From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff)
Subject: Re: A ParaNet User Comments on John Lear
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:53:49 GMT

>My skepticism arises because although the article is smoothly
>written (in spite of several spelling and grammatical errors) it
>seems like a collage of tabloid sensationalism woven together with
>a few real names, places, and historical events to give it more
>credibility.  Adding to my disbelief are a few nagging questions
>that come to mind:
>
>     1)  This one has already been mentioned by you, Brad.  How did
>'advanced' beings that have no apparent regard for other intelligent
>life survive their technical ability to destroy themselves?

	I find this argument easily dispelled. In fact, I find this
sort of "logic test" entirely accademic and rarely insightful. It is
mearly an excersice in anthropomorphism (that we look at these things 
and see only ourselves, and  would apply our 
sense of logic to a problem or situation that could easily be far
beyond our abilty to gather data or even comprehend in earthly terms).

	So how come we haven't wiped ourselves off the planet yet?
I feel this issue is irrelevant as far as judging the veracity of these
statements by JL.
 
>      2)  Why haven't they used their superior technological and
>medical expertise to synthesize the required enzymes instead of
>hacking and slashing other intelligent life forms?

Interesting question, but here again, we would proport to understand
the situation enough that we would right off JL's statements because of
something that could easily have diverse and complex reasons that we
could only hope to understand at this point?

>      3)  They 'invented' Jesus Christ?  The intent of Jesus Christ
>was a message of love, universal harmony, and brotherhood.  Obviously
>not the intent of these EBEs (if they exist).

Here again, do we look at everything, only to see our own world view and
emperical reality? "They" could easily be many different races. "they"
could have been Jehova, while Jesus was something or someone else entirely.


>      4)  Their technology can 'record all earth history' but their
>crafts are crashing with no recovery plan of their own.  Why would
>they allow our scientists to examine them and then deny the use
>of 'bargained for technology'?
>      5)  A 'well planned invasion'?  It would be more sensible for
>this type of being to crush us back into the stone age and then
>harvest and take what they want.  To allow us technology at all would
>be a dangerous move.  No tech - no SDI!!

Jesus, this sounds like Vallee to the Max. Such a logician "Mr. Spock"
type of outlook on the world. As if all reasoning in the universe could
easily be understood by an earth computer programer. That's why I just
can't read his stuff for too long. Find a flaw in the logic, based on
an anthropomorphic viewpoint of "what would I do if I were writing a
computer program?" and then continue  to block off areas of inquiry 
based on the summary "it's a hoax" post-its stuck all over the place,
narrowing the field, until you arrive down a path that is the only
remaining avenue left. 

Well, it's simply not a format that encourages keeping an open viewpoint
over the long haul, and can easily lead you down the path to a myopic
conclusion; one that is most likely far off the mark

>      6)  An enormous saucer was buried at a crash site where it
>remains to this day?  Whatever happened to disassembly and
>examination?

Can we really suppose to understand all the issues that could have been
involved in making such a decision, based on the facts presented? It
might not have been as easy as getting out your "ultimate set of tools."


>      7)  Because a stock market correction took place a decision to
>postpone a public announcement about the EBEs was made?  Forgive me,
>but I find this to be senseless.  If the EBEs exist as this document
>describes, an upheaval in the financial markets would certainly follow
>any credible announcement of this type no matter how healthy they were
>prior to the announcement.

I have done a bit of reading about situations in our current government
that lead me to conclude it is a republic for, and by the all mighty 
dollar, so it would not suprise me that most EVERY policy and decision
made by the military ultimatly has an economic reality behide it...

But I agree, it sounds like a copout. It could very well be an official
excuse to appease those that need a reason.

>
>Etc......etc....(yes, I could go on a bit more, but.....)
>Mr. Lear, the next time you want to 'inform' me you don't have to
>start off with intimidating inferences to my possible gullibility
>and load your article with sensational verbiage that any tabloid would
>be proud of.  Stick closer to the facts, than you.  Nuff said...-C.M.
>

Nuff said is right. The way to confirm these statements is not to apply
our paltry logic based on what we read in the NYTimes or see on CBS. 
We have to do independent research to corraborate, or dispell Lear's 
very distressing, but quite possible, conclusions.

Jeff-