Like many who gravitate to this forum, I pride myself in being
open-minded regarding many lesser-held notions, but yet have never
really bought-into the "full" or "strong" alien-visitation UFO
stuff, such as would needed to be the basis for hidden messages in
DNA, etc.
The strong position is that aliens have actually been here "in our
physical space". From my POV, all of the many anecdotal accounts
of this can be explained as more like "visible (and real) to some
individuals", but still appearing as only the mental-image (and
probably from another spatial-dimension) - but not physical.
Despite alluding to non-human intelligence being possible on many
occasions, the 'physical' part is just too hard to swallow as a
factual matter, given that the geniuses at FBI, CSI or other
tri-letter bureaucracy can solve a 50-year old murder with a hair
left in an exhaust duct, and yet regarding something this
important, there is not a single iridescent green-skin-scale left
behind from an alien site - nothing except laughable, staged
autopsies of foam dummies. Until some physical relic is found and
proven, why go further? We know for a fact that the tricksters and
con artists are out there having a field-day and charging $20 a
pop for bogus lectures and more for bogus books.
This is not full skepticism - just caution based on what the past
has shown as relevant in an individual case. Of course, as with
most everything in life... Its all a matter of weighing the
evidence in light of experience... and weighing the hypothetical
against alternative and often mundane explanations.
But as in the pursuit of free energy, there is some physical
evidence which is hard to ignore, so much so that it is like the
proverbial "trout in the milk" An encoded segment of DNA would be
like that salmon-like.
Unfortunately (for the proponents of LENR) the alien stuff is in
the background. And fortunately for the LENR skeptics, there is
this substantial segment of the proponents of free-energy who also
profess to believe "almost anything" from other fields, and much
of that attitude could be related to the attractiveness of "shock
appeal," or "drama" being the better term, in an otherwise ho-hum
life, perhaps. But at any rate, this personality type, even in
science and logic, will prefer the dramatic more than the
explanatory logic, if there is no clear winner.... OK, no problemo
with that as a life-style choice, either... my life being possibly
more boring than most (except to me)... yet there remains the
little problem that when the *skeptic* wants to impugn
cutting-edge OU experiment, well you know the rest.
Much of the R&D work, but not all, in LENR and ZPE, is _fact_ or
very close, and not opinion, but then naturally that skeptic (and
most skeptics would rather win arguments that preserve any sense
of fairness - that is how they deal with their boring life)...
will quickly introduce an extraneous issue, such as an 'ad
hominem' remark, almost always disparaging but it can be from
another unrelated belief-structure. Guess you think that I am
going to finger a belief in "alien-visitation" at this point in
the argument, but it does not have to go anywhere near that far.
For instance if you wanted to impugn a belief in ZPE, instead of
arguing the facts based upon experiment and mathematics, etc...and
perhaps knowing that Puthoff, as an example, who is one of the
chief public proponents of ZPE, but seems to hold less-tenable
beliefs (to be objective, not derogatory) such as those regarding
Psi/ESP remote viewing, etc, then you-the-skeptic might throw-out
that 'other' belief as evidence for your argument against ZPE - as
has been done on many, occasion, by those who are not normally so
intellectually dishonest.
However, I appreciate that there are some readers and contributors
to vortex with stronger opinions in this alien-visitation field,
which I would not chose to challenge... so here is question for
those who express that sentiment that 'alien' intelligence is
already here physically but that they (aliens) are choosing
specifically to be "non- interfering" so to speak, which as I
understand it is broadly called the fish-bowl hypothesis ..
Anyway, would anyone out there in radio-land who has thought about
these things and understands the nuances, care to explain the
intricacies of the very important logical argument underlying
this, the "fishbowl hypothesis".
Actually if it were not for the strong logic of this argument,
especially as it relates to religion, I would have to reject the
physical-alien stuff 100%, but this argument itself is compelling
on several levels, even if there were no anecdotal evidence to go
along with it.
Jones
