Is humanity quietly abandoning a futuin space?

> Hello, Brooks:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
> >
> > Larry,
> > I agree we have very different approaches. I give credible sources of information far more weight when looking at evidence then less credible sources of information. In other words a widely published PhD in psychology writing a paper in a peer reviewed journal carries more weight then the words of an engineering drop out with bad grades, ie L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Let's start with my credentials. They aren't fantastic, but should be known. (And I'd like to know what qualifies you to speak authoritatively on this subject, too.)
> I've been involved with Scientology for 30 years. I worked for 26 years at one of their training organizations in Los Angeles. I had an administrative position, and did not get much technical training. But I did get trained in Study Tech, Assists, E-Meter basics, TRs, and Organization basics. I have studied all the "basic" books (there are 18). And I am a trained Volunteer Minister.
> My background, as mentioned, is in electronics. I have always been a science nut, too. I have never attended a 4-year college or university. Both my parents have.

I accept your claim that you are an experienced Scientologist. Scientology is a religion. If it were legitimate science then it could endure the rigors of experiment, peer review, and publishing in the appropriate journals.

> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "l_ed_cox" wrote:
> > >
> > > Brooks:
> > >
> > > Let me first say that our approaches to life are probably quite different, or else I would not have wound up a Scientologist and you would not have wound up an anti-Scientologist.
> > >
> > > So, we have a problem of approach, not just of fact.
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It think we have a pretty good grasp of the dangers of space, including radiation, though I'm sure there are gaps that need to be researched. I don't think experts on space have any knowledge on what's happening socially or spiritually in space, except what humans do on the ISS. Nor would they 'hide' it from the public.
> > >
> > > I don't recall mentioning "dangers." That's not the point. The point is:
> > > What is really happening out there?
> > > What is space-time really composed of or caused by?
> > > If the spirit exists, what is its relationship to matter and energy?
> > >
> > > Now, this gets down to the problem of approach.
> > > I am willing to entertain all available data on the above subject.
> > > And there are massive amounts of data out there on what is happening, spiritually and socially, in space. Quite massive amounts. I cannot believe that someone deemed an "expert" in this field would be totally unaware of this data.
> > >
> > > Of course it is part of the scientific approach to be skeptical.
> > >
> > > But it is only the authoritarian that demands denial of the obvious.
> > > Someone who would state (as a spokesperson for NASA recently did in response to a petition to the White House on the subject of Disclosure) that we have no evidence for higher forms of life visiting earth is denying the obvious. It may be poor evidence. It may be inadequate for proof, or from dubious sources, but it is certainly more than NOTHING.
> > >
> > > My belief, Hubbard's conclusion (and he was a lot closer to people who should know than I ever have been) and the conclusion of many others is that science and academia, to a great - not total - extent, have been taken over by the authoritarian approach. This takeover has come very close to ruining these institutions as viable sources of innovative pro-survival ideas, theories, and technologies.
> >
> > Well if you'll entertain any data on this subject, there are alot of science fiction novels out there, so that makes sense that you have quite massive amounts of data on alien social and spiritual matters.
>
> This is flippant. I am talking about the Disclosure Project. I am talking about interviews with ex-military personnel who saw reports or witnessed events. I am talking about the stories of numerous eye witnesses to such events, either as conveyed by themselves or compiled by researchers. This is a major subject; many people take it seriously, and there is a lot of serious literature and other documentation available on the subject.

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, particularly as a sole source from which to make the claim that technologically advanced intelligent aliens have visited Earth. Again using the standard scientific methods to prove something should suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=eyewitness+testimony&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=dgGYT42DB4Gi8ASBxYT9BQ&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

