home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Msg: #2383 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 29-OCT-87 04:05 PM
- Subj: #2369 - UFO SFO
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Jim Rush (X)
-
- You make it sound so simple!!!! You would take all the fun and mystery out of
- it!!!!YOu must keep in mind that one of the basic underlying premises of these
- visitors is that they do not do anything logical by our definitions of logic.
- Makes you wonder how such illogical beings ever found there way here, much
- less out of a paper bag.
-
-
- Msg: #2384 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 29-OCT-87 04:12 PM
- Subj: #2369 - UFO SFO
- From: Sysop
- To: Jim Rush (X)
-
- Alien Commander: I want you to run a routine survey of rural Virginia. Limit
- your operation to nighttime only.
-
- Alien grunt: OK. Should I use lights?
-
- Alien commander: Of course, why not? You know their part of our communications
- system.
-
- Alien grunt: Well, I thought to avoid detection....
-
- Alien Commander: Detection??? Hell, we've been doing this for forty earth
- years, and half the population still doesn't even believe we're here!
-
-
-
- Msg: #2401 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 30-OCT-87 04:23 AM
- Subj: #2381 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Nick Ianuzzi
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- I'm not going to enter into a discussion over numerical issues. I would like
- to point out, however, that we did not land on the lunar surface with the same
- craft that we used to transport us to orbit. It is simply inefficient.
-
- I think you are losing sight of the original discussion. My intent was to show
- that a race of aliens may be advanced to the point of possessing the
- capability of interstellar travel (the question of the duration of the voyage
- is really not an issue here), yet still require lights for observational
- convenience.
-
-
- Msg: #2414 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 30-OCT-87 03:36 PM
- Subj: #2401 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Nick Ianuzzi (X)
-
- Well, just to belabor the point further, in my mind at least, there is a whale
- of a differeence between travel to the moon, or anywhere in our solar system,
- and interstellar travel. My point about lights was that given our own current
- abilities at electronic collision avoidance, we don't really need the lights
- ourselves if we should choose to pay for the necessary electonic systems. Any
- race traveling thru interstellar space would problbly want to have a better
- collision avoidance system tehn lights, and certainly would want an active
- system, not a passive one; they would want a system that would alert them to
- all outside dangers,they certainly would not want to depend on someone, or
- something seeing their lights.
-
-
- Msg: #2423 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 31-OCT-87 04:11 AM
- Subj: #2414 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Nick Ianuzzi
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- True, we have the technology for collision avoidance systems, but as I said,
- we have not implemented such systems because they are seldom necessary.
- Anyway, any scouting being done by the crew of a spacecraft is likely being
- done manually, and I maintain that no matter how advanced the beings, it would
- simply make more sense to look around using lights, rather than fancy
- image-enhancing gear. Plenty of UFOs are sighted in the daytime, so obviously
- the missions are not terribly covert.
-
-
- Msg: #2433 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 31-OCT-87 07:08 PM
- Subj: #2423 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Nick Ianuzzi (X)
-
- I wouldn't doubt they would use searchlight type lights in order to "look
- around"; the lights I don't think they would use are the red white and green
- navagation lights common to our aircraft but often "seen" on UFO's.
-
-
- Msg: #2439 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 31-OCT-87 10:03 PM
- Subj: #2433 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Sysop
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- For an example of protracted use of just such red, white, and green lights on
- something that is very definitely a UFO, please read the newly released "Night
- Siege" by Phil Imbrogno and J. Allen Hynek (soon to be reviewed here).
-
-
- Msg: #2566 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 07-NOV-87 06:15 PM
- Subj: #2439 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Sysop (X)
-
- I am not saying UFO's don't have red, white, and green lights. I am
- expressing a belief that the UFO's with those colors are extremely unlikely to
- be extraterrestrial. There is no doubt that they are UFO's. I remain amazed
- that there is such apparently widespread belief that these UFO's are from
- "outer space" rather then some more mundane source.
-
-
- Msg: #2597 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 08-NOV-87 12:20 PM
- Subj: #2566 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Sysop
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- Jim: A lot of us are looking in that direction, not because we "wish it to be
- so", but because of a process of elimination. We have all but eliminated all
- earthly sources that we can think of, and that doesn't leave much else BESIDES
- extra terrestrial technology.
-
-
- Msg: #2608 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 08-NOV-87 05:17 PM
- Subj: #2597 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Steve Gresser
- To: Sysop (X)
-
- Don't forget the bottom of the sea, Jim. There have been a substantial number
- of sightings of objects entering and leaving the seas, if I am not mistaken.
- Or, am I?
-
-
- Msg: #2630 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 09-NOV-87 10:35 AM
- Subj: #2608 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Steve Gresser (X)
-
- Just for the record, I entered my comments on UFO's from the ocean, prior to
- reading your message on same. Perhaps this proves I have ESP or at least
- LSMFT.
