UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 2

Re: The Fermi Paradox

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:40:28 -0600
Archived: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:19:04 -0400
Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:33:45 +0000
>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.

O.k. Dick, I'll hang it up with this one. All I can say is, do
the math.

>>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.

You would do well to review the link provided earlier by Kentaro
Mori regarding the origin and context of the paradox:


(to include /05.pdf thru /07.pdf) You insist on framing Fermi's
question as "Where are they?" with the implication that by
simply finding a provable instance of ET visitation, the entire
issue has been dismissed. That is *false*, and I am frankly
surprised that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge this.

>>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.

I should avoid employing analogies when plain speech is going
unrecognized. The spread of flames through the brush pile is
meant to correspond with the spread of ET colonization. The
deliberately-excessive one year interval is meant to correspond
to the eons that have been available for our galaxy to have been
thoroughly colonized *many times over*.

Yes, your point is very simple and clear. And not germane to the

>>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

Your mind's made up. I get it.

>>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.

Fermi put forward a question, the antithesis of a proclamation.

There are a large number of thoughtful people who continue to
ponder and publish on this issue, most of whom I suspect are
already convinced, on general principles, of the existence of
ETs, without even having seen most of your body of evidence. Why
do you suppose they continue to be concerned with something you
find so trivial and meaningless? Clearly one side or the other
doesn't understand or appreciate the problem.


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