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.
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.
Markxxx said:
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.
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
Maybe you should start by not using acronyms, and explain what CAFRs and UCITA are.
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.
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.”
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?
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
– William Kingdon Clifford
Polycarp wrote:
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.
David B said:
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 ime 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
I thought the line was “a two-bit trinket from a Cracker Back jox.”
Aw, she’s no fun, she fell right over.
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.
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 . . .
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 . . .
Kaylasdad said:
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.
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
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 SECRE*T!
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."