PDA

View Full Version : UFO's: A Modern Mythology?



lpetrich
2002-Jan-27, 07:22 AM
It seems to me that the whole UFO business is a sort of modern high-tech mythology. That is not to say that there may be genuine Unidentified Flying Objects, however. Ball lightning is one such object; it has seldom been photographed, and some skeptics claim that it is really afterimages. Exotic test airplanes may also qualify as UFO's, but I won't consider them here. There may be other exotic-looking objects, but they'd be very seldom observed.

To me, the "flying saucer" shape is a sign that UFO's are essentially mythological; the term came from a misinterpretation of Kenneth Arnold's 1947 report of objects that skipped like saucers near some mountains. I call it mythological because I believe that to be an unlikely shape for an extraterrestrial spaceship (ETS). To travel through an atmosphere with a minimum of drag, an object ought to present a very small cross section; also, wings are usually much shorter front-to-back than their sideways extension. Thus, airplanes look like missiles with wings and control surfaces. In fact, I believe it reasonable to expect an ETS to look much like an Earthling airplane or missile.

Also, they have odd behavior for surveillance vehicles. Night lights on vehicles have an important purpose: advertising their presence so that others will not collide with them. So why travel with lights on if one does not want to be seen? Of course, they could be trying to tease us...

Also, most ETS occupants appear too humanlike -- where are those that look like carnivorous dinosaurs? Or like spidery robots? In fact, I'd consider the spidery-robot possibility the most likely one.

Their alleged taste for abductions, complete with strange medical experiments, seems to be to be nightmares experienced by the "subjects"; there is a distinct lack of physical evidence for those alleged abductions. I've experienced lots of strange dreams, though none of such abductions; however, others may experience dreams of abductions.

And there are those who claim to have contacted by benevolent Space Brothers and Sisters who care about humanity, but who are reluctant to appear to leaders or to intervene in force. A good analogy is with the confrontation between India and Pakistan; President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have sent diplomats to work out a solution to that crisis -- diplomats who have been sent to the leaders of those two nations and their immediate subordinates. And not to obscure peasants in the countrysides of those two countries.

Of course, some of the descriptions of these SB's and SS's is absolutely laughable, such as Truman Bethurum's description of one UFO pilot, a certain Aura Rhanes, as looking like an Earthwoman who is "tops in shapeliness and beauty".



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lpetrich on 2002-01-27 02:23 ]</font>

Peter B
2002-Jan-27, 11:16 AM
An article which appeared in the Australian Skeptic magazine suggested that popular culture has a strong influence on peoples' descriptions of UFOs, aliens and the aliens' messages. In the author's opinion, there was a bit of a correlation between the description of aliens and what they looked like in contemporary movies.

For example, aliens in the 1950s warned us about nuclear war. In the 1970s they warned us about the environment. In the 1990s, they just abducted us to do wierd experiments.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-27, 01:48 PM
So, in this millennium, they're going to give us tips on the stock market? Hey, bring it on.

We should also add crop circles to the mix here. I just saw a movie trailer for one about crop circles with Mel Gibson.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-27, 02:21 PM
lpetrich, I agree with your conclusion that UFOs are a modern myth; this is pretty hard to dispute. Past ages had their demons, succubi, and fairies; now we have ETs with anal probes. (I don't see this as progress!)

However, some of your arguments don't make much sense to me. If UFOs really were alien spacecraft, they'd almost have to be the products of technologies we can barely conceive of, let alone define clearly. Therefore, we have no way of knowing what forms such spacecraft might take, due to the requirements and/or limitations of those unknown technologies.

To say that a UFO would have to be aerodynamic rather than saucer-shaped, or should fly without lights, is like saying that the military should make silent helicopters so the enemy can't hear them coming.

Another example: back in the 50's, when they depicted moon rockets, artists painted lovely aerodynamic cylinders that looked like larger versions of the V2. They landed on their tail fins and the astronauts climbed down long rope ladders from airlocks near the nose. Compare that to the real LM, whose design was constrained by technological limits the earlier artists never dreamed of. [One quote from an Apollo designer: landing a direct-return moon lander in the "traditional" way would be about as easy as backing an Atlas rocket down onto the pad.]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-01-27 09:22 ]</font>

Chuck
2002-Jan-27, 09:45 PM
The Galactic Federation chose a humanlike race to explore earth because they'd be comfortable in our air and gravity.

lpetrich
2002-Jan-27, 09:46 PM
I agree that the advanced-technology question is a serious joker in the deck; lots of technologies have not turned out the way that were expected. For example, airplanes do not flap their wings, legged vehicles are still in an experimental/toy stage, and Artificial Intelligence has been much less successful than had been hoped in earlier decades.

However, my speculations about ETS shape are based on common engineering practice, which are justified by appealing to well-tested physical principles, computer simulations utilizing them, and wind-tunnel tests.

It may well be that some very advanced technology will enable sending saucer-shaped vehicles through an Earth-thickness atmosphere at supersonic speeds without producing sonic booms, but where's the falsifiability in the very-advanced-technology hypothesis?

As to the example of armed forces wanting silent helicopters, this is a matter of what is technologically feasible. When a soldier or a vehicle can feasibly be hidden, it will be hidden; consider camouflage clothing and paint jobs.

And if some ETS propulsion system had some glowing parts, it would be a good idea to hide those parts if at all possible, unless part of the purpose of the missions is to tease us.

Let us consider the advanced technology of a power source with a density of releasable energy much greater than that of hydrocarbon fuels to be burned in air. I make the qualification of "density", because if that is too low, it would be too heavy to fly.

If this power source can be used to heat air to a thousand C or so, it can be used to power a jet engine, while if it can supply electricity, it can spin a propeller. Both sorts of propulsion are naturally noisy -- but not externally glowing. However, it might be possible to surround a jet engine with a muffler, though a muffler that does not interfere with intake or exhaust flow may not be very effective.

But if one can suppress a sonic boom, one might certainly be able to create a good muffler for a jet engine, because it is also a phenomenon involving sound / air pressure.

And it would be interesting to know what sort of proposed designs those painters of big V2's were working from; they could instead simply be extrapolating from familiar sorts of rockets -- which were V2's and similar ones.

I will concede that avoiding aerodynamic drag will be only a very weak constraint when traveling relatively slowly, more slowly than a few tens of mi or km per hour. In that case, a saucer shape is more feasible, though unless the saucer rim has some reasonable function, it might be dispensed with.

The Apollo spacecraft are a good case study. The Command and Service Modules had to be able to travel through the Earth's atmosphere at supersonic speeds during ascent, but the Lunar Module was protected by some fairings and the Command and Service Modules.

Though the Lunar Module is rather irregularly shaped, its overall shape is vaguely spherical, with similar overall dimensions in each direction. This can be justified by mechanical-strength arguments; most, if not all, materials have much more compressive or tensile strength than shear strength, meaning that a long thin object like a saucer rim is vulnerable to bending. Which means that a saucer rim would have to have some function that would be difficult to duplicate with some other shape, especially for a large vehicle.

Solar panels and instrument booms on spacecraft may seem to be a counterexample, but they actually fit the principle rather well. They are only deployed when a spacecraft is past the high-acceleration parts of its mission and when it is above the Earth's atmosphere; both the atmosphere and the acceleration may cause deployed panels and booms to break off.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lpetrich on 2002-01-27 16:55 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-28, 12:19 AM
On 2002-01-27 16:46, lpetrich wrote:
It may well be that some very advanced technology will enable sending saucer-shaped vehicles through an Earth-thickness atmosphere at supersonic speeds without producing sonic booms, but where's the falsifiability in the very-advanced-technology hypothesis?
What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the very-advanced-technology hypothesis is not falsifiable, so we shouldn't be allowed to use it?

2002-Jan-28, 05:09 AM
1 CAUAC 17 MUAN
On 2002-01-27 16:45, Chuck wrote: To 10:39 P.M. 2-1-27


"CLONES".

lpetrich
2002-Jan-28, 07:08 AM
On 2002-01-27 19:19, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
What do you mean by that? Are you saying that the very-advanced-technology hypothesis is not falsifiable, so we shouldn't be allowed to use it?


