HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hal@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Hal Wadleigh)
Subject: Re: alt.alien.visitors.sewage.garbage.bullshit.crackpots.fantasy
Summary: maybe a mailing list
Reply-To: hal@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Hal Wadleigh)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:06:01 GMT

I would also like to see both the "humor" and the dizzy nonsense filtered out.
I don't think a new group will do that.  The dizzies think they are being
serious (and would not exclude themselves) and the "humor" posters always
think they're being witty in a way that will appeal to thousands.

Maybe a mailing list or a moderated group would work, but it would require a
great deal of effort on the part of some individual to keep it up.

I'm a temp consultant and I lose my net account at the end of the month, so I
can't volunteer even if I wanted to.

Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:05:04 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.030142.16987@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>, joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us 
(Joshua Geller) writes:

>>the alignments themselves? well, if these structures are natural, then they 
>>are of no significance. but if these structures are artificial,  then they
>>are probably very significant. 

>Care to enlighten us at to the nature of this "probable significance"?

assuming that these structures are artificial and thta they are aligned 
astronomically, then this could imply a lot about the cultural and scientific
context of the architects of these structures. it would also allow as to
speculation as to when mars was last inhabited (assuming that the alignments
coincide with the last time mars had a brathable atmosphere and free water).

I feel further speculation at this point would be premature.

does anyone know hoagland's compu$erve address?

josh
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Landslide for Kibo!  Spokesman for Earth Vote Final Results
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:51:18 GMT

[alt.alien.visitors]
In article <1992Oct06.221413.145112@zeus.calpoly.edu> swoodwar@zeus.calpoly.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
>mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) had the unmitigated audacity to say:
>>	kibo@world.std.com (me) writes:
>>	...I could just go to a mountain and stand there and shout,
>>	'Hey you guys!  I'm spokesman for this planet!  You can
>>	probably see it from where you are, if you can hear me!
>>	Hello?  Is anyone there?'
>>
>>... I think this is by far the best plan.  I recommend you do this,
>>without delay, and wait there as long as is necessary.   I shall sleep
>>the sleep of the saved, knowing that the great kibo is far away,
>>indeed as far away as possible, on a mountain shouting at the stars.
>>
>Actually I liked the random-phone-number plan better.
>
>Let's take a vote.

I vote that I just send e-mail to every possible Internet address and
post to every newsgroup.  Tomorrow.

Shouldn't my spokesmanship be represented in the alt.alien.visitors FAQ?

							-- K.
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: TOPS of MOPS -DAY 1
From: Robert_Sutton@kcbbs.gen.nz (Robert Sutton)
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:07:52 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Well if all goes as planned in about 2Hours 15 minutes on UDC Oct 12 
19.00 UTC NASA's SETI search(I call it TOPS of MOPS) should commence 
at Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico & the Goldstone Tracking Facility 
near Barstow California.
I'm not sure if all the info received is retained & how confident those 
involved are that they would not delete/dismiss any important data but 
something that worrys me is..

How exactly & when will data from the Search be made public.Not only 
any verified ETOI generated microwave signal/s but any other data that 
might be usefull to astronomers.for one reason can we be sure that those 
now involved would recognise an artificial created signal frombeyond 
Pioneer 10.Might not someone/s out of the science loop(so to speak)
be with the right way even with data thought of no promise.
With the high data rates coming in what verification procedures are 
their that no data will be lost for good.Of course we dont know what 
may have been missed so far but will it be no excuse if the main chance 
is missed.
  What public release procedures are now in force.Asides from the conspirists 
  theirs plenty of room for the skeptics to point the bone & ask are 
  the procedures near enough to foolproof.In the coming days/weeks/months/ 
  years or however long it is I wonder if the opposite of the purpose 
  will be in force as so far seems to be the case(is it any wonder the 
  conspirists shout coverup).Well time will tell-unless it wont 
     but I wont hold my breath.After all no matter how much intelligence 
     their may be beyond the Earth in the last words of the Meaning 
     of Life...............well we all know don't we?.

well I'm off to listen to Douglas Adams on the BBCWS on the 5th book 
of The Guide.(Hope it's more than coincidence)

******************************
ARE ETOI SPACESHIPS SHY   
OR JUST WAITING TO SEAL
THE ROYALTY DEAL?
*******************************************************

Xref: sparky alt.alien.visitors:7376 sci.skeptic:17848
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:03:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Oct12.182224.23841@rosevax.rosemount.com>
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:

>As I heard a historian on PBS last night say "Only a few of the most
>wildly superstitious people of Columbus' time beleived the Earth was
>flat."  Most of the educated people even new the correct diameter.
>Only Columbus and a few others wildly underestimated the diameter of
>the Earth.  Columbus first approached the King of Protugal with his
>proposal to sail west to the Indies.  He refered to the matter to his
>council of scientific advisors.  They knew how large the earth was,
>and how big Asia was, and they told the King (correctly) that
>Columbus was way off base, it would be easier to sail to the Indies
>by going around Africa to the south.  And that's what they did.

