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 - Warren

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:46:29 -0800
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:48:57 -0500
Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid - Warren


>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:40:16 -0000
>Subject: Re: SETI Taps The Grid

>>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

<snip>

>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.

Didn't mean to be so "nitpicky."

>>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.

Take a look at the original NICAP "Board of Governors" as well
as the "Advisory Panel," not to mention regular members; the
names within, their respective backgrounds and titles were
certainly "upper echelon" and would command the respect from
anyone.

>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.....

I certainly don't mind agreeing Stuart - it has a calming
effect.:^)In the words of who some thought might have been sent
here from another planet himself, "let me be perfectly clear";
If SETI, or any other group, say the AAAS or FAS made a "pro ET"
public announcement with "all the media" in attendance, and they
inturn "broadcast" that announcement with the attention it
would/should deserve, and "there was no opposition to it," then
yes, the world as a whole would accept it. My feeling however;
is the powers-that-be would not allow that to happen, unless
"they were ready for that to happen." Again I say it would not
"unfold" as one might think.

Some might argue that this has "already" happened; remember the
1996 news conference held by NASA where they stunned the world
about the microbes found in a meteorite from Mars - in essence
the biggest news in human history - there is life on other
planets, and right here in our solar system! This, in my
estimation, was "the prime opportunity" for the powers-that-be
to come clean, however; what happened -  there was opposition to
the announcement, and the "loud voice" of "pro-life" in the
meteorite became a whisper, and has since for all intensive
purposes been forgotten.

Personally, I don't believe this was a "happenstance." The
aftermath was certainly manipulated; of course the "powers-that-
be" have had many opportunities to come clean, and done so, only
to change their tune in the aftermath. (Remember it was the
military who announced they had a flying saucer in '47) In any
event Stuart, unfortunately, I have to stick with my original
statement, "there are "two ways" that will allow the world as a
whole to be enlightened about our visitors; one is that the
"powers-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!

>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.

To sum it up - it's not the statement, it's the presentation and
who controls it.


Warmest Regards,

Frank Warren






[ 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