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

Re: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 30, 2003
      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 2 of 17 , May 1, 2003
        --- 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 3 of 17 , May 1, 2003
          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 4 of 17 , May 2, 2003
            --- 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 5 of 17 , May 2, 2003
              > 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 6 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                --- 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 7 of 17 , May 3, 2003
                  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.