Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]

Expand Messages
  • uwrk
    ... wrote: I m very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes, and other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not considered
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
      wrote:
      I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes, and
      other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not
      considered potentially a habitabe system-it is a double star.

      Roswell is the only case where the witnesses are named and
      accessible to investigators. All other alleged crashes were
      fabricated (or possibly staged) to make it appear there was nothing
      special about Roswell. See http://www.cader.com/p1634.htm



      --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, Scarecrow .> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Eustaquio Anddrea Patounas
      > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
      > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:58:49 -0300
      > Subject: Russian UFO Crash Photo?
      >
      > Look the first photo taked in 1940. Is it a UFO or a Foo
      > Fighter?

      A fake.
      >
      >
      > http://atomickiev.com/galaxy_explorer/russianUFO.htm
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      --- End forwarded message ---
    • uwrk
      ... The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot and short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old enough for a more advanced
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...> wrote:
        > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
        > wrote:
        > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes, and
        > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not
        > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double star.

        The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot and
        short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old enough
        for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even younger
        than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
        >
        > Roswell is the only case where the witnesses are named and
        > accessible to investigators. All other alleged crashes were
        > fabricated (or possibly staged) to make it appear there was nothing
        > special about Roswell. See http://www.cader.com/p1634.htm
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, Scarecrow .> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Eustaquio Anddrea Patounas
        > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto
        > > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:58:49 -0300
        > > Subject: Russian UFO Crash Photo?
        > >
        > > Look the first photo taked in 1940. Is it a UFO or a Foo
        > > Fighter?
        >
        > A fake.
        > >
        > >
        > > http://atomickiev.com/galaxy_explorer/russianUFO.htm
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > .
        > --- End forwarded message ---
      • Roger Anderton
        ... From: uwrk To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@...>
          To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
          Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


          > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...> wrote:
          > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
          > > wrote:
          > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes, and
          > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not
          > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double star.
          >



          > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot and
          > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old enough
          > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even younger
          > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.


          The problem here is assumptions.

          For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that our sun.

          A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what constitues "life"
          and the "conditions for life."


          We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in our daily
          existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only type.

          Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it would have been
          impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts into forms they
          were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic vents, where it
          should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.


          -Roger
        • LeonDChartran@AOL.COM
          RJ Anderson: Very good points, Masterful. This planet Earth alone displays proof of the great variety of environments in which life thrives. We have organisms
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            RJ Anderson:
            Very good points, Masterful. This planet Earth alone displays proof of the
            great variety of environments in which life thrives. We have organisms so
            small that a microscope must be used in order to view them. Organisms that
            flourish in an extremely cold, hot or in the middle range of temperatures.
            Some live at the bottom of the sea under great pressures, etc., etc., etc.



            Peace & Love

            Leon


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • uwrk
            ... and ... enough ... Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0 star would be much shorter-I m sure it is shorter than the 4.6 billion years
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
              wrote:
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
              > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
              > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
              >
              >
              > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...> wrote:
              > > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes,
              and
              > > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not
              > > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double star.
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot and
              > > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old
              enough
              > > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even younger
              > > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
              >
              >
              > The problem here is assumptions.
              >
              > For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that our sun.

              Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0 star
              would be much shorter-I'm sure it is shorter than the 4.6 billion
              years sol was been around.

              >
              > A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what
              constitues "life"
              > and the "conditions for life."
              >
              >
              > We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in our
              daily
              > existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only type.
              >
              > Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it would
              have been
              > impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts into
              forms they
              > were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic vents,
              where it
              > should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.

              But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
              else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
              hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
              >
              >
              > -Roger
            • uwrk
              ... organisms so ... Organisms that ... temperatures. ... etc., etc. Again, even harsh environments here are fairly mild compared to conditions on most
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, LeonDChartran@A... wrote:
                > RJ Anderson:
                > This planet Earth alone displays proof of the
                > great variety of environments in which life thrives. We have
                organisms so
                > small that a microscope must be used in order to view them.
                Organisms that
                > flourish in an extremely cold, hot or in the middle range of
                temperatures.
                > Some live at the bottom of the sea under great pressures, etc.,
                etc., etc.

                Again, even harsh environments here are fairly mild compared to
                conditions on most planets. That includes not only great temperature
                extremes but intense UV, as on Mars etc.


                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Roger Anderton
                ... Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence. Probes keep getting sent out and something goes wrong. Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc. There
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                  > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                  > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.


                  Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.

                  Probes keep getting sent out and something goes wrong.

                  Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.

                  There has not been an adequate test to pove otherwise.


                  -Roger







                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@...>
                  To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:22 PM
                  Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                  > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                  > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
                  > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...> wrote:
                  > > > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                  > > > > wrote:
                  > > > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO crashes,
                  > and
                  > > > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is not
                  > > > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double star.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot and
                  > > > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old
                  > enough
                  > > > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even younger
                  > > > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > The problem here is assumptions.
                  > >
                  > > For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that our sun.
                  >
                  > Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0 star
                  > would be much shorter-I'm sure it is shorter than the 4.6 billion
                  > years sol was been around.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what
                  > constitues "life"
                  > > and the "conditions for life."
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in our
                  > daily
                  > > existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only type.
                  > >
                  > > Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it would
                  > have been
                  > > impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts into
                  > forms they
                  > > were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic vents,
                  > where it
                  > > should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.
                  >
                  > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                  > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                  > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -Roger
                  >
                • Michael Smith
                  ... And you have to consider, does something ACTUALLY GO WRONG with these space probes?? When these same probes DO find something, they cover it up, and state
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
                    wrote:
                    > > But there is virtually no evidence for
                    > indigenous life anywhere
                    > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments
                    > here are
                    > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars
                    > etc.
                    >
                    >
                    > Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.
                    >
                    > Probes keep getting sent out and something goes
                    > wrong.
                    >
                    > Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                    >
                    > There has not been an adequate test to pove
                    > otherwise.
                    >
                    >
                    > -Roger
                    >

                    And you have to consider, does something ACTUALLY GO
                    WRONG with these space probes??
                    When these same probes DO find something, they cover
                    it up, and state "The latest probe, named xxxxxx, has
                    failed due to a xxxxxx problem / we have lost
                    xxxxxx"!!!
                    Thats how it works in this day and age, thats for
                    sure!

                    Mike

                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
                    http://search.yahoo.com
                  • uwrk
                    ... On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus, where the temperature is broiling hot. ... Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 30, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                      wrote:
                      > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                      > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                      > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                      >
                      >
                      > Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.

                      On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus, where
                      the temperature is broiling hot.



                      >
                      > Probes keep getting sent out and something goes wrong.

                      Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                      seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of organic
                      material.
                      >
                      > Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.

                      Not a generally accepted view! How can life of any kind arise in
                      space?
                      >
                      > There has not been an adequate test to pove otherwise.

                      AFAIK, no life was detected in lunar or Martian samples which should
                      have yielded viruses or other organisms if they can endure
                      interplanetary or interstellar conditions, or are ubiquitous
                      throughout space. Btw, the main sequence lifespan of an A0 star is
                      only about 400 million years, far to brief for life on an orbiting
                      planet to evolve to the point of intelligence.
                      >
                      >
                      > -Roger
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                      > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:22 PM
                      > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                      >
                      >
                      > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                      <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                      > > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
                      > > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                      wrote:
                      > > > > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk"
                      <msdonovan66@h...>
                      > > > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO
                      crashes,
                      > > and
                      > > > > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is
                      not
                      > > > > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double
                      star.
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot
                      and
                      > > > > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old
                      > > enough
                      > > > > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even
                      younger
                      > > > > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > The problem here is assumptions.
                      > > >
                      > > > For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that our
                      sun.
                      > >
                      > > Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0
                      star
                      > > would be much shorter-I'm sure it is shorter than the 4.6 billion
                      > > years sol was been around.
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what
                      > > constitues "life"
                      > > > and the "conditions for life."
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in
                      our
                      > > daily
                      > > > existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only
                      type.
                      > > >
                      > > > Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it would
                      > > have been
                      > > > impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts
                      into
                      > > forms they
                      > > > were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic
                      vents,
                      > > where it
                      > > > should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.
                      > >
                      > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                      > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                      > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > -Roger
                      > >
                    • Roger Anderton
                      Hi Mike I agree. -Roger ... From: Michael Smith To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:27 AM Subject: Re:
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 30, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Mike

                        I agree.

