h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Extra-Terrestrial Encounters - Part One: Close Encounters - A914997
Author: Nylarthotep - U200240

The first in a two-part series...the next time an alien inserts a probe up your rear-end, at least you'll be able to catagorise the experience!

Hi

I'm surprised I'm teh first to comment on this! I'd have thought it was an topic that interested many people.

Just a couple of points well a couple ish..

I don't know how long you plan the second entry to be but if it's a simlar length to this I'd be tempted to combine the two together and have one entry.

not everyone might know what project blue book was? could you link to a site that explains it do you think, or perhaps explain it a little more yourself...

Well done! good start!

I wondered if this was a little short as it stood. I'll try to go into more detail about Project Blue Book and look for a site (I'm a little backwards in that I still use books to research some articles).

I also wondered whether it would be an idea to include specific examples of each type of close encounter. This might flesh things out a bit and provide more palpable details.

What do you think?

Found some nice official links to US government and military sources.

This was interesting stuff.
I think the list of definitions of Close Encounters was spoiled by your assumptions that these things have actually happened, almost on a regular basis.

Eg. ..."witnesses are usually able to discern enough detail"...

The word 'usually' here casually implies that Close Encounters are backed up by hard evidence and are quite likely to occur while you're out mowing the lawn or halfway down to the shops - when in fact they aren't.

The definitions are valid in themselves, for any FUTURE encounters, but I think that for now we're a little short of hard evidence about past sightings.

I disagree. The statement is intended to define the distinct difference between a close encounter and the sighting of such things as "Lights in the sky" and "Flying Saucers." The witnesses to these phenomena are repeatedly able to recount a great amount of detail about the nature of what they believe they have seen, or believe they have seen.

The use of the word "usually" could easily be replaced by "in most cases" but then that's quibbling over small points.

The fact is that close encounters DO happen on a very regular basis as the number of sightings recorded by Project Blue Book attests, whether or not they are genuine is what has to be proved by further investigation. The article in no way states that the close encounters experienced by witnesses are backed up by factual evidence (except in the case of encounters of the 2nd and sometimes 4th kinds where even then the evidence is far from conclusive).

The simple fact is that this is a clear and simple system of catagorisation rather than an open assumption that alien encounters are actually taking place.

Yes I see what you mean. On a second reading, you do state quite clearly that this is what people 'believe' they've seen. Fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification.

I thank you.

Most witnesses to the phenomenon, it seems, are yahoo's and probably believe that they're a small antique teapot up for auction at Christie's in New York at some point in their lives as well.

I also took this to mean that these incidents have actually occurred rather than that they have been reported. You should reword the text so that it is clearer that this is only a method of classifying the reported sightings.

For example, instead of "close encounters of this kind exploded in numbers in the latter decades of the twentieth century", you could say "reports of close encounters of this kind exploded in numbers in the latter decades of the twentieth centur".

Good entry!

Just made those changes.

If you have any other observations please feel free to share them.

It looks good!

Thanks.

I find this a fairly good explanation of how these beliefs became so widespread. http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html

I think the entry could still do with a little more tweaking towards the skeptic viewpoint (like adding some of the rational explanations for alleged alien abductions) but then again I'm admittedly a complete cynic.

This is a great entry, but i also would like it to be more "skeptic". To use an example already used in this thread, the phrase:

..."witnesses are usually able to discern enough detail"...

could be changed to:

..."witnesses usually report being able to discern enough detail"...

Other phrases could be reworded in a similar way.

Don't give up though, this is certainly a great entry, and one that will certainly get picked eventually.

Tango

No offence, but who mentioned giving up?!?

I'll look at the wording of the article in depth, just for you.

I just didn't want you to be disheartened by our critisisms, some people do give up when people don't like their entries straight away, I'm glad you're not one of them!

I look forward to seeing your modifications.

Tango

I'm no first week researcher, I laugh in the face of criticism!

Constructive comments are always welcome.

Tango

Is there another Guru called "Cash"?

If not then there should be.

I don't think there is, why do you ask?

Tango