In case we haven't beat the UFO debate into the ground yet, here's a new thread. Thought we should start with sts60's last post, since it he does have excellent points.

Unfortunately, I believe that our governments would keep the existence of ET UFO's secret from us, and that is the cause of all this confusion. There is too much to gain by keeping it secret, and too much to lose by making it public. Let's say for a minute that an alien ship did crash in Roswell. What benefit would we have by sharing this with the world? On the other hand, what benefit would we have by keeping it to ourselves? Even with my open-mindedness, if I was President, that baby would be mine, all mine. Remember, the government's goal is not the free exchange of science with the world. It has always been about national security and maintaining our technological edge. I'm not much into the conspiracy scene, but if UFO's are truly ET craft, we would not be told. We would have to wait until the evidence is so overwhelming that it cannot be denied. I also want to add that I don't believe this policy would apply to projects such as SETI, since finding ET's on another planet poses no threat to us, nor does it give us any strategic or military advantage. But a spaceship in our atmosphere certainly does.

You believe that the amateur astronomy community, the professional astronomy community, the air-traffic controllers, and amateur flight-plan trackers are also in on it? Conspiracy theories are paranoia, Hank.

Baloney. That's your opinion but you don't have any evidence for it. It's simply a paranoid attitude.

It would be a public relations boon. The US would get credit for discovering alien life. People would be famous. There are both selfish and magnanimous motivations.

Are you kidding me? What would you do with the "information"? You don't think that at least some of the presidents in the last 50 years have been motivated by fame?

Anyway, this is a non-issue. The Roswell nonsense has been shown to be hyped up by the town. It's a great boost for the local economy, and the town has convinced the airforce to keep the "mystique" alive. How do I know this? I have friends who work in the area. It's a big joke the locals are having a great time playing on the gullible. I think it's in poor taste, but I don't live there.

That's plain idiocy. The government wouldn't finance academic institutions if that was the case. We wouldn't have the areas of NASA or NSF or NAOA or DOE that were devoted to just that.

Those are catch-phrases that don't mean anything. I know the story of the "alien technology" being kept secret, but the government could just as easily keep the stuff it wanted secret and still tell the world it had the evidence. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all for the government to keep the existence of the technology secret. It wants the rest of the world to know that it has the edge.

You certainly are toting the party line for not being "into" the scene.

You need to explain this statement. How does simple KNOWLEDGE give away a strategic or military advantage.

You're falling fast into crankdom, Hank.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-03-14 13:34 ]</font>

Timothy, just finished reading your article. I had honestly never heard of any of these people. I did do some searches to see who this Bossack character is. He talks to alien dogs and cats?!? Unfortunately this is the type of UFO believer that just destroys the credibility of the subject, and I guess it's up to objective observers to realize that a few nuts aren't grounds to dismiss the whole subject.

So who wanted to sue you? Bossack or Friedman?

I noticed your name on your link. Do you have any relation to Timothy Good (or is your name a play on that)? I've read a couple of his UFO books.

JS ... Your responses to Hank are interesting.

You don't think there would be serious ramifications to the discovery of alien visitations?

Can you explain why you have come to this conclusion?
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it. I'm just asking because no one on the "opposition" side of the aisle ever explains the rationale behind that line of thinking. Usually the opposition dismisses and insults the supporters with little support for their own arguments. It's often the usual: "I know what I'm talking about and you don't" attitude.

I'd like to hear what you think.
I'm under the impression it would behoove the Powers that Be to suppress information like that given the public wouldn't (and didn't) take the mere suggestion of alien "invaders" very well. I would think it would be a public relations/safety issue and not up to any body of science to deride even in the face of great discovery.

I personally would be overwhelmingly pleased with such a revelation — but would everyone?
How could those in charge risk a wide spread panic such news may cause?

(An honest exploration into the subject — not some silly ploy to bait you. I don't have time for that.)

Val--

I think I can answer your questions simply by saying that the government is not as cautious as you think about promoting an "invasion" fear in the public. Look at the terror alerts that the US gleefully employs. Talk about promoting panic! I don't think that an "alien visitor found" would cause a panic. Who's to say that it represents an invasion? And even if it did, what would you do? Would you leave the place you were living? Would you build a bunker? What?

