Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?

[Mr Skeptic]

That's why this is my favorite UFO incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

 

Wow. That truly is an impressive sighting.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How so? I can see the stars just fine, and the diffraction limit of my eye is horribly bad. If the spacecraft are hot, they should shine like a star on infrared. While yes, it would be the ultimate in pixelated video (a 1 pixel spacecraft) it should be followed by multiple sources and should act in a way that defies freefall.

 

The diffraction limit is a problem when you want to distinguish things that are as bright or less bright, not more bright. The trouble is the more bright one will be the only thing visible, but for a spacecraft that would mean it would be the spacecraft.

 

Asteroids, on the other hand, are about as cold as deep space and so would be very hard to see (distinguish from background of the same color). That's why they are hard to find.

If the spacecraft is radiating, yes, it'd show up. But if it's also moving, it won't appear on the long-exposure shots that astronomers like to do with their telescopes.

[Moontanman]

Wow. That truly is an impressive sighting.

 

I have to agree, having been on the "highly skeptical" side of this debate many times that one is very difficult to explain away.

[Sayonara]

I have to agree, having been on the "highly skeptical" side of this debate many times that one is very difficult to explain away.

 

Venus near the horizon shining through a top secret military weather balloon on fire.

[JohnB]

A few points.

 

I think people are arguing past each other.

 

Mooeypoo is not arguing that all sightings are false, but simply that even good sightings are unlikely to be alien visitations. Not impossible, just unlikely.

 

The "pro" side are arguing that there is enough prima facie evidence to warrant further scientific study into the phenomenon. Not that the sightings are aliens, but that there is enough evidence to reasonably say that there is something odd going on that warrants further investigation.

 

Part of the problem is that sceptics argue that these things have been investigated, but the pro side can just as easily show that the investigations were not scientific in any usage of the word. They were designed to arrive at a conclusion and some of those involved have stated such.

 

So the argument that the phenomena have been ivestigated in any systematic, thourough and scientific fashion really isn't valid.

 

Investigations into individual sightings have been done in many cases, with inconclusive results. However, what arouses the suspicions of the pro side is that the easier the sighting is to explain, the more likely authorities are to talk about it. As the sightings get harder to explain, the more likely that authorities will deny any detailed knowledge of the incident. Note that the USAF denies that it recieved any extra report from the Iranians about the Tehran incident.

 

We are faced with a simple choice. Either the Iranians are mistaken or the USAF is. If this were the only case, then there would be no reasonable way to decide which is the true state of affairs. Unfortunately it is by no means isolated and we are now faced with a different choice. Either a number of other organisations are incorrect, or the USAF is. The probability now shifts to point to a systematic policy of denial by the USAF. Note that I don't say "proves", but "points to". The apparent disappearance of "difficult" reports is consistent with the concept of a deliberate policy.

 

Should such a policy exist, then there may be many reasons for it, some of which I outlined earlier. There may be extremely good reasons, or it may be simply long habit.

 

The Brookings Report commissioned by NASA in the 60s made some salient points that set policy then and since "continue the policy" is pretty standard for most governments, it may continue today. While the report did not call for the withholding of "proof", it suggested that further study into the advisability would be a good idea. I've never heard of any further studies, but that doesn't mean they weren't done.

 

The pertinant passages are;

Evidences of its existence might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets. The consequences for attitudes and values are unpredictable, but would vary profoundly in different cultures and between groups within complex societies; a crucial factor would be the nature of the communication between us and the other beings. Whether or not earth would be inspired to an all-out space effort by such a discovery is moot: societies sure of their own place in the universe have disintegrated when confronted by a superior society, and others have survived even though changed. Clearly, the better we can come to understand the factors involved in responding to such crises the better prepared we may be.

 

And;

 

Questions one might wish to answer by such studies would include: How might such information, under what circumstances be presented to or witheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of discovering scientists and other decisionmakers regarding release of the fact of discovery?

 

The relevent pages are 215 and 216.

 

We shouldn't read too much into this as consideration of alien contact took 1 1/2 pages out of a 250 page document. If you are considering the implications of space exploration, then you have to mention the possibility of finding artifacts that confirm an ET existence, even if they have long passed.

