SUBJECT: ISSAC ASIMOV ON LARY KING FILE: UFO669 Msg: #4675 Sec: 1 - UFOlogy 28-MAR-87 05:28 PM Subj: Isaac Asimov (R) From: Sysop To: All Dr. Isaac Asimov, the world's most prolific writer, made a comment on last night's Larry King Show that points up the haughty attitude of science towards UFOs. He said that he doesn't believe ETs are coming here in spaceships. He believes people are merely seeing lights in the sky that they can't identify. He said he's seen them himself. Now, here's one of the most brilliant scientific thinkers of the century, admitting not the slightest curiousity about a phenomenon he has visually confirmed for himself. I have been interested in UFOs for over 20 years. I have no special scientific training. Yet I have never, not once, seen an object, day or night, that I could not positively identify. If I can acknowledge a genuine scientific curiousity about the phenomenon, why can't the so-called Balzak of Science, Isaac Asimov? What is Science afraid of? From: Dean Mccarron To: Sysop (X) It's afraid of nothing. It's just that it takes resources to investigate lights in the sky, and as UFOs are very unpredictable, it's far easier to work with something else. (In other words, it is a matter of economics, and working conditions.) Dean From: Sysop To: Dean Mccarron (X) Dean, I couldn't disagree more. Right now, Carl Sagan is campaigning to raise $80 million for SETI, a project which has been in operation in one form or another for 25 years now and has turned up absolutely 0 results. There is not the slightest shred of evidence, scientific or anecdotal, that ETs are using radio waves to communicate with this planet. He will probably get the money, or something close to it. Meantime, an attorney named Robert Bletchman is struggling to raise $27,000 for UFO research, a field which, over forty years, has produced vast amounts of evidence - mostly anecdotal but the hard stuff IS there - for its existence. Yet its questionable whether he will get it. The question of economics comes back to the question of attitudes. (I know what you're going to ask... What will we do with the money? Go ahead, ask.) Jim From: Dean Mccarron To: Sysop (X) It's still a question of economics, and the lab-type situation. Let's face it-- when somebody spends $80 million, they want to see a nice laboratory,sophisticated equipment, etc. If the UFO researchers are really interested in money, it would be wise to make themselves look more like mainstream science; in fact, they could probably get much better funding if they represented themselves as "anti" UFO types, or debunkers. (After all, it didn't hurt Randi, did it?) Dean From: Sysop To: Dean Mccarron (X) If someone were to spend just 1% of that $80 million on ufology, believe me, they'd see plenty of nice lab equipment, mainly photo-analysis computers, medical labs, radiation detection equipment, etc. They would also see ufology get a whole lot more scientific. Let's put the cart before the horse. Ufology is filled with mainstream scientists: Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman, Dr. Richard Haines of NASA, Dr. James Harder of UC Berkeley, Michael Swords, Ph.D., Professor David M. Jacobs, Professor Ronald Story, US Navy optical physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee, (the late) astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek, computer scientist Dr. Jacques Vallee, Professor Ray Stanford, (the late) meteorologist Dr. James McDonald, Boston Planetarium astronomer Walter Webb....need I go on? Why should we have to misrepresent ourselves in order to get money? Do you think the phenomen merits the influx of funds or don't you? Its as simple as that. Jim From: Tom Betz To: Sysop (X) BTW, it's "Balzac", Jim.I don't begrudge Dr. A. his lack of curiousity, as long as he keeps turning out all that stimulating reading, and opposing the militarization of space, I'll be happy to forgive him his lack of curiousity. Hell, he just doesn't have the time! Besides, his admitted fear of flying would handicap him seriously as a UFO researcher. Let others better suited to the task do it... and chain Dr. A. to his word processor, where he can make his unique contribution to our society. From: Sysop To: Tom Betz (X) I agree, I'm one of Dr. A's biggest fans. That's why I'm doubly disappointed in him. But I'm pointing him out as an example of the attitudes some scientists take, in the name of Science. Another example is his statements on the Shroud of Turin. Asimov is an avowed Atheist, head of American Humanists, member of CSICOP's religious counterpart, member of American's for Religious Liberty, etc. Yet he has not bothered to study the Shroud, which could be the only evidence extant that would completely nullify his point of view (which also happens to be mine). I HAVE bothered to study it, and I tell you I'm impressed. But the point is, why should I exhibit more scientific curiousity than Asimov? And how can he maintain, indeed, flaunt his point of view without examining the evidence? From: Tom Betz To: Sysop (X) Look, all he did was answer questins. I heard that program, and I didn't hear him pushing an opinion, I heard him say, in response to questions from folks calling in, what his opinion was, and that he hadn't checked out the evidence. _You_ haven't written and published 357 books and a thousand of two short stories since 1938... can you imagine how much TIME that takes? 14 hours a day, seven days a week... the guy is just always writing or researching what he's writing... and he's an acrophobe, which makes it hard for him to travel to the sources of some of these things (UFO sightings, Turin, etc.) I can't fault him... but YOU, Jim, why haven't you written at least a hundred books? Huh?? Answer me THAT!! tb From: Sysop To: Tom Betz (X) Tom: Asimov did not seem to be pushing an opinion on Larry King, its true. He does, however, push his opinions by dint of his association with such organizations as CSICOP, American Humanists, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a subscriber to both Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry, and basically class myself as a skeptic and a secular humanist. But I, at least, will break with both those organizations on certain issues where I have taken the time toexamine the evidence. I think that someone as pre-eminent as Asimov has a dutyto his readers to either push an opinion based on his own examinations, orelse not state an opinion.As to my writing at least a hundred books, I'm working on it! And I don't knowthat Asimov has written that many books. The fact that there are 357 bookswith his name on it is circumstantial. _I_ didn't see him write them . Jim From: Tom Betz To: Sysop (X) hehehe From: Shon White To: Sysop (X) i'v seen a ufo or something i couldn't identify. But i think that somewhereout in the universe there are other life forms. SHON WHITE ***************************** From: Sysop To: Shon White Shon: As I've said before, not many people deny that there are other life forms. Even Carl Sagan believes this, or he wouldn't be chasing after all this money to fund SETI. Where the argument breaks down is that mainstreamers do not believe they would come here. They cite a variety of reasons, mainly technological, such as the speed of light being the ultimate speed limit, but also sociological, such as "what would they have to gain from us?" I think that's a bunch of hogwash myself. What do we have to gain from primitive tribes in Borneo? Some insights into our past, perhaps? Jim, head of American Humanists, member of CSICOP's religious counterpart, member of American's for Religious Liberty, etc. ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************