And as a result of a wrong assumption, Columbus ventured out and found
something the others never would have found.  Some great discoveries
have been made this way.

Mark
-- 
   Everyone spoke of an information overload, but what there was in
fact was a non-information overload.
   -- Richard Saul Wurman
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:17:17 -0400 
From: Andrew Todd Weinstein <aw2s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Use of 2-mile gun


>wastes like from garbage dumps out into space, since the gun would be a
>farily cheeper method of doing this than if chemical propellant
>spacecrafts were to be used.  And you don't need as many resources as
>spaceships, since you can probably power the gun with nuclear power
>which is not a problem?

>>Great! And then we have garbage in space orbitting the Earth.  Yum.  Not only
>>that but it makes it fun for all future satellites and manned missions trying
>>to zigzag through the stink free zone.
>>Colleen

Well, I am sure this 2-mile gun can shoot the earth junk out of earth
orbit, so I don't understand what the problem is.  There is PLENTY of
room in space so that the junk won't get in anyone's way! Plus you can
put some kind of contamination shielding around the junk if it is toxic.



Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: cjr6495@tamsun.tamu.edu (C J Rogers (Chris))
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Keywords: mars observer, citys or rocks, confirmation one way or the other, side bets
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:09:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.213032.24367@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.205618.23681@odin.corp.sgi.com>, rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes in part:

>> [...]

>
>I'm typing as s-l-o-w-l-y as I can.  You are still not getting it.  Try
>to pay attention this time:
>   "out & out denial" is NOT "the mindset of the skeptic".  The mindset 
>   of the skeptic is "That's an astonishing claim, what is the evidence 
>   for it?"

WRONG!!  That is a cynic.  The midset of a skeptic is:
      "I am going to scoff at the very idea of this new notion
       until someone comes along with enough evidence to make me
       look like a blabbering fool!"


>|> FIRST POINT>I wonder how many bets were taken that Chris (CRAZYMAN)
>|> Colombus would sail off the end of the Earth? 

>Irrelevant.  Only a few non-skeptics believed the world was flat.  

Not quite.  It may not be an accurate metaphor, but it does prove his point.
The point being that people held one belief and were so unwilling to give a
stroke of possibility to the opposition that they place money against it.

That is a lot of the problem that is surrounding the "face."  NO ONE KNOWS for
certain what it is.  Everyone has ideas, but those aren't proof.  I think the
big question is - will you be willing to accept the truth when it is 
discovered?

>On the other hand, I'd probably have bet against him finding an unknown 
>continent.  Of course, he probably would have bet that way, too.  I'd
>also have bet him that he wouldn't make it to the indies.  He'd have taken
>that bet, but I wonder who would have paid off?

You would have.  Then when they actually discovered what they found, you 
could crawl out of your grave and take your money back.


Later!
C J Rogers.


"Ignorance is bliss, but intellegence is happiness" -- Yangthei
Xref: sparky alt.alien.visitors:7235 sci.skeptic:17607
From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Keywords: mars observer, citys or rocks, confirmation one way or the other, side bets
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:08:08 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Robert,[you write]

>I'm typing as s-l-o-w-l-y as I can.  You are still not getting it.  Try
>to pay attention this time:
>"out & out denial" is NOT "the mindset of the skeptic".  The mindset 
>of the skeptic is "That's an astonishing claim, what is the evidence 
>for it?"


The evidence sir is the photographs that were returned by the viking probe.
There is not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the
structure is, so we must go back & re-photograph, re-analyze, re-evaluate,
etc. Most skeptics say "What for, it's just a clump of eroded rock"

That Bobby my boy is what I am talking about. Skeptics will not open their
eyes
enough to allow that they might not know everything beforehand.

Just a wait & see attitude is all that it takes. What a difficult concept
to grasp. 

Human nature is a labrynth that is as boundless & as confounding as the
universe as we know it. Nuff said!!!