 

To further muddy the waters, the sceptical side will often latch onto anything that "explains" the sighting, regardless of how unlikely or impossible. Note the "explanation" of the Tehran incident mentioned on the Wiki page. That Jupiter would be picked up by airborne radar is certainly an "extraordinary" explanation.

 

It is unfortunately by no means unique. The New Zealand films of 1978 suffered a similar fate. This time it was Venus that was picked up and tracked by the radar at Wellington airport. Wellington airport advised the aircraft that they were being followed by an unknown object, which is to say the least an unusual activity for Venus to be engaging in.

 

Much is also made of "extraordinary" claims, Mooeypoo made an interesting list earlier. I will however counter it with another list.

 

Those who think that none of the sightings might be an ET craft must believe at least one of the following;

 

1. Earth has the only life in the Universe.

2. If there is life elsewhere it has not gained intelligence.

3. If intelligence has developed, it has not reached the levels of creating science.

4. If science has developed, then it is not as advanced as ours.

5. Development beyond our level is not possible, no matter how much time you have for research.

6. If our science cannot understand how something might be done, it cannot be done. ie Human science is supreme in this Galaxy.

7. It's a big Galaxy and they haven't got around to coming here yet.

 

All except the last one are extraordinary things to believe or base conclusions on.

 

Another thing that muddies the water in this area is the abundance of anecdotal evidence. Seriously, if all the accounts of the differing types of visitor were true, then this piddling little planet would be the Grand Central Station of the Galaxy. That we would be such an object of interest to so many different races is unlikely in the extreme.

 

A far more likely possibility was outlined in the book "Those who watch" by Robert Silverberg. Simply put, we are being watched by at least 2 factions involved in a "Cold War". As we advanced technologically, then more ships were required to properly observe us. Once we reach the required level, then contact could ensue.

 

As a general point. To deny that many of the sightings reported as "craft" are exactly that is to call a large number of experienced observers deluded or mistaken. For what reason except personal predjudice would you argue that a pilot who reports seeing a large, metallic object flying without visible means did not see just that?

 

Why do we assume a police officer to be a trained and credible witness except when he reports an encounter? This is an "extraordinary" change in attitude that can only be produced by personal predjudice.

 

My beliefs about mans stature in the Galaxy are not threatened by the idea of somebody else knowing things we don't and doing things we can't. To others I ask "Are yours?" and "Why?"

[King, North TX]

All those renderings of flying discs from historical texts? They're time travelling Frisbees. It's a historical FACT because the drawings are right there and the claim could be proven true or false.

 

A claim should only be considered a fact once it has been shown to be true, not before.

 

It isn't "just like Homer's Troy" at all.

 

An assertion? You just said it was fact. A fact and an assertion are very different things. But yes, it IS an assertion. Which as yet has not been shown to have any factual basis.

 

In science you cannot take a presupposed conclusion and reverse-engineer supporting material to buoy it up. This is the antithesis of the scientific method and utterly dreadful reasoning. If that's how you want to proceed, fine, but don't do so under the impression that you are engaging in anything other than a festival of fallacies.

 

You are comparing THE most written about entity in the history of man- "god", to time traveling frisbees... As if the possibility of their existences are 'equal'...??? Really? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

A fact is something that can be proven true, as opposed to an opinion. There are both true and false facts.

 

Troy 'was' a fictional city in a story. That story, fully of characters and locals was certainly embellished over the centuries, but 'discovery' didn't happen until someone found it to be a truth. However, NONE of this mattered to the hidden city lying in wait to be found. It was ALWAYS real, even if the evidence or proof wasn't under someone's microscope. Actual truth isn't subject to your beliefs...

 

"God/intelligent ufos EXIST, both now and in our ancient past." ...is indeed a declarative statement that need not be supported by any 'further' evidence.

 

Admittedly, I am more historian than scientist. I'm merely noting a millennial expanded consistency in the data that 'demands' serious scientific investigation into what "god/intelligent ufos" are.

 

That said, I'd like to thank JohnB for his thoughtful and well worded retort, just above. I think he said more, and in a more pleasing manner than I here offer. Such statement are far too rare... Be well, JohnB.

[Moontanman]

Kudos to JohnB for a excellent lay out of the problem. Time traveling Frisbees is a bit much, they don't even look like Frisbees. I agree that something has been going on for millennia, what no one knows, but dismissing it frivolously seems insulting to the people involved at the very least

 

It is also evident that pictures are not required to make a sighting significant in regard to the sighting being unconventional.

