--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1100069 Date: 01/01/98 From: JACK SARGEANT Time: 12:41pm \/To: RON TAYLOR (Read 3 times) Subj: evidence > THC> RT> No, but it must be available to and testable by the existing > scientifi > > RT> community. Otherwise, yes... the claims are without validity. > THC>Just because a claim is not immediately testable does not mean it is not > va > >It simply means it can't be tested at present. Future testing, when > finall > >available, may or may not show the claim's validity. > Ok... I'll grant you that. It is conceivable that within all the > UFO > hype, there are some valid ET encounters... conceivable, but IMO, > highly > improbable . But those claims do nothing to reach a conclusion > until > they are validated, substantiated, and shown to be proof of alien > presence. As long as the claimant holds the evidence away from > the > public and just _talks_ about it, it is without value to the rest > of us. > THC> >> The "skeptics" do not have to provide any > > >> special evidence to back up their own claims (e.g. "I won't do > your > > >> researc for you.") > > RT> > > RT> I think that is fair... the believer is the one making the laim. > He > > RT> should be the one backing it up. Convenient for the skeptic, no > doubt > > RT> but nevertheless, thats the way the world works. > THC>The believer is making a claim when he says that a UFO he saw was an > alien > >spacecraft. However, the skeptic is ALSO making a claim when he says > that > >the UFO was a weather balloon. > Again, I have to agree. If the debunker claims an absolute > alternative > to the ET hypothesis, it is up to him to substantiate that > position. > The problem we have here is that in many cases, the event can be > easily > explained by mundane events... events that happen every day, but > to > prove that this particular event is ordinary is impossible because > the > debunker has no more physical evidence than the witness. This is > were > we use the balance sheet, the preponderance of the evidence, to > reach an > opinion. > Where, IMO, the fallacy of the true believer comes in is that he > rejects > all the possibilities of mundane events in favor of the one > explanation, > aliens... just because he can't explain the event. It seems that > he > WANTS to believe in ET so he isn't willing to accept the sensible > (IMO > ) alternatives. I don't understand that. The above is a fanciful move away from reality for the sheer fun of it. I look at it as a form of speculation carried to an extreme. Many skeptics do not understand this, and sometimes take on an air of superiority not knowing of the fun the "believer" is having with it all. Some believers do seem to have a overwhelming wish to establish that aliens are in our midst. I personally have a problem understanding this kind of mind-set. Maybe it is akin to the fact that some avid TV soap-opera fans put more reality in the program then they do with their mundane real life. This mind-set is why some TV actors have to have body-guards to protect them from stalkers who have lost their connection to reality. Regards, Jack --- FMail 1.22 * Origin: -=Keep Watching the Skies=- ufo1@juno.com (1:379/12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1100070 Date: 01/01/98 From: JACK SARGEANT Time: 12:45pm \/To: RON TAYLOR (Read 3 times) Subj: evidence > I'm running about two to three days behind the mail so some of my > posts > may seem a bit out of time. > JS> > The believer is making a claim when he says that a UFO he saw was > > an alien spacecraft. However, the skeptic is ALSO making a claim > > when he says that that the UFO was a weather balloon. Or that > > USAF officers didn't investigate a specific UFO sighting. Or that > > nobody, in the centuries-long history of telescopes, has ever seen > > a UFO through one. If one person is required to back up his > > claim, why isn't the other? > JS>Troy, I have to agree with Ron on this one. ...But there are ways to >avoid the demands for evidence with key phrases like "What if," and >"It could be" or "Maybe" or "IMHO." As long as the believer sticks >to his disclaimers that he is only speculating, there is no need for >the skeptic to make demands for evidence. ;-) > Jack, I think you've noted a very significant thing here. "As > long as > the believer sticks to his disclaimers...". If only they would! > Its > when they don't, and that is often, that we skeptics feel > compelled to > ask for substantiation. Somehow it makes US feel obligated to > stand up > for what we perceive as "common sense". > To me, there is a wide margin of difference in the phrases, "I saw > an > alien spaceship", and "I don't know what that thing was, but I > gotta > believe it was from outer space". Ron, you have mastered the art of disagreeing without offending the other parties involved in the discussion. Would that all skeptics and believers alike have this ability... It won't happen, though. Regards, Jack --- FMail 1.22 * Origin: -=Keep Watching the Skies=- ufo1@juno.com (1:379/12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1100071 Date: 01/01/98 From: JACK SARGEANT Time: 01:04pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 3 times) Subj: believabilty [snip] > Others have said that the ET's know that something major is going to > happen to this planet within the next few years, and they have come to > either study it, or to help us in some way. Is it not POSSIBLE? > So does that make me an FTB? Maybe so. Careful, Lass! Maybe the superior technology of the aliens has permitted them to deduce that the earth is going to be struck by a huge meteor or asteroid that will wipe out all life on the planet... ...And they want to learn as much about us as they can before the event takes place. ...Maybe a select few of us will get to take that big ride in the sky in their mothership--saved for the purpose of keeping the human race alive. Hale-Boppity-re-bop. Regards, Jack --- FMail 1.22 * Origin: -=Keep Watching the Skies=- ufo1@juno.com (1:379/12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1100072 Date: 01/01/98 From: JACK SARGEANT Time: 01:19pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 3 times) Subj: A surprize from the > -=> On 12-28-97 08:36, Jack Sargeant said to Ivy Iverson,<=- > -=>"About [2/2] A surprize from the...,"<=- > Hi, Jack; > JS> I had a flying saucer sighting in 1953. > II> Was it a FLYING SAUCER, (specifically round and flat), or was it a > II> UFO, > JS> Round and flat. > JS> I never said it was flown by aliens. > I didn't say you did, did I? But if not, then by who? I've never been willing to speculate on that. ...Flown by "us" doesn't seem a likelyhood. > II> Did it appear to be intelligently controlled? > JS> Yes. > II> please speculate on who was at the controls? > JS> Me? Speculate? OK... ...Little green men. > AH HAH! So you now consider the POSSABILITY that it was being > controlled > by "someone/thing" from "somewhere else"? Got any OTHER > possabilities? Your next door neighbor? > JS> I did say I didn't think we had that kind of technology back then. > II> But you would have no way of knowing - unless you worked at Area 51, > II> that is. (And I'm reasonably sure that you didn't and didn't know > II> anyone that did). > II> JS> Not all people who believe in UFOs think they are piloted by > II> aliens. > Ya, I have one living next door to me... He would rather believe > that > a UFO is a flock of birds/airplane/temperature inversion/mirage/ > cloud/ > baloon/Venus/the Moon behind a cloud/meteor/an overdose of > painkillers/ > someone's prank/his imagination than to CONSIDER the POSSABILITY, > (however > remote), that something which he and 1,000 other people saw and > showed > up on 8 different radars COULD be piloted by intelligent beings > from > "somewhere else"!!! I really believe that if he were to see a UFO > land > in the back yard, saw occupants come out, talked with same, then > watched > them go back in and fly away, he would be over here accusing me of > putting > LSD in his drinking water or something. (He denies this). That would be >one< explanation for his actions of late. > II> Granted. However recent surveys indicate that a majority of > II> Americans now believe that ET's do exist and that they ARE visiting > II> us. > JS> Do you? What do you think they are here for? To show us the error of our ways? > I do not discount the possability, in fact, I consider it a very strong > possability, based upon several things which I believe I have > elucidated here in the past. It would be fun if you would elaborate on this a little. > JS> It's fun to think about it though. > II> Yes, and a lot of people do think about it, ranging from abductees > II> to authors of books, movies, and folk who post in this echo. > JS> Our resident skeptics don't believe such. > Like the one next door... Is he a skeptic or an FNB? :-} The word loser comes to mind. > Catch you later... Happy New Year to you and yours! > Ivy Same to you. Regards, Jack --- FMail 1.22 * Origin: -=Keep Watching the Skies=- ufo1@juno.com (1:379/12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1200000 Date: 01/01/98 From: MIKE PELL Time: 10:25am \/To: GEORGE JIRI OPLETAL (Read 3 times) Subj: acc > hello Mike....I am posting this line in some science echos for a > little more information.... I am not sure about the 'bistable > resonance' part.... From what I have seen, most of ACC's claims are going through the mill. Apart from those that just like to make noise as part of their debunking routines, some more serious skeptics have been raising issues of concern. It would be nice to see what comes of all of this ACC business. I hope it is treated rationally and supported or dismissed with good research rather than the usual name calling that is seen. The results should be interesting once those with a good understanding of the nuts and bolts of it all have a go over it. mp | AmiQWK 2.9 - FREEWARE | ... --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: The GameBoard BBS - 9056893982/9409 - BurlingtonONCANADA (1:244/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1200001 Date: 12/31/97 From: MICHAEL TAUSON Time: 07:52pm \/To: DAVID BLOOMBERG (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: Invisible Evidence? Hi, David! It's been a while. -=> Quoting David Bloomberg to All <=- DB> From the _Skeptics UFO Newsletter_, Nov. 1997: DB> Hopkins Claims Ets Have Amazing Power of "Selective DB> Invisibility" Hmmm ... This is an awful lot like kids who have "invisible friends", isn't it? Or how angels/spirits/etc are supposed to work - at least in the movies? ("Angels in the Outfield" comes to mind at the moment.) It does provide an out though; the evidence is invisible as well. I like that. It explains a lot. Michael ... Are cats supposed to thump when you dry 'em in the dryer? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: SoundingBoard, Pittsburgh PA (1:129/26) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F12C2871 Date: 01/02/98 From: KEN KUBOS Time: 08:47am \/To: JACK SARGEANT (Read 3 times) Subj: R: Testor's UFO....Coming The model maker, "Testor's" is putting out a UFO. It's Sport Model and is Bob Lazar's. Apparently Testor's is putting some credence in Bob Lazar's story. Testor's also brought out a F-117 and and Aurora prior to them declassified by the Air Force. ... Decaffeinated coffee? But ... why? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1300000 Date: 12/31/97 From: JAMES ROOT Time: 09:32am \/To: JACK SARGEANT (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: General announcement Hi there Jack! Is BAMA a part of the FidoNet network, as I'm trying to locate it? Have a very Happy and prosperous New Year in 1998! Cheers! James Root ... A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Fun and Private Bbs (1:250/123) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1300001 Date: 12/31/97 From: JAMES ROOT Time: 09:36am \/To: MIKE PELL (Read 3 times) Subj: Re: pyr info -=> Quoting Mike Pell to Bob King <=- > Could you please put them up on BAMA so I can see them. MP> If I have not heard from James Root within the next few days, I'll MP> post the material in Bama. Nothing new. You probably have heard most or MP> all of it already. MP> mp Hi there Mike! I am still here, and usually check in on this echo every day. I have been trying to figure out exactly which network BAMA echo is in. Is it FidoNet, or one of the others? Can you let me know so that I can get it added into my mail tosses? Have a Happy and prosperous New Year in 1998! Cheers! James Root ... OFFLINE 1.50 "We [0Me !U EACe. G1ve uf YOUg AmM0UiA o+ Die." ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Fun and Private Bbs (1:250/123) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F1300002 Date: 01/02/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 01:58pm \/To: JACK SARGEANT (Read 3 times) Subj: more ACC JS> > JS> > Jack, JS> > JS> > Has The American Computer Company actually been verified to xist. > > > I've never heard of it. JS>It could be just plain, brash commercialism. Pretty effective, too. >A small computer manufacturer becomes swamped with orders overnight? >Methinks the joke's on us. I considered the commercialism angle when I first read the reports. Seems I remember the spokesman from ACC dropping the hint that his company was considering going public. And to, most of the reports include some whining verbiage about the dependability of their systems, and how they have been passed over in the market place. Yep... effective, at least in the short run. Name recognition is important in any marketing campaign even if it has a negative connotation. Look at all the TV commercials that paint people in a bad light, even the users of the advertised products. I agree... I think we've been Santilli'ed again. Ron --- QMPro 1.02 42-7029 (A)bort, (R)etry, (S)mack the @#$&*~ thing! * Origin: Crime Bytes 2 - Underwood, Iowa (712)566-2872 (1:285/12)