ufos_ufology_science_bermuda_aliens_alien_abdcutions_paranormal_prophecy

1. Created by Simpo PDF Creator Pro (unregistered version)
http://www.simpopdf.com
UFOs – Unidentified Flying Objects
Ufology – is a neologism coined to describe the collective
efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of
unidentified flying objects (UFOs).
Ufologist – A ufo investigator is called a ufologist
Ufo Sightings- Some eye witnesses to the UFOs
Roswell Incident- called the Roswell UFO crash
1947
UFO Conspiracy – Worldwide UFO cover Ups and
related theories
Alien- An extra-terrestrial being is called an alien

2. Created by Simpo PDF Creator Pro (unregistered version)
http://www.simpopdf.com
OPEN LETTER TO LORD MARTIN REES AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY ABOUT
THE STATEMENT THAT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM REQUIRE
EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE , OCCAM’S RAZOR AND… ELEPHANTS
By Jean Bastide , ufologist since 48 years
When we say that “extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence”, we in fact
presuppose that “we are only believing in an ordinary preconceived claim, in fact some
different paradigm”. Therefore, to say that “extraordinary claim require extraordinary
evidence” is a true absurdity, such a claim being purely relativistic following our limited
paradigm, related itself to our ridiculously limited brain and intelligence. Moreover, the
basic idea that “extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence” is no longer valid even in
terms of entropy, as we are implying and hinting that it is understood that an extraordinary
fact recovers and implies a bigger quantity of information, needing therefore more evidence to
support it. Again false, as the extraordinary character of a phenomenon is purely relative to
our limited knowledge of natural phenomena and the fact that claim we are believing in
require less evidence to support it doesn’t necessarily imply its character of banality, its
“usual nature” in opposition to its supposed “unusual” one . Terms as “ordinarily”, ”usually”,
can also be referred to the expression , the locution “as a rule”, which means THE
COMMON SENSE IS THE RULE, forgetting that THE COMMON SENSE IS
RELATIVISTIC AND THE IMAGE OF OUR IGNORANCE. In doing this, we are
voluntarily and perhaps unconsciously limiting the scope of our intellectual field, cutting
precisely ourselves from any further potentially important discovery. It is plain stupidity and
foolish attitude. The wise knows first of all his own limitations, only the fool can imagine he
knows all universe’s secrecies. Socrates urges us to “know thyself”(gnothi sauton) in order
for us to be able to know really the true nature of the universe surrounding us and hence our
inner nature linked precisely to it, and the English poet William Wordsworth was right when
he said that “the roots of life are ugly”, as reflecting the abyssal limitations of our chimp-like
brain and body, being all like the Kipling’s French “Bandar-logs”. Our “Papuan’s common
law” doesn’t reflect the nature of the whole universe. When we attribute a scale of
commonness to things happening, it is only in term of “vulgarity” so to say , showing beneath
it the vulgarity of our intellect which is only distorting reality to mould it in our preconceived
paradigm, twisting fact to more conveniently fit a presupposed primitive and childish
theorizing of the world.
Our great master René Fouéré was always stressing on the Occam's razor principle in
the review "Phénomènes Spatiaux" of the French GEPA. I can even quote it in latin: “entia
non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”, having studied Latin. Occam was a genius, no
doubt. When you cannot see a tiger in your London garden, Occam's razor says there is no
tiger at all in it, and not that a tiger is hidden in it, as it would be simpler and less expensive
in term of physical entropy and information energy to say so. If it is simpler to say there is
no tiger, it doesn’t imply logically that the tiger’s species doesn’t exist, or that its existence is
more extraordinary than the existence of for example a tiny snail, it doesn’t take into account
some qualitative a-priori about the nature of the object studied. Occam’s razor principle tell
us A PROOF IS A PROOF , WHATEVER THE HYPOTHESIS’S NATURE AND
RELATIVE GRADATIONS OF MEANING. Therefore, EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM
DOESN’T REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Don’t forget nobody has ever
seen the extraordinary electron which had only required ordinary evidence since its
discovery by the Greeks, electron meaning amber, its very existence having never been
questioned by anybody. The ancient Greeks noticed that amber attracted small objects when

3. Created by Simpo PDF Creator Pro (unregistered version)
http://www.simpopdf.com
simply rubbed with fur, nothing very extraordinary and nonetheless its very nature remains
even nowadays totally unknown according to physicists.
The conference - The Detection Of Extraterrestrial Life And The Consequences For
Science And Society - was held at the high-brow Royal Society HQ in central London, on
January 25 and 26. Founded in 1660, the Society's members have included such legendary
scientific figures as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Lord Martin Rees,
the Astronomer Royal and president of The Royal Society, chaired several sessions dealing
with the ultimate question: Is the universe teeming with life? The UFOs subject was
discussed more openly over coffee and biscuits, due to their supposed nature of "elephants in
the room” , may be in the scientist’s Dresden china’s factory . As ufologists point out, why
search for life "out there" if it is already "down here"? Someone pointed out how unscientific
it was for the MoD to cut its UFO project when sightings tracked on radar have been
obtained. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Lord Rees responded,
before swiftly moving on, fearing no doubt some cavalry’s ufological charge, perhaps by
some mounted police of elephants under the guidance of some extraterrestrial mahouts.
Professor Simon Conway Morris, a Cambridge University palaeontologist, said in this same
conference, if the cosmic phone rings, don't answer. I can conclude, if Lord Rees phones you,
don’t waste your time to answer. My word of honour of French Bandar-log, as suggested to
me by my old friends Sheera Khan, of course the Occam’s tiger, and by Kipling’s Elephant’s
child , dreaming to mash the so-called scientific bone china once and for all. SCI-FI writer
Arthur C. Clarke once said: "Two possibilities exist - either we are alone in the universe or we
are not. Both are equally terrifying." I should add "Two possibilities exist - either Lord Rees
has a brain or he has not. Both are equally terrifying." And I urge you to start an
international project to study immediately a rarity among universe’s oddities, namely the
extraordinary brain of Lord Rees which needs without a shadow of the doubt this
time…some extraordinary pathological study.
From the Realm of the proud Bandar-logs, Feb 1st, 2010