[Sayonara]

You are comparing THE most written about entity in the history of man- "god", to time traveling frisbees... As if the possibility of their existences are 'equal'...??? Really? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No. I am demonstrating the flaw in your approach. I am not making any statement about the flavour or scale of some arbitrary belief.

 

A fact is something that can be proven true, as opposed to an opinion. There are both true and false facts.

A fact is some objectively true statement which can be verified, usually something which is known to be or to have happened. You can't substitute 'known' with 'believed', because this puts the claim in the realm of opinions and imagination.

If a fact is shown to be false then it is not a 'false fact', it is simply false (or a falsehood, if you require a noun).

It is self-evidently rash to make a claim which might be objectively true, and to call it a fact prior to any attempt at verification.

 

Troy 'was' a fictional city in a story.

Sort of. The city of Troy appeared in that story in the same way that the city of London appeared in the story of "28 Days Later". Today it is the name of an archaeological site but this does not magically remove the real cities (yes, plural) of Troy from history. Similarly the existence of the cities at the Troy site was well recorded in parallel with the Homeric use of the location as a backdrop for his fiction. The Romans were particularly au fait with Troy.

 

That story, fully of characters and locals was certainly embellished over the centuries, but 'discovery' didn't happen until someone found it to be a truth.

The only 'discovery' was the location of the layered ruins of the cities, not the fact of their existence.

 

However, NONE of this mattered to the hidden city lying in wait to be found. It was ALWAYS real, even if the evidence or proof wasn't under someone's microscope. Actual truth isn't subject to your beliefs...

I fully understand the point you are trying to make, I really do. But if you are going to illustrate it by example then you need an example that actually fits.

 

You might also want to consider that the concept of belief being irrelevant to a thing's existence or occurrence is a moot point if that thing does not exist or occur. In this case, that would be the same as saying "yes, if flying saucers visited earth then our belief in them would not change that. However, in the same vein we cannot state that they have visited purely on the basis of our belief or lack of belief in that occurrence".

And when you attribute the historical renderings you are talking about to alien visitation with no evidence to show why those renderings can only refer to alien visitation then you are making a statement from belief, and belief only. Which I can clearly see is sufficient for you, but it has no scientific merit.

 

"God/intelligent ufos EXIST, both now and in our ancient past." ...is indeed a declarative statement that need not be supported by any 'further' evidence.

On the contrary; all positive claims require support, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence or GTFO.

 

Admittedly, I am more historian than scientist. I'm merely noting a millennial expanded consistency in the data that 'demands' serious scientific investigation into what "god/intelligent ufos" are.

Pointing towards a body of data and suggesting that scientific study might be a good idea is laudable.

It's just the bit where you pre-suppose the conclusion before any such study is carried out which is problematic.

 

Kudos to JohnB for a excellent lay out of the problem. Time traveling Frisbees is a bit much, they don't even look like Frisbees. I agree that something has been going on for millennia, what no one knows, but dismissing it frivolously seems insulting to the people involved at the very least

The point is that if you follow King's reasoning route, then you can safely insert anything where "time travelling frisbees" appears in that sentence. Which is clearly nonsense.

[Double K]

Good UFO footage here

 

http://mog.com/RGM/blog/139680

[JohnB]

I thank you both for your comments.

 

This is a vexatious subject an interpretations always vary. While discounting accounts from ancient times is possibly misleading, it is also possible to read too much into an account. Language, context and vocabulary need to be understood to even come close to an evaluation.

 

Some examples.

 

Volcanics. The words of Pliny the Younger were discounted as fanciful for nearly 2,000 years. Volcanoes didn't do the things he described. Now, of course, we know about Pyroclastic clouds and guess what? His description is an accurate account of the events in 79AD.

 

Rogue Waves. Accounts of these massive and destructive waves have been around since the early days of sail, continuing to the modern era. Universally discounted by scientists until recently. By using satellite imagery it was "Oops". The waves do exist. The sailors were right, the Oceanographers were wrong.

 

On the other hand.

