Reply to article by: tlack@hotmail.com (studio)
Date written: 31 Oct 2004 06:24:14 -0800
MsgID:<4fac3168.0410310624.4648f942@posting.google.com>

You are confusing aircraft performance with putting on an airshow.

Just because it doesn't sound intelligent to you, doesn't mean it's
not.

Intelligence is something one demonstrates by their actions, not by their sound,
and the criteria for demonstrating inteligence is very clear and is something
that UFOs do not demonstrate.

The *action* of interplantery space travel vehicle *sounds*
intelligent to me.
Albeit, I would have to see one first, and then you can tell me how I
what I seen wasn't what I thought I saw because I have no evidence and
you haven't enough data.

Interplanteray space travel would be intelligent if we could see it as it
occured -- but we haven't seen it, all we have seen is the piss-poor show of
their inter-atmospheric airshows.

Besides, if there really are aliens visiting us out there, why won't they visit me? 

Maybe that's what some monkey in Africa, or dolphin in the ocean is
thinking right now about you?

.
.
.

I can't even tell you why the President of the U.S. wouldn't
personally visit you, other than he gains nothing by doing so. But you
would have to ask him, I don't speak for him.

That isn't even close to being true, as there are alot of reasons why the
President wouldn't want to visit me, since the President doesn't visit people at
random as ETs do, ie -- there are very specific reasons for the President to
visit someone. Another way of putting this is, what are the apparent reasons for
ETs visiting the people they have allegedly visited?

Apparently, the same reasons we would have for watching monkey's in
the wild.

We evolved along with monkeys and we are close relatives, but ETs are not, so
how could we have the same reasons? What reason would they have for visiting or
not any one of us? What would be their criteria? If you examine the alleged
evidence, the ETs prefer backwoods rednecks or gullible New Age fanatics over
intelligent, down-to-Earth, common logical sense kind of people. That is why I
say that the ET phenomenon is a fad or a form of hysteria.

The use of hypnotism in most of the abduction research is indicative of the kind
of people who are prone to report an ET phenomenon: those without self-control
and lack inhibition. There might be the real reason they won't visit me because
I have self-control and am not prone to randoming acting on things.

Although I'm not so sure ET's ever visited any individual, despite the
reported facts.

Before we can establish anything, we first have to establish that ETs are
visiting us, and that has yet to happen.

No one can offer any logical or factual reason why someone as advanced as the
ETs would want to visit us...and that is the subject of this thread and one that
has yet to be rationally answered.

Of course there could be logical reasons why they would want to visit
us. i.e. Research into primitive cultures, anatomy, social, teaching,
resources, trade, ect....albeit, these reasons may not be good enough
for them to exsert the energy necessary to travel here on a regular or
even semi-regular basis.
Why would that not be a rational answer?

Because it is based on what *YOU* might do if you could travel interstellar
distances, not what a race more *ADVANCED* might do. Chances are a more advanced
race would already know all there is to know about any species they might come
across because their knowledge of biochemistry and genetics would far exceed our
own -- in other words, there would be nothing for them to gain from studying us
that they already wouldn't know.

The language issue is irrelevant since almost all ETs suppusedly know telepathy.

You know this as a fact?

Yes I do. Why don't you read the storytales of ETs abductions and see what
you've been missing?

I never said I believe the stories to begin with. None have come from
reliable sources that I know of.

That does not change the fact that, in the context of the ETs storytales often
told, that language would not be a barrier.

And in my theory....they are.

That isn't a theory, that is your wishful thinking. Scientific theories consist
of more than just making things up, they consist of a logical extension of known
facts. What is known so far is the almost all alleged ETs perform telepathy.

Perhaps the alien astronuats aren't versed/experts in zoology just
yet?

Perhaps you still have no argument so you make things up.

In part, that's what theories are.

No they aren't. Theories are based on *known* facts, not make believe and all
you have to base any of your "theories" on is make believe.

The known facts can still be interpreted differently as basis for a
theory.

