Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I doubt biological beings can ever travel the distance required to meet in person. I believe that there are fundamental laws to life that make life relatively short and that no matter where life develops, ecosystems balance life and death so that it can be sustainable.

If humans ever meet aliens, I think they will in the form or artificial life forms that long left their biological origins behind. They may not even travel in physical forms, but rather transmit their consciousness through energy and manifest their images as projections (if they even thought that was worth it). Or, they could even transmit their consciousness into other organisms to experience their world. It's not hard science of course, but there are meta-physical theories that brains can act as receivers and transmitters of consciousness. Physical travel would probably be so archaic to them. They could just live through your eyes and influence your actions without you even realizing.

Not that I think that is happening, but I find it more believable than vessels travelling through interstellar space.

Great points. Definitely have to consider that any physical interactions with an origin species might long be gone and what remains is AI (e.g. Von Neumann Probes) or leftover monitoring systems that may allow 'them' have a presence or system of monitoring/control. These might also be the transmedium craft we see coming in/out of our oceans, where they operate out of a hard-to-find locations that are protected from the elements and humans.

I believe the other two theories - multidimensional or consciousness-based experiences are both legitimate options as well. For consciousness, there has been debate in recent years and with the development of quantum physics to determine that our bodies may simply be temporary vessels to host vibratory energy, and that death may just be a transfer of those vibrations elsewhere, or allow the ascension of consciousness to travel along vibratory planes, including for communicative purposes (where physical travel or engagement is no longer needed for communication). I believe this is what Dr. Gary Nolan had talked about recently in his VICE article that went semi-viral. Also, there is a theory that the universe itself is all consciousness, and we simply exist in it (https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...rse-conscious/)

It definitely sounds abstract, but I don't think we can rule it out either. That said, I do believe there is a physical element to this (e.g. we are capturing data of these on IR and non-visible light spectrums) that may lean into one or more of NHI/Multi/Consciousness theories. I am not entirely sure it is strictly one phenomenon.

Either way, there are probably some developments happening in this field in 2022, which is exciting to watch unfold.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You really are a dickhead, eh? Must have plenty of friends they way you have a discussion. Your assumptions on what I do and do not know, and your air of superiority make discussing possibilities impossible. I mean, seriously, we are discussion the potential existence of Aliens, and your instinct is to discount possibilities? Any proper scientist would leave open all options, including that we are alone, until you can definitively prove that is not the case. That's all I'm saying. There is a possiblity we are alone. I'm not saying it is the option I most strongly believe as the most likely, but it is certainly a possibility that must be considered.

Ideas need to compete with each other. I don't see Lanny being an arrogant dickhead here. No need to get defensive if you feel your ideas are being dismantled.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

It would break a lot of paradigms.

Socially, I think people would band together in the uncertainty of a different/unknown race appearing, despite previous differences in beliefs and ideologies.

I think we would benefit hugely.

Nothing like planetary issues to make small societal problems meaningless.

Plus we would need to be on our best behaviour to have a successfully peaceful encounter with the aliens. Don't want to get drive-by death star'ed.

OR... people would double-down on their beliefs, reject the science/evidence and continue to perpetuate their own BS.

For reference, please see:

Flat Earth
Covid
Vaccinations
Elections/political affiliations, etc........

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by karl262

Ideas need to compete with each other. I don't see Lanny being an arrogant dickhead here. No need to get defensive if you feel your ideas are being dismantled.

I don't know how you "dismantle" the possibility that we are alone, when we only have evidence of life on Earth. You must maintain that it is a possibility, no matter how remote, until facts prove otherwise. If we discover life even elsewhere in our solar system, the scale tips dramatically. There is, of course, the possibility that life on Earth got transferred to, say, Mars through asteroid strikes, but that is a slim possibility. Or that Earth was "seeded" from elsewhere with life. This alone would not disprove that life only originated once. It may be that life only started in one place, but then was spread around the Universe. It is also not likely, but a possibility.

Despite all I've said, I think it is likely for simple life to spontaneously start under a myriad of conditions, and that life probably started several times on the early Earth, which boosts the possibility it could form elsewhere. But I'm not going to close the door on a reasonable theory, just because Lanny attempts to browbeat me into it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You really are a dickhead, eh? Must have plenty of friends they way you have a discussion. Your assumptions on what I do and do not know, and your air of superiority make discussing possibilities impossible. I mean, seriously, we are discussion the potential existence of Aliens, and your instinct is to discount possibilities? Any proper scientist would leave open all options, including that we are alone, until you can definitively prove that is not the case. That's all I'm saying. There is a possiblity we are alone. I'm not saying it is the option I most strongly believe as the most likely, but it is certainly a possibility that must be considered.

Hey, if it makes you feel better calling me a dickhead, fill your boots. I attack holes in arguments, and you leave lots of holes. My assumptions on what you know are specific to your comments and what you bring to support those comments.

"Proper" scientists follow method, the data, and continue to question what they know. That includes precluding bad science, like geocentrism and flat earth theory, and following the data. I don't know a single credible "scientist" that ascribes to geocentrism or flat earth theory, because the data against both theories is so heavy neither are considered a "possibility". You have to discount the noise in the signal and focus on where the data leads you.

Is it possible we are alone in the universe? Yes, it is. Is it likely? No. Is it likely that other life forms have not developed the technology to travel the cosmos? Most definitely. That is based on our context of how we understand the universe. Is it possible that we don't understand much of the universe around us? Very much so. We make new discoveries each and every day, so to suggest we have an understanding of everything around us doesn't make sense. In the cosmological perspective, I would put our species in the toddler phase of maturity. I really think we are just starting to gain some level of awareness of our place in the universe.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hey, if it makes you feel better calling me a dickhead, fill your boots. I attack holes in arguments, and you leave lots of holes. My assumptions on what you know are specific to your comments and what you bring to support those comments.

"Proper" scientists follow method, the data, and continue to question what they know. That includes precluding bad science, like geocentrism and flat earth theory, and following the data. I don't know a single credible "scientist" that ascribes to geocentrism or flat earth theory, because the data against both theories is so heavy neither are considered a "possibility". You have to discount the noise in the signal and focus on where the data leads you.

Is it possible we are alone in the universe? Yes, it is. Is it likely? No. Is it likely that other life forms have not developed the technology to travel the cosmos? Most definitely. That is based on our context of how we understand the universe. Is it possible that we don't understand much of the universe around us? Very much so. We make new discoveries each and every day, so to suggest we have an understanding of everything around us doesn't make sense. In the cosmological perspective, I would put our species in the toddler phase of maturity. I really think we are just starting to gain some level of awareness of our place in the universe.

Ah, ok, so you agree with me. Remember, this all started when I said

"I think most scientists think we are the only planet with life, or the universe is teaming with it. Since we have no evidence of the later, we can't discount the former."

All I've been saying is you can't discount it with what we know. And now you've agreed with me.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Come on Fuzz, my statement does not display agreement with your claim. Your claim is a complete hedge bet and takes no position at all. It is an original open motion statement or equivocation with no substance, because one ignores or discounts the evidence submitted. If the scientific community really believed we are alone in this universe, why do we keep spending so much time and money to look for that which they don't believe exists?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Come on Fuzz, my statement does not display agreement with your claim. Your claim is a complete hedge bet and takes no position at all. It is an original open motion statement or equivocation with no substance, because one ignores or discounts the evidence submitted. If the scientific community really believed we are alone in this universe, why do we keep spending so much time and money to look for that which they don't believe exists?

The substance was that you couldn't discount it. That's it. It's not my fault you interpreted differently. I was responding to you saying

To suggest we are the only life form in the universe is ridiculous.

And I said you can't entirely discount it. That's it. And you have now agreed that it can't be entirely discounted, so I don't even know what you are on about. How about you go argue with yourself for a few hours, and come back to discuss something else, becuase I don't feel like arguing with someone who agrees with me.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The substance was that you couldn't discount it. That's it. It's not my fault you interpreted differently. I was responding to you saying


And I said you can't entirely discount it. That's it. And you have now agreed that it can't be entirely discounted, so I don't even know what you are on about. How about you go argue with yourself for a few hours, and come back to discuss something else, becuase I don't feel like arguing with someone who agrees with me.

Hahaha. I don't agree with you. I said it was a possibility, but not a probability. Your possibility is an outlier in the data. Even after NASA tightened the measurables of "possibility" the data is still massively stacked in one direction. The idea of our planet and intelligent life being unique in the cosmos is ignoring the data and probabilities. But...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Do you know how heavily militarized that area is, particularly with the Navy, and with the scale of operations from San Clemente Island? It's a freaking sonar base, a major training facility for Navy SEALs, as well as facilities for the USAF and the USCG - among other things.

You're crazy if you think there's any way China or Russia, given the sophistication of their own fleets - can hide out undetected in the channel between Catalina/U.S. coastline. And if they can and not be picked up on radar - the the U.S. is truly in trouble.

Of course, to make a suggestion that China or Russia can penetrate that area would imply that you have more information on the subject, and I invite you to explain how a Yasen-class or Jin-class submarine (or lesser models) could operate in the area undetected.

Do you understand what espionage is?

Two important fundamentals when doing the spying thing:

1) you do it where the people you are spying on actually are, and
2) you do it covertly

If Russia or China wanted to spy on the US, they would likely try to develop some kind of drone that could slip around undetected. I mean, that's literally what spying on the US war machine would entail, no?

Look, I'm not saying it's anything in particular. I'm saying the author, and you, have been quick to dismiss terrestrial explanations, and I am suggesting those dismissals are probably premature.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hahaha. I don't agree with you. I said it was a possibility, but not a probability. Your possibility is an outlier in the data. Even after NASA tightened the measurables of "possibility" the data is still massively stacked in one direction. The idea of our planet and intelligent life being unique in the cosmos is ignoring the data and probabilities. But...

Sort of,

The weak Anthropic principle dictates that there is at least one world in which intelligent life evolved otherwise we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. However that does not dictate whether a universe in which one location had suitable conditions to evolve intelligent life that there is many.

Life may be exceedingly rare such that only one intelligent life may exist or may be just one in the duration of time it takes for a civilization to rise and fall. The odds that in a universe as large as ours that two intelligent species overlap in time and space and that one of those species is ours is near zero without FLT or at least faster than light communication.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The weak Anthropic principle dictates that there is at least one world in which intelligent life evolved otherwise we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. However that does not dictate whether a universe in which one location had suitable conditions to evolve intelligent life that there is many.

Interesting, but a bit of a red herring. I counter your WAP with the SAP. If science believed in the WAP, they would not continue the search for worlds beyond our own and the intelligences they believe exist.

Life may be exceedingly rare such that only one intelligent life may exist or may be just one in the duration of time it takes for a civilization to rise and fall.

Intelligent life in whose context? There very well may be civilizations in the universe that do not consider us an intelligent life form, and for very good reason, very much the same way we don't consider many of the other life forms we share this planet with as intelligent. So whose context are we measuring things?

The odds that in a universe as large as ours that two intelligent species overlap in time and space and that one of those species is ours is near zero without FLT or at least faster than light communication.

Estimates are that in our galaxy there are 100,000,000,000 star systems. It is also estimated that in the visible universe there are 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies. So you're suggesting none of the 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ stars in the universe yield life or intelligent life? And that multiple intelligent civilizations would not exist at the same time? Doesn't earth's own history, and the development of parallel civilizations, already destroy that premise?

Again, almost everything brought up is based on our privative understanding of the universe. Much of what we know has only developed in the past couple hundred years, with the vast majority of the major discoveries coming in the past century. What if we don't fully understand the fabric of space and time near as well as we like to think we do? How would we compare to a civilization that has maybe a few hundred thousand years in development and advancements on us? This is something hard for us to comprehend because we look at all of these things through our very primitive perspective and have the arrogance to believe that development of any lifeform is going to be driven by the same factors as our species. So our expectation of them destroying themselves is only based on our behaviors and trajectory, which we mistakenly apply to all others, or potential others. That's a failing that we must first get past to really think long and hard on this topic.

[nik-]

I learned everything I need to know about WAP from Cardi B

[Lanny_McDonald]

^^^ Had to look that up. Wish I didn't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Interesting, but a bit of a red herring. I counter your WAP with the SAP. If science believed in the WAP, they would not continue the search for worlds beyond our own and the intelligences they believe exist.



Intelligent life in whose context? There very well may be civilizations in the universe that do not consider us an intelligent life form, and for very good reason, very much the same way we don't consider many of the other life forms we share this planet with as intelligent. So whose context are we measuring things?



Estimates are that in our galaxy there are 100,000,000,000 star systems. It is also estimated that in the visible universe there are 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies. So you're suggesting none of the 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ stars in the universe yield life or intelligent life? And that multiple intelligent civilizations would not exist at the same time? Doesn't earth's own history, and the development of parallel civilizations, already destroy that premise?

Again, almost everything brought up is based on our privative understanding of the universe. Much of what we know has only developed in the past couple hundred years, with the vast majority of the major discoveries coming in the past century. What if we don't fully understand the fabric of space and time near as well as we like to think we do? How would we compare to a civilization that has maybe a few hundred thousand years in development and advancements on us? This is something hard for us to comprehend because we look at all of these things through our very primitive perspective and have the arrogance to believe that development of any lifeform is going to be driven by the same factors as our species. So our expectation of them destroying themselves is only based on our behaviors and trajectory, which we mistakenly apply to all others, or potential others. That's a failing that we must first get past to really think long and hard on this topic.

Go play with the Drake Equation. Find sets of variables that allow for more than one intelligent species in temporal space/time contact which don’t suggest millions of species.

I am suggesting the following

1) There is no requirement that intelligent life or life of any kind exist outside of earth because life exists here

2) It’s difficult to create scenarios where life exists and FLT exists and Aliens have visited us where their wouldn’t be abundant life in the universe that we could easily detect.

3) if there is life elsewhere in the universe but do to technology, time, space prevents their photons from reaching us then as far as the aliens visiting us here it’s meaningless. It’s important to our understanding of the universe but doesn’t really add evidence to Aliens having visited us.

Number one in any rational discussion of aliens is what is the speed limit of the universe because it sets the parameters of how many planets are relevant to the discussion.

On Earth we didn’t evolve independent intelligent species. We came from one evolutionary tree at one location on the planet and then spread out. So that would be the Star Trek scenario where aliens seeded life and not simultaneous evolutions.

Most of your posts on aliens is what could be. And I agree the Aliens could have visited here. It’s just exceedingly unlikely given the size of the universe and our current observed frequency of life.

This idea of 100,000 years of additional time to develop leading to advanced tech we don’t understand requires some weird assumptions.

They need to have developed such that all of the species that did develop have left no evidence in terms of radiation that reached us throughout their hundred thousand years of development. They need to be few enough of them that all of these species have been consistent in that approach. They need to be far enough away to avoid recreation but close enough to have found us. Unless the universe is filled with these technologically advanced super beings it’s unlikely they found us.

I do agree that somewhere in the History of Universe it is likely there has/dors/will exist another intelligent species. The likelihood of them visiting us is near zero.

[Lanny_McDonald]

This is gong to be an interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by GGG

Go play with the Drake Equation. Find sets of variables that allow for more than one intelligent species in temporal space/time contact which don’t suggest millions of species.

Happily, except the equation has many flaws in it and has long been subject to criticism, especially with the advances in cosmology and physics since the equation was first proposed in 1961. For those who may not want to chase down the Drake equation, here is a quick outline of it.

R*, is the average rate at which stars are formed in our galaxy; fp, is the fraction of those stars that host planetary systems; ne, is the average number of planets around the star that can support life; fl, is the fraction of planets that could support life that actually do support life; fi, is the fraction of planets that develop life that go on to develop intelligent life; fc, is the fraction of planets with intelligent life that develop civilization and technology that we can detect; and L, is the length of time each civilization emits radio waves.

The problem with this equation is that it makes a number of assumptions, that we already know the answer to all the variables, which we do NOT. It also makes a major assumption that all "intelligent" civilizations will rely on technology that emits radio waves. This is problematic with the equation and makes the results open to much conjecture. It is a very interesting exercise, but nothing more than that, especially on the heels of the advances in detection since the equation was presented in 1961.

In an interesting twist, back in 1961, Drake and his colleagues estimated the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy to be in the 20 to 50 range. That is just the Milky Way Galaxy. Now consider that there are estimated to be 2,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

An interesting development is in a recent article, the estimate of potentially habitable worlds in the Milky Way sits in the 300,000 range, thanks to information from Kepler research.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...vey-holds-clue

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...881/abc418/pdf

I am suggesting the following

1) There is no requirement that intelligent life or life of any kind exist outside of earth because life exists here

There is no "requirement" as you state. This is all noise. Who cares if life exists here? Life could cease to exist on this planet and have zero impact on life on other planets. This condition is irrelevant. Only the arrogance of humans think that our condition or knowledge means anything in the universal context.

2) It’s difficult to create scenarios where life exists and FLT exists and Aliens have visited us where their wouldn’t be abundant life in the universe that we could easily detect.

You're conflating four very different issues here and making them all conditional for alien visitation. First being the existence of life in the universe. The second being Faster Than Light (FLT) travel. The third being visitation to our solar system and planet. The fourth being detection. I get that you are saying that the first three must exist together to explain alien visitation, but I think the fourth condition (detection) is another red herring. How would we detect that which we don't know what we are trying to detect? We are attempting to detect life based on our context and technology (emissions of radio waves), what if the intelligence in question uses different technology we are not aware of? What if the technology emits a byproduct that we would not consider evidence of an intelligence, or emits something we don't yet understand ourselves?

3) if there is life elsewhere in the universe but do to technology, time, space prevents their photons from reaching us then as far as the aliens visiting us here it’s meaningless. It’s important to our understanding of the universe but doesn’t really add evidence to Aliens having visited us.

Emphasis added. OUR understanding of the universe. You're making an assumption that we have complete understanding of the universe, which we clearly do not. I contend we are toddlers in the universal context, and there are many civilizations that have reached maturity and have advanced degrees in comparison. We have but read the first paragraph to the book of universal knowledge, which is the size of War and Peace. We aren't even 90 years from first splitting the atom and just 60 years from putting the first man in space. How could we possibly claim to know what civilizations thousands or hundreds of thousand years more advanced know?

Number one in any rational discussion of aliens is what is the speed limit of the universe because it sets the parameters of how many planets are relevant to the discussion.

You're basing this on our understanding and a belief in linear travel. This may not be how advanced civilizations travel. Advanced civilizations my bend or warp the fabric of space to close the gap and time required. This is something cosmologists have suggested possible, and supported by Einstein's theory of relativity. Where we run into problems coming to grips with this is we are basing all possibilities of this on our limited understanding of the universe and what is evident here on earth. What exists in other solar systems or galaxies may greatly differ and not yet be discovered by our science. An example would heavier elements, unstable here on earth, but stable elsewhere.

On Earth we didn’t evolve independent intelligent species. We came from one evolutionary tree at one location on the planet and then spread out. So that would be the Star Trek scenario where aliens seeded life and not simultaneous evolutions.

We are one species, but we developed multiple "intelligent" civilizations. And of those civilizations we know very little about them and the technologies THEY possessed. We have just scratched the surface about our own planet, and the human race, but we're supposed to know everything about the universe beyond our own world?

Most of your posts on aliens is what could be. And I agree the Aliens could have visited here. It’s just exceedingly unlikely given the size of the universe and our current observed frequency of life.

Again, OUR observations. We have JUST started exploring our own solar system. The first probe to successfully reach Mars arrived there only 56 years ago. The first lander arrived 45 years ago. We've had a rudimentary probe leave our solar system. Our understanding is greatly limited. It's like asking a baby in diapers to solve the Erdos-Strauss Conjecture. Maybe some day, but the baby doesn't even have the language skills to understand the question. That to me is what we are facing. We need more understanding to answer some of these questions.

This idea of 100,000 years of additional time to develop leading to advanced tech we don’t understand requires some weird assumptions.

Really? Considering that it took decades of research before Marconi was able to make his first trans-Atlantic wireless transmission (1901), and then another half decade before the transmission of a voice (1906). I think time is a big player in the development of technology. We have been trying for decades to make fusion reactors a reality. Time and technological development matters.

They need to have developed such that all of the species that did develop have left no evidence in terms of radiation that reached us throughout their hundred thousand years of development. They need to be few enough of them that all of these species have been consistent in that approach. They need to be far enough away to avoid recreation but close enough to have found us. Unless the universe is filled with these technologically advanced super beings it’s unlikely they found us.

Or the very technology they use emits the same radiation we are see from other sources? Again, we are working very hard at harnessing fusion, the very same power generator that drives our sun. What byproduct do you think that reactor would emit? Would that byproduct not look like any other background source of radiation in the noise of the universe?

You've kind of lost me in the second part of this section. They need to be few enough but far enough... ??? I don't get what you're trying to get at here.

I do agree that somewhere in the History of Universe it is likely there has/dors/will exist another intelligent species. The likelihood of them visiting us is near zero.

We'll have to disagree on that. I think that our behaviors would make us of interest, especially based on the past couple hundred years. I mean, WE are monitoring the universe for certain signals of "intelligence" why would other intelligences not be doing the same, and then "take a look" if something caught their eye/ear? If suddenly a planet is emitting new radio waves, it may be a calling card and worthy of exploration, no? I mean, that's what SETI is looking for. That could be our calling card as an emerging intelligence. If all of a sudden there are massive bursts of radiation from a planet (nuclear explosions for example), that may be a calling card to other intelligences of our emergence as an intelligence and make us that much more interesting.

What I see in all of these discussions is we are way too focused on what we understand and putting things in a context that we can rationalize. As the past 100 years should show, there are many things we thought we had come to an understanding of, but turned out there was a lot more to the subject than meets the eye. Remember when neutrons and protons were fundamental? Yeah, good times. Also a good reminder we don't have half the insight into the universe we think we do.

BTW... great points and challenges to bring out important perspective. Discussions like this are fun and they really generate some mental gymnastics and deeper thought. Great stuff!

[Fuzz]

Doesn't your second last paragraph counter everything you say in the third last one?

That is, that you present all these cases using humanity as reference to what aliens do, then proceed to say these discussions are too focused and what we can do and rationalize?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Nope. Not at all.

[GGG]

I think you are making my point about the Drake equation.

If you set the values based on known and habitable planets the number of potential civilizations is billions. If there are billions where are they? If there aren’t billions how did they find us? As unfathomable as their technology may be our emissions are known and measurable and travel at the speed of light for about 100 or so years.

So in order to find this needle in a haystack that is us they need to be everywhere in the universe so where are they. And since they appear to be at least attempting to hide and hide there space radiation from their empire amazingly well why would we ever be able to detect them on earth.

The aliens that are described as visiting us need to be amazingly advanced to exist yet comically bad at disguising themselves.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

^^^ Had to look that up. Wish I didn't.

Hahaha.