PDA

View Full Version : Just discovered Art Bell


05-04-1999, 10:28 PM
Wow, accuse me of leading a sheltered life if you will, but I just this week learned of the (currently) fourth most popular American radio host, Mr. Art Bell.

I've read that Art is creeping up on Stern, Limbaugh, and Schlessinger (in terms of popularity) as well as having recently broken Larry King's long-standing affiliate record of 400 stations.

His show originates for his trailer somewhere near Area 51 and is on the air begining at 10pm pacific time for four hours. Art hosts guests that discuss strange and usual topics such as remote viewing, ghosts, UFOs, reverse speech, pyramids, etc.

You can listen to his show live over the internet by accesing his webpage: www.artbell.com (you need RealPlayer)

I just thought that if I hadn't heard of him then maybe others hadn't either and that they might be entertained by listening to his show.

Who here follows his show and what do you think of him? He is back tonight from hiatus (Hilly Rose has been guest-hosting) and this will be the first time that I've listened to him live.

Comments? Flames?

05-04-1999, 10:45 PM
I havent heard his show, but i have read some of the transcripts. I heard he often interviews Gordon Michael Scallion, the guy who predicted big earth-changes this decade (like actual beachfront property in Nevada). GMS even drew up these maps (that he charges for, you would think he would at least put them on the internet!). Anyway i think Art Bell is popular because of the content of his show - wierd stuff.

05-04-1999, 10:52 PM
I've listened to Art Bell for awhile. But then I tuned out because some of his guest were just too out there. I have nothing against the guy, he makes a living talking weird stuff. But I don't take him too seriously, just pure entertainment.



------------------
안 녕, 주 동 일

05-04-1999, 11:20 PM
Beeruser is right. For a reasonably skeptical person Bell is a real hoot. The kooks he has on are very entertaining in a humorous and often tragic way. I sure wouldn't trust an impressionable person to listen to this nonsense with safety, though. All of Bell's questions are soft ball affirmations of whatever delusions the guest is selling. I pick it up when I'm in my car after 10:00 on the San Diego station KGO. For some eerie reason his is the only show that comes in clearly of that channel in L.A.

05-05-1999, 12:04 AM
Art believes that all ideas have equal worth. Of course, when everything is worth the same, everything is worthless.
For a good time, call up Art and describe a flying saucer you just saw, then listen to all the people that saw the same saucer!

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-05-1999, 03:40 AM
I dont know, I do think the show is entertaining, and it is fun to listen to when you are going on long rides. but, I fear that too many people listen to the show without a skeptical ear. Which, seems like a bad thing, seeing that they have guests on that "sell" these ideas of worldwide changes.. and then they also have ads for stored food, and flashlights to use when disaster strikes..
oh well..

i did listen to it last week and heard his guest host do some bad things. one day he told everyone in cincinatti to call the police because he couldnt figure out where his guest had gone.. sure, great idea tell your radio audience to flood 911.. no danger there.
then he reported that gang initiation email about lsd and strychnine on phones as something to watch out for...
oh well, i saw this thread and i figured this would be a good place to complain about those two things.
i guess i am just bitter today.
byby

pat

------------------
70 61 74 20 74 68 65 20 67 72 65 61 74

05-05-1999, 08:13 PM
I used to listen to Bell quite a bit, but then I discovered critical thinking and I dumped him. Mr. Bell makes his living by pushing what is, for the most part, nonsense. Take my advice. Dump Art Belll and spend the time you used to use listening to him on reading books about good science, critical thinking, and logic. The real world is much more interesting than anything Bell or the majority of his guests have to say.

05-06-1999, 06:04 AM
I've listened to Art for 2 years now(I work nights) and I find many of his shows to be very interesting. Some of the topics are very out there and more than a few of his guests(and people that call in) need to see a shrink. But, he lets other points of view, and a huge range of topics, be heard, even if they are hard to swallow. He never mocks them, as many talk show hosts do when confronted with similar ideas, he lets them present their ideas and, as he says almost every night, he expects his audience to use their own critical thinking skills and judge for themselves if the person was credible. Art is one of the best interviewers I've heard, either on TV or radio and I hope he can keep it up for many years...

------------------
Like the man says; don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive -- Bugs Bunny

05-06-1999, 02:08 PM
Hey DSC:

Thanks (I guess) for the advice. Did you ever listen to the sound clips from the show where they replay the Trumbull County (Ohio) 911 tapes? You know, they stat getting calls from freaked out citizens about a large object hovering over their homes. The cops and dispatchers are laughing and cracking jokes about it until they actually got check it out themselves and then the tone changes...they start chasing the object and they seem to be kinda freaked out...interesting stuff...just go to the Art Bell website and click on sound clips...look around and you'll find it...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-06-1999, 03:03 PM
I've read that Art is creeping up on Stern, Limbaugh, and Schlessinger (in terms of popularity) as well as having recently broken Larry King's long-standing affiliate record of 400 stations.

So that menace Bell is becoming a nuisance again. Perhaps the REGS should send CSM back to have a talk with him, perhaps suggesting a longer 'hiatus' this time.

It would be a pity if we had to have Vinnie interrupt his legitimate business activities to look into this Mr. Bell matter.
____________________________
Have you thanked a legitimate businessman lately?

05-06-1999, 07:30 PM
PapaBear said:I sure wouldn't trust an impressionable person to listen to this nonsense with safety, though.
Such as somebody in a cult, for example.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, Bell promoted the idea that a spaceship was following the comet that the Heaven's Gate folks all killed themselves to hop a ride on. While it is possible that those folks would've found another reason to commit suicide, if he and his guests hadn't been making that outlandish claim, we really can't say what would've happened.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-10-1999, 09:14 PM
Contestant#3.

Did you know that the Earth is the only planet other than Pluto where a total eclipse of the Sun can be seen?

Far more interesting.

05-10-1999, 10:58 PM
Hey DSC:

I'll store that away for the next time I'm planning on watching an eclipse from Venus.

You find obscure planetary trivia exciting and I take an interest in unexplained events witnessed by hundreds of people and covered up by the US government. I read up on contrails and you memorize the periodic tables.

Let's just say that "interesting" is subjective and leave it at that shall we?

P.S. I bet I'm a lot more fun a parties than you are!

------------------
Contestant #3

05-10-1999, 10:58 PM
Hey DSC:

I'll store that away for the next time I'm planning on watching an eclipse from Venus.

You find obscure planetary trivia exciting and I take an interest in unexplained events witnessed by hundreds of people and covered up by the US government. I read up on contrails and you memorize the periodic table.

Let's just say that "interesting" is subjective and leave it at that shall we?

P.S. I bet I'm a lot more fun a parties than you are!

------------------
Contestant #3

05-10-1999, 11:04 PM
wow, #3 for someone who has just started listening to the show you certainly have started to buy into alot of what it has to sell.
i have heard those tapes you speak of. i have also heard the comments about the spaceships that were accompanying the comet, and the guy that tried to kill the alien in washington. so, i think what i am saying is just take the show with a grain of salt. ok, not a grain of salt with a salt lick.
as art bell says its "entertainment"

pat

------------------
70 61 74 20 74 68 65 20 67 72 65 61 74

05-10-1999, 11:46 PM
pricciar:

Nah, not exactly a lot of it. For example, I don't really believe in Ed Dames...he seems like a total faker to me....David Oates and reverse speech...no, not this time...

But hey, you do mention that you listened to the 911 tapes...so what did you think about that?

I have observed that some people are just to cowardly or intellectually snobish to admit that they might be interested in UFOs, and other unexplained happenings. Go ahead...poke fun at me...I don't care... I'm secure enough to allow myself to check these things out and to ponder them.

Yeah, those cops and 911 operators were laughing too...making jokes about the frightened and excited folks that were watching a large object hovering silently over their homes...that is until they checked it out themselves...then they were frightened and bewildered themselves....hmmm...has Cecil or any of you for that matter totally debunked extraterrestrial crafts?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-11-1999, 01:07 AM
If you just came out of the dark.president clinton stated in an open forum that bill cooper was the most dangerious thlk show host in the country to find out why he has a program m-f on 7.415 mhtz shortwave from 7-9 eastern timeor alex johnes 9.400mhtz at 2pm eastern

------------------
ObbieWon

05-11-1999, 05:19 AM
I have observed that some people are just to cowardly or intellectually snobish to
admit that they might be interested in UFOs, and other unexplained happenings

No, some people just realize:

1) "UFO" means exactly that ("unidentified flying object") and is not a synonym for "extraterrestrial spacecraft";
2) "Unexplained" is not a synonym for "unexplainable";
3) Large numbers of people in the same place at the same time can be deluded about what they've seen;
4) Eyewitness testimony is almost always faulty, subjective, and colored with the witnesses expectations and prejudices; and,
5) Emotional reaction does not validate the facts of a supposed experience.


------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-11-1999, 08:19 AM
Contestant #3 said:I take an interest in unexplained events witnessed by hundreds of people and covered up by the US government.
I love the way you take a claim made by either Bell or one of his on-air nuts and transform it into fact.

Let's just say that "interesting" is subjective and leave it at that shall we?
Of course "interesting" is subjective. But one can be interested in a topic without leaving behind critical thinking.

P.S. I bet I'm a lot more fun a parties than you are!
Why? Because you believe in government conspiracies and aliens? Frankly, I see no connection between believing in nonsense and being fun at a party. Having gone out to dinner with two of the staunchest skeptics in the world (Penn & Teller), I can firmly state that I'm sure they are a lot more fun at parties than you are.



------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-11-1999, 02:28 PM
Contestant #3:

i would say its quite difficult to "totally" debunk anything. for every UFO story that gets debunked and explained, another one will come out of the woodwork, has anyone totally debunked the stories? no. but, many of them have been explained as different objects in the sky, and the eye witnesses refuse to believe it.
there are many UFOs every night, but that doesnt mean every night little green men are coming down and screwing with our precious bodily fluids.

and yes cecil does mention this topic.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_065.html

pat

------------------
70 61 74 20 74 68 65 20 67 72 65 61 74

05-11-1999, 03:06 PM
Phil: You stated: "3) Large numbers of people in the same place at the same time can be deluded about what they've seen"

I'm wondering if you can back that up with science?

David B: You are a shameless name-dropper...Am I supposed to be impressed with your choice of dining partners?

Pricciar: Thanks for the link...I'll check it out later...

DSC: Thanks for making my point about intellectual snobs!

Obbiewan: Thanks for the tip...tell me more please...

Enore_Tsotset, Beeruser, and Pappabear: Thanks for your honest (and non-snobbish) responses



------------------
Contestant #3

05-11-1999, 04:03 PM
I'm not a listener of Art Bell but I confess my curiosity was aroused by his sudden on-air departure some months ago. I was sure it was a publicity stunt, and his subsequent return after vowing that would be his last program pretty much solidified the notion. However, I was wondering if he ever explained what was supposed to be going on. Aliens in black guvmint helicoptors? Alcohol abuse? Marital problems? Publicity stunt? All of the above? None of the above? Or should I just buy the World Weekly News if I want the whole story?

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

05-11-1999, 04:16 PM
Contestant #3 said:David B: You are a shameless name-dropper...Am I supposed to be impressed with your choice of dining partners?
Give me a break. You made an inane comment about being more fun at parties, and so I chose an example to show how silly it was. A "shameless name-dropper"? The only reason I even gave their names (in parentheses) was because I needed to make the point that you were so obviously wrong.

Of course, you ignored the main thrust of the message, namely that you took a claim made by either Bell or one of his on-air nuts and transformed it into fact. You also ignored DSC's point about evidence instead of conspiracy and just called him a snob.

So what we have is you ignoring the good points we make and instead using ad hominem attacks. But after years of discussing this issue with UFO believers, this is unfortunately a tactic I have come to expect.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-11-1999, 04:40 PM
David B:

No, it's you that missed the point bud...

DSC had posted (to me):

"Did you know that the Earth is the only planet other than Pluto where a total eclipse of the Sun can be seen?

Far more interesting."

My response was making the point that quoting obscure planetary trivia might be a hoot at the local gathering of planetarium hobbyists, but that more people are going to be interested in discussing the Trumbull county 911 tapes...my proof of that concept is this message board itself...the more wild, pointless, and sensational the topic, the more response...the bland "from how many planets can you view a solar eclipse?" threads don't get much play. Fact.

As for your name-dropping, come on! It was shameless and designed to impress us. I called you out...live with it.

As for your defense of DSC, sorry again, he WAS in fact acting like an intellectual snob...he WAS in fact, insulting all Art Bell listeners and asserting his superiority...I called him on that too and he'll have to live with the results of his actions. hat he has in effect said is this:
"I, the great DSC, have already determined that Art Bell and any topic on his program is bunk, and "smart" people like me don't listen to that stuff" (implied is that hundreds of thousands of listeners are stupid, but DSC is smart)

So what we "have", is you and DSC acting "smarter than thou"...if you don't like Art Bell, then don't listen and don't flame me first if you can't handle turnabout!

P.S. Your Randi quote is snobbish too...who decides what is nonsense, you and DSC?

05-11-1999, 05:00 PM
Hey! I'll go on record as saying Art Bell's show is nonsense! Entertaining; but still nonsense.

05-11-1999, 06:06 PM
FYI:

Last night's guest = Dr. Brian Brody, Psychologist, and author of the book "Levelling: A guide to positive parenting"
He also happens to live in Littleton and has a child that attended there.

I understand that he turned down interviews with the major networks in order to appear exclusively on the Bell show (Hilly Rose guest-hosted).

The programs are archived and you can still listen to this "nonsense" if you not too full of yourself.


------------------
Contestant #3

05-11-1999, 06:07 PM
FYI:

Last night's guest = Dr. Brian Brody, Psychologist, and author of the book "Levelling: A guide to positive parenting"
He also happens to live in Littleton and has a child that attended there.

I understand that he turned down interviews with the major networks in order to appear exclusively on the Bell show (Hilly Rose guest-hosted).

The programs are archived and you can still listen to this "nonsense" if you are not too full of yourself.


------------------
Contestant #3

05-11-1999, 06:29 PM
i dont think anyone was saying every guest that art bell has on is nonsense. the problem i have with him, is that he throws these softball questions at his guests, never calls them on their contradictions. he wants his listeners to make their own judgements about the guests he has on, but he certainly makes that difficult, when he sells the concept as much as the guest does.

pat

(also note, i went to that Dr. Brian Brody's website, which was linked from the art bell site, and i will try to listen to the show later. so, i am going to hold judgement. but, i fail to see how he is doing anything from profiting from tragedy by going on the radio and getting his book title out there, and his "coaching" services. but, like i said i havent listened yet, i will listen later)

------------------
70 61 74 20 74 68 65 20 67 72 65 61 74

05-11-1999, 10:03 PM
David B, howcome Teller never talks?

Or should I start a new thread on this?



------------------
안 녕, 주 동 일

05-12-1999, 12:14 AM
One does not have to wait long to see the religious nature of the UFO enthusiast emerge.

Hard evidence will make your argument. Claims of "conspiracy" will not suffice.

05-12-1999, 05:31 AM
Phil: You stated: "3) Large numbers of people in the same place at the same time can
be deluded about what they've seen"

I'm wondering if you can back that up with science?

Sure, I'll find some specific links later in the day when I'm not getting ready for work. In the meantime, it's been known for decades that, for example, 15 eyewitnesses to the same event will give you 15 often widely differing descriptions, varying as to sequence of events, number of participants, positions, distances, etc. Eyewitness testimony is to be trusted at some peril, especially in regards to extremely ambiguous events.

In addition, eyewitnesses tend to be extremely open to suggestion, filling in details they never noticed or only half-noticed with untrue things. For example, in studies of eyewitness accounts, a robbery might be staged. When the witnesses are questioned, the questioner might ask, "Was the suspect wearing a black hat or a red hat? There seems to be some confusion." The greater number of participants will answer one or the other, when in fact the suspect was not wearing a hat at all. This is a common problem with eyewitnesses.

David B, howcome Teller never talks?

TLC had a series a while back on the history of magic, and Teller was interviewed quite a bit. And he spoke throughout.

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-12-1999, 08:15 AM
Here you go, C3, here are the promised links. They include some Medline abstracts from psych journals, a legal article on problems with eyewitnesses, a Frontline episode on how eyewitness testimony led to a wrongful conviction, and a "Skeptical Inquirer" article on how expectations color testimony (with bibliography). BTW, defense attorneys love eyewitness testimony--it's easy to discredit.

http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedlin e/cgi-bin/std_format.cgi?med98-99+59520+(eyewitness+AND+testimony)

http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline/cgi-bin/std_format.cgi?med95-97+366432+(eyewitness+AND+testimony)

http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline/cgi-bin/std_format.cgi?med90-92+219577+(eyewitness+AND+testimony)

http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline/cgi-bin/std_format.cgi?med90-92+270068+(eyewitness+AND+testimony)

http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline/cgi-bin/std_format.cgi?med90-92+511606+(eyewitness+AND+testimony)

http://www.csicop.org/si/9511/eyewitness.html

http://www.cup.org/Titles/44/0521445531.html

http://www.hanover.edu/publications/winter96/4HQ.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/

http://www.sado.org/19cdn12.htm#19cdn12a

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html


------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-12-1999, 08:48 AM
Sorry Phil, but your links leave me wanting. They fail miserably to address your claim that "Large numbers of people in the same place at the same time can
be deluded about what they've seen"

To the readers of this thread: Don't waste your time as I have in chasing these links.
Links 1-5 are irrelevant. For example, link #1 deals with how one's own ethnenticity colors one's recall of the ethnenticity of the perpetrator in single-witness recall...link#2 deals with the implications of a child's eyewitness testimony....link #7 offers a book that you can buy for $59.95 and lists chapter titles...links #8-#11 deal with single eyewitness testimony as it relates to criminal trials...

Link #6 is the ONLY link that could be construed to have anything to do with Phil's claim that "Large numbers of people in the same place at the same time can
be deluded about what they've seen".

Link #6 cites a number of experiments, most of which were conducted in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and dealt mostly with a small group of people watchng a fake seance and then reporting afterward on what they observed...the results of the experiments showed that the accounts varied in what the witnesses could recall and couldn't recall, with each remembering the event slightly differently...

I still do not consider you to have adequately explained how for instance a group of one thousand people could suffer a "mass delusion", especially in scientific terms. For example, thousand of people witnessed the "Phoenix lights" a couple of years ago...where's your scientific rebuttal to that specific event?...how is it explained that these people could be simultaneously deluded?...

Come on Phil, instead of trying to impress us with quantity, how about something actually on-topic next time?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 09:25 AM
I still do not consider you to have adequately explained how for instance a group of one thousand people could suffer a "mass delusion", especially in scientific terms. For example, thousand of people witnessed the "Phoenix lights" a couple of years ago...where's your scientific rebuttal to that specific event?...how is it explained that these people could be simultaneously deluded?...

Yeah, there's a good case for you, the Phoenix lights. Please! If you're that gullible, I have a bridge for sale--a BIG one. I suggest you read up on the history of mass delusions. I mean, I'm not telling you something new, here, you know?

I quote from http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/archives/1998/030598/feature1-1.html:

"The witnesses included New
Times writers. David Holthouse
and Michael Kiefer both saw
the pattern of five lights move
slowly overhead. Holthouse
says he perceived that
something connected the
lights in a boomerang shape;
Kiefer disagrees, saying they
didn't seem connected. Like
other witnesses, both reported that the vee made no sound, and
each saw slightly different colors in the lights. Both watched as
the lights gradually made their way south and faded from view.

The many eyewitnesses have elaborated on this basic model:
Some saw that the lights were not connected, others swear they
saw a giant triangular craft joining them, some felt it was at high
altitude, others claim it was barely over their heads and moving
very slowly. All seem to be describing the same lights at the
same time: About 8:15 the lights passed over the Prescott area,
about 15 minutes later the vee moved over Phoenix, and at 8:45 it
passed south of Tucson.

That's about 200 miles in 30 minutes, which indicates that the
lights were traveling about 400 miles per hour. "

"That night, Mitch Stanley and his mother were in the yard of their
Scottsdale home, where Stanley has a large Dobsonian
telescope.

He and his mother noticed the vee pattern approaching from the
northwest. Within seconds, Stanley was able to aim the
telescope at the leading three lights of the pattern.

Stanley was using a 10-inch mirror which gathers 1,500 times as
much light as the human eye, and an eyepiece which magnified
the sky 60 times, effectively transporting him 60 times closer to
the lights than people on the ground.

When Stanley's mother asked him what he saw, he responded,
"Planes."

It was plain to see, Stanley says. Under magnification, Stanley
could clearly see that each light split into pairs, one each on the
tips of squarish wings. Even under the telescope's power, the
planes appeared small, indicating that they were flying high.
Stanley says he followed the planes for about a minute, then
turned his telescope to more interesting objects.

"They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that,"
he says.

The next day, when radio reports made Stanley aware that many
thought they had seen something extraterrestrial, he told Jack
Jones, another amateur astronomer, about his sighting. Jones
later called both the Arizona Republic and Frances Emma
Barwood. Neither called Jones or Stanley back. "

"At 10 p.m., up to nine bright lights were seen to appear, hover for
several minutes, and then disappear southwest of Phoenix in the
direction of the Sierra Estrella. Video cameras at points across
the Valley caught the string of hovering lights. All nine were visible
from some locations, others saw fewer.

Mike Krzyston, from the yard of his Moon Valley home, captured
all nine on video. "I hit pay dirt, finally!" he exclaimed as the lights
appeared. "This is a major sighting!" said another videographer as
he taped five of the lights.

In June, however, KPNX-TV Channel 12 reporter Blair Meeks
filmed a drop of flares by military planes over the Air Force
gunnery ranges southwest of Phoenix. The hovering lights looked
remarkably like the 10 p.m. lights of March 13, and Meeks
suggested it as a possible solution to that night's second event.

Within days, Tucson Weekly broke the news that the Maryland
Air National Guard, in Arizona for winter training, had a squad of
A-10 fighters over the gunnery range that night, and they had
dropped flares. An Arizona National Guard public information
officer, Captain Eileen Bienz, had determined that the flares had
been dropped at 10 p.m. over the North Tac range 30 miles
southwest of Phoenix, at an unusually high altitude: 15,000 feet.
(Captain Drew Sullins, spokesman for the Maryland Air National
Guard, says that the A-10s, which have squarish wings, never
went north of Phoenix, so they could not have been responsible
for the formation of planes seen at 8:30 p.m.)

Local UFO investigator Dick Motzer and others have shown that
the initial appearance of the 10 p.m. lights, the number of lights
seen from different elevations in the Valley, and the timing of the
lights' disappearances all correspond well with flares dropped at
high altitude beyond the Sierra Estrella."

"Jim Marrs is a good example.
Author of the best-selling Alien
Agenda, Marrs is touted as
both an expert on UFOs and
the John F. Kennedy
assassination (and, incredibly,
connects the two in Alien
Agenda, suggesting that
Kennedy was killed for his
knowledge of U.S.-space alien contacts). Oliver Stone mined
Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire for his conspiracy-minded film JFK.

Today, Jim Marrs is giving a sermon.

He's a featured speaker at the Seventh Annual International UFO
Congress. His message: There's no question aliens are among
us. The real question, he asserts, is what their "agenda" is.

"I feel like I'm preaching to the choir. I don't think I need to explain
anything to you," he says in his Texas twang.

Marrs preaches about our moon, for example, asserting that it is
"the original UFO," and a great mystery. Marrs asserts that,
unlike other celestial objects, the moon travels not in an ellipse
but "in a nearly perfectly circular orbit."

No one objects to this falsehood. In fact, the moon moves in a
very respectable ellipse which can change its distance from Earth
up to 50,000 kilometers.

To Marrs, the sum of this and other effects -- which include
several basic errors of astronomical knowledge from a best-selling
author who claims to be an expert -- lead to only one, unavoidable
conclusion: It is obvious that an ancient, extraterrestrial race
parked the moon in a perfect orbit around Earth.

No one in the audience laughs.

"I don't have to explain this. You all believe this, right?" Marrs
asks, and he gets a resounding "yes" from the choir.

Meanwhile, two women ignore Marrs as they talk about why
aliens are abducting so many people. One says aliens want to
create a hybrid human-alien race which will be able to operate the
advanced technology aliens plan on bestowing us.

The second woman says that the hybrid race would be
pandimensional, capable of disappearing into the fourth
dimension."

"Trying to do spectral analysis on the image produced by a
camcorder, however, would be like testing a portrait of Abraham
Lincoln for his DNA. The man and his image are two very
separate things.

Still, Jim Dilettoso claims to perform just that kind of magic.

On a computer monitor, he brings up an image of Comet
Hale-Bopp. The comet has a line segment cutting across it and,
in another window, a corresponding graph with red, blue and
green lines measuring the brightness of the slice.

He shows similar frames with similar line segments cutting
through streetlights, the known flares captured by Channel 12,
and the 10 p.m. lights of March 13.

Each results in a different graph.

It

05-12-1999, 09:25 AM

05-12-1999, 09:28 AM
Oh, yeah, BTW, it should be obvious to the most casual thinker that professional stage magicians count on the ability to delude thousands of people simultaneously.

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-12-1999, 09:36 AM
Contestant #3, still not getting it, said:
As for your name-dropping, come on! It was shameless and designed to impress us. I called you out...live with it.
Still trying to avoid the issues and name-call instead, eh? Well, this will be my last word on the "name-dropping" accusation. In the MPSIMS section of this message board (I believe) there was a whole thread on famous people participants have met. I didn't even bother to post anything about this there. Now if my goal was "name-dropping," I'd have jumped into that thread and bragged about having dinner with Penn & Teller. I didn't because I don't like to do that. As I indicated, the ONLY reason I even mentioned it was to counter your silly claim about being more fun at parties.

As for your defense of DSC, sorry again, he WAS in fact acting like an intellectual snob
And you STILL didn't answer his statement about claims of conspiracy. More name-calling, still no evidence. Typical.

if you don't like Art Bell, then don't listen and don't flame me first if you can't handle turnabout!
I don't listen, thanks. And if you think you've been flamed, then I hope you never actually are, because you won't know what hit you. Requesting evidence is not a flame. Pointing out flaws in your argument is not a flame. As for "turnabout," I don't know what you think you're turning about, but so far I've only seen you turn your back on requests for evidence to back up your claims.

P.S. Your Randi quote is snobbish too...who decides what is nonsense, you and DSC?
Anybody who can think critically. Are you admitting that leaves you out?


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-12-1999, 09:40 AM
Beeruser asked:David B, howcome Teller never talks?
He does talk in "real life," just not when putting on a show (or in interviews, which is part of the show). In fact, he talks quite a bit. I asked him why he doesn't talk, and he said that he enjoys fooling people without making a sound. It tends to attract more attention to the trick, I guess. (For what it's worth, there is at least one trick where he does talk -- he provides the voice, which is run thru some sort of computer modification, to the psychic monkey head that is part of one of their tricks. Also, he may talk during the rabbit-in-the-wood-chipper trick, but the chipper is so loud you can't tell (that's part of the joke).

(I thought of starting a new thread, like you said, but I'm not sure there's any more to be said once your question of "why" is answered. :) )


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-12-1999, 09:44 AM
Here's another link on eyewitnesses and associated problems. This one's on the Illinois UFO Mania of 1897: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n03/index.html

(Not that I think it has any chance of making a dent on True Believer Contestant #3, mind you, but maybe others here will be interested.)

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-12-1999, 01:00 PM
You guys are right...we are not going to move one another off our current positions...

I do chuckle though at the inconsistancy of those that belittle the idea of "govenment conspiracy"...these are often the same folks that foam at the mouth in a gun control debate, claiming that gun control is a government conspiracy to disarm them so that they can be easily controlled! Come on guys...you can't have it both ways...either the "government" is trustworthy or it isn't...you can't say that they'd NEVER lie about UFOs, but that the bastards can't be trusted if we surrender our firearms...

Recent evidence of widespread government testing (radiation) on it's own people is enough for me to believe in government conspiracies...

Come on! Where's all those CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS that you guys like to spout off about?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 01:13 PM
Thanks for the link to the PhoenixNewTimes and your cut and paste of MOST of the article.

It's a least slightly amusing that your selective cutting and pasting left out these two sections...

Aside from the copyright issues, C3, it's a five- or six-page article. The Hynek section isn't even remotely relevant to the Phoenix lights. And as far as "Meanwhile, no base or airport has come forward to identify the five planes that traveled over Arizona seen by
so many people, including Mitch Stanley and his powerful telescope" goes, that must mean they're Alien Spacecraft, huh?

Meanwhile, the flares turned out to be exactly that, and we've got some bozo performing spectrum analysis on videotaped images of lights.

I can't yet completely turn my
back on the possibility of intelligent live on other planets or in other star systems. It seems arrogant to expect
Earth holds the ONLY intelligent beings in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...

Who said any such thing? You might be interested to know that I'm a member of both the Planetary Organization and the SETI@Home project.

So maybe, as a True Believer(TM), you can answer a few questions for me:
1) Where do these alien spacecraft come from (the name of the star system will be satisfactory)?
2) How is it that, against all odds, these aliens evolved into bipedal, bilaterally-symmetrical humanoids with human-like sense organs?
3) Why can't we intercept any of their radio traffic, either local or interstellar?
4) How have they learned to defy the laws of inertia and momentum when flying their spacecraft within Earth's atmosphere?
5) What's with all the sexual experimentation?

Once you've answered those, I'll accept that aliens are visiting the Earth and abducting humans. Believe me, the day an alien spacecraft really lands on Earth, or we intercept a communication, nobody will be happier than I will be.

I do chuckle though at the inconsistancy of those that belittle the idea of "govenment conspiracy"...these are
often the same folks that foam at the mouth in a gun control debate, claiming that gun control is a
government conspiracy to disarm them so that they can be easily controlled! Come on guys...you can't have it
both ways...either the "government" is trustworthy or it isn't...you can't say that they'd NEVER lie about UFOs,
but that the bastards can't be trusted if we surrender our firearms...

Another straw man. I, for one, favor firearms control.



------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-12-1999, 01:53 PM
Recent evidence of widespread government testing (radiation) on it's own people is enough for me to believe in government conspiracies...

First of all, don't lump me in with the Gun-Toting-Meat-Eating-People(TM). I ain't one of them. Well, maybe a little meat.

The real question of any conspiracy is motive. What use would the Big Ol' Scary Government have to lie to us about space aliens? What is the angle, so to speak?