Rod







-- 
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
From: cjr6495@tamsun.tamu.edu (C J Rogers (Chris))
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Auras
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:50:30 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


There was a request for more info on what I see in auras...

Q:  Can you see colours?

A:  Not in the sense that we visualy see them.  When you think about something
    and you "see" it in your mind, you are not really seeing the image.  It is
    just there.  To put it into computer terms, I am looking at the equivalent
    of source code in a gif, not the actual picture.

Q:  Can you get readings on their moods/feelings?

A:  Yes and no.  I can "see" their tension and such and the different emotional
    responses they feel by looking at the way the aura is behaving.  I also can
    do a similar thing just by reading body language.  There is nothing 
    mystical about it.

Q:  Can you tell if they have lost money or whatever?

A:  That is a form of telepathy.  I am not a skilled telepath.  I do not have a
    reliable talent as far as that goes.  I can only tell that they are tense 
    about something and from their conversation, I can pick things out to 
    figure out what.

Q:  Is this "sight" restricted to humans?

A:  No.  All things create an aura of some kind.  I tend to think that it is
    mearly a residual energy that is being released at a wavelength near that
    of visual light.  Animals are much more difficult for me to read because I
    lack in the understanding of animal nature and really can not figure out
    effectivly what their aura means.  

I do not claim that auras are some mystical power.  They can, I am sure, be 
logically and scientifically explained.  That, however, is not my field.  I
use auras as another sense.  Then with the info that I get with them, I can 
analyze what my other senses are perceiving and come to a conclusion about the
person/thing I am looking at.  

Hope that clears up some things and perhaps starts some interesting questions.
I welcome any responses through e-mail or posting.  If you wish to flame, do so
quitely and back up your statements as I have *tried* to back up mine.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:43:44 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1548@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>And as a result of a wrong assumption, Columbus ventured out and found
>something the others never would have found.  Some great discoveries
>have been made this way.

And huge amounts of resources have been wasted by people who've taken your
attitude.

By the way, don't you think it's likely that eventually someone would've
gotten around to wondering why storms hitting the old world from the west
didn't bring larger waves?  Or listening to Scandinavian stories of large lands
to the west?  Or just wondering whether it was really likely that such a vast
expanse of ocean (Atlantic+Pacific+America) would have no useful lands?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Comments on Berkeley Symposium
Date: 11 Oct 92 07:32:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Just got back from the Berkeley Conference; The Meaning and the Message.
I will make a few comments, and ask others to do the same, to get 
a few more data points.

I found the conference worthwhile, but dry. I had high expectations, having
heard Dr. Harder speak in LV last year, so I guess I just set myself up
for some of this.

Hopes that Harder, Sprinkle, and the other members of the Town Meeting
(the first part of the presentation) would speak at length on their
latest research and findings were dashed by an almost universal Q&A
format for the entire day. I found this a very disjointed way for
these people to express themselves.

I had especially hoped Dr. Harder would speak on a very controversial 
subject: the Intergalactic Federation, of which I am aware that he knows
a great deal. He seems reticent to do so, making remarks that "a lot of
people wonder where I come up with this information" and things like that.

I understand that his sources could be questionable, but I don't care. I
wanted to know where HE was at with it. He is the one that has hours
every day devoted himself to these studies, and I have reason to believed
that his opinion, however far-out, is at least, well informed and researched.
It's a data-point, to be factored in with the rest of it all that can
be gleaned from other sources.

So the fact that he did not speak at length really bothered me and I was
disappointed, in fact, I didn't stay for the Q&A at the end, I felt like
I had listened to Q&A for hours already. It just felt fluffy to me. 
I wanted more distilled information on the basis of his years of
research.

Don't get me wrong, the many contactees presented were interesting to 
listen to. The viewpoint that Hopkins and "Secret Life" are skewed in
the negative as far as motives and trauma inflicted by greys may be
very valid and was the main crux of the presentation. They wished to
present ET visitation as a positive experience. In fact, the database
of one of the psychologists presenting indicates that only those with
traumatic childhood experiences relating to terrestrial events (family, etc.)
seemed to report ET contact as negative or extremely traumatic. So this
is a very important idea to keep in mind.

The message of the ET's that were related over and over by the contactees
were more or less:

You are treating your children as 3rd class citizens and could do much better
with them, they are your future, and your salvation.

Stop your gross arrogant ways regarding your planet, and your place on it. 
Overpopulation, pollution, etc, etc.

