UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 6

Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life - Ally

From: Brian Ally <ufoupdates.nul>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:39:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:28:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life - Ally


>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:33:39 -0800
>Subject: Re: Great Debate About Frequency Of ET Life

>Tesla was able visualize the designs of his inventions. His mind
>operated differently from that of an ordinary human so he didn't
>need to follow the step by step process we're all familiar with.
>Humanoids might also think in a different way from us and not
>need all the foreplay you've mentioned above. Monotremes, for
>example, have evolved a method of searching for prey by the use
>of what is called Electroreception.

>http://tinyurl.com/32xjoo

>If monotremes were to evolve humanoid characteristics and still
>retain this power, their thinking and conceptualizing might lead
>to other ways of solving problems.

The phenomenon you describe is related to sensory perception,
not to the animal's cognitive faculties. Certainly, the ability
to perceive prey due to its electrical potential might very well
affect "the way one thinks" but that's quite different than,
say, how Mr. Tesla approached an engineering problem. I'd
imagine it's closer to the difference between seeing in colour
and shades of grey.

I do agree with you, though, that ET (or whatever) might not
think anything at all like us. We could be dealing with colony-
 inhabiting creatures which 'share' their thoughts, for
instance. An organism with those characteristics might well make
great leaps in technological know-how.

>After a certain point of technological advance, like what is
>envisioned for nanotechnology, avoiding detection would not be a
>serious problem until the folks you were hiding from became
>technologically sophisticated themselves. Maybe nanotechnology
>is as far as we are, or they were, able to progress.

<snip>

>What if they prefer to live underground for protection and
>comfort? If they possess nanotechnology, they could live
>anywhere they wanted and we wouldn't notice unless they made
>mistakes or developed engine trouble.

But to arrive _at_ nanotechnology, one must assume a certain
period of technological development. Unless there's some 'magic'
that we have yet to uncover - and i'm talking about the mother
of all forehead-slappers - that could have enabled us to develop
nanotechnology thousands of years ago, I'm very skeptical of
your proposition.

>There's plenty of evidence to convince me that an alien craft
>and its occupants were recovered at Roswell so our government
>has already tracked them down and knows exactly what UFO are and
>where they came from but fears our reaction to this knowledge.

Personally, I don't assume that anyone who might be in
possession of any craft (or other devices) would necessarily
understand how it works, nor its origin.


Brian





[ 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