 

Fiery chariots. Descriptions of these things come down from the distant past. The problem is that they could mean anything. It could be a purely literary device used to convey something that due to lack of cultural context the meaning has been lost. However, the vocabulary of the time was limited. An account of someone leaving in a fiery chariot may be the best description he could give. The only thing that emitted light was fire and the only thing that moved quickly and carried people were chariots.

 

So a person entering a glowing craft and leaving at speed would give a fiery chariot description even though fire was not actually involved. So we can't really draw any conclusion from these descriptions due to context and vocabulary. (And we are totally ignoring the added problem of translation errors)

 

Things in paintings. Sorry guys, but not as persuasive as at first glance. Historically speaking, signs, portents and strange things in the sky have always been linked to momentous occasions or people. For many historical artists, it wouldn't be a painting of the Madonna without something flying around in the background.

 

A good example here is the Bayeax Tapestry from Britain. Scenes 15 and 16 are clear. "HIC DEDERUNT HAROLDO CORONAM REGIS. HIC RESIDET HOROLD REX ANGLORUM. STIGANT ARCHIEPISCOPUS. ISTI MIRANT STELLAM." or "Here they gave the royal crown to Harold. Here enthroned is Harold, King of England. Archbishop Stigand. These people marvel at the star." (Halley's Comet IIRC.)

 

This is another area where cultural context is important for fact is mixed with fiction. We know the comet was there and the depiction is probably accurate. However, being on the top border of the Tapestry, it shares space with Unicorns, Griffins and other imaginary beasts.

 

Just as a fault in one area of evidence doesn't make it all wrong, truth and fact in one area doesn't make it all a factual account either.

 

Culturally, and all cultures share this, the sky has always been the place of wonderous things. Stars fall from it and have caused destruction, fires, that sort of thing. The Gods live there. Why do they live there?

 

Quite simply so that nobody can go and check. They wouldn't live underground as that is dark and frightening. They can't live over the mountains, over the sea or some such because it is guaranteed that some silly bugger will go and look. The sky is the only place you can put things so that they cannot be checked up on.

 

I'll add a final point that I find interesting. UFO accounts from the modern era are remarkable in that they evolve. Accounts from the mid 1800s almost invariably describe (often in detail) the propellors seen on the craft. There is an early account (1600s?) of one of these "Airships" suffering an accident with it's anchor catching on a church steeple. One of the crew climbed down the rope to free the anchor and the skyship sailed happily away.

 

Dirigables were being described some years before entering into the public consciousness. They evolved into cigar shaped objects with flames at the aft end, apparently some form of rocket remarkably similar to early depictions of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. Cigar shaped objects are still commonly reported, but generally without the flames now.

 

In contrast, the classic "saucer" has remained unchanged since reports first started being recorded. Round, sometimes with a dome and sometimes with a raised section with visible portholes.

 

Why has one evolved and the other not?

 

We can of course add to this the rise of the Triangles. This shape was not common at all but is increasingly seen today. Personally I think these are probably stealth aircraft and the USAF finds it expedient to allow them to be UFOs. Since they have a rather colourful record of intruding into the airspace of other nations, it is better to have a UFO report than to admit that they were somewhere they shouldn't be.

 

(Funny how denial turns into an "off course" B-2 when somebody threatens to take a shot at the unknown object.)

 

Edit to add.

Similarly the existence of the cities at the Troy site was well recorded in parallel with the Homeric use of the location as a backdrop for his fiction. The Romans were particularly au fait with Troy.

I'd like to see some references for that. Every contemporary account I've read said that archaeologists thought Schleimann was chasing a phantom and that Troy did not exist. They thought he wouldn't find it because it wasn't there to be found. I add that Roman accounts would have been based on the earlier Greek and as such could not be considered an "independent" verification.

Edited May 24, 2010 by JohnB

[King, North TX]

...

 

And when you attribute the historical renderings you are talking about to alien visitation with no evidence to show why those renderings can only refer to alien visitation then you are making a statement from belief, and belief only. Which I can clearly see is sufficient for you, but it has no scientific merit.

 

...

 

 

On the contrary; all positive claims require support, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence or GTFO.

 

...

 

 

Ahhh... I understand our disagreement, now. 'I' don't use the term, or concede its usage, this term "alien". They are no more alien than we are.

 

I am suggesting that these references, pictures, and photographs are of an as of yet "undefined" entity. We've called them a great many things- god, angels, flying saucers, ufos, and thousands of others throughout the ages. We shown them literally in every piece of medium available to us, even unto today's digital media. I don't think anyone can say for sure what they are or have to be. I certainly am not.

 

What I am saying is that they ARE, and always have been, for as long as scribes could draw. That we lack the scientific will and or ability to study these things, doesn't keep them from being real. It just keeps us from truly understanding their make-up.

 

What we are faced with are extraordinary events, while we are armed with only ordinary means.

 

*"If we can't study it, it doesn't exist." ...seems like a rather limiting stance to take.

[Sayonara]

I'd like to see some references for that. Every contemporary account I've read said that archaeologists thought Schleimann was chasing a phantom and that Troy did not exist. They thought he wouldn't find it because it wasn't there to be found. I add that Roman accounts would have been based on the earlier Greek and as such could not be considered an "independent" verification.

Do you mean that Schleimann's peers believed that there was no city of Troy whatsoever, or that the Troy of Homeric legend was not based on a real city? Bear in mind that I am demonstrating that "Troy was a myth until it was dug up" is false, not that "the myth of Troy was a myth" is not true. If you follow me.

 

Not being a historian I am not sure how to find primary sources for Roman interactions with Trojan cities, but I'm pretty sure that Plutarch of Chaeronea's account of Alexander the Great visiting a latter city of Troy in 334BC is considered a historically reliable record.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ahhh... I understand our disagreement, now. 'I' don't use the term, or concede its usage, this term "alien". They are no more alien than we are.

I'm sorry but I don't think you do. It doesn't matter if we refer to them as aliens, ghosts, angels, or whatever - the point is that it is irrational to attribute any such label to them without a compelling reason. There is not even any reason to call them "they", because a shape in an Aztec tomb carving might well vaguely or even closely resemble a background detail in a Renaissance painting but this doesn't necessarily make them representations of the same thing.

 

"If we can't study it, it doesn't exist." ...seems like a rather limiting stance to take.

I don't know anyone who takes that stance. Most of the people who have any meaningful input into science recognise that the frontiers of technology are mobile.

[Forsmann]

I think the signs of "divine" or extraterrestrial visits to the earth in at least ancient times seems close to obvious. Check out the ancient aliens tv series 2010 on youtube. Some of the facts presented are amazing.

[King, North TX]

...

 

I'm sorry but I don't think you do. It doesn't matter if we refer to them as aliens, ghosts, angels, or whatever - the point is that it is irrational to attribute any such label to them without a compelling reason. There is not even any reason to call them "they", because a shape in an Aztec tomb carving might well vaguely or even closely resemble a background detail in a Renaissance painting but this doesn't necessarily make them representations of the same thing.

 

...

 

 

..."it" then... My point is that it is a 'something', and not nothing...

 

I don't know 'what' truly appears in our records. I just know our immediate heavens have something there...

 

We have not known, and still do not now have the ability to quantify what 'specifically' we are seeing.

 

What we have essentially are reports of the 'spirit' of wood leaving upon burning it. We know now that this is or was just 'smoke'. The use of the term 'spirit', or in this case "god/the divine" is a misnomer. As the label was placed without true knowledge about the subject matter being named.

 

The point again, is that both our ancestors and today's modern day cameras are catch/featuring SOMETHING.

 

It is now the duty of science to define it.

 

To suggest that there is nothing 'up there' for science to investigate, is in a word "ignorant"...

[JohnB]

Do you mean that Schleimann's peers believed that there was no city of Troy whatsoever, or that the Troy of Homeric legend was not based on a real city? Bear in mind that I am demonstrating that "Troy was a myth until it was dug up" is false, not that "the myth of Troy was a myth" is not true. If you follow me.

 

I'm not sure I do. It is my understanding that the prevailing thought was that the Troy of Homer did not exist, that the Trojan War was a greatly inflated account of a small tribal squabble. Hence there was no city to find.

 

It was also widely held that since Homers account of the war included the Amazons as defenders of Troy ("Female warriors? Preposterous!") the rest of the account must be fictional as well.

