II>A degree of skepticism is good, however many people are so skeptical
  >that they wouldn't believe the facts if the facts hit them over the head
  >with a brick bat.  :-}
No doubt thats true... and you might say the same about me.  Its just
that I may question what you call "facts".  To me, a fact is something
having real demonstrable existence.  A "fact" leaves out the guesswork
and speculation.  Not many of those exist with the UFO phenomena.
  >observed "strange things," or been abducted themselves.  These were not
  >people who wanted to profit or get their names in the paper.  In fact,
  >they were quite reticent about discussing these "strange things" until
  >they were convinced that I would not go spreading their names around,
  >telling the things they had told me.
I don't question the sincerity of UFO believers.  Neither do I doubt
their integrity... for the most part.  What I have a problem with is the
propensity to jump to an otherwise unsubstantiated conclusion.
  > Then
  >_I_ saw some UFO's myself.  I know darn well that what I saw was _NOT_
  >anything made by anyone on THIS planet... not even in Area 51!
Here is where you and I disagree.  If you know what they were, (I'm
assuming that you used "UFO's" figuratively, not literally), how do you
know beyond your own emotions and "feelings".  Did they communicate with
you in such a way as to convince you that they were from another world?
If you have to guess, how can you be so certain that your intuition is
correct?
II>There are some who believe as you do, and there are others who flatly
  >state that there is NO intelligent life anywhere in the universe, and
  >that anyone who believes otherwise is either lying or off their rocker.
I've seen a few, very few of them around.  Most of them are as
unreasonable as the believers that will accept no alternative to the
ET hypothesis as the truth.  In my experience, the number of true
believers far exceed the number of true disbelievers.
II>I think the late great Carl Sagen said it best when he said,
  >(paraphrased), that the odds of there being intelligent life somewhere
  >"out there" are so high that it's virtual certanty.
Even the late great Carl Sagen was doing no more than speculating.  In
that regard, his opinion is no more valid that yours or mine.
II>However our science does NOT know everything about the laws of physics!
Of this I have no doubt.  But until new proofs are found, anything
beyond our current knowledge has to be classified as "theory" at best
and "science fiction" at its worst.
  >light!  It MIGHT be possible to "hitch a ride" with tachyons.
              ^^^^^
  >Or it may be possible to "fold" space as some have suggested.
         ^^^
  >It may be possible to use black holes to cross the galaxy
      ^^^
  >We don't know if this is possible, but _IF_ such a mode of hyper-
                                          ^^^^
If, may, might???  Those are words that by definition are speculation.
You pose _theories_ then ask a question
  >..., why could not a more advanced civilization
  >have discovered it and why couldn't they be using it to travel the
  >uncomprehensable (to us) interstellar and intergalactic distances?
Remember the old saw... "If wishes were horses then beggars might ride.
If wishes were fishes, we'd have some fried".  If's and maybe's do not
suggest facts nor truths.
To answer your question, IF your theories are truths, then yes, another
civilization might have advanced them to the point of interstellar
travel, but alas, we don't even know if they DO exist in a usable form,
how can we guess what some other unknown species MIGHT have done with
them.
If we were to apply your method to criminal investigation, we'd have to
conclude that everyone who had a motive and a means were murderers.  It
doesn't work that way.  There first has to be a dead body.
II>Oh, physical evidence, huh?  Can you show me physical evidence of the
  >supposed vacuum of outer space?  Or stars going nova/supernova?  Can you
  >prove to me that men have walked on the moon?
Personally? No, but there are recognized bodies of science that have
shown through various experiments and observations that these phenomena
indeed exist.  I'm willing to accept their findings.  Where are the
recognized bodies of science that support the ET hypothesis.
  >chromosomes?  Sure, I have seen pictures that were supposedly taken 
hrough
  >powerful microscopes and telescopes, and tinker-toy MODELS of chromosomes,
  >and the pictures supposedly sent the billions of miles from Mars, but are
(Continued to next message)
---
 þ QMPro 1.02 42-7029 þ Misspelled?  Impossible.  My modem is error 
correcting.
---------------