From: Gary Anthony <garyant@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:08:52 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 06:27:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Symbols - Anthony


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:54:56 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>From: Gary Anthony <mithrand@mithrand.karoo.co.uk>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:59:52 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:49:37 -0500
 >>>Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:10:13 -0400
 >>>>Subject: Re: Symbols

 >>><snip>

 >>In a separate post; the question was asked what samples do we
 >>chose for study? Do we not include Orthon's footprints?
 >>Initially I think it would be important and scientific to
 >>include every sample of alleged alien communication, including
 >>the contactee cases.

 >Then would we not include the messages given to John Reeves at
 >Brooksville, FL (or rather found by him) and the symbols
 >observed by Jesse Marcel, Sr. and those seen by his son? What
 >about those seen by Bessie Brazel... and those seen on UFOs such
 >as that reported by Lonnie Zamora and in the photographs of the
 >UMMO UFO.

 >Seems to me that there are dozens of sources of alien writing,
 >some of them good and some of them not so good. Wouldn't it make
 >more sense to eliminate those that are clearly from hoaxes up
 >front so that they are not contaminating the sample, put those
 >that are dubious into another pile, and finally lump those that
 >are believed to be authentic into a third?

 >Of course, then we have the question of which samples go to into
 >which piles. There would be some who would see the contactee
 >symbols as being as valuable as those from abductees and some
 >who would look at the Roswell symbols as being more acceptable
 >than the UMMO symbols.

 >The first thing that must be done is to define the sample and
 >provide the protocols for accepting a sample as "authentic".
 >Then we can begin to argue which symbols go where. And I haven't
 >even addressed the problem of alien language and the possibility
 >that the symbols come from more than one source so our lumping
 >them all together might defeat the study before it even begins.

 >Just a couple of random thoughts.


Hi List,

Kevin, thanks for your relevant random thoughts on how such a
study may separate more interesting samples. Indeed there are
lots of claims for alleged alien semiotics taking into account
all those you mention and many more. I am sure some will not be
interested in the alleged Ummite language for example -- however
from a linguistic point of view, they are all curious and can
demonstrate certain things. We are prepared to spend time
assessing them, but interesting samples merit more time and
effort than say Brooksville type samples, that goes without
saying. The data sets are not all lumped together, they are
divided by types covering different criteria.

Eliminating hoaxes is obviously very important and as you
rightly point out they require separation and sorting, but hoax
samples still need to be compared with others to demonstrate any
differences or similarities in at least one analysis. Sifting
out more interesting samples derive from linguistic analysis and
this is only one way they are being sorted and indexed. Any
'Ufological' expose of hoax samples is of course helpful and
complimentary, however linguistic analysis need not rely on such
information, despite the fact we have gathered as much
background reference, either from UFO literature or otherwise
(preferably first hand) as we can determine. This is also
ongoing with contributors.

To cut to the chase, what may hypothetically be expected from an
alien language is that it could have hallmarks it was made by an
intelligence equal or greater than our own, these hallmarks can
be defined and expounded to some degree. Anything beyond this
depends greatly on how much of an alleged alien writing system
or language the abductee knows?

Linguistic experts are quite aware of language and writing
systems, some languages more than others, Indo European families
are well known. An invention of language or a writing system can
be spotted, mostly because when people invent language they
generally do this having very little linguistic knowledge of
their own language, despite being sometimes quite articulate at
using it. The problem arises out of the fact that most people
are ignorant and lack knowledge to describe their own language
fully, attempts at invention leave many tell tale signs. It
takes a lot of thought to invent an elaborate language as good
as, if not better than, say English for example. No matter how
imaginative, most inventions fall short in a structure and other
analyses. English is a complex language though and even positing
a simpler language tell tale signs are just as noticeable, if
not more so, depending on the system and language.

There are many pitfalls, far too many for email exchanges in lay
person terminology. The article which Mark Newbrook and I wrote
for MUFON Journal #411 was as near to lay person definitions as
possible and mentions some of the pitfalls and possibilities.

Regarding your last paragraph about protocols, it would be nice
if Ufology could do this, however it cannot by the criteria
already mentioned. Samples are assessed on their individual
merits, as well as comparative ones and this lies solely in the
domain of linguistics. Optimisitcally what I perceive the
general picture may be with regards alleged alien semiotics, is
that the samples go from less convincing (probably covering most
of the contactee material with one or two exceptions) ranging
out to less, but more interesting systems among the individual
abductee samples involving structure. Until all of the tests and
analyses are done this however cannot be stated as certainty. By
simple definition anything at the higher and lesser end could be
more convincing and revealing?


Best Regards

Gary