                        -Roger

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Michael Smith" <smitty_265@...>
                        To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:27 AM
                        Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                        >
                        > --- Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > > But there is virtually no evidence for
                        > > indigenous life anywhere
                        > > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments
                        > > here are
                        > > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars
                        > > etc.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.
                        > >
                        > > Probes keep getting sent out and something goes
                        > > wrong.
                        > >
                        > > Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                        > >
                        > > There has not been an adequate test to pove
                        > > otherwise.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -Roger
                        > >
                        >
                        > And you have to consider, does something ACTUALLY GO
                        > WRONG with these space probes??
                        > When these same probes DO find something, they cover
                        > it up, and state "The latest probe, named xxxxxx, has
                        > failed due to a xxxxxx problem / we have lost
                        > xxxxxx"!!!
                        > Thats how it works in this day and age, thats for
                        > sure!
                        >
                        > Mike
                        >
                        >


                        >
                      • Roger Anderton
                        uwrk On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus, where the temperature is broiling hot. Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 30, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus, where
                          the temperature is broiling hot.

                          Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?
                          ---------------
                          uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                          seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of organic
                          material.

                          And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible life, suggesting
                          that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A check proved
                          to be a cock-up.

                          Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.

                          uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!

                          But still a possibility.

                          uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                          space?

                          Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                          ------------------
                          The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life around other
                          stars.

                          You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you like;
                          ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".

                          By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and deduce a
                          faulty consequence.

                          The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the past to deduce
                          faulty dogmas.
                          e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying that man
                          would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they based this
                          reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to perform the
                          task, hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the situation
                          would be the same.

                          Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove there is no
                          evidence.

                          In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting witnesses
                          to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was impossible, and
                          so were persuading people to ignore the event.

                          The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to assure people to
                          ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
                          The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts----- whenever an
                          Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!

                          Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past. Flawed!

                          Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast he would
                          die. Flawed!!

                          Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales. Flawed!!!

                          The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!

                          Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore that they
                          were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in outer space
                          has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the future by
                          other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never learn, that
                          sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a conclusion
                          on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T KNOW.'

                          If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of affairs
                          then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.

                          -Roger

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@...>
                          To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:17 AM
                          Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                          > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                          > > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                          > > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.
                          >
                          > On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus, where
                          > the temperature is broiling hot.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Probes keep getting sent out and something goes wrong.
                          >
                          > Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                          > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of organic
                          > material.
                          > >
                          > > Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                          >
                          > Not a generally accepted view! How can life of any kind arise in
                          > space?
                          > >
                          > > There has not been an adequate test to pove otherwise.
                          >
                          > AFAIK, no life was detected in lunar or Martian samples which should
                          > have yielded viruses or other organisms if they can endure
                          > interplanetary or interstellar conditions, or are ubiquitous
                          > throughout space. Btw, the main sequence lifespan of an A0 star is
                          > only about 400 million years, far to brief for life on an orbiting
                          > planet to evolve to the point of intelligence.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > -Roger
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                          > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:22 PM
                          > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                          > <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                          > > > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
                          > > > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > > > > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk"
                          > <msdonovan66@h...>
                          > > > > > > wrote:
                          > > > > > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO
                          > crashes,
                          > > > and
                          > > > > > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the latter is
                          > not
                          > > > > > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double
                          > star.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too hot
                          > and
                          > > > > > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one old
                          > > > enough
                          > > > > > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even
                          > younger
                          > > > > > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The problem here is assumptions.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that our
                          > sun.
                          > > >
                          > > > Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0
                          > star
                          > > > would be much shorter-I'm sure it is shorter than the 4.6 billion
                          > > > years sol was been around.
                          > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what
                          > > > constitues "life"
                          > > > > and the "conditions for life."
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in
                          > our
                          > > > daily
                          > > > > existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only
                          > type.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it would
                          > > > have been
                          > > > > impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts
                          > into
                          > > > forms they
                          > > > > were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic
                          > vents,
                          > > > where it
                          > > > > should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.
                          > > >
                          > > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life anywhere
                          > > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                          > > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > -Roger
                          > > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
                          > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.
                          >
                          > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                          > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                          > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
                          > Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@...
                          >
                          > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list
                          require
                          > further investigation.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                        • uwrk
                          ... where ... Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially habitable. ... This
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 1, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                            wrote:
                            > uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus,
                            where
                            > the temperature is broiling hot.
                            >
                            > Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?

