UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 1

Re: The Fermi Paradox

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:33:45 +0000
Archived: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:01:55 -0400
Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:54:38 -0600
>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:11:28 +0000
>>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox



>You have simply reiterated your previous comment, without
>addressing my question or noting my acknowledgement of the body
>of UFO evidence.

This is flatly untrue! You asked to hear my arguments; I gave
you my arguments. I don't understand what you are saying, and
apparently you don't understand what I am saying. I guess we are
talking past each other.

>Even if the majority of genuine 'unknowns' in the UFO record are
>in fact ETs, Fermi's question remains troublesome. Fermi did
>_not_ claim there are no ETs, nor did he claim we have not been
>visited by them. The broader subtlety of the paradox goes beyond
>the simple issue of whether ETs exist. The issue is, under very
>reasonable assumptions, we should be _swimming_ in ETs. The most
>plausible scenarios are that they are ubiquitous, or that they
>are non-existent.

Fermi's famous quation that summed up his alleged paradox was,
Where are they? I see nothing profound or even terribly relevant
in such a proclamation by someone who doesn't even bother to
examine the vbidence. I'm refrerring to Fermi, not to you.

>It is rather like throwing a burning match into a pile of dried
>brush. If you go away and come back a year later, you will be
>confident that the situation has resolved itself one way or the
>other: either the entire pile was consumed, or the fire was
>extinguished. There is no tenable 'in-between' scenario (e.g.,
>isolated flames still present along with unburned brush).

I have no idea what you are talking about here. My point is very
simple and clear.

>But our current situation vis-a-vis ETs seems very much in this
>'in-between' category: very selective and limited (if any)
>visitations, few (or no) unambiguous artifacts, passive signals,
>or direct communications. It is clearly *not* the case that ETs
>are common and ubiquitous. I do not dispute your documented
>evidence for them, I dispute that they are right under our
>noses, and I dispute that Fermi's observation was 'remarkably
>blind', 'over-rated', 'off-the-wall', or 'uninformed'.

Well, I didpute your disputation. I say they are right under our

>You might consider perusing the available commentary on the
>Fermi Paradox and efforts to resolve it. I think you'll find
>that the issue is by no means settled, irrespective of whether
>ETs have visited or how solid your evidence may be to that

I didn't say the issue was settled. Only that Fermi and those
who find his proclamation so remarkable are ignoring a huge body
of evidence. I have no interest in endlessly deconstructing it.
I frankly find it essentially meaningless. Simply a proclamation
based on ignorance of evidence. It can't be, therefore it isn't.

 - Dick

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast