Reaching Beyond the Valley of the Dolls

Today I happened upon a post written by Bryce Zabel on A.D. After Disclosure, titled Calling Roger Ebert. I am not in the habit of reading A.D. -- not because I have a particular issue with the site or Richard & Bryce, but because I typically stay away from much of the disclosure topic. You can blame this on the Disclosure Movement, and not so much on the idea of disclosure. I'm all for it, provided there is something to disclose. However, I am skeptical that the government knows as much as many claim. But this isn't really about secret government knowledge or reverse engineered craft. Instead, it's about Roger Ebert.

It's really hard not to love Roger. Well, for me, at least. As a native Chicagoan myself, Ebert's face was always in the paper and, of course, on the television series At the Movies (along with the late Gene Siskel), which was a staple in our house during the 80s. He had a pleasant voice and a familiar perspective when it came to cinema. Ebert is certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent man, and so it came as little surprise to discover he recently penned a journal entry, A Quintessence of Dust. The piece is his perspective on the universe and sentient existence. It makes for an enjoyable read and is presented in such a way that anyone who has ever become dizzy pondering the expanse of space, would likely appreciate it. Go on, give it a read. It's rather lovely. He also gives a little nod to Prufrock near the end.

Ebert has also published a recent review on the new film Source Code, which, from what I have read and viewed, is kind of about Time Travel. I have not seen the film (I loathe theaters), but probably will once it's released on DVD. Anyway, it is within this review that Ebert states the following:

"Source Code" is an ingenious thriller that comes billed as science fiction, although its science is preposterous. Does that matter, as long as everyone treats it with the greatest urgency? After all, space travel beyond the solar system is preposterous, and yet we couldn't do without "Star Trek." The "science" in this case is used to prop up an appealing story of a man who tries to change the past.

This is about where Bryce Zabel comes in. I'd like to point out that Bryce isn't attacking Ebert. In fact, he shows nothing but respect for the man, even though the topic of his post on A.D. calls into question the above quote.

Bryce explains:

My bone to pick is that he appears to not understand the UFO situation and indirectly put down those of us who do. In the same week he wrote his essay about the worlds the Hubble is exposing us to, he also wrote this in his review of the new film, "Source Code."

...

Ebert is saying that if you believe that it is possible to travel the galaxy and the universe that you believe in something that is preposterous. I say that very statement is preposterous.

Ok, fine.

Wait, no! How did Ebert's claim that travel beyond the solar system is preposterous, at the same time denounce extra terrestrial travel to our own neighborhood? Ok, ok. I suppose it could, on it's own. But not in the shadow of A Quintessence of Dust, which Bryce first commends in his post. I think Bryce has greatly misunderstood Ebert's position. Either that, or Roger Ebert, who in his journal entry illustrates a more than basic knowledge of the universe, was just pulling words out of his ass. I somehow doubt the latter.

"After all, space travel beyond the solar system is preposterous."

He didn't say that travel to our solar system is preposterous. As well-read on the subject as he appears to be, he has to know that we currently do have the technology to travel outside our solar system (and will have officially done so in a few short years, thanks to unmanned spacecraft, like Voyager 1 & Voyager 2), just not the resources or funding. So, in that respect, as far as right now is concerned, a 400 person crew on a ship the size of the Enterprise travelling outside our solar system is pretty preposterous. But we will do it. Some day. We have to if we hope to ensure the survival of our species. I believe Ebert does realize this.

So, in my opinion, Roger Ebert's statement was in regards to us efficiently traveling vast interstellar distances now, with today's understood science. Not some unknown civilization light-years ahead of our own, visiting Earth. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to question whether Roger Ebert knows the difference between a solar system and the galaxy. Or a galaxy and the universe -- but A Quintessence of Dust states otherwise. Perhaps his use of the term 'solar system' was an error. It happens. He might have meant galaxy, which would have been a more respectable limitation (for now).

But the fact that he referenced Star Trek in the first place leads me to consider he was speaking strictly of human exploration as it currently stands -- not hundreds of years from now (from the trailer, it looks as though the film Source Code takes place in the relatively near future). I sincerely doubt Ebert was speaking of the limitations of a proposed advanced civilization. Therefore, I do not believe his statement should be viewed as a put-down to UFO researchers and enthusiasts, intentional or otherwise. Nor do I feel it displays an ignorance of the UFO phenomenon, because it had nothing at all to do with the possibility of an alien presence in our solar system (or UFOs in general).

It may be that Ebert doesn't believe that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, but I don't feel that his review of Source Code reflects that.