Why care about UFOs?

[the first supraliminal]

Contestant#3 seems to care a lot about UFOs. The topic never really interested me. But I'd like to understand this fascination. If UFOs really exist, what's in it for me? Are they gonna come down and give me a million bucks?

Also another topic: conspiracy. Who gives a shit? If you uncover a conspiracy of which you have no part of, have you really gained anything? Is it written somewhere that if you uncover some conspiracy, you get a million bucks?

For me, I think I can think of better ways to get a million bucks.



------------------
There's always another beer.

[Contestant #3]

...because they are a lot more interesting than religion and easier on your liver than beer.

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

[the first supraliminal]

That doesn't really answer the question, C#3.

I'm interested in beer because it makes me feel good. I makes my senses dull, if not numb. I like money because when I have some, it always feels good. I like blowjobs because, well, it feels good.

So tell me, C#3, how does arguing about UFOs make you feel good?



------------------
There's always another beer.

[Contestant #3]

Beeruser writes:

"If UFOs really exist, what's in it for me?"

Given your value system, I'd hope that maybe they'd have some tasty kind of intoxicant beverage for you...or a plentiful socialist economy...or perhaps some space-wentches with some "out of this world" BJ techniques!

Beeruser then writes:

"Is it written somewhere that if you uncover some conspiracy, you get a million bucks?"

Maybe. Consider the rights to the "made for TV" movie, the potential royalties from book sales, not to mention the airtime on Larry King...


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

[WallyM7]

Beer,

You haven't been paying attention.

C#3 doesn't answer questions.

He'll either point you to some moronic link, or ignore you.

------------------
According to the Pope, a woman can be a saint, but not a priest.

[Contestant #3]

Hey Wally,

How about that promise to avoid my posts? That lasted for a whole 24 hours didn't it?

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

[UncleBeer]

I think I'll start here with a response to what I took as a serious question. It is after all, the Great Debates forum.

I think there are many reasons why people are interested in UFO's, or more likely, IMO, the beings piloting them. The simple answer is just the curious nature of the human race. But if you want to break it down a little bit, consider these:
1) A genuine interest in lifeforms which did not originate on this planet. Perhaps this could be called a biological interest.
2) Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what we could learn from them. I'm not saying UFO's exist, but pending any real proof I believe there are other forms of life in the universe. The real question is whether they have visited us. This appeals more to my technical side.
3) Good old fear. Perhaps people think they are coming to destroy us. Witness all the Hollywood bilge on this topic.
4) If I may be so bold as to bring up the ugly specter of religion, maybe some people are curious to see if the aliens have any more of a clue than we do. Or even perhaps we are just one of their experiments.

Now, off the topic. As I said above, I interpreted BeerUser's question as a serious one. If Wally and C#3 didn't see it that way, maybe they shouldn't have responded. If you guys really want to have another pissing match, please don't do it here. There is a forum designated specifically to vent your spleen.

------------------
One complete set of morals for sale to highest bidder, new in box.

[kellibelli]

I will respond as if it was a serious question too...

We must as intelligent thinking people constantly stretch our own limits of understanding.

We are curious by nature, if we werent, we would still be eating raw meat in a cave, with 'kilroy' level language skills.

While I agree it would be much more pleasant to merely stick our heads in the sand and quielty go on with our own business, never concerning ourselves with the great questions of ufo's, religion, good & evil, right & wrong, etc, that just isnt human nature.

On a related thread, I believe I responded to a similar question from Polycarp. My main reason for being interested in UFOs is that I believe there are four threats to the survival of the human race, and the possibility of conquest by a hostile extraterrestrial civilization is one.

[Polycarp]

I'm glad to see that the Beerocracy (Beeruser and UncleBeer) are taking the question seriously. I've always liked the quote that I believe is attributed to Carl Sagan: "Either we're the only intelligent life in the Universe. Or we're not. Either way, it's a sobering thought."

A quick semantic quibble: UFO means "unidentified flying object" and is not synonymous with "flying saucer." May I suggest ETV (extraterrestrial vehicle) when we want a quick and dirty term for "things observed which we want to describe as what aliens are flying"?

