UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Feb > Feb 21

Re: The Other Side Of The Fermi Paradox - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:03:24 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:37:51 -0500
Subject: Re: The Other Side Of The Fermi Paradox - Lehmberg

>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:20:19 -0700
>Subject: Re: The Other Side Of The Fermi Paradox

>>Source: The Space Review - Rockville, Maryland, USA


>>Monday, February 19, 2007

>>The Other Side Of The Fermi Paradox
>>by Michael Huang

>Indeed, this brand of razor eventually cuts through to the
>'simplest' hypothesis of all, the 'I Am Alone?' solution: there
>is in fact no objective reality... all that exists is a single
>stream of consciousness, namely my own. Makes me feel rather
>silly posting this.

Which might remain to be just as valid as anything else
proposed, Sir.

I offer on "Fermi":

"Has everyone heard of Fermi's Paradox? It's a "we're alone in
the universe" justification invented by Dr. Fermi based on the
observation, and I paraphrase, that if 'they' were there, at
all, we would 'know' it. We don't know it. Ergo... they're not

What a cleverly close looped way (or excuse) to _not_ think. We
would 'know it' indeed. Arrogance like that would be laughable,
but it's so tragic!

More (plus illio):


And on "We're Alone" from a recent UFO Magazine Article:

UFOs - Are they 'real' or are they 'fake'?

Rise up in outrage! Perceive this contrived mechanism of dismissal!
Avoid this unbrave intellectual circumvention of the obvious! Be not
fooled, reader! The question itself is bogus!

Verily, it is just _this_ typified cant solemnly expressed at
every conference, all television appearences, and each radio
interview, where pompous CSICOPians are trotted in for alleged
balance, but ends up looking more like a suicide-bomber invited
to a respectful discussion of confounding political issues.
Minds are made up, and shall not be changed.

Consider: New conservative re-estimations of the Drake Equation
(that attempted scientific stab at calculating the number of
intelligent species in the universe?) puts the measurement
probability for a plethora of off-world intelligences, I
understand, so close to 100% that the difference is

Immeasurable, reader!

This is to say that one has a much better chance of winning the
Publisher's Clearing House lottery (approaching zero) than one
does betting against extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in
the universe (in actuality, zero). Yes. We, ourselves, are
proof, if you will, of this Drake equation's compelling

Consider, an immutable law of the universe is that what can
happen happens. There is _that_ much space, time, and surface
area, reader! Humanity 'happened' proving the certainty of that
particular potentiality with equal assurance.


So what happens once, happens _again_. Stuff happens, that is to
say. What can happen, happens. What has happened happens once
more, then once more, then one more.

Frankly, that fire of self-aware intelligence has kindled right
here on this planet, reader, many times! This is to include
three or for species of humankind, forgetting its occurrence in
a smear of animalia from mollusks, through cetaceans, to

Frankly, pretending we are alone in all this awesomely boundless
magnificence of space, time, and surface area, forgetting the
very concept is flatly ludicrous, is naive and ignorant
arrogance, I expect, at _best_.

At worst, it may be a sophisticated and informed arrogance, a
knowing arrogance, a conscious arrogance, a baseless arrogance!
A contrived arrogance to be sure and one with no justification!

'UFOs real or fake'? Why, this debate has been going on since
1947 in a seemingly apparent attempt to preclude any substantive
progress on the question, at all!

UFOs real or fake? Are there not six (6) categories of
compelling evidence very specifically indicative that UFOs are a
stone cold reality? Almost (99.999999999%) certainly, according
to Bentley College professor Doctor A.D. Aczel in his book,
Probability One!

The huge volume of extant evidence is of a quality that cannot
be forever ignored even as card carrying CSICOPians Kurtz,
Mcgaha, Shermer, Shostak, Nickell, and the still in print if
late Philip Klass furiously try. The evidence remains.

Yes, reader, the quality anecdotal evidence, compounded with the
vetted photographic evidence, and then added to the documented
historical evidence, gives every indication that a ufological
contention regarding that phenomena must be more real than

Moreover, when the preceding is framed by the serious artistic
evidence, qualified by the available physical evidence, and then
compellingly buttressed by the conclusively emboldening personal
evidence - if the reader has some, as I do - I can only be
annoyingly _astonished_, myself, by the continued reluctance of
_some_ to face the highly strange music that just cannot be
forever marginalized. I submit the reader should be outraged,

Does the information available justify attention by the
mainstream to perform a more *in depth* investigation of UFOs?
Absolutely"! CSICOPiate and angry SETIan Seth Shostak,
hilariously, agrees!


When, Dr. Shostak? Where, Dr. Shostak? How, Dr. Shostak? With
regard to what, Dr. Shostak?

Outside of his own parochial boondoggle at the Specious Exercise
To Investigate - SETI - when has Dr. Shostak ever championed an
increase in the aggregate ufological consciousness even world
class physicist Michio Kaku has countenanced? No, Dr. Shostak
has only ever been a steadily smirking bulwark against same!

Instead, don't these errant 'avians' (Klasskurtxians!) ooze
forth, periodically to re-prosecute the skeptibunky case of
yester-year! Don't they furiously spin the ufological reality
extant in their cowardly attempt to reduce the level of
ufological debate tediously, once again, to its tiresome
starting point!

Is not their goal, reader, to re-achieve an old, outdated, and
mind-numbingly outrageous level of pre-discussion,
re-discussing the now thoroughly discredited possibility that
UFOs are likely something safely prosaic and certainly other
than evidence of some significant alternative (off- planet?)
intelligence? Yes. I think the reader must agree that these do.

UFOs real or fake'? Does the reader see how that suggestive
statement brings the level of debate back to the decades old,
and very dreary, level of 'conceivable deniability'. In other
words that it is somehow still very, very possible, boys and
girls, that UFOs may not exist, at all? Everybody draws a
deeper, if fallaciously inaccurate, breath! Then, the prize
truck from Publisher's Clearing house pulls into your driveway
blaring its triple-toned horn. Not!

UFOs real or fake'? "There is no 'proof', you know, even as
there may be some evidence for a ufological reality..." I

UFOs real or fake'? "Mind you, UFOs and aliens might exist,
but no proof has been uncovered in over 50 years that this is
so..." I paraphrase.

UFOs real or fake'? "We are the only _proof_ of intelligence in
the whole of the universe." I paraphrase. Oh... so comforting,

The preceding, frankly, is what we must move beyond.

AVG Blog - http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e - www.ufomag.com

[ 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