On the other hand, wouldn't it be far more likely that the UFO/alien stories are simply a convenient way to cover up military training operations? Urban Folklore provides and inexhuastible source of cover stories. All the gov't needs to do to avoid coming clean on anything they're doing is say "We don't know anything about this. It certainly isn't an Alien Spacecraft (wink wink!)" and suddenly we've got crackpots appearing on Art Bell claiming that it's anything from aliens to the illuminati. The real motives, which are often much more "earthly" and dangerous get clouded in conspiracy theory nuts and the media they attract.

Critical thinking, BTW, is the ability to take a hypothesis and examine the evidence that supports it objectively. This often requires ignoring "eyewitness accounts", as they are almost always biased. So what it comes down to is this: Do you have any evidence of Alien contact on earth? Considering the amount of surveillence equipment this country dedicates to tracking aircraft, wouldn't evidence of extraterrestrial contact come in the form of recorded data, as opposed to hokey stories and conjectures? If we apply the rule of Occam's razor and eliminate the unnecessary speculation about UFO's, what are we left with? What can you infer from a bright flashing light in the sky that indicates that it is from another planet? Because it looks like something out of "Close Encounters?"

Logically speaking, there is no direct leap between UFO's and extraterrestrials. Leave the wild speculation to fiction, where it is much more entertaining.

We have enough trouble figuring stuff out without people deliberately kicking sand in our eyes.

05-12-1999, 03:19 PM
Contestant #3 said:I do chuckle though at the inconsistancy of those that belittle the idea of "govenment conspiracy"...these are often the same folks that foam at the mouth in a gun control debate, claiming that gun control is a government conspiracy to disarm them so that they can be easily controlled! Come on guys...you can't have it both ways...either the "government" is trustworthy or it isn't...you can't say that they'd NEVER lie about UFOs, but that the bastards can't be trusted if we surrender our firearms...
So I point out how you use one straw man argument, and you go ahead and merrily use another one? <sigh> You know nothing of the gun control beliefs of any of the people here, yet you feel just fine making a sweeping generalization (and, frankly, a blatantly incorrect one as far as my experience goes -- the ones who are more likely to believe in one type of government conspiracy (gun control) are similarly more likely to believe in the other (UFOs). Heck, I even know of several groups who combine the two beliefs into one far-reaching conspiracy!

Recent evidence of widespread government testing (radiation) on it's own people is enough for me to believe in government conspiracies...
Nobody doubts that there are governmental secrets. But that doesn't mean that all claims of conspiracy have merit. Each has to be evaluated on its own claims, and, frankly, the UFO claims just don't stand up to scrutiny.


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-12-1999, 04:45 PM
It amazes me that the government has the ability to secretly plot with extraterrestrials, brainwash the entire human race, mutilate cattle, abduct Whitney Streiber and others, and keep a lid on the whole JFK-Illuminati- UN-mind-control-AIDS-manufacturing deal, and yet they can't shut up Art Bell!!!!

05-12-1999, 07:00 PM
His guest tonight is Michael Cremo, author of the book "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race"

I think that I'll stay up to listen to what this guy has to say instead of automatically assuming that it is "nonsense"...maybe it will be (nonsense), but I'll not just assume that because he appears on the Art Bell show.

At any rate, the topic sounds more interesting than a night of memorizing obscure planetary trivia...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 09:26 PM
Not only will you not believe there are used car salesmen that are dishonest, you keep going back to the SAME used car salesman who cheats you over and over, on the assumption that he won't cheat you EVERY time.
I tried blind faith once, but I just couldn't keep my eyes shut.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-12-1999, 10:37 PM
Slythe, I realize that you were just trying to be cute, but since you brought it up, I've always laughed at the used-car salesman stereotype.

My observation is that new car salesman (and dealerships) are doing a much better job of ripping you off than are used car salesmen...

A "new" car depreciates by hundreds or even thousands of dollars as you drive it off the lot, and if you are stupid enough to trade in a vehicle, then you are undoubtedly getting shafted again...throw in those hokey "dealer prep" charges, some overpriced extended warranty, paint protection, underbody sealant, and the average new car buyer comes out a much bigger loser than if they had simply bought a late-model used car at or below bluebook value.

I buy only "used" cars and I'm happy to do so. If you've done a little homework and have your mechanic check out the used car, almost every time you can do better with your money than walking in to a dealership and buying a "new" one.

BTW, I too used to think that Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was cool too...when I was a teenager...who did a better job of portraying him on the silver screen, Bill Murray (Where the Buffalo Roam) or Johnny Depp (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 11:02 PM
Evading the issue AND defending used car salesmen? It's called an analogy.
I'll try to make this (even) simpler-Art Bell has had so many fakes, frauds, and self-deceivers on his show that to keep watching it in hope that a nugget of wisdom will come forth is the greatest exercise in futility that I can possibly think of. By the way, his latest escapade, being "forced" off the air, shows just where he falls among the fakes, frauds, and self deceivers.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-12-1999, 11:32 PM
Slythe, Calm down bud, you got the response that you deserved...it's not exactly like you were trying to take the high road now were you?

As I've stated a couple of times now, I am entertained by listening to his show, and NO, I don't believe every word or even every guest.

I do think that there might be a chance to learn something or to consider a different point of view. Why do you (and others that have replied to this thread) fear that sort of thing? Is it possible that some of you are taking yourself, or your science backgrounds too seriously?

The history of pure science is full of disproving and modifications of once accepted "theories" and scientific "findings". To think that you and your science buddies have it all figured out already is mighty conceited and at least a tad bit naive...some of what you hold onto as scientific "fact" today will be laughed at 50 years from now...

BTW, I think that deserve an answer to the Thompson question..it was legitimate...and you DO use his name in every post that you make...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 11:34 PM
Contestant#3:

There's a far more interesting show on
public radio every Friday--Talk of the Nation-Science Friday with Ira Flatow. Why don't you listen in? They also have a website with archived programs.

05-12-1999, 11:45 PM
Hey DSC:

Please supply the URL and I'll promise to give it a chance.

Hey, why don't you try a little bit of tonight's (Bell) guest and report back tommorrow with your assessment...OK?...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-12-1999, 11:58 PM
I give Hunter Thompson's name because he is the originator of a quote that I find appropriate for this web site, not because I am a fan. After THE GREAT SHARK HUNT, his writing went to hell.
As far as listening tonight goes-if this guest turns out to be another in a long line of quacks, will we get another note from you tomorrow saying,"No, listen tonight, you might change your mind"? This game, which apparently you and millions more want to play, doesn't interest me anymore.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-13-1999, 12:16 AM
Phil,

Thanks for the link to the PhoenixNewTimes and your cut and paste of MOST of the article.

It's a least slightly amusing that your selective cutting and pasting left out these two sections...

"Interest in "flying saucers" exploded in post-World War II America, prompting the Air Force to hire an astronomy professor, J. Allen Hynek, and others to investigate. For more than 20 years, Hynek and the rest of the Air Force's Project Blue Book examined UFO sightings, the vast majority of which were easily explained as natural phenomena.
The military ended Hynek's contract and Project Blue Book in 1969, and four years later Hynek, by then head of Northwestern University's astronomy department, created the Center for UFO Studies. The center examined UFO claims scientifically and tabulated its results. In its initial studies, the center found, for example, that 28 percent of sightings were simply bright stars or planets (in 49 of those cases, witnesses estimated that the celestial objects were between 200 feet and 125 miles away).
Of 1,307 cases which the center examined in the early 1970s, only 20 seemed unexplainable. The center stopped short of claiming that those 20 were caused by alien spacecraft."

Then later you just HAPPEN to leave out:

"Meanwhile, no base or airport has come forward to identify the five planes that traveled over Arizona seen by so many people, including Mitch Stanley and his powerful telescope."

I've decided that the "religious-like" tactics of the UFO-debunkers are only SLIGHTLY LESS self-serving than those of their opponents....hmmm...must just be human nature to ignore what you don't want to hear.

I realize that many of the reports of UFOs are explainable and I also realize that there are a lot of people that either try to perpetrate a hoax, or delude themselves...however, that being said, I can't yet completely turn my back on the possibility of intelligent live on other planets or in other star systems. It seems arrogant to expect Earth holds the ONLY intelligent beings in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...

I'd rather keep and open mind and an eye toward the sky rather than trying to tie it up all neatly and nicely and trying to claim the topic is a closed book...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-13-1999, 12:29 AM
I can't yet completely turn my back on the possibility of intelligent live on other planets or in other star systems. It seems arrogant to expect Earth holds the ONLY intelligent beings in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...


No one is claiming this. We are simply stating that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why should we believe that there is any evidence of extraterrestrial contact? The burden of proof is on you, my friend. We are simply following the rules of critical thinking by eliminating the most complex and unlikely explanation to a situation.

Is it possible that extraterrestrial beings have already contacted this planet? Sure. Do we have any evidence of this ever happening? No.

"Unidentified" means unidentified, not "alien". Simply not being able to explain what a particular object in the sky is does not support your case.

05-13-1999, 12:36 AM
Contestant #3 said:I can't yet completely turn my back on the possibility of intelligent live on other planets or in other star systems. It seems arrogant to expect Earth holds the ONLY intelligent beings in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE...
This is a straw man argument because, as Ed noted above, none of us has ever said there is no other intelligent life.

But there is a big difference between there being intelligent life on other planets and that life coming to visit us and crash into our farms. I happen to doubt that Earth is the only place intelligent life has evolved, but that doesn't mean I think they're flying around Earth with their lights on while our government hides information with a massive conspiracy. While I know we aren't going to change your mind on other issues, I hope you at least see the difference here.


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 08:35 AM
PapaBear said:It amazes me that the government has the ability to secretly plot with extraterrestrials, brainwash the entire human race, mutilate cattle, abduct Whitney Streiber and others, and keep a lid on the whole JFK-Illuminati- UN-mind-control-AIDS-manufacturing deal, and yet they can't shut up Art Bell!!!!
:) Exactly!

There was a UFO nut that I used to talk to on FidoNet (this guy was actually a licensed therapist who told people they'd been abducted by aliens -- he lost his license). He kept telling us that US Government hit teams were after him (or trying to kill him psychically), but he kept evading them. Then when the process to take away his license started, he blamed that on a government conspiracy as well. I kept asking him, if this conspiracy was so great, why couldn't they just kill him already. He never did give me an answer...

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 09:28 AM
Why do you(and others that have replied to this thread) fear that sort of thing? Is it possible that some of you are taking yourself, or your science backgrounds too seriously?

No. There is a difference between entertainment and quackery. There is also a difference between being open-minded and being gullible. The problem with all of this conspiracy stuff is that it is not harmless entertainment. Listening to Art Bell isn't like watching an episode of the X-Files because the guests insist that you believe. Seeing Uri Geller (to take an example of a quack) isn't like seeing any other legitimate stage magician because a magician admits, up front, that everything is an illusion. It promotes a way of thinking that defies rational judgement in the supposed name of science, and that can be dangerous.

Why dangerous? For the same reason medical quackery can be dangerous. Sometimes people with cancer will blow their savings to travel to South America for a session of "Psychic Surgery", when conventional treatment may have helped them. Is this harmless? The path of ignorance is not to be taken lightly.

The history of pure science is full of disproving and modifications of once accepted "theories" and scientific "findings".

Yes, but not by half-assed conjecture and speculation. Every scientific discovery that has altered existing theory was accomplished through hard work and solid reasoning, and often backed up with empirical data. Science is built from the ground up- creating theories to match the existing data; not the other way around.

05-13-1999, 10:30 AM
Earth to Ed, Earth to Ed,

Hey buddy, it's just a radio show...to actually believe that it's DANGEROUS is psychotic at best...geesh!

You are just going to have to get used to this freaky "free speech" concept that we have here in this country...yes, people are actually allowed to voice ideas that you don't agree with!...imagine that!

Gosh dang it Eddie, did you have an uncle that was a Heaven's Gate disciple or something?...what's the true source of your paranoia?

Hey, how about this?...how about Ed and a few of his buddies form a commision that decides for us all what the REAL truth is and we prosecute...no, strike that...we KILL people that say "dangerous" things that the Ed Commission doesn't agree with!


------------------
Contestant #3

05-13-1999, 11:16 AM
Wow. Who said anything about not allowing people to speak? I'm arguing against your belief that Art Bell and his ilk should be taken seriously by everyone, or else "they are a snob."

I have observed that some people are just to cowardly or intellectually snobish to
admit that they might be interested in UFOs, and other unexplained happenings

Obviously, people here have a big problem with this statement. If you're posting in an intellectual forum, such as this one, expect to take some heat for insisting that we ought to take this UFO stuff seriously.

I don't think Art Bell should be taken off the air. He can say whatever he damn well pleases. Likewise, the scientific community can call him an idiot if they so choose.

Defend your theories as you like, but don't expect to go unchallenged.

I stand by my statement that pseudo-science can be dangerous. Granted, Art Bell's show is probably not going to cause that much of a problem on a day to day basis, which is why many people aren't that concerned about it. But it can get out of hand, and I think it is a worthy aspiration of the scientific and intellectual community to combat misinformation. Isn't that what the Straight Dope is all about?

Heck, listen all you want. Enjoy it. But don't insist that we take you seriously.

05-13-1999, 11:32 AM
Hey buddy, it's just a radio show...to actually believe that it's DANGEROUS is psychotic at best...geesh!

You're right. The radio show isn't dangerous. But the people who believe the crap that's being said on that show can potentially be very dangerous (to themselves and others). I don't know about you, but I sure hope none of my neighbors are preparing for dooms-day, or get it into their heads that I've been sent by the Government (or the aliens) to spy on them.

I find it interesting that C#3 accuses some of the posters in this thread as being paranoid when the man he is defending uses paranoia so well to not only convince his listeners of his guests' theories but also to sell all sorts of survivalist junk.

Ever notice how he's always pitching gold as a fool-proof investment. National banks all over the world are now selling off their gold reserves, and driving the price into the ground. Must be a conspiracy to make Art look bad, huh?

05-13-1999, 11:34 AM
Hey buddy, it's just a radio show...to actually believe that it's DANGEROUS is psychotic at best...geesh!

Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh?

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-13-1999, 11:57 AM
Oppps...sorry everyone! Ed's just informed me that this is an "intellectual" forum..

In fact, he said: "If you're posting in an intellectual forum, such as this one" and he also said: "I think it is a worthy aspiration of the scientific and intellectual community to combat misinformation"

Geesh! I guess I owe you folks an apology! I'm not an intellectual or a scientist like Ed and others are, so I probably don't belong here among such highbrow topics as:

Booger eating

foreign words for penis

oral sex definitions

shaving vs waxing

talking animals

things that taste like chicken

discontinued McDonalds sandwiches

taxi cabs

etc, etc, etc...

I must have somehow made it past the strict entrance requirement that consists of choosing a handle...

...and here I thought that the intellectuals and scientists were spending their working hours devising new and better solutions for the betterment of mankind...instead I find that they are here, on this very board, fighting my ignorance of enjoying the Art Bell radio show.

Thanks for clearing that up Ed..and again, I appologize for my lack of "intelectuallness" (is that really a word?...perhaps you smart folks will fill me in!)

------------------
Contestant #3

05-13-1999, 01:05 PM
Contestant#3:

Thank you for the invitation to listen to Art Bell tonight. I must, however, decline. I spent two years of my life listening to that show, and the only thing I discovered was that the psychology of the believer is most interesting--at least as interesting as the notion that we are being visited by aliens. I

05-13-1999, 01:06 PM
Contestant #3 said:Hey, how about this?...how about Ed and a few of his buddies form a commision that decides for us all what the REAL truth is and we prosecute...no, strike that...we KILL people that say "dangerous" things that the Ed Commission doesn't agree with!
Oh, look. More straw men from the Contestant. How surprising!

