From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:14:35 -0500 Archived: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:38:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:01:09 EDT >Subject: Again The ETH Is A Scam >I'm sorry if I go against the grain again regarding the ETH. >I wrote an article about how bogus this theory was and got >lambasted by the people who still swear the Space Brothers are >trying to save the Earth. <snip> First. to set the stage we regard insane reports from sane people: Dr. J. Allen Hynek (_still_ a ufologist's dean, eh?) writes in his, I submit, very rational and thoughtful book (For a scientist), The UFO Experience - A Scientific Inquiry, regarding an interesting analogy handily brought to bear on the credibility, personal character, and veracity of persons such as those pointed out, despite how far off the wall these persons seemed to ricochet! Hynek compared all individuals to scientific observational instruments of varying usefulness in the proceeding analogy next paragraph. I submit he proved his logic, also handily, in this rational reflection ... which makes perfect sense, imo, first wash. "In science," he wrote, "It is standard practice to calibrate ones instruments. No astronomer, for instance, would accept measures of the velocities of distant galaxies obtained by the means of an un-calibrated spectrograph. However, if such an instrument had given consistently good results in the past, had frequently been tested and had not recently experienced any jarring shocks, the observer would usually accept its results without any further checking..." Hynek continues, "...The parallel for us is, of course, obvious: if our UFO reporter has, by his past actions and performance, shown a high degree of reliability and responsibility and is known to be stable and not 'out of adjustment,' then we have no a priori reason to distrust his coherent report, particularly when it is given in concert with several other 'human instruments,' also of acceptable reliability." Eh? This may shoot "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence of such" in the foot, to a degree, too, as the consistency required for the logic we all are _admonished_ to adhere to seems to indicate, then, that _mundane_ claims require only _mundane_ evidence of same for a, however tentative, conclusion to be drawn. No, I submit the standards should have balance that "extraordinary" identifications defeat, flatly, as a result of their movable goal-posts. Moreover, while we're here, "no evidence of the ETH," extant, presumes, one, that there are no mechanisms of _cover-up_ or _disinformation_ in place to distort the overview of such evidence, voluminous still, across seven categories - so as to maintain the hugely corrupt prerequisites discovered in the marriage of Corporations and government, also extant. The seven categories? These include the Historical, Artistic, Anecdotal, Photographic, Physical Trace, Personal, and even Mathematical Two, it seems to presume that the observer would recognize the evidence offered, as offered, _as_ that "evidence offered," given the alien's alien-ness lacks the frame of reference needed to provide for recognition _unspeakable_ sans an experiential dictionary for communication facilitating that recognition, eh? Three, that we entirely ignore the best evidence we have of the ETH, the undeniable evidence of _the existence of ourselves_, flawed as _we_ are! My understanding of the immutable existential, howsoever that must play out, or not, is: given time/space and surface area, whatever remotely _can_ happen, or leap the hurdle into "actual occurrence," _will_ happen. That single "happening" seems to insure a line crossed, some cosmic mechanism governing a "formality of actual occurrence" actuated... so it happens again, then again... and again - near ad infinitum ... Folks. I think that's fair. Humanity has satisfied the requirements for the formality of occurrence as regards its tenuous existence. We... "happened." Only, I don't think we can presume upon the assumption that we are anywhere near first in line. "First," _remotely_ presumed, lacks _all_ reasonable humility. There's the ETH so far up your nose you feel its knees on your top lip, eh? They're "there," because we're "here." The "immutable existential," I add, is that reality "realists" would insist that we live in, that which, seemingly, doesn't care, is not goal directed, does not have a "meaning" inherent, and is trendlessly fluctuating. Even in that reality, especially in that reality, what can happen does happen, and having happened continued to happen. Too, forget the, too constrained, Drake Equation! Dr. Amir D. Aczel, a Massachusetts University mathematics professor and author of "...Probability 1...," shows that the likelihood of an *other* is so close to 100% (a decimal followed by an unending succession of "9"s), that its ultimate value is indistinguishable from one chance... ...in one! W00t! Reader! Indistinguishable! One hundred percent! More abounds on Earth and in heaven than a "realist's" flesh would give heir to, and I'm betting these don't read books outside a comfort zone, eh? Pity the poor realist, as it is pitiable to be so intellectually pitiable. While we're here: ETI, rare? The realist undersells the stupefying enormity of it all. Behind a grain of sand held at arms length anywhere in the day or night-time sky lies more space-time and surface area than the good realist is willing to assess or countenance. More than any of us can pack between our ears. Anything can be happening and it has no simple handle a still diapered science can remotely assess or prove a control on. Science is not allowed to merely observe and measure then conclude. Oh, no! Science is, itself, measured and observed. Conclusions are drawn with regard to _it_. ETI -- I'm betting older than we can countenance, appreciate, or understand... Why only 20 or so light-years from us (only, eh?) we have stars like our own sun with about a billion years head start on us. Too, they can get here _because_ we can get there - more of that pesky "formality of actual occurrence." We've got the engines (Friedman, 2009) they work, and sub-light speeds still get quite a kick from time dilation... which is fine if you take everything you'll ever need with you.... Where the hell were we? Oh yeah... Older than we can know, you know? [g]. Some even younger, eh? No substance to the ETH? I submit that may be premature. alienview.nul www.AlienView.net AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/ U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp