Does the 'contactee' setup make any sense?

[Rick Deckard]

Why would an ETI bother teaching a 'contactee' anything?

Why would they give a contactee information about the future or their star system or anything else of importance when *they know* full well that the majority of people on this planet are gonna take very little notice?

Wouldn't a public 'demonstration' of their technology be more effective at getting our attention rather than pushing a 'nobody' forward with the 'news' of impending disaster?

I'm just thinking out loud really - abductions sort of make sense to me, but actively 'grooming' contactees makes very little sense in my eyes...

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by Rick Deckard

Why would an ETI bother teaching a 'contactee' anything?

These seem to be rhetorical questions, but I'll answer anyway.

Same reason we try and teach people what they don't know. A million answers to that. Usually to help in some way.

Why would they give a contactee information about the future or their star system or anything else of importance when *they know* full well that the majority of people on this planet are gonna take very little notice?

Many different answers to this as well. Here's just one. Because the majority doesn't have to believe, only a critical mass. They give info. as a heads up maybe. If they truly want to save us, they will. If not, then they won't. Could just be small talk on board. Beats talking of sports.

Wouldn't a public 'demonstration' of their technology be more effective at getting our attention rather than pushing a 'nobody' forward with the 'news' of impending disaster?

Yes. I think it would. But there might be negative consequences they are trying to avoid by not doing that.

I'm just thinking out loud really - abductions sort of make sense to me, but actively 'grooming' contactees makes very little sense in my eyes...

These are common questions. I've wondered about them God only knows how many times.

My answers are only couched in a theoretical sense. A lot more can be said about such matters. No contactee case comes to mind where I am convinced it actually occurred. There are some abduction cases I find fairly convincing though.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by Rick Deckard

Why would an ETI bother teaching a 'contactee' anything?

Why would they give a contactee information about the future or their star system or anything else of importance when *they know* full well that the majority of people on this planet are gonna take very little notice?

Wouldn't a public 'demonstration' of their technology be more effective at getting our attention rather than pushing a 'nobody' forward with the 'news' of impending disaster?

I'm just thinking out loud really - abductions sort of make sense to me, but actively 'grooming' contactees makes very little sense in my eyes...

Say, Rick, didn't you see 'Contact'? And I quote:

Hadden: I've had a long time to make enemies, doctor. So many governments, business interests, even religious leaders that would like to see me depart this Earth. I'll grant them their wish soon enough. But before I do, I wish to make a small contribution. A final gesture of good will to the people of this little planet who have given... from whom I have taken so much.

Ellie: You found the primer.

Hadden: Clever girl. Lights. Pages and pages of data. Over 63,000 in all. And on the perimeter of each...

Ellie: Alignment symbols, registration marks, but they don't line up.

Hadden: They do, if you think like a Vegan. An alien intelligence's got to be more advanced. That means efficiency functioning on multiple levels and... in multiple dimensions.

The believers might argue that "You can't possibly think like them, so how on earth can you even try to understand their motives, Rick, in human terms?"

I'd concede that on the one hand, their probably right. Reticulans and Vegans would have their own set of principles, methods, and modalities, with regard to how they deal with humans. Believers might continue their dialog with Rick as follows: "Maybe they wouldn't take the route of public demonstration, Rick. Why wouldn't they pursue normal average people for their training and communication purposes? Maybe they aren't the bad guys after all. Maybe, they're thousands of years smarter than you and I, so why even try to understand their alien practices here on earth?"

On the other hand, I think that YOU are absolutely right. A sensible person absolutely must approach claims of contact with a very high degree of skepticism. That is the only way you can approach this subject, if your purpose is to get to the truth.

Further, your point is well made. These claims do not seem logical, do they? Carl Sagan speculated, in his book Contact, that Vegans were incredibly cryptic in how they got their message to us, requiring humans to reach multiple levels, multiple dimensions of efficiency in our analysis of their information, before we would be prepared to obtain that message, and use it to reach contact with them. This is just a fictional story, of course, but it does come from the mind of the late, great Carl Sagan. For me, probably the most useful speculations come from the minds of scientists, with vast knowledge and insight, venturing forward into the realm of creativity.

So your logic seems to hold water with other bright minds who have explored this subject in the past. You are in good company.


I'll add my own personal sensibilities: The alien explanation, is not the only explanation for contactees It might not make logical sense taken at face value, but perhaps it makes perfect sense, however, if you are a creative human-being, faced with the impending possibility of earthly disasters in our future.

So let's consider this scenario: How does a person, with a vivid imagination, cope with their own fear of holocaust? How do artists deal with their emotions? How do actors come to terms with their fears? What do musicians do, when faced with a moral sense of obligation? How do the great Authors of years gone by, address their duties and responsibilities to the greater good? These creative minds take their given talents, and use them to generate works of art: Fiction, Paintings, Songs, Characters. They don't do this because they want to. They do this because they have to. Creativity tends to run parallel with emotion. Emotion cannot be stored in the human mind forever. It must be expressed. It must come out. It must be projected into the real world. Once a creative mind has taken that emotion, and projected it into a work of art, the mind can be free to then generate new emotions, which become new works of art, and thus, the cycle continues.

[align='center'][/align]

for those with vivid imaginations, who do not have outlets for their emotions, well they would likely turn to other means and methods. If you were a highly creative individual, with a vivid imagination, but you did not have the same talents as artists, musicians, writers, and actors, and if you had not yet learned how to take your creativity and apply it in a healthy way, well it is quite likely that you will turn to arguably less productive methods, in order to expel those emotions out of you.

[align='center'][/align]


So, if your fear is nuclear holocaust, you might have dreams; you might go through regressive hypnosis; you might simply have a precognitive sense of pending doom. In short, you might be prophetic. Does that make it true? Maybe, maybe not. But, one possible explanation that must be explored by any sensible person, is the possibility that what you are experiencing, is a misplaced creation of your imagination. And, in the case of many contactees, and their highly suspect claims, I think it would most prudent to explore this explanation, as well as the others.

[hopeful skeptic]

I could take issue with several lines in that "Contact" clip, but I'll settle for just one.

I'm still trying to figure out why an alien civilization must necessarily be more technologically advanced than we are. I understand why people who believe we're being visited by folks from another planet feel that way - they have to build the ship, after all - but an alien civilization just "sitting" out there may be more, less, or just as advanced as we are. We have no way of knowing whether other planets follow our relative timeline or not.

And I'm completely baffed as to the reasons folks equate technological aptitude with morality (morality only as we have crafted it, incidentally).

I see a lot of parallels in our own history. (Though, to be fair, I'd have to know the history of other civilizations on other planets to get a clearer picture of whether the example I'm going to use is a universal trend, or unique to our planet. Because I know of no other civilizations, or their history, I can only speculate based on my own planet's experience.)

American Indians were engaged in internecine warfare, competed for resources, etc., just as we do globally today. They had legends about advanced beings that lived "out there" - across the ocean, or in the sky. When visited by beings who largely matched the legends, these visitors brought with them all kinds of technological sophistication unheard of in the Americas, and promptly demonstrated a moral decadence that (today) we would find unconscionable. Why should we not imagine that aliens might not be any different? Ray guns instead of rifles? Flying saucers instead of sailing ships?

It was an abysmal movie, but Independence Day had one great scene - the folks sitting atop a building holding signs like "Remember Me?" and "Welcome!", just before the alien ship wrecked the whole city. Priceless.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

I could take issue with several lines in that "Contact" clip, but I'll settle for just one.

I'm still trying to figure out why an alien civilization must necessarily be more technologically advanced than we are...

I don't necessarily draw the conclusion that an alien civilization must be more technologically advanced than we are.

I was using the "Contact" reference to illustrate a point. If you read Rick's description of a Contactees' point of view, and compare it to Haden's point of view, you'll see that one is relatively simple, and the other is relatively complex. That was the "Contact" illustration. How different both parties view what it means to "Think like a Vegan". I then proceeded to further compare a believers simplistic argument if you will, with Ricks logical argument. I think you'll find that in the end, I side with Rick. You must approach the subject of 'Contactees' with a high level of skepticism.

So, now that we're clear, and not taking my post out of context, let's proceed with your discussion points:

About sophisticated alien intelligence, like I said, I don't make that assumption. It's true, Haden did in "Contact", but then again, that was a movie. Haden was responding to the fact that this fictional alien intelligence depicted in the film, had sent a communication to us via radio-waves, and interlaced with those radio-waves, were television signals, and interlaced with those television signals, as Haden discovered, were thousands and thousands of pages of text. So, you're essentially arguing with the premise of a film, and not necessarily a full-blown assumption about reality.

But I'll play. In that context, I think you're wrong, and I'd agree with Haden. In the context of the film, "CONTACT", that fictional civilization quite obviously is much more advanced than the human civilization, clearly thinking on multiple levels, and in multiple dimensions. That was the brainchild of Carl Sagan, by the way, so I suppose you're arguing with Dr. Sagan's speculations and theories of what an alien civilization might be?



Cool. Well, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

And I'm completely baffed as to the reasons folks equate technological aptitude with morality (morality only as we have crafted it, incidentally). .

I think both Rick and I would agree with you there. I find the 'human' explanation much more likely.

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

American Indians were engaged in internecine warfare, competed for resources, etc., just as we do globally today. They had legends about advanced beings that lived "out there" - across the ocean, or in the sky. When visited by beings who largely matched the legends, these visitors brought with them all kinds of technological sophistication unheard of in the Americas, and promptly demonstrated a moral decadence that (today) we would find unconscionable. Why should we not imagine that aliens might not be any different? Ray guns instead of rifles? Flying saucers instead of sailing ships? .

Fascinating, Hopeful! Extremely fascinating. I definitely see your point.

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

It was an abysmal movie, but Independence Day had one great scene - the folks sitting atop a building holding signs like "Remember Me?" and "Welcome!", just before the alien ship wrecked the whole city. Priceless.

Well, Poo-poo on YOU with regard to Contact .

With regard to Independence Day, definitely priceless.

[Recon]

personally, I don't believe aliens abduct people. I havn't seen any proof. Just some regurtitated stories.

this goes for most of the parnormal field.

The lie grows and then more people join in and it just strengthens the lie... SEE i'm not the only one who has seen THE GRAYs, or THE REPTILIANS, or THE PLIEDIANS... this means im not lying.

has anyone studied the root of these reports.... who was the first person to see the grays.... or the reptilians.... I guarantee other contactees have read something about previous abductions and just surgar coat it for themselves...

MY favorite saying by contactees... "I never had interest in the field, it just happened" I guarantee if you really researched people like Jim sparks you would find in his past, he studied and loved teh field.

That goes for nut jobs like Morton too... although he when 1 step further and created his own little world... to bad it doesn't hold water.

in closing...
show me proof and i'll believe you.

[hopeful skeptic]

I don't necessarily draw the conclusion that an alien civilization must be more technologically advanced than we are. I was using the "Contact" reference to illustrate a point.

Right. I wasn't taking issue with your view, I was taking issue with a premise I all-too-often hear passed around ufologists - that technological advancement equates with moral superiority. The usual saw is that if an alien civilization could survive long enough to achieve a certain technological level, they must have dispensed with intraspecies strife, want, etc. I don't see any reason why that should be the case at all.

So, now that we're clear, and not taking my post out of context....

There was no effort on my part to do that. I should have been more clear. Mea culpa.

But I'll play. In that context, I think you're wrong, and I'd agree with Haden. In the context of the film, "CONTACT", that fictional civilization quite obviously is much more advanced than the human civilization, clearly thinking on multiple levels, and in multiple dimensions.

None of which means moral superiority. I'm only suggesting that "Contact" could just have reasonably ended with Jodi Foster being eaten alive by carnivorous aliens as having an Oprah Winfrey-like therapy session with benevolent ones.

I have a friend on the Atkins diet, so I know what it is when you're craving protein.

That was the brainchild of Carl Sagan, by the way, so I suppose you're arguing with Dr. Sagan's speculations and theories of what an alien civilization might be?

Sure. I disagree with a lot of Sagan's ideas. We skeptics ought not have any gods above reproach. You'll find no graven images of Sagan, James Randi, et al, in my house.

[hopeful skeptic]

Originally Posted by Recon

personally, I don't believe aliens abduct people. I havn't seen any proof. Just some regurtitated stories....this goes for most of the parnormal field...

in closing...
show me proof and i'll believe you.

That's the real tipping point of The Paracast, I think. Mr. Biedny seems to put an awful lot of stock into stories - uncorroborated by any hard evidence - that he finds "really credible." He seems to think that telling these stories - getting them "out there," in other words - lets everyone sift through them and find kernels of truth.