> > > > 2. Same as above.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Why would you listen to 'unofficial' experts? Which I assume means people who wouldn't be considered experts at all.
> > >
> > > The "unoffical" experts are those found unacceptable by authorities in science and academia. I would, for example, consider Hubbard an expert in human psychology. But most psychologists would not. I would consider Dr. Steven Greer an expert on evidence of ET visits to earth. The authorities think he's some kind of balding hippie.
> > >
> > > The list goes on and on.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > > A. We've survived in space for the past 40 years. We've survived on Earth, as humans, for 200,000 years, behaviorally for the past 50,000 years.
> > >
> > > But we have only survived as a human civilization on earth for about 5,000 years. And calling what we have been doing here "survival" is being generous.
> > >
> > > Again, there is a difference in approach. I am not just talking about survival of the species as an animal. I am talking about survival as sentient beings seeking to control and enhance their environment. Animals in the forest don't dream of building space habitats; we do.
> > >
> > > Some off-world societies, by their own claims, and according to research done by Hubbard and others, have survived intact for millions of years. That's what I mean by a "significant period of time."
> > >
> > > > B. It is very very likely there is other life in the universe, it is likely there is life outside Earth in the solar system. It is unknown,
> > >
> > > This is a false statement. It is NOT unknown; it is DENIED.
> > >
> > > >and likely very rare if at all, that there is intelligent life at the level of humans; complex language, writing, reasoning, and being technologically advanced, etc. elsewhere in the universe.
> > >
> > > This phenomenon is not rare in the least. But I have no way of convincing you of that. I, however, am convinced.
> >
> > I agree, as you have no credible evidence for intelligent alien existence.
>
> This is also flippant. The Disclosure Project is only one example of many where credible evidence can be found.

Any with evidence other then eyewitness testimony?

> > > > 1. through 5. is pretty much scientology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology this seems as accurate an account of their organisation and religious thought.
> > >
> > > It may be, though this article is pretty infected by the usual BS.
> > >
> > > And it is missing something important:
> > > Scientology technology.
> > > You don't need to be a doctor to learn first aid, and you don't need to be a Scientologist to learn how to do assists and Book 1 auditing. Furthermore, the basic technology is written up and available for free in many libraries (where the books haven't been stolen by anti-Scientologists).
> > > The technology of the subject is vast compared to the theory. The basic theory is contained in roughly 20 books, most of which are quite short. But the technology takes up thousands of pages, and thousands of hours of lectures.
> > >
> > > Hubbard did not concentrate on theory, but on practice.
> > >
> > > I am an electronics technician. If electronics didn't work, I wouldn't use it. And I can use it without knowing all its theory, and without joining the IEEE. I don't even care that much about the latest formulation of quantum mechanics. Technologies work or they don't work. The claim has been made that Scientology works as a technology.
> > >
> > > The conjecture is that this is why it is so strenuously denounced.
> >
> > You mean the E meter, ie modified ohmmeter? And the authoritative hypnosis used by auditors? Or is there another technology you are talking about?
>
> Have you experienced these things yourself? Have you held an e-meter in your hands and used it with a person holding the cans? Have you seen how it reacts to what they are thinking? It is a valuable tool, if used correctly.
>
> I have experienced many auditing sessions, and none of them consisted of "authoritative hypnosis." I suggest you review your sources and find out what they were talking about. I have never seen this.
>
> Scientology technology encompasses the following sub-technologies:
> 1) Assists and other non-metered auditing.
> 2) Professional auditing, a variety of different types.
> 3) Study technology (to handle poor literacy and other study problems)
> This includes Word Clearing, both metered and unmetered.
> 4) Ethics technology, which involves the mechanics of criminal influence and how to avoid it or overcome it.
> 5) Administrative technology, which involves the organizing and management of groups.
> 6) "Purification" and other technologies for handling chemical buildups in the body and drug addictions.
>
> All of these technologies, except some forms of professional auditing, are available to the public in books and lectures and may be studied by anyone who is curious.
>
> This thread was about the planet's apparent neglect of the importance of space exploration. My point was that we still have a lot to handle before we will have a very good chance of putting a sustainable colony in space. This forum in mainly devoted to the technical challenges, and I recognize that. But there are social and spiritual technologies, too. And from what I know, they are important elements to consider in this particular subject. For me, Hubbard's work was a good starting place. I advise others to take it seriously.
>
> - Larry
>
> > Brooks

Well we are traveling far afield here, but I haven't read any evidence that E meters work as described. I don't particularly wish to spend time researching each of the other religious claims of Scientology's unverified technologies. But on the main point for this group, I don't think we should prevent ourselves from expanding into space because we don't 'know' the spiritual or social realms that are claimed to already exist there.
Brooks