reply to post by signalfire
You realize the mistake is a whole lot more than just spelling don't you? We're talking about two totally diametrically opposed and completely
opposite groups here.
One of which may have been a successful early attempt by the CIA to get control of thousands of people's computers,
Wait a second...... you didn't just do it again did you? You can't be SERIOUS!?!
and which produced NOTHING in many years in the way of results,
In science a null result is JUST AS IMPORTANT as a "EUREKA! WE FOUND ALIENS!" as it helps define or constrain the parameters of the next
It seems you have confused the University of Berkeley's SETI@Home project with CSETI. Big mistake. And no, it is not a "CIA attempt to gain control of
# 1 That's the NSA's job and they don't need you downloading a screensaver to do it. Nor have they ever. Just ask Snowden.
# 2 Because the nature of the project (hunting for aliens) and the type of tech savvy people it attracted (overclockers, hackers, etc) both the
application and SETI workunits were looked at and subject to reverse engineering by some of the most sophisticated hackers in the world. If there were
anything nefarious about either then they would have screamed bloody murder and ceased participation.
# 3 You'd think a CIA run project would have it's funds pretty secure, yet SETI@Home and other SETI programs run on a shoestring budget at the mercy
of private donations. The CIA probably spends in 30 seconds what it takes SETI@Home months to fundraise. By the way,
their winter fundraising drive is underway.
and the other a pseudo-religious version of pay-per-view;
I won't argue that Greer and company aren't that.
both of which appear to be cons so I never spent much time studying them.
I fail to see the vehement support this is getting for it's not interviewing, it's just kinda silly. Is anyone learning anything from these? The UFO
subject already has enough reasons for the ridiculing crowd to laugh it off; why produce more reasons?
The subject would get far less ridiculing if it were to exorcise itself of people like Greer, GIlliland, etc. ONLY BY EXPOSING THE CHARLATANS, HOAXES,
MISIDENTIFICATION, MISUNDERSTANDINGS, LIARS, CHEATS, etc can the subject even hope to attain some level of legitimacy as an area worthy of serious
That is what was done here and what I'd like to think ATS in general does or at least tried to do: Weed through the BS so the real stuff worthy of
study -can- be studied.
That's one reason i got involved in it.
If you can't tell data from noise then you have no data and thus have no legitimacy. If you can't understand that then I suggest you spend some time
researching less about UFO's and more about how other fringe sciences came to legitimacy.
Circling the wagons or simply 'leaving the status quo alone' is no longer an option. UFOlogy has seen its interest wane for several decades now and
that trend isn't stopping as more people become more familiar with technology, the sky, etc.
The ones left behind tend to be the gullible, the dumb and those needing UFOs as a sort of psuedo-religion which drags the subject down
edit on 4-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)