UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 25

Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:14:35 -0500
Archived: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:38:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam

>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:01:09 EDT
>Subject: Again The ETH Is A Scam

>I'm sorry if I go against the grain again regarding the ETH.

>I wrote an article about how bogus this theory was and got
>lambasted by the people who still swear the Space Brothers are
>trying to save the Earth.


First. to set the stage we regard insane reports from sane

Dr. J. Allen Hynek (_still_ a ufologist's dean, eh?) writes in
his, I submit, very rational and thoughtful book (For a
scientist), The UFO Experience - A Scientific Inquiry, regarding
an interesting analogy handily brought to bear on the
credibility, personal character, and veracity of persons such as
those pointed out, despite how far off the wall these persons
seemed to ricochet! Hynek compared all individuals to scientific
observational instruments of varying usefulness in the
proceeding analogy next paragraph. I submit he proved his logic,
also handily, in this rational reflection ... which makes
perfect sense, imo, first wash.

"In science," he wrote, "It is standard practice to calibrate
ones instruments. No astronomer, for instance, would accept
measures of the velocities of distant galaxies obtained by the
means of an un-calibrated spectrograph. However, if such an
instrument had given consistently good results in the past, had
frequently been tested and had not recently experienced any
jarring shocks, the observer would usually accept its results
without any further checking..."

Hynek continues, "...The parallel for us is, of course, obvious:
if our UFO reporter has, by his past actions and performance,
shown a high degree of reliability and responsibility and is
known to be stable and not 'out of adjustment,' then we have no
a priori reason to distrust his coherent report, particularly
when it is given in concert with several other 'human
instruments,' also of acceptable reliability."

Eh? This may shoot "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary
evidence of such" in the foot, to a degree, too, as the
consistency required for the logic we all are _admonished_ to
adhere to seems to indicate, then, that _mundane_ claims require
only _mundane_ evidence of same for a, however tentative,
conclusion to be drawn. No, I submit the standards should have
balance that "extraordinary" identifications defeat, flatly, as
a result of their movable goal-posts.

Moreover, while we're here, "no evidence of the ETH," extant,
presumes, one, that there are no mechanisms of _cover-up_ or
_disinformation_ in place to distort the overview of such
evidence, voluminous still, across seven categories - so as to
maintain the hugely corrupt prerequisites discovered in the
marriage of Corporations and government, also extant. The seven
categories? These include the Historical, Artistic, Anecdotal,
Photographic, Physical Trace, Personal, and even Mathematical

Two, it seems to presume that the observer would recognize the
evidence offered, as offered, _as_ that "evidence offered,"
given the alien's alien-ness lacks the frame of reference needed
to provide for recognition _unspeakable_ sans an experiential
dictionary for communication facilitating that recognition, eh?
Three, that we entirely ignore the best evidence we have of the
ETH, the undeniable evidence of _the existence of ourselves_,
flawed as _we_ are!

My understanding of the immutable existential, howsoever that
must play out, or not, is: given time/space and surface area,
whatever remotely _can_ happen, or leap the hurdle into "actual
occurrence," _will_ happen. That single "happening" seems to
insure a line crossed, some cosmic mechanism governing a
"formality of actual occurrence" actuated... so it happens
again, then again... and again - near ad infinitum ... Folks. I
think that's fair.

Humanity has satisfied the requirements for the formality of
occurrence as regards its tenuous existence. We... "happened."
Only, I don't think we can presume upon the assumption that we
are anywhere near first in line. "First," _remotely_ presumed,
lacks _all_ reasonable humility.

There's the ETH so far up your nose you feel its knees on your
top lip, eh? They're "there," because we're "here."

The "immutable existential," I add, is that reality "realists"
would insist that we live in, that which, seemingly, doesn't
care, is not goal directed, does not have a "meaning" inherent,
and is trendlessly fluctuating. Even in that reality, especially
in that reality, what can happen does happen, and having
happened continued to happen.

Too, forget the, too constrained, Drake Equation! Dr. Amir D.
Aczel, a Massachusetts University mathematics professor and
author of "...Probability 1...," shows that the likelihood of an
*other* is so close to 100% (a decimal followed by an unending
succession of "9"s), that its ultimate value is
indistinguishable from one chance... ...in one! W00t!

Reader! Indistinguishable! One hundred percent! More abounds on
Earth and in heaven than a "realist's" flesh would give heir to,
and I'm betting these don't read books outside a comfort zone,
eh? Pity the poor realist, as it is pitiable to be so
intellectually pitiable.

While we're here: ETI, rare? The realist undersells the
stupefying enormity of it all. Behind a grain of sand held at
arms length anywhere in the day or night-time sky lies more
space-time and surface area than the good realist is willing to
assess or countenance. More than any of us can pack between our

Anything can be happening and it has no simple handle a still
diapered science can remotely assess or prove a control on.
Science is not allowed to merely observe and measure then
conclude. Oh, no! Science is, itself, measured and observed.
Conclusions are drawn with regard to _it_.

ETI -- I'm betting older than we can countenance, appreciate, or
understand... Why only 20 or so light-years from us (only, eh?)
we have stars like our own sun with about a billion years head
start on us.  Too, they can get here _because_ we can get there
- more of that pesky "formality of actual occurrence." We've got
the engines (Friedman, 2009) they work, and sub-light speeds
still get quite a kick from time dilation... which is fine if
you take everything you'll ever need with you....

Where the hell were we?

Oh yeah... Older than we can know, you know? [g].

Some even younger, eh?

No substance to the ETH? I submit that may be premature.

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

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



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.