-
-
- Msg: #2635 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 09-NOV-87 05:00 PM
- Subj: #2630 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Steve Gresser
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- Perhaps, also, because it is still one of the (if not THE only) major
- contendor left in the question. After all, we can now map the entire globe
- and almost all of the sea, and read a Russian score card on the USSR's one
- golf course.
-
-
- Msg: #2658 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 10-NOV-87 12:45 PM
- Subj: #2635 - UFO SFO
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Steve Gresser
-
- Just to take your claim at face value, it is hard to imagine that if we are
- able to rⁿ{╞┘map the entire globe, almost all the sea, etc etc, we cannot come
- up with some of the evidence of the extraterrestials having been here. ²Θ
- There are tremendous "plot" inconsistencies in the extraterrestial UFO theory.
- The lack of physical proof seems to revolve around the government conspiracy
- to withhold the evidence.ÿ╞¼òÆ╥ It seems to be a never ending circle, due in
- large part to the almost total lack of evidence for anyone to examine.
-
-
- Msg: #2629 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 09-NOV-87 10:20 AM
- Subj: #2597 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Sysop (X)
-
- I personally cannot see how one can realistically claim to have eliminated all
- earthly sources, which are the easiest source to study, and then say that
- therefore it lmust be extraterrestial, a source that is obviously much harder
- to study. I can see where one could not 100% rule out extraterrestial, but
- one cannot 100% rule out that UFO's are from hidden cities buried at the
- deepest darkest parts of the ocean. By the same process of elimination that
- "you" might say "you" have all but eliminated earthy sources, a process that
- is presumably based on the fact that no earthly source can be found, also
- would apply to extraterrestial sources, that is, no extraterrestial source has
- ever been found either so that by a process of elimination, that too is ruled
- out. All one is really left with is the silngle fact that there are UFO's.
- THe source is as elusive now as it ever was.
-
-
- Msg: #2642 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 09-NOV-87 05:37 PM
- Subj: #2629 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Sysop
- To: Jim Delton (X)
-
- Let's put it this way, Jim: Have you got a better idea?
-
-
-
- Msg: #2659 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 10-NOV-87 01:03 PM
- Subj: #2642 - UFO SFO
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Sysop (X)
-
- I don't have any better theory then anyone else's. THe main distinction as I
- see°─ it between my position and some others is that in the absence of proof
- of any of the theories, I am not selecting on of the unlikely and then giving
- it the most credibility. I think the "better idea" was essentially what the
- Air Force did, ie Project BLue Book. Putting aside all the coverup and
- conspiricy business, the way to approach the UFO phenomenon was to do what
- they did; investigate the reports, assemble the data, and see what picture
- emerges. After doing that, there just was much in the way of evidnece to
- proove the premise that we are being visited by UFO's²Θ. Since that was not
- the fi²Θnding that UFO buffs wanted, they went on to develop the conspiricy
- and coverup senerios that are supposedly hiding the truth. Many UFO buffs
- continue to try and follow along the same sort oinvestigative line, ie,
- collect and analyze data, but it seems to me that they have found pretty much
- what the airforce did. Lots of smoke and no fire. Sometimes where there's
- smoke there's fire, but sometimes where there's smoke there's just smoke.
- After decades, all there is is smoke and it is still the same old smoke! In
- the time period where we have gone from ≈│no flight to missions to the moon
- and beyond, our UFO visitors have apparently made no progress at all.²,dU£{\9
- THey continue to do the same old juvenile pranks, buzzing a care here,
- abducting a person there, flitting in and out of sight, hoovering motionly
- motionless for minute to hoursa¬fσ!ï. THey never crash, they never land in
- areas like downtown Phoenix where there apperance would be absolutly
- positively verified. I sure seems to me that the explanation is obvious,
- whenever UFO do what is nescessary to "show" themselves; ie, crash, land in a
- populated area, take a jet while it is taking off instead of snatching it
- while it is at 33,000 feet, then we all see what the UFO really is and it is
- never a "UFO". (Cont)
-
-
- Msg: #2660 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 10-NOV-87 01:14 PM
- Subj: #2642 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Jim Delton
- To: Sysop (X)
-
- That doesn't prove that there aren't UFOs, but ther sure isn't much evidence
- that there is.▀╒½°
- I find the subject fascinating, but I really don't think there is much truth
- to the ideas that we are being visited by them. I would be more then happy to
- be proven wrong (unless they aren't friendly) Neither side ¬┌"wins"²Θ
- anything by being right. The best course of action I can see is to press on,
- but as long as Ut┌í╡ FOlogists are percieved a a bunch of nuts I doubt lmuch
- progress will be lmade. And untill UFOlogists stop promoting such things as,
- for example, totally unprovable theories like abductions, I don't think they
- will be taken seriouly enough to get much in the way of good coverage from the
- lmedia. If the media doesn't take them seriously, they have a tough rode to
- travel. If there is a government coverup and conspiricy, ²Θonly intense
- lmedia coverage is likely to break it, I don't think anyone else has the
- resources./
-
-
- Msg: #2664 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 10-NOV-87 05:41 PM
- Subj: #2660 - UFO SFO
- From: Sysop
- To: Jim Delton
-
- Jim:
- Believe it or not, I agree with most of your comments, and most
- responsible Ufologists ACKNOWLEDGE the inconsistencies, the mysteriously
- elusive nature of the evidence, the unfathomable activities of the alleged
- "UFOnauts," etc. But there are a couple of errors in your message which could
- add up to a major difference:
- 1) Project Blue Book WAS a crock. It was poorly financed, and carried out
- very little in the way of actual, on-site investigation. At its best, it was
- no more than a public relations outlet for the Air Force "line." True, they
- allegedly found nothing to prove that UFOs are interstellar vehicles, but
- then, the way they carried out their work, its almost inconceivable that they
- would have, even if one hit them in the face. Sometime, you really should read
- "The UFO Controversy in America," by Prof. David M. Jacobs, available at the
- Scottsdale Public Library.