Others have already responded to the bulk of your most recent nonsense, but don't you ever get tired of arguing with yourself? I mean, you keep putting forth these things that nobody here has said or even hinted at, and then arguing against them. Whenever one of us actually asks you a question or requests evidence or anything, you ignore it in favor of your own meaningless straw men. Why are you so afraid to actually address what we have said?



------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 01:24 PM
"Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh?"

- PhilD

Hey! I resemble that remark. Honestly, if you people don't clap, I'll go poof.

(Witches *do* exist, Phil. It's just that, for the most part, we aren't anything like the Puritans said we were.)

05-13-1999, 01:24 PM
To be fair, I have to credit Contestant #3 with more courage than the guests on Art Bell's show. Do you really think that any of them would accept an invitation to be interviewed by anybody who might possably challenge them on any of their theories? #3 at least is willing to be subjected to the kinds of questions that we all wish Art Bell would ask.

If you look at his OP, it says that he just discovered Art Bell. I'd be interested to hear his opinion in a couple of months when he's heard the same lapses in logic repeated night after night.

I have a direct question for you, Contestant #3. Don't you ever find that when you're listening to Bell interviewing someone, you just want to scream; "WHY DON'T YOU ASK......."? Do you really think that a person as uncritical as Bell should be dealing with these types of topics?

05-13-1999, 01:37 PM
phouka said:(Witches *do* exist, Phil. It's just that, for the most part, we aren't anything like the Puritans said we were.)
Witches or Wiccans? As in, people who actually think they can cast spells that have actual effects, or people who follow the Wiccan religion?

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 01:40 PM
PapaBear said:To be fair, I have to credit Contestant #3 with more courage than the guests on Art Bell's show. Do you really think that any of them would accept an invitation to be interviewed by anybody who might possably challenge them on any of their theories? #3 at least is willing to be subjected to the kinds of questions that we all wish Art Bell would ask.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. There is nothing courageous about the way Contestant #3 has handled this. Sure, we ask him lots of questions and challenge him on his claims, but he ignores those questions and instead posts straw-man attacks on us. We can repeat those questions all we want, but he can continue to happily ignore us and go on his merry way, none the wiser. :(

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 01:56 PM
"Witches or Wiccans? As in, people who actually think they can cast spells that have actual effects, or people who follow the Wiccan religion?"

- David B.

Oh, there's a whole 'nother thread right there.

They're not mutually exclusive terms. Many Wiccans (like myself) accept "Witch" as a descriptive term simply because we identify with the old Celtic Paganism "Witch" is supposed to derived from (though there is, of course, argument even about the etymology about the word "witch").

Whether a neo-Pagan prefers Witch or Wiccan has nothing to do with whether or not they practice ritual magic or believe that magic (or "magick" as Crowley liked it) has an influence on the physical world.

For the record, I answer to Witch or Wiccan, I practice ritual magic (though I prefer it without the k), but I don't believe it has an effect on physical reality. I do it for my own psychological/spiritual benefit.

05-13-1999, 02:00 PM
PappaBear:

Of course there have been times that I have wanted Bell to ask a question that he didn't, or he asked a question that I didn't feel was very relevant...so the answer is yes...I'd like to add though, that I've felt the same way at times with Larry King, Ted Kopel, etc...

Maybe you are right...maybe after some months I'll tire of his format and move on to something else...could happen...I do however believe that I'll always be somewhat interested in offbeat topics and the "unexplained". Since my childhood, I've "sensed" (there you go...how "unscientific of me!) that there's more to this world than science can readily explain...science does have it's limitations, you can't exactly reproduce everything in a lab under controlled conditions and just as I've been accused of a lack of "critical thinking", I think the pendulum swings the other way as well and that some people (you know who you are!) place too much emphasis on "science" and "critical thinking".

Can we all at least agree that we will never settle a disagreement like this?

Some of you need to realize that there are significant numbers of intelligent, rational, successful people all over the world that have experienced unexplainable phenomena... Personal experience is great for changing one's point of view. I used to think that whiplash was a faker's injury until I contracted it myself...I don't really have any reason to believe in ghosts, but if I wake up tonight to witness an aparition pouring himself a bowl of Rice Krispies I might tend to become a believer, even in the absence of the concurrence of a scientific panel of experts.


------------------
Contestant #3

05-13-1999, 02:14 PM
Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh?"

- PhilD

Hey! I resemble that remark. Honestly, if you people don't clap, I'll go poof.

(Witches *do* exist, Phil. It's just that, for the most part, we aren't anything like the Puritans said we were.)

Eh, sorry, but "witches," as in women who cast spells and fly around on brooms and eat babies, don't have anything to do with Witches or Wiccans. The two groups of people are related in etymology only, and while the folks up around Salem certainly persecuted "witches," it's highly doubtful they knew any Witches.

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-13-1999, 02:17 PM
Open post to all:

Where are all these legitimate questions that I've been asked, but have refused to answer? I don't see them...I see plenty of attempts at putdowns, and lots of scoffing, but where are the questions?

Here's your chance...

Gather up your "questions" and post them (or re-post if that's what you think that you've done) and I'll answer each one of them as honestly as I can...

If an objective person were to go back over these 60+ posts, they'd see that I've generated many more question marks than have been sent toward me. I just scanned quickly through the first 25 posts and found 0 questions...the first question that I found was someone asking me about the reason behind Art's hitatus last year, which is really a dumb question because I state in the OP that I've just discovered that he exists and I have no background on him...hmmm...


------------------
Contestant #3

05-13-1999, 03:18 PM
"Eh, sorry, but "witches," as in women who cast spells and fly around on brooms and eat babies, don't have anything to do with Witches or Wiccans. The two groups of people are related in etymology only, and while the
folks up around Salem certainly persecuted "witches," it's highly doubtful they knew any Witches."

- Phil D.

Oh, yes, Phil, they do.

Modern Paganism didn't spring into being from nothing. It traces its root to the old Celtic version of Wicca. And those practitioners of Wicca are exactly the people villanized by the Christian church.

The reason the witchhunts (or The Burning Times as Pagans refer to it) specifically used the label "witches" is because there were several centuries of specific persecution by the Christian church towards Pagans and those who identified with the older Celtic/Wiccan religions.

The Church demonized Witches by saying things like they ate babies, made blood oaths to Satan, flew through the night air on brooms, and so on.

They also demonized the male god of the religion, the Lord of the Hunt, by adapting his iconography to portray Lucifer. Prior to the 6th century, Lucifer was portrayed either as a serpent or as a beautiful man. Afterwards, he took on the horns, animal legs and tail of The Lord of the Hunt to persuade Pagans that their god was really a figure of evil.

The Christian Church turned the old religion of Wicca into a boogieman that it could terrorize the population with. In doing so, it distorted the perception of the religion into something completely different from the reality.

Perhaps there were no real "Witches" at Salem. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely that there were. The persecution of Pagans and conversion of most of the European population to Christianity would have made it very unlikely.

By the time the Burning Times were in full swing, there probably weren't very many Witches left anywhere in Europe (though pockets of the Old Religion are said to survive in eastern Europe and northern Italy). That didn't stop the witchhunters from torturing, killing, and maiming people under the guise of protecting the rest from "witches".

That old distortion is still present today. Usually it doesn't get on my nerves much. Halloween decorations - which by the way was a Christian adoption of the Celtic Sammhain, a major Wiccan holy day - don't portray what I know as the real Wicca or real Witches. They portray a bland, bowdlerized version of the distortion the medieval Christian church made of us.

The history of Wicca is not continuous. European Paganism pretty much died out by the 11th century or so and was revived in the late 19th/early 20th century. But that doesn't mean we don't or can't identify with our foremothers and fathers.

'kay?

If you want to debate more, let's start another thread.

(Dammit, who put this soap box under me when I wasn't looking?)

05-13-1999, 03:34 PM
Contestant #3 asked:Where are all these legitimate questions that I've been asked, but have refused to answer? I don't see them...
Well, good thing my boss is out of town, so I have the time to do this. ;)
(Some of these are not really questions, per se, but they are statements about a lack of evidence on your part that you should have (IMO) responded to if you honestly wanted to try to make your case. Most of these also leave out all your straw-man arguments that, even though several people corrected you each time, you never retracted.)

DSC: "Hard evidence will make your argument. Claims of "conspiracy" will not suffice."

DB: "I love the way you take a claim made by either Bell or one of his on-air nuts and transform it into fact."

DB: "Of course, you ignored the main thrust of the message, namely that you took a claim made by either Bell or one of his on-air nuts and transformed it into fact. You also ignored DSC's point about evidence instead of conspiracy and just called him a snob."

DB: "And you STILL didn't answer his statement about claims of conspiracy."

DB: "Requesting evidence is not a flame. Pointing out flaws in your argument is not a flame. As for "turnabout," I don't know what you think you're turning about, but so far I've only seen you turn your back on requests for evidence to back up your claims."

ed: "We are simply stating that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why should we believe that there is any evidence of extraterrestrial contact? The burden of proof is on you, my friend. We are simply following the rules of critical thinking by eliminating the most complex and unlikely explanation to a situation."

DB: "I happen to doubt that Earth is the only place intelligent life has evolved, but that doesn't mean I think they're flying around Earth with their lights on while our government hides information with a massive conspiracy. While I know we aren't going to change your mind on other issues, I hope you at least see the difference here."

pld: "And as far as "Meanwhile, no base or airport has come forward to identify the five planes that traveled over Arizona seen by so many people, including Mitch Stanley and his powerful telescope" goes, that must mean they're Alien Spacecraft, huh?"

pld: "So maybe, as a True Believer(TM), you can answer a few questions for me:
1) Where do these alien spacecraft come from (the name of the star system will be satisfactory)?
2) How is it that, against all odds, these aliens evolved into bipedal, bilaterally-symmetrical humanoids with human-like sense organs?
3) Why can't we intercept any of their radio traffic, either local or interstellar?
4) How have they learned to defy the laws of inertia and momentum when flying their spacecraft within Earth's atmosphere?
5) What's with all the sexual experimentation?"

ed: "The real question of any conspiracy is motive. What use would the Big Ol' Scary Government have to lie to us about space aliens? What is the angle, so to speak?"

ed: "So what it comes down to is this: Do you have any evidence of Alien contact on earth? Considering the amount of surveillence equipment this country dedicates to tracking aircraft, wouldn't evidence of extraterrestrial contact come in the form of recorded data, as opposed to hokey stories and conjectures? If we apply the rule of Occam's razor and eliminate the unnecessary speculation about UFO's, what are we left with? What can you infer from a bright flashing light in the sky that indicates that it is from another planet? Because it looks like something out of "Close Encounters?" "

DB: "But that doesn't mean that all claims of conspiracy have merit. Each has to be evaluated on its own claims, and, frankly, the UFO claims just don't stand up to scrutiny."

PB: "It amazes me that the government has the ability to secretly plot with extraterrestrials, brainwash the entire human race, mutilate cattle, abduct Whitney Streiber and others, and keep a lid on the whole JFK-Illuminati- UN-mind-control-AIDS-manufacturing deal, and yet they can't shut up Art Bell!!!!"

ed: "Who said anything about not allowing people to speak?"

pld: "Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh?"

DB: "Whenever one of us actually asks you a question or requests evidence or anything, you ignore it in favor of your own meaningless straw men. Why are you so afraid to actually address what we have said?"

PB: "Do you really think that a person as uncritical as Bell should be dealing with these types of topics?"

There ya go. Have at it.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 03:41 PM
More from Contestant #3:Some of you need to realize that there are significant numbers of intelligent, rational, successful people all over the world that have experienced unexplainable phenomena...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is objectively true or not.

Personal experience is great for changing one's point of view. I used to think that whiplash was a faker's injury until I contracted it myself...I don't really have any reason to believe in ghosts, but if I wake up tonight to witness an aparition pouring himself a bowl of Rice Krispies I might tend to become a believer, even in the absence of the concurrence of a scientific panel of experts.
It may be a great way to change one's view, but it's a rather faulty way as well. There are certain types of hallucinations (hypnopompic and hypnogogic) that may make people believe there is a ghost (night hag, alien, incubus, whatever) in their bedroom with them. But if they were to become a believer in light of this particular personal experience, they would still be wrong. Your mind can play tricks on you. You can be fooled. The reliance on personal experience instead of objective scientific evidence is one thing that draws numerous people to alternative medicine because they think something worked for them, without realizing the way disease and our bodies can work. Reliance on anecdotes instead of objective evidence is a mistake that many people make, but that does not excuse it.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-13-1999, 07:09 PM
The ET visitation notion is certainly charming. It would be fascinating *particularly* if it were true that we are being visited. It would, in fact, be the greatest discovery ever, and I know of no good scientist or science enthusiast who wouldn't jump on such a discovery in a heartbeat if it were true. But we need to be very cautious about these charming claims precisely because they are charming, and precisely because they represent a deep emotional significance to us. The higher the charm and the higher the emotional stake in the idea, the higher the capacity for self-deception.

05-13-1999, 11:59 PM
ok i listened to art bell last night, and here is a quote that really jumped out at me.
speaking of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Art Bell and his guest were talking about CSICOP and their heavy handed tactics to keep pseudo science off of the airwaves.


Art Bell: Remember Now, Desperate people do desperate things. and at the last stages we are approaching desperation on their part.
Guest: thats right thats when the become a little dangerous.
Art Bell: thats right


I suppose he thinks they are going to get violent or something.
oh well.

pat

05-14-1999, 12:17 AM
Yeah, I heard that too...he also said that the head of the organzation was there to present him with their "snuffed candle award"...Art said that he asked him if he had ever heard his program...the guy said "no"...geesh!

Right now as I write this they are talking about a new report of a UFO reported by a spokesman for the Brittish Airline Pilots Assoc.

Check it out!

------------------
Contestant #3

05-14-1999, 12:24 AM
Ok, I heard the episode where the guy from CSICOP was on as well. Art Bell didn't tell you everything about that.

Art Bell asked him if he had ever listened to the show. the guy said no, I have never listened to the show, but thats not part of my job, I do research in other areas, the guys who chose you for the award are in other departments.

if you listened to that episode Art Bell made a big deal out of the fact that the CSICOP guy never heard his show, but the guy kept saying, I am not hear to defend the snuffed candle award I am here to talk about the false science you sometimes have on your show. So, really as the CSICOP guy was debunking things about a few different things (I believe one of them was the shroud of turin) Art Bell kept bringing up things the guy would have no idea about, because as he had stated a few times, he had never listened to the show..

so, I think that Art Bell was stating the whole case when he told that story.

pat

05-14-1999, 04:58 AM
Ok, time for me to jump in with C#3 and address some of the things you've had to say about Art Bell.

First off, about his leaving the air: He wasn't "forced" off, as someone stated, he left because he believed there was a threat to his family that couldn't be solved with him doing his show. "Publicity Stunt" makes little sense beacuse, at the time of his leaving, he was gaining close to 5-10 affiliates every 2 weeks. With that kind of growth, wouldn't it make more sense to stay than to leave and make people turn the station?

Second, most of the arguments I've seen have gone like this: All Art's guests are "UFO nuts" and have nothing that is worth listening to. Or Art is simply a publicity hound and cares nothing about "real" science just about improving his wallet size.