                            Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic
                            substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially
                            habitable.



                            > ---------------
                            > uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                            > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of organic
                            > material.
                            >
                            > And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible life,


                            This appears to have been discounted or disproved.


                            suggesting
                            > that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A
                            check proved
                            > to be a cock-up.
                            >
                            > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                            >
                            > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                            >
                            > But still a possibility.

                            I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme cold,
                            UV and lack of sustanance.
                            >
                            > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                            > space?
                            >
                            > Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.

                            Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.
                            > ------------------
                            > The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life
                            around other
                            > stars.


                            True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems but it
                            is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in our
                            solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                            >
                            > You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you
                            like;
                            > ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".

                            My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                            >
                            > By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and
                            deduce a
                            > faulty consequence.
                            nope.
                            >
                            > The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the past
                            to deduce
                            > faulty dogmas.
                            > e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
                            that man
                            > would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they based
                            this
                            > reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                            perform the
                            > task,

                            birds fly despite being heavier than air.


                            hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the situation
                            > would be the same.
                            >
                            > Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove
                            there is no
                            > evidence.
                            >
                            > In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting
                            witnesses
                            > to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was
                            impossible, and
                            > so were persuading people to ignore the event.
                            >
                            > The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to assure
                            people to
                            > ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
                            > The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts-----
                            whenever an
                            > Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!
                            >
                            > Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past.
                            Flawed!
                            >
                            > Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast he
                            would
                            > die. Flawed!!
                            >
                            > Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales. Flawed!!!
                            >
                            > The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!
                            >
                            > Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore that
                            they
                            > were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in
                            outer space
                            > has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the
                            future by
                            > other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never learn,
                            that
                            > sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a
                            conclusion
                            > on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T KNOW.'
                            >
                            > If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of
                            affairs
                            > then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.
                            >
                            > -Roger
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                            > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:17 AM
                            > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                            >
                            >
                            > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                            <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life
                            anywhere
                            > > > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                            > > > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Absence of Evidence is not proof of absence.
                            > >
                            > > On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus,
                            where
                            > > the temperature is broiling hot.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Probes keep getting sent out and something goes wrong.
                            > >
                            > > Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                            > > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of
                            organic
                            > > material.
                            > > >
                            > > > Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                            > >
                            > > Not a generally accepted view! How can life of any kind arise in
                            > > space?
                            > > >
                            > > > There has not been an adequate test to pove otherwise.
                            > >
                            > > AFAIK, no life was detected in lunar or Martian samples which
                            should
                            > > have yielded viruses or other organisms if they can endure
                            > > interplanetary or interstellar conditions, or are ubiquitous
                            > > throughout space. Btw, the main sequence lifespan of an A0 star is
                            > > only about 400 million years, far to brief for life on an orbiting
                            > > planet to evolve to the point of intelligence.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > -Roger
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                            > > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:22 PM
                            > > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                            > > <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                            > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > > > > > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                            > > > > > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:02 PM
                            > > > > > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > > > > > --- In UFO-Disclosure@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk"
                            > > <msdonovan66@h...>
                            > > > > > > > wrote:
                            > > > > > > > I'm very skeptical about these alleged Russian UFO
                            > > crashes,
                            > > > > and
                            > > > > > > > other stories e.g. aliens from Sirius. AFAIK, the
                            latter is
                            > > not
                            > > > > > > > considered potentially a habitable system-it is a double
                            > > star.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > > The spectral class of Sirius is A0, which makes it too
                            hot
                            > > and
                            > > > > > > short lived to harbor a habitable planet, or at least one
                            old
                            > > > > enough
                            > > > > > > for a more advanced civilization. Sirus is presumably even
                            > > younger
                            > > > > > > than our sun. These stories have no credibility.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > The problem here is assumptions.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > For a start - you assume that Sirius is even younger that
                            our
                            > > sun.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Not a bad assumption considering that the lifespan of an A0
                            > > star
                            > > > > would be much shorter-I'm sure it is shorter than the 4.6
                            billion
                            > > > > years sol was been around.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > A main hidden assumption is that you think you know what
                            > > > > constitues "life"
                            > > > > > and the "conditions for life."
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > We are used to life-forms that we encounter all around us in
                            > > our
                            > > > > daily
                            > > > > > existence, and it is a big assumption that this is the only
                            > > type.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Scientists have found Life in places that they thought it
                            would
                            > > > > have been
                            > > > > > impossible on this planet. They have found that life adapts
                            > > into
                            > > > > forms they
                            > > > > > were not familiar with. e.g. deep in the sea by volcanic
                            > > vents,
                            > > > > where it
                            > > > > > should be poisonous for life, there has been found life.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > But there is virtually no evidence for indigenous life
                            anywhere
                            > > > > else in our solar system. Even harsh environments here are
                            > > > > hospitable compared to conditions on Venus or Mars etc.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > -Roger
                            > > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
                            > > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.
                            > >
                            > > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                            > > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                            > > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
                            > > Messages to the list-owner: ufonet-admin@d...
                            > >
                            > > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this
                            list
                            > require
                            > > further investigation.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > >
                            > >
                          • Roger Anderton
                            Roger And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible life, uwrk This appears to have been discounted or disproved. Not by everyone. ... Roger
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 1, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible life,
                              uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.

