Why would the aliens have not revealed themselves by now?
Good question. I question the whole notion of "aliens revealing themselves", and how it should be done to suit the humans on this planet.
We sit around saying, "well, the aliens don't exist because they haven't exposed themselves the way we say they should." This is funny to me, because we don't even know enough about our own species, and here we sit concluding (some of us anyway) that aliens do not exist because they don't do interviews on Oprah (actually, maybe they could help her with her ratings).
If the implants that people keep finding have any truth to them, then this would be a physical contact. I like to think this is akin to how we tag animals for our own study (whales, cows, etc.). Notice though, that we are not able to hear any protest in written or verbal form.
But what also about some mental manipulation? Consider that the aliens might not have the ability (or desire) to communicate with us on our own terms (like speaking to us using a recognized language). Lori brought up an interesting point which is: why must all alien manifestations be physical? Why not entertain the idea of some mental influence or communication by the aliens? Sure. Why indeed. Again, this relates back to how we think we understand any alien presence, and assumes we have the knowledge or ability to explain their complete motive for visiting us. For all we know, they could be zapping us with some radiation from outside the ozone layer, and we would never know it. If this sounds preposterous, just think of all the chemical garbage we are exposed to by our own corporations and government while we numbingly go about our daily routines.
Corp Hudson, why must one prove the existence of aliens before coming up with theories of why they are here? Is this how science treats black holes? Or wormholes? Or anything else it cannot physically see? Look at how much speculation goes on about the universe. Do we have the whole universe nailed down, so we can explain it in science class? Or do we engage in conjecture and participate in hypothetical scenarios in order to try to learn more about the cosmos?
I do not agree with your suggestion on how to approach the subject at hand (or any other for that matter). If the ancient mariners, who at one time believed the world was flat, said, "we will not set sail until we have established that the world is or is not flat", then it would be a smaller global village than at present. There is nothing wrong with discussing or trying to develop a theory on a subject where there is controversial physical proof. Not every discussion forum is a courtroom, where we must simply give the facts.
[This message has been edited by Skepticus (edited June 07, 1999).]
