HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:31:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <schumach.718997367@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>We don't have a very good idea of the distribution of sizes of
>comets. I note that the Skylab solar telescope and the Solar Max
>mission each discovered half a dozen sun-diving comets, none
>of which had been seen otherwise from the Earth. The notion
>of a fifty-meter-wide snowball colliding with the Earth 
>occassionally does not strike me as outlandish.

Yes. It's more like: "If a comet is big, then we see it in our telescopes
as it comes by. But if it's small, we completely fail to notice it, except
in the rare instance when it happens to collide with earth." There could
be all kinds of comets out there that are too small to be likely to be
noticed. And I seem to recall reading that if the Tunguska object WAS a
comet, its path toward us would have been more or less from the direction
of the sun, making it nearly impossible to see even as it drew close.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Help me! Quantum physics are being claimed to create vampires!
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:06:26 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

How can anyone argue with a person who thinks that reality is utterly
subjective? What's the point? The kindest thing to do would be to
shoot them before they become a burden to society.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17744 talk.origins:12835
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:41:29 EST

In article <2AD48F8C.15095@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
>>cartoon. Are strings, torches and batteries, dogs and chickens
>>meant to equal the earth or what??
> 
> If you're trying to figure out the joke, the cartoon's basically
> poking fun at creationism's pseudoscientific nature.  Gary
> Larson's quite a paleontology buff, so it shouldn't be surprising
> that he would caricature creationists in such a demeaning way.

Full explanation is in "The PreHistory of the Far Side', Larson, G., Andrews
and McMeel, 1989, ISBN 0-8362-1861-2.  Page 169 contains a lot of the necessary
information for understanding the joke from a creationist's point of view.

GXKambic
sd

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 04:20:39 GMT

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:


>>One of the interesting things about the Tunguska event is the complete absence
>>of solid meteorite-associated debris.  I remember one theory (I don't remember
>>the source, or how reputable it was) that the object was made of frozen
>>volatiles.

>...sometimes called a "comet". Not exactly a bizarre or crazy idea.

Well, it was the wrong SIZE for a comet.  Cometary impacts are supposed to
be real end-of-a-geological-epoch type disasters; and if the Tunguska object
was PART of a comet, then why wasn't the rest of it spotted?  It would have
been very close to the Earth.  Small volatile objects are kinda rare outside
of Saturn's rings.
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:03:33 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <XR9VRB4w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>
>> All of John Sladek's very fine satires have "skeptical" elements.  Two myster
>> novels, BLACK AURA and SIMPLE GREEN provide unadulterated debunking of para-
>> normal phenomena.  Required reading!
>> 
>        I'd also like to mention that Sladek wrote a dandy debunker's classic 
>titled "The New Apocrypha," which outlines just about every one of the major 
>subjects the skeptics deal with. (Sladek wrote the book in 1973, two years 
>before CSICOP came about, BTW.) The book is a forgotten classic of its kind, 
>and deserves to be brought back into print.
>
>        Sladek then went on to create an astrology hoax book, "The 13th 
>Sign," under the pen name of James Vogh. Sladek says in an interview that he 
>knew "The New Apocrypha" wouldn't do well, so he decided to see what it was 
>like to try believing in a strange claim-- the strangest he could think of 
>was that there was a thirteenth signof the Zodiac, Arachne, the Spider. The 
>book sold better than "Apocrypha" did, of course.
>
>
I agree.  Sladek's _The New Apocrypha_ is excellent.  Larger and covers more
stuff then Gardner's _Fads & Fallacies_.  Wish Prometheus Books would bring
it back in print.  My local public library has it, so I was able to read it
when I was younger and more impressionable.

Hum.  Like to hear more about this _The 13th Sign_.  Did alot of people except
it?


-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:33:23 GMT


On 08 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT, doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) said:

 D> Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
 D> followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
 D> Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
 D> demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
 D> of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
 D> come clean with the American people?"

	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"Bill, I think you should go and play some solitare..."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: UFOs and BOM.. BOOM!
Keywords: ufo
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:31:59 GMT

  I want to thank all those who responded with literature references
to my UFO BOOM posting. I have just begun my research.
The first volume I selected was the 1977 publication by DoubleDay,
"The UFO Enigma", Donald Menzel, Harvard Astronomer.
It is a good book for beginners since its scientific hubris is over
powering. Menzel is critical of all UFO sightings and at times uses
quite good science to ferrit out fraud and misperception.
Perhaps the one element I found disturbing was his implication that
unless one is a scientist at the Ph.D. level, one is probably unable
to distinguish fantasty from reality,a liar until proven otherwise,
in need of publicity or serving some psyhic drive for money,publicity
and so on. He laments that only a few Ph.D. have reported UFO and this
fact alone is taken as prima facie evidence that the whole issue is
suspect.

He too eagerly dismisses individual accounts where there is no physical
evidence as fraud or likely fraud.
For example the Hill alleged abduction is eagerly dismissed as likely
the fantasy of Betty Hill inflencing her husband.

As a hard and critical look at the UFO question it seemed excellent!
It lacked,however,open mindedness probably because of Menzel's staus
as physicist and his unquestioning acceptance that the stars are far
too far away for craft to reach earth.


