other words, UFO's are just *one* of my interests.
Richard
Trader
> True. Unfortunately I've yet to see enough proof that they
> *don't* exist. So I'm keeping an open mind to it.
I don't believe that you can prove that something does not exist until
you can show every single thing that does exist. OTOH Proving that
something does exist can be very easy.
Trader
> wrote:
>
> >Is there UFO realy?
Of course there are. Until you identify that flying object it will
always be a UFO.
Aaron LeClair
Richard Caldwell wrote:
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
>
> > Richard Caldwell wrote:
>
> > > When a UFO is obviously a solid artifact, with a definite shape
> > > like that, I'd say that it's pretty likely to be one of those 2
> > > options.
>
> > Yeh, I can't think of anything else.
>
> There is always the possibility that the witnesses are mistaken about
> the shape and surface features. Imagination can do that, sometimes.
There is the possibility that they are giving accurate detail, and
correct observations as well.
> But, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I can't think of anything
> else either.
>
> The fact is, whenever I see still photos or video of a UFO that's just
> a little bit *too* good, the first thing I want to rule out is a hoax.
I've seen people complain when the photos are too good, and too bad. I
tap my foot waitin for them to see how hell bent they are.
>
>
> > > Well, let's see. There are some theories about "dark matter", but
> > > they are really more like guesses, and nobody really knows which
> > > one, if any, will turn out to be true.
>
> > Yeh, I know of that, but I thought it was tied into the eth. If not,
> > that would work for the void like cases. But, if I remember
> > corrcectly (which I might not right now, cause it's new years and
> > I'm drunk) dark matter would have more noticable effects on us. Or
> > am I thinking of antimatter? hicup.
>
> Dark matter is what is postulated to make up the lion's share of the
> mass of the universe.
Yep.
> It seems that the rate of expansion of the
> universe and the rate of rotation of the galaxies is far too slow for
> the observed bodies to account for all the mass.
I just tried to post an article to the group about the expansion, in
aar.
> So, the rest of the
> mass must be something else. For lack of a better name, astronomers
> have dubbed it "Dark Matter". It's not the same as anti-matter.
>
>
> > > Nobody has a clue what happened to all the water on Mars.
> >
> > Well I'd say they might. There are alot of good ideas floating
> > around, but I just might be dumb. Such as, the planet was bigger and
> > got hit, by an asteriod, and became smaller, lost gravity, and lost
> > water. Somthin like that. I forgot, how many moons does Mars have?
>
> It has 2 very small moons. But, there is no geological evidence of
> such a *huge* impact catastrophe as you describe.
>
> > Green little men got thursty.
>
> Exactly, but where did they pee? 8-]
Ooh, you're thinking. I didn't think of that .
>
>
> > > Nobody still knows what a Quasar is,
>
> > Good, cause when I first came to these groups I asked what one was
> > and got no response. Now I don't feel ignored. Actually I knew
> > nobody knew, I just wanted to test it. I'm very interested in that
> > type stuff btw.
>
> Me too, but I'm not sure I'll live to learn the answer to that one.
Oh, I'll lay money down that you'll find out after you die. You wanna
bet?
>
>
> > > although there have been a few guesses put forward. These guesses
> > > really haven't progressed to the point of being a formal
> > > hypothesis, because they can't think of any way to test them yet.
>
> > One guess is, that they are early galaxies, right? Or what happened
> > before things expanded enough for things to shape the way the are
> > now. In other words, What we see is the past. Is this right?
>
> Yes, one theory is that they are galaxies "being born".
>
> > If I remember correctly, another is, that quasers are beginnings of
> > the first black holes. Oh, I might be makin this up, sorry.
>
> I believe that some of the hypotheses involve black holes. Another
> says that they may be colliding galaxies. I would think that stars
> slamming into each other would release a lot of energy. 8-]
We just detected somethin awhile back. Haven't heard much about it
recently though.
>
>
> > > There are several such things for which we don't yet have answers,
>
> > Well, even that which we do, we could get better ones for.
>
> That's *very* true.
>
> > > or even enough information to formulate a good hypothesis. Some
> > > people have proposed some guesses, but they don't have enough
> > > confidence in them to put their names on them as formal
> > > hypotheses.
>
> > P*ssys. This aint a sport. Spill their guts is what I say, and stop
> > holdin back.
>
> Some of them don't mind speculating out loud, as long as nobody holds
> them to it. Others are pretty closed-mouthed about such things. It's
> more a matter of individual personality than a rule of science.
>
> > > So am I.
>
> > This is very nice to hear. Some say this, but I feel that they don't
> > really mean it. That is why I haven't had problems with you or some
> > other people in the group. You guys are interested and aint arrogant
> > enough as to think you have all the answers, and want further
> > investigation.
