The five commandments of UFOology
Arthur Sankey
The five commandments of UFOology:
1. It's time to change termonology. First of all, UFO is a bad word. Even
through UFO stands for Unidentified/Unexplained Flying Object, a lot of
people with really bad spelling think UFO stands for Little Green Men On
The Cover Of The National Enquirer. Too many people, when talking about
alien spaceships, say UFO. But if we knew it was an alien spaceship, it
wouldn't be a UFO any more, would it? FS, standing for Flying Saucer,
would be better, because it brings up images of a more enlightened time
when sightings were greeted with curiosity, rather than cynicism.
Secondly, sceptic is a lousy word, since most people who call themselves
that are not very sceptical at all. Just look at how willing they are to
believe that some blimb ten miles away would be mistaken for an FS (after
all, it's completely imposible for an FS and a blimb to share the same
hundred square miles of airspace!) When NASA says that the
perfectly-formed human face on Mars is a coincidence, (it's probably more
likely that we would see the words "earwax tastes bad" written legebly
than a perfect human face) we say "Yeah, right" - we are the true
sceptics. A better word for the so-called sceptics would be deniers,
because they deny all of the things that people have so clearly
experienced. They ignore any facts that get in their way, and constantly
claim that for science to take an interest in the subject is if there's a
chunk of an FS they can borrow. (Of course they won't accept the fact that
coverup agencies are hiding the evidence, after all, Lee Harvey Oswald
killed JFK because of a bad hair day so how could a government hide
anything? Of course, the answer is, "the same way they hide thousands of
nuclear weapons and the information on how to make them: very easily.)
When they do get their hands on a chunk of evidence, they discover it is
"of terrestrial orgin". As in, it comes from our planet or is made to look
like it came from our planet to our primative technology. The idea is that
unless it's from space, it's not science. The whole idea of needing a
piece is absurd anyway, as if the natives found our about white explorers
by takeing pieces of wood from their ships and testing them...
ET is a bad word to describe aliens, first of all because it brings up
images of the movie, and because it suggests that the aliens are from some
other galaxy. The word alien, also brings up images of movies and beings
unrealated to us. (the fact that they are so humanoid and are capable of
breeding with us suggests that they are related somehow). The word
"Visitor" is good, since they could be from anywhere - Or future or past
via time-travel, some interplanetary cousins from subterranian Mars or
that moon with the ice on it people keep talking about, or from some other
dimension, heaven, hell, anything - the only thing we truly know is that
they visit us. The word "Visitor" keeps our minds open.
The word "Believe" is a bad one. We're not in this for some religion,
we're here only because this is where the facts led us. We don't want to
believe in Visitor abductions, we would love to find out it's just a
sickness that can be cured with a little pill. We also don't want to
believe that our airspace is regularly invaded and we're hopeless to stop
it, and we don't want to believe that our governments are covering so much
up for some reason that is most likely very sinister. However, the truth
is what we care about, even if it may not be very pretty.
2. Scientists are our pals. Most of them would be willing to understand
FSes and Visitors, but the only information they've seen on the subject is
in the National Enquirer. Some of them are a little ill at ease with the
subject (after all, the Visitors are technologically more advanced than
us, and if we got hold of their technologies our scientist would lose
their jobs) and they tend to influence others. Some have had sand kicked
in their faces at the beach a little too much, and write books about how
once they saw something in the sky, and spent twenty months poring over
weather-balloon timetables before figureing out it was just a speck on
their glasses. They then come to the conclusion that all FSes are swamp
gas. Next they write a book about how if we don't subscribe to the
sceptical enquirer and believe everything in it, we'll be transformed into
"unscientific" (Or "barbaric", these people tend to use the two words
interchangably,) hordes of Eskimos. (And they call _US_ paranoid!)
Luckily, these types are clearly in the minority. Most scientists are
open-minded but would rather stay silent until an FS lands on the White
House lawn. (This isn't going to happen, but certainly sometime soon an FS
will crash somewhere that the Media will get there before the coverup
guys. They've been lucky so far, but it can't last forever.)
3 Shut up with the theories. Who the Visitors are, why the cover-up is
happening, who killed JFK...Yes, comeing up with theories about it all is
fun,but it makes us look like nutcases. If we can just focus on finding
the truth, it will be a lot more interesting and strange than anything we
could ever imagine ourselves.
4 Always remember that UFO research is just a 20-21 century version of the
evolution debate of the 19-20 century. Evolution didn't have any solid
evidence for a while. It did, however, have the piltdown man hoax, and a
pig skull mistaken for the missing link. Evolution was supported
fanatically by the lunatic fringe, when it came to racial purity and such.
It was hated venomously by the acceptated truth-maker of the day, the
church. In our case we're opposed by state/corporate sponsored mainstream
scientists, the government, and a lot of very frightened deniers. Even
now, will all of the funding it gets, the hunt for the missing link is
still unsuccesful. We have lots of very well funded scientists against us,
a load of unknown government agencies with phenomenal funding with the
sole job of wreaking precious evidence, and the sheer will not to believe
whatdoesn't make sense or is simply unpleasent.
5 Fight the real enemy. Hole-in-the-pole nuts and cultists are a lot more
harmful to us than deniers. If we can get rid of the lunatic fringe in UFO
research, the deniers won't have anyone to pigeonhole us with.
Let's sue the National Enquirer. Don't UFO researchers need fundings,
which the NE takes away by making the whole area seem absurd? There's
really no reason why hoaxters and cultists can't be sued for their
mis/disinformation as well. C'mon people, sue sue sue! :)
6 Remember that this didn't all start in the 1940's and 1950's. Before the
war FSes were assosiated with airships, ghosts or religion. Since the
first cave paintings to the pyramids and on there have been lights and
discs, and endless accounts of encounters with otherworldy visitors.
Deniers like to think that back in the good old days people where very
naive, but these guys (at least, according to deniers) built the pyramids
without any of the wheels or simple tools we take for granted. The problem
with sticking to modern times is that it coincides with the boom of
sci-fi.
7 This is isn't done yet. This is just all I can think of. If anyone wants
to ad a few commandments, feel free.
Robert Teague
Nice job!
I agree with many of your points.
I started working on a list called:
UFOlogy: the Spectrum of Attitudes
The ETH says some fraction of UFOs are machines controlled by alien intelligences.
Believer: Sure, the evidence is ample to prove it to my satisfaction!
Cultist: Subset of Believer. They're here to save/enslave/eat/whatever us!
Conspiricy Theorist: Subset of Believer. They're here, and the government/military is
covering it up!
Proponant: I prefer to think the ETH is correct, and would love to see it proven!
Sceptic: The idea is possible, but until the quality of evidence improves markedly, I
assign it a probability no greater than any other theory explaining UFOs.
Opponent (I can't think of a good term here...Antagonant?): ET may be "out there", but
he is certainly not here, for whatever reason (interstellar travel impractical, too far
away, too primative to make the trip/too advanced to care, whatever).
Debunker: The probability of the ETH being true is as close to zero as no difference.
Therefore ANY other explanation, reguardless of how convoluted or farfetched, is
correct.
I wonder if those at the negative end of the spectrum suffer from xenophobia (and that's
NOT the fear of Lucy Lawless! :) ), and those at the positive end xenophilia.
Robert
Arthur Sankey
Chris Brown (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Arthur Sankey (bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> The five commandments of UFOology:
>>
>> 1. It's time to change termonology. First of all, UFO is a bad word. Even
>> through UFO stands for Unidentified/Unexplained Flying Object,
>
> But it's a word none the less (or an acronym, at least).. to remove it
> would be censorship.
I'm just making a suggestion. If I said "fundimentalationism" is a bad
word, would that make me a censor?
> a lot of
>> people with really bad spelling think UFO stands for Little Green Men On
>> The Cover Of The National Enquirer.
>
> And with some of the people that I've seen posting in here, it's not
> surprising.
I'm refering to science, the media etc.
>
>> Too many people, when talking about
>> alien spaceships, say UFO. But if we knew it was an alien spaceship, it
>> wouldn't be a UFO any more, would it? FS, standing for Flying Saucer,
>> would be better, because it brings up images of a more enlightened time
>> when sightings were greeted with curiosity, rather than cynicism.
>
> Well.. that you use your term and those of us that want to call them UFOs
> can call them UFOs. But you can't dictate what I'm going to call it and it
> really doesn't matter what you call it anyways.
It's a suggestion. I only gave this thing the title "commandments" because
it sounded kinda cool. For that you really can't call me a censor or a
dictator.
>> Secondly, sceptic is a lousy word, since most people who call themselves
>> that are not very sceptical at all. Just look at how willing they are to
>> believe that some blimb ten miles away would be mistaken for an FS (after
>> all, it's completely imposible for an FS and a blimb to share the same
>> hundred square miles of airspace!) When NASA says that the
>> perfectly-formed human face on Mars is a coincidence, (it's probably more
>> likely that we would see the words "earwax tastes bad" written legebly
>> than a perfect human face) we say "Yeah, right" - we are the true
>> sceptics. A better word for the so-called sceptics would be deniers,
>> because they deny all of the things that people have so clearly
>> experienced.
>
> Look up skeptic in the dictionary before you try to define it, please.
How the dictionary defines things is not how many people define them. In
the dictionary UFO means unidentified flying object: my last point.
> Those are fundamentalists, not skeptics.
Is it impossible for both the have the same characteristic?
>> ET is a bad word to describe aliens,
>
> ET stands for Extra Terrestrial,
In the dictionary it does, but most people think ET means "they cute
movie".
> which basically means "not of this
> planet". It's very fitting unless you believe that alien life is from the
> future of earth, which I think is a rather selfish idea but I accept both
> that it may be from future earth *and* from other planets.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, senfish or not. Let's not muddle the
whole thing with theories.
> >> first of all because it brings up
>> images of the movie, and because it suggests that the aliens are from some
>> other galaxy.
>
> Maybe they are. How do you know?
If one race was capable of interstellar travel, wouldn't we be visited by
millions of different aliens rather than a few? Just a thought, but the
main reason I don't want to suggest aliens being from another galaxy is
that it pisses off SETI type scientists.
>> The word alien, also brings up
images of movies and beings
>> unrealated to us. (the fact that they are so humanoid and are capable of
>> breeding with us suggests that they are related somehow). The word
>> "Visitor" is good, since they could be from anywhere
>
> Doesn't this conflict with the beginning statement of this commandment?
WOrds are not what the dictionary says, they are how people interpret them.
> - Or future or past
>> via time-travel, some interplanetary cousins from subterranian Mars or
>> that moon with the ice on it people keep talking about, or from some other
>> dimension, heaven, hell, anything - the only thing we truly know is that
>> they visit us. The word "Visitor" keeps our minds open.
>
> So does ET. But once again, call them what you want. It all depends on
> your point of view. But that doesn't mean that those views should be
> forced upon others.
Never intended too...
>> The word "Believe" is a bad one. We're not in this for some religion,
>> we're here only because this is where the facts led us.
>
> Some are here because they believe we're spirittually connected to these
> co-called visitors. Others, like myself, believe that alien technology
> itself may have been the basis for religion. In many ways,
> extra-terrestrial life/technology is connected to religion.
There seems to be a big link between the aliens (You've concinved me to
stick to the origional terms) and religion, but that's not my point. If
we call ourselves believers, people will INTERPRET us as cult type people.
>> believe in Visitor abductions, we would love to find out it's just a
>> sickness that can be cured with a little pill. We also don't want to
>> believe that our airspace is regularly invaded and we're hopeless to stop
>> it, and we don't want to believe that our governments are covering so much
>> up for some reason that is most likely very sinister. However, the truth
>> is what we care about, even if it may not be very pretty.
>
> The government is slowly leaking out information so that the public
> doesn't go nuts. The thing I don't like about this is that it won't help
> unite us, instead it just makes everything stay the same.
>
>> 2. Scientists are our pals. Most of them would be willing to understand
>> FSes and Visitors, but the only information they've seen on the subject is
>> in the National Enquirer.
>
> How do you know that for sure?
I don't. But I'm in no mood to alienate mainstream science.
>
>> Some of them are a little ill at ease with the
>> subject (after all, the Visitors are technologically more advanced than
>> us, and if we got hold of their technologies our scientist would lose
>> their jobs)
>
> Not necessarily. They would probably want to find out how it all works.
> That in itself might be a totally new science.
You can come to that conclusion if you give the subject some thought, but
I doubt if these sceptics types think about it that much. The fear is more
a subconcious thing, IMO.
> and they tend to influence others. Some have had sand kicked
>> in their faces at the beach a little too much, and write books about how
>> once they saw something in the sky, and spent twenty months poring over
>> weather-balloon timetables before figureing out it was just a speck on
>> their glasses. They then come to the conclusion that all FSes are swamp
>> gas. Next they write a book about how if we don't subscribe to the
>> sceptical enquirer and believe everything in it, we'll be transformed into
>> "unscientific" (Or "barbaric", these people tend to use the two words
>> interchangably,) hordes of Eskimos. (And they call _US_ paranoid!)
>
> If that's true then let them believe what they want.
And let other people believe them also? There's quite a movement starting
that considers UFOology and other "fringe science" to be a new dark age.
I'd rather not be passive to that idea.
> Not everyone believes
> in the existance of alien life, and not everyone believes that anyone who
> does believe so is in their right mind. But one day, when they decide that
> the time is right, they may decide to visit us in order to publicly make
> contact with the human race, and until then, we can never tell anyone that
> what they think about life beyond our solar system or our own planet is
> wrong. You don't know for sure that life really does exist outside planet
> earth.
>
>> Luckily, these types are clearly in the minority. Most scientists are
>> open-minded but would rather stay silent until an FS lands on the White
>> House lawn. (This isn't going to happen, but certainly sometime soon an FS
>> will crash somewhere that the Media will get there before the coverup
>> guys. They've been lucky so far, but it can't last forever.)
>>
>> 3 Shut up with the theories. Who the Visitors are, why the cover-up is
>> happening, who killed JFK
>
> Why don't you shut up? All you've done so far is make a mockery of
yourself.
> You haven't introduced any new ideas and instead have tried to censor and
> destroy the ideas that we already have. This only makes you as bad as the
> people you say you're against.
Censor? Destroy? Well, let me put it this way: there's a lot of noise and
very little signal when it comes to UFOology. New ideas are nice, but
most of the time they just add to the muddle and make things more
confusing. I think UFOolgy should subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory. I
hope I'm not introducing a new idea when I say that...
> t. > >>...Yes,
comeing up
with theories about it all is >> fun,but it makes us look like nutcases.
>
> No. Fundamentalists look like nutcases.
THey also are often pigionholed into our category.
> True thinkers with real ideas
> about the real world hardly look like nutcases. They're far from it.
Have you seen what the media thinks of UFO theories?
>> If we can just focus on finding
>> the truth, it will be a lot more interesting and strange than anything we
>> could ever imagine ourselves.
>
> Then why have you constantly tried to tear down any sort of ideas or
> established proof?
Proof? We've got a lot of very confused evidence. Will connecting it all
with theories really help our image?
>> 4 Always remember that UFO research is just a 20-21 century version of the
>> evolution debate of the 19-20 century. Evolution didn't have any solid
>> evidence for a while.
>
> It still doesn't. There's still many missing links in the so-called
> evolutionary chain.
Human evolution is still a mess, but I think we've pretty well figured out
how dinosaurs evolved. That's what I mean.
> >> It did, however, have the
piltdown man hoax,
and a >> pig skull mistaken for the missing link. Evolution was supported
>> fanatically by the lunatic fringe, when it came to racial purity and such.
>> It was hated venomously by the acceptated truth-maker of the day, the
>> church.
>
> But that was ages ago. Now, even the Pope accepts the idea of evolution.
And in a how decades, I hope he'll accept that UFOs are real. BTW, I've
heard Carl Sagan refered to as "the pope of mainstream science". I
also heard that he was convinced of UFOs before he died. Interesting
stuff...
>>In our case we're opposed by state/corporate sponsored mainstream
>> scientists, the government, and a lot of very frightened deniers. Even
>> now, will all of the funding it gets, the hunt for the missing link is
>> still unsuccesful. We have lots of very well funded scientists against us,
>> a load of unknown government agencies with phenomenal funding with the
>> sole job of wreaking precious evidence, and the sheer will not to believe
>> whatdoesn't make sense or is simply unpleasent.
>
> That's the way the media and government work, though. They only tell you
> what you want to hear. So become the media and propogate your own ideas
> and the whole truth instead of whining that they aren't doing the whole
> job. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
A lot more people are watching CNN than reading this post - even when it's
cross-posted onto usenet.
>> 5 Fight the real enemy. Hole-in-the-pole nuts and cultists are a lot more
>> harmful to us than deniers. If we can get rid of the lunatic fringe in UFO
>> research, the deniers won't have anyone to pigeonhole us with.
>
> Dangerous, how? If they believe that other life exists, then we're all in
> the same boat.
Heard about the heaven's gate cult? Want to be in the same boat as them?
> Just
because their views are different doesn't mean
that > they should be heard. Fascism is the irradication of choices. By
> wanting to remove the choice and right to freedom of belief, thought and
> consciousness, you are a fascist.
Wow, I guess if I call someone a dork I'll be a communist too, eh?
>> Let's sue the National Enquirer.
>
> For what? We have no definate proof that there is life beyond earth, and
> the NAtional Enquirer is obvious trash.
Seen the "alien backs Clinton" article? I really don't see how that
helping UFOologists get funding.
>> 6 Remember that this didn't all start in the 1940's and 1950's. Before the
>> war FSes were assosiated with airships, ghosts or religion. Since the
>> first cave paintings to the pyramids and on there have been lights and
>> discs, and endless accounts of encounters with otherworldy visitors.
>> Deniers like to think that back in the good old days people where very
>> naive,
>
> Many people *were* very naive then. A lot of the people that thought they
> saw anything flying that wasn't a bird probably got thrown into an insane
> asylum.
One of the Pharos of egypt saw a disc of fire, and he didn't get thrown
anywhere. The fact is, people back then had just as much a head on their
shoulders as we do, and if they saw a cloud that looked funny, they
wouldn't just to conclusions that sceptics say they would. That's my
point.
>> but these guys (at least, according to deniers) built the pyramids
>> without any of the wheels or simple tools we take for granted. The problem
>> with sticking to modern times is that it coincides with the boom of
>> sci-fi.
>
> But for the longest time, we've been trying to find out with what materials
> we have to find out if the pyramids were really built my humans. It can be
> accomplished and if we try hard enough, the facts may be revealed.
I'm pointing out the sillieness of the sceptic idea that the same people
who built the piramids mistook a cloud for a disc of fire. BOth can't be
right - I've come to the conclusion that we were smart enough to have
built the piramids without help, and the fire disc was a real UFO, not
ther Pharo's imagination.
>> 7 This is isn't done yet. This is just all I can think of. If anyone wants
>> to ad a few commandments, feel free.
>
> We don't need any commandments or rules.
Let's not end up being pigionholed as anarcists as well...
> This is a forum of
free thought,
> expression, and belief. Making up rules only removes that concept. If you
> think otherwise, then you probably shouldn't be here.
If you think otherwise you shouldn't be here. Irony alert.
Martin Leese - OMG
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:35:14 -0700 Robert Teague (rte...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
>> Believer: ...
>> Cultist: ...
>> Conspiricy Theorist: ...
I would have put "Cultist" and "Conspiracy Theorist" above a simple
"Believer".
...
>> Sceptic: The idea is possible, but until the quality of evidence improves markedly, I
>> assign it a probability no greater than any other theory explaining UFOs.
I would suggest:
Skeptic: The idea is possible, but until the quality of evidence
improves markedly I will assume a simpler theory is true, one
that does not require the existance of extraterrestrials.
I place myself somewhere between "Skeptic" and "Opponent".
Regards,
Martin
E-mail: mle...@omg.unb.ca
WWW: http://www.omg.unb.ca/~mleese/
______________________________________________________________________
Want to know how Ambisonics can improve the sound of your LPs and CDs?
Read the Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ. Version 2.7 now on my WWW page.
Robert Teague
Martin Leese - OMG wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 20:35:14 -0700 Robert Teague (rte...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
> >> Believer: ...
> >> Cultist: ...
> >> Conspiricy Theorist: ...
>
> I would have put "Cultist" and "Conspiracy Theorist" above a simple
> "Believer".
As significant subsets, they deserve special mention, IMO.
>
> ...
> >> Sceptic: The idea is possible, but until the quality of evidence improves markedly, I
> >> assign it a probability no greater than any other theory explaining UFOs.
>
> I would suggest:
>
> Skeptic: The idea is possible, but until the quality of evidence
> improves markedly I will assume a simpler theory is true, one
> that does not require the existance of extraterrestrials.
>
> I place myself somewhere between "Skeptic" and "Opponent".
>
Then your suggestion defines yourself. Mine says the skeptic gives equal weight to the
ETH, until further evidence comes along.
> Regards,
> Martin
I posted the list as-was from the jottings I made. I know it needs improvement, and
yours is the first commentary I've seen. Thanks!
But it may be useful in helping define where people stand on the whole issue.
Robert