No, the reports that the government want to simply "pacify" the public are greatly exaggerated by nutsos who really DO need to be pacified because they end up working sane people into a frenzy too. Of course it looks to them like the government is trying to avoid people knowing the truth to stave off a panic, because every person they talk to is trying to get them to calm down!

In continuation from the other thread ...

JS ... don't take this the wrong way, but you are jumping to conclusions I never made. I admit that I come across a bit here and there, but I pride myself in being a great fence-sitter. I don't mind what others may think about that, as it only when one sits on the fence that one can get a good view of both yards.

I didn't mention those who aren't looking at a thing because that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actual sightings with proofs like photos, video, radar, or a wide spread public sightings. Lots of them are things we (or someone) knows about. The famous wide spread sightings of black triangular craft in Belguim was most likely military aircraft testing. The mass sightings in Mexico during the eclipse in 2000 (or 1999 — I forget) was most likely a planet coming into view as the sky darkened.
But I HAVE TO say "most likely" 'cause I personally don't know.
I'm not in the position to "know" ... and frankly ... neither is anyone that posts here on this board.

On the ATC ... it is my cousin, not a friend, who is an ATC. I didn't press him on this subject when I could (he lives out of state and I haven't seen him in years), but he mentioned it quite nonchalantly that U.F.O.s exist. They're not what everyone jumps to conclusions about ... just stuff that's tracked and isn't identified.

"One in a million" is an expression. You took that too seriously.

(Now seeing your response to my previous questions ...)

I can't argue with that.

You believe that the amateur astronomy community, the professional astronomy community, the air-traffic controllers, and amateur flight-plan trackers are also in on it? Conspiracy theories are paranoia, Hank.

I don't believe that at all, and I have no idea how you're jumping to that conclusion. Perhaps you are the one being a bit paranoid?

Baloney. That's your opinion but you don't have any evidence for it. It's simply a paranoid attitude.

What exactly am I paranoid about? All I'm saying is that it is naive to think that our government, especially our military, is going to reveal strategically important information to the general public! I don't blame them in any way. I wish the world didn't have to be this way, but unfortunately it is. It's not being paranoid, it's being realistic.

It would be a public relations boon. The US would get credit for discovering alien life. People would be famous. There are both selfish and magnanimous motivations.

It would be a public relations boon for the citizens who discover it. The most selfish motivation, and it's fair to say that we are selfish, would be to keep that information where it can benefit the US the most. And that would be... secret. Reverse-engineering of any spacecraft capable of making it to this planet, and learning the technologies associated with that, and learning how to recreate that, would be a HUGE boon to our military. This is obvious. Why should we announce it to the world, and deal with international pressure to release information, or perhaps even sabotage? That is illogical. Keep it secret until we can reproduce it and learn how to use the technology to our advantage. Do you think we were sharing developments with the public when we were frantically developing the A-Bomb?

Are you kidding me? What would you do with the "information"? You don't think that at least some of the presidents in the last 50 years have been motivated by fame?

What would I do if I was able to reproduce the technology? I would have flown that sucker right into Afghanistan and plucked bin laden right out of his cave, and done some painful experiments. But we obviously haven't figured it out yet. Regarding the presidents, they're already famous. It's about maintaining power, not fame. I wouldn't even be surprised if the President did not know everything.

That's plain idiocy. The government would finance academic institutions if that was the case. We wouldn't have the areas of NASA or NSF or NAOA or DOE that were devoted to just that.

If you honestly think that we would share information or technology of such magnitude, I would have to direct your first sentence back at you. Have we shared Stealth development or technology?

Those are catch-phrases that don't mean anything. I know the story of the "alien technology" being kept secret, but the government could just as easily keep the stuff it wanted secret and still tell the world it had the evidence. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all for the government to keep the existence of the technology secret. It wants the rest of the world to know that it has the edge.

There is no edge if you can't reproduce it. Just knowing it exists is no edge, or even having some wreckage is no edge. Using Roswell as an example, having a smashed spacecraft is no edge. Re-engineering it, and duplicating it... THAT is an edge and we would definitely use to our advantage. And we would want to keep this secret until we can duplicate it and use it to our advantage. This is logical, not naive or paranoid.

