aliens i think not

Buck teeth shut it,

I believe you have heard your last word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lsufos,
I think you might have a little holiday away from the forum, in the hope that you realise the errors of your way. In fact I don't think you'll have to ask anyone for time off, you'll be granted only too happily.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People that do not believe in aliens are of the same stock of people who taught the Earth was flat long after it was proven to be round.

If you do not believe aliens have come here before, then why is the U.S. government so secretive about UFO/ET encounters?

I've heard tons of ex militaryand ex government people talking about agencies and programs directly related to UFO. I was eventully convinced by the sheer number of people that claimed to have info on gov. operations. There were also many people with alot to lose and little to gain that stuck their neck for this.

Finally, Why are there still hundreds of files and documents missing from the Roswell Report issued by the govt in 97? Just like any other "incident" made "public", the gov't tells us what they want us to know and not what we should know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mrhero,
Theres alot of already mentioned data here on the forum. Most of it suggests that almost everyone believes there has to be life elsewhere in the universe, however the likelihood that any lifeforms have created a conspiracy with any government is very slim.

It's already been stated that UFOs can range from gas to top secret aircraft with spin being played on it.

Governments attempt to govern, they try to play down conspiracies and potential hysteria. For instance the recent press attempt at starting a campaign on Iran. The worlds a dodgy place but it doesn't mean everyones got to start bombing everyone to deal with the problems. If Iran had/does become hostile, it would probably be down to the hysteria the press attempted to arrange.

 

These are three separate and distinct issues; first, ET's probable age. Second, how many centuries we are behind ET technologically. Third, whether ET has hit a technology 'ceiling' and has stagnated, or whether the universe plays host to unending technical development. Dealing with them in order:

1) ET cannot be more than about 6 billion years old, tops. The galaxy was not capable of supporting life at all for quite some time, then we have to account for the fact that this planet (formed late in the galactic cycle, BTW) was around for billions of years before the first income tax return was filed. Nothing about the situation as we understand it today rules out an ET over 1 billion years old.

Assuming a nice, leisurely search of the Galaxy, ET cannot be much less than 10 million years old. For if he's here, we know the odds are overwelming that he found us without reference to any radio transmissions we've made. The odds of him being close enough to have detected us by radio transmission are worse than about 1 in 1,000. (Assuming 50 years radio of travel, plus 50 years of ET travel vs 50,000 light year radius in which ET's home planet might reside).

So that's roughly an age profile of 10 million to 6 billion years. We have forms of life on Earth that have existed for hundreds of millions of years more or less unchanged, do we not?

2) Anyone's guess as to how far we are behind ET's technology. It's probably an inverse square thing to catch up anyway. That is, if we are 20,000 years behind him now, we might close 80% of the gap in the next 5,000 years.

3) I personally believe that there is no foundation behind the reasoning that a technological base must expand forever. I think there's only so many tricks inherent to the physics of the universe and that after a certain period they are all known to a species. Hence my reasoning that ET, for all his book-smarts, will have technically flatlined - a barrier as real as the speed of light, at some time in the distant past.

No, the assumption is that any alien civilization that has come here must be more technically advanced than we are.

Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. All suggestions that there is a 'progression' to civilization is meaningless, arbitrary, and ultimately useless, since any measure of 'advancement' means nothing and measures nothing but the comparer's inherent biases. I heartily recommend you fire off a letter to the President of the Confederate States of America and advise him that there is no quantifiable form of heirarchy amongst nations or civilizations.

Um, well yes they would. But no one has exactly bowled me over with a cascade of reasoning as to why ET would share diddly squat with us. I'd expect it more likely by orders of magnitude that the US would share nuclear technology with Tehran...

For those that don't believe there's an alien problem in these parts, they think the US government is unresponsive because there is nothing to the phenominon; how can they hide information about something that doesn't exist?

 

Stryder,

I think it is extremely dense to deny the POSSIBILITY of UFOs (alien spacecraft) "visiting" Earth.

I'm NOT saying that aliens have been abducting, contacting, or conspiring with governments.

I'm saying that the U.S. government has not been ANYWHERE close to forward, open, or public, with the encounters it has had with UFOs.

The unwillingness of the govt to disclose this information, coupled with what I've heard from ex-government and military officials, has lead me to believe that they have much more information on “them” than they are giving up. PERHAPS, crashed UFOs and/or alien bodies.

I have also heard other countries officials, Great Britain, Australia, and Mexico acknowledge unexplainable phenomena that has occurred in their skies ...and they admitted they could not exclude piloted alien spacecraft.