What is one supposed to do with a hypothesis that can explain essentially anything?

2002-Jan-28, 07:39 AM
On 2002-01-28 00:09, HUb' wrote:
1 CAUAC 17 MUAN
On 2002-01-27 16:45, Chuck wrote: To 10:39 P.M. 2-1-27


"CLONES".
---- ----
Yeah, Yaeh the problem[CLUE] as i find its
Called Voice. it SOUNDS to me like every Clone has the exact same Vocal program reguardless of Manufacture? Date size or type?

SAMU
2002-Jan-28, 08:38 AM
You say that a extraterestrial spacecraft couldn't or wouldn't have a saucer shape. Might it have a deep space antenna? Possibly a parabolic dish shape? Mightn't it be a large antenna as it's homeland may be very far away? We ourselves use large antennas when communicating over fairly short intra solar system distances. If, while flying by at a distance of 100-500 miles above the surface of the earth it might be seen from the ground. Under unusual but by no means rare aptnospheric conditions such as frequently occur around mountains and any other place where air rises the air can create a lense that could allow the craft to be viewed under some magnefication even at a range of hundreds of miles in space. Suppose a craft were to deploy a large parabolic antenna like the opening of an umbrella. A person on the ground looking up would see an object getting larger as the umbrella deployed. He might interpret this as an object getting closer or, since he is looking up, he may mistakenly say he sees it coming down. As the antenna reaches it's maximum deployment it stops "growing" From the ground it's lateral motion now becomes more noticable. Someone on the ground viewing it might describe it as having come down and then making a right angle turn and moving off at great speed. Several people seeing it from the ground may see it at different points in its deployment and flyby process. One may see it all, one may see only its "decent", another may only see it's flyaway, Still another may have seen nothing and might try to claim he did only trying to get attention. In describing it some may use the an L shapped figure to describe the path they claim to have seen.

Anyone see any need for extremely advanced tech for the above to happen? Anyone think that the above is beyond the realm of physical possibility?

As to why a culture that travels space might not want to reveal themselves to us on a wide scale; They are presumably intelligent enough to know that it is not a good idea to give us advanced knowledge that could be used by a 14 year old to make an antimatter explosive from $5.00 worth of parts from Radio Shack.

Certainly some people have an emotional need to believe in something greater than oneself (Personally I like god for myself.). But an intellegent person contemplating the possibility of contact with E.T. would intellegently presume that they intellegently shouldn't contact us on a public scale. Thus the conspiricy presumption among intellegent people is justified.

I personally have reservations regarding veracity of the SETI project's claimed strategy. That strategy being (and my info may be out of date)according to my most recent knowledge is to scan the sky in the infra red with a computer to scan multiple frequencies. The theory being since infra red is the most common frequency a culture trying to contact us would presume that we would be listening on the most common frequency. The flaw in the reasoning is that to signal in that way is like signaling with a candle from a blast furnace. However, an advanced culture equal to our own produces long range, penetrating frequencies found no where else in all the universe. Our planet is the brightest star in the universe at those frequencies. According to the official words we are the only star at those frequencies. SETI claims not to be scanning at those frequencies and is claiming to instead be scanning at frequencies that have as good a chance of spotting a signal as a candle's chance in Hell.

In fact the UN treaty regarding the possibility of detecting a signal stipulates that the information shall not be revealed publicly until a full study is made including the social impact.

My suspicion is that if E.T. is there at all, whether they want us to know it or even if they don't know we are here at all, someone here knows it.

An interesting asside in this matter is that as the new kids on the block we have an advantage over the ancients up there in that when we detect them we can eavesdrop on them, aquire their tecnology and develop it for hundreds, hundreds of thousands or even billions of years before they even know we are here.


SAMU

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-28, 09:09 AM
1) SETI has nothing to do with infra-red. It is searching regions of the microwave spectrum that are especially transparent and have low background noise levels (giving a better chance of picking up "non-natural" signals).
2) What UN treaty? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif AFIK there is no treaty (UN or otherwise) on SETI. If you have a source for this, please share it.

lpetrich
2002-Jan-28, 11:18 AM
However, a big parabolic antenna is not something that one deploys on an aircraft traveling at some hundreds of mi/km per hour. Which is what an ETS traveling in our atmosphere essentially is, unless it is *very* slow.