- 2) I know you will find this hard to believe, but most of the people I
- deal with, while they may be 99% convinced on a gut-level that we are dealing
- with ET's, WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER THE EVIDENCE ULTIMATELY SHOWS. They are, for
- the most part, able to separate their gut-level beliefs from their
- higher-order intellectual findings, and will not hesitate to repudiate a
- belief if it is proven wrong. In other words, they are not "True Believers,"
- as defined by Hoffer. So far, the door has NOT been closed on the ET
- hypothesis, and in my opinion, based on the best evidence available, it
- remains HIGHLY possible. Perhaps not probable, but possible. Its a possibility
- too important to ignore. We are simply advocating taking a good long hard look
- before abandoning it.
- 3) The ETH Advocates have not "constructed" a government cover-up; it
- exists. That much is provable. What is not provable is whether the information
- that is being hidden indicates anything extraordinary or out of this world,
- but we can find no other reason for such a cover-up.
- 4) There IS solid proof that UFOs exist, and there does exist hard
- evidence that their nature and activities are not duplicatable by earth
- technology. I refer you to the Delphos landing trace, the Brewster videotape,
- the Canadian photograph explored by Dr. Richard Haines of NASA, and others.
- Again, not proof of extraterrestrial origin, just strong indications of same.
- 5) re the Media: RIGHT ON! Nothing I can add to what you say, except to
- ask you whether you think the media is being reasonable in its wholesale
- repudiation of the ET Hypothesis (in more serious discussions). Why should we
- have to do the media's work for it? Woodward and Bernstein didn't have proof
- of Nixon's complicity in Watergate when they first started dogging the White
- House. They had strong indications. Well, that's what we have. What's the
- difference?
- Jim
-
-
- Msg: #2465 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 02-NOV-87 11:31 AM
- Subj: #2401 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: John Grace
- To: Nick Ianuzzi (X)
-
- Interstellar travel is a function of alteration of space-time, not just a
- matter of always pressing on in a specific direction....
-
- Some do, some dont....
-
-
- Msg: #2475 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 02-NOV-87 08:37 PM
- Subj: #2465 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Craig Kraft
- To: John Grace
-
- I wouldnt call it an alteration but perhaps using the curvature of
- space-time.....
- -Craig
-
-
- Msg: #2481 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 03-NOV-87 03:50 AM
- Subj: #2475 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Nick Ianuzzi
- To: Craig Kraft (X)
-
- No, no, no! Your brain is stuck in sub-light mode. I suggest you do some
- reading on warp drive technology. To get you started, I'll lend you my Star
- Trek blueprints.
-
-
- Msg: #2482 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 03-NOV-87 11:44 AM
- Subj: #2481 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Craig Kraft
- To: Nick Ianuzzi (X)
-
- What is wrong with the curvature sling-shot theory? Warp drive is star I am
- talking Asimov's luxon wall theory and the curvature theory. The theory is
- something like: The closer you go towards a schwartzchild radius the more
- WARPED space-time becomes so you go almost to the radius and calculate
- trajectory etc. and sling-shot yourself past the luxon wall into light speed.
- The only problem is the time curvature, I dont rember if I the formulas to
- calculate the time coordanates on the curve. Regardless the sling-shot using a
- black hloe seems more feasible to me than some light speed theorys. Who do you
- think is more plausible, Roddenberry or Asimov?
- BEAM ME UP SCOTTY,
- -Craig
-
-
- Msg: #2501 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 04-NOV-87 02:25 AM
- Subj: #2482 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Nick Ianuzzi
- To: Craig Kraft (X)
-
- Interesting. Are you certain that this is a controllable process? It would
- seem difficult to calculate exactly where you might end up in space/time.
-
-
- Msg: #2516 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy
- 05-NOV-87 01:12 AM
- Subj: #2501 - UFO SFO (R)
- From: Craig Kraft
- To: Nick Ianuzzi (X)
-
- Yes that is the problem with the theory but I am confident that sooner or
- later that the formula will be discovered. You have to admit that it might
- just work for a one way trip....... Kinda like Dr. Who never knowing where you
- will wind up........
- -Craig
-
-