                              Not by everyone.

                              ----------
                              > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                              > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                              Roger> But still a possibility.
                              uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme cold,
                              UV and lack of sustanance.
                              Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
                              ------------
                              > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                              > space?
                              Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                              uwrk>Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.

                              If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is your
                              point?
                              ----------
                              uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                              Yes
                              uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in
                              our
                              solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.

                              Case not proved.
                              ------------
                              uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.

                              Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from insufficient
                              information.
                              --------
                              Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
                              >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they
                              based
                              >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                              >perform the task,

                              uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.

                              The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have overlooked
                              that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they would
                              consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty premisses
                              that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that type of
                              people always use that methodology.

                              -Roger
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@...>
                              To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:53 AM
                              Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                              > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                              > wrote:
                              > > uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g. Venus,
                              > where
                              > > the temperature is broiling hot.
                              > >
                              > > Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?
                              >
                              > Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic
                              > substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially
                              > habitable.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > > ---------------
                              > > uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                              > > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of organic
                              > > material.
                              > >
                              > > And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible life,
                              >
                              >
                              > This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                              >
                              >
                              > suggesting
                              > > that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A
                              > check proved
                              > > to be a cock-up.
                              > >
                              > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                              > >
                              > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                              > >
                              > > But still a possibility.
                              >
                              > I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme cold,
                              > UV and lack of sustanance.
                              > >
                              > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                              > > space?
                              > >
                              > > Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                              >
                              > Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.
                              > > ------------------
                              > > The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life
                              > around other
                              > > stars.
                              >
                              >
                              > True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems but it
                              > is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in our
                              > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                              > >
                              > > You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you
                              > like;
                              > > ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".
                              >
                              > My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                              > >
                              > > By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and
                              > deduce a
                              > > faulty consequence.
                              > nope.
                              > >
                              > > The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the past
                              > to deduce
                              > > faulty dogmas.
                              > > e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
                              > that man
                              > > would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they based
                              > this
                              > > reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                              > perform the
                              > > task,
                              >
                              > birds fly despite being heavier than air.
                              >
                              >
                              > hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the situation
                              > > would be the same.
                              > >
                              > > Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove
                              > there is no
                              > > evidence.
                              > >
                              > > In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting
                              > witnesses
                              > > to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was
                              > impossible, and
                              > > so were persuading people to ignore the event.
                              > >
                              > > The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to assure
                              > people to
                              > > ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
                              > > The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts-----
                              > whenever an
                              > > Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!
                              > >
                              > > Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past.
                              > Flawed!
                              > >
                              > > Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast he
                              > would
                              > > die. Flawed!!
                              > >
                              > > Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales. Flawed!!!
                              > >
                              > > The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!
                              > >
                              > > Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore that
                              > they
                              > > were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in
                              > outer space
                              > > has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the
                              > future by
                              > > other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never learn,
                              > that
                              > > sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a
                              > conclusion
                              > > on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T KNOW.'
                              > >
                              > > If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of
                              > affairs
                              > > then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.
                              > >
                              > > -Roger
                            • uwrk
                              ... life, ... Still, it can t be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc. ... cold, ... The vast bulk
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 2, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                wrote:
                                > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                life,
                                > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                >
                                > Not by everyone.