You certainly are toting the party line for not being "into" the scene.

Well there's conspiracies on just about everything. I only believe that the government knows more about UFO's than it's telling us, and that Oswald had help. Those are my two conspiracies. Oh yeah... one more... JS is CIA disinfo agent. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

You need to explain this statement. How does simple KNOWLEDGE give away a strategic or military advantage.

Please reread the paragraph. Having SETI find some artificial signal coming from a faraway planet in no way poses a threat to us, nor does it give us any advantage over our enemies. There is no reason to expend resources and money to cover this type of information up. I believe we WILL be told about this type of discovery. Hopefully this explains it better.

You're falling fast into crankdom, Hank.

Thank you. If logical exercises make me a crank, then that's what I am.

Over the years since Roswell, there would have to be thousands of Government employees, and ex government employees that would be in the "Know" about these crashes. Are we supposed to believe that None of these thousands of people ever leaked anything about the UFO coverup? it's imply not possible. They have to hire new people and older agents retire. so over the years i'm sure someone would have fessed up if it was true.

Hank, get your head out of the sand. It's very clear what my point is:

ME: The government hasn't divulged any information about knowing that any alien lifeform or certainly an alien intelligence has had contact with Earth

YOU: That may be due to the fact that they want to maintain a technological edge.

ME: They could divulge the information on the existence and maintain the edge.

YOU: No they couldn't.

ME: Explain.

YOU: Reread my paragraph.

That's the problem. Explain how presenting evidence for the existence of an alien spacecraft in New Mexico or Nevada would compromise any "reverse-engineering" efforts. You're making up theories without evidence and it's getting tiring.

Since there is an implication in this thread that acquiring alien (UFO) technology would offer a "strategic advantage" in presumably aviation and aerospace, I need to add this footnote.

If one were to take the time to really study the history of international aviation, especially military aircraft throughout the 20th Century to today, it will be obvious that all the innovations were developed right here by human beings. The futuristic stealth aircraft of today owe every bit of their advanced features to previous aircraft going back to before World War II. Every spacecraft design, for whatever purpose, owes it's engineering to previous designs, especially those designed for similar purposes.

If anyone thinks otherwise, please post a picture here of a single real spacecraft or real aircraft that has design aspects which are "alien" to human history, and explain why. (Of course a funny picture is welcome, but doesn't answer the challenge.) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

How about this one?

http://www.starwars.com/databank/sta...dex_movie.html

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

I find it absurd(and a little frightening) for anyone to think the government is incapable of concealing such info regarding ETs or UFOs, or at least waging an effective disinfo campaign against them. I mean, we've seen countless artifacts in painting and sculpture, as well as in "myth," that date back thousands of years describing these beings. There have been numerous credible individuals who believe the earth must have been, or is being, visited by alien life, we have regular sightings and claims, numbering in the millions per year worldwide. And yet, we dismiss it all as "mass hysteria" or some other "mythological" rubbish.
How can anyone look into that night sky, that universe, and say we know it all and "We are alone"?! Is this species ego-centrism or what?
I think the most fundamental problem is rooted in monotheism. Don't get me wrong, I very much believe in The First Source & Center, the one & only Uncaused, The Universal Father or God, if you will, but I believe we were babel-factored long ago and thus our true history obscured. It seems we're now on the brink of actually discovering our true heritage and place in the universe which will enable us to become cosmic citizens. Right now though, we're still going through "species adolescence." Fantasy? Perhaps.
Some of you may've seen this, but I think it appropriate:
http://www.neilfreer.com/index10.htm

"Timothy, just finished reading your article. I had honestly never heard of any of these people. I did do some searches to see who this Bossack character is. He talks to alien dogs and cats?!? Unfortunately this is the type of UFO believer that just destroys the credibility of the subject, and I guess it's up to objective observers to realize that a few nuts aren't grounds to dismiss the whole subject."

O.K., first things first, I do believe there are more then a few loonies in ufology. Sorry, but that has been my experiance in the field. And, yes, they do hurt the phenomenia, much more then any government plant ever could!

