UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 3

Re: SETI Taps The Grid - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:40:16 -0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0500
Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid - Miller

>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:25:42 -0800
>Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:16:02 -0000
>>Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid

>>>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:52:57 -0800
>>>Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid



>>>What would the world believe if SETI announced that near one of
>>>their observatories they witnessed a "disc-shaped" UFO; that it
>>>was seen to land, small humanoid beings emerged, walked around
>>>for a few minutes, re-entered the craft and took off; further,
>>>that the craft exhibited extraordinary flying characteristics,
>>>e.g., right angle turns at extrememly high speeds, and finally
>>>seemed to change shapes (morph) before leaving eyeshot?


>>I'm fairly sure they's be believed.

>I disagree; that is I'm sure "some" of course would believe an
>announcement from SETI as given in my example, however; I think
>the "perception" of such an announcement would depend on how it
>was presented. Would it get out on the wire? Would it be "aired"
>on the networks? Would it be limited to local exposure, and of
>course the internet?

>Personally, I don't believe the course of events after such an
>announcement from SETI would happen the way one might think,
>furthermore; IMO the "way it would be presented" to the public
>would depend on the "powers-that-be."

You cannot, surely Frank, be setting yourself up to contradict
as authoratative a source as dear old Seth, could you? Seth says
there's no way of keeping it secret. Why, even the mice that run
around at the SETI institute would be e-mailing their pals with
the good news. I agree with you and am a little mystified as to
how Mr. Shostak could be so naive.

>>And what would really be ironic is that Terry
>>Hansen's theories would be confronted and the press would have
>>no choice but to get behind them. They could not ignore SETI, a
>>respected and above all, very well known internationally
>>acclaimed scientific organisation.

>Hmmm... first let me address the term, "theories" as you state
>in regards to "Terry Hansen" and his most impressive, well done
>book, "The Missing Times"; in it he states, "This book is an
>inquiry into the political processes that influence news media
>coverage of the UFO phenomenon... I intend the phrase 'media
>complicity' to mean that news organizations sometimes cooperate
>with government authorities to deceive the public about the
>nature and the scope of the UFO phenomenon." There is ample
>proof of that "theme" via "unclassified documents," as well as
>the CIA's own admittance of media tampering; to that end,
>Terry's "media complicity" argument is certainly not a "theory,"
>but a proven fact!

Oh, semantics, semantics! No disagreement here. Yes, of course I
accept Terry's, shall we say, philosophy.  Proven beyond doubt.

>You state that SETI couldn't be ignored because of their
>international stature, and being an acclaimed "scientific
>organization." I say that if those attributes were the only
>thing necessary to get focus and or attention on the UFO
>phenomenon, then the "enigma" would have been solved and made
>public decades ago. History has proven that the caliber of the
>individual, or the group, is irrelevant to the way the media
>handles reporting the UFO phenomenon.

I find the above comment intriguing. I'm sorry to put you on the
spot, but might you be able to give an example? Specifically
organisations as opposed to individuals.

I can't see this Frank. To me, "caliber" is all, the individual
is irrelevant, the mass of the organisation is everything. To
fall in with your argument, the world doesn't even believe
former astronauts.

To use a less obvious example to further the point, if the
American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals announced
that ET existed, as long as that statement was based on solid
evidence, they'd be believed, I have no doubt.

>In the end Stuart, I believe that there are "two ways" that will
>allow the world as a whole to be enlightened about our visitors;
>one is that the "power-that-be" allow, it and make an
>announcement, (or allow someone else to, and support it) or an
>event takes place on a "grandiose scale" that  can't be denied!

This is very disappointing Frank. We're meant to be having a
civilised debate here and all we're doing is agreeing! So where
do we disagree? I'm alleging that virtually any recognised and
respected institute, regardless of it's involvement in the ET
debate, if it makes an announcement that stands up to
examination, will very likely be believed. You seem to be saying
that this is not so and that history backs this up. I
acknowledge your own personal experiences Frank. It is you that
has screamed into the wind and suffered the brickbats for it.
But that was "Frank Warren", an individual. What weight did he
carry with the world's press and other media? Now, if his then
employers made the same comments.....

At the root of all this, I can't help feeling that what in part
you are saying is, "It's not fair". Of course it isn't. In
another thread about the frustration of finding good witnesses
who won't speak out, mention was made of peer pressure and of
what others might think. I have direct experience of that in my
own profession. People won't wear certain types of reflective
clothing that might well save their lives because their friends
will laugh at them. I interpret that as someone saying, "I would
rather die (literally) than be seen (dead) in that." There you
have it. If people can be that stupid and overlook logic because
of personal insecurities, worries, fear of ridicule etc. then
why on earth should they believe someone else who makes claims
that challenge the Human position and imagination?

Recognised institutions let us off the hook. We slavishly allow
our need for authority to defer to their status, a status by the
way that we ourselves have entrusted them with. So if a
nationally known organisation that occupies itself by rescuing
pussy cats from trees and rounding up stray dogs says ET exists
and here's the proof, I feel they will be believed. If the guy
that climbs the tree to rescue the cat says the same thing,
probably no chance.

I admit I paint a black and white picture and the reality has
countless shades of grey. But we're fighting the Human Condition
and we won't win. Your last paragraph above is right.


Stuart Miller

[ 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