So here are some facts about that: I will grant all Anti-Art people that he does have on many kooks, David John Oates for one. He peddles 'reverse speech', which is basically playing someones voice in reverse and listening for what the sub-conscience has to say. Art has on several "Prophets" who tote dubious futures, and people who photograph "ghosts" (most of which look like camera straps an inch from the lens). But in contrast to these people, he has on people like Michael Cremo, who ideas about the origin of man derserve, in the very least, consideration. http://www.mcremo.com/
And Michio Kaku, a noted theroretical physicist. http://www.dorsai.org/~mkaku/
These are credited scientists, but are outside of the "mainstream", so they express their ideas on Art's show, where they know that they will be allowed to speak their peace without ridicule and uninformed, pointless questions.

And to the point that Art never questions his guests ideas, more often than not, his questions for his guests are hard ones that challenge their ideas.

I'll wrap up this rant, sorry for the length... My point is, just because someone is on Art's show, their ideas are not automatically wrong, just different. And if you think that Galieio, Columbus, Darwin and Marie Curie were accepted open arms by the mainstream scientists of their times, it's time for a trip to the library.

Flame away...

------------------
Like the man says; don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive -- Bugs Bunny

05-14-1999, 05:35 AM
Modern Paganism didn't spring into being from nothing. It traces its root to the old Celtic version of Wicca.

Actually, it sort of did. It traces its real roots back to the late 19th-early 20th century Spritualist movement and some made-up stuff by some anthropologists, poets and philosophers.

And those practitioners of Wicca are exactly the people villanized by the Christian church.

Sorry, you'll have to get in line behind the Jews. And the Turks.

The reason the witchhunts (or The Burning Times as Pagans refer to it) specifically used the label "witches" is because there were several centuries of specific persecution by the Christian church towards Pagans and those who identified with the older Celtic/Wiccan religions.

No, it's because "witch" is a word that predates both Christianity and the Celts, and refers to a conjurer of any sort. Please, don't make things up.

The Church demonized Witches by saying things like they ate babies, made blood oaths to Satan, flew through
the night air on brooms, and so on.

Sorry, but again, no. The concept of haggardly old baby-eating women who consort with evil spirits predates Christianity by many centuries. People have been thinking of monsters for as long as there have been people.

------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-14-1999, 09:18 AM
Enore:

It's good to read a post that sticks to an argument. Let me make some counterpoints...

Somehow this discussion strayed off of Art Bell's show and into the murky realm of "alternative" science. I don't think anyone here really advocates silencing Art Bell or restricting him; rather, many people are opposed to the attitude that simply by being outside the mainstream scientific community their ideas become valid. This attitude is present in statements like

And if you think that Galieio, Columbus, Darwin and Marie Curie were accepted open arms by the mainstream scientists of their times, it's time for a trip to the library.

Columbus is a poor example, because he was an idiot who thought the world was small (his contemporaries knew the world was round, they just believed it was too big to circumnavigate effectively. They were right). Galileo and Darwin were both reiterating points already accepted by the scientific communities of their time, they were fighting against mainstream religious beliefs. Marie Curie, I believe, was ostracized mainly because she was a woman.

Perhaps a better example is Coepernicus, who believed that the Earth orbited around the Sun. At the time, he and his theory were somewhat outside the mainstream scientific community and he suffered much trouble to make his claim seem valid. Sounds like some of the guests on Art's show, right? Well, Coepernicus also backed up his argument with empirical data, and more importantly, he came up with calculus to explain the mathematics of his theory. Inventing calculus seems like a rather lot to go through to prove a theory, but as we say: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The point of all this is that simply coming up with a wild new theory doesn't make it believable unless there is evidence to support it. The scientific community suffered an embarrassment over this concept with so-called "cold fusion." Books were written, seminars were held, and the scientists that came up with it were given a research grant(which promtly disappeared along with the scientists). It wasn't until the research was called into question and it was pointed out that the experiment couldn't be repeated that anyone had accepted the whole thing as a hoax.

What many people find offensive is that pseudo-science nuts play off of good old fashioned human credulity. We want to believe in something. We have our palms read, we read fortune cookies, we shake the magic eight ball, we play the lottery. Most of this is fairly harmless, but not always. Sometimes gullibility can be taken to the extreme, and in a large group of people can induce hysteria and violence. In many cases these people are rip-off artists, who would suffer public scorn and humiliation if it weren't for their "scientific" background. So it helps to have people, such as CSICOP, who aren't afraid to call a charlatan a charlatan.

05-14-1999, 01:13 PM
I had neither the time nor inclination to answer "statements" in that I feel like I've already done that.
Where? Never mind, I'll make it easier for you and convert the statements to questions so you won't have any problem figuring out what we were looking for. (I've taken out the original attribution, since in some cases I'm changing their words to make it into a question.)

Please note that MY "questions" are still unanswered...
And what questions are those?

Here are the converted questions, along with a few of the remaining questions you failed to answer:

Hard evidence will make your argument. Claims of "conspiracy" will not suffice. So where is the evidence for either the phenomena or the conspiracy?

Why do you take a claim made by either Bell or one of his on-air nuts and act as if it were fact?

We are simply stating that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why should we believe that there is any evidence of extraterrestrial contact? The burden of proof is on you, my friend. We are simply following the rules of critical thinking by eliminating the most complex and unlikely explanation to a situation. (You sort of tried to answer part of this, but you used "eyewitness accounts" as your evidence. That simply will not suffice. As Ed indicated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on you, and you have so far failed to provide the necessary evidence to back your position.)

I happen to doubt that Earth is the only place intelligent life has evolved, but that doesn't mean I think they're flying around Earth with their lights on while our government hides information with a massive conspiracy. Do you at least see the difference here?

But that doesn't mean that all claims of conspiracy have merit. Each has to be evaluated on its own claims, and, frankly, the UFO claims just don't stand up to scrutiny. Do you have the evidence to back up UFO claims or claims of conspiracy?

It amazes me that the government has the ability to secretly plot with extraterrestrials, brainwash the entire human race, mutilate cattle, abduct Whitney Streiber and others, and keep a lid on the whole JFK-Illuminati- UN-mind-control-AIDS-manufacturing deal, and yet they can't shut up Art Bell! Why can't they shut him up?

Again, have at it.


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-14-1999, 01:26 PM
I don't know what Occam's razor is, by Hynek logged at least 20 unexplainable occurences.

The basic gist of Occam's razor states that in attempting to explain a certain phenomenon we must eliminate any ideas that are not supported by evidence. In this particular case, saying that unexplained phenomenen=alien spacecraft is something that falls apart once applied to Occam's razor, because we have no evidence of any sort of alien contact. The purpose of this is to eliminate "free association", where theories based on minimal or nonexistant evidence spawn more theories which are then used to bolster the original argument. The next two statements are examples of this:

You can try to identify it as originating from a plane, planet, comet, etc, and if those origins don't seem likely, then you may infer that it's origin might be from another planet.

If i saw something that looked like the craft in Close Encouners, I'd believe that I'd seen and extraterestrial

These statements indicate that you are biased towards how you would observe unexplained phenomena. If we can't explain it, why do you automatically assume it's from another planet? This is not a multiple choice question, where if it's not A or B then it must be C. If you spout half-logic, expect to be called out on it.

You are free to believe what you want ed, but the tens of thousands of eyewitness reports, some from very reliable-types like pilots, police officers, and military officers seem beleivable to me.

In response to this, I'd like to quote from Cecil Adams:

A good example of this is the rash of UFO sightings that occurred the evening of March 3, 1968. Three people in Tennessee
saw a large cigar-shaped craft zip overhead at about 1,000 feet with orange flame shooting out the tail. One person said the
craft had ten large square windows illuminated from within. Six people in Indiana saw a similar UFO at about the same time. It had windows, was 150 to 200 feet long, and flew at treetop level. A woman in Ohio saw three UFOs at 1,500 feet, which
frightened her dog. Another Ohioan also saw three fast-moving objects, which executed various turns and thus appeared to be
under intelligent control.

What the witnesses actually saw were the flaming remnants of a cluster of Russian booster rockets that burned up over the central U.S. after launching the Zond-4 spacecraft. The rockets were many miles overhead, did not have windows, and were not under intelligent control. Neither were the humans, from the sound of it, but let's be kind and just say you shouldn't always believe what you think you see.

This forum, by its very nature, is full of skeptical people. It's inspired by a skeptical person who writes a very skeptical article. It is moderated by skeptical people, and also frequented by them. What did you expect us to say about Art Bell?

Your tirade about Art Bell being "dangerous", and equating him and his guests to medical quackery (which is illegal) implies that he should be silenced in the same manner that a quack is shut down by the law.

Don't infer. You've proven to be exceedingly bad at it. I never mentioned "silencing" Art Bell. There are plenty of dangerous and legal things that we're allowed to participate in each day. What we're arguing about, really, is whether this sort of thing should be part of serious scientific investigation or if it's just a group of scam-artists and charlatans trying to pull one over on us. If you choose to spurn logical thought and scientific research and call it snobbery, that's your perogative. But if you do it here, expect what you get in response.

05-14-1999, 01:32 PM
Ok, now that I got that part out of the way, I can respond to a selection of your answers.

How is it that, against all odds, these aliens evolved into bipedal, bilaterally-symmetrical humanoids with human-like sense organs?
C3: Seems like a logical and natural way to evolve to me.
In other words, you don't know. Why is that a "logical and natural way to evolve"? Please explain.
How have they learned to defy the laws of inertia and momentum when flying their spacecraft within Earth's atmosphere?
C3: They could be (and likely are) practicing more advanced science.
Mindless speculation. You can't just posit that they are more advanced and must have discovered these things -- you have to come up with an actual answer if you want to be taken seriously.

Here is a quote from the article, "Pencil Neck Aliens," by Martin Kottmeyer (found at http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n01/index.html ) I think it is amusing and telling:
"One has to grant that pencil necks have more aesthetic logic than biologic sense. The slenderness of these necks undeniably lend elegance to present-day aliens and enhance their overall anorexic appearance. Propping oversized craniums on top of such skinny supports however raises concerns this species is whiplash bait. What business have such aliens in vehicles which legend has it have a benchant for bone-bending right angle turns and ultra-air-brake stops?"
What's with all the sexual experimentation?"
C3: Maybe the find our methods of sexual reproduction interesting.
More mindless speculation. Especially since, if some "abductees" are to be believed, they aren't just experimenting, but making hybrids. Why? And how?

ed: "What use would the Big Ol' Scary Government have to lie to us about space aliens? What is the angle, so to speak?"
C3: There have been lots of ideas about this, like avoiding mass hysteria
I know there have been lots of ideas -- the problem is that none of them make any sense. Why would there be "mass hysteria"? Is that the reason you believe there is a conspiracy?

ed: " Do you have any evidence of Alien contact on earth? C3: Me personally?...no
If you don't have any evidence, why do you believe it? (I don't think the question was whether you were in possession of a piece of alien spacecraft, but if you have any evidence to present to us.)

If we apply the rule of Occam's razor and eliminate the unnecessary speculation about UFO's, what are we left with? C3: I don't know what Occam's razor is
Check out the url listed below. It will tell you all you want to know (and more) about Occam's Razor: http://skepdic.com/occam.html

Hynek logged at least 20 unexplainable occurences.
As I believe somebody pointed out to you at least once already, unexplained does not equal unexplainable.

What can you infer from a bright flashing light in the sky that indicates that it is from another planet? C3: You can try to identify it as originating from a plane, planet, comet, etc, and if those origins don't seem likely, then you may infer that it's origin might be from another planet.
Why would you infer that? Please explain.



------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-14-1999, 01:37 PM
ed said:The basic gist of Occam's razor states that in attempting to explain a certain phenomenon we must eliminate any ideas that are not supported by evidence. In this particular case, saying that unexplained phenomenen=alien spacecraft is something that falls apart once applied to Occam's razor, because we have no evidence of any sort of alien contact. The purpose of this is to eliminate "free association", where theories based on minimal or nonexistant evidence spawn more theories which are then used to bolster the original argument.
You're pretty close, but I think a further explanation is in order. What Occam's Razor says (again, see the url I posted in the previous message) is that one should not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily. So, if somebody believes they have been abducted, we can look at the possible explanations: Hypnopompic or hypnogogic hallucination or that a highly advanced alien race traveled numerous light years just to beam into this woman's bedroom. It is much more likely the result of the hallucination. Now, Occam's Razor does not say it is definitely the result of the hallucination, just that this is the more likely explanation based on the evidence at hand.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-14-1999, 02:37 PM
pld: "And as far as "Meanwhile, no base or airport has come forward to identify the five planes that traveled
over Arizona seen by so many people, including Mitch Stanley and his powerful telescope" goes, that must
mean they're Alien Spacecraft, huh?"
C3: No, but it seems to substantiate that they were not airplanes

Er . . .no, that isn't how it works. Frankly, I trust the noted observations of the amateur astronomer here. Anything out of the ordinary would be carefully observed by a good astronomer, and probably reported to somebody at one of the universities.

Also, why didn't Mitch mention the flares?

The two events occurred 2.5 hours apart, and by his own words he had moved on to observing other things in the sky.


pld:
1) Where do these alien spacecraft come from (the name of the star system will be satisfactory)?
C3: How am I supossed to answer a question like that. I've never had contact and they've never e-mailed me
with their originating star system.

Let's put it this way, then: They have to have known humans were here, otherwise it'd be a wasted trip. And even if they didn't know, their continued visitation means that they have to have some way of communicating what they've found back to wherever they're from. So it has to be somewhere close enough to make communication and travel practical on a realistic timescale. Does that help you narrow it down?

2) How is it that, against all odds, these aliens evolved into bipedal, bilaterally-symmetrical humanoids with
human-like sense organs?
C3: Seems like a logical and natural way to evolve to me.

Seems to me that any extant lifeform is equally logical and natural, so why dodn't any of them look like starfish, platypuses, flamingos or Holstein cows?

3) Why can't we intercept any of their radio traffic, either local or interstellar?
C3: Maybe because they don't use radio waves as we understand them to communicate.

Radio waves as we understand them? How convenient. Here's a clue--if they're using some form of EM energy to communicate, we could detect it. We have satellites and ground stations monitoring the earth and its immediate environs day in, day out in every conceivable band.

4) How have they learned to defy the laws of inertia and momentum when flying their spacecraft within Earth's
atmosphere?
C3: They could be (and likely are) practicing more advanced science.

Again, how convenient. Care to elaborate? How can they make sudden right angle turns within the atmosphere? What, they can magically change the air density?



pld: "Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh? C3:
A strawman as you'd like to say Phil, but to answer your question, people still do believe in witches. In fact,
one has responded to you already in this thread. I don't feel that she is "dangerous"

The point, pal, was that when people believed in "witches," they rounded up and murdered innocent people who they believed to be "witches."

ed: "Why should we believe that there is any evidence of extraterrestrial contact?
C3: You are free to believe what you want ed, but the tens of thousands of eyewitness reports, some from very
reliable-types like pilots, police officers, and military officers seem beleivable to me.

You do know a great many of those quotes are made up and/or out-of-context, right? Also, you're appealing to authority--the fact that someone is a pilot or cop makes them no more qualified to judge what is and isn't an alien vehicle than I am. Show me proof.


------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-14-1999, 03:49 PM
Phil said: "You do know a great many of those quotes are made up and/or out-of-context, right?"