Also, the ETS's in our atmosphere one can reasonably expect to be sent from some big "mother ship" that would have done the interstellar traveling.

In fact, such a big spaceship might already have been observed -- in the guise of near-Earth asteroids.

Finally, I accept the existence of numerous entities superior to myself in some way or other. The Earth is much bigger than me, for example.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-28, 12:22 PM
On 2002-01-28 02:08, lpetrich wrote:
What is one supposed to do with a hypothesis that can explain essentially anything?

Sorry, I think you brought it on yourself in the OP: "It seems to me that the whole UFO business is a sort of modern high-tech mythology." Once you start talking mythology, you've advanced the debate out of the realm of science, into a sort of religious forum.

UFO reports can be addressed on their evidence alone, but the whole idea of their existence is that someone somewhere possesses technology very much advanced over our own.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-28, 12:28 PM
Good subject.

UFOlogy (akin to theolgy methinks?) has definite roots in the past religions (those big hunks of rocks in Egypt are a prime example).
One point of view (the good)is that ET's are beneficial beings who have found us and are surreptiously feeding us technologies at a slow pace whilst making sure we don't kill ourselves in the process in oddly reminiscent of angels overlooking us and making sure that we don't come to direct harm.
The bad point of view is that if aliens were amongst us, they would have no problems mowing us down like we do cattle and trying to fight them would be the equivalent of sending a mounted knight regiment of 1000 ACE versus an Armored Division of 2000 ACE. Good for the depressant among us.

The "ugly" point of view: that of neutrality (the "most logical" snicker...) is that They are here, watching us, perhaps gaining insights on themselves at this species age) and we ain't going to know about it. They are just studying us like we studies various "inferior" species on our planet. Just seeing how life goes about on this planet, much like a scientist in his lab. Obviously for the 6.5 billion points of view on this planet, there could be rich intermixture with these three idealogical bents.

Throw these 3 points of view all together and you get Star Trek: that some would help, some would not, and some would hinder. That creates a pantheon in my point of view. So yes, it is a mythology. And like all creatures of the imagination, we hope that the best one wins out and is real. Depends on point of view really.

As for the other points of what such craft would look like, why they would do certain things, of being humanoid, and not helping us in our time of need......

What would they look like? Depends on where the species evolved methinks. Life can exist in an atmosphere different than ours.

Why would they do certain things? who knows? They are ALIEN afterall /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
Humanoid....just us wanting everything to behave to certain rules like "God make man in His image" and then He made the giraffe in His image also (cannot remember who quoted that). I won't even try to explain the duck billed platypus. It IS a mythology afterall, we are trying to explain for ourselves from inference of things we have no clue about.
As for the last statement, if Seven of Nine says resistance is futile, I ain't going to turn her down (also see Jeri Ryan and you'll understand if you're not a Trekkie)

Why not help us? Perhaps helping would hinder us. Let us figure out the riddles of existence and being alive just like they did so many (insert millenia here) ago. Maybe they are like us, we will mostly help, but we prefer to let someone fall flat on their face, for experiance is the best teacher. MAybe moral? Who are we to involve ourselves in their affairs? Or gradual...help us just a bit to get through a crisis that could destroy the species.... anyways if we are going to be fit crusaders of the universe (multiverse?) we need to figure out who we are and what we stand for. Awful lot of goodness, neutrality, and evil in the world today. Which one is going to win? (I stand on the side of goodness and hope like heck we'll win). Even then, the three sided debate has intrinsic values (I don't suppose a suicide bomber thinks he is serving evil now does he?)

I stand by my belief that is, if ET's are amongst us, we'll never know until they deign it fit to reveal themselves. Same thing with God... He is here, but we will never know what He is until we stand before Him after death. Even then, maybe not.