Given that, I think we could learn an immense amount from them, even if they are advanced beyond us only in having ETVs. In virtually every social-science field, we are handicapped by having only a single intelligent species to study. The religion issue is, as UncleBeer points out (and which has been dealt with on another thread) obvious. Biology, astrophysics, planetology, you name it: having their data would change our world.

Question: There is an assumption in much science fiction that the more intlligent or advanced race must exercise extreme care in dealing with the less, to avoid instilling a racial psychic inferiority complex. Do you think this is valid?

[zoony]

Question: There is an assumption in much science fiction that the more intlligent or advanced race must exercise extreme care in dealing with the less, to avoid instilling a racial psychic inferiority complex. Do you think this is valid?

IMO, not only is that a valid consideration, but one which grew out of the whole UFO paranoia biz. Assuming that you're referencing the "Prime Directive" ideal, it would seem to me that the whole inclusion of such an ideal was - like so many other plot derivations of the Star Trek genre - purely the result of media attention to such topics. It was sort of the scriptwriters way of answring the whole UFO question - if there was intelligent life visiting this planet, wouldn't it be nice if they could either be up front about it and "reassure" us that they meant no harm, or be a little more careful about concealing their work.

As far as the idea of instilling an 'inferiority complex', check out the other threads on UFO's and the statements of those who obsess on them. Apparently, DIF worries about the extinction of humanity at the hands of a malevolent, aggressive extra-terrestrial species.

We got more than enough psycho's down here to help along the extinction bit. Seems a little trivial.

Z


------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."
- Will Rogers

Zoony:

We got more than enough psycho's down here to help along the extinction bit. Seems a little trivial.

Yeah, but those are the ones I 'worry' about under the 'nuclear war' and 'biological war' headings. I ain't losing any sleep at the moment. I'm more worried about a biological weapon being used. The sudden outbreak of "west Nile virus-like" disease in New York's got me tapping a finger . . .

[Polycarp]

I wouldn't classify DIF as a "loony" who "obsesses" over it. He's made it clear that he's interested because he sees it as one potential threat. I think that a "dinosaur-killer" asteroid is a significant threat to humanity (and every other species more advanced than the cockroach). If opportunity presents, I let my Congressman know that the proposed sky search to see if any asteroids are on Earth-impact orbits is worth funding. I don't obsess over it. DIF strikes me as taking the same view.

Yeah, the Star Trek Prime Directive. It wasn't my source, though. Heinlein and Jack Williamson, to name two, had written about the idea when Gene Roddenberry was junior assistant prop man (or the equivalent).

[Alphagene]

I think a lot of people are hoping that the aliens in their ETVs (which sounds eerily like SUV) will gladly hand over their cold fusion and FTL technology. Maybe in exchange for a commodity rare and precious on their planet but common on ours. Like french vanilla pudding or styrofoam peanuts.

What is it about the West-Nile virus epidemic that makes you suspicious, DIF?

[tracer]

A little bit of insight as to why people want to believe UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft can be found in the nature of the aliens reported by people who have claimed to have seen them (or people who believe others who claim to have seen them). UFO Aliens, almost without exception, are described as belonging to one of two categories:

(1) Vastly intelligent benefactors who have come to Earth to enlighten us or make our wishes come true (although they may feel that we're not yet "ready for" or "worthy of" their gifts), and

(2) Evil conspiratorial creatures who torture innocent victims in their lab experiments and (usually) are secretly in cahoots with various government agencies to hide their existence and/or better prepare the public for their future subjugation.

In both cases, aliens are intensely interested in the affairs of us humans, and in fact have human-like motives themselves.

In short, the two cases described above are virtually indistinguishable from (1) Angels, and (2) Demons.


------------------
Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com

[Czarcasm]

C#3, just once could you let us know which is the truth?
1. I really believe in U.F.O.'s.
2. I am just jerking everyone's chain because it's the only way I can get people to talk to me.
3. Both.

[Clark K]

What interests me is the overlap between belief in extraterrestrial visitors and belief in any number of paranormal powers -- from telekinesis to waterwitching.

I mean, believing in the possibility of ETVs makes some sense, I suppose. There are certainly lights in the sky to gawk at and plenty of "witnesses" to believe if you want. And, of course, the whole question of life on other planets is fascinating, so a little of that legitimacy rubs off on the UFO business.

