# UFO Disclosure article conveniently moved...



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Check out this image that David Wilcock posted:







At 2:43 that article was the number 2 most viewed article at AOL.com, and at 3:07 it was gone. How cool.

Edit: Nothing fishy here, or at least I don't think there is - these news articles only stay in the rankings for 24 hours. After 24 hours they're pulled... I'm not certain as to why they pull it out of the rankings but not off of the site, but this particular article was up for 24 hours. 

In any case, it caused some stir which is always cool. I think its cool that we've been seeing more and more people interested in UFO's/ET's and the like. The History Channel in particular has been playing things about conspiracies and what not in abundance as of late. Usually they have an even amount of skepticism thrown in for taste, but that element has been absent. Its just another observation, that's all.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Mind you, I dunno why I necessarily wrote "disclosure" article when I meant to type "cover-up" article. Oh well, its early for me so hush


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Oh, and anybody that's interested in reading the article, here you go: Stanton Friedman: A Scientist Searches for the Truth of UFOs - AOL News


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

It's articles like this that artificially inflate the price of alluminium...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

^Its comments like this that show a blatant ignorance of an actual physicist talking about nearly 50 years of investigation. Talking about the idea that there's been a UFO cover-up is hardly an activity exclusive to the tin-foil hat crowd. 

Besides - "artificial inflation"? You apparently don't know what that means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 9, 2010)

Because a physicist's field of study is UFO cover ups. 




I kid I kid.


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Well that is just weird 

That's a good article though. Stuff like this always makes me want to go into some branch of intelligence so I can one day hopefully be important enough to read all the classified documents on UFO's.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because a physicist's field of study is UFO cover ups.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Fair enough point, though 

...but I'm just saying, its better than "self-proclaimed expert/scientist" babbling about ET's.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 9, 2010)

The article says that Friedman is convinced there is a cover-up&#8230; but Friedman presents no evidence, which disappointed me. It&#8217;s just another conspiracy guy.

I do have an interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, and I remember an interesting write-up of a conference of UFOlogists. At one point, there was a presentation of what was considered the best documentation of UFOs, and some sincere attendant, obviously not aware of the status of the case, loudly denounced the photos as fakery, and demanded that the better cases be displayed. *laugh* 

*----*

*What's interesting is that all the contemporary newspapers which were on the scene, and all the witnesses who were there and who talked to the papers, described the found object at Rosswell, and the description matches the information released years later regarding the weather experiment. There was no saucer or aliens. Unless, of course, the guy is now arguing that time-travel was involved in the coverup. Interesting, no?*


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

My problem with UFOs is thus: If an alien race/species were visiting Earth on a regular basis, throughout the history of mankind (and probably beyond) why the fuck are they so quiet about it? That is to say, if they're so advanced, so far ahead of us that they can cross great gaps in space and time, why NOT just show up in Times Square and announce "Hey, we're here, we're not going to start a war with you, we like your planet, Starbucks rules!!!"

I mean, the conspiracy theorists always say things like "well, they have been coming here for a very long time and they've *tried* to announce themselves, but they're repressed at every turn by the world's governments". Or something along those lines. That, despite all the alien's best efforts, they can't seem to find ONE SINGLE LOCATION on the entire planet where they can peacefully show up, announce themselves and move on with life.

That just doesn't pass the bullshit test for me. Why the secrecy on THEIR part, not the governments. I can understand why a government would want to keep them a secret (to a small extent), but it's like holding back a dam with your thumb. The proverbial Dutchman with his hand in a dyke (no pun intended). And what of the physical evidence? All of it, that is, 100% of it has been captured and covered up? They don't leave a single trace? Are the aliens boyscouts? Are they *that* thorough that they can travel all these distances and not leave a single shred of proof behind? I mean concrete, in the hand, proof. And if they *have* left proof, then the contention is that ALL of it has been gathered up and put in the giant warehouse that holds the ships, the bodies, The Ark of the Covenant, etc??? 

Again, this just doesn't pass the bullshit test. 

To me, I think it's *possible* that aliens exist. But to think that they've been coming here since the beginning of time and leaving no solid proof just begs the question, why? And this is the point where it becomes a religious argument. Don't ask why God doesn't just show up in Times Square, he's God, you don't need to know. Don't ask why aliens don't just show up on people's front lawns and take out front page articles in the LA Times, you don't need to know. They're smarter than you. You could never understand. Etc etc. And all these really smart aliens, capable of such wonders and yet, they hide. They show up at night in remote areas and slaughter cattle or diddle couples out for a night on the town with their anal probes and whatnot. For what? Experimentation? How long and how many people need to be experimented on before they get their data???

And with all of the aliens seeming incompetence, the world's governments have ALL been in on the deal, keeping every single thing that would finally put the question to rest, successfully under wraps. 

I don't know, the whole thing just stinks. It's not like AOL in the article above yanked it and deleted it, they still have it up on their site. And if it were a big cover-up, why the FUCK would you put the article up in the first place? Shouldn't there be some kind of checking of what's posted going on inside AOL?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Explorer said:


> *----*
> 
> *What's interesting is that all the contemporary newspapers which were on the scene, and all the witnesses who were there and who talked to the papers, described the found object at Rosswell, and the description matches the information released years later regarding the weather experiment. There was no saucer or aliens. Unless, of course, the guy is now arguing that time-travel was involved in the coverup. Interesting, no?*





What, you expected the coverup efforts to ignore the original story so as to make it completely questionable?


----------



## Randy (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> It's articles like this that artificially inflate the price of alluminium...



This made me


----------



## Explorer (Jun 9, 2010)

Given Friedman's accusation about how some are just protecting their livelyhoods, it's interesting that Friedman was an unemployed scientist and UFO lecturer when he latched onto the Rosswell thing.

Here's a fairly good link to Rosswell information.

The Roswell UFO Incident- The Roswell Files


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Fair enough, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be other life in the galaxy, that's a given. The conditions necessary to support complex life however are going to pretty damn rare, and there is certainly no other habitable planet in our solar system.

Where then would this visiting life have come from? Given that interstellar travel would take an unnimaginable length of time. Even the closest star with planets is many light years away.

Even a comparison with venus is enough just to illustrate how unlikely conditions on the Earth are. Venus is of a similar size to Earth, 6051km radius compared with 6371km, has a similar bulk composition (taken from gravity data and isotopic signatures from samples) but is completely inhospitable, with an atmosphere so dense that you probably wouldn't be able to lift your own bodyweight at the surface.

Life on the early Earth relied on the prescence of liquid water and even the presence of our oceans is pretty unlikely. At our distance from the sun water would have been unstable in the early solar nebula so the water in our oceans has to be secondary. If this is so the anomolus levels of volatiles on Earth would have to have been supplied at a time when the nebula was cool enough for water to be stable and was most probably supplied by meteorite impacts and comets. If this is true then venus probably would have received a similar number of impacts and therefore a similar amount of water. 

If this is the case then venus must have lost its water (there is evidence for this given a higher level than normal of deuterium in its atmosphere suggesting a fractionation by mass when hydrogen was lost to space). This then would be caused by the fact that venus is slightly closer to the sun than Earth. Given that this is the case, habitable planets have to be formed in VERY precise locations, under equally precise conditions in order to support complex life.

Early simple life probably evolved many times on Earth and was subsequently wiped out due to unstable conditions so the fact that there's life here at all is unlikely.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

You know what I love about the Roswell Incident? Alien's travel millions of miles through space and time avoiding untold number of physical hurdles (asteroids, gravitational fields, planets, stars, debris, radiation, etc) and yet they fucking CRASH LAND! In the desert. In New Mexico. Newbs. 

No wonder they don't just show up everywhere and announce themselves, they're too busy filling out paperwork for their insurance claims on their ships. Maybe aliens are like the stereotypical bad Asian drivers of the universe. And that's meant with HUMOR people, HUMOR, not digging on Asians or subscribing to the stereotype!!!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Orb, while I could probably go on a rant to address my personal beliefs on the issue you brought up, I'm not yet interested in digging that deeply into the topic. However, I'll just quote something else I typed up the other day in another thread:

"Well, I follow the school of thought that says that the Universe is not only a place for life, but a place for experience. I also believe that intelligent life is probably more abundant than any of us could imagine.. to the point where we'd be blown away if we could only know about it all at once. 

I also believe that we've yet to, at least on a widely-known and accepted basis, figure out how to travel vast distances without the constraints of time, but that its entirely possible. Therefore, other more advanced civilizations most likely already have been doing this for who even knows how long.. (after all, current models of the expanses of the universe call it effectively infinite in size - within in an infinite amount of space/time, all possibilities exist) However, I also realize that such an advancement would be absolutely paradigm shifting and, given the incredible technological boom that our planet has seen in the last 50 years alone, the technological advancements seen with such a discovery would be staggering - to the point of certain evolution, if not a bi-product of evolution itself. But most importantly, the chances of US having been visited would be significantly increased if what I'm positing is true.

That said, I'm not at all skeptical as to whether or not we've been visited frequently throughout our history - in fact, I'm completely convinced that we have - but I think there's good reason that direct contact would be avoided and, in some cases, very difficult. There's plenty of stories of direct contact, and I'd venture to say that very very few are of physical experiences, but no less real. We underestimate the unknown expanses of both our minds and the universe simply because our experience on this particular sphere, with our finely honed societies and norms, is so limited."

...I only quoted that because I'm feeling exceptionally drained today, but in any case, the point is that in order to time travel (basically teleport - better way of putting it), you'd be working outside of what we know as space and time, which could effectively be described as extra-dimensional travel/existence. If that were the case, when dealing with visitors from other planets, we'd be dealing with much more than just a physical interaction with some alien visitors but rather inter-dimensional communication. As I mentioned, I believe the universe to be a place of experience - a place FOR experience - and therefore also believe in an important role of free will.. our very limited and particular version of experience would be greatly altered, if not completely transformed, if we were to obviously interact with some extra-dimensional beings and be exposed to their ways of living. Does that make sense, aside from sounding outrageous?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Fair enough, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be other life in the galaxy, that's a given. The conditions necessary to support complex life however are going to pretty damn rare, and there is certainly no other habitable planet in our solar system.



This simply isn't an accurate statement anymore. Its outdated. Scientists have discovered simple organisms that don't require oxygen.. on our own planet! Life seems to exist anywhere and everywhere it can possibly form, with whatever "tools" it has at its disposal.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> This simply isn't an accurate statement anymore. Its outdated. Scientists have discovered simple organisms that don't require oxygen.. on our own planet! Life seems to exist anywhere and everywhere it can possibly form, with whatever "tools" it has at its disposal.



Please, please name one. Fine anaerobic life exists, the early Earth lacked an atmosphere with free oxygen, and most early archaea probably lived at hydrothermal vents at the ocean floor great. But life without oxygen? Really? name an organic macromolecule (sugars, amino acids, proteins, nucleotides etc etc.) that doesn't contain oxygen.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

I said it was simple life, but here you go: SCIENCE NEWS: First multicellular life forms living completely without oxygen discovered


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Does that make sense, aside from sounding outrageous?



Yeah I think I get what you're saying. And I remember your quoted bit from the other thread. What I think you're saying is that aliens, if for the sake of argument, exist, that they are not necessarily bound by the same constraints we are. That is, maybe in a dimensional sense they exist beyond what we normally experience in everyday life. Maybe that's their means of travel. Maybe that's their means of interacting with us. 

I think I get that part. 

What I just don't get is, why would they willingly go through the trouble of visiting us, even if it were very easy for them, and yet never leave anything behind as a way of proving their existence. Kind of like God. No, in fact, EXACTLY like God. Why go through all the trouble of influencing people's lives, changing their experiences, attempting to educate and/or enlighten them in some fashion and then vanish. *poof*. Like Keyser Soze? That's what I have trouble with. 

Here's another thing, if for arguments sake you say that they travel great distances (teleport / time travel / inter-dimensionally / etc) then why all the pics of actual, physical (to us and our known reality) pictures of ships, etc? And yet no actual material? That is to say, if they're coming here, however they do, and they still have ships or a means of traveling around (vehicles) why no solid pics of them? Why is it always just strange lights in the sky (as Vai would say)? Why always cigar shaped saucers? Wouldn't the most efficient and universally (in the big sense of the word) ubiquitous shape be the vehicle of choice? That is, the sphere? The orb? 

I guess to me, regardless of how they got here, or why, why not just announce yourself? It doesn't have to be a rock concert, but just make it known. If they can do all these things, surely they can understand us? Surely they're self-aware of the controversy and doubt that surrounds them and their existence (in our eyes). So why not lay it all to rest?


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I said it was simple life, but here you go: SCIENCE NEWS: First multicellular life forms living completely without oxygen discovered



I think you misunderstand me, that is not life without oxygen. Pure and simple. The article states that the organisms in question are prokaryote cells. They therefore have DNA inside a membrane bound nucleus. The membrane is constructed of protein in turn constructed from amino acids, which are oxygen bearing organic molecules. The DNA is constructed from nucleotides also containing oxygen. So my point still stands, name an organism that lives without oxygen.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> I think you misunderstand me, that is not life without oxygen. Pure and simple. The article states that the organisms in question are prokaryote cells. They therefore have DNA inside a membrane bound nucleus. The membrane is constructed of protein in turn constructed from amino acids, which are oxygen bearing organic molecules. The DNA is constructed from nucleotides also containing oxygen. So my point still stands, name an organism that lives without oxygen.



No no, these organisms exist without oxygen being present, which is my only point here.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

No. They don't. The article says they live in anaerobic conditions, that is without free gaseous oxygen to metabolize. Great fine, but the molecules that comprise them still contain oxygen. Look up the structure of DNA, look up any molecule that comprises cells. You'll notice the prescence of oxygen. The article states the cells are eukaryotes. Therefore they must contain oxygen. Eukaryote cells have membrane bound organelles, that contain lipids, proteins and glycoproteins and therefore oxygen.

I think you need to read around some of this before you start stating things as fact


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Another thing... if these beings are smart enough to make it here in the first place they are not going to pop up in the middle of New York City and be like "LOL HEY GUYZ WTF IZ UP??!?!" 

The way I see it, there would only be a TINY fraction of aliens who would let themselves be known (through crashing or whatever). And that small number would be contained and covered up by the government. 

If aliens are in fact coming here, they are most likely coming to observe us. It will be a dark day if aliens pop up in the middle of time square, because in that case they will most likely not be coming for peaceful reasons 

EDIT: Also, they may be aware of the HUGE impact they would have on us if they would let themselves be known. Maybe they don't want to affect our future. Maybe they are more interested in seeing where we go on our own


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

> Instead, the new loriciferans have organelles that resemble hydrogenosomes, which are used by some single-celled eukaryotes to generate energy without oxygen. However, this is the first time that these organelles have been observed in multicellular organisms.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



....


----------



## synrgy (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm of a couple minds on this one, but I won't be adding much of anything that hasn't already been touched on.

Item #1: When you look at the recent deep space photos Hubble took which further underline how infinitely vast the Universe is, to think that we're the only planet amongst ALL OF THAT which hosts intelligent life seems downright foolish to me.



> The first thing we did was take a patch of sky that was relatively empty. No bright stars, no large galaxies or clusters, no planetary nebulae, just a little tiny patch of black, empty sky.











> And then we point Hubble at it. And what do we do? We sit there. And wait. Collecting tiny, miniscule amounts of light. First, for minutes on end. And then the minutes turn into hours, and the hours turn into days. All the while, Hubble just patiently sits there, pointing at the same patch of empty sky. Over 10 days, Hubble took a photograph of the same exact patch on the sky 342 times. They then added up the light from all 342 of these images. The result?










> The Hubble Deep Field, taken by WFPC2. Every point of light in this image (except for about 6 which are dim stars) is a galaxy. Thousands upon thousands of new galaxies were discovered. Some were only a few million light years away, others were over ten billion light years away. All told, we learned that there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in our Universe. And we learned it from this single photograph.
> 
> Well, nearly a decade after this, they installed a new, better camera, called the Advanced Camera for Surveys. And to one-up the Hubble Deep Field, they picked a different blank patch of sky, went even deeper, and created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Take a look:










> There are approximately 10,000 separate galaxies in this tiny little piece of sky.



***JUST*** in that little patch of sky.

Now also consider the time factor -- we've only been 'intelligent' for a matter of a nanosecond on the intergalactic scale. On such a massive scale, I'd say it's not just possible but probable that there has been AT LEAST one other rock supporting life that's already gone all the way through it's entire cycle, no longer in existence. Let alone however many may still be around 'today'.

God bless Carl Sagan, he made a great illustration of human life as it relates to the galactic timeline on his show 'Cosmos' back in the day.





Item #2: With all that said, taking into consideration those VERY SAME principles and ideas of the vastness of time and space, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we've been discovered or visited by intelligent life from a world other than our own, or that we would even be able to recognize/understand said life forms if they had found and visited us. It's too easy to think that life in another galaxy would have to abide by our galaxy's rules, both in terms of physical composition, and intelligent functionality. My best guess is that intelligent life from another planet would likely not even be able to survive in our atmosphere. Granted, if they can travel through space without the burden of time, they probably have a work around for that, but it seems like an awful lot of effort to spend without actually stopping in to say 'hi' to anybody.

Finally, have we not yet learned that -- especially now in the age of 24 hour media and internet -- our governments can't cover up ANYTHING, much less GIANT FUCKING SPACESHIPS FLYING THROUGH OUR ATMOSPHERE? That shit would be on youtube with a bajillion views in the first 5 minutes!


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Read and understood. The earliset forms of life known on Earth existed in similar conditions at hydrothermal vents, they though like these organisms still contain oxygen.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

You're clearly not reading it. The article clearly states, multiple times, that these organisms exist without oxygen. Plain and simple.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

splinter8451 said:


> Another thing... if these beings are smart enough to make it here in the first place they are not going to pop up in the middle of New York City and be like "LOL HEY GUYZ WTF IZ UP??!?!"
> 
> The way I see it, there would only be a TINY fraction of aliens who would let themselves be known (through crashing or whatever). And that small number would be contained and covered up by the government.
> 
> If aliens are in fact coming here, they are most likely coming to observe us. It will be a dark day if aliens pop up in the middle of time square, because in that case they will most likely not be coming for peaceful reasons



I think you've watched too many movies and TV. If they're smart enough to make it here, by whatever means, the next logical thing is to announce yourself to the people of the world. If they're that far advanced, there's no benefit to them by trying to hide regardless of their intentions. If they're far advanced enough to get here in the first place and their intentions were hostile, I don't think we'd ever see them. Not one shady, grainy photo, not one anal probe, not one slaughtered cow. We'd be here one instant and gone the next and wouldn't even know what hit us.

And coming to observe us for what purpose? And for how long? Kind of like God just sitting back and letting things play out huh? "I'm not going to get involved, I'll leave you to your own devices while I twist my moustache and think of new ways to fuck with you...*evil laugh*". Riiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

I've read it, and quite clearly I understand what it means better than you do. The article states that these organisms do not require free oxygen to metabolize aerobically. This means that these organisms use other methods of energy release and are therefore chemosynthetic. The article states that they use methane and sulphur as substrates for energy release.

This does not mean in any way that they do not contain oxygen, google the structure of DNA (there's only one) and tell me again that they contain no oxygen.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

And all I know is, if Aliens are coming here, they damned well better be fucking LEGAL!!!!!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Look, I understand the structure of DNA in a useful way - that isn't the issue here. I'm saying that these organisms do not need oxygen to live. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The end.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Orb - I do understand where you're coming from, but if we assume that we've been visited for as long as we've been here, and you and I haven't talked to an alien (or at least don't remember doing so ), then we have to make the more logical conclusion that their activities here are beyond simply _getting here_ and eventually communicating with us in the ways we would see fit/necessary. 

In other words, we either haven't thought of the reason why they might come here, or we simply just don't understand. I sort of like the quote from "The Mothman Prophecies" (even though it doesn't directly pertain to this discussion, it still fits) where Richard Geare's character asks the professor why the Mothman hasn't presented itself to anybody and the professor just says, "Have you ever tried to explain yourself to a cockroach?"


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Look, I understand the structure of DNA in a useful way - that isn't the issue here. I'm saying that these organisms do not need oxygen to live. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The end.



If you understand the structure of DNA, you'll know it contains oxygen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/MLACourse/Original8Hour/Genetics/nucleotide2.gif

I think this displays it enough, of the four possible bases in DNA, all of them contain oxygen. Anaeroic (which is what the article is saying) and without oxygen are not the same thing. Educate yourself.


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> And coming to observe us for what purpose? And for how long? Kind of like God just sitting back and letting things play out huh? "I'm not going to get involved, I'll leave you to your own devices while I twist my moustache and think of new ways to fuck with you...*evil laugh*". Riiiiiiiiiiight.



Maybe like God. Intelligent life from another planet watching us seems much more likely then some super being who created everything and told a man how to build a boat big enough to house 2 of every animal in the whole world before he nuked it with water  

Whose to say that we were not put here by aliens in the first place? Whose to say that fucking Dr Manhattan didn't teleport his big blue ass here and place some simple cells in the ocean and let us go?  nothing is out of the realm of possibilities. 

Sorry that I don't agree with your point of view that alien's can't be real because if they were they would come out and say it  No need to be an asshat about it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> If you understand the structure of DNA, you'll know it contains oxygen.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/MLACourse/Original8Hour/Genetics/nucleotide2.gif
> 
> I think this displays it enough, of the four possible bases in DNA, all of them contain oxygen. Anaeroic (which is what the article is saying) and without oxygen are not the same thing. Educate yourself.



The article states multiple times that there is no oxygen present and yet these organisms live...... WHICH MEANS THEY LIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN. This is seriously the end of this discussion. Open another thread if you have to.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The article states multiple times that there is no oxygen present and yet these organisms live...... WHICH MEANS THEY LIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN.



Nope. The article says there is no oxygen present diatomically, as in O2. There is still oxygen, in the silicate minerals in the sediments and in the cells.


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

EDIT: fuck what I just said. Reading over it again it made no sense, I'll leave you guys oxygen debate to you guys


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

splinter8451 said:


> Maybe like God. Intelligent life from another planet watching us seems much more likely then some super being who created everything and told a man how to build a boat big enough to house 2 of every animal in the whole world before he nuked it with water
> 
> Whose to say that we were not put here by aliens in the first place? Whose to say that fucking Dr Manhattan didn't teleport his big blue ass here and place some simple cells in the ocean and let us go?  nothing is out of the realm of possibilities.




Good point, although a bit crude. While sitting up and thinking one night, I thought about the possibility that the story of Noah literally told of a time that some intelligent entity instructed the containment of DNA examples of every living organism on the planet so that life would not be lost during some catastrophe. "2 of every living creature" could effectively be read as "the building blocks for every living creature", and while there's evidence both for and against there having been a great flood in the ancient past, "great flood" could effectively be read as "disaster" or "upheaval" of some kind. Just a thought.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Orb - I do understand where you're coming from, but if we assume that we've been visited for as long as we've been here, and you and I haven't talked to an alien (or at least don't remember doing so ), then we have to make the more logical conclusion that their activities here are beyond simply _getting here_ and eventually communicating with us in the ways we would see fit/necessary.
> 
> In other words, we either haven't thought of the reason why they might come here, or we simply just don't understand. I sort of like the quote from "The Mothman Prophecies" (even though it doesn't directly pertain to this discussion, it still fits) where Richard Geare's character asks the professor why the Mothman hasn't presented itself to anybody and the professor just says, "Have you ever tried to explain yourself to a cockroach?"



I guess that's the crux of my contention with whether or not we've been visited. Which is to say, there are but a small handful of reasons for them to go through the trouble of visiting us and none of them need to be covered up or candy-coated. If they're visiting us, it would *most* likely be one of the following reasons:

1) It's a nice vacation spot for them, that is, leisure and entertainment
2) We have something they want / need
3) We have something they want / need and they're going to get it from us whether we like it or not

I mean, think of it this way, you're a successful individual, you have the means to go anywhere in the world to visit. Are you going to go for business or pleasure? That's what it boils down to. And when you go to your destination, whether it's for business or pleasure, are you going to hide out in the shadows? Are you going to make every effort possible to leave NO traces behind? No ticket stubs, no popcorn wrappers, no hotel room toiletries, etc? 

I just can't wrap my head around the whole "they're so advanced, we can't *possibly* understand them" line of thinking. And that's not a dig or disrespect to you. I just can't do it. To me, aliens would of all things, be logical and pragmatic. Maybe not like Spock per se, but operating on some kind of logic and reasoning behind their actions. And none of the reasons for coming here above would entail remaining secret. Again, that's just my opinion on it.

EDIT: and Splinter, I respect your opinion and disagreement with me, didn't realize "I" was the one being an "asshat" about it by trying to state my opinion...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Nope. The article says there is no oxygen present diatomically, as in O2. There is still oxygen, in the silicate minerals in the sediments and in the cells.





> The brine serves as a physical barrier that prohibits oxygen exchange between the water and sediment, making the basin completely oxygen-free.



Seriously, if you want to continue this discussion, start another thread. I'm done with it here.



ANYWAY, regardless of what somebody may believe about the existence of ET life in the universe, the fact that this article was removed from its top-ranking position is a mystery, and very curious.


----------



## Origin (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> My problem with UFOs is thus: If an alien race/species were visiting Earth on a regular basis, throughout the history of mankind (and probably beyond) why the fuck are they so quiet about it? That is to say, if they're so advanced, so far ahead of us that they can cross great gaps in space and time, why NOT just show up in Times Square and announce "Hey, we're here, we're not going to start a war with you, we like your planet, Starbucks rules!!!"
> 
> I mean, the conspiracy theorists always say things like "well, they have been coming here for a very long time and they've *tried* to announce themselves, but they're repressed at every turn by the world's governments". Or something along those lines. That, despite all the alien's best efforts, they can't seem to find ONE SINGLE LOCATION on the entire planet where they can peacefully show up, announce themselves and move on with life.
> 
> ...



This. Just like religion, I'm not believing shit until I'm given hard evidence. Everything I've been shown so far in my life has been shaky bullshiit, including this 'article.' There just isn't enough concrete to make any rash decisions like claiming we have visitors. The side that denies is always going to be right unless the side trying to prove can put his theory directly in front of their eyes. Until then all the crackpots can just piss off.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The article states multiple times that there is no oxygen present and yet these organisms live...... WHICH MEANS THEY LIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN. This is seriously the end of this discussion. Open another thread if you have to.



Fine, end of discussion. I do recommend you read around planetry books on planetary formation though, Amazon.com: Destiny or Chance: Our Solar System and its Place in the Cosmos (9780521785211): Stuart Ross Taylor: Books this book is a good place to start and was particularly helpful for the cosmochemistry, and planetry science section of my course (I'm an undergraduate at the University of Oxford). Also recommend you read up on basic biochemistry and cell biology as well if this sort of stuff is of interest to you. I still maintain though, that there is no life on Earth that does not contain oxygen in any of its chemical compounds.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> I guess that's the crux of my contention with whether or not we've been visited. Which is to say, there are but a small handful of reasons for them to go through the trouble of visiting us and none of them need to be covered up or candy-coated. If they're visiting us, it would *most* likely be one of the following reasons:
> 
> 1) It's a nice vacation spot for them, that is, leisure and entertainment
> 2) We have something they want / need
> ...



This can be said when considering the reasons WE (humans) would visit another planet if we could do it at this time.

However, the point I was making about the evolutionary implications of a technological advancement allowing time/inter-dimensional travel (and the reason I said we're not likely to easily understand their reasons for visiting us) is that our paradigm would absolutely, completely shift. Life as we know it would not be the same.. I say that because its not likely to be a stand-alone discovery but rather a bi-product of evolution; the mark of a new era. The reason this point is important is because I don't think we can be visited by an ET race unless they can use time travel/wormholes/something to that effect.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

I still don't feel like I'm getting my point across.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> This can be said when considering the reasons WE (humans) would visit another planet if we could do it at this time.
> 
> However, the point I was making about the evolutionary implications of a technological advancement allowing time/inter-dimensional travel (and the reason I said we're not likely to easily understand their reasons for visiting us) is that our paradigm would absolutely, completely shift. Life as we know it would not be the same.. I say that because its not likely to be a stand-alone discovery but rather a bi-product of evolution; the mark of a new era. The reason this point is important is because I don't think we can be visited by an ET race unless they can use time travel/wormholes/something to that effect.



I guess then we just have a slight disagreement over reasoning. Ours and possibly ETs. I would say that dismissing our current reasoning for going to another planet as quaint or in some way "below" ETs just doesn't make sense to me. That is, even if ET has all these great technological advances, there are certain (at the moment) immutable truths and lines of reasoning that should be followed as guidelines in determining whether something is likely or unlikely. Especially in the absence of empirical, concrete evidence. 

That to me, means ET's reasons for visiting us would no MORE or LESS be served by them remaining secret. So if it doesn't matter either way to them and their ends, logically, I would expect an advanced race of beings to make themselves known. Whether it's Times Square, front page news articles, a meet n' greet at the local Barnes and Noble, whatever. So long as it was measurable, verifiable proof. And in the absence of that proof, the rest is just wild speculation.

And my only trouble with that is, that it's just that. Speculation. It's just conspiracy theories and back-room deals and that to me makes the whole thing stink and diminishes what could and should be, the most important discovery, EVER. Bar none.

And I agree that such a discovery would mean a lot of very important things. New discoveries about the laws of physics, new elements and materials, new philosophies, etc. It would be epic. I can't see an advanced race of beings having all that knowledge and NOT sharing it. And I can't see them coming here, leaving evidence behind and yet having every single bit of it collected and suppressed by "the man".


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> EDIT: and Splinter, I respect your opinion and disagreement with me, didn't realize "I" was the one being an "asshat" about it by trying to state my opinion...
> 
> *And coming to observe us for what purpose? And for how long? Kind of like God just sitting back and letting things play out huh? "I'm not going to get involved, I'll leave you to your own devices while I twist my moustache and think of new ways to fuck with you...*evil laugh*". Riiiiiiiiiiight.*



That was the asshat part with the, "Riiiiiiiiiight". 

That is where it stops being your respectful disagreement with my opinion and starts being condescending


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

splinter8451 said:


> That was the asshat part with the, "Riiiiiiiiiight".
> 
> That is where it stops being your respectful disagreement with my opinion and starts being condescending



My advice, lighten up. It's just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions right? They're like assholes, everyone's got one and everybody thinks everyone else's stinks.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Like Orb is saying, the idea of being visited by aliens does not stand up to logical scrutiny. It's analogous to any debate about religion, the 'God moves in mysterious ways' kind of argument just nullifies the possibility of debate. 

It's just like stating that fairies live at the bottom of my garden as fact, but then making it impossible to disprove by saying that they're invisible or only I can see them. 

There is an order to how things are investigated scientifically. A phenomena is observed, then investigated and then understood (eventually). Stating a theory first and then scrambling for evidence to support it is just the wrong way of doing things.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Like Orb is saying, the idea of being visited by aliens does not stand up to logical scrutiny. It's analogous to any debate about religion, the 'God moves in mysterious ways' kind of argument just nullifies the possibility of debate.
> 
> It's just like stating that fairies live at the bottom of my garden as fact, but then making it impossible to disprove by saying that they're invisible or only I can see them.
> 
> There is an order to how things are investigated scientifically. A phenomena is observed, then investigated and then understood (eventually). Stating a theory first and then scrambling for evidence to support it is just the wrong way of doing things.



Right and not to mention the fact that people often confuse Scientific Theory with the colloquial term Theory, equating the two and thus saying things like "It's just a Theory of Evolution and that means it's bunk... " etc.


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> My advice, lighten up. It's just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions right? They're like assholes, everyone's got one and everybody thinks everyone else's stinks.



Well your asshole must REALLY stink then.  










 No worries dude I was just joking with the asshat thing to begin with. I know things don't translate well over the internet.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Spondus said:


> Like Orb is saying, the idea of being visited by aliens does not stand up to logical scrutiny. It's analogous to any debate about religion, the 'God moves in mysterious ways' kind of argument just nullifies the possibility of debate.
> 
> It's just like stating that fairies live at the bottom of my garden as fact, but then making it impossible to disprove by saying that they're invisible or only I can see them.



Except that there's many, many people that have claimed to see UFOs/ET's or be contacted by them, and there's lots of questionable artifacts or clues that point to extraterrestrial visitation (not to mention many high ranking military/airforce persons and people in other positions of prestige that have testified in support of there either being a coverup of some kind). I say questionable because its obviously open to debate, but all it takes is one sighting, one story, one artifact, one pro-ET argument to be right on the money for the rest of them to be plausible. I think that once you consider the vastness of the galaxy, let alone the universe, and then you consider the multitude of accounts of aliens from all throughout history, its very ignorant to assume that there's no actual yet-to-be-explained substance or that its impossible for at least one account to be true.

Aside from that, why was this story yanked from the rankings?


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

splinter8451 said:


> Well your asshole must REALLY stink then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Man you have no idea. The stench of my asshole (and opinions) will suck the paint off your house and give your whole family a permanent orange afro. It's bad... real bad...

And no worries, disagreements, friendly or not are what make the intarWebz so fun and entertaining!


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Except that there's many, many people that have claimed to see UFOs/ET's or be contacted by them, and there's lots of questionable artifacts or clues that point to extraterrestrial visitation. I say questionable because its obviously open to debate, but all it takes is one sighting, one story, one artifact, one pro-ET argument to be right on the money for the rest of them to be plausible. I think that once you consider the vastness of the galaxy, let alone the universe, and then you consider the multitude of accounts of aliens from all throughout history, its very ignorant to assume that there's no actual yet-to-be-explained substance or that its impossible for at least one account to be true.
> 
> Aside from that, why was this story yanked from the rankings?



Well I'll take a stab at both points. First, of all those people to have those experiences, you would think there would be ONE, if not many many more, scientifically verifiable pieces of "in the hand" evidence. Not just hearsay accounts. Not just a few eye witnesses. Something physical. And not just some blurred, grainy, crappy ass photo. This is the digital age. You can't cut a fart without someone able to catch it on camera and post it to YouTube. And the digital age is a world-wide phenomena, it's not US centric. Somewhere, someone, must have some *thing* that proves they made contact. Not just a story or recollection. And in the absence of that, the "convenient" absence of that proof, all we can do is wonder, speculate and debate about whether something happened.

Do I doubt all the people and their experiences? No, absolutely not, because you're right, it would be foolish to dismiss all of them. But, and this is where I think our agreement diverges, since they can offer no solid proof of these experiences, it seems people fall into two camps. Either you still believe them at face value, or like me, you think that these people probably had a fantastic experience they can't explain. And the latter line of thinking leads me to believe that yes they experienced "something". But was it ET? Was it Chupacabra? Was it something out of the X-Files? My only answer is, without proof, who knows? I would think though, that in all of these cases it would be trivially easy to produce some kind of evidence of actual contact. 

Going back through time, before the New World Order, before black-ops and hush-hush government programs, there were people. If we were visited throughout our history, where is the verifiable proof? People point to cave drawings, people point to the pyramids, people point to crop circles and drawings in fields in South America only viewable from above, people point to the actual Bible, and so on. And yet throughout all of this history, none of the physical evidence has remained? 

It's been suppressed? It's been hidden? It's been forgotten? I don't know, that to me just sounds unlikely. And that's what this debate is really about, since we have no definitive proof, it's about what is likely and what is unlikely. 

And to address your other point, the AOL thing, I have to revert back to what is likely and what is unlikely. To me, what is likely to have happened is that someone posted the article from within AOL, and maybe by mistake (as often happens in large corporations) or maybe because of lack of communication between departments (which also often happens in large corporations) the article was moved to another area. Maybe a web dev hit the wrong key. Maybe he selected a group of articles to move and grabbed that one by accident. I don't know, but that seems pretty likely in the course of business. And without paying attention to, and measuring how many OTHER articles, not related to UFOs, were also moved or pulled from ranking sections, etc, it's impossible to know how often this kind of thing happens. In other words it might be completely NORMAL for AOL to do that.

And on the other hand, the UNLIKELY scenario for the article being moved (not deleted mind you) is that some government or non-government operative saw it was posted, recognized that it was "dangerous" on some level for public consumption and thus pulled strings behind the scenes to get it moved. Moved mind you, NOT deleted. The article remains on their site. 

So this operative, if he's trying to cover things up, did a piss poor job. Why not just have the whole article deleted? If they have untold power and no strings attached, why not remove the article from all news source sites? And to get to the root of the matter, why not take out Dr. So and So to shut him the fuck up if he's always running his mouth about their little "operation"?

See, the whole thing gets very ugly, very quickly and sounds very unlikely, at least to me...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 9, 2010)

A couple of things:

First off, there seems to be a misunderstanding between a life form having structures built with a particular element, and a life form living in an environment in which that element is available freely. Humans have a huge amount of carbon in their makeup, but we don't get it from the air; we have to ingest it.

Similarly, the recently found lifeforms which live without free oxygen still have oxygen as part of their structure. As far as I'm aware, there have not been any terrestrial life forms found which don't use the element oxygen in their makeup. 

Secondly, it is one thing to say, it is probable that other life exists in the galaxy (and even more probable that it exists elsewhere in the universe).

It is quite another thing to take that probability, and to argue that it is therefore likely that such life is sufficiently advanced to travel to other places, and that it has definitely visited the Earth. 

----

I've been to enough Q&As where certain members of the general public (crackpots) get stuck on a few words, and demand that people (who know their subject and what certain words actually mean) agree to incorrect statements which the crackpots (due to their limited understanding) believe are true.

I have no doubt that we'll continue to see sensationalist titles and threads like this one posted on SS.org. I also have no doubt that, when something provable actually comes along, we'll be able to find news of it on CNN. 

----

Will there be any effect from my having posted the two incorrectly conflated claims? I'm sorry to say, I doubt it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

Update: Nothing fishy here in this article, or at least I don't think there is - these news articles only stay in the rankings for 24 hours. After 24 hours they're pulled... I'm not certain as to why they pull it out of the rankings but not off of the site, but this particular article was up for 24 hours. 

In any case, it caused some stir which is always cool. I think its cool that we've been seeing more and more people interested in UFO's/ET's and the like. The History Channel in particular has been playing things about conspiracies and what not in abundance as of late. Usually they have an even amount of skepticism thrown in for taste, but that element has been absent. Its just another observation, that's all.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jun 9, 2010)

Maybe they're all sitting around waiting around for us to invent warp/FTL drives.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Maybe the beings that people claim to see/interact with are actually humans or human descendants who have traveled back through time from some point in the distant future...


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 9, 2010)

Is life out there in the universe? Yes.
Has it visited earth?  Tell ya what, give me ONE shred of proof, i'l buy it.


----------



## Spondus (Jun 9, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Similarly, the recently found lifeforms which live without free oxygen still have oxygen as part of their structure. As far as I'm aware, there have not been any terrestrial life forms found which don't use the element oxygen in their makeup.



Bingo, the point I have been trying to make all along. Anaerobic =/= without oxygen. Thank you sir.


----------



## CFB (Jun 9, 2010)

Why aren't the aliens making a big fuss?
They got iPads upon arrival.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jun 9, 2010)

CFB said:


> Why aren't the aliens making a big fuss?
> They got iPads upon arrival.


All their personal info got leaked.


----------



## IDLE (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm quite certain that there is other life besides us in the universe. Most likely a lot of it too.

However, my problem with UFOs is there just isn't much new evidence. Sure the Roswell stuff is there, but that's been around for a long time. Plus there is no concrete evidence about what happened at Roswell anymore. If it was true it's been covered up so well that believing in it is down to faith now. I would however like to see one of these lights in the sky for myself though that would be cool.

As much as I would like earth to be contacted by intelligent extraterrestrials, I know it would completely change our way of life so it probably wouldn't be of any benefit until we had means to contact them first.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jun 9, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Maybe the beings that people claim to see/interact with are actually humans or human descendants who have traveled back through time from some point in the distant future...


 
While I fully expect that this is a tongue in cheek comment from you, I've actually heard a lot of people say that this is almost always the case... well, according to the super mysterious "inside sources".


----------



## orb451 (Jun 9, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> While I fully expect that this is a tongue in cheek comment from you, I've actually heard a lot of people say that this is almost always the case... well, according to the super mysterious "inside sources".



Yeah that was meant as a bit of humor  Ahhh well, until there's proof it's just a funny possibility.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jun 10, 2010)

What if those Aliens are too tiny to see, and partying all over the place already?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jun 10, 2010)

BTW, No oxygen, no DNA/RNA. I can accept Alien cell having no oxygen, but if we call something an organism, there is oxygen in it's molecules.
Ribose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






So, they might not need O2 got energy, but they are getting it thru other molecules and use it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jun 10, 2010)

What if our DNA is an alien?
What if we are the aliens?
What if we are saiyans? LOL


----------



## Mexi (Jun 11, 2010)

I think its hilarious how bent out of shape some of you guys get over shit like this. bottom line is that our criteria for establishing life in the universe is based solely on our knowledge of life on the earth. for all we know, there are aliens out there that do not conform to any standard that humans have created to define "life". having witnessed a collection of UFOs first hand in the deserts of mexico, I have no doubt in my mind about the existence of aliens, but both sides need to just be open to other people's opinions.


----------



## silentrage (Aug 10, 2010)

So the disclosure project is still on-going.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Aug 14, 2010)

I've always been a big believer in life elsewhere in the Universe. It's big enough, and has been here long enough, for chance to have created hospitable conditions in more than one place.

Whether or not we've been visited though...I dunno. I agree with whoever said that in the digital age, it'd be pretty hard for aliens to remain unseen. Although, I was having this discussion with someone the other day about how we're so oversaturated with information and media, that it can actually be to our disadvantage. If someone picked up their camera and took the clearest footage of a UFO imagineable, the fact that it was so readily available would probably discredit it. If that makes sense? I'm not saying it's part of a conspiracy as such but I do think that this idea of limitless, uncensored media and information can actually have the opposite effect to what you'd expect, and I'm sure that works in someone's favour!

Of course on the other hand, it's possible that the Universe is teaming with life but...we're all just too far apart. I love the notion of Star Trek that if there's a Universal speed limit, you just build a <Scientist's Name> Compensator and presto - from 0 to Ceti Alpha V in 60 seconds! But how doable warp bubbles/ftl travel/etc, actually is, I don't know.

Oh and one final thought...say we HAVE been visited. What do you think aliens would make of us? Would they really want us to join their club and share their knowledge? If they're advanced enough to get here, chances are they aren't the kind of species that's driven by monetary gain or materialism, they've probably learnt to keep their planet habitable long enough to develop their technology and not rape their planet's natural resources, and they probably don't waste time killing each other. If I were them I'd take one look and drive on by  Sure we have potential and can do some wonderful things but if there were an interplanetary club, we sure as shit wouldn't pass the entry test!! Not just yet anyway.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 14, 2010)

chimp_spanner said:


> Oh and one final thought...say we HAVE been visited. What do you think aliens would make of us? Would they really want us to join their club and share their knowledge? If they're advanced enough to get here, chances are they aren't the kind of species that's driven by monetary gain or materialism, they've probably learnt to keep their planet habitable long enough to develop their technology and not rape their planet's natural resources, and they probably don't waste time killing each other. If I were them I'd take one look and drive on by  Sure we have potential and can do some wonderful things but if there were an interplanetary club, we sure as shit wouldn't pass the entry test!! Not just yet anyway.


 Well according to the ancients, we have been visited. Then again, I kinda wonder how much of it is myth/lore or metaphorical, and how much is factual.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Aug 14, 2010)

Woah...crazy....











And he was JUST about to propose


----------



## chucknorrishred (Aug 14, 2010)




----------



## chucknorrishred (Aug 14, 2010)




----------



## Prydogga (Aug 14, 2010)

Posting useless fake UFO videos really is useful to the subject...


----------



## silentrage (Aug 14, 2010)

Speaking of alien child, what about that starchild skull thingy.


----------



## chucknorrishred (Aug 14, 2010)

^ thats another one i should of posted

the alien child one was the only fake i posted

the china ufo happened last month and forced all airlines to shutdown


----------



## Trespass (Aug 15, 2010)

This wikipedia article investigates the Fermi Paradox:



> The age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.[1]
> 
> In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes is not seen.



Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My favorite is "If aliens do exist, their mode of thought and communication might be so foreign to ours that inter-species communication is simply not possible." Just as our brains can't comprehend 4D, these alien brains and our brains do not operate on enough of similarity to comprehend each other. Perhaps like trying to comprehend the thoughts of single celled organisms, or a buddhist Bodhisattva and the constant state of enlightenment. 

Another possibility is discovery, adventure or colonialism are distinctly earth based behavioura, and no other sentient life form is actually interested in going beyond their mode of existence.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 15, 2010)

Isn't it amazing that, when a hiker is known to have gone missing in an area of less than 20 square miles, they might not find that person until after they die, if at all? 

After all, it's large groups that search those areas. How can it be that they don't find a person they know is there in that area?

(And yes, I've known two people to whom this has happened in the last five years. It was known exactly what areas they were going to be, and they were found there months later, having died of exposure, not foul play. There were major search teams.)

----

Going a bit further... why can't we easily find evidence of alien civilizations, even if we don't know where they are in the galaxy? It should be much easier than finding a hiker, right? 

Er... wait a minute... could someone seriously propose that? It sounds like someone doesn't have a handle on even terrestrial concerns, and is therefore speculating out of their ass....

(Incidentally, this is not directed at Trespass, but at Fermi, who one would assume would be capable of crunching some statistics on Earth and then extrapolating from there. Apparently, Fermi + statistics equals... EPIC FAIL! *laugh*)


----------



## chucknorrishred (Aug 15, 2010)

they might not even be from outer space, they could be from the deep oceans. during world war 2, ufo were sighted all over the place, comming out of the oceans, interacting with the aricraft carriers.


----------



## silentrage (Aug 15, 2010)

I read a pretty interesting idea in a novel, which again is very anthropic and probably only apply to us, guess we can't NOT think like humans. 

The idea is that technological civilizations all hit technological singularity sooner or later, and they will start to convert all matter in their local star system into microscopic computing devices, this requires breaking down all the planets, moons, asteroids and building them into giant computing clouds which form layers of dyson spheres around their star for energy, and anyone that doesn't get aboard this plan or stray from it is left outside of the accelerating intelligence explosion and thus be at a disadvantage in terms of computing power and bandwidth. So no one ever leaves.


----------



## Mexi (Aug 16, 2010)

its more likely than not that most reported UFO sightings are black projects that are testing experimental technologies. What gets me though is the sheer number of UFO reports that are exceedingly consistent with one another.

is an example of one, many of my family members have told me stories of the orbs they've seen in the skies and they are extraordinarily similar to videos like these (I apologize to those who do not speak spanish but the video is quite interesting) That said, for all we know, "orbs" could be sentient energy patterns and not necessarily extraterrestrial vehicles. Either way, its all really exciting stuff and I really hope that I'll be able to know of alien life in my lifetime.


----------



## LUCKY7 (Aug 17, 2010)

digg_ufo_friedmanremoved.jpg
digg_ufo_friedman2.jpg
digg_ufo_friedman.jpg
aol_ufo_friedman.jpg

friedman = freedman = freeman = freemason


----------



## Explorer (Aug 19, 2010)

silentrage said:


> I read a pretty interesting idea in a novel, which again is very anthropic and probably only apply to us, guess we can't NOT think like humans.
> 
> The idea is that technological civilizations all hit technological singularity sooner or later, and they will start to convert all matter in their local star system into microscopic computing devices, this requires breaking down all the planets, moons, asteroids and building them into giant computing clouds which form layers of dyson spheres around their star for energy, and anyone that doesn't get aboard this plan or stray from it is left outside of the accelerating intelligence explosion and thus be at a disadvantage in terms of computing power and bandwidth. So no one ever leaves.



Extrapolating even further from the human point of view...

All these millions of years, and still our species makes decisions based on "like us" and "not like us." People don't agree about religion, about appropriate use of technology, and so on. 

Looking at events like 9/11, it's clear that it takes investment to build, but very little effort to destroy. How difficult would it be for those who are disenfranchised in a culture, even an alien one, to subvert the kind of nanotech needed for mass conversions and computing to other, destructive uses? A voracious self-duplicating nanobot, making endless copies of itself, is just one idea. We can look at various species, not just human, to see that species will sometimes destroy everything around it, even if it means wiping itself out. Jihadists are an easy example, and it's difficult to find arguments why other species would be any more enlightened, other than by positing inflexible goodness for the proposed aliens, with no explanation why an evolved species would take great care of all members of its own species. Looking at evolutionary advantage, there also would be no reason to suppose that a species would have any reason to preserve other species that might threaten it. 

Anyway, I have my doubts that a technological species would be free of the individualism that causes differences of opinion, and all the violence which arise from such....


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 19, 2010)

You're one of those people that doesn't know what Jihad means, I guess. This is hardly relevant to the thread - just point that out.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Aug 19, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're one of those people that doesn't know what Jihad means, I guess. This is hardly relevant to the thread - just point that out.




I think it's relevant...maybe a bad example, but relevant point. I think what he's saying is that ET races would probably not be exempt from having "bad apples". Basically, take the human race as a whole. Tons of kinds of people, tons of beliefs, tons of ideas of right and wrong. All of these things separate our race into groups. I think he's saying that it's doubtful that an entire race would actually think one way about everything. The flaw that I find with it is that it is still based only on our experience on this planet. The oldest stars are thought to be around 10 billion years old (I think...google it, it may be much older...) Think of humans a mere 100 years ago. We barely had motorized transport. We are in no position to be making assumptions about life-forms other than ones that we experience here. Now imagine us in 10,000 years. With the rate of the technological advancements we see daily, it's just about impossible.

Sorry to get into religion here, but I started to read the bible (I'm far from religious, I just like to read about religions) and I'm pretty much convinced that genesis just chronicles ET's creating life after life that existed on their planet, creating a human, and then cloning him, with such precision as to be sure it was a female version...but that's for another thread, which I believe I'm going to start right about now!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 19, 2010)

I meant that him not knowing what Jihad meant wasn't necessarily relevant. His points were relevant, otherwise.

Oh, and I also am of the conviction that most of our creation stories depict ET activity.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 19, 2010)

Is the argument that, by using the word self-described jihadists use for themselves, I'm supposed to insert huge amounts of correction into their own misunderstandings? I'd instead argue that, due to such people defining and using it in such a way themselves, the word has gained that meaning, regardless of the fact that those involved completely disregard the actual struggle within one's soul to become a better person. 

Feel better now that I explained it bit by bit? Don't. You don't understand how language is used and misused, and had no way to grasp context. Just pointing it out. *laugh*

----

Getting to my main point... it's not that alien races would have "bad apples." It's that a life form has to have some kind of survival instinct in order to survive. If a species doesn't possess that, then they will die out. Imagine the way any Terrestrial animal will fight for its life under various circumstances, struggle against drowning for example. Is there an evolutionary survival advantage to just drowning quietly? To not struggling against another species which is going to use you for food? Such a species will die out, and what will be left are the more aggressive species. That will be the kind of ETs who made it to technology, because a more placid species would have been destroyed. 

Even if another species isn't hostile, though, that doesn't mean their aims are benevolent by human standards. "Why does your species struggle against feeding our living God? Don't you recognize the good in that?" "Why do you fight against having our virus in your brain, so you may partake of communion with us? Individualism is wrong, and so we'll help you get away from all the destructiveness it brings." If a species is all of one accord, incidentally, that means they likely won't recognize the individuality of specific humans, and might not recognize that killing individuals is a permanent thing, instead of each of us living on in the hivemind, for example. 

Even if a group of aliens decided that they would cooperate perfectly... did they then kill or force perfect cooperation on those who decided not to (like the brain virus example I just gave)? At that point, they've now gone into that protection mode of what they consider worth preserving... and no longer are the kind of angelic society which has been posited, but which has no explanation as to why there'd be an advantage to it. 

Self preservation opens the door for interspecies aggression. Can anyone come up with a reason why it wouldn't, or why a species wouldn't have self preservation?

----

By the way, related thread!

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/the-lounge/128272-science-zombie-ants-theyre-real-hide-your-children.html


----------



## silentrage (Aug 19, 2010)

I think we need to go back 1 step. If we suppose that aliens should be similar to us in terms of biology or at least chemical composition, then they probably operate on metabolism and therefore probably went through a eat or be eaten stage somewhere in their evolutionary process, similar to us. 
This is supported by the fact that our chemical composition is in similar proportions to that of the visible universe.

But if we consider that roughly 3/4 of the universe is very much unknown, then whatever intelligence exists there could have nothing in common with us, in which case any hypothesis you come up with regarding their behavior is automatically moot if just based on the fact that you, a human, can conceive of it.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Aug 19, 2010)

Aliens Exist. 

Have they visited earth? Probably.

Is the government covering things up? Probably.

Should we worry about? No, Until they are revealed to the masses I am not going to worry about UFO's or alien, hell, UFO's are probably earthborn anyway.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 20, 2010)

silentrage said:


> ...(O)ur chemical composition is in similar proportions to that of the visible universe.
> 
> But if we consider that roughly 3/4 of the universe is very much unknown, then whatever intelligence exists there could have nothing in common with us, in which case any hypothesis you come up with regarding their behavior is automatically moot if just based on the fact that you, a human, can conceive of it.



It sounds like there are some assertions being made which require putting observations aside and leaping to conclusions.

The universe which is visible to us has the same chemical basis that we have here on Earth. We can tell due to the science of astronomy, which allows us to distinguish chemical compositions of objects at quite a distance. If so, then it is likely that much life has that same chemical basis.

However, if it doesn't, it still will be exposed to vast areas in the universe where chemical-based life exists. The chemical based life will have that evolutionary bent... which means the non-chemical life will need a survival instinct to continue. 

At the point where one argues that life might take a form we can't comprehend, and which will work with a different physical basis than what is observable in the universe, then one might as well admit that there is also a creator god which works on a basis outside of physical laws. Science doesn't go in those directions, instead observing a reductionist philosophy. It feels like an appeal to ignorance, in the normal definition of such: "Since we don't know, it probably is."


----------



## silentrage (Aug 20, 2010)

No that's not my argument, I'm just saying since we only observe 25% of the mass in the universe, it could very well be wrong to assume that that 25% can represent the other 75% in anyway, that's all I'm saying.
It's an argument against the whole "if there IS intelligence out there, it MUST be like us."


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Aug 20, 2010)

If the universe, at this point, is considered infinite...
How can there be any fraction or percent of that? Any percent of an infinite amount would itself be infinite...

/smartass


----------



## Pauly (Aug 20, 2010)

I think many people still don't get the distances involved in interstellar travel, which is one of the most crippling arguments for extraterrestrial visitors in both the travelling sense and the 'finding us' sense. For the latter, humans have only visibly advertised their presence for less than a century, and even if a race had a fantastically powerful telescope, the odds are they'd be seeing light hundreds, if not thousands of years old from us, which wouldn't be any help looking for signs of intelligence and even then they'd have to pick our star out in the first place.

For the distance thing:


> Let us imagine shrinking the Earth down to the size of a pea. At the same time, let the rest of the Solar System be proportionally reduced in size.
> 
> The Sun will be the size of a beach ball. The first planet Mercury be 200 feet from the Sun and will be the size of a pinhead. Then, 300 feet away from the Sun will be Venus, represented by a pea only slight smaller than that representing the Earth. In this scheme of things, the Earth is 500 feet from the Sun. About 20 inches from our pea revolves the Moon. Mars is the size of a grape pit and is 700 feet away from the Sun. Skipping over the asteroids, at a distance of over 2,000 feet from the Sun we come to Jupiter, the largest planet. A tennis ball represents Jupiter, while Saturn, which is over 4,000 feet away from the center, is only slightly smaller than a baseball. The next planet Uranus is over one and a half miles from the Sun and is the size of a ping pong ball. Neptune also is a ping pong ball, but one that is over two and a half miles from the Sun. Finally, Pluto is over three miles away from the Sun and the size of a sesame seed.
> 
> The general idea is that we have within a radius of over three miles a space filled by only an occasional golf ball and a few widely separated peas. Most of the Solar System is empty space. *By the way, on this scale, the nearest star is 25,000 miles away*.



Bolded by me. If you wanted the whole solar system including the Oort cloud, you're looking at something like going 14 miles away from that beach ball to reach the edge. Lets not talk about other stars more further out The Voyager probes are the fastest things humanity has ever built, they're going at like 30,000mph out into space. They haven't even left the solar system proper yet.

The other thing is that given the age of our galaxy, it's wildly optimistic to presume that different alien races have evolved and advanced in a comparable time scale to our own. Typically science fiction presents alien races being hundreds, or thousands of years ahead, but in cosmological terms these are blinks of an eye. We could be a hundred thousand years ahead of any other race in the galaxy, have missed another race by two million years, been a small patch of single-celled organisms floating in a vast sea while others were shooting probes into space or splitting the atom. Even then they might be hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of light years away. 

Combining all three of these things makes it extremely difficult to give credence to the way aliens inhabit popular culture and conspiracy theories. Would a race a million years ahead of us really give a shit about consorting with selected governments around the world? About hairless ape's social hierarchies? Letting themselves get spotted on the odd occasion for people on the internet? 

Basically this makes several massive assumptions; they evolved around the same time as us, in our local stellar neighbourhood, noticed us very recently, had the resources (and patience?!) to travel here, could work out which monkeys were the ones in charge, learn the language (in the pre-internet/digital age) and then work with the ever-shifting number of people in charge because we get old retire and die pretty quickly, for some reason or another and keep it all a secret.... 

Incredibly, incredibly coincidental, odds of billions of trillions to one I'd imagine. 

I mean, what would aliens even want from us? Resources? Don't buy it - sorry Stephen Hawking - if you have mastered interstellar travel it means you have access to incredible energy sources and you are self-sufficient, and therefore post-scarcity. A planet therefore has little value from that perspective, unless you want to look at and appreciate the biodiversity or views, or if it's barren and lifeless you could smash it up and use the matter to make something more interesting (a Culture Orbital perhaps!).

Perhaps it's just for the lulz. In a universe of mostly empty space (total visible matter in universe = grain or sand at the centre of an empty room 26x26x26 miles), seemingly doomed to heat death, perhaps humour is the only source of amusement for a species that can travel anywhere but can't escape the inevitable end, so they come to watch us blow each other up and post videos on the internet of us eating poop and sticking things in our genitals.

Cliff Notes:
To quote Bill Bryson, it's possible aliens have travelled billions and billions of miles to amuse themselves by planting crop circles in Wiltshire or frightening the daylights out of some poor guy in a pickup truck in Arizona but it's unlikely. 



Alien biochemistry is another thread entirely, but many people coming up with exotic ideas miss the point completely that you need an environment in which stable chemistry can occur in order for reactions to take place. You need a stable solvent. This is why water is considered the holy grail, so to speak, because it's one of the few environments in a temperature band which allow complex reactions to take place relatively undisturbed so that they can develop undisturbed. It's much more complicated than just looking for water because that's how we got started. 

If simple stuff can't be left to evolve into complex stuff, because it's being boiled/frozen/mixed with other stuff, then you're not going to get any aliens. Try reading this (I know it's Wiki but...)
Extraterrestrial life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and this
Hypothetical types of biochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
although note that many of the sci-fi ones, while sounding exotic and plausible are flawed in some way or other under scrutiny, but make for nice ideas none-the-less.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 20, 2010)

I think the vast space between an explanation as to why it seems unlikely that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy/universe and an explanation as to why it does indeed exist elsewhere is marked by the belief, or disbelief, of purpose and order in the universe. 

When I look around, and study what we know about life in our small corner of the universe, I see proof of life's endeavor to thrive in every place possible, no matter what struggle it must overcome to do so. 

We often tend to think that this place is so unique, such that it is somehow separate from the rest of the universe, but we're still a part of the whole.


----------



## Pauly (Aug 20, 2010)

Life has _evolved_ to fit in strange ecological niches, like the inside of nuclear reactors. However those do not seem to be conditions suitable for life to _arise_ because as said, you need a stable environment where atoms and molecules can interact and become more complex without being torn apart or constantly undergoing change.


----------



## Pauly (Aug 20, 2010)

One thing I forgot about, is how much harder it is for intelligent life to evolve, at least in terms of technological development. Case in point; our aquatic-based life has been around far, far, far longer than any other form here on Earth, but as we see from our lofty perch here, hasn't produced anything of equal or superior intelligence. 

The reasons seem fairly clear to me; the nature of living in a fluid makes it difficult to impossible to complete certain tasks such as making fire, controlling electricity, clear view of the cosmos, developing digits that can manipulate objects (ok you have octopuses), being able to record your history in a fairly permanent way for others to learn from. Thus is seems logical to presume that you'd need land-based life in order to perform all the important experiments that are involved in improving a species understanding of the world around it, in order to improve their command over it. The physical properties and forces in the universe seem to be the same everywhere, so it's fairly safe to assume that if alien life wanted to travel the stars, they'd have to follow a similar path we have in terms of technological development, progress and achievements, but obviously at a FAR more accomplished level.

Cliff Notes = as cool as cetaceans are, they won't be making motherboards any time soon.


----------



## Mexi (Aug 21, 2010)

theres really just too much crazy shit going on in the sky to deny the ufo phenomenon imo. the consistencies between witness testimonies, video and photo evidence across the world by people with _nothing to gain_ is just too clear to be a mass hoax or a sudden surge in popularity of chinese lanterns


----------



## Explorer (Aug 21, 2010)

Mexi said:


> theres really just too much crazy shit going on in the sky to deny the ufo phenomenon imo. the consistencies between witness testimonies, video and photo evidence across the world by people with _nothing to gain_ is just too clear to be a mass hoax or a sudden surge in popularity of chinese lanterns



Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you post an example of three videos which are above reproach, or even one?

If witness testimonial consistency is important, then there is definitely something noteworthy in the change between the original descriptions of the Roswell debris by contemporary eyewitnesses, which corresponded to the actual photos of the debris, and the later, changed descriptions by those who were writing books and who had something to gain. When others started claiming to have seen the more spectacular things which weren't parts of the original description, they *gained attention,* which is definitely the opposite of *gaining nothing.*

It wasn't until the Hills' claimed experiences were published that witness statements regarding the appearance of extraterrestrials started to converge upon that image, in the same way that UFOs started to converge on the shape of flying saucers once that image became part of the culture. 

There are many sad and amusing stories about UFO conventions, wherein what is considered really good evidence by true believers is shouted down by those who think it shoddy... mainly because they're not familiar with how accepted the evidence is within the UFO believer community. Those who shout for something which doesn't look cheesy are open-minded regarding UFO visitation, but were convinced by descriptions by true believers that there was really good-looking evidence. When they see the divergence between the description and the reality, they are often disappointed. 

The saddest thing, I believe, was after Barney Hill had passed away, and Betty was at a UFO conference with a caretaking nurse. Betty affirmed that Barney had been scarred around the base of his penis, and that there were flareups of alien virus in that area every so often. The nurse was taken aback, as she recognized this as a description of herpes. No one wanted to tell Betty Hill the truth, so no one ever confronted her with what the more likely origin story was for Barney's alien stigmata. *sigh* Still, he was pretty creative, no?


----------



## LUCKY7 (Aug 21, 2010)

Eleftheria i thanatos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 21, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Is the argument that, by using the word self-described jihadists use for themselves, I'm supposed to insert huge amounts of correction into their own misunderstandings? I'd instead argue that, due to such people defining and using it in such a way themselves, the word has gained that meaning, regardless of the fact that those involved completely disregard the actual struggle within one's soul to become a better person.
> 
> Feel better now that I explained it bit by bit? Don't. You don't understand how language is used and misused, and had no way to grasp context. Just pointing it out. *laugh*



Nope, you've simply used a word in a way that's been contextually misused by sensationalist media for a few years (those "jihadists" aren't the only "jihadists" and any true Muslim is devoted to "jihad"), despite what it has meant since ancient times, and I just wanted to be sure that I pointed it out.


----------



## Mexi (Aug 22, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you post an example of three videos which are above reproach, or even one?



you've already made up your mind in regards to this issue, so any video that has hovering, stationary lights immediately get called flares, even in situations when thousands of people can definitively say that they were not (in regards to the phoenix lights) These people see flares all the time, and including the ex-governor who is convinced what he saw was not man made. Flares don't stay stationary and turn off randomly, they illuminate the area around them, they flicker and move with the wind. NONE of the footage of lights like these display those properties consistent with flares. But of course, those with their minds made up will quickly discount any sort of proof.

edit: and since witness testimony is unreliable, my own experiences with having seen lights just like these in various trips to Mexico must be discounted as just seeing flares. Because flares always move in pairs and seemingly dance in the night sky. or perhaps it was swamp gas


----------



## orb451 (Aug 22, 2010)

Mexi said:


> you've already made up your mind in regards to this issue, so any video that has hovering, stationary lights immediately get called flares, even in situations when thousands of people can definitively say that they were not (in regards to the phoenix lights) These people see flares all the time, and including the ex-governor who is convinced what he saw was not man made. Flares don't stay stationary and turn off randomly, they illuminate the area around them, they flicker and move with the wind. NONE of the footage of lights like these display those properties consistent with flares. But of course, those with their minds made up will quickly discount any sort of proof.
> 
> edit: and since witness testimony is unreliable, my own experiences with having seen lights just like these in various trips to Mexico must be discounted as just seeing flares. Because flares always move in pairs and seemingly dance in the night sky. or perhaps it was swamp gas


----------



## orb451 (Aug 22, 2010)

Mexi said:


> you've already made up your mind in regards to this issue, so any video that has hovering, stationary lights immediately get called flares, even in situations when thousands of people can definitively say that they were not (in regards to the phoenix lights) These people see flares all the time, and including the ex-governor who is convinced what he saw was not man made. Flares don't stay stationary and turn off randomly, they illuminate the area around them, they flicker and move with the wind. NONE of the footage of lights like these display those properties consistent with flares. But of course, those with their minds made up will quickly discount any sort of proof.
> 
> edit: and since witness testimony is unreliable, my own experiences with having seen lights just like these in various trips to Mexico must be discounted as just seeing flares. Because flares always move in pairs and seemingly dance in the night sky. or perhaps it was swamp gas



It seems you've already made up your mind too. As have many who either believe UFO's to be real or people that have witnessed something that they cannot explain first hand.

If people see something in the night sky that they cannot explain, some of them jump to the conclusion that what they are seeing couldn't possibly have an Earthly or man-made explanation. What they witness is simply "too fantastic" or to "out of the ordinary" to come from us. I think most UFO sightings could be explained, maybe not by flares or swamp gas, but by something more logical than aliens or inter-dimensional visitors.

Life outside of Earth, elsewhere in the universe probably does exist. Until it is found, scientifically measured and documented, these UFO stories will remain that, stories. Fiction.


----------



## Mexi (Aug 22, 2010)

orb451 said:


> It seems you've already made up your mind too. As have many who either believe UFO's to be real or people that have witnessed something that they cannot explain first hand.
> 
> If people see something in the night sky that they cannot explain, some of them jump to the conclusion that what they are seeing couldn't possibly have an Earthly or man-made explanation. What they witness is simply "too fantastic" or to "out of the ordinary" to come from us. I think most UFO sightings could be explained, maybe not by flares or swamp gas, but by something more logical than aliens or inter-dimensional visitors.
> 
> Life outside of Earth, elsewhere in the universe probably does exist. Until it is found, scientifically measured and documented, these UFO stories will remain that, stories. Fiction.



I agree completely. In fact, UFO seems to have the connotation of extra-terrestrial all the time, when in fact it is simply an unidentified craft. I'm sure tons of supposed UFO reports are either secret military projects or other sorts of unexplained phenomenon. It just sort of irks me every time people come to conclusions on what YOU saw, when they have no basis for comparison to explain it. I'm usually the first person to demand an unequivocal scientific explanation for things, and there is a strange parallel between an earth-shattering experience such as seeing beautiful, fiery orbs dancing in the desert sky, to a religious epiphany. Both require a degree of faith, and certainly those that have not "experienced" such things will likely lack that extra push they need to believe. In that respect, the die-hard UFO side sound just as insane as the religious fundamentalists. I just wish more people could have seen what I've seen to make them think twice about their preconceived notions. Either way, in the unlikely event that what I saw was man-made, it was a humbling experience nevertheless.


----------



## Pauly (Aug 22, 2010)

I was reading a good article in this Sunday's Telegraph (UK) about crop circles. There was a funny bit when some of the guys who make crop circles talked about how people got physically violent with them when they 'ruined the magic' by confessing to their hobby. The best bit however, was when one of them explained how they did it to the interviewer, then they were passed by a woman coming back from said crop circle talking about 'the power' she felt there and how a 'scientist' she knew was waxing lyrical about the silicate levels in the soil and various other woo.

Apparently making patterns in corn at 2am after a few beers is a rewarding, if tiring effort, although less have been made this year due to the recession and not wanting to piss off too many farmers.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 22, 2010)

^ That's pretty good stuff

However, there's plenty of crop circles that showed up far too quickly to have been man-made, especially with such large, elaborate patterns. Also, there's the really mysterious factor of the crops themselves being alive and well, rather than fractured, in the more elaborate, unexplained crop circles. There's no doubt that some people make crop circles for fun, but the phenomena itself is still unexplained.


----------



## S-O (Aug 24, 2010)

It is entirely possible for life to exist out there. It's just statistically strong. Now, statistics can not definitively prove that there _has_ to be, but it is unlikely there is not.

There has been a lot touched on in this thread, and I tried to get through it all.

I don't buy too much into the whole cover up thing, possible, but a little too corny.

To argue logic is kind of unfair, because we assume that they think similarly to us. Even on our own planet, culture shock exists, and even today people are dumb founded at the way other cultures behave. So, an aliens intentions and thoughts may be so foreign to us, and we just have no way of communicating on a common level. So, we may not be able to understand why they want to visit us, and maybe the idea of wanting is an entirely human concept.

Or, what do lab rats think? Or animals in a zoo, we think they have no higher brain function, that we are above them and they are just there for entertainment/research. The relationship could be akin to what an Alien would think upon visiting us.

Also, I speak as if all possible aliens are of one mind set, it is certainly possible for conflicting sides of an Alien race to exist, one stereotypically in cahoots with world governments, and one trying to spread the message of the universe in peace. I think that interstellar/dimensional/blahblah species would be a lot more diverse and complex than this though.

Most UFO stuff we see on TV is sensationalist tripe, with any true evidence lost in the sea of lies wub: Michael Romeo) or covered up in a cliche militant government fashion.

Then it comes down to what we define life as. But, for the sake of argument, I think we all agree we are talking about stereotypical greys and little green men, but the possibility of other types of existence/living is possible.

Overall, I think aliens probably exist and may have visited. I think it's even more likely that other life exists, but have little interest in visiting us, or do not have the technology to.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 24, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ That's pretty good stuff
> 
> However, there's plenty of crop circles that showed up far too quickly to have been man-made, especially with such large, elaborate patterns. Also, there's the really mysterious factor of the crops themselves being alive and well, rather than fractured, in the more elaborate, unexplained crop circles. There's no doubt that some people make crop circles for fun, but the phenomena itself is still unexplained.



What do you mean, "showed up far too quickly?" You're asserting that there was no way humanly possible to construct such crop circles in a given time period? 

I remember when one of the first published criticisms of crop circles as extraterrestrial activity, their simplicity, resulted in an explosion of complexity. 

Anyway, there are numerous hoax-sters who documented everything they did very well, and their circles were "certified" as being the ability of humans to construct. Who are you relying on as an authority of what is not humanly possible? Is that authority able to produce examples of crop circles which far exceed circles documented as hoaxes? 

I'm sorry, but crop circle "studies" are very sad examples of how credulous the average person is. I'm glad that the jokers in the UK decided to come clean when Parliament was about to invest millions in investigation; the jokers felt that they didn't want money wasted on a hoax which could instead be used for real research and social causes. The well documented hoaxes put a stop to the budgetary discussions... while at the same time, many people declared that, although some of the circles were documented as fake... not all of them had been, so the rest must be genuine. Not quite the best logic. *laugh*

----

I'll not deny that people see what to them are unidentified flying objects, which (with just a bit more knowledge) are easily explained. With a good pair of binoculars, one can see satellites orbiting in formation, objects flying in one direction and then changing direction (owls and such), and other phenomena. 

For me, I acknowledge a few things:

I'm not an expert.

Experts in celestial observation know more than me.

Experts in celestial observation are not all part of some vast conspiracy, especially a conspiracy with no visible funding.

Therefore, it is unlikely that an astronomer would decide to hide a genuinely anomalous event, especially if they might gain fame therefrom. 

As to whether or not anyone here also acknowledges those things, or has decided that only the amateurs who can't identify even planes and satellites are the experts in what is genuinely anomalous, I'll not venture a guess. However, at the point where a conspiracy would be necessary to explain why expert celestial observers aren't reporting anomalous events which are evidence of extraterrestrial activity... it would appear that some have joined the tinfoil hat contigent.


----------

