UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21

Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:31:14 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:29:47 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c

>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST)
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c


>Jerry and Bob and All,

>Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities.  But here's
>one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't
>locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal
>Experiences_.  Though the report repeatedly states that they
>received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send
>out in the first place?  Perhaps it was two or three times as
>many?  My thought is that those who felt the subject was too
>silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were
>likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have
>responded negatively to most or all the questions.  So their 2%
>estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring
>positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might
>have been up to a factor of two too large.

Jim:

If you would use your noggin to actually think with, instead of
as a mere hair support, you'd realize that the Roper Report
personally interviewed 6000 people. They didn't send out more
responses than they got back. They interviewed 6000 people,
period.

Moreover, word has it that Hopkins and Jacobs actually "cooked"
the numbers down from something like five per cent because they
couldn't believe the original numbers -- never mind that the
original numbers don't measure anything whatsoever, and neither
do the final ones.

>Beyond this, there are plenty of assumptions Dennis made that we
>should be highly suspicious of.

Just as we should be suspicious of anything you say, or am I
wrong in thinking that Billy Meier somehow turned up a long lost
manuscript, or was it merely translation, of one of the books of
the Bible? Perhaps you would care to elucidate?


>As another List member mentioned, we can't expect the aliens or ETs to be
>"democratic," or random, in their work.

<Merciful snip>

>So we shouldn't blindly assume that the
>proportion of abductions within the population of many nations,
>like India and perhaps China, is necessarily anywhere near as
>high as in the U.S.

So you're saying you're a closet racist, or merely that aliens
prefer Anglo-Saxons and their immediate descendants to other,
less "savory" subjects? Talk about making assumptions we should
be highly suspicious of! In case you haven't noticed, and I doubt
you have, India presently boasts some of the best software
programmers in the world.

But let's turn my misguided democratic assumptions/questions
around: What's your explanation for why aliens prefer Americans?

India seems to have quite a shortage of UFO
>reports, too, does it not?  Maybe that's due to their people
>already accepting the existence of many gods & goddesses (in one
>form or another) within Hinduism and not requiring extensive
>conditioning by the aliens to get them used to the idea of their
>presence.

Another assumption of yours that we should be equally wary and
suspicious of. Maybe it's simply due to the fact that they're not
Americans.

>So Dennis' assumption there might be off by a factor of
>10 or  so.

Whereas yours might be off only by a factor of 100 or so

>And who's to say that there are not 100 or more different alien
>groups (most of the greys differ in detail) engaged in the
>abductions?

Me. Wanna fight? If there were a hundred different alien groups
involved, are you saying that all of them are so enamored of
Americans that they'd overlook India's 7-800 million
possibilities altogether? Do you honestly think India is any more
monolithically Hinduistic than we are, say, Methodist?

>Then there's the likelihood that during a single night each alien
>group in the abduction business abducts 10 or more persons, not
>just one.

We weren't talking about a single night, Jim, or can't you read?
We were talking about every hour of the day, day and night.

>We all know of multiple-abduction cases and cases
>where an abductee reports seeing several or many other abductees
>also being processed.

Do we, now? And even if we did, such cases are in the vast
minority, unless you're using a different database than the rest
of us.

>Then there's the possibility that many of the alien groups
>involved are capable of dipping from our near future back a few
>decades in time to engage in abductions, with the subsequent
>suppression of memories done partly for the reason of avoiding
>any time paradox.  (Just a possibility to consider.)

Well, yes, Jim, there's the possibility of *anything*, if you
want to look at it that way. For example, there's even the
possibility that you don't have the faintest idea of what you're
talking about.

>So I think if you were to put such factors together and apply
>them to Dennis' estimate, his 22,000 abductions-per-hour figure
>worldwide could be pared down to a single digit per ET group.

How so, Jim? The above graf doesn't make sense no matter how many
times I read it. If you eliminated the rest of the world
altogether, you would still be getting something like 1000
abductions hourly for the last 50 years, 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, 365 days a year. Where's your single digit?
Damn, Jim, don't the bastards *ever* sleep?

>(BTW, I'm in the habit of using "ET" and "alien" interchangeably,
>so I hope this doesn't bother anyone.  ET has the advantage of
>only two letters and "alien" five, and the latter is moreover
>sometimes confused with "human immigrant."

You gotta be careful about that closet racism stuff, Jim.

>And since ET allows for the likelihood that the EBE's emerged as a
>civilization on some distant planet so many millions of years ago
> that they have
>command of interdimensional capabilities we're not yet aware of,
>etc., it includes aliens who have long since left their home
>planet for good, or visited here in past aeons, etc.

Blah, blah, blah, etc.

>When I mention ETs, I thus don't think of the aliens as cruising
>along in lumbering 21st-century spaceships and abiding by
>20th-century science.)

>Jim Deardorff


Problem is, you don't think at all. You just ascribe omnipotent
powers to the aliens and assert your own motives for their
actions.

Dennis



Search for other documents from or mentioning: dstacy | deardorj

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com