>
> Absolutely. It would be a pretty boring universe if we had all the
> answers.
I don't know about that one.
>
>
> > I think Twitch is like that too. I just get pissed at the people
> > that act as if it is a done deal that every thing is prosaic, then
> > they leave out the relevent data. That irritates me. I try
> > challenging these people too, I always shut them up so far. Toot my
> > own horn.
>
> A rational argument will always win out over an irrational one, IMHO.
> And it doesn't matter *which* side of the fence you are sitting on.
> If you are willing to admit the possibility that you are wrong,
> then
> you are always more credible than the person who posts everything as
> if they were in sole posession of THE TRUTH.
>
>
> > > No, I haven't seen or heard of such video from the people at the
> > > NSSL. It may be that the video you speak of was taken by some
> > > other tornado chasers. There are several different groups that
> > > do it, for various reasons.
>
> > It might have been ametuers, I'm not sure. It's good video, well
> > worth a look.
>
> Another poster said it was taken by one of the guys who chases
> tornados for the purpose of obtaining and selling the video, a
> "free-lancer".
I'm not sure if it's the same one.
>
>
> > > I agree that video is easy to hoax. But, I'm not talking about
> > > video alone. I'm talking about a whole array of instruments, like
> > > specialized, short-wave radar, x-ray, infra-red, MAD's, and other
> > > kinds of detectors that could be directed at a UFO to gather data.
>
> > > If it only shows up on video, in the visible spectrum, then we can
> > > assume that it's an optical phenomenon (for that one sighting
> > > only, of course), but if it shows up on other detectors, we can
> > > infer more things about it.
>
> > I think that it is possible for some type of stealth. I keep this
> > in mind.
>
> It's hard to believe that an aircraft is employing stealth technology
> when it is clearly visible. Stealth is an "all aspects and all
> emissions" kind of thing. That's why our known stealth aircraft are
> designed to be quiet and hard to detect in the IR and visible
> frequencies, as well has having a low RCS.
The stealth may be unintentinal. A byproduct of the field propulsion.
I watched a show on the B2 and S bomber, I could see them clearly.
>
>
> > Thank you for not ridiculing people. I talk to many, who are very
> > timid about coming forward due to some people's niave response
> > towards this topic.
>
> I don't claim that I *never* ridicule anyone.
I ridicule those who ridicule. Makes me a hypocrite I guess, which sucks
cause I hate hypocrties.
Yeh, it is a specific case, or cases, since there were more than one
incident. Budd Hopkins, as well as Debbie Jordan has a book on it.
>
>
> > I have been trying to explain this case, in other ways for many
> > years. But haven't so far. Any specualtaion is welcome. Also,
> > comments on the Edwards AF base incident, and the Allagash abduction
> > case are welcome too. I have many more that interest me greatly to
> > if you care to hear about them.
>
> Sure, I'm all eyes/ears. If you have transcripts of any of these
> cases, it might be better to E-mail them to me.
I might be able to find somethin for ya.
>
>
> > > The main point is that our personal idea of what will ultimatlely
> > > be found should not blind us to evidence that may point in an
> > > entirely new, and unexpected direction.
>
> > Yes, I think so too. I am always, in fact daily, trying to think of
> > other explainations. I haven't, therefore I have been using the
> > eth. Like with the Intruders case above. Maybe you can help me out.
>
> Maybe so. If I can read a brief description of the particulars of the
> case.
I don't think brief descriptions would do these cases justice.
>
>
> > > Of course, SLITS can be caught on camcorders as well. For that
> > > matter, strange light sources can appear as shiny, metallic balls
> > > to some kinds of video equipment. They *look* solid, but they are
> > > not.
>
> > Are they cylinder and shoot out boomerangs? (like the Colorado case,
> > Sylido sp?)
>
> They can have various shapes, and they can appear to have protrusions
> or to "shoot out" other light sources. I have watched video tape,
> after reading someone else's description of what they saw. After I
> watched the tape, I asked, "So, where were these things that you
> described to me?" The other person would say, "You mean you didn't
> see them?" The simple fact is that, when I watch a tape, I don't see
> all those neat features and goings on that others seem to see.
Beliefs form people's reality I guess.
Keep researching.
I haven't counted the books, and articles etc. I'm a high school drop
out.
>
>
> > > Betty Hill didn't see any little men through a porthole.
>
> > Barney did. He saw them through portholes with binoculors.
>
> Interesting. I hadn't read/heard that.
It should be easy to find out about.
>
>
> > > She saw them up close and in person.
>
> > Yes, according to her. So did Barney
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > That makes the Hill case an abduction case, not a UFO case.
>
> > I will consider it both, in a general sense.
>
> It is certainly one of the few abduction cases, like Travis Walton's,
> which is directly connected to a UFO sighting. Of course, in the case
> of the Hills, the UFO was only sighted by them, which is weaker.
If you were to only look at that small part of the case, then I can
agree.
>
>
> > > AFAIK, the Hills didn't see the ship flying through the sky.
> > > They only claim to have flown while *inside* the ship.
> >
> > They reported seeing the ship in the sky. That is why they pulled
> > off the side of the road. Barney tried to explain it away as a Piper
> > cub.
>
> I thought they first saw it sitting in the middle of the road in front
> of them.
I recall them seeing while they were driving, in the sky.
>
>
> > > The distinction may be a fine one, but I prefer to keep abductions
> > > separate from UFO cases whenever possible.
>
> > This is what I do not do. I look at everything on the table. If you
> > want to know what ufos are. Talk to the people who've been right up
> > there and met the drivers.
>
> Or *claim* to have met them, for whatever good that does.
Looking at that aspect, *alone*, only does a little more than ignoring
the claims.
>
>
> > Dismiss it if you will, but some people's reports I am very
> > compelled by. Call me gullible.
>
> Glad to meet you, Gullible. Call me Richard.
Thanks for capitalizing it, atleast.
>
>
> > > Lumping them together just adds another room to
> > > that logical "house of cards" that I spoke of.
>
> > Seprerating them creates a bigger stack I think.
>
> A stack, yes, but a stack of cards lying flat on top of each other, as
> in an un-dealt deck.
It depends on who's the dealer.
>
>
> > I recommend you look into the Hill case my friend. You aren't
> > remembering it correctly. Please don't take my word for it either.
> > If you find out other wise, then please let me know. I will be
> > suprised.
>
> It's been a *long* time since I read about the case, so I'll take your
> word for it on the details. Remember, I was in highschool when that
> case happened. My youngest child is in highschool now. 8-]
I wasn't born yet.
>
>
> > > That goes even more strongly for crop circles and animal
> > > mutilations. I don't associate them with UFO's unless a witness
> > > says that they actually *saw* a ufo hovering over the sight, which
> > > is true in a few cases.
>
> > So what of those few cases?
>
> The question then becomes, are the 2 really related, or are they
> coincidental, or did the presence of one lead to the imagining of the
> other?
Let me guess, you got more than one answer, and don't know which it is?
Same with me, in alot of cases.
>
>
> > > > What about the Zomora case?
> > >
> > > That's a goodie. I wish it hadn't happened so long ago, and I
> > > wish that it had been more thoroughly investigated. It is one of
> > > my favorites. I still can't conclude that it's an ETH case, but
> > > it's one of those "one or the other" cases that we mentioned
> > > earlier.
>
> > I'm actually not as impressed with it as many people are. It is just
> > what came to me at that time.
>
> It's one of the oldest cases that's stood up to *all* attempts to give
> it a mundane explanation. For that reason, it deserves to be on
> everyone's "top 10" list, IMHO.
>
Have you seen the film that was released of the area, shortly after
this incident? I thought that was interesting.
> > > I am against including abductions with UFO's,
> >
> > So would you expect aliens to not have a ship/ufo?
>
> If you *assume* that abductions are done by ET's, then it is logical
> to assume that they would need transport. The problem is, if you make
> that assumption, then you have solved the alien abduction problem by a
> leap that I am not willing to make.
I understand where you are coming from.
>
>
> In other words, you are selling out on the abduction issue, so that
> you can use it to support the ETH. Another story on the "house of
> cards".
Nop. I look at everything on the table, then give it the best
explaination I can.
>
>
> > > Media people are the *last* ones I would let talk to them.
> > > I'd let them do a short, sweet "We come in peace." type of press
> > > conference, and then announce that they would be working with
> > > scientific representatives from all over the Earth, and that
> > > results would be announced in briefing sessions, sorta like the
> > > way they handled the Gulf War. That way, we/they could control
> > > what got out and what spin was placed on it. Like you said, we
> > > don't want the aliens asking someone if they would like to
> > > volunteer to *be* dinner that night. 8-]
> >
> > I said that? Don't remember, but ok.
>
> Not in so many words, but you mentioned possible cultural differences,
> like cannibalism or recycling of the dead for other purposes.
I Don't remember.
Robert ASF.
> From: Aaron LeClair <sau...@bellsouth.net>
Sniping to the part i think i have an answer to! (Ya I get to talk
physics to Richard like i know something!!!)
> > > Nobody still knows what a Quasar is,
> > Good, cause when I first came to these groups I asked what one was
> > and got no response. Now I don't feel ignored. Actually I knew
> > nobody knew, I just wanted to test it. I'm very interested in that
> > type stuff btw.