"So who wanted to sue you? Bossack or Friedman?"

Friedman, he is sue happy, he has a reputation for sueing. I even heard him make a remark about it on Art Bell. I tried to call in to confront him, but I'm sure you know how that is.

Keep in mind I talked to Friedman and confronted him in Sept. of 2000 on Bossack and their relationship and how it was being used by Bossack.

"I noticed your name on your link. Do you have any relation to Timothy Good (or is your name a play on that)? I've read a couple of his UFO books."

Neither, my birthname is Timothy Francis Goodness. Though I don't mind the association, I like Tim Good. He's a fine researcher who dislikes loonies as much as I and holds the truth in high regard.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Many people who find no real evidence for "UFOs" are not going to then look at the night sky and conclude that we are alone. That's a non sequitur. I would venture to guess that the staff of SETI probably hypothesize that there are alien civilizations of entities, but don't believe in "UFOs."

No one said that the government was incapable. We just find it highly implausible and lacking any credibility to say that it happened.

You don't give credit to human imagination. Truly, do you think that most of the science fiction stories that are written today were inspired by alien encounters? Why can't you allow for human imagination? You think that Hieronymous Bosch's painting The Garden of Earthly Delights is inspired by aliens just because you aren't creative enough to come up with it yourself?

Surely, human beings can't have an imagination or a knowlege of history. Surely not!

There are numerous credible individuals who believe:

1) Humans don't need food, but can live off of air (breatharians)

2) the sun and the planets go around the Earth (geocentrists)

3) the boogeyman will come to get you

4) fairies are responsible for dew

5) light eminates from the eye.

These are all things people today and over the ages have believed. Should we take them seriously? No. They are contradicted by science. If you want us to take Sitchin seriously, why shouldn't we take all of this nonsense seriously?

I mean, should I worry about Ragnarok?

As I said, 70% are the planet Venus.

That's right. There are also lots of stories about a global flood. We don't see scientific evidence for it. Therefore we dismiss it as being a story that should not be taken scientifically literal.

First thing you've said that I agree with. However, even if we aren't alone, that doesn't mean that aliens are among us or anywhere nearby. Otherwise we'd see them.

Funny, I don't have to appeal to this at all to be convinced that the vast majority of UFOs are basically hoaxes, myths, hysteria, or missightings. And furthermore, there hasn't been one confirmed case of a UFO that was determined to be of extraterrestrial intelligent origins.

That's true. Through the endeavor of science.

Here's a quote from that site:

If he was honest he'd point out that the vast majority of sighted UFOs and encounters are human action, technology, and misinterpreted events. In fact, he points to no scientific studies on the subject at all. Sad, sad excuse for an intelligent paper.

The problem with that is we impose our technological limitations on those alien beings. Why do this?

We don't. We just say if we can't observe something it isn't there. Once we do observe it, then we can say it is there. We don't observe the alien-built UFOs, therefore we say they aren't there.

We DO. We have always viewed our world this way.

The you are a conspiracy theorist, because all observed phenomenon are dealt with in the scientific literature. Yes, even the UFO phenomenon is deal with in the psychological and medical journals. If we saw physical evidence for them, it would be dealt with. Period.

Chip wrote:
"If anyone thinks otherwise, please post a picture here of a single real spacecraft or real aircraft that has design aspects which are "alien" to human history, and explain why. (Of course a funny picture is welcome, but doesn't answer the challenge.)" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

LaserJock wrote:
How about this one?

http://www.starwars.com/databank/sta...dex_movie.html
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Chip:
[straight face] The Millennium Falcon from Star Wars doesn't actually go in space. (Star Wars is a science fiction movie.) Its a very nice movie prop. There are of course smaller and larger models used in the films, and there are break-away sets for close-ups, which show parts of the ship. The original design of the Falcon was rejected and later became the Rebel Blockade Runner that Princess Leia used at the beginning of the film. The asymmetry (cockpit on one side) layout of the Falcon was inspired by the (real, and actually flown) BV 141. It could however be argued that Santa Claus is real because there is proof that many kids requested models of the Millennium Falcon, and actually got them at Christmas time. [/straight face] :-|

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2003-03-16 01:37 ]</font>

"The asymmetry (cockpit on one side) layout of the Falcon was inspired by the (real, and actually flown) BV 141"

Damn, learn somehting new everyday!