C3: hmmmm....they are huh?...I've just read about a hundred of them straight from the fingertips of the people that wrote them:

http://www.ufocenter.com/ndxloc.html

Why don't you check out some of these?

Oh, Ok, that's right, you, ed, DaveB, and others have already closed the book on this...your superior critical thinking skills have already made a final determination about eyewitness testimony.

I suppose thought that one of you may browse the site, choosing the most ridiculous examples you can find so that you report back here...just in the same way that you guys have selectively used some of my answers to suit your purposes...

For example, when I answered why they might be interested in our sexual reproduction, you failed to include or acknowledge my observation that we humans are not only interested in the sexual reproduction of lower life forms, but we seemed obsessed to the point that we perform experiments on them. Hmmm...must have made too much sense...shot yourself in the foot, so we'll just ignore that part of C3's answer...

You guys also convieniently ignore my point about the stealth technology and how it was (and still is to some) undetectable.

You scoff at my answer of "mass hysteria" in answer to why the government might be withholding information, yet each one of you intellectuals probably knows full well that when "The War of the Worlds" was originally broadcast on the radio, mass hysteria ensued.

How do you expect me to respect you as fair-minded intellectuals and scientists if you avoid any and all of the good points that I make? You won't give an inch of ground on your positions will you?

Even Cecil's answer to UFOs was weak...he asked why these sighting are exclusively at night...they aren't Cec, they happen in daylight hours as well bud...ponder this though...when stealth technology was being tested out of Area 51, the flight crews worked EXCLUSIVELY at night, as to minimize the attention that they'd get...

For all I know, some large percentage of the sightings we are getting are tests of the Aurora technology that our government claims they don't have...(sound familar?...we didn't use to admit to stealth either!)

That reminds me...about 25 posts ago I answered a question that scoffed at government conspiracies with pointing out the fairly recently revealed radiation testing...that seems to have been ignored too...yes, the government conspires, heck, House repubs where calling Clinton secrecy over a hummer a "conspiracy" for Pete's sake!

In closing, why don't at least one of you be real with yourself and respond truthfully instead of just trying to "win" the argument?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-14-1999, 04:46 PM
In closing, why don't at least one of you be real with yourself and respond truthfully instead of just trying to
"win" the argument?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you assuming that we are maintaining our position through anything other than our own reasoning?

Oh, Ok, that's right, you, ed, DaveB, and others have already closed the book on this...your superior critical thinking skills have already made a final determination about eyewitness testimony.

I like how critical thinking has become a bad word in your vocabulary. Our point about eyewitness testimony, which you still ignore, is that it is worthless without corraborating evidence. Even for earthly matters like a court of law in the US, eyewitness testimony alone won't get you very far. Evidence evidence evidence! It's what deductive reasonong (which is probably another bad word for you) is based upon.

You guys also convieniently ignore my point about the stealth technology and how it was (and still is to some) undetectable.

The reason this has been ignored is that it is sheer conjecture. Sure, the reason that we haven't been able to track any flying saucers on radar is due to either a)they all possess stealth technology that renders them undetectable, or b)there aren't any. What if I theorized that gravity was really the work of little elves that pulled everything towards the ground, and that they wore magic shoes that made them invisible to humans? It's the same concept, and it's thoroughly rediculous.

You scoff at my answer of "mass hysteria" in answer to why the government might be withholding information, yet each one of you intellectuals probably knows full well that when "The War of the Worlds" was originally broadcast on the radio, mass hysteria ensued.

Ahhhhh, yes. The fictional account of invaders from another planet! Let me tell you, bub, that if flying saucers descended on Washington DC and reduced it to a pile of rubble I'd be running for MY life as well. Mass hysteria and panic are the results of misinformation. Coming clean on a few supposed alien "crash sites" would most probably not result in the sort of violence and confusion you relate. And if the Gov't were really that concerned about information being leaked to the press, aren't they at least competent enough to eliminate Art Bell? Covering up evidence for the sake of our own good and allowing Art Bell and Co. to spread rumors about the Government seems contradictory to me. I think it's much more likely that this Alien Paranoia(TM) biz is being milked for all its worth to cover up the real skeevy operations.

For example, when I answered why they might be interested in our sexual reproduction, you failed to include or acknowledge my observation that we humans are not only interested in the sexual reproduction of lower life forms, but we seemed obsessed to the point that we perform experiments on them. Hmmm...must have made too much sense...shot yourself in the foot, so we'll just ignore that part of C3's answer...

This is more speculation. Do we have any evidence of medical experimentation? Or are your witnesses the end-all to your reasoning?

Even Cecil's answer to UFOs was weak...he asked why these sighting are exclusively at night...they aren't Cec, they happen in daylight hours as well bud

Cecil didn't limit his answer to night-sightings. The letter-writer wondered why sightings seemed to be predominantly at night, but Cecil went on to explain UFO sightings, and other weird stuff, in general. His explanation of "jealous phenomena" seems very appropriate.

yes, the government conspires

Yes, I actually agree with you. No doubt about it. But do they conspire about UFO's, psychic powers, and the Illuminati? Or do they conspire about illegitimate campaign funding, overseas weapons smuggling and other "boring" subjects? Simply knowing that the government lies to you isn't sufficient to prove that any half-assed theory that comes down the pike has merit to it.

How do you expect me to respect you as fair-minded intellectuals and scientists if you avoid any and all of the good points that I make?

They haven't really been good points.

And what's with all of the derogatory "intellectual" comments? I figure either a)it's sarcastic, indicating a serious self-confidence problem while arguing this issue, or b)you really resent anyone who uses their intellect, indicating that you've got some serious adjustment problems with society. Or maybe you only misinterpreted what is meant by the word: intellectual was a reference to placing a value on the thought process. By saying this forum is intellectual in nature, I simply meant that we are here because we all (presumably) like to think, learn, and debate. This is the attraction to posting on this board, and if you scoff at logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, then maybe this is not where you should be spending your time. Indeed, we have a term for people that post messages without the intent to debate intelligently...

To sum up:
Who here follows his show and what do you think of him?

I've listened to his show, and I think he's an idiot. Is that what you want to hear?

05-14-1999, 05:06 PM
C#3- I admit I occasionally listen to Art Bell. As a veteran listener, I advise you to stock up on the salt. A grain or two or a couple million would do you good!

05-14-1999, 07:19 PM
Hey ed:

Maybe you didn't notice, but within a list of "ed" quotes in this thread in describing Art Bell, his show, or his guests, I see the use of the word "dangerous" 6 times, the use of "fairly harmless, but not always", and the phrase "not harmless entertainment", and the phrase "but it can get out of hand", and the word "idiot" twice.

You have refered to yourself as an "intellectual" or your "intelligence" twice.

Further, you and some of your cronies here imply that those not sharing your view DON'T practice "critical thinking", or are not "intelligent" or "intellectuals"...

In post #60 in this thread, I've already responded to the "intelligence" factor that I've noticed on this board.

I never defended all of Art's guests or all of their ideas. I do though feel as though they have MIGHT have something to tell us, ala Gordon Micheal Scallion, Micheal Cremo, Sean David Morton, and others. As much as I happen to NOT believe the theories of David Oates, Nature magazine just published the findings of a recent study that might tend to validate some of his ideas...

...If we have our minds closed to new possibilities, then we will never learn and grow. Along the way, we may have to disgard some ideas and reports, but if we close our mind to the source of new thinking then we will become entrenched in the here and now.

Your attitude gives me the following message:

I, ed, already know that everyone and every idea discussed on the Art Bell show is bogus. Further, I feel like I'm an intellectual and those that open their minds to what they hear on his show are idiots and disqualify themselves for "intellectual" status. No REAL scientist appears as a guest on Art Bell, and no REAL scientist agrees with the CRAZY ideas of Art's guests.

05-14-1999, 07:57 PM
I don't think that anyone is saying that NO real scientists appear on Art's show. I think real scientists might appear on the show, but they are mixed in with so many doomsayers and charlatans that the real scientists claims are tainted by the company that is kept.

Sean David Morton? he hasnt been on Art Bell for a long time, they are feuding or something, they even took him off the list of the guest list on the web site.
I thought you just started listening?

Nature magazine published a study that agrees with reverse speech? WOW.. I have to see this. Everything I have read about Reverse Speech seems so... umm, soo.. well, made-up.. (ignorning most theories of child development and speech development) I really would be interested in hearing more about this study.

pat

05-14-1999, 08:19 PM
Pat:

Brain Can Process Backward Speech
BY RICK CALLAHAN- Associated Press Writer

The ability to understand speech is so deeply ingrained that people can decipher recorded sentences that have been chopped into brief segments and played backwards, researchers reported today. Digitally recorded sentences were sliced into very short segments in the study, then reversed. The distorted speech was played to seven test subjects. The participants had no problem understanding the sentences. Their brains were apparently able to perceive the syllables as sounding nearly the same whether heard backwards or forwards.

``When you distort speech, it distorts certain aspects, but other parameters are still able to convey the message,'' said Kourosh Saberi, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology's division of biology. Saberi and David R. Perrott of California State University in Los Angeles' department of psychology reported their findings in today's issue of the journal Nature. Ray Kent, a professor of communicative disorders at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said the research demonstrates that many areas of the brain are used to handle complicated auditory signals.

Not only are both hemispheres of the brain involved in speech processing, but eyesight plays a significant role by allowing people to unconsciously lip read to fill in missing data, Kent said. Anyone who has gone to a party held in a crowded room filled with music and chattering people has tapped those skills to understand what others are saying, he said. ``What this tells us is that speech is quite robust. We can perceive it even when a number of things have been done to distort or muddy the signal,'' Kent said.

``Somehow the information is preserved or at least recoverable to us even when it's played backwards.'' Steven Greenberg, a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, Calif., said the findings could someday lead to improved speech-recognition programs that allow computers to respond to spoken commands.

05-14-1999, 10:06 PM
Contestant#3

I think you would agree that the search for other life in the cosmos is an extremely important one, whether we actually discover it or not. But what is the most efficient method of examining the topic? I submit that planetary probes and studies of interstellar radio communication are the best areas in which to focus our collective energies.

05-14-1999, 10:42 PM
We (apparently) both agree that the search for life outside our planet is both important and interesting.

I will agree that two available methods for doing so are planetary probes (used within our own solar system due to time and distance limitations) and studies of interstellar radio communications (making the assumption that this "life form" uses methods of communication as we understand them today).

Where we part company is that I'd allow for photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts...you and several others that have responded have made it pretty darned clear that you do not accept these types of evidence at all, under any circumstances. Some of you have gone as far as to try to convince me that ALL eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and that ALL photographic evidence is either fraudulent or inconclusive.

Disagree if you will, but too many commercial and military pilots have seen crafts that defy aerodynamics as we understand them. These witness have gambled their futures and have opened themselves up to taunts and criticism for no apparent gain. The circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming to me and I can't or won't ignore it.

BTW, weren't you going to supply me with a link to website so that I could listen to a science program?...Seriously, I'm still interested.

------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 12:19 AM
Here are the answers to the "questions" that I have been asked in this thread. I had neither the time nor inclination to answer "statements" in that I feel like I've already done that. Please note that MY "questions" are still unanswered...

Disclaimer: I am not an intellectual or scientist like ed, Dave, and some of the other folks out here.


ed: "Why should we believe that there is any evidence of extraterrestrial contact?
C3: You are free to believe what you want ed, but the tens of thousands of eyewitness reports, some from very reliable-types like pilots, police officers, and military officers seem beleivable to me.


pld: "And as far as "Meanwhile, no base or airport has come forward to identify the five planes that traveled over Arizona seen by so many people, including Mitch Stanley and his powerful telescope" goes, that must mean they're Alien Spacecraft, huh?"
C3: No, but it seems to substantiate that they were not airplanes. Also, why didn't Mitch mention the flares?


pld:
1) Where do these alien spacecraft come from (the name of the star system will be satisfactory)?
C3: How am I supossed to answer a question like that. I've never had contact and they've never e-mailed me with their originating star system.
2) How is it that, against all odds, these aliens evolved into bipedal, bilaterally-symmetrical humanoids with human-like sense organs?
C3: Seems like a logical and natural way to evolve to me.
3) Why can't we intercept any of their radio traffic, either local or interstellar?
C3: Maybe because they don't use radio waves as we understand them to communicate.
4) How have they learned to defy the laws of inertia and momentum when flying their spacecraft within Earth's atmosphere?
C3: They could be (and likely are) practicing more advanced science.
5) What's with all the sexual experimentation?"

C3: Maybe the find our methods of sexual reproduction interesting. We seem to experiment with the sexual reproduction of lower forms of life ourselves.


ed: "What use would the Big Ol' Scary Government have to lie to us about space aliens? What is the angle, so to speak?"
C3: There have been lots of ideas about this, like avoiding mass hysteria


ed: " Do you have any evidence of Alien contact on earth? C3: Me personally?...no...I've not had an encounter
Considering the amount of surveillence equipment this country dedicates to tracking aircraft, wouldn't evidence of extraterrestrial contact come in the form of recorded data, as opposed to hokey stories and conjectures? C3: It's possible that our current technology can't track them, in the same way that some countries don't have the technology to track our stealth planes. If we apply the rule of Occam's razor and eliminate the unnecessary speculation about UFO's, what are we left with? C3: I don't know what Occam's razor is, by Hynek logged at least 20 unexplainable occurences. What can you infer from a bright flashing light in the sky that indicates that it is from another planet? C3: You can try to identify it as originating from a plane, planet, comet, etc, and if those origins don't seem likely, then you may infer that it's origin might be from another planet. Because it looks like something out of "Close Encounters? C3:If i saw something that looked like the craft in Close Encouners, I'd believe that I'd seen and extraterestrial


ed: "Who said anything about not allowing people to speak?" C3: Your tirade about Art Bell being "dangerous", and equating him and his guests to medical quackery (which is illegal) implies that he should be silenced in the same manner that a quack is shut down by the law.


pld: "Yeah, because certainly it wasn't dangerous when people believed in irrational stuff like witches, huh? C3: A strawman as you'd like to say Phil, but to answer your question, people still do believe in witches. In fact, one has responded to you already in this thread. I don't feel that she is "dangerous"


DB: "Whenever one of us actually asks you a question or requests evidence or anything, you ignore it in favor of your own meaningless straw men. Why are you so afraid to actually address what we have said? C3: I have addressed what has been posted at least as well as my statements and questions have been answered. It seems like a pretty equal exchange to me.


PB: "Do you really think that a person as uncritical as Bell should be dealing with these types of topics? C3: Sure, I don't see any harm in it. He let's the guests make their statements, throws a few questions their way for the sake of clarification and then it's up to the listener to decide.

------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 06:48 AM
Oh, Ok, that's right, you, ed, DaveB, and others have already closed the book on this...your superior critical
thinking skills have already made a final determination about eyewitness testimony.

No, I simply have yet to see convincing physical evidence of an alien visitation.

For example, when I answered why they might be interested in our sexual reproduction, you failed to include or
acknowledge my observation that we humans are not only interested in the sexual reproduction of lower life
forms, but we seemed obsessed to the point that we perform experiments on them.

Do we attempt to impregnate animals with human sperm? And where are all the offpsring relating from these human-alien pairings, anyway?

Hmmm...must have made
too much sense...shot yourself in the foot, so we'll just ignore that part of C3's answer...

Yeah, that's it. I bow to your superior insight.

