--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2G00000 Date: 02/11/98 From: JACK SARGEANT Time: 12:08pm \/To: FRED AUSTIN (Read 2 times) Subj: My stand on UFOs [...] > just remember you may be the advocate, but I am the devil himself > ... OK, if you insist. >> Disclaimers, now you sound like a marketing firm Jack. Well, we >> all speculate as to purpose, what is genuine, what is hoax, and of >> course from where etc etc.. You and I both know that the UFO >> community has no physical, undeniable proof. Only circumstantial. >> But we certainly have a lot of circumstantial. Piles of data. >> But I understand where you are coming from. > JS> Well then, stop complaining! I have the skeptic community to contend > JS> with whenever I forget to announce my intentions. > The skeptic community Ho Ho! Ah, are we walking on rice > paper > lately . Well, "announce my intentions"? What are you > doing? > Planning to marry a skeptic? ... I did. ...Back in 1953. ...The same year of my sighting. > JS> You should know me well enough by now that I am sympathetic to the > JS> cause, but how much can I assume from a sighting I had years ago? The > JS> word alien is too much of a leap for me to make. > Well, I assume nothing, but like it or not Jack, the > subject > really is, was that a genuine alien, or not. That is what the > object > of this exercise is, to determine once and for all within > whatever > time frame it takes, are we the subject of alien intrusion, and if > it > comes to pass that proof finally comes out, then anything > goes........ Many, if not most, would settle for just the answers. Whether or not some are hoping for aliens is another matter. Regards, Jack --- FMail 1.22 * Origin: -=Keep Watching the Skies=- ufo1@juno.com (1:379/12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2G00001 Date: 02/10/98 From: CRAIG MEEKINS Time: 05:35pm \/To: JACK SARGEANT (Read 2 times) Subj: TLC Alien Week Quotes from the original message written at 15:07:00 on 09-Feb-98 >> JS> Whereas this is true, it is nothing compared to UPN's JS> >> laughing-stock production of an alleged abduction (amateur video?) >> That was a laugher, had to tape it though to watch later. What >> do you think this does to SF and others who are on tape and comment JS> It WAS science fiction. What I meant by SF was not Science Fiction but Stanton Friedman. If I remember right in the blurbs before and during the show he was talking about how impressive the video was. C Meekins - Greenville, SC Internet: cmeekins@viperlink.com .!. Now selling tickets for comprehensive tour of Area-51. --- Terminate 5.00/Pro + TerMail 5.0 + TMNice 4.2 + Fosters! TerMail/QWK Terminate + SmartNote + Internet = Simply the best! * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2G00002 Date: 02/11/98 From: RAMI VALTARI Time: 11:18pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Onko? Onko kelln Peter Jacksonin muita filmi kuin : BadTaiste, Braindead, ja onko tm kyseinen mies edes tehnyt muita tosi raakoja filmej? --- BBBS/2 v3.42 ToMmIk-5v * Origin: Deaf Leopard - +358-6-3207580 - V.34/ISDN - (2:224/930) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2G00003 Date: 02/12/98 From: CHUCK PIERSON Time: 01:08am \/To: PAUL ANDINACH (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: ufo's? |-----------------|Paul Andinach wrote: PA> -=> Quoting Chuck Pierson to Steve Kemp <=- PA> PA> CP> Personally, I am on neither side. I allow for the possibility of PA> CP> alien life. However, I haven't seen any evidense to support this PA> CP> belief. Neither have I seen anything proving that there is no alien PA> CP> life. I accept UFO's for what they are: "Unidentified Flying Objects PA> PA> Congratulations, that's a very good summary of what a skeptic should be PA> PA>Paul PA> |-------------------------------------| The whole point of my self discription was that I DON'T consider myself a skeptic nor a believer. As I said, I allow for the possibility of alien life. In fact, I consider it just about the ultimate in egotism for mankind to consider itself the only sentient life in the universe. I just haven't been shown any proof that said life has visited earth, nor that it hasn't. As I've only recently begun to take an active interest in this field of study, I have not seen a whole lot of anything other than what is posted here or in books at the library. ... "You're entitled to the truth!" - Scully (Fallen Angel) --- * TLX v4.10 * --- * SLMR 2.1a * --- InterEcho 1.19 * Origin: Network 23 BBS * Humble Texas* (1:106/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2H00000 Date: 02/11/98 From: MICHAEL HOLT Time: 09:47am \/To: CRAIG MEEKINS (Read 2 times) Subj: Genuine? -=> Quoting Craig Meekins to Michael Holt <=- CM> Don't forget 'Land of the Giants' as well! All great Sci-Fi of the CM> time. I think that 'Voyage to the Bottom of Sea' had them beat as far CM> as aliens appearing though. Hmmm..... I'd still like to have a complete collection of "Voyage.." -- even the stupid ones, of which there were many. This brought up a question about those showw. Frequently, they used UFOs and space aliens in them; did they ever base those shows on real reports? Even more interesting, in an off-beat way, is whether or not some events which were experienced by the writer(s) or the families thereof. It might be instructive to obtain a fictionalized version of an encounter, written preferably the one who experienced it, and an outside report, written by a serious and disciplined investigator, of the same event. ... It's not my damn planet, monkey boy! --- FMail 0.98 * Origin: BIG DEAL BBS, Adoptees in Search! 