But stories are just stories. Eyewitness testimony, scientifically, means nothing at all. When a contactee shows up with signs of advanced surgery that can be studied (are you listening, Billy Meier, or Jim Sparks?), or a piece of alien technology - something, anything we can study objectively - I'll listen. Until then, how is the show searching for truth? What we're really talking about is a believability contest, not a reasoned discussion.

I go back to the question I posed to Mr. Biedny on another thread. He places great stock in these eyewitness accounts, some of which derive from multiple witnesses. Laying aside everything we know about the ease with which the human mind is deceived, and the clear existence of mass delusion and hallucination, we're still left with one puzzling question: Why believe one story over another?

Mr. Biedny finds Jeff Ritzmann's tales of nightly visitations "really credible." Now, there isn't any hard evidence for this. For lack of an answer directly from him, I'm going to assume that what Mr. Biedny tells us on the show is true: he knows Mr. Ritzmann, has spent time with him, is friends with him, and believes him. In short, he's going on a hunch and on his senses, since there is no hard, observable evidence that corroborates these stories.

So why is it, for example, that Mr. Biedny doesn't believe in Christianity's claims? Here's a religion with written eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, accounts of eyewitnesses who claim to have seen him resurrected, and the accounts of tens, hundreds and (in a few cases) thousands of witnesses to his claimed miracles and message. Since his time, countless thousands of people have been martyred for the sake of these accounts, millions have pledged allegiance to the message behind these accounts (appeal to popularity), etc. Even today, people claim to have visual and audible contact with a risen Jesus.

If Mr. Biedny says that he doesn't believe Christianity's claims because he wasn't there, couldn't interview Jesus and see the claims with his own eyes, then he's admitting that he trusts only his own senses to verify a claim. That leaves him out to dry with Mr. Ritzmann, since he wasn't there to see those claims, either. Reasonable conclusions don't depend solely on the observer's senses - they depend on testable, measurable evidence for corroboration and verification.

If he says that he has no hard evidence for Christianity's claims, I'd ask him to produce the hard evidence for Mr. Ritzmann's, and we can all examine it and conduct an investigation.

I suspect the real reason is a matter of choice, and has nothing to do with reason or hunches at all. Mr. Ritzmann's claims fit into a worldview in which Mr. Biedny has an interest, and Jesus' (and his followers') don't. All of this is fine, but it isn't logical, isn't reasonable, and has nothing to do with finding "truth."

That's why I can only throw my hands up when a contactee is interviewed. All a thinking person can do is throw it onto the stack of other, uncorroborated, unsupported statements and await the evidence.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by hopeful skeptic

I have a friend on the Atkins diet, so I know what it is when you're craving protein.

THAT is funny !

Looking back on my post, I think I was a bone-head. I wasn't really that clear on where I was going with the whole Contact thing. It was a rant. My apologies. Must be all that Mescaline I took last night

Definitely agree on your position with regard to technology and morality. Your historical analysis was excellent, and illustrated your position very nicely.

[hopeful skeptic]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

Looking back on my post, I think I was a bone-head. I wasn't really that clear on where I was going with the whole Contact thing. It was a rant. My apologies. Must be all that Mescaline I took last night.

Did you see a jet fighter swallowed up by a UFO? Did you report your sighting to a completely credulous UFO researcher? Even if you didn't, just make something up and call George Noory. God knows he has a slot for you.

I don't know if you smoke cigars, but I dropped that habit for five years - I had picked it up in college - and just got started again about five weeks ago. God, did I miss it.

Anyway, I was finishing a bad, bad painting and listening to the NCAA tournament, and thought it would be a good time to have a cigar. Well, my palate is out of "tune," as it were. Smoking a Bolivar late at night on an empty stomach is not good unless you're in practice. My head spun like a washing machine cylinder. Glorious, but if someone had moved a flashlight before my eyes, I'd have sworn Billy Meier's friends had come to pick me up.

(It still pisses me off that most modern contactees only experience reptilians, greys and the like. I really miss the 1950s-era contactees, who had regular, guilt-free, anonymous sex with mini-skirted, blonde Norwegians. As a skeptic, that is a paranormal occurrence to which I could throw my full support.)