                                Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                >
                                > ----------
                                > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                > Roger> But still a possibility.
                                > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                cold,
                                > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.

                                The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
                                and his notion isn't considered credible.
                                > ------------
                                > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                                > > space?
                                > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                                > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
                                >
                                > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is
                                your
                                > point?
                                Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
                                > ----------
                                > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                                > Yes
                                > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
                                planets in
                                > our
                                > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                >
                                > Case not proved.

                                A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
                                a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
                                on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
                                > ------------
                                > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                >
                                > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
                                insufficient
                                > information.

                                Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
                                assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.


                                > --------
                                > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
                                > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines,
                                they
                                > based
                                > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                                > >perform the task,
                                >
                                > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
                                >
                                > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
                                overlooked
                                > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they
                                would
                                > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
                                premisses
                                > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
                                type of
                                > people always use that methodology.
                                >
                                > -Roger
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
                                > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:53 AM
                                > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                                >
                                >
                                > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                                <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                > > wrote:
                                > > > uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g.
                                Venus,
                                > > where
                                > > > the temperature is broiling hot.
                                > > >
                                > > > Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?
                                > >
                                > > Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic
                                > > substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially
                                > > habitable.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > ---------------
                                > > > uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
                                > > > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of
                                organic
                                > > > material.
                                > > >
                                > > > And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                life,
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > suggesting
                                > > > that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A
                                > > check proved
                                > > > to be a cock-up.
                                > > >
                                > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                > > >
                                > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                > > >
                                > > > But still a possibility.
                                > >
                                > > I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                cold,
                                > > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                > > >
                                > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                                > > > space?
                                > > >
                                > > > Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                                > >
                                > > Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.
                                > > > ------------------
                                > > > The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life
                                > > around other
                                > > > stars.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems but
                                it
                                > > is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in
                                our
                                > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                > > >
                                > > > You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you
                                > > like;
                                > > > ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".
                                > >
                                > > My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                > > >
                                > > > By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and
                                > > deduce a
                                > > > faulty consequence.
                                > > nope.
                                > > >
                                > > > The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the
                                past
                                > > to deduce
                                > > > faulty dogmas.
                                > > > e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were
                                saying
                                > > that man
                                > > > would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they
                                based
                                > > this
                                > > > reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                                > > perform the
                                > > > task,
                                > >
                                > > birds fly despite being heavier than air.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the
                                situation
                                > > > would be the same.
                                > > >
                                > > > Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove
                                > > there is no
                                > > > evidence.
                                > > >
                                > > > In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting
                                > > witnesses
                                > > > to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was
                                > > impossible, and
                                > > > so were persuading people to ignore the event.
                                > > >
                                > > > The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to
                                assure
                                > > people to
                                > > > ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
                                > > > The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts-----
                                > > whenever an
                                > > > Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!
                                > > >
                                > > > Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past.
                                > > Flawed!
                                > > >
                                > > > Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast
                                he
                                > > would
                                > > > die. Flawed!!
                                > > >
                                > > > Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales.
                                Flawed!!!
                                > > >
                                > > > The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!
                                > > >
                                > > > Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore
                                that
                                > > they
                                > > > were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in
                                > > outer space
                                > > > has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the
                                > > future by
                                > > > other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never
                                learn,
                                > > that
                                > > > sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a
                                > > conclusion
                                > > > on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T
                                KNOW.'
                                > > >
                                > > > If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of
                                > > affairs
                                > > > then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.
                                > > >
                                > > > -Roger
                              • Roger Anderton
                                ... life, ... Roger Not by everyone. uwrk Still, it can t be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing evidence, given the possibility of contamination
                                Message 15 of 17 , May 2, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                  life,
                                  > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                  Roger> Not by everyone.
                                  uwrk> Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                  evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                  Never said it was. I was pointing out that you had no evidence.
                                  ----------------------
                                  > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                  > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                  > Roger> But still a possibility.
                                  > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                  cold,
                                  > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                  Roger> Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
                                  uwrk>The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
                                  and his notion isn't considered credible.
                                  Being old, does not make it wrong. And I doubt that this supposed bulk
                                  proved it wasn't credible, they merely liked to believe without evidence.
                                  ------------