P.S. I think it is absurd to believe that the gov't would "spin" top-secret aircraft as UFO's.

1. It would increase UFO "hysteria"
2. It would DRAW more attention to that particular sighting. (What gathers more interest, top secret aircraft or UFOs?) Govt: "Don't worry about that weird ball of glowing lights you saw last night people, that was just a UFO..." :bugeye:

And finally, I'm not talking about swamp gas, miss-identified aircraft, hoaxes, delusions, or hallucinations; I 'm talking about the "2%" of truly UNIDENTIFABLE Flying Objects are what could be alien spacecraft;

Be Easy :m:

 

Glenn, I agree with most everything you said. However, I must insist that ANY concept of advancement, even technological (which probably seems the most logical type to believe in) is way off the mark. Technology is about the development of tools to solve problems or expand capablities that an animal does not have. There is no progression of technological development just as much as any other type of progression. A technological development occurs because of an adaptation to an environmental difficulty, an attempt to exploit the environment to better suit the animal trying to survive in it, or as an accident (which usually is as a result of experimentation or theorizing in order to solve another problem or further exploit the environment). One piece of technology cannot be more "advanced" than another technology, only more proficient at accomplishing a certain task, or more novel (which is more often than not the case with modern technologies versus slightly older technologies). Therefore, depending on the environment that an extraterrestrial animal exists in, they may be able to do certain things that we cannot, and the converse is also true. What most people suppose is that there is some type of progression of technological growth because they assume that an intelligent creature is no longer attempting to adapt to their environment, they have somehow grown "beyond" evolution and are now operating at their own pace, be it slower or faster. This is, I think, a fundamental flaw when trying to imagine extraterrestrial life/civilizations because all life operates through adaptation to the surrounding environment, and there is no point at which an animal moves beyond that. Technology is merely an adaptation of a more internally sophisticated animal to their environment, because technology can change faster than an animal's body can, and so animals that develop tools and the accompanying knowledge are more likely to survive because they can adapt many thousands or millions of times faster than an animal that must alter it's body through normal mutation in order to fit in with the environment.

 

Yeah, you have! And every time you say it, and don't stick to it, it makes you look sadder, and more desperate!

Do you not understand the humour in this sentence? You really are very funny!

 

Personally, I think the chances are so slim as to be safey ignored. I may of course, be wrong but until actual evidence shows up[ then I will keep this mindset.

Possibly because these UFOs are secret military technologies? If you were the US government, would you be willing to disclose your black projects because some bearded UFO nutter (apologies for the stereotype) wants to know about aliens? No, I don't think I would either. This would also explain why these phenomena are often radar-invisible.

 

Okay, i take it we all agree that there is alien life outhere.
So we all got a belief.

 

I accept the probability of alien life in the universe. The "belief" is tempered with an understanding of the available data -the evidence, if you will. There simply is no evidence that these alien lifeforms are visiting our planet. They may be, but the math involved says that it isn't probable.

Belief is fine when it is tempered by evidence.

 

Well, done, and it only took nine pages to drill that into you.

Now, what evidence do you have that alien life is visiting. You need more than blurry photos, btw.

 

Most inventions require pre-existing breakthroughs in other areas before becoming feasible. For instance, the invention of the gun was not possible without a certain standard in industry, metallurgy and chemistry. If we compare civilization A and B, where A has the industrial and technical base to produce a gun and civilization B does not, then we can quantify a real and measurable technical hierarchy between the two societies. The point being; while it’s noted necessity is the mother of invention, civilization B CAN’T invent the gun because they don’t have the technical know-how to do so.

Maybe so, but the importance of Darwinian selection in the matter will be greatly decreased once a race is able to modify it’s own genetic structure in the laboratory.

‘The math involved’ says nothing about the probability we are being visited. All we have is a general understanding of the galaxy’s size and age, the process by which intelligent life is created, and what might motivate an ET to come here. None of the general outlines of these variables are friendly to the notion you are disposed towards.

What sort of evidence do you think should be available?

 

Does not the math speak to the number of stars; the number of potential planets; and the number of potential forms of life? That life could be anything from microbes to plants/animals to something we've not encountered. Or it may be intelligent. Does not the math speak to the likelihood the likelihood that it would take a significant period of development for life to evolve to intelligence required to wonder about life on other worlds? And does not the math speak to the multitude of directions this life could choose to travel? Or the multitude of galaxies and the multitude of stars within them? Does not the math speak to the speed with which this alleged species could travel?

I'd say the math has much to say about the probability of visitation. Lets hope there are calculations not considered that would allow a species to visit us: as an anthropology student, I'm interested in what the development of an alien species could tell us about evolutionary development in general! But until such time as evidence indicates such visitations are occurring, I'll not elevate my hopes beyond speculation and wonder.

The kind that can be tested. What other kind should there be?

 

Yes, on your first point I agree. There is a certain hierarchy to certain pieces of technology in that one must know how to make tools in order to make different kinds of tools, but technology isn't just about the device, it's about the capabilities afforded by it. I'll use your example of guns: what capability did early guns give you over weapons that performed the same function? The only difference is in the easy learning curve as compared to, say, longbows (which actually shot further, and were more accurate and less dangerous to the user, which is why they were preferred for many years even after guns were invented), and not in any kind of tactical advantage. In other words, they gave no increase in the capability of the soldier, and so in actuality were not more "advanced". Yes, civilization B can't invent the gun because they do not have the knowledge of the components of a gun, but that does not mean that they are less "advanced" than a civilization with guns because it is possible for them to have another piece of technology that affords them the exact same capability as a gun would. "Advancement" is a linear way of looking at technological history that neglects certain factors in development.

On your second point, a species being able to genetically modify itself does not place it outside of natural selection, because the development that lead to the capability was itself a point of natural selection. What you are arguing is that, at some point, a species is outside of nature. Nothing about natural selection says that the environment alone determines mutation. It is still natural selection because the species mutating itself is still natural regardless of it's abilities because it is still bound by the physical laws of the universe. The motivation to mutate their own genetic code is itself a point of natural selection. Why would they want to do that? So that they could survive more easily in a certain environment. That is a very natural motivation. So, my point is that there is no threshold beyond which a species is no longer a part of nature because the motivations for technological development are as natural as anything else, and technological development is measureable only by the capabilities afforded by the technology at one's disposal, not by the novelty of the item.

 

An interesting perspective - sort of a technical version of Gaia. I agree that Civ B might eek out a countermeasure to A's exploding fire-sticks; that there is a certain latitude for adaptation to equalise the playing field. But this doesn't obviate the case that all inventions rely upon the pre-existence of the necessary industrial and technical ingredients; hence it is the case that a Civ A vs. Civ B comparison can be made, and a technology hierarchy formed between them.

There are numerous examples whereby Civ. A had a technology which Civ. B could not duplicate, and therefore could never 'afford them the exact same capability.' For example, the history of modern air warfare since 1973 is an exercise in military dominance stemming from the inherent superiority (as measured in real, physical terms) of one system over another.

The importance of Darwinian natural selection will take a back seat to those changes introduced by a species directing the modification of its own genome. Such a civilization might still be exposed to external stimulus that will exert evolutionary pressure, certainly. But the fact remains that if the internal mechanizations become the more important influence, I don't think we can entirely predict the directions these changes will take based only upon a Darwinian modeling system.

The math says that 200 billion stars had 6 billion years to produce our stellar stalker. I'll freely admit that everyone is welcome to an opinion. Mine is that these two numbers are so mind-bogglingly huge that a compelling case can be made that extraterrestrial visitation to our system prior to Homo Sapien was statistically inevitable.

In terms of the length of time for a planet to develop intelligent life, the math has far less to tell us; we are a statistical sample base of 1. We must assume that the time of our development was average for a planet of our size and climatic conditions, etc. But we also know our star was formed late in the galactic cycle, which will shift our relative position towards being a younger, or later, spacefaring species. So instead of having about half the intelligent species going into space before us and half after us, it should be the case that more than half went before us.

I'm asking; what type of evidence do you think can there be? I'm suggesting some yokel might have a photograph from 1958 showing an object that exhibits stealth technology. Or radar records, etc. Or that we will eventually have the ability to declare with absolute statistical certainty someone is telling the truth as they recount an experience. Or even to be able to download memories from the brain for direct analysis.

I'm asking: beyond the above, what sort of evidence are you convinced must exist if it is the case ET is visiting?

 

Stay, tuned going show more footage of crafts above midlothian.
Alien or Goverment object, that exhibits stealth technology new footage
updated every week or so change this footage monday.
Sound on tape is from road, this is a 2002 clip.

http://lsufos.com

 

Hey , dont worry if there are more sceptics out there than believers, i used to be the biggest sceptic in the world untill a few years ago.

All to their own

 

And mindess belief without proof is better than logical skepticism, how?

 

It's very comforting?