Let's just follow GOW and say that when going to into political, religous, or anything dealing with Inner space, we go out of science and into ....well into us. Science cannot measure love, it cannot measure hopes, ideas, dreams, etc. Perhaps some day it will be able to , and we will all become the good little Borg we should be. But until then, science cannot defeat religion, and religion cannot defeat science, and from such arises mythology. Perhaps a common ground of the two.

Tough world to live on. God knows I hope all that made some sense. Big topic it was...back to me banana...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ChallegedChimp on 2002-01-28 07:45 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Jan-28, 02:39 PM
On 2002-01-27 06:16, Peter B wrote:
An article which appeared in the Australian Skeptic magazine suggested that popular culture has a strong influence on peoples' descriptions of UFOs, aliens and the aliens' messages.


And around the turn of the century, all of the UFOs (yes, there were some) looked like zeppelins.

lpetrich
2002-Jan-28, 03:04 PM
Yes, a century ago, there were a lot of sightings of "mysterious airships", and then interest in them died down.

Many of the sightings were of planets and bright stars -- much like many more recent UFO's -- but some claimed to have gotten a closer look at them.

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-28, 05:55 PM
Hi, lpetrich,

I think you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

I think there are many, many good reasons to think that UFOs are not extraterrestrial spacecraft. However, I believe that arguments based on our present technological understanding (e.g. "They can't be spacecraft because we know a spacecraft can't look/behave like that") are difficult to defend. We simply can't know what an advanced alien technology might allow.

For example, our present spacecraft are designed as lifting bodies (or similar aerodynamic shapes) because we use atmospheric braking, rather than dragging along enough fuel to slow the orbiting spacecraft to ground-speed. But if we had a much more potent energy source, we might choose a different shape, and simply slow down before reentry.

I must admit to some reluctance in giving up this line of argument; it really is one of the best, simply because of the vast distances between stars and the enormous difficulty of crossing that void. That single fact is a powerful argument against the ET hypothesis. But we really can't dismiss the possibility of some technological advance that may make such voyages possible.

Darasen
2002-Jan-28, 06:25 PM
Personally, I just find it amazing that the the "aliens" always happen to speak english or, whatever the native tongue of the observer or abductee is.

Darasen

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-28, 08:38 PM
Welcome on Board, Darasen!



On 2002-01-28 13:25, Darasen wrote:
Personally, I just find it amazing that the the "aliens" always happen to speak english or, whatever the native tongue of the observer or abductee is.

Pick one:

Telepathy
Any race advanced enough for UFO-enabling technology should also have Universal Translator technology


The second, of course, comes under the very-advanced-technology argument which is already under attack here.

Most of the touchy-feely crowd (i.e., the ones who fervently believe that ETs have nothing better to do with their time than to try to make our world a better place for us to live in--"They're here to help us!") will, of course, put their money on telepathy. Most of them already assume that humans are, at least in part, telepathic, so why wouldn't aliens specify telepathy as a necessary skill for Contactors of Other Sentient Species?

The (I bet you knew I was going to say that) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-01-28 15:39 ]</font>

Russ
2002-Jan-28, 09:32 PM
I'm not sure how much this will contribute the the conversation but I can't resist jumping in anyway. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif I'll also speak from points of view that I don't really support.I'm sure that speculating on what an advanced,(capable of interstellar travel), civilazation is capable of doing is pointless. We basse these discussions too much on what WE can do and what WE know.

Look at our own world. Today we live with "necessities" that were inconceivable 200 years ago. Telephones, TV, flight, microwave ovens, etc. ad. infinitum. An ET civilization REALLY close to us on the cosmic time line would be (for example) 10K years ahead. Our own species from 10K years ago would not be able to comprehend what we take for granted today. What makes us think that we will be, even remotely, in touch with what a civilization 10Kyrs our senior could do and how they do it?

I bet the reason they don't really try to talk to us is because it'd be like us trying to talk to a laboratory rat. Assuming there really are abductions going on, I think that's about what we'd expect them to do. If we go to Mars and find some little fuzzywhatzitz up there, we'd take a few back for lab study. Why shouldn't they? We won't ask the fuzzywhatzitz if it minds us taking it aboard our ship for study. Why should advanced ET?

