[Walker]

I realize it isn't TECHNICALLY sci-fi, but...

Is Communion actually worth reading? Whitley Strieber is relitively creepy by nature, and the movie scared the hell out of me as a kid. That's all I know.

[Rocketsheep]

Definately SF but have you seen the movie lately?

Great acting. But the plot is so long-winded. I'm not sure that the book would be any better. :confused:

[Ken Korczak]

Are you sure, rocketsheep? I don't think Communion is SF. Well, it may be, but Strieber published it as a true account, and thus, it's nonfiction. But those who think he is a great big fat lier would probably call it SF.

I suppose it's worth reading, but you have to have a strong stomach for UFO lore, which I do, even though I'm a skeptic.

Ah, the subject of UFOs. I keep flying to it like a moth to a flame, and keep getting burned!

[Rocketsheep]

I forgot I said that all those months ago.

Well, in so far as alien stories are considered for the moment to be science fiction and not science fact, then it is in the category of science fiction. Who is to say where it goes from there?

I've only seen the movie, never read the book. But I found the plot interesting, thought provoking, but the end unsatisfying.

In what way do you keep getting burned Ken? Are publishers frightened by alien stories?

I think there is a lot of interest from general readership towards alien life as it relates to Earth but sf readers would rather just go hell for leather into strange new worlds.

In a way, I guess that is separating the alien genre into non-fiction possibilities and outright fantastic fiction. Think I'm too off-track there?

[Ken Korczak]

What I mean by getting burned by UFO stuff is the whole issues of UFOs themselves. What are UFOs really? Solid evidence for life on other planets and that earth is being visited by aliens? Or as the skeptics and the Carl Sagans of the world say -- all just a big illusion or folklore or cases of mistaken sightings of naturally explainable phenomenon.

The the thing is, when you dare to be open-minded about UFOs and hold out for the possibility something truly bizarre is happening here, one often later finds out that a particular case was a clever hoax, or something that could be explained naturally.

Like the whole Roswell debate. What really happened there? Sometimes the evidence for a real flying saucer crash seems very good, then at other times it seems ridiculous.

So every time I am about able to dismiss the whole subject of UFOs as a bunch of garbage, another case comes along that draws me back in again to say: "Well, maybe."

When Communion first came out, I found Streiber to be believable and compelling. But then as he continued to bring out more books about his alleged abduction experiences, his story seemed to wear thinner and thinner.

So, see what I mean? It's like this: On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I believe in UFOs. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, I dismiss the whole subject. On Sunday's, I rest.

[Rocketsheep]

No matter what evidence crops up there will always be someone who supports it without thinking or debunks it without thinking.

Since you are in the aerospace industry, staying neutral and trying to sort out the truth from the hearsay might be easier for you since you can approach the subject from a different angle. Do you ever hear stories that don't reach the general public?

I don't feel compelled to jump on either bandwagon. I'm certain there is other intelligent life in the universe (there must be because there's bugger all down here on Earth... sorry Monty Python song... just popped in there) but I'm reserving judgement on whether they've been zipping around terrorising a few humans and hiding from the rest.