804-754-0189 (1:264/232) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2H00001 Date: 02/11/98 From: MICHAEL HOLT Time: 10:01am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: (humor) Perot * Crossposted from: FUNNY Found on the FUNNY echo: Subject: get http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~ghinkle/fun/299.html Still Hope For Ross Perot Ross Perot can still win the Presidency -- there's one thing he can say that people will believe coming from him, that they would not believe if it came from Clinton or Dole. A single, short phrase that will bring the biggest voter turnout in history; he'd win by a landslide. If Ross Perot were to purchase some TV time and tabloid space, and say, "If you elect me president, I'll tell you if the government knows anything about aliens! We'll take a camera crew into area 51! We'll have charts and graphs to show how often aliens have visited the planet through recorded history! I want to do this, but I can't do it if I'm not in office." Can you imagine all the people who normally don't vote, who would turn out for this? Those in the South, in California, and maybe even in Cleveland would suddenly have incentive to go to the polls. He'd win by an impressive margin. ... Sorry... it's the chocolate talking. --- FMail 0.98 * Origin: BIG DEAL BBS, Adoptees in Search! 804-754-0189 (1:264/232) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2H00002 Date: 02/09/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 03:49pm \/To: IVY IVERSON (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Occam -=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Paul Andinach <=- II> And when I say that Occam's razor is rusty, I mean that: II> A) it is often used to "taylor" the facts/evidence to coincide with II> preconcieved beliefs I thought you understood. You can't use Occam's Razor to tailor the evidence. You can claim that that's what you're doing, but it isn't. II> B) The simplest explaination is NOT always the correct one! Of course not. But the point of Occam's Razor, which you don't seem to have grasped, is that it only applies when all the possible explanations would give exactly the same results. If you can't tell the difference between "something is not happening" and "something is happening, but all the evidence is being hidden or destroyed", it's not actually going to make any difference which explanation you believe, but it's easier on you if you believe the simple one. The application of Occam's Razor is not an issue in the ET debate. The problem is that the two sides can't agree whether the two explanations do, in fact, describe the evidence equally well. If, as you say, the evidence does support the ET theory better, then Occam's Razor doesn't even get a look in. II> Just II> because the Moon APPEARS to be a flat disk, to someone who knows II> absoloutely nothing about the solar system and orbital mechanics, II> Occam's razor suggests that the Moon IS flat. PA> If that is so, then how do we all "know" that Earth and Moon are PA> spheres? II> Because... II> ...by observing the phases of the Moon II> in relation to the Sun, the only way that particular pattern of the way II> the terminator moves accross the visible face of the Moon is if it, at II> least the side facing us, is spherical. If it were flat, it would go II> from full Moon to new Moon very abruptly In other words, the theory that the Moon is a flat disk does *not* fit the available evidence. So Occam's Razor *doesn't* suggest that the Moon is flat. II> The believers, OTOH, II> accept at least a FEW of the pictures which allegedly show UFOs, II> (though many if not most are fakes!), and that the testimony of those II> who claim to have been abducted MAY have some degree of truth, and II> reject the "razored" explainations. PA> And that's drawing conclusions from bad evidence. II> Is that worse that disregarding evidence which DOES NOT FIT THE II> BELIEFS? Did I say it was? All I meant was that is didn't have anything to do with Occam's Razor. PA> Admittedly, some people do ignore evidence they don't like, or PA> search only for evidence to support their view. Alas, this happens. PA> But Occam's Razor has *nothing* *to* *do* *with* *it*. II> But they CLAIM it does!!! PA> And so do you. Or so it seems to me. II> Au contrare. Au contraire. With an "i". PA> Keep watching the skis! II> Always! An avid watcher of the Winter Olympics, are you? :) Paul ... I've made up my mind. Now to find some facts... ;) --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 221 UFO Ref: F2H00003 Date: 02/09/98 From: PAUL ANDINACH Time: 03:56pm \/To: FRED AUSTIN (Read 2 times) Subj: UFOs -=> Quoting Fred Austin to Paul Andinach <=- FA> Correct. Well known. Long ago conceded that yes, in this FA> world, for many reasons people have mistaken the planet Venus for FA> something they could not identify, therefore my God, its a UFO, and if FA> the clouds were moving, and the branches were swaying it may have FA> actually given the illusion that the planet Venus moved a little. Now FA> it have long ago been a given that 95% of things seen could be FA> attributed to excited people, dumb people, drunk people, stoned FA> people, or any other category you would like to throw out. But the FA> interest point is that elusive 5% or 2% whichever that have solid FA> witnesses, strange characteristics, and defy explanation under our FA> current scientific knowledge, and also exceed our technological FA> capabilities. I have no argument with any of that. My problem with George was that he seemed to be saying: Some UFOs have been seen moving in strange unpredictable patterns, therefore no UFO can be a star because stars don't move like that. FA> There FA> are some many myths floating around, and one of the problems the way I FA> see it, it is easy to dismiss something as a meteor, or delusion, in FA> some cases you are quite correct. I agree. But in some other cases, I FA> would like to see data on why you think it is bogus. Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind. Paul ... Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR] * Origin: The Perth PC Users Group BBS - 08-9497-7772 (3:690/650)