But C3 apparently also believes all kinds of claims about mental powers and such. I just don't see what encourages that kind of faith in the unseen.

So I'm asking seriously, with no intention to insult: C3, do you believe all claims of Mysterious Powers or just those for which you see some kind of proof? If you accept the existence of most such phenomena, does it ever occur to you that you believe because you WANT to and not because there's a good reason?

------------------
Up, up and away!

[Clark K]

Hey, C#3! Apologies in advance if you're not a believer in all kinds of psychic phenomena. I saw your thread about the Amazing Randi and assumed you believed in the types of things he disproves. But others later in the thread got me to thinking that maybe I had misjudged you.

Sorry about that.

------------------
Up, up and away!

[WallyM7]

I know, C#3, I just can't help myself. I guess I'm afraid you'll think I'm beaten.

According to your criteria for evidence, silence is acceptance. It's not.

I'm starting to think that maybe it's the number of responses to your posts that matter to you.

[David B]

Beeruser, if aliens really are visiting our planet, I think that would be a great discovery! Think of what they could tell us! I, for one, would love to see it happen. The problem is that some people confuse what they would like to happen with what actually does happen. So they see a light in the sky and "think" it must be aliens.

So I understand the fascination with the idea, but some people go beyond that to a fascination with nonsense.

[GuanoLad]

I personally am fascinated in the debunking of UFO claims. And in the truth behind them. That interests me more than the stories themselves, which tend to be very similar these days.

But I do think that it would be pretty damned cool if aliens really were visiting. I'd love to see them.

[Markxxx]

UFOs cause interest for two reasons.

First of all to those who are religous the lack of them indicates that they are correct. God did create us and we are special to him. If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it. Oh I'm sure they would adapt the current line of thinking but it would cause a change in thinking drastically

Second to those non believers we know the world is doomed. Eventually the Sun will expand and consume the earth. There is NO WAY to get around this. Unless we can colonize other planets. If UFOs were real they could provide us a means to continue.

This is why we exist to reproduce. We want to continue. And UFO are a hope.

[Contestant #3]

I care about UFOs and like to discuss them and to learn more about them. Virtually each week brings more and more sightings and new information to share.

As a topic, UFOs are spicy and a sure crowd-pleaser too...

Heck, I post about a lot of things out here...I offer gift suggestions and ideas for food for picnic lunches...I share about cats, children, etc...

UFOs are but one item that catches my interest. Ironically, the time that I posted about the state-level UCITA proposals that would adversely affect each and every one of us...or the time I attempted to start a dialogue on CAFRs and their very serious implications, I got hardly a response from the SDMB "intellectuals"...go figure...maybe I need to start inter-mingling UFOs with serious topics in order to get at least a little dialogue on the serious stuff.

Possible OPs of the future:

CAFRs and the ramifications...alien plot to tax us into submission?

UCITA?...benefiting greedy UFO software and publishing lords?

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

[David B]

Maybe you should start by not using acronyms, and explain what CAFRs and UCITA are.

[David B]

Markxxx said:

First of all to those who are religous the lack of them indicates that they are correct. God did create us and we are special to him. If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it.

I disagree. The only religious folks I have heard who say aliens would contradict their religious beliefs are the literalists. They say there's no mention of aliens in the Bible, so therefore they don't exist. But, from a religious viewpoint, even if God made us and some guys with big grey heads, that doesn't necessarily mean man is any different than he was before.

Alphagene, I'll answer your question, although it really calls for a thread of its own. I'm a little suspicious of the west-Nile virus outbreak because it would make a perfect means of opening a biological war against the U.S., or for testing techniques to use in later, more deadly, attacks. OTOH, with New York being the hub of international travel that it is, perhaps the question might be -- why now, and not a lot sooner? Why have U.S. public health measures apparently worked to keep it out up 'til now, and suddenly there's an outbreak that requires spraying pesticides which are themselves to some extent toxic to humans? And what I mainly wish is that friggin' ABC would stop running feature story after story on the Nightly News, which may only give the idea to someone who hasn't had it yet. If you think Columbine High was bad, imagine an outcast/nerd going to his basement lab and whipping up some variation on typhus and spiking the punch at the senior prom with it. Fifteen years ago, this stuff was cutting-edge; now, anyone with sufficient funds and catalogs can get what he needs FedExed overnight. Digression over.
==========================================
If 'extraterrestrials' turn out to be real, I believe that revealing themselves to us explicitly would be big trouble for most Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sects. Buddhism and Hinduism could probably take the 'blow', since both seem to take such an accepting attitude toward whatever comes, while Christians, Jews, and Muslims start out with the Old Testament and Special Creation. It might finally wipe that smug grin off Jerry Falwell's face.

[GuanoLad]

CAFR appears to mean Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

and UCITA is the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.

I have no clue as to what they are or what's controversial about them, and frankly I don't care.

As you can probably tell, politics bores the shit out of me.

------------------
"So what you are telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else that you have never seen."

[Polycarp]

Ya need to be true-blue American to get the implications of these, GuanoLad.

We threw George III and his minions out because he was trying to trespass on our freedoms, particularly by taxing us without giving us a voice on it. About 150 years later we passed an amendment to our constitution permitting "taxes on income from whatever source derived."

The Internal Revenue Service (also called IRS, as well as other things Dave would have to edit out ) was for many years evidently taking the attitude that every taxpayer was ipso facto subject to suspicion of cheating on their income taxes. (Supposedly we have a "kinder, gentler IRS" today -- a matter on which I am a bit skeptical.)

If you have a slightly paranoid frame of mind, as both C#3 and I do (not an insult, C#3 -- I'm just saying that we're inclined to see "tendencies" where our more "objective" posters do not), then the IRS requirements to file this-n-that can be seen as highly controversial and unjustified probing into private concerns they need not know.

Have I gotten this one on target?

[David B]

In relation to the issue of what would happen to religious folks if aliens were discovered, I'm reading the new Carl Sagan biography, by Keay Davidson, and the author makes an interesting point about extraterrestrial life and religious beliefs. Talking about Christians who looked into the sky and saw all the stars in the 17th century, he says, in summarizing their position: "Why would God create myriad planets in space, then fail to populate them? They must by inhabited: what could better demonstrate God's omniscience and infinite creativity? In the nineteenth century, this theme was hammered home by the great Scottish orator Rev. Thomas Chalmers. The astronomy writer Rev. Thomas Dick also frequently speculated about alien life. So tight was the presumed link between extraterrestrial life and Christian revelation that in the 1850s when the famed author William Whewell argued against the existence of aliens, he was accused of encouraging atheists."


------------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford

[tracer]

Polycarp wrote:

We threw George III and his minions out because he was trying to trespass on our freedoms, particularly by taxing us without giving us a voice on it. About 150 years later we passed an amendment to our constitution permitting "taxes on income from whatever source derived."

This is one of my favorite topics, because 2-and-a-half years ago I almost fell for the Patriot/Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protestor rhetoric (income tax is voluntary, the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified, etc.).

It turns out that the 16th amendment didn't give the Federal government any taxing powers that it didn't already have. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax anything. Two other clauses in the Constitution, however, require that direct taxes (e.g. property taxes) be apportioned to the states according to their population -- non-direct taxes only have to be uniform throughout the states.

In the 1860s, Congress passed the first Federal income tax. The Supreme Court ruled that it was an indirect tax, and was thus not subject to the apportionment requirement. Income taxes continued to be considered indirect taxes until 1894, when a Supreme Court case named "Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co." flew in the face of all previous Supreme Court decisions by a 5-4 margin, and established that taxes on incomes derived from property were equivalent to a tax on the value of the property itself, and were thus direct taxes subject to the apportionment requirements.

Now, apportionment is a really messy procedure to go through. Direct taxes are hard as heck to "get right", and some wealthy land owner always feels shafted by them even when they are done right. The situation was made worse, though, when taxes on income derived from goods manufactured on property were not considered direct taxes and thus must not be apportioned. The source of the income for tax purposes became an intractable sticking point. The only solution seemed to be a Constitutional Amendment to place taxes on all income, regardless of source, in the category of indirect non-apportioned taxes.

And so, in 1913, such a proposed amendment became ratified as the 16th Amendment to our Constitution.

And if you don't believe me, check out the 1916 Supreme Court case "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad".

