UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 27

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:38:50 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:49:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:58:17 -0400

>But even if Peter thinks his thinking is inviolable, and not
>subject to discussion or debate until he's already made a fool of
>himself -- for all he knows -- by publishing prematurely, he at
>leasts suggests a reading list.

>> Meanwhile, I suggest you bend an eye to:

>> Stephen Jay Gould "Wonderful Life" ISBN 0-14-013380-1
>> Michio Kaku "Hyperspace" ISBN 0-19-508514-0
>> Robert Baker 'Alien Dreamtime' in "The Anomalist" #2
>> Mike Davis 'Cosmic Dancers...' in "The Anomalist" #5


>Oh, Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter...I've read Hyperspace, haven't
>read the others <snip>

Ahem, well, the above referenced issues of The Anomalist are
available from me for only $9.95 each plus $2.50 s/h. But I'll go
even one better. To anyone from the US or Canada who orders one
or both issues, and says they saw it on the list, I'll pick up
the postage. Sorry, all you "furriners," you're out of luck on
this one. Checks or money orders payable to Dennis Stacy, Box
12434, San Antonio, TX 78212.

>Frank Drake, for instance, is very sure aliens won't visit here,
>or in fact travel at all in interstellar space, because of
>familiar relativistic difficulties -- can't go faster than light,
>takes huge amounts of energy to go even close to that speed,
>etc., etc., etc. Theories. Might be true, might be not. Our
>science supports these thoughts. An alien science way ahead of us
>might not. Main thing, though, is that these theories -- as
>they're applied to beings a billion years ahead of us -- as Drake
>applies them, are entirely metaphysical. That is, they can't be
>disproved in any way. Drake --  and you -- simply assume their
>eternal validity.

You really should be buddying up to Drake, Greg, old boy, as his
equation -- not necessarily his own interpretation of it, of
course -- is actually your best friend.

My gripe with it is that's it's basically statistical in hope and
of course assumes a whole lot of things that may or may not be
correct about what is required for a habitable planet *and* the
subsequent evolution of intelligent life capable of space travel,
the two not necessarily synonymous.

What Drake does is a hat trick of sorts. He starts with hughe
numbers, 100 billion stars in our galaxy, 100 billion galaxies in
the universe, and concludes that even a very small fraction of
same would still amount to a very large number of intelligent
civilizations in the universe, albeit still separated by
theoretically insurmountable distances. His interpretation.
Unawares or not, you're using the same numbers and equation and
discounting the distances -- based on advanced alien technology.
Your interpretation.

Actually, there are now a number of suggestive findings, or
findings and suggestions, if you prefer, that, when plugged into
the Drake equation actually reduce his numbers dramatically.

Much of this is brought out in the Michael Davies article
referred to earlier ("Cosmic Dancers," TA5), although not
necessarily in the same context, of course. What Cosmic Dancers
is is an examination of our present solar system over an
extremely long time scale.

It's quite simply one of the best things I've read all year, so I
don't want to spoil anyone's fun. A couple of tidbits (of which
there are many), however.

For example, it might be quite easy (if not actually the rule) to
have a large number of habitable planets, by Drake's lights, that
*never* develop intelligent life because they may be missing one
or more necessary requirements. A tropical paradise of a planet
might never result in a spacefaring civilization, then, because
of the absence of evolutionary pressure. A seasonal tilt of
relatively specific angle, resulting in seasons, and a magetic
field of relatively specific strength may also be major, if not
absolutely required, factors.

It appears you might also need a gravity well in the form of a
giant gas planet, placed just so in terms of distance and
location, the latter acting as a defense shield for the habitable
planet by sweeping up incoming artillery in the form of
asteroids, comets and so on. Remember Shoemaker-Levy? The
habitable planet might also require a satellite of just the right
size and placement, and so on.

Each of these requirements, if that's indeed what they are, start
knocking off significant chunks of Drake's final numbers, perhaps
by several factors, perhaps even "fatally," for all we know at
this stage.

>What you need -- and can't possibly have -- are facts. How many
>alien races are there in our galaxy? how many of them travel
>through space? How far do they travel? How close are they to us?
>Once you have that data, you can begin to make somewhat confident
>assumptions about whether an alien visit here is likely. Without
>data of that kind, you -- and Michio Kaku )(whose new book was
>amusingly demolished in this Sunday's NY Times Book Review -- are
>just whistling in the dark.

And you're just whistling in the sunshine, because you don't have
any facts or data to the contrary, either.

What you do have is a manifest desire to have your cake and it,
too. So that when "problems," logical and others, are raised
about light speed, distances, and the ability to beam people
through walls, you answer with "advanced alien technology, about
which we know nothing." Which of course is really no answer at
all because it can be used to answer *any* objection or
criticism.

And when seeming anachronisms in advanced alien technology are
suggested or pointed out, you simply change course and abscribe
same to alien motives, as in "well, they probably could do it
that way if they wanted to, but the available abduction evidence
suggests that they might not want to do it that way."

Your arguments and answers are ready made and you simply apply
them as the questions or criticisms dictate. In short, your own
reasoning seems pretty circular to me. That doesn't mean that you
may not be ultimately right, just that -- in the meantime -- we
might as well be arguing the evidence, or lack thereof, for the
existence of God, demons and angels, who may be beings so
advanced that they no longer need physical bodies for all I
know.

>And what makes it all especially funny is this -- while people
>still imagine that nobody can travel the distances between stars
>at anything exceeding lightspeed, there has already been at least
>one respectable scientific conference right here on earth on how
>to do that. <snip>

>Greg Sandow

If you're talking wormholes here, hey, what are we waiting for!

Just out of idle curiousty, I wonder how long it would take and
how many miles you would travel while effecting a course change
at the speed of light, just to dodge the unexpected asteroid or
other space debris? A problem for advanced calculus, indeed.

Dennis



Search for other documents from or mentioning: dstacy | gsandow

[ 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