The point still being that any intepretation has to be based on *known* facts,
not unknown facts. Rationally derived interpretations have to be based on a
logical extension of what we actually know, not an extension of what we think
might be a fact.

Well, we know people are seeing things, that there are different
reasons why, and that some of these things are not explainable by you,
me or anyone else.

Correction: there are many explanations, just some of them are not acceptable or
popular. Case in point: the most consistent, thorough, logical, and factual
explanation is that the ET phenomenon is a fad and/or a form of mass hyteria.
But no one wants to hear that: the experiencers don't because they don't want to
admit they are wrong, the UFO researchers don't because they don't want to look
stupid, and the media doesn't because they don't want to lose any money. But
science isn't about popularity so that's the breaks.

No, one virus destroying it's own environment so that eventually it will have no
place to live.

May the best plauge win,

Your attitude is the exact reason humans shouldn't be allowed to colonize the
solar system, much less the galaxy.

With your permission, can I at least live on earth?

I don't have the authority to permit or deny you permission...or are you
confessing that you are one of those kind of people with a trash the universe
attitude?

No, my point is, we couldn't trash the universe even *if* we tried.

If we had the chance, what's there to stop us?

*Green* people think we are without trying.

We haven't had the chance to yet.

I am not using one make believe story to try and defend another make believe
story, so your point is pointless. I am simply using THE MATRIX as a way to
beautifully illustrate the fact that every biologist knows: "An organism that
thinks only in themes of its own survival will invariably destroy its
environment and, as we are learning from bitter experience, will thus destroy
itself"

I don't know of any organisms that don't think of their own survival
first...

That's because they've gone extinct.

at least until they can procreate, exceptions would be for the
suicidal, which I don't believe the human race as a whole is, and the
facts back me up at the moment.

So every biologist is a liar now?

I wouldn't worry about it too much, as the universe is so big and
expanding at a rate infinitely beyond our rate of 7-11 production.

I would worry more about your ignorance of science since an expanding universe
means a *thinning* universe -- which means everything is getting further apart
and fewer in number.

Imagine that, mother nature changing your universe by thinning it out.
How un-natural.

That is what expansion implies. Looks like you are high on the ignorance list as
well.

All I know is that people are part of nature that will expand also.

It is only the universe that is expanding, not people.

ex-pand, To spread out, enlargement, size or volume. 
Even an individual can expand, just look at your waist-line!

But we aren't talking about waistlines, but an expanding universe. The universe
is expanding at rate much greater than anyone's waistline.

All I was saying was that there are no reasonable, logical, believable reasons
that anyone can give for why ETs would want to visit us, so thank you for
proving my point by not giving any reasonable, logical, believable reasons why
ETs would want to visit us. Mayber rather than reply to my original post, you
decided to reply to a reply that was a smart arse wisecrack rather then
something intelligently thought out. That way people will no longer consider you
guys (the UFO community) the laughing stock of the world.

I'm part of the UFO community???

Are you? You tell me.

I'm not. 

Better to stay away from it then.
 

I would just say, I'm curious of some UFO reports given by reliable
sources.

The alleged reliability of the sources is irrelevant, since "...the basic data
consist of REPORTS of UFO sightings, not the EXISTENCE of what was reported.
This distinction is crucial because the fact that some people have reported such
things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no doubt that
people have made such reports. That the people in question actually saw or
experienced what they say they did, however, is open to question" (UNDERSTANDING
SCIENTIFIC REASONING, by Ronald Giere, pg 166)

I wonder how he would report a UFO?...nah, he probably wouldn't.

This isn't about Ronald reporting a UFO, but about the fact that reporting a UFO
is not the same as handing over bits and pieces of a UFO.

Most are mistakes or out-right frauds, but there remains a very few
that aren't explainable and are truely mysterious.

The only thing "unexplainable" implies is that there was insufficient data to
explain anything. With more data, it could be explained.

That seems to be *the problem* both sides of the debate have isn't it?

No, not even close. One side simply examines the reports, the other side simply
reports stories without evidence.

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================