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[Polycarp]

David B said:

when the famed author William Whewell argued against the existence of aliens, he was accused of encouraging atheists.

And you discount Contestant #3's evidence, and also believe that, at minimum, there is insufficient evidence to suggest the existence of God.

Maybe they had a point!

Hey C#3!

I got me one Gen-U-ine Bermuda Triangle/Crop Circle Space\time Warp Detector for sale, right now; at a low, Low , <font size=5>LOW! </font> once in a lifetime sale price!

Oh, sure; it <font size=4>looks</font> like an El Cheapo compass out of a crackerjack box, but don't be fooled! That's what THEY want you to think! The Illuminati Conspiracy! YEAH! THEM! ( Contrary to rumors, "THEM!" does not refer to a movie about creating giant, fictional, mutant ants; rather it discusses a conspiracy to create REAL giant ants. Ask C#3.He can prove it with a website reference....)
C#3, you CAN buy this <font size=1>almost new</font> Space\Time Warp Detector for the bargan price of only $200....payable only in 1943 US Zinc Pennies. Zinc Pennies only this time. I can't take any more Roman Cestercies. Market is flooded....

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

[DrFidelius]

I thought the line was "a two-bit trinket from a Cracker Back jox."

Aw, she's no fun, she fell right over.

[Doobieous]

I'm a little suspicious of the west-Nile virus outbreak because it would make a perfect means of opening a biological war against the U.S., or for testing techniques to use in later, more deadly, attacks.

On the other hand since one of the vectors are birds, perhaps this arrived in a shipment of birds from Africa (private collectors love secretly shipping in birds from other places). Then a mosquito bites it, gets a stomachful of the virus and then transmits it to other birds and other people. A lot of areas spray for pesticides when there are breakouts of harmful pests. Here in California if fruitflies are found, they will spray infested areas by air with pesticides.
I am actually surprised we don't have more of these viruses especially with collectors underhandedly smuggling in exotic animals under the nose of customs officials.

[kaylasdad99]

As far as the issue of UFOs intersects the more general issue of conspiracy theories, I have always been fond of the hypothesis that if a conspiracy can be _established_ as being carried out and covered up by some mysterious cabal of powerful individuals, it "proves" that our society is not our own to control, that the game is fixed, that our misfortunes, failures, personal failings, and such-like are not the result of anything that we as individuals or groups might have done or chosen. This "means" that we as individuals are not responsible in any way for any conditions we observe that we do not like. It's all a result of what "THEY" are doing, so we don't have to make any inner changes, because what would be the point?
It's not a new idea, either. The Devil is a pretty good example of such a "THEY". In the book "The Snake Oil Wars," (by Parke Godwin) one character was going to be sent to another planet to be the Messiah (don't ask), and he asked if perhaps they shouldn't be sending along a Devil, as well. "Don't worry," he was assured, "They'll provide one on their own. Who wants to believe he's a son of a bitch without help?"
As to Contestant #3, and whether he subscribes to a belief in the paranormal and other topics that might fit under the umbrella of "X-files fodder," I'm not feeling inclined at the moment to do the research, but if the poster who brought up the subject wishes to, he can keep in mind the general ideas stated above, then look for evidence in C-#3's posts that tend to suggest he places credence in more than a couple of conspiracy theories. If the evidence suggests that he does, I would be inclined to guess that by the principle of "can't put anything past those bastards," we could extrapolate that his attitude toward the subject matter of most conspiracy theories does not lean in the direction of the skeptical.
Until such evidence is found, I will presume C-#3 to be generally a responsible skeptic.
To C-#3 (I hope I'm using an acceptable form of abbreviation, and that you'll inform me if I'm not): Please don't think I'm picking on you out of the blue. Unless I'm mistaken you were the OP of a thread on the French UFO Report, in which your original message contained a reference to your hope that a government might finally be coming clean on the UFO issue. You also originated (and re-posted) the threads regarding (1)how we as consumers are being made vulnerable to being taken to the cleaners by software manufacturers, due to proposed (or perhaps it was recently-passed) legislation addressing some form of product liability, and (2) how our governments at every level are hiding their assets from public scrutiny so that they can continue to raise money by taxing us to death. Now, this may only give me the right to say of you "Gee, that guy probably isn't as impressed by governments in general as governments in general would like for us to be," (or it may give me no rights to say anything of you at all; but the world being what it is I have the right to think as I please ), but in honesty, I must say that you have not yet been acquitted of being one of those types who thinks of Art Bell's show as a reliable source of news. Or, to satisfy all you constitutional scholars who WILL insist that the rules of jurisprudence must be applied in every human interaction, regardless of its applicability to a court of law, you have not, in my eyes, been -convicted_ of being a free-thinker who makes his own decisions and never jumps to embrace as his own the assertions of any demagogue (such as Mr. Bell and the majority of his guests) before rigorously testing such assertions with data from verifiably unbiased sources.
To C-#3 (and everyone else, for that matter): it may be appropriate for me to state that I am composing this off-line, and that I am not yet skilled enough in this form of composing to be able to save the content except by minimizing the window before I try to re-connect to the web. Furthermore, my three-year old is using the telephone to talk to her auntie as I type. My point is that, while I may have made some factual errors while I have been typing, I am not in a position to check for myself right now. However, you have my word that as soon as I can, I will return to the website to verify any points that I may feel unsure of, and will post recantations (if that's the right word) as soon as possible. If I'm coming off as a mealy-mouthed back-pedaller with that last bit, feel free to let me know (as though I'd be able to inhibit you -- great, dude, now you're being a mealy-mouthed sycophant). I am hoping to establish a reputation as a reasonably erudite smartass, and I'll take instruction in that field from whatever experts I can find .

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[kaylasdad99]

Gotta add a bit more; please bear with me.
Daniel p, I never thought I'd use such a cliched (somebody put an accent mark over the "e" for me, please) acronym, but LOL. I guess that'll teach me to spend two hours composing a reply, then posting it without looking to see what's been going on.
BTW, I meant to continue in my last paragraph (although you're probably glad I didn't) that I was not willing to lose all of the text I had written, and have to start from scratch.
Can somebody direct me to a good tutorial on the UBB? I need to start using some font modifiers.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[David B]

Kaylasdad said:

Until such evidence is found, I will presume C-#3 to be generally a responsible skeptic.

Wow! Of all the things C3 has been called, I'm pretty sure this is the first for that particular one.

As far as what you said about him and Art Bell, well, an Art Bell subject was one of the first times I remember seeing C3 post -- and, yes, he was in favor of some of the nuts who were on the show. Similarly, he has advanced claims that no responsible skeptic would advance. And now he'll come back and flame me for pointing this out to you. So you can ignore what I say if you'd like, and I encourage you to reach your own conclusion. But I strongly suspect you won't consider him a "responsible skeptic" for long.

[Contestant #3]

David,

Don't be so extreme. Not every single guest on the Art Bell programs is a kook or charlatan. Nor do I buy into every guest of Art Bell. To characterize me and/or the AB program that way is as dishonest as it is incorrect because I know that you know better.

I'll agree with you that "responsible skeptic" is giving me more credit than deserved, but a lot of the time in the stuff that I post I ask what others think about it and I've attempted to get others to peruse the same data that has led to my post.

I'm sorry to observe that on too many occcasions, people such as yourself knee-jerk react with EXTREME skepticism without even having read or listened to the material I present. I usually start shooting back with devil's advocate arguements which piss you off and lead to my labeling.

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

[Czarcasm]

The trouble with conspiracy theorists per se is that any evidence against the "conspiracy" is deemed to be part of a cover-up. Can't find a report that some-one said proves their point? "They" hid it! Can't find the u.f.o. that the aliens came in? "They" buried it! Can't find the aliens themselves? "They" killed them! People aren't kicked out of the military because of poor performance and silly beliefs, they are kicked out because the "conspiracy" has decided that they know too much! Every nut-case is a self proclaimed expert, and every every telephone call from lonely, self-delusional people to a late night radio show is called evidence. A lot of people who can't make it in the real world trade "can you top this?" stories with each other, feeding the frenzy and perpetuating the illusion that they are on top of some great S*E*C*R*E*T!

[David B]

Just saw this over on the Skeptic News site ( www.skepticnews.com ) and thought it amusing enough to post an excerpt here. The person who wrote in saw it on a news show in Chicago about a month ago (the Skeptic News is getting caught up from a hiatus while the webmaster was on vacation).

"In the piece, a standard UFO videotape was shown, a bright light dancing about, low on the horizon, appearing and disappearing. Then they related how the videographer decided to try to find the source of the lights. He drove in that direction and came upon the source:

A billboard with floodlights pointing up to the sky. Bugs were attracted to the lights, which attracted birds, who swooped over the billboard. As the birds flew over the lights, their bodies apparently reflected enough light to make an instant UFO (from a distance). Case closed."

[David B]

C3 said:

Not every single guest on the Art Bell programs is a kook or charlatan.

Never said they were. Don't try to argue against things I never said. As far as Art, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn (although in his case it's mostly just nuts).

Nor do I buy into every guest of Art Bell.

Again, never said you did. You might consider reading what I wrote before arguing against it. I very clearly said, "he was in favor of some of the nuts who were on the show." And you accuse me of knee-jerking?

To characterize me and/or the AB program that way is as dishonest as it is incorrect because I know that you know better.

What's dishonest here is your obvious straw man -- claiming I said something that I never did say.

I'll agree with you that "responsible skeptic" is giving me more credit than deserved

Finally, something we can agree on!

I'm sorry to observe that on too many occcasions, people such as yourself knee-jerk react with EXTREME skepticism without even having read or listened to the material I present.

You assume too much. Just because we don't have time to listen to a particular Art Bell net broadcast doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about. Meanwhile, it's rather hypocritical of you to claim we respond that way when you repeatedly refuse to answer legitimate questions directed at your claims.

I usually start shooting back with devil's advocate arguements which piss you off and lead to my labeling.

If you're gonna be the devil's advocate, don't be surprised when you're accused of being evil. If you're going to post pro-UFO nonsense and refuse to answer legitimate questions, and then respond nastily to people who question you, it's no wonder you're labeled as a troll. If you want to play devil's advocate, label it as such. Others do. The way you act, however, makes it look like you are an anti-rational-thought troll, and that is the light in which I will personally continue to see you until you show otherwise.

Doobieous:

. . . perhaps this arrived in a shipment of birds from Africa (private collectors love secretly shipping in birds from other places). Then a mosquito . . . transmits it to other birds and other people. A lot of areas spray for pesticides when there are breakouts of harmful pests. Here in California if fruitflies are found, they will spray infested areas by air with pesticides.

A good point, Doobie, but from everything I've read and heard, there's been no indication of a foreign bird being 'Patient Zero'. I'm inclined to think if the health services had discovered this, they'd be quick to say so; one, to make themselves look more 'on the case', and two, to allay fears that it is the opening shot of a biowar attack.

On the other other hand, imagine a scenario where foreign terrorists already in the U.S. simply go out into the open country around New York, use a snare net to capture a flock of crows, inject them with the virus, and then release the flock. If someone comes along while they're doing it, they just say they're testing a new form of contraception to be used in controlling avian pests like crows & starlings.

If you want to continue this, let's do it under a separate thread.
============================================
Dr. Fidelius: Lemme guess - You were the punk in the Anselmo Pederaste Case, weren't you? No need to deny it! Your silence speaks volumes!
============================================
David B: Your point is valid, but only as it regards eighteenth century attitudes. A lot of them have changed since then; although it must be admitted that 'anti-evolutionism' as an expression of religiosity has raised its Cerberus-like noggins again. It's always going to be easier to think of 'extraterrestrials' as 'our undiscovered brothers and sisters in Christ' as long as you think there's also no way they're ever going to be a voice at the end of a very long, slow, dialogue. It would be an entirely different state of affairs if a majority of people began to see reasons for thinking their 'space brothers' are right here, right now, and think of humanity as a vast experimental pool of 'superKokos' to be treated with the same disdain we have for the average Norwegian rat.

The Roman Catholic Church might have a slightly different reaction, due to their long support of intellectual attainment (despite the occasional Galileo case), but I wonder how they'd handle it if the aliens landed and claimed the planet in the name of God and 'Pope Kodos the First'.

I also fail to see what point you were trying to make with that silly straw man 'example' UFO sighting. So, you've shown that a 'UFO sighting' was really just birds darting after insects in the beam of floodlights. So what? You always seem to choose the easiest cases to 'debunk' -- and to imply that they're all just as easy. Like they say here, some people churn for the sake of the butter, and some only churn for the sake of the froth.

[David B]

Incidentally, as an example, was your post about Riley G and Randi an example of you playing "devil's advocate"? It sure looked like you trolling because you dislike the way the skeptics keep shooting down your pet beliefs.

Damn! I hate when that happens. That should have been "they're never going to be anything else but a voice". My bad!

[manhattan]

DIF sez:

On the other other hand, imagine a scenario where foreign terrorists already in the U.S. simply go out into the open country around New York, use a snare net to capture a flock of crows, inject them with the virus, and then release the flock.

The virus we face is, in the scheme of things, pretty mild stuff. Most people who get infected never know it. Terrorists could make more trouble by stealing and misusing the unguarded 55-gallon drums of malathion and anvil (sp?) that one of the local news stations tracked down last night in Queens. My money is on a legit exotic bird brought into the Bronx zoo. If you want to start a thread, I'll follow. But I won't post a list of the best ways for terrorists to operate in my city.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[kaylasdad99]

David,
I just finished reading page 1 of the thread "Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?" and I see your point.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[kaylasdad99]

Oops.
Delete "killed", substitute "murdered".
That is all.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[David B]

Incidentally, that short message was supposed to appear directly below my longer one, but DIF snuck in. It was directed at C3, not DIF.

DIF said:

It's always going to be easier to think of 'extraterrestrials' as 'our undiscovered brothers and sisters in Christ' as long as you think there's also no way they're ever going to be a voice at the end of a very long, slow, dialogue.

True. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to those who assumed discovery of aliens would destroy all religion as we know it.

I wonder how they'd handle it if the aliens landed and claimed the planet in the name of God and 'Pope Kodos the First'.

I suspect they'd fight against the "false Pope."

I also fail to see what point you were trying to make with that silly straw man 'example' UFO sighting.

Was I trying to make a point? Hmmm, didn't realize it. I thought I was just posting an amusing UFO-related blurb I'd come across and that I thought some people would get a kick out of. I must say that I was surprised this was actually covered on the nightly news, but that's about it. Now, if you would like to read more into it, we could notice that some other UFO reports might end up having a similar explanation. But that's up to you.

[David B]

DIF said:

Were you directing the counterpoint to me?

No, I was directing it at Markxxx, who had said: "If a UFO was proven it would destroy all religious thinking as we know it." But you could have found that out if you read back in the thread...

As for what the Catholics would do, I think it would come to what you say, but the next question would be, which Pope? Suppose 'Pope Kodos' would allow for female priests, married priests, contraception, etc., claiming a 'superior message' from God and citing his/her?/its more elevated position as justification, in much the same way the Church itself justified the extermination of Native American religions?

Which Pope? Both, probably. There would likely be some sort of schism, with some Catholics believing in the new alien pope, and some continuing to believe in the old earth pope. It would be an interesting study in sociology to watch.

I took your 'point' to be that you thought it was amusing. Which it wasn't, it just kind of lays there.

Well, gosh. I'm sooooo sorry. From now on I promise to run all possibly amusing posts by you to check on your humor scale, since you are obviously the arbiter of what is or is not amusing.

DavidB:

True. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to those who assumed discovery of aliens would destroy all religion as we know it.

Were you directing the counterpoint to me? I think my comment was limited to saying it would be 'big trouble', not that it would 'destroy' all religion AWKI. Certainly, it would change it radically.

As for what the Catholics would do, I think it would come to what you say, but the next question would be, which Pope? Suppose 'Pope Kodos' would allow for female priests, married priests, contraception, etc., claiming a 'superior message' from God and citing his/her?/its more elevated position as justification, in much the same way the Church itself justified the extermination of Native American religions?

Was I trying to make a point? Hmmm, didn't realize it. I thought I was just posting an amusing UFO-related blurb . . .

I took your 'point' to be that you thought it was amusing. Which it wasn't, it just kind of lays there. So, some bumpkin misidentifies a light and then finds out it was, indeed, a light. Thud. Where's the punchline? The fact that some local tv station seized upon it as a filler-feature says far less about the UFO phenomenon than it does about the desperate state of local television news. What, no local basketball games that night?