You guys also convieniently ignore my point about the stealth technology and how it was (and still is to some)undetectable.

Are you talking about U.S. stealth technology? Because I know an F-117 crew who might be interested in discussing it with you. OTOH, if you're conjecturing alien stealth technology, blind speculation is meaningless. I could as easily speculate that alien visitors are magical elves from the planet Trollinia in the 15th dimension, with nothing to back it up.

You scoff at my answer of "mass hysteria" in answer to why the government might be withholding information,
yet each one of you intellectuals probably knows full well that when "The War of the Worlds" was originally
broadcast on the radio, mass hysteria ensued.

See, this is what dimwitted assertions get you. The "mass hysteria after the 'War of the Worlds' broadcast" claim is so exaggerated as to be preposterous. The overwhelming majority of people listening knew it was a fictional program. There was no "mass hysteria." Christ, could you just once use a fucking fact in something you say?

How do you expect me to respect you as fair-minded intellectuals and scientists if you avoid any and all of the good points that I make?

When you make one, I'll let you know.



------------------
** Phil D. **
"Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine."
--J.B.S. Haldane

05-15-1999, 09:50 AM
I have just one question, Contestant #3.
In the first post, you stated that you, just this week, learned of Art Bell.
You have, throughout this thread, refered to past guests and themes of this thread.
Are you a troll?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-15-1999, 10:12 AM
Jeez -- I miss a few hours and fall massively behind! Ok, time to try to play catch-up.

C3 said:Oh, Ok, that's right, you, ed, DaveB, and others have already closed the book on this...your superior critical thinking skills have already made a final determination about eyewitness testimony.
What makes you "think" we are relying solely on our own thinking instead of, oh I dunno, being familiar with the relevant studies and the like? Unlike you, some of us here are not new to this topic.

For example, when I answered why they might be interested in our sexual reproduction, you failed to include or acknowledge my observation that we humans are not only interested in the sexual reproduction of lower life forms, but we seemed obsessed to the point that we perform experiments on them.
Because it was a silly thing for you to say, and I had enough other good points to make (none of which you have responded to, incidentally -- why not?). We are not "obsessed" with the sexual reproduction of lower life forms; scientists sometimes do experiments relating to their sexual reproduction as a way to look at other things (and I'm pretty sure no scientist has ever tried to make a fruit fly/human hybrid).

Hmmm...must have made too much sense...shot yourself in the foot, so we'll just ignore that part of C3's answer...
Well, using that logic, I guess you're admitting that all of my follow-ups madd too much sense, because you've apparently ignored all of them. Hmmm...

You guys also convieniently ignore my point about the stealth technology and how it was (and still is to some) undetectable.
It is not "undetectable," it is LESS detectable (as pld noted, talk to the F117 pilot about that). And if these aliens didn't want to be noticed, and went to all the trouble of using special stealth technology to avoid it, why the hell are they flying around with all their lights on?!

You scoff at my answer of "mass hysteria" in answer to why the government might be withholding information, yet each one of you intellectuals probably knows full well that when "The War of the Worlds" was originally broadcast on the radio, mass hysteria ensued.
As pld noted, that is somewhat of an exaggeration. Also, you might note that the story in question was about an alien fleet attacking us at that very moment, not just the finding that aliens exist. Quite a big difference.

How do you expect me to respect you as fair-minded intellectuals and scientists if you avoid any and all of the good points that I make?
We'll address that as soon as you make a good point. Just because YOU think it's a good point doesn't mean it is one. I've been discussing and looking at UFOs for probably a decade now, and you haven't presented anything new at all, and frankly haven't even done a very good job with the old explanations. Instead, along the way in this discussion you've ignored requests for evidence, used ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, ignored more requests, claimed you'd answered things that you hadn't, beat your chest about how great your responses were, etc. The one thing we haven't seen is, well, evidence.

You won't give an inch of ground on your positions will you?
Look in the mirror. We'll give ground when you give us evidence. You are the one spouting the extraordinary claims, so it is up to you to back 'em up. When are you planning to do that?

That reminds me...about 25 posts ago I answered a question that scoffed at government conspiracies with pointing out the fairly recently revealed radiation testing...that seems to have been ignored too...
You are either doing a bad job of lying or you have a really bad memory. I not only responded to it, but I reposted my response in my list of questions for you -- and then you failed twice to respond to THAT. Want to see it again? Here it is (posted in the message of 5/12 at 3:19 pm) :
"Nobody doubts that there are governmental secrets. But that doesn't mean that all claims of conspiracy have merit. Each has to be evaluated on its own claims, and, frankly, the UFO claims just don't stand up to scrutiny."

In closing, why don't at least one of you be real with yourself and respond truthfully instead of just trying to "win" the argument?
Again, take a look in the mirror. We are being real -- and looking for real evidence. You, however, have a belief that borders on the religious, and are not willing to let go of it no matter what.

And, again, when are you planning on answering the questions that you requested we repost?



------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 10:20 AM
The "intellectual" Phil (using his massive scientific vocabluary) spewed:

"Christ, could you just once use a fucking fact in something you say?"

Give me a break...I was asked to explain alien interest in human sexual reproduction and also asked why we don't seem to be able to pick up their craft on radar...also, check your dictionary "mass" doesn't translate to "a majority of the US population"...there WAS certainly hysteria on the part of several people that didn't pick up on the "fictional" aspect of "war of the worlds"...

I answer using earthling analogies and you go berserk...OK, let me see, humans are interested in the sexual reproduction of lower species but aliens couldn't be? and humans have developed stealth technology, but a race of beings that have the technology to travel to earth couldn't have something along the same lines?...I'm seeing a theme developing here...are you a part of the "humans have to be superior to any other race" faction?...

Geesh you guys!

Slythe (another self-proclaimed intellectual)also posts this morning, asserting that I've only been listening to Bell for 1 week, wondering how I know of past guests and topics...geesh, check your dates and do some simple math Einstein...I've been listening for at least 11 days now and I've managed (lord knows how seeing as I'm so stupid and all) to find previous program descriptions and audio archives (another mystery solved!).

I can't believe your gall to even bring up the word "troll"!...is that some kind of last resort out here on this board?...

BTW, nice of you guys to totally ignore the points in my last post...nice to get your learned response to the sightings by dozens of commercial and military pilots...what's that "T" word?....

I'm interested in continuing a dialogue on this topic (which now seems to be UFOs and extraterrestrials rather than the Art Bell show) but I'm starting to wonder now if you guys can "handle" yourselves...can you keep the potty mouth and "troll" threats in check?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 10:23 AM
C3 said:Where we part company is that I'd allow for photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts...you and several others that have responded have made it pretty darned clear that you do not accept these types of evidence at all, under any circumstances.

I don't think anybody said we would reject it under ANY circumstances. BUT, you have to understand how easy it is to fake a photograph. In that situation, it is difficult to accept it as good evidence without anything supporting it. Similarly, there have been so many mistaken reports or just plain hoaxes that it's difficult to accept eyewitness testimony alone as well. Like it or not, when you are making a claim as extraordinary as this, you need to come up with something better.

As far as your remarks about pilots -- well, pilots are human too. They can make mistakes just like anybody else. I read an article a few years ago about several pilots who were watching (from the ground) an object that seemed to defy the laws of motion. They were quite startled and believed they were seeing something unexplained. Then, as they kept watching it, it turned out to be a small piece of fuzz (like from a dandelion) that was much closer to them than they thought (they thought it was large object, far away). They had been fooled. If they had run to get a camera instead of sticking around to watch it, they'd have believed it disappeared altogether. I don't know if this article is on the web or not, but I just checked and can't find it now. So you can either believe me or not, the choice is yours.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 10:28 AM
C3 said:I'm interested in continuing a dialogue on this topic (which now seems to be UFOs and extraterrestrials rather than the Art Bell show) but I'm starting to wonder now if you guys can "handle" yourselves...
If you truly are interesting in "continuing a dialogue," then when are you going to answer the questions that you asked us to post to you instead of continuing to insult us (like the "handle" comment)? Do I think you posted that as a troll? No, I don't. But do I think you've been acting like you want to continue a dialogue? No, I don't. So prove me wrong.

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 10:46 AM
Dave B:

Thank you for your courage to acknowledge my pilot comment.

You responded though with a "pilots can make mistakes too" comment and then backed it up with an ancedote about some pilots on the ground...well..

What I was trying to get at is this:

** These folks (commercial and military pilots) are usually stable types that have been tested for psychosis

** These folks are usually up in the atmosphere where these UFOs are and the pilots have pretty good visibilty via their cockpit windows

** These folks are usually better versed and experienced in aerodynamics as well as what to expect from man-made crafts

** These people risk their reputations and maybe even their continued employment by reporting some of these UFOs and should be taken seriously when they do report them

You can find several well documented accounts from pilots at the site: www.ufocenter.com

Anybody here want to tell me why accounts from pilots are equally as bogus as those reported by mere ground-based laymen?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 01:36 PM
Pat, thank you for being honest. It would have been easier (and probably more fun) to have just joined in on Contestant #3 bashing concerning "The war of the Worlds"...I appreciate the change in the tone of your past couple of notes...some kudos to DSC and PapaBear as well...

Also thanks for the link: (http://www.npr.org/programs) I have already visited and I'll add it to my favorites. In fact, I've found two things that I'd like to share.

First, a brief description of one of the archived programs at that site:

"Noah talks with Peter Sturrock, Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University. Professor Sturrock recently assembled a panel of scientists to review data from a collection of UFO sightings. This panel made the first independent review of UFO sightings since 1970 and concluded that a collection of alleged UFO sightings merit additional scientific study. Professor Sturrock believes that a lack of institutional support hinders study of UFOs."

C3 comment: NO kidding...with the types of intellectual snobbishness that I've run accross out here, it's easy to understand why there is a lack of institutional support for further study. Apparently, some "great minds" are already closed...

The second thing that I found out at that site that I'd like to share is apparently a comment sent to the site by a fifth-grade science teacher:

"I think that Truth is very, very difficult to put a finger on and say, "This is scientific fact." That is the way I
teach science in my classroom and lead my students to think. It fosters creativity, problem-solving skills, and developing
an open mind. Besides that, my 5th graders are extremely intrigued by the unknown, the odd, and what is today thought of by most mainstream scientists as outright laughable. But to me these things are as close to the Truth, albeit little known Truth, as many of the other typical units and foster the kind of investigative thinking that is an integral part of the scientific method. These topics include:

The Face on Mars
Cryptozoological Critters: Bigfoot, Sea & Lake Monsters
UFOs
The Alien Abduction Phenomenon
Crop Circles
Mental Telepathy and Precognition
Spook Lights

A similar list of a hundred years ago probably included topics
like:

Artificial Intelligence
Life on Mars!
Supersonic Flight
...and so on.

Reality today, poppycock in the past."


C3: That's exactly how I feel about it! I'm glad to see that there are teachers that understand the value of keeping an open mind and foster that in their students. From a fifth-grade teacher, to a Professor of Applied Physics at major university, I guess the spirit of discovery IS still alive!


------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 01:52 PM
1. I am not a "self-proclaimed "intellectual"".
2. I did not call you a troll, I asked if you were a troll.
3. Throughout this thread, you have shown a dislike for people that use facts and reasoning to separate fiction and truth. You have attacked people for being scientific and intellectual. You have repeatedly ignored facts presented before you, in favor of easily doctored photographs and hucksters selling made-up stories to the ignorant masses.

I dub thee TROLL!

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-15-1999, 04:34 PM
C3 said:Thank you for your courage to acknowledge my pilot comment.
Now will you return the favor and acknowledge (& respond to) all the other questions?

** These folks (commercial and military pilots) are usually stable types that have been tested for psychosis
** These folks are usually up in the atmosphere where these UFOs are and the pilots have pretty good visibilty via their cockpit windows
True on both accounts, BUT that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. In addition to the one article I mentioned, I know there is a fairly famous case of several pilots saying a UFO was coming right at them, and that they were sure it was practically on top of them, when in fact it was a meteorite that was miles away (I wish I could think of the specific incident -- I'll do some searching). The fact remains that pilots are still humans and still make mistakes.

** These people risk their reputations and maybe even their continued employment by reporting some of these UFOs and should be taken seriously when they do report them
So what? That doesn't mean what they say is automatically 100% correct.

Anybody here want to tell me why accounts from pilots are equally as bogus as those reported by mere ground-based laymen?
I don't believe anybody has said such accounts are "bogus." But are they good enough evidence for alien visitation? The answer is simply "no." People make mistakes, C3. The fact that some mistakes can be explained and others cannot does not mean the ones that cannot are "unexplainable." Sometimes there just isn't enough info about a given situation. That doesn't automatically mean we're being visited by aliens, though. Do you at least understand that?
---
Ok, I found some reference to the meteorite story above. Here is a quote summarizing it briefly (you can find the whole article at http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n05/klass.html , but this was the only part related to that story).

"In June 1969, a number of airplane pilots in the St. Louis area reported seeing a squadron of strange, fast-moving unidentified craft. One pilot reported a near collision, others that the craft moved at angles, apparently avoiding collisions with the aircraft and thus showing signs of intelligent control.

The mystery was solved when Peoria Journal Star photographer Alan Harkrader shot a photo of the streaking "craft" some 200 miles away in Peoria, Illinois. The "craft" were later identified as chunks of meteors splitting apart some 100,000 feet high in the sky.

The point to this occurrence, Philip J. Klass, co-founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and a UFO expert, told the audience at a Gateway Skeptics meeting in St. Louis is that the pilots have to know the object and its size before guessing the distance to it."


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 04:39 PM
More from C3:The second thing that I found out at that site that I'd like to share is apparently a comment sent to the site by a fifth-grade science teacher:

"I think that Truth is very, very difficult to put a finger on and say, "This is scientific fact."
This is a SCIENCE teacher? (And since when do they have specific fields in 5th grade? Every school I've been to or know of only has general teachers at least thru 5th.) This teacher needs to go back and re-study basic science again.

That is the way I teach science in my classroom and lead my students to think. It fosters creativity, problem-solving skills, and developing an open mind.
There is a difference between having an open mind and making it so open that your brain falls out...

Besides that, my 5th graders are extremely intrigued by the unknown, the odd, and what is today thought of by most mainstream scientists as outright laughable. But to me these things are as close to the Truth, albeit little known Truth, as many of the other typical units and foster the kind of investigative thinking that is an integral part of the scientific method.
There is nothing wrong with using these topics, which are typically of interest to students of that age, to teach science. The hard part is teaching the kids how to discern evidence from BS. Heck, there are many adults who still can't do that (not to mention any names...).


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 05:03 PM
C3, I realize that you are apparently so busy that you haven't yet had time to answer the questions I've (re)posted to you here, but in case you manage to find the time, here are some links you might find of interest. Several of them deal with problems of eyewitness sightings, others with ufology in general or some other topic that has come up here (such as sexual experiments). Some of the links go directly to the article, some to the full newsletter in which the article appeared. There are certainly a lot more articles than this out there, but these are the ones I am most familiar with.