The next book taken was of the entirely opposite spectrum.
It had little if any physical evidence and begged that the reader
believe. The book, Communion was a bit too psychological for
me to swallow and it would have been helpful if the abductee had
not been a writer. The victims profession prior to his alleged
abduction sheds doubt on his creditability.
He has ofcourse written a popular book to warn the world of the alien 
presence,not to mention doubtlessly make "mucho dinero" from the
movie rights.
On a scale of 1 to 10.. it got a 2 or 3 for credulity.
    
--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:42:19 GMT

In article <n0bb5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Jean-Francois.Beaulieu@f128.n167.z1.fidonet.org writes:
|> In 1908, a meteorite exploded above the siberian toundra and blasted the
|> trees below. The way trees were blasted suggest an explosion 100 meters
|> above the ground. I believe also that their was something strange with
|> the path of the meteor once it came into the atmosphere. I read few
|> years ago few different explanations, even including a UFO!, but I don't
|> know what's the most convincing explanation up to now. Any idea?

My recollection of the facts of the incident center on the "ground zero" effect
of the meteor. Apparently, all of the trees directly under the explosion remained
upright - as they would in a nuclear blast. Another tidbit I recall is that
livestock some distance away were adversely affected for a number of years. The
account I read didn't speculate on what exactly it was that could cause such a
blast, but pointed out that others had attributed it to a UFO or somesuch nonsense.
Maybe it was the Chernobyl incident that caused a fold in space time, and part of
the explosion wound up a few hundred miles away and 80 years earlier. Hmmm, I may
be on to something.

|> 
|> ---
|>  ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Do you believe that drugg may damage the brain? according
|>   to a poll with n.american teenagers: 33% said yes, 28% said no and
|>   39% were unable to understand the question.
|> --- FMail 0.92

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:18012 soc.men:17789 soc.women:17782 alt.feminism:2615
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:09:30 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>[ A description of a horrible travesty of justice]
...
>she made the allegations (about a month earlier).  This person made
>statements to a reporter from 60 Minutes that she was 19 before she knew
>that not all parents have sex with their children and also stated that
>she had been raped by over 200 different men. 

Yes, it sounds like this woman is messed up for sure. If her claims of
incest and rape in her case are true, then that would certainly be a
reason for her sickness. If they aren't it is just more evidence of her
sickness.

>(The woman is fat and ugly.)

And you were doing so well! What the HELL do her weight and looks have to
do with anything? You seem to be saying that since she is "fat and ugly",
she obviously would not be of interest to a rapist. When will people
learn that rape is a crime of CONTROL, not of sex. Sex is the tool
used for control.

This irrelevant little attack makes me doubt the rest of what you say.
Could someone less biased either post or email me THEIR interpretation.
I didn't see the article by Robert Schaeffer that this article quoted,
but I don't consider him a reliable source of interpretation (fact
maybe, but not interpretation).
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: answer
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:07:22 EST

In article <1992Oct11.023854.6339@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <bosullvn.718656190@unix1.tcd.ie> bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan) writes:
>>rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:
[...]
> The other thing I heard was that the scientists also knew besides the
> roundness of the earth approximately how large it was.  Therefore, when
> Columbus undertook his journey, he was unprepared for a trip to Asia.  So,
> you see, he was right about the shape of the world, wrong about it's size,
> and wrong about an intervening continent.  Voila, success!  Sometimes, two
> wrongs do make a right :)

Was it Geronimo, Crazy Horse, or Montezuma who said, "I wish we had had a 
more restrictive immigration policy"?

GXKambic
sd
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 8 Oct 1992 05:32:47 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct6.105047.10775@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
>>for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)
>
>All that would tell you is how benificial to the human health is that set of
>religious beliefs.  It does not tell you anything about the validity of those
>beliefs unless that religious belief defined itself in terms of physical
>health (which is extremely unlikely).
         ???????????????????????????

You've *GOT* to be kidding.  In case you're not, consider the following facts:

o A substantial percentage of televangelists are faith healers, as well.  
o There are several Christian sects which teach that medicine is evil, and that
  illness can better be treated through prayer.  Unfortunately, it's all too
  frequently the small children of members of these sects who end up dying for
  lack of treatment.
o Even outside those sects, there are quite a few others that, while not
  frowning on medicine, still ascribe any cures to their prayers being answered.

>I was only observing that, at least in the cases we were talking about,
>the superstitious beliefs could be scientifically tested but the religious
>beliefs could not.

And only by (deliberately?) ignoring some reasonably prevalent religious
beliefs could you reach such a stupendously stupid conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:18006 alt.alien.visitors:7464 sci.astro:10832
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: [Admin] (was Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:48:49 GMT

PLEASE REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION FROM alt.sources !!!
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: Astrology: Scientific Research
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:08:41 GMT

johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com ("Johnson") writes:

>Once again, the thread has degenerated to arguing about who is wrong, not
>who is right.  It's like listening to the vice-presidential debates.  Does
>anyone out there actually have an argument?  If not, the objective
>observer is forced to conclude that, since neither side can present one,
>all that is known is that there is no real proof or evidence either way,
>and thus that either viewpoint is equally possible--and, further, that the
>question of belief or non-belief is based entirely on an emotional
>predisposition rather than on any rational thought.  Is this the case?