> Me too, but I'm not sure I'll live to learn the answer to that one.
sniping the rest! This is all i want to comment on!
OK I am getting this from David Ruelle "Chance and Chaos". He is a
math prof in France, did the pioneering work on strange attractors. His
book is published by Princeton's university press, so it is also peer
reviewed. (It is very chatty, so how it got peer reviewed, i have not the
slightest idea. They must bend the rules for people who are geniuses?) I
am also going to assume you have read Hawking's "Brief History of Time."
A black hole is a dense matter, which we assume is a collapsed
star. It has such a gravitation effect that even light cannot escape its
pull. Yet that is all Newtonian Physics. What about at the Quatum level?
Well here we have a different story. Radiation escapes, a la Heisenberg's
(sp) Uncertainty principle. As such, we expect to find high levels of
radiation around or near areas of black holes. Those pockets of radiation
are called Quasars. Now if you want more proof, (Ya like i can explain the
math here!) Go and dig out either of those two books and see what they
say.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
Zero Ten
wrote:
>Why would they waste all that time experimenting on abductees just to kill
>them? They want to track them for precisely the same reason that people tag
>animals. They don't understand anything about us and they are trying to
>learn. Who knows for what purpose, future control perhaps. It's obvious that
>they have about as much respect for us though, as most of us have for
>animals. I guess what goes around comes around.
>S.D. Williston
Actually, to extend the analogy a bit, people who tag animals are
usually those who feel the most compassion for them (ie they have
chosen to work with them) - the (to an observer) perfunctory way they
go about it is supposed to cause the animals less stress. Perhaps the
(hypothetical) alien has just not recognised that we are sentient and
thinks it is being kind! After all, an alien should _be _ alien, as
opposed to funny looking folks from a long way off, so how would they
know? It all depends on whether they use the same (or sufficiently
similiar) frame of reference to us.
>
>>> What strikes me odd is that they [the aliens] always seem to release
>>> their victims the way the Game Department tags and releases animals.
>>> If they were truly evil beings they would abduct an individual,
>>> perform their horrific experiments, then simply allow them to die.
>>>
>>> --Steve
>>
>>If they were *truly* evil, people would simply disappear, and never be
>>heard from again. >Richard
>>
Depends where you're standing when you say 'evil'. Morals & ethics
always seem pretty subjective to me. Perhaps I'm just a nasty person!
ZeroTen
"Act like a lunatic and you will be inscrutable forever" -- U.Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
Rob Hafernik
>Why would they waste all that time experimenting on abductees just to kill
>them? They want to track them for precisely the same reason that people tag
>animals.
Isn't the whole idea a little stupid, though? It fails on so many levels
it's hard to know where to start. I'll list a few of the obvious:
---
* How many samples of ANYTHING would they need? If we're to believe the
abduction folks, they're sampling MILLIONS of humans. There's no point in
that. I would imagine that 100 well-selected individuals would give them
a complete idea of the human genome and physiology.
* "Tagging" implies that they possess the ability to TRACK the humans they
release. How? All you can do is spout some Star Trek science.
* Why is it that all these people keep getting abducted from populous
places (such as downtown New York) and yet no neighbor is EVER getting up
to take a leak and happens to spot the victim being carried off/beamed
up? Why doesn't a security camera watching a parking lot (in the next
block) EVER pick up the aliens doing the abductions?
* Couldn't the aliens learn more about us by sitting back and watching
satellite TV than by sampling? After all, you learn more about a culture
from its fiction than from its "truths". Also, we constantly beam science
about every aspect of our planet right to the aliens. On any given day
they would probably be hit with at least 20 hours of NEW science to digest
(from TLC, Discovery Channel, National Geographic, PBS, etc, etc) that
would include lots of details of the human body as well as the rest of the
planet. Wouldn't they be well served to just pick up detailed
cross-sections of the human body off the Internet rather than bothering
with abductions (and those pesky humans who always object to vigorously to
the anal probe)? If they're confused about something, why not post a
question in a news group?
* Why be secretive? EITHER they consider us base animals which can be
treated with complete indifference OR they consider us intelligent. If
they think we're just animals of no importance, why bother to hide from
us? When we catch and tag animals do we make sure none of the other
animals see us doing it? If they think we're intelligent beings, how do
they justify abduction and torture? If we're intelligent (maybe even
dangerous, in their eyes), why take all the chances of pissing us off?
How friendly can they expect us to be later on if we find out they WERE
sampling thousands or millions of humans and causing them extreme distress
and discomfort? Hell, we don't even know if dolphins are intelligent or
not, but we're taking steps to treat them better anyway, just on the off
chance that they are.
---
I just can't see how wide-spread abductions make any sense.