UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Feb > Feb 17

Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life -

From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:29:41 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:41:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life -

>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.miller4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life

>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:30:03 -0800
>>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life

>>>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.miller4.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:40:59 +0000 (GMT)
>>>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life

>>>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:55:52 -0800
>>>>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life


>>>>Dear List,

>>>>This discussion is a must read for all who wish to know why
>>>>establishment scientists can't possibly see how UFO could be
>>>>from another star system.

>>>>Thank you, Stuart!

>>>Are you one of those guys Ed that could start a fight in an
>>>empty room?

>>Hi Stuart,

>>I don't start fights. I enjoy a good discussion. Isn't that
>>what you had in mind when you posted this article?

>>>Your comment above is a little amibiguous

>>I think these scientists were saying that star travel was
>>improbable if not impossible and they explained clearly why
>>they felt this was so.

>>>but I presume you make it to support your theory that "ET"
>>>in fact lives here on earth with us and that by implication,
>>>these learned and erudite scientists are agreeing with you.

>>They do agree with me about the improbability of star travel.
>>They didn't discuss ancient civilizations or convergent
>>evolution. I suppose they'd be skeptical just as you seem to

>You are a very naughty boy Ed and you should go and stand in a
>corner and hang your head in shame. If ever anyone wanted an
>example of determination by an individual propogating a
>particular theory against heavy odds, it would be you. You have
>valiantly and with great stamina and curtesy taken all the
>brickbats aimed at you over the years as people have laughed at
>and ridiculed your ideas, and you have bounced back time and
>again, and refused to give up. You even convinced a dear, sweet,
>frail, elderly lady to journey with you on a massive hike (by
>car) into the middle of the New Mexican desert to go look at a
>landing site that you insist is relevant to Roswell.

>If there is one thing your travails and hardships should have
>taught you, it is an open mind and tolerance of the ideas of
>others. But what do we find? Why, that you are no different from
>the vast majority of other intolerant dictats. You are right and
>everyone else is wrong. You have deeply disapointed me Ed. Look
>at this:

>>Even if they were skeptical, I doubt they could knock it down
>>scientifically and they would eventually have to agree that I
>>am possibly correct.

>And this:

>>They mostly agree. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't
>>all eventually agree with me.

>Nobody agrees with you Ed. Not even Mac Tonnies and he
>hypothesies a similar theory.


I don't really know what others think about these ideas. A few
declare that they're preposterous, but the vast, silent,
majority remain silent.

Mac hasn't contacted me, so I don't know what he's thinking.

>>>As Peter Ward says "In my view, life in the form of microbes
>>>or their equivalents is very common in the universe, perhaps
>>>more common than even Drake and Sagan envisioned."

>>Yes life is common but isolated by time and space.

>How do you know?

I think it's self-evident, but here's Frank Drake's opinion:

Any reasonable transport of creatures across space calls for
travel speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of
light, otherwise it takes too long to go even to the nearest
stars. But this exposes the spacecraft to serious hazards.
Probably the most serious is the potential for collision with
debris - and we are learning that space is full of debris. At
relativistic speeds, even a collision with a particle of a few
grams results in something close in energy to a nuclear bomb
blast. Not good news for the space travelers.

Also the energy requirements are ridiculous, at least to us. To
send a spacecraft the size of a small airliner at one-tenth the
speed of light requires as much energy as the US now produces in
more than a hundred years. And that just gets you someplace - it
doesn't provide for a landing or a return home

>>>This is a broadly held view and the real issue now is how far
>>>away the nearest intelligent civilisation is.

>>Not too far by my estimate. But I understand your point.

>>>That it exists Ed is a given. The old numbers game.

>>I have no doubt that there are billions of stars, with solar
>>systems similar to ours, and earths with water and trees and
>>blue sky and hairy creatures basking on a summer day. But the
>>distances are just too great for casual visits.

>Again, how do you know?

It's my best estimate (guess) but not just mine. Here's Don
Brownlee "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the

"I believe that it is most likely that organisms as complex as
animals only occur in transient cosmic oases widely separated by
space and time.

Planets form, they may develop life, but eventually the planet
and its life perishes. This cycle repeats endlessly in the
cosmos. Likewise, civilizations form, they may send SETI
transmissions or even launch time capsules, but they will never
make direct physical contact."

>>>Which of course brings us back round to the argument about
>>>FTL travel. Which in itself is a futile and arrogant waste
>>>of time. Just because we presume to know the extent of
>>>physics doen't mean that we do indeed know the extent of
>>>physics, and others may have taken it further. Why, they
>>>may even have learned how to travel through worm holes.

>>You can have faith that worm holes exist and that FLT is
>>possible but the scientific establishment disagrees. That's
>>why they ridicule the ETH. I have no faith that star travel
>>is possible, but I do know that we're being visited by crafts
>>and creatures of unknown origin. There is no scientific
>>reason to reject the theory that an earth evolved ancient
>>civilization is responsible. Why are you so resistant?

>I don't have any "faith" at all in anything but I do know that
>the scientific establishment, when its actually thinking
>straight and above all, objectively, does not ridicule the ETH.
>And it doesn't do that because it can't. They can have firm
>ideas about what is and what isn't happening in this field of
>science but they cannot prove anything one way or the other.

>But your tone suggests that you are ridiculing the ETH Ed and I
>am again taken aback by your intolerance.

You're mistaken and confused. I disagree with the ETH and agree
with the scientific establishment's skepticism. I also have lost
my faith that star travel is possible but also agree with much
other UFO research, especially the Roswell event.

>In the spirit of
>comradship and an open and inquiring mind, I am going to presume
>to show you by example how to conduct yourself in proper
>company, so pay attention; I am not resistant to your ideas. I
>embrace them and welcome them into the melting pot of
>eccentricity and insanity that defines the study of UFOs (but
>not, strangely, the study of UAPs) and say to you; you are just
>as likely to be right as anyone else.



[ 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