Subject: Re: What does SETI stand for?
From: Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.//Anti-Debunking Unit Pro-Tem (ADUPT)
Date: 16/07/2003, 06:43
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct,sci.skeptic

In article <osa8hv0l9tu4f3jrgvp6em5nflnnvto2pi@4ax.com>, David Patrick says...

As radio telescope power increases over the years I am sure we will
see more concerted broadcasting attempts than the Arecibo one, just as
SETI was originally far patchier in its coverage when it started.

The fact is, we have a greater chance at success in the short term
with listening rather than broadcasting.

Patty, Even I don't (to use a debunker term) "believe"
that you "believe" that drivel you write.  It is
so beyond ludicrous and totally without merit
that to even comment on it would be a waste of time and space!
- - -
The cult of S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort To Investigate) with its crazy notions that
nobody would travel -- but that aliens, stuck at the level of radio, are trying
to attract our attention -- mocks the notion of flying saucers, not by dealing
with the evidence, but by proclamations about the ABSENCE of evidence. This
ignores science.

I prove at every lecture that the NSA and CIA are withholding UFO data. Having
worked under security for fourteen years, visited seventeen document archives,
and having become aware of the huge black budgets of the NSA, NRO, CIA, DIA,
etc., I know how easy it is to keep secrets. My nineteen years of study about
crashed saucers, and thirteen years on the Majestic-12 documents have convinced
me these are real. The challenge for us all, as we enter the new millennium, is
to recognize that while our future is in space, we are not alone. I truly hope
we qualify for admission to the Cosmic Kindergarten.

Stanton Friedman