From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Tue Jul 06 1999 - 07:05:41 MDT
Peter Lakbar [peter.lakbar@swipnet.se] wrote:
>So presumably a
>trained observer who is familliar with most of the things observed in the
>skies makes a 'better' witness than someone who has no such training or
>knowledge.
Yet the only study I've seen which looked at the relative rates at which
different groups of people reported UFOs which were later explained as
perfectly ordinary phenomena, airline pilots were among the *worst*
categories; they regularly reported UFOs which were later identified. This
is probably not too suprising, as they're trained to see other aircraft in
the sky and avoid them, and hence more likely than most to think that any
unidentified light is actually a physical vehicle of some kind.
Don't have a cite handy for the study, I'm afraid.
>Depends what you mean by 'unambiguously' and 'alien', respectively.
>There are plenty of cases where no known phenomena have been able to
>accurately and completely explain the events.
Such as? I was watching part of a TV show at the weekend, which amongst
other things showed an 'amazing' video of a brilliantly lit UFO hovering
over a town, then suddenly disappearing. Only problem was, the video
was clearly just a lamp reflected in a window, and you could even see the
bulb when the hoaxer switched it off to create the 'disappearance'. Yet
the TV show couldn't find any known phemomenon to explain this incredible
video... which only goes to show that the media are even worse than airline
pilots at mis-identifying alien spaceships.
>Speculating and questioning their motives when we do not even know if the
>UFO phenomena has motives seems a bit suspect to me. The point is not why
>it doesn't
>do this or that, but what it is.
There is no single UFO phenomenon. There are numerous unidentified lights
in the sky which fruitcakes instantly interpret as alien spaceships even
in cases such as the above when they're clearly hoaxed. Many of those
unidentified lights have their own motives, such as the U-2 spy flights
which have been shown to explain a number of previously unidentified
objects since records were declassified. But the idea of claiming that
there's one single phenomenon here or that if there's any intelligence
behind it it has one single motive is just silly.
>People here are used to think in novel ways about
>things, plus that they have a level of technical and scientific competence
>that are unusual among people who usually discuss such things.
So why do you consider us strange for writing off reports of alien spaceships
and abductions by alien cattle-mutilating sex fiends who come all the way
to Earth to remove cows' assholes and stick probes up people's butts? BTW,
there has been at least one scientific study of abduction claimants, which
found that most of them were plain old loons. Again, I don't have a cite,
but search the Web and you'll probably find it.
>So you do agree that the UFO phenomena, since neither you nor I can say for
>sure what it is, needs to be studied so we can understand it?
We've been studying it for fifty years; there are clearly some reports of
lights in the sky which haven't yet been identified. There's no evidence
that any of them are alien spaceships. Why bother spending vast amounts of
time investigating those remaining reports when there are far more important
things to do?
Alintelbot@aol.com wrote:
>If aliens are here, I don't think they'll be particularly interested in our
>money or our women (though Bruce Sterling's Investors have a ring of
>authenticity to them...). Rather, they'll be interested in our _uniqueness_.
>And this is the one thing that would be destroyed by public disclosure.
Look, just think for five seconds about the implications of the kinds of
technologies we talk about here. Any aliens who didn't want to be seen would
not be seen. If they don't want to be seen because that would destroy our
'uniqueness', then why are so many people reporting that they've seen them?
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:24 MST