                                  > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                                  > Yes
                                  > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
                                  planets in
                                  > our
                                  > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                  >
                                  Roger> Case not proved.
                                  uwrk>A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
                                  a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
                                  on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.

                                  Mere guesswork.
                                  ---------
                                  > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                  Roger> Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
                                  insufficient
                                  > information.
                                  uwrk>Insufficient?
                                  yes

                                  uwrk> There is enough information about some worlds to
                                  assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.

                                  Not enough for Mars, for example.
                                  And you use again that magic word 'assume' to show you are only guessing.
                                  Assume/ believe/ 'think you proved something'/ 'do whatever you like'.
                                  What do I care about whatever you feel happy believing.
                                  I have no more to say, please now shut up, you have had your say.

                                  Bye, Roger.
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "uwrk" <uwrk@...>
                                  To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:43 AM
                                  Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                                  > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                  > life,
                                  > > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                  > >
                                  > > Not by everyone.
                                  >
                                  > Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                  > evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                  > >
                                  > > ----------
                                  > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                  > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                  > > Roger> But still a possibility.
                                  > > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                  > cold,
                                  > > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                  > > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
                                  >
                                  > The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
                                  > and his notion isn't considered credible.
                                  > > ------------
                                  > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                                  > > > space?
                                  > > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
                                  > > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
                                  > >
                                  > > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is
                                  > your
                                  > > point?
                                  > Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
                                  > > ----------
                                  > > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                                  > > Yes
                                  > > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
                                  > planets in
                                  > > our
                                  > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                  > >
                                  > > Case not proved.
                                  >
                                  > A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
                                  > a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
                                  > on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
                                  > > ------------
                                  > > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                  > >
                                  > > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
                                  > insufficient
                                  > > information.
                                  >
                                  > Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
                                  > assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > --------
                                  > > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
                                  > > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines,
                                  > they
                                  > > based
                                  > > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
                                  > > >perform the task,
                                  > >
                                  > > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
                                  > >
                                  > > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
                                  > overlooked
                                  > > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they
                                  > would
                                  > > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
                                  > premisses
                                  > > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
                                  > type of
                                  >
                                • uwrk
                                  ... The burden of proof is on those who say it is real Martian life. Of course there is evidence it is not e.g. evidence of contamination by Earthly
                                  Message 16 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                    > life,
                                    > > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                    > Roger> Not by everyone.
                                    > uwrk> Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                    > evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                    > Never said it was. I was pointing out that you had no evidence.

                                    The burden of proof is on those who say it is real Martian life. Of
                                    course there is evidence it is not e.g. evidence of contamination by
                                    Earthly microoganisms cited by one researcher.
                                    > ----------------------
                                    > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                    > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                    > > Roger> But still a possibility.
                                    > > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                    > cold,
                                    > > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                    > Roger> Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
                                    > uwrk>The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years
                                    ago,
                                    > and his notion isn't considered credible.
                                    > Being old, does not make it wrong.

                                    The notion apears to have been supersceded in recent scientific
                                    discussions. For the abve reasons it apparently is considered wrong.

                                    And I doubt that this supposed bulk
                                    > proved it wasn't credible, they merely liked to believe without
                                    evidence.