I think that if ET ever does step off a ship, we will have no more comprehension of "him" than lab rats do of us. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-28, 10:55 PM
Pick one:
Telepathy

Any race advanced enough for UFO-enabling technology should also have Universal Translator technology
or:
We have been broadcasting for decades and they learned our languages from that.
or:
They have been studying us for thousands of years and picked up our languages in that time.

ljbrs
2002-Jan-29, 01:46 AM
I wonder how many pseudoscientific, mystical ideas have been created on purpose by people who get great joy from introducing nonsense into the minds of true believers.

I remember when flying saucers burst upon the scene. To my faint recollection, flying saucers were introduced around the time of the invention of frisbees. My younger brother brought one of the first frisbees home from Harvard (where frisbees had a strong group of followers).

I wonder. Most questionable ideas were snapped up by the public shortly after they were introduced. Cults seemed to have grown from their roots. Perhaps frisbees in some faint way led to flying saucers. Maybe... Then again, maybe not...

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

p9107
2002-Jan-29, 04:23 PM
Hi, um... this covers a point mad a while ago, but The UFO's "can't be very areodynamic". Firstly, a great deal of their travel would be in space where there is no atmosphere to cause drag. Secondly these thnigs are alien in nature, and so could use some sort of advanced lubricant to reduce drag.

And how do we know the aliens are so advanced? Maybe they're just as primitive as us, or even moreso...

lpetrich
2002-Feb-03, 05:59 PM
p9107:
Hi, um... this covers a point mad a while ago, but The UFO's "can't be very areodynamic". Firstly, a great deal of their travel would be in space where there is no atmosphere to cause drag. Secondly these thnigs are alien in nature, and so could use some sort of advanced lubricant to reduce drag.


However, being able to travel through our atmosphere is nevertheless a constraint on the design of the ETS's that we would see. By analogy, a river may not be much of a path one decides to travel, but if one is not able to cross it, one cannot complete one's journey.

And even if one created a perfectly slippery spaceship, a sonic boom would almost certainly still form, because it is the result of the spaceship traveling faster through the air than the air being able to even out disturbances in it.



p9107:
And how do we know the aliens are so advanced? Maybe they're just as primitive as us, or even moreso...


However, that would make their technology more limited than ours.

ljbrs
2002-Feb-04, 01:06 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


p9107:
Hi, um... this covers a point mad a while ago, but The UFO's "can't be very areodynamic". Firstly, a great deal of their travel would be in space where there is no atmosphere to cause drag. Secondly these thnigs are alien in nature, and so could use some sort of advanced lubricant to reduce drag.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



However, being able to travel through our atmosphere is nevertheless a constraint on the design of the ETS's that we would see. By analogy, a river may not be much of a path one decides to travel, but if one is not able to cross it, one cannot complete one's journey.

And even if one created a perfectly slippery spaceship, a sonic boom would almost certainly still form, because it is the result of the spaceship traveling faster through the air than the air being able to even out disturbances in it.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


p9107:
And how do we know the aliens are so advanced? Maybe they're just as primitive as us, or even moreso...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



However, that would make their technology more limited than ours.


Ipetrich:

As usual, wonderful answer! I think that some people enjoy the feeling of inferiority in comparison to unknown and unconfirmed (but obviously SUPERIOR) visitors from space. There is a lot of *stuff* out there through which space *vehicles* must pass on their way from here to there. An obvious bad design would never make it.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Feb-04, 04:13 AM
In "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, the aliens were neither more advanced nor more intelligent than we. They had inherited the technology and were just smart enough to utilise it.

2002-Feb-05, 01:47 AM
[quote]
On 2002-02-03 23:13, Kaptain K wrote: To: 9 MANIK 5 PAX
I of course DO NOT KNOW?
its my guess however that THEY ARE probable
that "they" have Cloning technology
AND their4 can Clone Humans at a rapid pace
--------------------------------------------
ifs its true their ability to inlant LANGUAGE
into Clones must be limited, and their4.2
All ET ClonesSound about the same {Generic}