This isn't entirely fair. Its very difficult to prove anything about
Astrology. Since supporters don't give any explanation of why it would
work there is no theory of Astrology to be tested.

The only possible tests are statistical. By gathering data on astrological
readings for a large number of people you can try to measure the
degree of correlation between the readings and the real world. This is
very difficult to do for a number of reasons:
1) There aren't hard-and-fast rules for reading a chart. Different
	asstologers will produce somewhat different results from the
	same chart (not completely different, but not identical either).
2) You have to gather *lots* of data to get a statistically significant
	result. And even then you can only prove things to a certain
	degree of accuracy, there isn't any absolute proof.
3) it always isn't easy to measure the "real world" either. Measuring
	things like personality is not exact , and there is a lot
	of controversy as to the accuracy of personality tests.

I think for most skeptics the main problem is a lack of any explanation
of *how* Astrology works that is the main problem. If there was some
theory of how the stars and planets could affect human personality then
we would have something which could be tested and proved right or wrong.
As things stand now all we have is a possible correlation which, even
if it exists, doesn't prove causation.

Even if the positions of the stars and planets were shown to be correlated
to human behaviour, it would be equaly valid thats its the humans that
are driving the heavens as it is to claim the reverse.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
From: jwfost@rodin.Princeton.EDU (Joshua W. Fost)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:50:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

>In article <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>
>>How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
>>affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
>>"intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
>>souls as well?
>
>No, it is the expression of the soul's effect that is damaged.
>Let me give you an example.  You know that it is the brain which
>is behind the movement of our limbs.  The brain sends a nerual
>message for a muscle to contract and the arm moves up.  Now what
>happens when the nerves which connects the muscle to the arm is
>cut?  No more arm movements.  Does this mean that the brain is
>damaged?  No, the brain is not damaged although the vehicle it
>used to control the body's limbs is.  Therefore, the expression of
>the brain is nullified.  In much the same way, the soul uses the
>brain through the mind as a vehicle by which intellect and
>reasoning ability is expressed.  A stroke or other such illness
>stifles this expression, but the soul has not been damaged by this
>physical failure in any way.
>
>>
>>Mark Schnitzius
>
>
I think what Ata was talking about was not efferent motor signals
which are not (at least for the purposes of what I am saying here)
interesting mentally, but instead, things that are more directly
mental. For example, if the brain is damaged in certain, quite well
specified areas, the person with that brain experiences profound
changes in subjective reality. They may become depressed, afraid,
aggressive, etc. (I am thinking specifically about damage to the
limbic system.) There is also the extensively studied issue of
brain mechanisms in memory. Memories, as we all know, can be very
personal, and in many ways form the sum of our sense of personal
experience, and therefore, subjectivity. There is no question that 
damage to the brain can alter memories, erasing them, creating them
(well, sort of. Hallucinogenic drugs produce experiences and memories
of events that never REALLY happened, like seeing a hippopotamus
parasailing from a firetruck), and preventing the creating of new ones.
As we learn more about neuroscience, we are becoming more and more
able to describe the biological/neural correlates of any thought.
Granted, we have a long way to go, but we also have come a long way
so far. In light of this, many people have tried awkwardly to describe
how the brain, a physical machine, interacts with the soul, presumably
something nonphysical. But that's another issue...

	-- Josh Fost
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Densa
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:11:17 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <61040007@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM> moursund@hpcvnb.CV.HP.COM (David_Moursund) writes:

>>/ hpcvnb:sci.skeptic / zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) /  1:29 am  Oct  8, 1992 /
>>The Densa stuff finally arrived.  I typed in a full description yesterday, 
>>but I tried to cross post to 2 groups and that doesn't seem to work from my 
>>site at the moment, so I'll try to find time to type it in again later today.
>>It was this group that was discussing Densa a while back, wasn't it?
>>

>Yes, this was THE GROUP which discussed Mensa AND Densa a WHILE BACK,
>and a QUESTION was brought up at THAT time:  What PRECISELY are the
>requirements for ELIGIBILITY into Mensa, specifically, WHAT would be
>a sufficient S.A.T. score to QUALIFY one for admittance?

Dunno, coz I'm in the UK, where we don't have SATs.  Here you get into Mensa 
by scoring 145 (148?) or more on the Cattell scale.

>I am ASKING, because I am an intellectual SNOB, and desire to FLAUNT my
>cranial superiority before my PEERS.

Suitable Mensa material, not!  REAL Mensans don't flaunt.....{cf alt.atheism 
et al interminable 'REAL Christians don't.....' discussions}.
Exercise: list the last 3 times somebody said to you: "I know what's going 
down and you don't coz I'm in Mensa and you're not" or the equivalent.

>(WRITING in this style REMINDS me of the old SMITH-BARNEY commercial,
>because of the odd EMPHASIS on certain WORDS...

Reminds me of the grand guru of LARSONIAN PHYSICS



              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033