UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 20

Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude

From: Tim D. Brigham <TBrigham@ksinc.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:48:33 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:19:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude


 >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Theories of Intent and Ineptitude
 >Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:25:44 -0400

 >This wise post of Mark's raised -- much more reasonably and in
 >much greater depth than most of what we read here -- fascinating
 >questions. He gave many reasons why, scientifically speaking, we
 >can't think we know anything about alien intentions or
 >capabilities.

 >Mark's post came in the midst of a discussion featuring, among
 >others, Dennis Stacy,  Joseph Polanik, and myself. I'm happy to
 >concede that Mark made more sense than anything I've said on
 >this subject. But I'm a little surprised at the silence from
 >Dennis and Joe, especially since Mark raised serious objections
 >to points they were making.

 >If Dennis (whom I know and respect) and Joe (whom I don't know
 >and respect) are serious about what they've been arguing, they
 >really have to address what Mark wrote. Any comments, guys?


Hey Greg, Mark, all-

Responding just to the excerpt you quoted from Mark's post

 >>Given that only a tiny amount of research has been done
 >>classifying and analysing even _raw reported_ UFO and occupant
 >>behavior, and that the resulting database contains an unknown
 >>amount of noise, very likely increasing almost asymptotically in
 >>the cases whose strangeness exceed CE2 and CE3, attempts to
 >>class reported behavior as inept or expert are doomed to
 >>founder.

If I am reading Mark correctly, perhaps the point that he makes
isn/t all that far off from the same point that detractors of the
literalist ETH would make. Attempting to speculate about the true
purpose and goal of 'aliens' - as many folks who support one view
or another often do in scenarios about ecological concern or
bovine and human-nappings simply is unjustified for the reasons
cited above.

This is not to say that experiences might not have a sexual
component or an ecological component, but rather, such a
simplistic and literal view of such components can not be
justified.

I don't think that Dennis literally believes that aliens are
bumbling idiots(!?), rather I think the point is that _in order
to believe the literal scenarios and scale set forth by many
proponents_ then they would have to be. Perhaps Dennis discounts
_all_ reports where aliens take sperm samples and cow parts, I
dont know, or perhaps he is instead getting at the fact that
"maybe it aint really the sperm and cow bits that they're
after!"

Personally I think an arguement could be made that the higher
the strangeness, when we speak only within the CE3 cases, the
more likely that such reports reflect the genuine mystery
involved, but thats another rant and I have a headache.....

Tim

)+(
TBrigham@ksinc.net
http://zap.to/DevilsAdvocate  The Devil's Advocate
http://zap.to/MindPhuck  Operation MindPhuck
"Better to go hungry than to feast on lies."
)+(



[ 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