Interplanetary travel!

There is so much evidence to the contrary of the sense you feel, you must be reasoning from a very narrow scope. :shrug:

The "brand names" have been used by people around the world who claim to have been abducted.

Good question.:shrug:

How much research have you done on aliens?

You sure about that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've tried but they object vociferously when I start to strap them onto the vivisection table.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You must have an extremely low standard for what you accept a evidence.
As for reasoning from a narrow scope, It is the narrow scope of what I've read about these purported aliens that leads me to my conclusion. I mean, really, it all reads like something a 12 yr old might write or the background story for a bad SF movie. In fact, one part sounds as if was taken right out of the mouth of an SF author. It talks about an agressive reptilian alien race that is coming to Earth to reclaim what it considers its home turf.

In the early 80's there was a TV series called "V" which dealt with a reptilian alien race that comes to Earth to steal our water. The above mentioned SF writer wasn't happy with this plot device (Considering that the aliens could have gotten all the water they needed from the ice frozen in cometary objects, without having to lift it out of a planetary gravity well.), so he suggested that a better idea would've been that the aliens originated from Earth long ago, were now just returning, and wanted the Earth back as their own.

Sounds like someone just lifted this writer's idea and inserted it into their Alien mythos.

Just my point. These aleged "abductees" always use names associated with common celestrial objects; names they were already likely to be familiar with. This suggests that it was all a product of their own minds.

Enough to conclude that there are a lot of people who want desperately to believe in them. So much so that they'll believe anything anyone says on the subject as long as it supports this belief, and that there are plenty of people out there more than willing to supply them with what they want. As such, the field is just plain flooded with garbage. And to be frank, life is too short to spend it wading through mounds of garbage in search of a diamond that, in all likelyhood, isn't even there.

Yep.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The government documents along with virtually every astronaut and many test pilots, one time or another, claiming to have witnessed or seen UFOs is the main evidence.

Add to that all the other less credible evidence and it makes for a stronger case than just a few loonies making up stories.

But I digress, it is not hard to imagine the public panic that could occur if all was revealed, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.:shrug:

 

Navigator: You posted two links, alleged to lead to articles/data supporting your views.

• nsa.gov & constitution.org

Those URL’s merely lead to Home Pages, making it inconvenient for a person to find the articles.

Why not provide URL’s leading directly to the articles you cited? Perhaps the full articles might not be convincing?

BTW: Janus58 had good reason to state that no aliens live in the Pleiades. The stars there are only 100 million years old. Compare with Sol, which is about 4.6 billion years old. The very first primitive life forms did not develop on Earth until about 1 billion years after the formation of the solar system. The first vertebrates (fish) did not develop until about 4 billion years after the solar system formed. There is good reason to believe that no intelligent aliens exist in the Pleiades.

There is good reason to believe that we might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy, and that intelligent life is rare in the universe. One wonders how far these alleged aliens would have to travel to get here. It seems like a lot of trouble for very little benefit. Even the believers do not claim that the aliens are doing much here other than medical research on humans.

 

Actualy the closest star system with a decent change on life would be alpha centauri. Witch by the way is the closest star to the sun
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209118 I would not take the article to seriosly but they estimate 3 planets around alpha centauri a alone of 0.5 0.7 and 0.2 earth masses (BTW I seriosly doubt the accurucy of these numbres) But the fact is that the stars are far enough from each other to allow planets, the suns are from a good spectral class and old enough and any eventual planet could due to the nature of the system contain large amounts of water (could). And most of all the proberly due have multiple planets and 2 habitable zones. So if there is going to be some life nearby that you might as well gamble for this one at least their is some sience behind it.

 

I am not able to post links due to my post count. The articles can be found if you google "NSA on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects". The first link will take you to the NSA page that gives a number of declassified documents.

The constitution page can be found by googling "1947 was a critical year" and following the second link.

How can you state so positively the age of pleiades or sol? How can you be so sure first primitive life on earthdeveloped 1 billion years ago?
Science is far from absolute, and your opinion is based on theories not fact.

 

Orcot: It is interesting to speculate about the possibility of planets in the Alpha Centauri system. It is in the habitable zone of our galaxy, an important criteria often overlooked by those who expect the universe to be teeming with intelligent star traveling creatures.

Current technology seems to be capable of providing excellent evidence for the existence of planets orbiting stars much farther from us than Alpha Centauri. The cited article describes simulations. Does this imply that we are unable to determine whether or not the system has planets? If I have time I will try to research this possibility.

A binary system might not be stable long enough for intelligent life to develop, but this is not certain. A star not as bright as the sun could have a habitable zone closer to the star than Earth is from the sun. If close to one star and far from the companion, a stable orbit for billions of years seems possible.


Navigator: Are you naive or posting without thinking? Disparaging some aspect of modern physics as just a thoery indicates that you are not familiar with science and the concept of a theory.

Nobody is claiming that science is absolute. Nobody is even claiming that it is as well established as various mathematical theorems. The first phrase in the above is an attempt to use a fallacious argument so well known that it has a name: Strawman.

Table salt is NaCl (sodium cloride), Mr. X was born in 1975, London is a city in England, et cetera are facts. Let us not require that level of certainty for various aspects of scientific knowledge. My opinions are usually based on reasonable scientific knowledge.


BTW: You do not read posts very carefully. I said that the first primitive life form developed about one billion years after the solar system formed, not one billion years ago.

When astrophysicists state that some star is about 100 million years old, rather than billions of years old, they should be believed unless you have some damn good reasons for doubting them. Similarly for those who study the history of the solar system and Earth. The age of the solar system at about 4.6 billion years is considered an accurate estimate. Similarly, the currently accepted time line for life forms on Earth is based on very reasonable estimates.

It is my guess that you know zip about astrophysics, archaeology, geology, anthropology, and other subjects pertinent to this discussion. On what do you base your objection to the claim that stars in the Pleiades system are not about 100 million years old?

We have technology that works: TV’s, lasers, computers, airplanes, internal combustion engines, and all sorts of other gadgets. These are all based on concepts which are just theories. When a scientist uses the word theory, it is not a synonym for unfounded speculation, subjective opinion, or his current faith based belief.

Most of the theories developed by astrophysicists are as sound as the theories on which TV’s, computers, lasers, et cetera are based. It might be plausible to object to some aspects of Big Bang Cosmology, but most of their other notions are probably correct except for some small details.

It looks like too much trouble to check out the sites you mentioned. I have wasted a lot of time in the past checking out citations relating to UFO’s, only to discover that there is just no plausible evidence supporting the notion that intelligent aliens have visited Earth. Unless I get a URL leading to a specific article, I do not bother hunting.

 

Pretty much. The current technologies rely on gravitational pulling and that's sort of difficult if a other know object (the other sun) is already pulling at the other sun. But eventualy that yust means that the planets are considerably less massive then gas giants. So it's already certain that their are no gas giants (that yust leaves room for terrestrial planets) And the paper states that the inner stable zone goes to around 3AU and the outer stable zone starts at 70AU. So if you placed our solar system in it you could get to 8 stable terrestrial planets (example). I gues it's proberly's going to take until 2020 before ESA's darwin is going to be able to photograph them. To bad NASA's terresrial planet finder is scrapted alpha centauri A and B where the first two of the 100th most interesting systems. Sign all that trouble to go back to the moon without extra funding.

 

What more proof do we need for Aliens visiting us ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnllwGmUB8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyHJb1UULY

 

publishing date june 26 2006.