                                    Again the burden of proof was on believers like Hoyle.
                                    > ------------
                                    >
                                    > > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                                    > > Yes
                                    > > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
                                    > planets in
                                    > > our
                                    > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                    > >
                                    > Roger> Case not proved.
                                    > uwrk>A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million
                                    years-
                                    > a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
                                    > on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
                                    >
                                    > Mere guesswork.

                                    No, based on what empirical data is available.
                                    > ---------
                                    > > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                    > Roger> Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions
                                    from
                                    > insufficient
                                    > > information.
                                    > uwrk>Insufficient?
                                    > yes
                                    >
                                    > uwrk> There is enough information about some worlds to
                                    > assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.
                                    >
                                    > Not enough for Mars, for example.

                                    It may not be totally sterile but it is certainly not the abode of
                                    advanced indigenous life-far too inhospitable.

                                    > And you use again that magic word 'assume' to show you are only
                                    guessing.

                                    No, some assumptions are very well grounde in emprical data.
                                    > Assume/ believe/ 'think you proved something'/ 'do whatever you
                                    like'.
                                    > What do I care about whatever you feel happy believing.
                                    > I have no more to say,

                                    good!
                                    you have had your say.
                                    >
                                    > Bye, Roger.
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: "uwrk" <uwrk@y...>
                                    > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 11:43 AM
                                    > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
                                    <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                    > > wrote:
                                    > > > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating
                                    possible
                                    > > life,
                                    > > > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Not by everyone.
                                    > >
                                    > > Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                    > > evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > ----------
                                    > > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
                                    > > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
                                    > > > Roger> But still a possibility.
                                    > > > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
                                    > > cold,
                                    > > > UV and lack of sustanance.
                                    > > > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.
                                    > >
                                    > > The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years
                                    ago,
                                    > > and his notion isn't considered credible.
                                    > > > ------------
                                    > > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
                                    > > > > space?
                                    > > > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are
                                    interested.
                                    > > > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what.
                                    What is
                                    > > your
                                    > > > point?
                                    > > Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
                                    > > > ----------
                                    > > > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
                                    > > > Yes
                                    > > > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on
                                    other
                                    > > planets in
                                    > > > our
                                    > > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Case not proved.
                                    > >
                                    > > A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million
                                    years-
                                    > > a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence,
                                    based
                                    > > on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
                                    > > > ------------
                                    > > > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
                                    > > insufficient
                                    > > > information.
                                    > >
                                    > > Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
                                    > > assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > > --------
                                    > > > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were
                                    saying
                                    > > > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air
                                    machines,
                                    > > they
                                    > > > based
                                    > > > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been
                                    able to
                                    > > > >perform the task,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
                                    > > overlooked
                                    > > > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts
                                    they
                                    > > would
                                    > > > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
                                    > > premisses
                                    > > > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
                                    > > type of
                                    > >
                                  • Roger Anderton
                                    You bring up a new point: uwrk Again the burden of proof was on believers like Hoyle. What nonsense you speak. Where is It written ? The Burden of Proof
                                    Message 17 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      You bring up a new point:


                                      uwrk> Again the burden of proof was on believers like Hoyle.


                                      What nonsense you speak. Where is "It" written ?

                                      The Burden of Proof is on you, I do not have to prove anything.


                                      You appear to Believe that some things are alive and other things are not
                                      alive, prove it.

                                      My Position is "DON 'T KNOW" - as I have told you, and you appear to ignore
                                      at your convenience what I am saying, and instead waffle off at a tangent.
                                      It is YOU that BELIEVE something.

                                      Rather than face your BURDEN, you waffle on about the opposite to what you
                                      believe in.


                                      The Burden of Proof is on you, I do not have to prove anything.

                                      -Roger



                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: "uwrk" <uwrk@...>
                                      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 12:02 PM
                                      Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]


                                      > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
                                      > > life,
                                      > > > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
                                      > > Roger> Not by everyone.
                                      > > uwrk> Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
                                      > > evidence, given the possibility of contamination etc.
                                      > > Never said it was. I was pointing out that you had no evidence.
                                      >
                                      > The burden of proof is on those who say it is real Martian life. Of
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.