Wild looking plane, too.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

I thought you were asking about the SETI part of the paragraph, the way your question was laid out.

Regarding a recovered spacecraft or any sort of hard evidence, any efforts to reverse engineer or otherwise acquire any advantageous information, would be orchestrated by the military... in secret. When in history have we ever divulged information on any potential military vehicle we were developing? Only after the military has completed its work, or deemed the evidence to not have any military value, would anything be released to the public. There is no precedent for this to make us think otherwise.

We have no hard evidence that we know of. It's a good bet that if any hard evidence existed, in terms of actual technology, we wouldn't know about it anyway. Therefore, we cannot simply conclude that it does not exist, in the face of so many credible reports. That's like the old saying, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?".

Nobody should go around and say "UFO's are definitely extra-terrestrial" because we do not know that either. But we do know that there have been many mysterious phenomena that has witnessed by credible, knowledgeable people, recorded on audio, video, and radar, and these phenomena in some cases have left behind residual evidence in the form of markings and radiation. We have never been able to explain them in a believeable way. When coupled with the belief that there can be highly intelligent life forms out in the universe, and that those 'aliens' may be far more developed technologically than we are, an extra-terrestrial spacecraft as the cause of some of these reports is a legitimate possibility.

To deny this possibility is to say that humans are the pinnacle of life, and nobody anywhere can be more advanced than us. Yes, there are questions about the necessary distances to be travelled, and the technology required, but those questions don't invalidate UFO research. We simply have not advanced to that point to develop or understand our limitations. If we were to ask someone in the past if travel to the moon was possible, the reaction would be considered the equivalent to the UFO reaction today.

So, JS, I view your stance on the subject in the same way you probably view mine.

Adding ellipses after your statement does not make the added prepositional phrase true. Why should they have to do it in secret? Oh wait!

Both Germany and the US during World War II talked openly about their plans for developing an atom bomb, for example. The Soviet Union and the United States went as far to have a great Kitchen Debate over whose techonology was better. If anything, history proves my point: while we may develop things in secret, we let people know what we're developing.

Nope, go back and read history. While the details remained secret, the technology's existence was freely shared.

Again, I must ask, what possible military value would the existence of an alien spacecraft have? Just the plain existence, nothing else.

Well, I have just named you two precendents in recent history, in fact. I think you are out-to-lunch.

They could just present it at a press conference. "There is alien technology in this hanger. No you can't look at it." That's all they'd have to do. Of course, then there'd be the moonhoaxers saying that we really didn't find any and it was all staged. Ha ha!

We can and do because it's preposterous to think otherwise? 50 years? Are you in control of all your faculties? Has anything been kept a secret for 50 years that has been programatic that long? Name ONE thing.

NAME ONE. Stop with the talking out of your posterior and name one. One. One.

How about if the invisible pink unicorn cannot be seen nor touched nor measured does it exist?

That's for sure.


Markings... okay. Radiation, huh uh. Again, where's the beef?

Name one. One. One.

But these "reports" are all alleged to exist without any tangible proof. You have given us nothing to go on except your own paranoia. That's not very reassuring, Hank.


Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. To deny the possibility is to say we have no evidence. It says nothing about the pinnacle of life status of humanity. This statement is just lunacy.

I don't even care about that. What I care about is the UFO research providing simple evidence that can be independently verified. That's all. It's really quite simple. It's the same thing I'm asking for Nibiru. Does it exist? Well then, show us the EVIDENCE! That's ALL you need to do. It isn't hard. In fact, it's the easiest thing I can think of.

If I tell you carbon stars exist, you have a right to ask me to show you evidence. I will then give you coordinates for various stars and either you or I can get spectra for them. Then we can discuss what the interpretation of those spectra are. See how simple it is? I make a claim, you ask for the evidence, I give you the evidence, discuss.

What UFO research and Nibiruism amounts to is the following: You make a claim, I ask for evidence, you tell me a story, I say that's not evidence, you say I can't prove it isn't, I say, well, just give me something empirical, you say that you don't believe in empiricism. I throw up my hands. How can we have a conversation?