Rough times may be ahead, but it will lead to a better period long-term.


Others that attended, please post your views. I'm interested to see if
I'm way out of line here, or if there is a consensus.

Jeff-
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:01:42 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>=the 'face' by itself, to me, wouldn't be all that exciting. the geometric
>=relationships between the 'face', 'city', 'D&M pyramid', 'fortress', 'straight
>=wall' etc are what, to me, raises the possibility that these might be 
>=artificial constructions.

>Second, you both seem to be forgetting about the laser altimeter.

huh? what does this have to do with anything?

>=one of the more interesting points in hoagland's book is his statement that
>=half a million years ago the (solstitial? either that or equinoctial) sun
>=rose over the 'wall' and 'face' as seen from the center of the 'city'. has
>=anyone else bothered to work this out?

>What if it's true.  For *ANY* arragement anywhere close to what we see, you'd
>get the same result.  The only difference would be the length of time you'd
>have to go back before you found your "remarkable coincidence."  Or does
>Hoagland claim to have somehow dated the alleged face?

not at all. what hoagland is saying (and what I am saying for that matter) is
that these are very interesting pictures, and they are worth a closer look.

*I* am also betting on a long shot, risking a small amount of money against
a large one.

the alignments themselves? well, if these structures are natural, then they 
are of no significance. but if these structures are artificial,  then they
are probably very significant. 

skepticism consists of neither belief nor disbelief in the absence of con-
clusive proof.

josh
Xref: sparky alt.alien.visitors:7274 sci.skeptic:17688
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:12:45 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct7.220808.6718@odin.corp.sgi.com>, rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:
>The evidence sir is the photographs that were returned by the viking probe.
>There is not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the
>structure is, so we must go back & re-photograph, re-analyze, re-evaluate,
>etc. Most skeptics say "What for, it's just a clump of eroded rock"

There never WILL be evidence enough to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" what
the structure is unless we actually land there and check it out up close. 
After the MO sends back pictures showing it to be merely a natural formation,
I'm sure there will be true believers out there (probably including Hoagland)
who will claim either:
	1)  It was actually artificial, but weathering over the milennia has
	    worn it down to the point where it now looks natural;
and/or	2)  It's camoflaged.

>That Bobby my boy is what I am talking about.

You're talking about proving a negative.  See the FAQ for a detailed
description of why your bullshit is so unreasonable. There's no way in hell
that it can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" via photographs that the
feature is natural. Of course, it's also impossible to prove "beyond a shadow
of a doubt" that there do not exist nine reindeer on this world that are
capable of flying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:28:40 GMT

Rod Beckwith [writes]

>I wonder how many bets were taken that Chris (CRAZYMAN) Colombus would
sail
>off the end of the Earth? 

>Here is another clever person with a wonderful example human intellect.
This
>is a quote from a 1865 Boston Post editorial:

>"WELL INFORMED PEOPLE KNOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSMIT THE VOICE OVER
>WIRES AND THAT, WERE IT POSSIBLE TO DO SO, THE THING WOULD BE OF NO
>PRACTICAL VALUE."

>Anything is possible......the jury is still out on this one folks.

>Rod

Richard Shumacher [writes]

>You wanna bet?

Rod Beckwith [writes]

>How much are you willing to lose?

Richard Shumacher [writes]

>>$100. How about the same bet I made with Joshua Geller?

>>  If we agree on the basis of Mars Observer data that
  
>>  (1) the 'face' is artificial, I'll pay you $100.
  
>>  (2) the 'face' is natural, you pay me one dollar.
  
>>  If we do not agree on the interpretation of Observer data, 
>>  the bet is off.
  
>>  In any case, the bet expires on 1 January 2001, so that we
>>  don't have to keep track of each other forever.
  
>>  We must both agree on the interpretation of Observer data
>>  to conclude the bet. We will not appeal to any third party.
  
>>  The bet will be in force when you agree to all these
>>  conditions and post your acceptance to sci.skeptic.
  

>>Whattya say? I have $100 worth of confidence in my conclusion.
>>Do you have $1 worth in yours?
>>Richard

Richard,

I accept your offer. I agree with all conditions to this bet. I hope you
don't make this bet with too many people.....It could get quite expensive
for you. 

I truly hope the Mars observer does not meet the same fate as the Russian
probes.All information this probe records will be important for a future
manned mission.

Rod




-- 
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


			

Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors