Unmistakable Mainsteams UFO media footage?

[EarlyMon]

That's basically a way decent point of view on this.

Now - add in to your idea the probability of: exoplanets, and life, and life rising to the level of civilization, and ability to communicate with us, and existing at the right time to communicate with us - and that's the Drake Equation.

 

[Martimus]

One of the things I really enjoy in listening to Michio Kaku is that he's more of an advocate for what might be than many of his fellow theoretical physicists. He helps show people that our knowledge of science, physics, and the universe (multiverse) around us is still in it's infancy.

I, for one, believe that it's statistically probable for there to be life elsewhere in the universe. Pull the arm on that galactic slot machine enough times and you will get a similar result again and again.

And if some variation of M-theory proves to be ultimately true then there may be multiple universes separated by dimensional boundries that might also hold life. Maybe aliens are already here but exist in another dimension that's normally invisible to our three dimensional world... Maybe "ghosts" really do exist as living beings in another dimension... M theory suggests that dimensions are fluid and periodically overlap or "bump" into each other. Maybe those reports of spiritual sightings are simply momentary images "of the other side" when our dimension and another come into contact with each other?

My personal belief is that in the next hundred years or so many fundamental laws of science and physics are going to get tossed out the window... as we learn more and more about the universe we live in.

 

[EarlyMon]

1.) We are fairly sure that life is not unique to this planet.
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite - Tech Talk - CBS News

Great link, here's the core - Journal of Cosmology, Life100

We've had a false scare essentially identical in conclusion to that paper just a few years when there were claims that meteorites found in Antarctica contained evidence of exobiology - that one turned out false.

So - it's fair to say that some belief in the findings is justified, but the jury is still out - for example, from Journal of Cosmology, Life 101, comment 16

16. Alien Microfossils? Criticism and Analysis
Paolo Pasquinelli, Ph.D.,
Laboratorio di ricerca sociale, Universit

 

[Bob Maxey]

If that was true, why the light show? You would think that a alien race from another world/dimension, would be able to fly without headlights? In space/inner dimensions, they would not need them. Our are we saying the can space/time/dimension travel, but have not invented radar? We currently have planes that can fly with very little visible/non visible trace. If they can space travel, why can't the cloak, or at least hide?

But . . . For all you/we know, the lights you see are not just lights, but something we do not understand. Perhaps the lights carry data or are required much like bats require sound to navigate. Perhaps they are all around us and we see the lights because of a technical problem or their craft is assembled in Planet Chinazott. Perhaps lights are the in thing for spacecraft.

I will anxiously await technical specifications and I'll get back to you.

 

[A.Nonymous]

That's basically a way decent point of view on this.

Now - add in to your idea the probability of: exoplanets, and life, and life rising to the level of civilization, and ability to communicate with us, and existing at the right time to communicate with us - and that's the Drake Equation.

This. To the best of our knowledge, Life is not the easiest thing to come by. We have yet to locate life on any of the other planets in our solar system at least and we've yet to locate any proof that life ever existed on said planets.

That being said, there are zillions of planets in the universe. It's not unlikely at all that Life has evolved somewhere out there in the cosmos. That's not a stretch at all. However, that life could be nothing more some moss or algae growing on a rock facing it's sun. As you move along the spectrum to more complex life forms like plants, invertebrates, bugs, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, etc........... the likelihood of that life developing gets smaller the more complex the life form is. Then you get to sentient life and the likelihood gets smaller and smaller. The Earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years and we are the only sentient life that has ever evolved on it. (To be fair, we may well be the exception to the rule and sentient life generally evolves much faster.)

So, IMO, the odds of sentient life developing somewhere else in the galaxy at the exact same time as us is small to begin with. The universe is large enough though that it's likely it exists somewhere out there in the cosmos. Then you have the odds that said sentient life has developed the ability to travel between the stars. We've been here 250 million years and haven't got there yet. (Though we may be slow learners.) Then there are the odds that of all the billions of places in the universe someone with interstellar travel abilities would go, they would come here. I find that unlikely as well.

Chances of life being out there somewhere - very likely.
Chances of aliens actually visiting us - very unlikely.

 

[dan330]

This. To the best of our knowledge, Life is not the easiest thing to come by. We have yet to locate life on any of the other planets in our solar system at least and we've yet to locate any proof that life ever existed on said planets.

That being said, there are zillions of planets in the universe. It's not unlikely at all that Life has evolved somewhere out there in the cosmos. That's not a stretch at all. However, that life could be nothing more some moss or algae growing on a rock facing it's sun. As you move along the spectrum to more complex life forms like plants, invertebrates, bugs, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, etc........... the likelihood of that life developing gets smaller the more complex the life form is. Then you get to sentient life and the likelihood gets smaller and smaller. The Earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years and we are the only sentient life that has ever evolved on it. (To be fair, we may well be the exception to the rule and sentient life generally evolves much faster.)

So, IMO, the odds of sentient life developing somewhere else in the galaxy at the exact same time as us is small to begin with. The universe is large enough though that it's likely it exists somewhere out there in the cosmos. Then you have the odds that said sentient life has developed the ability to travel between the stars. We've been here 250 million years and haven't got there yet. (Though we may be slow learners.) Then there are the odds that of all the billions of places in the universe someone with interstellar travel abilities would go, they would come here. I find that unlikely as well.

Chances of life being out there somewhere - very likely.
Chances of aliens actually visiting us - very unlikely.

i agree on all points.. but the bolded one.

if they develop to be sentient and with high tech.. they must have something to spark the intelligence.. which is curiosity.

curiosity will make them explore their world and beyond.

curiosity will make them want to find life in the cosmos

curiosity will make them come here to study and eventually first contact.

if we found a plant far far away.. that have beings that are like medieval times... we would go study them.. but we would wait till they can understand what and why we are there before we expose them to us.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You are assuming that we are the most interesting thing in the universe to a species that has the ability to travel all over the universe. Even if you are correct though, how likely is it that they can travel here, but can't keep from being detected once they arrive?

 

[dan330]

i was assuming what you said.. if they had interstellar travel tech..
if so.. they most likely have tech to hide themselves.

and did not say that we are the most interesting.. we are also sentient and that would be enough for them want to study us.

 

[A.Nonymous]

i was assuming what you said.. if they had interstellar travel tech..
if so.. they most likely have tech to hide themselves.

and did not say that we are the most interesting.. we are also sentient and that would be enough for them want to study us.

Fair enough. Still there are a lot of ifs there and even if all of them are correct, we wouldn't even know they are here. Sure we may suspect EarlyMon, but we can't prove it.

 

[EarlyMon]

Fair enough. Still there are a lot of ifs there and even if all of them are correct, we wouldn't even know they are here. Sure we may suspect EarlyMon, but we can't prove it.

Per aspera ad astra.

 

[dan330]

are you trying to phone home?

with sprint's network... that aint going to get you far

 

[EarlyMon]

i agree on all points.. but the bolded one.

if they develop to be sentient and with high tech.. they must have something to spark the intelligence.. which is curiosity.

curiosity will make them explore their world and beyond.

curiosity will make them want to find life in the cosmos

curiosity will make them come here to study and eventually first contact.

if we found a plant far far away.. that have beings that are like medieval times... we would go study them.. but we would wait till they can understand what and why we are there before we expose them to us.

You are assuming that we are the most interesting thing in the universe to a species that has the ability to travel all over the universe. Even if you are correct though, how likely is it that they can travel here, but can't keep from being detected once they arrive?

Not clowing, not criticizing - but I think you guys might be overthinking this, and here's why.

Buzz Aldrin co-authored with John Barnes the science fiction novels Encounter with Tiber (1996) and The Return (2000).

In the two books, Aldrin covers quite well how interstellar travel is possible using a solar sail and a commitment to multi-generational crews.

He also covers how exposure happened in his story - they messed up.

Not to put too fine a point on it - but the last time we were truly productive as a society as a whole was when we didn't care about perfection or image - we once understood the fine art of screwing up.

Instead of being organizations being top-heavy with viewgraph engineers using Powerpoint so that 80 people can pontificate over any idea beaten to death by one guy still thinking (I'm looking at you, NASA), we once had organizations where people would think they were smart, get almost there, screw up royally, have drinks at lunch until hair-brained ideas turned into solutions, and then get back, sober up, and get it right.

Our entire lunar mission in the 60s is a story of divine and magnificent serial screw-ups.

The revolutionary Americans used to drink beer for breakfast - the Guiness-thick stuff that was equivalent to eating a loaf of bread and catching the buzz you needed to overthrow the planet's reigning superpower.

How could Thomas Jefferson possibly have owned slaves yet doctrines on freedom? How did the founding fathers get something as incredible as our constitution put together? I'll tell you how - they were a bunch of royal screw-ups, that's how. Ben Franklin - when later our ambassador to France - was known as a drinker and womanizer, and we teach our young to revere the portly old boy in the granny glasses as mostly harmless. He was bombed and a skirt chaser and everyone knew it for a fact while he was on the government dole. Now - if that's not a screw-up, I don't know what is.

Kirk was a screw-up, as were his two buddies - products of a reflection of our lunar days.

Picard and crew walk around like they're in the mall and drink synthahol - and yet, in the modern ideals, that's how interstellar space will be done.

Wrong. Kirk's ship could take a beating, and his idea of diplomacy was a good belt of Saurian brandy, a phaser, and a smirk.

Picard's boat gets hit by a lesser force, the prime directive is discussed for 10 minutes, and then they get on the viewscreen and apologize their way thru a politically-correct negotiation, crafted to ensure no one screws up.

Any spacefarers acting like Picard and crew will be wiped by the first impatient and disgusted cavemen they meet. They won't get past the next solar system.

It'll be the Kirks that make it out.

Any of them that can make it here _must_ be detectable - because if they try to avoid it - I guarantee by what made it possible for them to get here in the first place -

They'll screw it up.

And btw - why would they _want_ to visit us in the first place? OK, let's talk about curiosity.

Before space travel, they would have invented movies and tv shows, and they'd take a bunch along to watch on the long voyage. And by the time they got here, their curiosity might not even extend to anything more complicated that the plot in Earth Girls Are Easy.

A few generations on a space boat seeing the same old faces, and then you hit a planet - yep - great-grandma's mission plan is now replaced by whatever the crew votes to really do - and screw-ups are a certainty.

Don't expect Klaatu to land in Washington - expect the three stooges to land in New Mexico.

 

[dan330]

no clowning.. or criticizing ... right....

i poke you in both eyes.. with my peace sign!

 

[EarlyMon]

no clowning.. or criticizing ... right....

What? I was serious in my thoughts, agreeing with you about the curiosity thing, and wondering if it was always as hard a problem as is commonly made out.

BTW - in Aldrin's book - we were the ones visited, the visitor's screwed up, then we joined the party.

Really great reading!!

i poke you in both eyes.. with my peace sign!

Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

 

[RiverOfIce]

We've had a false scare essentially identical in conclusion to that paper just a few years when there were claims that meteorites found in Antarctica contained evidence of exobiology - that one turned out false.
.

Actually no. The meteorites in the last scare where different then these. Read the paper before you just lump sum them.

The argument for the others where earth contamination. That could not happen this this set. The oldest is like 400 year old. We have dates and times when they hit the earth.

 

[EarlyMon]

Actually no. The meteorites in the last scare where different then these. Read the paper before you just lump sum them.

Steady - I did read most of it before posting.

I was quite narrow in my quote, to avoid being taken to say what you took me to say -

We've had a false scare essentially identical in conclusion...

And that is exactly true - in each case, the initial conclusion was that a meteorite had evidence of exobiology.

And in each case - there are detractors.

I also said -

So - it's possibly encouraging, but until a full analysis is complete, it's not definitive yet.

Hardly lumping in or dismissing, I hoped to convey.

"Possibly encouraging" from me is like someone else insisting they're serving moon cheese on crackers with fine wine, you know.

 

[Gmash]

So here is my problem. Forget God for a moment. Well, just leave him out.

Apparently, whatever happened to create intelligent life on Earth was/is complicated. I suspect we are still clueless when it comes to the entire story. Lets just assume that vast numbers of things had to happen in specific orders and under specific conditions in order for us to appear and thrive. If a few things did not occur, life might have failed to take root. Like a moon to control the tides or the sun at exactly the right distance from earth. Fair enough?

But . . .

It did happen and we are here. Therefore, owing to the vastness of space, it seems fair to assume that if it can happen here (and we are proof it can), it is not unreasonable to assume that it might have happened elsewhere.

Fair enough?

I recall something about a photo of the Milky Way or some other Galaxy. A small arrow pointed to Earth's general area in that vast mass of mass. The arrow was pointing not to a specific planet, but something that looks like a fuzzy dot that contained earth as well as billions of other objects like stars.

Then I saw an illustration that showed the entire Milky Way Galaxy against another mass of stuff and the MG was but a tiny dot.

I recall another image that showed that mass of crap and it to was tiny compared to the entire image.

Then I saw that vast mass of mass against the backdrop of known galaxies photographed by Hubble, and it too was a tiny dot. It would be as though you focused a camera on earth and could zoom out infinitely to the ends of the known universe. Or something like that.

In other, less complicated words, Space and all it contains is past unimaginable and vast. We are a single atom among all atoms that make up every possible thing we know about and do not know about, and all of that fits somewhere in a space that many think is endless.

If it is endless, we are damn stupid to discount the possibility of life elsewhere. But we are silly to think they arrived to say high and grab a few cutlets from some stray cows.

So, considering how much stuff is out there and because we are proof that life can occur and evolve, it is not unreasonable to simply assume that we are not alone. Perhaps we are alone because the aliens think we are not worth much. Or perhaps we are alone because space is vast and we lack any ability to explore much.

Like my cat that sits in the window and sees local things, unaware that there is a China or Las Vegas past the row of houses.

Now, if we are relatively young (apparently we are) and assuming that other civilizations could form and since the entirety of space contains objects and galaxies and planets that are likely older than we are, is it fair to say that advanced people exist?

Look at what our race accomplished in a very short time and imagine if we can continue, what tech we will have in 500,000 years. And finally, remember that in cosmological terms, half a million years is less than the beginning of a tiny blink of an eye.

Fair enough?

There is also the theory that no civilization could survive that long without being destroyed, or destroying itself.

 

[EarlyMon]

There is also the theory that no civilization could survive that long without being destroyed, or destroying itself.

Yep, but is that a problem?

With a big enough sample size to draw even the smallest percentages from, even in the case you describe happening, that still could leave those that didn't face those disasters either because their time hadn't come yet or their destruction (like, their sun died) might include transformation rather than destruction.

 

[Gmash]

Yep, but is that a problem?

With a big enough sample size to draw even the smallest percentages from, even in the case you describe happening, that still could leave those that didn't face those disasters either because their time hadn't come yet or their destruction (like, their sun died) might include transformation rather than destruction.

Just playing devils advocate, but as technology advances, so does the weaponry, and the chances of the planet being destroyed by war or even rogue nations or terrorism.

Still, I think they've been here.

What I think is interesting is the "ancient astronaut" theory. Some of those ancient carvings and paintings do look suspiciously like spacecraft and even men in spacesuits. It's also fascinating how we cannot recreate the things they built back then (pyramids, stonehenge, etc), even with modern technology.

 

[EarlyMon]

Can't recreate pyramids, you say?

Catch it while you can, because Google video is about to go off the air - and I can't find this on YouTube - so if they don't xfer it, this one may be lost soon...

Ever seen the old This Old House? I give you Nova's This Old Pyramid - one of the best uses of an hour you can spend.

NovaThisOldPyramid



And - on some of those images seen only by skyview: Back in the late 70s, there was a special on ancient astronauts, and included some of those famous glyphs as seen from the sky - and the narrator was going back and forth about the ancient runway had to be a fake - even though we were seeing an aerial movie of the same site as shown in the book - when suddenly the helicopter part of the soundtrack stopped, and he put his foot down - the ancient runway most people have seen in famous books is actually about 8" long.

So - while there's truly strange stuff out there, and you may be right - half the fun is investigating if the claims are true.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Just playing devils advocate, but as technology advances, so does the weaponry, and the chances of the planet being destroyed by war or even rogue nations or terrorism.

You are assuming that another sentient species would be motivated by territory, nationalism, etc..... just like we are. That's not necessarily true.

Still, I think they've been here.

I am extremely skeptical of that just because there is no evidence to support it. The theory is unquestionably intriguing.

What I think is interesting is the "ancient astronaut" theory. Some of those ancient carvings and paintings do look suspiciously like spacecraft and even men in spacesuits. It's also fascinating how we cannot recreate the things they built back then (pyramids, stonehenge, etc), even with modern technology.

We can recreate a pyramid, stonehenge, etc with modern technology. I keep hearing people say we can't even though it's been done. Heck, look at the Luxor in Vegas. It's a pyramid built out of steel. I see no reason why we can't create one out of stone today if we wanted to. It would be extremely expensive to build is the most likely reason why it's not done. Have you seen Stonehenge? How is that complicated to build at all?

 

[EarlyMon]

Stonehenge was very complex and an excellent display of stonework, actually. Mostly - it was a stunning achievement in logistics.

Moving those stones from their quarries was no mean feat in that day.

Fairly, the idea was to recreate these things using their technology - suggest you check out that vid, because when it's gone, it's gone.

 

[Bob Maxey]

And - on some of those images seen only by skyview: Back in the late 70s, there was a special on ancient astronauts, and included some of those famous glyphs as seen from the sky - and the narrator was going back and forth about the ancient runway had to be a fake - even though we were seeing an aerial movie of the same site as shown in the book - when suddenly the helicopter part of the soundtrack stopped, and he put his foot down - the ancient runway most people have seen in famous books is actually about 8" long.

So - while there's truly strange stuff out there, and you may be right - half the fun is investigating if the claims are true.

I recall seeing a series of photographs showing objects that supposedly could not have been formed naturally. Think alien visitors and such. The images were taken in the photographer's garden and for the most part, they were macro images of the dirt in his yard. They showed "structures," "roads," and little shiny things that looked organized and therefore, not natural.

These images were made in response to the crazy theories surrounding the famous/infamous 'Face on Mars.' Just some random stuff in the dirt that by luck alone was captured on film and a story was built around the images.

You are correct EarlyMon . . . this stuff is facinating as hell to consider and discuss. And there is no shortage of unexplained happenings. I like to visit Wikepedia and search "Paradox."

Bob

 

[A.Nonymous]

There is actually a term for finding patterns and images when none are there. I can't remember it off hand, but I know they've actually done studies on it. We humans are pattern seeking animals just by nature. Sadly, there are not always patterns to be found.

 

[EarlyMon]

One of the biggest challenges I face when bringing up a noob physicist or engineer is in convincing them to never search for a pattern in noise - because you will always find exactly what you're looking for, each and every time.

Then again - fractals are interesting. If you spend some time underground, you'll find that many of the exact same features you'll find in the larger caverns and caves set in rock are EXACTLY like those you find in the mud in your backyard after a rain.

And not sure, so for now, I'll just venture that the term for seeing a pattern where none exists is evidence of bias.