 

I add that the works of Plutarch of Chaeronea are third hand at best. Plutarch was born in 46AD, some 400 years after Alexander. His works are based on the earlier writings of Callisthenes of Olynthus who wrote "Deeds of Alexander". Other references to this work put the visit by Alexander to Troy at exactly 1,000 years to the day of the Trojan defeat. I think that this was viewed (quite rightly) as propaganda.

 

I'm not trying to diminish the work of Plutarch, as his synthesis contains much that is now lost to us in original documents and puts many accounts into context. I sometimes wonder if he didn't do the first "Metastudy".

 

So many works have been lost, it is saddening. How about some of the physicists around here hurry up and build a damn time machine so that we can go back and recover them?

[mooeypoo]

How about some of the physicists around here hurry up and build a damn time machine so that we can go back and recover them?

Hitchhike a UFO!

[JohnB]

Hitchhike a UFO!

 

Are you kidding??? Last time I did that I had to listen to Vogon poetry!

[insane_alien]

and then they through us out of an airlock without even giving us so much as a cup of tea!

 

thats vogons for you i suppose. at least they're stuck losing and finding the triplicate forms they had to fill out in order to read us poetry and chuck us out of the airlock.

[Moontanman]

What would we see if we were to detect aliens inside our solar system? WISE is looking at infrared but would it really detect an alien base or colony? How much power would aliens really have to be leaking to be seen by WISE or is WISE even capable of detecting aliens unless they set off a nuclear device of some sort?

 

How far away could we detect a nuclear explosion of say one megaton? Would we have to be lucky and looking in the right direction? How far away could the mark one eyeball see a such an explosion? How much thermal energy does one of our own nuclear power plants give off as waste heat? How far away could we detect one of our own nuclear power plants?

 

I guess what i am asking is what would we need to be looking for? And could we detect them by accident or would it take a search that specifically looked for certain things that could not be natural, we do not expect to see, and we normally simply do not look for?

[King, North TX]

To initiate contact...

 

What do we do?

 

_

 

*I say, we invite them to compete in our Olympics.

 

WHO'S WITH ME!?

[mooeypoo]

To initiate contact...

 

What do we do?

 

_

 

*I say, we invite them to compete in our Olympics.

 

WHO'S WITH ME!?

Screw that, I want to actually have a chance to win something...

 

 

 

[JohnB]

Screw that, I want to actually have a chance to win something...

 

What sport? I somehow can't picture you as a weightlifter.

 

Quick question. In an Interstellar, multi species society, exactly how do you judge a Miss Universe competition? I mean, tentacles might look good on some races, but I doubt they would appeal to humanoid judges. And the questions.......

 

"So, Miss South Capricornia, how do you feel about interspecies marraiges as recently allowed on Aldebaran IV?"

Edited May 26, 2010 by JohnB

[mooeypoo]

What sport? I somehow can't picture you as a weightlifter.

Speed physics.

 

Quick question. In an Interstellar, multi species society, exactly how do you judge a Miss Universe competition? I mean, tentacles might look good on some races, but I doubt they would appeal to humanoid judges. And the questions.......

 

"So, Miss South Capricornia, how do you feel about interspecies marraiges as recently allowed on Aldebaran IV?"

You know, if we think about this seriously for a moment, I think that the odds for having a species that is radically different than humans is so much greater than meeting a species that shares some of our traits that I would imagine the competitions - if we do them mixed - will go on the basis of technical data ("Height: x", "grooming level", "cleanliness", "consistency of color", etc) rather than subjective opinion of beauty.

 

If you think about it, too, there are a few 'standards' that we generally put up as "beautiful" that take them away from the subjective, somewhat. Most of them, I think, have to do with symmetry and softness of the curves (before you jump up, men, I mean facial features, like a round small nose).

 

The interesting thing will probably be to try and find some standards that are shared between the species that can be considered "above average" to judge on.

 

On a good note, if there is a true "Miss Universe" (rather than today's miss universe which is more like miss north-and-south-america), and it involves slimy, tentacled creatures then my chances of winning will improve greatly.

 

~moo

[Moontanman]

To initiate contact...

 

What do we do?

 

_

 

*I say, we invite them to compete in our Olympics.

 

WHO'S WITH ME!?

 

I think the Miss Universe pageant is more appropriate You got my vote mooey! I've alwasy found intellegence to be beautiful.

 

 

Wow look at the brains on that girl!

[mooeypoo]

Cranial nudity?