Marty and the UFO Nut

From: Marty Leipzig
To: Ivy Iverson

II> Hi, Marty;

Well, "Hi" there yourself, Ivy. Having a nice day? Perhaps you'd first like to get a cup of coffee. That's OK. I'll wait...

...OK? All comfy? Great. Let's proceed...

II> It has become undenyably clear that no matter WHAT I say, you won't
II> accept it. We could argue this until the Sun goes Nova

>ML> Umm, Ivy; just a note. Our sun will not nova as it lacks the
>ML> necessary mass. It will, in 5 BY (+/-) go "red giant" and the
>ML> finale for ol' Earth will be just as final.

II> I am aware of this...

I see. That was not at all apparent from the context of the message.

II> and that's about how long it will take "some
II> people" to open their minds

Ah. I see again. An "open mind" to me is like a locked door with a 'Welcome' mat out front; rather, as some seem to have it, a door flung wide aside proclaiming: 'Come on in! There's no one home'!

Just make sure your 'mind' isn't so open that your brains fall out.

II> and comprehend that just because OUR science

Well, Ivy. If it's not "our" science, just whose is it? Sorry, but there's just no science but ours.

The sort of conspicuous dogmatism you're revealing is altogether like someone proclaiming the qualities/abilities/attributes of some sort or another of supernatural deity.

First, provide evidence that such a deity exists; then we can get onto it's characteristics.

II> doesn't know how to do something does NOT mean that it can't be
II> done,

OK, Ivy. give me an example of something that is "done" that science can't, at least, for propose a hypothesis. I mean something palpable, something tangible; not some fanciful, seat-of-your-pants (or, 'skirt' in these PC days) physical impossibility of a gedankenexperiment.

II> or for that matter, to understand the _FACT_ that our Gimmement
II> _DOES_ lie to us!

The evidence, especially of late, does seem to indicate that our governing bodies do not always tell us the whole unbridled truth. That's pretty much a given. But, what does that have to do with the immediately preceding statement? Do you equate "science" with "government" and vice versa?

Sounds an awful lot like a machination to me.

But, then again, conspiracy seekers will conceive to find them wherever they look.

II> But as long as "certain individuals" believe

Why do you care what anyone believes? I think that anyone who believes *anything* is suspect; as belief implies acceptance without question nor evidence (often counter to the evidence). That is why I have no beliefs whatsoever; and am quite comfortable with that announcement.

You see, instead of believing, I prefer to think.

And, I fancy to hear what others think as well.

II> that as long as THEY can't explain how something can be done,

I can't explain exactly how a computer works, but I can sure use the hell out of one. <grin>

II> and as long as they believe EVERY WORD that issues from the
II> mis-and-dis-information orginization of the gimmement,

Well, here I agree; if only partially. If anyone laps up whatever some other agency (government, religious, secular, etc.) claims, they are indeed unenlightened. Ask for, nay, demand, the evidence, and examine, critically without preconceived biases, that evidence.

What? None exists for their particular viewpoint or claim? Label that then "wishful thinking", "unsubstantiated opinion", just plain out-and-out unwashed "belief" or, as some might wont, "bullshit".

Remember, though: ordinary claims require ordinary evidence; phenomenal claims require phenomenal evidence (if you'll pardon the pun).

II> (AKA the Trenchcoat Society, QKA MIB's),

Sorry, you got me on the first one (unless it's a sly backhand to my Intelligence friends outside the Beltway); but if I am to understand your acronymphomania, "MIB"? Men in Black? C'mon.

Excretorium negatorius? You really think that they're real and exist?

"Your first, last and best defense..." To me, Ivy, it's not some shadowy, supposed sable-swathed singularity; but instead logic, rationality, reason and skepticism fill that particular bill for me.

Perhaps you should try it sometime.

II> then they will never be able to OBJECTIVELY look at/listen to/read
II> about other people's experiences,

Sorry, but it's been done. People believe all sorts of bizarre things; but they all have one common unique denominator: they are all totally without any form whatsoever of physical evidence.

I've spent years looking at/listening to/reading of other peoples experiences. Without evidence to back up their claims, they're just so many tall tales.

II> whether remembered abductions, or seeing UFOs or whatever,

See above. Got any physical evidence at all? A starship log book? A piece of ferraluminum? Anything? Anything at all?

I'll wait while you go get it and some more coffee...

II> and understand that there IS SOME TRUTH in SOME of them!

Why? Based upon YOUR claim that THERE IS!?! (Notice that caps do not an argument make.)

There may be some truth to this; but, then again, there may not. It is not an established given that there "must" be some truth in all this because so many claim/believe it to be factual.

That's the argumentum ad numerum. In the 1400's, everyone believed the Earth was flat. Sorry. That massed belief did not flatten it's rather lumpy oblate spheroidal topology one nanometer.

II> Yes, there ARE false memories, there ARE faked photos.
II> Yes there ARE imaginary accounts of experiences. Yes, there ARE cases
II> of mistaken identity,

Well, you'll get no argument here with that kind of proclamation.

II> but just because SOME, (many) are BS does _NOT_
II> mean that they ALL are!

Nor, on the other hand, does that fact that the vast majority of them are a load of biogenic colluvium; prevent them from all being bullshit.

The only thing that could possibly make a difference between the two groups is a little thing called physical evidence. Until then, if you don't hear from me by next Saturday, it's because I'm off golfing on Titan.

>ML> ... UFO's are real. The Air Force doesn't exist.

II> I first heard that from someone who used to be in the Air Force...
II> it's a standard saying there!

A sly backhand on the Air Force's part to UFO nuts.

II> David B.: I know you will read this... DON'T BOTHER REPLYING!

Now, now, Ivy. Restricting the First Amendment are we?


I wonder if you still 'believe' so after you have read this far...

II> and when you learn the difference between
II> with you.

As will I, as always. In case you haven't noticed, Ivy; I'm quite a bit of a skeptic and a lot of a curmudgeon. I am also an industrial scientist (with more than a few degrees), unrepentant atheist and long time member of the WOA's over in HolySmoke.

I also, a long, long time ago; too lived in Wisconsin. Just another tid-bit FYI.

Looking forward to conversing with you.


II> Catch you later... Keep l00king[sic] up!

But always watch where you step.

Go Back to Shy David's New Pages Page.