However, if said person were here, we could show them the evidence and they could evaluate them. Then they might say it was staged and we'd refer them to this site. See how simple it is? Now why do you UFOlogists refuse to grant the simple request for evidence? How hard can it be?

Oh really, you think that I have no empirical evidence showing that the vast majority of UFOs are not of extraterrestrial origins?

Here is another argument that points to UFO-style aliens, Zetans, Annunaki and various other Whoozits-from-Space being the products of overly stimulated imaginations: They look like us.
A lot like us. Most of the aliens that PXer types describe are perfected, angelic ideals of the human form and most UFO abduction believers and whatnot describe aliens which are either the same idealized ubermen or big-headed large-eyed creatures showing features which are exaggerations of those of human infants. These beasties come from deep within the human brain, not planets orbiting distant stars. What do you suppose the odds are that beings evolved on another world would bear the slightest resemblance to humans? Sure, you might get the occasional biped with two eyes mounted on a distinct head-like extremity and possessing between two and four arms, but expecting much more congruence than that is expecting way too much. And don't give me any hogwash about the alien races "planting" humans on earth from their own stock. Genetics shows that humans are closely related to every living organism on this planet, from daisies to dormice, and in the nearly four billion years of life on this rock the only humanoid creatures ever to arise are our own ancestors and very nearly all of the creatures which are even vaguely anthropoid are our own very close primate relatives. Let's remember that evolution is not a "march of progress" but the adaptation of organisms to their environment through natural selection. Life is almost certainly plentiful in the universe but that IN NO WAY indicates that human-type intelligence is at all common. Earth's history actually argues against it. The vast majority of lifeforms have adapted and replicated and filled the seas and land with their progeny and exactly ONE genus (that'd be Homo, us and our immediate kin) has developed the kind of traits that lead to the building of spacecraft and the awareness of other worlds. There is no reason at all to think that human-style intelligence is even a survival trait in the long run. It may be in some narrow cases but intelligence of our sort is absolutely not needed for life to be completely successful. This is not to say that there can't be advanced technologically capable alien races, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF at this time of their existing at all, let alone visiting this backwater orb.

__________________
If you can't dazzle 'em with dexterity, baffle 'em with BS.

Yeah. What he said.

"there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF at this time of their existing at all"

Of course not, but there is evidence, otherwise we would not be debating the issue. People don't argue against proof, not sane people anyway. But they sure as hell do argue about what is and what is not worthy as evidence.

Also your agrument is heavily dependant on two things:
1) Earth bound science/conditions/evolution. Just as strong an agrument could be made that some alien life forms could be simbiant on some other planets with conditions similar to Earths. Given the large number of stars and planets thought to be in the universe this is not completly off the table, so to speak. Conditions on this planet work for life, that is the one certanty here. And we do know what that life looks like.

2) Your argument is also based on the idea that these visitors, if they do really exsist, are from another planet. This could be 100% wrong.

Also, the issue of these beings being perfect humans is a very interesting piont to bring up. Haven't we here on Earth started in recent years to manipulate DNA? Are we not doing genetic engineering here on Earth? We have total nutcase scientist who want to make babies in labs with our 'backwater' technology. If we are capable of this, what would a race of humans say 50,000 years ahead of us in technology be capable of doing?

In adition to this, I can think of a few alien life forms people claim to have seen that don't look anything like a human. Whether these claims are anymore credable then any other claims is of course much open to debate.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Well, there is no proof that ET life exists. But there's no reason to think it doesn't. The question is really, how common is it? (More common than we think, I hope.) The other question is, when will we "meet" some? (Pretty soon, I hope.)

No, I really don't think we've already met some. "The evidence", as Carl Sagan once said, "is crummy".

I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Juat wondering,

Wasn't Carl Sagan once asked,'why are you so interested in there being alien life?' And wasn't his answer something like, 'when we know who they are, we will know who we are?'

I think Carl Sagan said a lot of things, and some of those remarks seem down right dumb.

He was no Stephen Hawking.

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Do you deny that the evidence is, indeed, crummy?