UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 31

Re: The Fermi Paradox

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:54:38 -0600
Archived: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:29:07 -0400
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

>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:21:26 -0600
>>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox

>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:43:49 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: The Fermi Paradox


>>If you consider the Fermi Paradox trivial and/or resolved, I
>>would be interested in hearing your arguments to that effect. I
>>do not dispute the evidence for anomalous/non-human aerial
>>phenomena, but I believe Fermi's question is well-posed

>I don't follow your logic at all. In shorthand, the Fermi
>Paradox is a proclamation by an uninformed scientist who, I feel
>quite cetrtain, never investigated a single hardcore,
>unexplained craft-like object UFO case. So when he asks where
>are they, I say look right under your nose.

>In The UFO Evidence, Vol. II, and lots of other places I have
>fully documented the strong patterns of credibly reported craft-
>like objects (geometrical configuration, portholes, beings,
>etc., etc.) These strong reports are readily available to anyone
>who makes even a healf-hearted effort to find them. So when
>someone like Fermi argues from theory to say there are no
>visitors, I (as an empiricist) say look at the evidence.

>If you haven't looked at this evidence, I suggest that you do
>so. As I said, there is lots of evidence strongly suggestive of
>alien visitation. I didn't say proof, though it is tantamount to


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

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.

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).

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'.

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


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



[ 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