The Illinois UFO Mania of 1897 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n03/index.html

The Conspiratorial Superhighway http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n02/conspiratorial-superhighway.html

The Exeter File, Parts 1 & 2 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n09/exeter.html and [url]http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n10/exeter2.html[url]

Crash Retrieval at Gatchelville http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n10/exeter3.html

This One's a Keeper http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n08/keeper.html

What's Smoo? http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n03/smoo.html

Skybald: Some Comments on the Goodland, Kansas Double Abduction of November 7, 1989 http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v03/n11/skybald.html

The Curse of the Space Mummies http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v03/n05/index.html

The Eyes That Spoke http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v02/n07/index.html

The Eyes Still Speak http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n05/index.html

Spawn of Inseminoid http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v02/n05/index.html

The Alien Booger Menace http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n06/index.html

The Saucer Error http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n04/index.html

Pencil-Neck Aliens http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n01/index.html

Is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis Falsifialbe? http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n01/index.html

Oh, and a couple about Bell (that is how this discussion started, after all) :
Peddling the Paranormal http://www.csicop.org/sb/9803/art-bell.html

Art Bell's "Quickening" is Sickening http://www.csicop.org/sb/9712/baker.html

------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 05:25 PM
Dave B:

I've already visited those two sites and I have already read about 2/3 of those articles already...seriously, man...the csicop and reall sites were already on my favorites list before today...

I don't really feel as though we are making any real progress on the sub-topic of aliens and UFOs, in the same way that we came to "loggerheads" on the topic of the Art Bell show...

It seems to me that we are just really wrestling with semantics...

It should be obvious by now that I'm not saying (nor ever have) that ALL reports of UFOs are alien crafts...the gist of our differences on this are that I choose to (now read this carefully!) believe that "some" of these sightings "might" be extraterrestrial in origin, you (and the others) believe that "all" of them "probably" aren't. We both hold our respective positions either "in spite of" (me), or "because of" (you and others) the "lack" of hard physical evidence...

There you go...that's as true a paragraph as you'll read today.

Frankly, I've tired of paging to the bottom of a 100+ post thread several times per day in order to answer attacks from 6 different people. I might reappear again in a new post concerning this or other topics of the Art Bell show as they interest me and I think they generate interesting electronic conversation.

'til then...

------------------
Contestant #3

05-15-1999, 06:29 PM
C3 said:I've already visited those two sites and I have already read about 2/3 of those articles already...seriously, man...the csicop and reall sites were already on my favorites list before today...
Well, I'm certainly happy to hear that! (In case you didn't already figure it out, it's not a coincidence that I am David B and that David Bloomberg is the chairman of REALL.)

It seems to me that we are just really wrestling with semantics...
I very much disagree. We have repeatedly asked for evidence, and you have repeatedly neglected to provide it. Heck, you even asked us to repost the questions you hadn't answered, and then when I did so, you are now ignoring them! I don't think that's just semantics, C3.

It should be obvious by now that I'm not saying (nor ever have) that ALL reports of UFOs are alien crafts...
And I don't think anybody here has ever implied that you said anything like that. We're getting into straw man territory again.

the gist of our differences on this are that I choose to (now read this carefully!) believe that "some" of these sightings "might" be extraterrestrial in origin, you (and the others) believe that "all" of them "probably" aren't.
A pretty accurate summary, I would say.

We both hold our respective positions either "in spite of" (me), or "because of" (you and others) the "lack" of hard physical evidence...
I'm glad you are at least admitting that much (the "in spite of" part).

Frankly, I've tired of paging to the bottom of a 100+ post thread several times per day in order to answer attacks from 6 different people.
You'll have to forgive my feeling that this is somewhat of a coincidence -- that you are tiring of this immediately after I have posted and reposted questions that you have steadfastly ignored. (And the bit about paging down to the bottom is not a really great excuse, I'm afraid, since most web browsers I'm aware of have a nice little bar on the side that you can slide all the way down to the bottom, ignoring all the earlier messages if you so choose.)

I might reappear again in a new post concerning this or other topics of the Art Bell show as they interest me and I think they generate interesting electronic conversation.
And, of course, in that new thread you won't have to worry about answering all these questions we've posted to you here already...



------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 06:42 PM
Well, Phil, I don't claim to be a true believer, but I'll take a crack at your 5 questions:
1) Haven't got a clue. Pretty far away, I'd imagine.
2) Dunno. Convergent evolution? Occam's Razor applied to evolution?
3) This one's easy: They use ESP. NO! Really! A guy on Art Bell said so!
4)This one's easy, too: Flubber! NO! Really! I read it on a website!
5)Well, maybe they're an old, decadent civilization, and like to give us "monkeys" proctological examinations?
What! You don't believe any of my statements? You are ALL intellectual snobs, and jerks and idiots!

Sorry, I couldn't help but poke a little fun at C#3, after beating my head against his brick wall of obtuseness in the "Right to Keep And Bear Arms" thread.

And Slythe says:
1. I am not a "self-proclaimed "intellectual"".
2. I did not call you a troll, I asked if you were a troll.
3. Throughout this thread, you have shown a dislike for people that use facts and reasoning to separate fiction and truth. You have attacked people for being scientific and intellectual. You have repeatedly ignored facts presented before you, in favor of easily doctored photographs and hucksters selling made-up stories to the ignorant masses.

I dub thee TROLL!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle carbonized! !!SHEESH!!

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Try a Brillo Pad for the complexion problem."

05-15-1999, 07:22 PM
ExTank said:Sorry, I couldn't help but poke a little fun at C#3, after beating my head against his brick wall of obtuseness in the "Right to Keep And Bear Arms" thread.
Ah, so it's not just this topic, eh? Is that why he was so eager to accuse us of believing in government conspiracies when it came to gun control? That way he can attack two groups he disagrees with at one time. <sigh>

Well, now I'm almost tempted to check in on that topic to see how he was acting there. Almost. ;)




------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-15-1999, 10:01 PM
F.Y.I. Ex-Tank is refering to the religious difference between us-I don't belong to the church of the bang stick.
Contestant#3-the list you present of things that need further investigation is so silly as to defy description. Try reading something other than Fate magazine to find the true mysteries of the universe.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-16-1999, 12:04 AM
I know this is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to address this.



See, this is what dimwitted assertions get you. The "mass hysteria after the 'War of the Worlds' broadcast"
claim is so exaggerated as to be preposterous. The overwhelming majority of people listening knew it was a
fictional program. There was no "mass hysteria." Christ, could you just once use a fucking fact in something you
say?



I know you said it was exagerated, which it was. BUT, there was plenty of hysteria surrounding that radio broadcast. I have read newspaper accounts from the day after it happened, that spoke of traffic jams, and disgruntled people. I can give you the cite if you like, it was from the Philadelphia Inquirer. They reprinted it this past October. Also, in all of Orson Welles biographies they mention how CBS switchboards were overloaded, with people calling to find out if it was a true newscast. This is also mentioned in three of the Orson Welles biographies I have read.
They mentioned that it was a fictional account three times during the show, but most people who heard War of the Worlds switched over during a lull of the Charlie McCarthy show. so they did not hear those annoucements.
I do agree that Orson Welles tended to exagerate the effect of the show in later years, but I don't think it should be discounted how many people believed it. Radio had a profound power over people, it had a mark of authority, that doesn't exist nowadays.

oh.
Contestant #3
sounds like science is found at.
http://www.npr.org/programs/

pat

05-16-1999, 10:19 PM
Dave, FYI, Slythe (and his trolling sidekick Contestant#3) is an idiot who has ignored every legal precedent and interpretation by learned legal scholars in denying that the Second Amendment allows "the people" the right to keep and bear arms.
Almost a half dozen people have told him that this is so, even people who have stated that they are against private ownership of firearms.
Later, when I indicated that an armed citizenry was what the Founding Fathers considered to be the "Fourth Branch" of the Government, the "final check and balance" as it were, Slythe indicated that I was a "paranoid, fear-obsessed idiot". Go figger.
My jibe at Contestant #3 (DING! Thank you for playing!) was in retaliation (I'm petty at times, I admit it) to his sniping at my character after I called him on posting a piece of anti-gun propaganda couched in a song representing gun owners as red-necks, criminals, lunatics, etc., who just wanted to get a gun and shoot sum'thin'.
While I took no personal offense to the song, when I called C#3 on it as being unfairly misrepresentational and the sort of attack that pushes both sides further into their respective positions (as opposed to engaging in a dialog to reach a compromise), C#3 got snippy and started sniping my character instead of responding to my arguments. Sound familiar?
Oh, and both have rather flexible interpretations of the English language; their words mean what they want them to mean, regardless of what a dictionary says.
Your words mean nothing, your logic is flawed automatically because you can't see what is perfectly obvious: that by being on the opposite side of an argument from them, you are ignorant, stupid, paranoid, and any other derogatory adjective they can think to heap on you.
Do yourself a favor: don't lower yourself or wate your mental energies trying to argue or debate with either of them.
It's the mental equivalent of that Road Runner cartoon where the coyote's trying to use glue to trap the bird, but winds up getting various appendages stuck to the glue; you can eventually get unstuck, but the exasperation isn't worth the trap in the first place.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Beep Beep!"

05-16-1999, 11:05 PM
Ok...OK...after 36 hours of inactivity I thought this frigging thread was dead, but then I see it increment to 113...so I toos aside restraint and wait for the page to load...scroll all the way down to the bottom and what do I find?

Crybaby ExTank...what a letdown!

Here he is sniffling about he's been mistreated by me and Slythe...

In fact his is some of what he spewed:

EXTank: "Oh, and both have rather flexible interpretations of the English language; their words mean what they want them to mean, regardless of what a dictionary says.
Your words mean nothing, your logic is flawed automatically because you can't see what is perfectly obvious: that by being on the opposite side of an argument from them, you are ignorant, stupid, paranoid, and any other derogatory adjective they can think to heap on you."

How funny Extank! Not that I cherish the thought of defending Slythe, but here's what you wrote to him in that "right to bear arms" thread:

ExTank: "Where in the fuck are you getting this from!?!?"

and

ExTank: "Slythe,the only reason I can posit for your continual blindness and ignorance is that you are insecure in your position"

and

ExTank: "Or maybe you're just stupid."

Get down off that high-horse Tank my boy...you are every bit as obnoxious and stubborn with your views as any of the rest of us out here and if you don't believe that then there's no hope for you!

Now...just because to caused me to waste my time on this, here you go you Ex-wargames wannabe:

Guns are neat, Guns are sweet, Guns the tool that makes ya cool.
Guns are fine, Guns are mine,Guns are things that Jesus brings.
Guns for loonies, Guns for cons,Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms.
Guns are fun for everyone, buy them up by the ton. Guns for me, Guns for you, Guns for nuts
and children too! Guns at home, Guns at work, Guns at play, Guns berserk!
Tons and tons of great big Guns are tons and tons of great big fun!
I've got Guns up my nose tween my ears and by my toes. I'm no fool I'm so cool I take Guns
to my school.
I take Guns in my car, to the store and to the bar. I got Guns in a drawer,in my pocket and
on the floor.
I got Guns on the wall, in my bed and in the hall.
Get a Gun and get it fast, shoot someone, it's a blast!


------------------
Contestant #3

05-16-1999, 11:41 PM
Ex-Tank, You have done me two great wrongs.
1. Where, pray tell, did I call you a"paranoid, fear-obsessed idiot."?
2. You are making me agree with Contestant #3! How the hell can I cultivate a good enemy if you do this to me?

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

05-17-1999, 08:25 AM
ExTank said: While I took no personal offense to the song, when I called C#3 on it as being unfairly misrepresentational and the sort of attack that pushes both sides further into their respective positions (as opposed to engaging in a dialog to reach a compromise), C#3 got snippy and started sniping my character instead of responding to my arguments. Sound familiar?
Wow! Deja vu all over again. He posts a straw man, and then when you correct him, he attacks with ad hominem. Amazingly predictable.


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-17-1999, 09:24 AM
There IS a place for all this bitching and moaning and personal animosity! I'm not going to waste my time downloading this thread anymore.

05-17-1999, 10:26 AM
For anybody who is interested, Contestant #3 has taken his show on the road, and continued his arguments from ignorance and use of ad hominem attacks over in the "Water as a pre-requisite for life" thread.

Remember just a few days ago when he said in here that he didn't even know what Occam's Razor is? Well now he's acting like an expert and throwing about the term as an attack on people who disagree with him.


------------------
"It's a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense." -- James Randi

05-17-1999, 10:59 AM
thats too bad that the thread had to go so wrong, i was enjoying exposing the lies and pseudoscience of Art Bell.
Oh well, I guess #3 would never have been convinced anyway.

pat

ps:
so, Occam's Razor is going to go the way of paradigm, proactive and gestalt.. everyone will use it at all times and the real meaning will be lost in some ooze.

06-03-1999, 04:26 AM
In an attempt to heed pricciar's suggestion and return to Art Bell, I think the biggest problem with his show is that all you get is pre-digested pablum overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the guest's opinions. It's called "pandering". For there to be any hope of learning something of genuine value from his guests, Bell would have to carefully challenge these guests on their basic claims in order to hear them defend their ideas and premises. Hell, even Larry King does that!

But if all C#3 wants are "interesting" stories of extremely dubious reliability and authenticity, I suppose Art Bell is as good (or bad) a source as any other disreputable source of "information". You might also consider watching most of the paranormal shows on Fox and The Discovery Channel, and perhaps the 700 Club's analysis of world affairs, or failing that, your local comic shop...

Enore_Tsotset listed Michael Cremo as an example of a "credited scientist" who's been on Bell's show. I know what you really meant, but even so this is quite ridiculous.

If you read Cremo's bio page it's clear he lacks any generally accepted scientific credentials (he apparently doesn't even have a bachelor's degree, let alone one in anthropology or archeology). Yes, he lists himself proudly as a member of the "American Anthropological Association", but we could all be members of this august body: all it takes is $120 (payable by credit card if you want instant faux-respectability). I challenge you to produce a single scientific article by Mr. Cremo in any widely respected scientific journal. There is nothing to distinguish him from a total crank. If you search the web using his name, you will be drowned in a torrent of patently silly quasi-religious blither.

Cremo's claims are nothing more than a inverted variation on Creationism in which his not-so-hidden agenda is to promote fundamentalist Hinduism instead of Christianity. And just like the more familiar brand of Creationism, science has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Cremo wouldn't recognize genuine science if he dug it up in his back yard. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html

But to be fair, Dr. Michio Kaku seems to have excellent credentials (although credentials alone don't make a scientist, and an awful lot of kooks seem to like to refer to his work). Judging by the Art Bell shows I've heard, I can't help thinking that Bell's booking agent was probably fired for this serious breach of protocol!


Also, I have to second David B.'s shocked response regarding the purported "Science" teacher who lists things like the "face" on Mars and alien abductions and says: "...to me these things are as close to the Truth, albeit little known Truth..."

Y I K E S !!

I pity the poor children who have been and may yet be "educated" by this terrible excuse for a teacher! This has nothing to do with his/her opinions on these matters, nor does it have anything to do with being open- or closed-minded. The revealing flaw in this absurd statement is the references to "Truth" with a capital "T": science has nothing to say about "Truth". Science is concerned with evidence -- "Truth" is a matter for blind faith.

06-03-1999, 05:17 AM
Within days, Tucson Weekly broke the news that the Maryland Air National Guard, in Arizona for winter training, had a squad of A-10 fighters over the gunnery range that night, and they had dropped flares.

I realize this was in another article, and also that my comment here is totally irrelevant to anything, but I have to mention that the Tucson Weekly is not a newspaper to quote for hard news. :) It does print some good obscure comics though.

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
"Cluemobile? You've got a pickup..."
OpalCat's site: http://fathom.org/opalcat
The Teeming Millions Homepage: fathom.org/teemingmillions (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions)