Just discovered Art Bell

Factual Questions
81

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

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.

82

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

83

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.)

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

84

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:

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.

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

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?

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.

85

Ok, now that I got that part out of the way, I can respond to a selection of your answers.

In other words, you don’t know. Why is that a “logical and natural way to evolve”? Please explain.

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?”

More mindless speculation. Especially since, if some “abductees” are to be believed, they aren’t just experimenting, but making hybrids. Why? And how?

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?

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.)

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

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

Why would you infer that? Please explain.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

86

ed said:

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

87

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

88

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

89

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?

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.

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.

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™ biz is being milked for all its worth to cover up the real skeevy operations.

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

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, 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.

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:

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

90

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!

91

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.

92

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

93

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.

94

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.

95

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

96

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

97

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

98

Jeez – I miss a few hours and fall massively behind! Ok, time to try to play catch-up.

C3 said:

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.

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).

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…

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?!

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.

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.

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?

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.”

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

99

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

100

C3 said:

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